That decision may not seem very significant, but consider it this way: If you were Indonesia, which countries would you rather have as your buddies? A bunch of sleazy, corrupt, idle “lottery winners” such as Nigeria, Venezuela and Angola? Or would you prefer a set of hard-working and diligent neighbors such as Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand? Not to mention two of the largest growth economies in the world: India and China?

Believe me, when Indonesia left OPEC it wasn’t to save the paltry $3 million annual dues. Like Groucho Marx, Indonesia decided it didn’t want to be a member of a club that had such low standards for membership. Instead, it would rather join the good guys.

For emerging market investors, that choice is a significant one.

To be fair, Indonesia’s decision wasn’t just based on a snobbish desire to mingle with a classier set of countries. For one thing, while Indonesia still produces and even exports quite a lot of oil, it’s a big country and is no longer self-sufficient from a petroleum standpoint: While its needs are about 1.1 million barrels per day, its production is now only 860,000.

What’s more, Indonesia doesn’t share OPEC’s ambition, which currently appears to be to squeeze the rest of the world until oil costs $1 million a drop. Indonesia subsidizes oil for its domestic consumers (237 million of them, most of who are pretty poor) and so the last thing it wanted was yet higher oil prices – the subsidies were killing its budget.

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono took a huge amount of heat when he increased domestic oil prices by 125% in 2005; there were more riots after he found it necessary to raise them another 30%. However, if he hadn’t done so, oil subsidies alone would have been more than 20% of government spending – and that’s before taking into account food subsidies for the poor, also necessary in a year when rice prices have trebled.

The bottom line is that Indonesia wants lower – not higher – oil prices. More so, in the last decade, it has abandoned the sillier features of an OPEC-member country’s economic-management playbook. While the oil company Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara – commonly referred to as Pertamina – is still state-owned, it is allowed to do joint ventures with foreign companies. And, unlike Russia or most OPEC countries, Indonesia’s government has the sense not to steal the proceeds of those joint ventures that prove themselves successful. As a result, more than half of Indonesia’s oil-import deficit will disappear when the Cepu Block offshore oil fields, jointly developed by Pertamina and Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM), opens up to full production in 2010.

Since Indonesia doesn’t agree with OPEC’s prime objective, and doesn’t approve of OPEC’s typical state-owned kleptocracy as a way of conducting business, it’s not surprising it decided to leave.

That’s not to say that Indonesia has reached free-market perfection. For one thing, it remains astonishingly corrupt – ranked 143rd on Transparency International’s 2007 Corruption Perceptions Index. That places the country far below China and India and close to the level that makes Nigeria and Myanmar such charming places in which to do business. The corruption dates back to the 32-year rule (1966 to 1998) of Indonesian strongman Suharto, who modernized the economy but used his position to grab billions of dollars for himself and his family and was forced out of office in an economic collapse. He died early this year.

Nevertheless, in the last decade, instead of wasting energies on rooting out every vestige of Suhartoism, Indonesia has moved a long way towards being a functioning democracy. Under Yudhoyono, the economy has grown at around 5% per capita, while privatizations have taken place – the steel company Krakatau is due to be privatized later this year, for example. Public spending has been kept under control and, most importantly, Indonesia has used these years of easy money and high commodity prices to pay down debt. Its international debt is now only 35% of its gross domestic product (GDP), a level it should easily be able to live with without major crises.

In summary, Indonesia has moved from a commodity exporter to a true emerging market, and deserves the attention of investors accordingly.

There are only two Indonesian companies with full American Depositary Receipt (ADR) listings, both of them in the telecom sector. Thus, the easiest way for a U.S. individual investor to invest in Indonesia is through the closed-end Indonesia Fund (IF) The fund is run by Credit Suisse Group AG (ADR: CS), is rather small at only $93 million in assets, but has the advantage of selling at a 9% discount to net asset value (NAV), with an expense ratio of 1.55%. It has returned 38% per annum over the last five years, as Indonesia has demonstrated its recovery from the 1998 “Asian contagion” financial crisis, but there would appear to be more to go for.

Indonesia’s satellite telephone company PT Indosat Tbk (ADR: IIT) operates cell-phone and long-distance services, and is currently trading at a Price/Earnings ratio of 15 on trailing earnings. It has a dividend yield of 4%.

