Why is the Macedonian Stock Exchange Unsuccessful

The Macedonian Stock Exchange (MSE) is not operating successfully. True, some of the parameters which we use to measure the success of a stock exchange have lately improved in the MSE. For instance, the monthly money volume has increased together with the number of transactions. But this is a far cry from success.

Who is to blame? Is the current management of the MSE incompetent?

I do not think so. Actually, I think the MSE has an excellent management team, doing their best to incorporate new trading techniques and to list new firms. The problems lie elsewhere.

A stock exchange is a very important financial market. It is a highly efficient and visible instrument of financing. In the West, it is used to finance most of the needs of corporations, way above financing available from banks. Individuals and firms save some of their income and invest it. The stock exchange is meeting grounds for savers wishing to invest their savings - and firms looking for investments.

Another function of stock exchanges is to assist governments in financing their internal borrowing requirements. Governments sell obligations (called bonds) to investors through the stock exchanges in their countries. A stock exchange is, therefore, an indispensable tool for re-financing national debt.

But a few conditions must prevail before a stock exchange functions properly.

The most important condition is the existence of a healthy, growing economy in the stock exchange's country. Investors flock to robust economies and shy away from sickly ones.

On the face of it, the Macedonian economy belongs to the latter category. High unemployment, low savings, retarded growth, a gaping trade and payments deficits. But this is an optical illusion. The economy is in much better conditions that most Macedonians would care to admit. The unemployment figures are skewed. They reflect efforts to evade paying social taxes - not real unemployment. The economy is growing, even by official estimates. The black economy is growing even faster. The deficits are covered by enormous capital infusions from donor countries. Macedonia is receiving more international credits per capita than Russia. It is always convenient to blame the worsening economic climate - but the cold, objective figures do not bear this out.

When an economy is growing - the profits of companies (including those listed in the MSE) will grow with it. This makes the shares of these companies an interesting buy.

Since no one is buying - we must look for the problem elsewhere.

A prospering stock exchange is linked to the existence of the right micro and macro economic management. Macedonia has more than its share of problems in this respect.

The process of transformation of businesses with social capital had four basic flaws:

first, it introduced no new management, ideas or capital to the beleaguered firms which were "transformed". The market simply does not believe that they were transformed. The same people run the same shows under a different hat.

Second, such transformation violates the concept of Hierarchy, a chain of command.

It blurs the distinction between labour (workers) and capital (owners). What is wrong with that is that a ship must have a captain - and only one. Someone must have the authority and the responsibility. Collective management is no management at all.

Moreover, innovation change and revitalization are all prevented. What change could come from the same set of worn out managers? How can thousands of owners decide to worsen the conditions of the workforce - if owners and labourers are one and the same? So, management is polluted by irrelevant, non-economic considerations: power struggles amongst groups of workers, social considerations and political ones.

We identified one villain. The other one is high (real) interest rates. When interest rates are high, three effects prevent the resuscitation of the stock exchange:

First, firms have high financing expenses (interest payments) - which reduces their profits. Second, it is not worthwhile to borrow money and to invest in shares.

Third, it is more tempting to invest money in bank deposits, yielding high interest rates - than in shares. High interest rates are the poison of stock exchanges.

The same is true for low savings rates. If people and firms do not save - there is no capital available for investment in stocks.

This, exactly, is the current situation in Macedonia : impossibly high interest rates coupled with exceedingly low savings. There is basic mistrust between clients and their banks. They prefer other ways of keeping their money.

But all the above is far from exhausting the list of pre-conditions for the proper functioning of a stock exchange.

Investors must have timely, accurate and full information about the firms that they invest in. This will allow them to respond in real time to developments in the company and to prevent losses. This will also make it difficult to cheat them - which is were we come to the question of accounting standards. Only lately have the accounting rules in Macedonia been revised to conform to the Western systems of accounting. Even now, the similarity is very slight. Macedonian firms maintain a double accounting system. One set of books is tax-driven. It is intended to show losses or profits at the whim of the management. An elaborate scheme of hidden reserves lies at the heart of the typical financial statements of the Macedonian firm. Another set of books - if they are kept at all - reflects reality. This is an enormous barrier to foreign investment - and foreign investors are the driving force in every modern stock exchange.

