There has been no let-up in the criticism that has been hurled against the government’s push to legislate into reality the Maharlika Investment Fund.
Amid the constant brickbats coming from business groups, from some of our country’s esteemed economists led by UP School of Economics professors, and of course the political opposition, our legislators have finally dutifully passed the bill creating the MIF and have handed the baton to the President for the final coup de grace.
Of all the articles opposing the MIF, I think the 28-page position paper of the UP professors has succinctly and clinically dissected the bill and come up with convincing arguments for why BBM should seriously reconsider the passage of the MIF at this time. But let’s face it, this is unlikely to happen.
The reality is that the MIF is here to stay. So, given such a scenario, the next best thing the critics can hope for is that the MIF’s board and management will consider the various issues raised by the economists and react accordingly.
What are the critical points that need to be reviewed and addressed?
The first is the supposed lack of clarity of the fund’s objectives which is violative of the Santiago Principles, MIF’s avowed governance benchmark, and which could result in a confused operating model. This should be fairly easy to remedy when the MIF board convenes and tackles its first task, which is to articulate the MIF’s mission and vision statement that will be the basis for the goals and objectives of the fund.
In this regard, I have to say that having a developmental purpose combined with a desire to generate the most optimal returns is not an unrealistic aspiration.
It is perfectly feasible to create several sub-funds with different and distinct underlying assets which in turn would become the basis for the investment strategies of the respective sub-funds.
This is no different from several unit trust funds available in the market. For instance, some funds focus only on equity, some solely local, while some others, the US equities.
Funds that focus on fixed income, some only on Philippine government and corporate debt issuances, while others, purely US Treasuries. Then some funds combine both equity and fixed income. Bottomline, investors will essentially have a menu to choose from depending on their investment objective and appetite for risk.
I believe there is nothing in the MIF law that prevents the creation of sub-funds with different investment strategies and risk-reward mix. It can have a sub-fund focusing solely on infrastructure projects that in turn could attract long-term oriented institutional developmental investors such as multilateral funds, e.g., IFC or ADB. Or MIF could create a joint venture with a strategic investor interested in a particular infrastructure project.
It is perfectly feasible to create several sub-funds with different and distinct underlying assets which in turn would become the basis for the investment strategies of the respective sub-funds.
Another criticism is that the MIF could upend the budgetary processes of the government. All I can say in this regard is that with the kind of politically motivated horse-trading and haggling that is a common occurrence during budget hearings, having an alternative funding process that expedites and cuts back on all that nuisance trumps anytime in my book the traditional long drawn-out congressional budget approval process.
Another adverse commentary is that the MIF proponents have not yet proven its “additionality” or, in other words, it will be redundant with the investment and developmental functions of other government agencies such as the NDC, DPWH, or LandBank. My comment on this: I think it’s of public record that neither NDC nor DPWH has had a sterling record insofar as investments and public work projects are concerned. And LandBank has been similarly pilloried by our legislators for not doing enough insofar as its mandate is concerned. If the government agencies have been performing below expectations, perhaps a new entity like MIF with (hopefully) significant private equity participation and private-led management could make a difference and be more effective and efficient in the delivery of its mandate.
(To be continued)
Until next week… OBF!
For comments, email bing_matoto@yahoo.com.