Indonesia’s fixed-line telephone company, PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia (ADR: TLK), is trading at a trailing P/E of 14, and features a dividend yield of 3.6%. It offers fixed-line and cell-phone services, and is the country’s traditional telephone provider, founded in 1884.

With the two ratings so close, I would tend to go for the satellite service PT Indosat Tbk, since Indonesia is a large and enormously complex archipelago, with shaky infrastructure.

Source: Even Groucho Marx Would be Happy With Indonesia’s Profit Opportunities

Rising raw material prices, in particular rising food prices, are now causing real hardship and what represents a cause for shoppers in developed economies to grumble is a matter nothing short of life and death for the millions less fortunate around the world. This note considers what many emerging countries are doing and why their actions, far from alleviating the problem, are actually making matters worse.

Lord Mark Malloch Brown is a junior minister in the current Labour administration. He has a reputation for being forthright and often puts his colleagues’ hackles up. He is also the former deputy secretary general at the United Nations and an acknowledged authority on global issues of critical concern. His recent comments regarding the growing food crisis are significant both because he has identified some of the root causes and because he has taken steps to raise the matter where some of his more craven colleagues dare not.

Lord Malloch Brown describes, somewhat unoriginally, the confluence of factors he sees as serving to cause food prices to rise as a “perfect storm”. These factors are: a series of poor harvests in Australia, the incremental demand for improved diet caused by the newly prosperous parts of China and India, coupled with the now wide-spread process of biofuel “flag planting” on land previously devoted to the production of food stuffs. We would add a few additional factors, on which more below.

Bang on cue, the United Nations secretary general Mr Ban Ki-moon has warned that, if allowed to escalate, permanently higher food prices could not only damage global growth but also, possibly, global security too.

Rightly, the secretary general has stuck to the UN’s remit by indicating that an environment that has seen wheat prices double and the price of rice explode higher could seriously put back the process of global poverty elimination. “If not handled properly, this crisis could result in a cascade of others (including the imposition of quotas and the banning of exports) and become a multi-dimensional problem affecting economic growth, social progress and even political security around the world”.

The biofuels debate is interesting from a number of angles. Firstly, it is not absolutely true to say that the commitment of land to the production of biofuels automatically reduces food production everywhere (although that hardly makes the European Union’s full-on encouragement of plant-derived fuel right).

Supporters of biofuels tend to use the Brazilian experience as justification for the dash to plant-derived fuel alternatives, not that that country’s success should detract from the fact that there are a lot of other places where land which would otherwise have been used to grow food for human consumption has now been given over to the production of biofuel to feed machinery!

The EU could, for example, call a halt to its pre-announced intention to derive 5.75% of petrol and diesel to be manufactured from plants, although we understand the EU’s difficulties given growing stresses in the oil market too.

The developed world has hardly covered itself in glory on this matter either. In particular legitimate questions might be asked of Western countries’ commitment to what has become known as the “Washington Consensus”. Part of the reason why a number of African countries are now back on the verge of starvation is that developed nations, through their International Monetary Fund (IMF) conduit, actively encouraged many African governments to cut farming subsidies and focus instead on producing cash crops for export and by so doing, open up their previously closed economies.

That the plan has backfired is made obvious by the fact that many countries are now struggling to grow sufficient to meet basic levels of domestic demand. Whilst the UN falls back on its World Food Programme to raise sufficient funds to feed starvation zones, what is really required is greater research and development, improved credit facilities and ultimately a “green revolution” similar to that which took place in parts of Asia, not that the Asian experience is without its own pressure right now.

From the point of view of global economics there has always been a gulf between the “haves” and the “have-nots”. Generally speaking, the larger a country is, the greater the likelihood that it will be richly endowed with natural resources. The fact that not even the largest countries are so well endowed in every scarce resource is reflected in the fact that imported inflationary pressure has become a global issue. Indeed, some of the world’s largest and most populous countries are those with the greatest dependency on imported raw materials.

Estimated top global countries by resource production

The chart shows resource wealth, calculated using the most recent production data for energy, basic resources and agricultural products using average prices achieved over the previous quarter. Against this is plotted a countries’ wealth on a per capita basis, to show that some countries are likely to benefit significantly more than others. On this basis, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Australia and Russia stand out. The second chart (below) compares the global share of a country’s estimated resource wealth against its share of global population.