The trust of investors in the stock exchange is based on legislation to protect their property rights against the firm's management' against the authorities and against other investors who might wish to rig the market or manipulate the prices of stocks.

But legislation without an effective judicial and law enforcement systems is like a stock exchange without money. To enforce property rights in Macedonia takes ages and even then the outcome is not certain. Laws, regulations are in their embryonic stage and some of them seem to have had an abortion: they were hastily and unwisely copied verbatim from legal codices of other countries (Germany, Britain).

Last - but definitely not least - is the existence of a fair, transparent and non-corrupt marketplace. The stock exchange, the banks, the regulatory authorities, the police and the courts have to be above suspicion. For the market to be utterly efficient - it must be utterly free of any ulterior considerations and motives. Corruption distorts the market's allocative mechanisms and powers. It is easily discernible in dealings in the stock exchange for all to see. A stock exchange is, after all, the showcase of the local economy.

But there is a problem which towers above all other problems and it is almost endemic to Macedonia. It helps to explain much of the predicament of the stock exchange in Skopje. It is the fact that the market is missing its most important player: the Government.

Investors - both foreign and domestic - look for the Government to be active in the local stock exchange. Governments throughout the world use their stock exchanges to sell shares of state-owned enterprises to their populace. The stock exchange becomes a mechanism for the distribution of the national wealth - as embodied by the state owned enterprises - to all the citizens. As we said before, governments also use the stock exchange to borrow money from their citizens.

The Government of Macedonia does neither. It totally ignores the MSE. Not one company was privatized through the MSE. Not one Denar was borrowed from a Macedonian citizen through it. A government's activity in the stock exchange is proof that the government believes in it. Therefore, if it does not operate in the stock exchange - it proves that it does not believe in it. If the government does not believe in the stock exchange in its own country - why should the investors believe in it?

There are a few additional structural characteristics which are considered to be the hallmarks of a healthy stock exchange. But those are the by-products of all the above mentioned conditions.

A stock exchange must be liquid so that investors would be able to convert their shares into cash easily and expediently. It must include many investment options - professionally put, it must be diversified. This will allow the investors to choose from a variety of investments and also to reduce their risks by dividing their money among a few types of investments.

The management of the stock exchange can help it by introducing efficient trading techniques, computerized trading and settlement systems and so on. The faster investors meet their money when they sell their shares - the more they will be inclined to operate in the stock exchange that allows them that. The easier it is for them to liquidate their assets by meeting buyers - the more they will prefer to work in that stock exchange.

Investing in the stock exchanges in the markets of the emerging economies has been an unfortunate decision in the last three years. Stock exchanges from Russia to Hungary and from Lithuania to Poland have jeered wildly since the end of 1993.

They resembled a roller coaster in their performance, going up and down by tens of percents annually. There are exceptions to this rule. The Ljubljana Stock exchange, for instance. The trading volume there has gone up 10 times since December 1993 - and the market capitalization is up 30 times. But this is because of the performance of the general economy in Slovenia. In Croatia, the government is privatizing its holdings in state owned companies by auctioning shares to the public through the Zagreb Stock Exchange. This has helped it a lot.

Newly-established stock exchanges are highly volatile and very dangerous. Volatility goes hand in hand with risk. They are long term investments. Since 1988, they outperformed the more established stock exchanges in the world, like Wall Street.

But these stock exchanges are growing fast, they are cheap by any measure and they are the best investment that a country can make in its own future.

Is really not as important as to how you invest in the stock market. And how you invest in the stock market should take into consideration what goals you are setting for that stock market investment. For example, are you investing for capital appreciation or for income through dividend paying stocks? Or is the investment in the stock market for the combination of both capital appreciation and dividend income? Are you investing through a Mutual fund(s) or selecting your own individual stocks?

