Always a great time with your interviews Sir

Sir Stevie, you are without a doubt a very knowledgeable and insightful person to listen to.

⁠many thanks

⁠many thanks

Hindi pa panahon na magtayo tayo ng National Wealth Fund dahil wala naman tayong surplus. Ang pondo ng LBP at DBP ay dapat sa mahihirap na Pilipino ini-invest dahil kulang ang cash flow sa poorest sector. Hindi sila makautang sa mga banko. Bakit sa malalaking korporasyon pa gusto mag-invest? At ang pangalang Maharlika ay walang significance sa ating mga Pilipino. Hindi tayo monarkiya, kabastusan iyan sa Republika. Mas maganda ipangalan, Balangay Wealth Fund.

Many thanks

​@@scuunjieng hi sir. in case those banks are not able to recover the vested billions from the maharlika investments, those banks will shrinks their balance sheets and may not be able to make lend into existence 10X! It will reduce the rate of inflation by reducing the rate of money creation by lending 10x, right? And yes we know that the agri business are the one who benefited from lending from those banks, but to continue borrowing during high interest rates may not be ideal. None of us are willing to pay for a higher interest rate. Profit or loses, at least the 10x money creation out of thin air is reduced. Are we missing something here?

@@lorenzogarcia9890 thanks look up tier 1 capital requirements for banks

Many thanks

Protectionism does nothing but protect the local rich at the expense of the local poor's and the local middle class' quality of life. However, rice farmers are either small tenant-farmers or small to midsize capitalist-farmers., while sugar "farmers" are actually rich landowners with poor laborers whose families have been sugar elites since Spanish rule.

Many thanks

Nope, it is much more of inefficiency and unclear important details.

@@CharlieTangoLaw Call me cynical, but the goal of corrupt politicians is to make laws as ambiguous as possible so when the fund gets stolen, there is no punishment for the people involved. The fund managers can simply say that the investment failed, but it was actually "invested" into fake companies like what happened to PDAF or given to "charitable" institutions owned by Imelda Marcos like what happened in the 70s. If the managers are independent and not appointed by the president himself, then its fine. I would like the fund to succeed but there simply is no checks and balance for this, which is never good.

Thanks

Thanks but I am not temperamentally suited to be in govt

Many thanks

Very deeply appreciated

Thanks

Many thanks

Indeed

Many thanks but I am probably not the type to be in govt.

Thanks

Thanks

Thanks

Many thanks

Thanks

Many thanks

Many thanks

Then how should DBP and LBP mark to market their capital?

@@scuunjieng LBP and DBP are state-owned development banks, and as such are public funds hence they do not “need” to exit their investments within a specific time frame because they are not considered Limited Partners. Unlike PE raising capital from outside investors (Limited Partners) and then using that capital to invest in assets, operate them, and eventually sell them to earn a high return and then distribute them between (exit strategy) LPs, SWF may not have an exit strategy for their investments, because the capital are public funds. In addition, such public funds are more likely to be in jurisdictions where IFRS (Article IX, Section 36) accounting rules do not recognize exemption from consolidation for investment entities and (Sec. 40. Disposal of Assets) shall not be covered by existing laws and regulations on the disposal of government assets. Withdrawal rules are found in: ARTICLE IV Sec. 17. Withdrawals Distributions of Profit are found in ARTICLE VIII: Sec. 34. Distribution of the Net Profits of the Maharlika Investment Fund Corporation and Sec. 35. Computation of Profits and Losses of the MIC.

Many thanks

When the dilawans were in power, never seen this guy talking on tv. Because you’re against the government. By the way, did the dilawans initiate infrastructure projects in NCR during their time, I guess not. Remember “ pasagasa sa train “ anyone?😏.

Salamat

@@politicalbandit3904maybe it was I was working full time and those in my industry know you are not supposed to talk to the media while a full time investment banker. You are the biased. I am just trying to explain issues. If you don’t like the conclusions that is your prerogative.

@@scuunjieng nahhh! Thing with you investment bankers you’re just lining up your pockets, nothing more. Lots of you talk doom and gloom, then the likes of you reap tons of profits!

@@politicalbandit3904confirmation bias on your part

Thanks

Many thanks but my take is it is legal but is it wise as structured?

Thanks

Many thanks there still are a few but in the past if I have commented on some bizarre comments though the biased trolls are so obvious they are not worth replying to.

Bagong Pilipinas, bagong lugmok.

Many thanks

Many thanks

Many thanks

ofc lowering tariffs will not result in low prices if TRQs are still in place. it doesn't matter if tariffs are zero if imports are still restricted by a quota. it's the quota which allows price fixing to happen. those who control the allowance of imports and quotas control supply, thereby controlling price. they decide when to flood and when to create shortages. stevie is a banker and not an economist so he doesn't appreciate the deleterious effects of protectionism. he advocates for subsidies and import control as if that has worked in the past. we've been subsidizing and protecting the agri industry for close to a hundred years. protectionism never leads to competitiveness. he's saying protect only until we gain competitiveness, but it never happens. that's because protectionism never incentivizes the players to be competitive. protectionism rewards complacency. if you're a farmer receiving subsidies, you have no incentive to improve your process and increase your yield. government will cover your losses. that's why our agri industry has been stuck in the medieval ages. there's no drive to improve and innovate because losses are socialized.

Thanks