I am racking up the frequent flyer miles this year. My travels in 2008 have taken me to exotic locales like Singapore, Hong Kong and Dubai, as well as somewhat less exotic locales like the American Midwest. But guess what, the Midwest is the place that’s making the headlines in Singapore, Hong Kong and Dubai. The soaring price of agricultural commodities like wheat, corn and soybeans is one of the biggest news stories on the planet right now.

But ag commodities aren’t just a huge news story, they are also one of the most exciting trading opportunities of 2008 and beyond.

Whether my travels take me to the Middle East or the Midwest of the U.S., the stories are very similar. Most people are concerned about the rising costs of agricultural commodities. And they should be. The commodity boom is real. It is not a bubble, no matter how many folks wish that it were.

In fact, now you have all of these dollar bulls coming out and saying that the worst is over for the dollar and that the commodity bubble will soon burst. They say that the commodities markets are simply speculator-driven. I disagree. Do you remember as a child wishing for something, wishing so hard, yet it didn’t come true? Wishing for something to happen does not mean it will be so. (I never did get that red bike.)

The dollar will probably bounce a little higher, but the same problems that drove the dollar into the basement will persist, and even worsen. The Fed can’t just snap its fingers and wipe away a credit crisis with some stimulus checks. Too many folks are subscribing to the idea that the consumer will somehow come to the rescue and spend our way out of recession. That’s pure fantasy.

The hope that the commodity bubble will burst is also a fantasy. The fact of the matter is that we are in a new paradigm for commodities and the old-school thinking about how commodities used to be traded has to be changed. And this is true of most commodities – none more so than the agricultural ones. Sure, speculation is a part of this puzzle, but to say it’s all speculators and hedge funds that are causing the run-up is a sad mistake.

As I sit here writing this column, I am watching CNN out of the corner of my eye, and on the air is Jonathan Stevens, a baker from a Massachusetts company called Hungry Ghost Bread. He is starting to grow his own wheat and encouraging his customers to do the same. Not a bad idea. For a 50-pound bag of organic flour, he used to pay $25, but now pays around $60. So in back of the store, the bakers are now growing their own wheat. Now, while farming in your backyard may not seem very practical, it’s becoming part of a new reality: If you want to be sure you have the food you need – absolutely sure – you’ll want to grow it where you live.

Most of the world’s inhabitants already understand this essential reality. America’s are just starting to re-discover it. In fact, we’ve even made up a new word to describe this ancient necessity of growing food where you live. The word is “locavore” and it means someone who eats food grown locally. Wow! Very trendy!

Demand for ag commodities is real and it is worldwide. Meanwhile, supplies are stretched thin. So any “supply shock” has the potential to cause prices to soar even higher. A new supply shock might be developing right under our noses. The planting season here in the U.S. is getting off to a very bad start, as the weather has been awful. Torrential rains have flooded many fields, making planting impossible. The U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that only 10% of the corn crop west of the Mississippi has been planted, compared to a five-year average of 35% for this time of year.

Plantings for soybeans, spring-wheat and rice are also trailing behind their five-year averages.

Therefore, this year’s corn crop could be extremely disappointing. Some of the other crops might also disappoint. In my trading service, Resource Trader Alert , we are betting on much higher prices in soybeans and corn, and we are using option spreads to take advantage of this.

My annual meetings with Midwest farmers are always helpful. But my recent meetings with farmers in Minnesota were particularly helpful. Not only did I gain some insights about this year’s crops, I also learned a great deal about the soaring prices of fertilizers and other farming “inputs.” The long and short of it is that input costs are rising about as fast as commodity prices. So many farmers are getting squeezed.

And these rising input costs are here to stay, which probably means that rising grain prices are also here to stay. Yes, prices will fluctuate dramatically. But the bull market in agricultural commodities is very, very real.

Why deny it? Why not trade it?

Regards,

Kevin Kerr
for The Daily Reckoning

Now India and Japan appear poised to take up the aggressive pursuit for high returns with SWFs of their own.

India is considering a fund that would seek a higher return on $300 billion in foreign reserves that is currently tied up in U.S. Treasuries and government bonds, the Financial Times reported.

“It may be possible to argue that a part of the reserves, which may be considered in excess of usual requirements, be managed with the primary objective of earning higher returns,” Palaniappan Chidambaram, India’s finance minister, said in a written reply to Parliament.