Do you invest with a lump-sum dollar amount or dollar-cost average into your stock or Mutual fund positions (buying the same stock or Mutual fund at different prices over the years)? Is your investment dollar spread too thin and are all of those dollars working for your ROI (return on investment)? Do you pay commission fees to purchase a stock? Do you pay load fees in your Mutual fund(s)? How much does your Mutual fund(s) charge you for management, operating and marketing fees (they are called ‘hidden fees’)? (One Mutual fund, just recently, was fined 450 million for ‘hidden fees’ practices.) ‘How’ you invest in the stock market is more important than ‘when’ you invest in the stock market and ‘how’ you invest will determine your ROI.

When you invest in the stock market is after you devise a how-to plan that takes into consideration all of the factors above. Quite frankly, every cent of your investor dollar should benefit you and your family and no one else.

There is an enormous amount of investor dollars supporting some whopper salaries on Wall Street. Just recently (the summer of 2003), Richard Grasso, the once former head (CEO) of the New York stock exchange was forced to resign, after his salary for the past 2 years were made public. His salary - 12 million a year for the past 2 years, a check for 48 million, which his advisor suggested he return (which he did) and a pay-package of 139.5 million dollars (which he hasn’t returned, as of this writing-mid-2004). Now, that is just one man’s salary on Wall Street and it is certainly good work if you can get it! Where did all this money for his salary come from? If the money didn’t come from investor’s dollars, why were Pension fund managers so outraged by Grasso’s salary that they threatened to pull billions of Pension fund dollars from the New York stock exchange? I really don’t know where the money came from to pay his salary. What I do know is the one place where the mo!

ney for his salary didn’t come from and that is from the Stockopoly investor. Not one cent!

It is my opinion that all stock purchases should be made without commission charges (which is possible). The investment in all stocks should be a long-term investment, and that every stock purchased should have a history of raising their dividend every year. And all dividends should be reinvested back into the company’s shares (also commission free), until retirement. Every cent you invest should work for your ROI. By purchasing those companies that have a long-term history of raising their dividend each year (for example, Comerica – 34 years, Proctor and Gamble – 47 years, BB&T – 31 years, GE – 28 years, Atmos Energy - 16 years (they also provide a 3% discount on all shares purchased through dividend reinvestments), the ‘HOW’ you invest becomes automatic- you dollar-cost average into your holdings through the dividends provided by the companies every quarter.

The dividend is the one factor a company cannot ‘fudge’. The money has to be there to pay the shareholder. If a company can raise their dividend every year, the company MUST be doing something right! When a company has a long history of raising their dividend every year you in a sense eliminate risk, since a lower stock price for that company just means a higher dividend yield. If, for example, a stock purchased at $50.00 a share drops to $36.00 a share, the income provided by the dividend income accelerates, and your dividend reinvestment provides you a better dividend ‘bang for your buck’. There have been many up and downs in the stock market these past 47 years (I know, I’ve been in almost 40 of them) – yet Proctor and Gamble has never failed to raise their dividend during those past 47 years.

Below is an example of two types of investors that have $10,000 to invest in the stock market. One is a lump-sum investor, the other a dollar-cost averaging investor. One investor doesn’t care about dividends, the dollar-cost averaging investor does. Each investor took a different ‘HOW’ to invest and both investors had the same ‘WHEN’ when they invested. Let’s say they invested at the same time, each stock purchased at $50 dollars a share and every quarter the stock dropped $2.00 a share, till the stocks hit a bottom of $36.00, and then recovers back to $50.00. The lump-sum investor bought the fictitious company ABC, which does not pay a dividend, and the dollar-cost averaging investor purchased the fictitious company XYZ, which pays a quarterly dividend of 50 cents a share (a 4.0% yearly dividend yield), and the company had a history of raising their dividend every March for the past 41 consecutive years. Both purchases were made in January.