According to Chidambaram, the Council on Trade and Industry recommended to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in a Dec. 18 meeting that the government “create a sovereign wealth fund of $5 billion to begin with, for financing acquisition of companies abroad.”

India’s foreign exchange reserves, the third-largest holdings in Asia, stood at a record $311.89 billion as of April 4, compared with China’s record $1.68 trillion, Japan’s $987.7 billion and Russia’s $508 billion.

However, analysts say that while the formation of an Indian SWF is likely, it will be significantly smaller than other funds of the same nature. As one of the world’s leading oil importers, India has not enjoyed the large trade surpluses delivered to other developing economies on the back of a commodities boom. India also maintains sizeable account and fiscal deficits.

The richest sovereign funds include the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, or AIDA ($875 billion), the Government of Singapore Investment Corp. ($330 billion), and Norway’s Government Pension Fund Global, or GPFG ($322 billion), although several others may be larger.

Meanwhile, Japan may establish a sovereign wealth fund to boost returns on some of its state assets as early as 2009, according to UBS Securities Japan Ltd.

“As cases of inefficient use of the road-specific budget have been disclosed in Diet discussions, the argument that public funds should not be managed by bureaucrats has become convincing,” Takashi Omori, chief Japan economist at UBS AG (UBS) in Tokyo, told Bloomberg News.

A relatively small state fund of between $98 billion (10 trillion yen) and $196 billion (20 trillion yen) may be created, he said.

Sovereign wealth funds currently control an estimated $3 trillion. That’s already believed to be more than the $1.5 trillion to $2 trillion held by worldwide hedge funds [though some sources put the hedge-fund estimate as high as $5 trillion].

At 11:50 p.m., it was every bit as busy as Frankfurt or any other major international airport in the middle of the day.

As I looked around while I waited to clear customs – a process that took nearly two hours because of heightened security – I was struck [as I am on every trip to the Far East and Southeast Asia] by just what a melting pot this is: There’s a simmering brew of Malaysian, Chinese, Indian and Western cultures here, and even late at night the energy is palpable. Right away, one can sense the uniqueness that is Singapore.

That’s exactly why I got started so early today – jet lag be damned!

After a four-hour sleep that resembled a nap more than it did any kind of real rest, I headed out for a stroll around Singapore’s core and the historic Orchard Road area. My goal, as it usually is when I travel, was to observe the city’s transformation as it wakes up to face a new day. Not only does this help me get grounded whenever I arrive in a new city, but when it comes to investments, there are few better ways of gauging a city’s economic vibrancy.

As usual, I wasn’t disappointed.

Singapore is running full throttle. The country has become Asia’s boomtown. Not only is it situated right at the nexus of centuries-old trading routes; the government has done a very effective job promoting free trade. Indeed, Singapore has enacted a bevy of regulations that are designed to encourage banking and financial development, including tax incentives, currency exchange and infrastructure development.

From the moment I hit the streets, I was overwhelmed by construction activity. There were thousands of migrant workers from Malaysia flowing into the city. And the whining and metallic crashes from the ubiquitous construction equipment melded into a din that only added to the sensory overload I was experiencing.

The old is being replaced by the new here, and old Singapore is being re-made into a cosmopolitan city on par with any metropolis in Europe or in the United States.

While it was once lined with pepper plantations where evening strolls were interrupted by the occasional tiger mauling, Orchard Road is now a palace of capitalism. In fact, it’s one of the world’s most concentrated shopping areas and within a few hours, it was filled with people. There were young executives, fashionistas in impossibly tight jeans and, of course, people like me, just taking it all in.

And everywhere I looked there were hints of the great economic boom we’re all following. Take Citigroup Inc. (C), for instance. Even though it’s under tremendous pressure in the U.S. market, Citi is creating a spectacular presence here when it comes to personal wealth management. So are China’s banks. Both had lots of signage and customers at their Orchard Road locations.

Then there were the cars. There are lots of them for such a seemingly small city, and most were fuel-efficient models. Singapore has no resources and needs to import nearly everything it consumes, so there is an emphasis on conservation. Not surprisingly, public transportation is cheap and very well run. It better be, given that there are some $90,000 Hyundais here.

With all that’s going on, it’s no wonder that legendary investor Jim Rogers chose to move here.

Speaking of whom, Rogers is the reason I’ve flown all the way to this part of the world. He and I will be sitting down together to talk global investing – and I can’t wait to share what I learn with you in the weeks ahead.