The lump sum investor bought 200 shares of ABC at $50.00 a share, watched the stock drop to $36.00, then recover back to $50.00 and when all was said and done ended up right where he started with 200 shares of ABC worth $10,000.

The dollar-cost averaging investor purchased 100 shares of XYZ in January for $5,000.00, (the stock paying a quarterly 50 cent a share dividend for a 4.0 percent yearly dividend yield), and purchased $1,000.00 worth of more shares every quarter for the next 5 quarters. Each quarter the dividend from the company was also reinvested into more shares of stock. Each March the company raised its dividend 2 cents a share, marking 45 consecutive years of rising dividends. All purchases were commission free.

January, 100 shares of XYZ @ 50.00 a share = $5,000

		   Share	          $1,000.00       Stock price   Dividend Purchases     Share Purchases 		March   $48.00    (52 cents a share) 1.083      20.83 sharesJune      $46.00    (52 cents a share) 1.378      21.74 sharesSept.     $44.00    (52 cents a share) 1.714      22.72 shares Dec.      $42.00    (52 cents a share) 2.098      23.81 sharesMarch   $40.00    (54 cents a share) 2.637      25.00 shares  June      $38.00    (54 cents a share) 3.169        - 0 -Sept.     $36.00    (54 cents a share) 3.393        - 0 -Dec.      $38.00    (54 cents a share) 3.262        - 0 -March   $40.00    (56 cents a share) 3.260        - 0 -June      $42.00    (56 cents a share) 3.149        - 0 -Sept.     $44.00    (56 cents a share) 3.045        - 0 -Dec.      $48.00    (56 cents a share) 2.827        - 0 -March   $50.00    (58 cents a share) 2.843        - 0 –

The dollar-cost averaging investor now owns 247.953 shares of XYZ. The value at $50.00 a share = $12,397.65.

So, the lump-sum investor ends up right where he started, 200 shares of ABC worth $10,000, and the dollar-cost averaging invested ends up owning 247.953 shares of XYZ worth $12,397.65, along with the dividend income generated from owning those shares. Both had the same ‘when’ when they invested.

The dividend yield at 58 cents a quarter (.58 divided by $50.00 x 4 x 100 =), a 4.64% yearly dividend yield. Every quarter every dividend received from the company was higher than the previous dividend, no matter what the stock price was at the end of the quarter. The dollar-cost averaging investor is receiving a dividend for the next quarter from XYZ (no matter what the stock price happens to be) of .58 X 247.953 shares = $143.81, and the next quarter (and every quarter thereafter) the dividend would be even higher if the company, at least, maintained their dividend. If XYZ repeated the same performance history ($50.00 down to $36.00, back up to $50.00) for the next 3 years, and ABC did the same- the HOW you invest in the stock market makes all the difference in the world.

In the Stockopoly plan there are no commission charges, all stocks are purchased commission free. There is no need for a stockbroker (the tools needed for doing your own research are easily available and the where and how-to’s are included in the book); there are no hidden fees, load fees, operating, and management or advertising fees. There are no illegal trading practices, costing investors tens of million of dollars. (And the Wall Street Christmas bonuses will not be coming out of your pocket.) Every cent works for you in the form of increasing cash dividends every week, month and year. You’ll never pay too much for a stock, even if that stock is at a 52 week high. The WHEN you invest in the stock market is of little importance compared to knowing HOW to invest in the stock market, simply because the how over rules the when.

In the Stockopoly plan you will discover HOW to use all the tools necessary to develop a concrete, definite plan of investing that will profit you and your family for the rest of your lives.

For more information and excerpts from The Stockopoly Plan, please visit www.thestockopolyplan.com

You have permission to this article either electronically or in print as long as the author bylines are included, with a live link, and the article is not changed in any way. Please provide a courtesy e-mail to: charles@thestockopolyplan.com telling where the article was published. Thanks!