Connect with us


    MoF Inc could step in to finance Sapura Energy.




    AILING oil-and-gas outfit Sapura Energy Bhd could obtain much-needed economic assistance from government-linked expense business (GLIC) Minister of Finance (Incorporated) [MoF Inc], sources knowledgeable about the matter inform The Edge.

    The GLIC was established under the Minister of Finance (Incorporation) Act 1957, which allows MoF Inc to enter into agreements, acquisitions, and buys in cases when the individual industry offers less expense priority for cultural services to people, to stimulate financial development by investing in strategic sectors, and to entice regional and foreign investors, among others.

    On the list of 70 companies below MoF Inc’s belt are Urusharta Jamaah Sdn Bhd, which took around pilgrim account Lembaga Tabung Haji’s assets; 1Malaysia Growth Bhd; SRC Global Sdn Bhd; growth economic institutions Bank Pembangunan Malaysia Bhd, Bank Pertanian Malaysia Bhd and Small Moderate Enterprise Growth Bank Malaysia Bhd; rail transfer user Keretapi Tanah Melayu Bhd; UDA Holdings Bhd; sovereign wealth account Khazanah Nasional Bhd; and national fat business Petroliam Nasional Bhd (Petronas).

    “From what I am aware, MoF Inc will step up [and provide a supporting give to Sapura Energy]. What’s being discussed is some assistance offer … it could be a give of some kind, and it could be declared soon,” says the origin knowledgeable about the goings-on at the Ministry of Finance.


    A few weeks ago, Finance Minister Tengku Datuk Seri Zafrul Aziz was considered working on such a proposal. Still, details such as which government entity might spearhead the assistance weren’t available.

    For Sapura Energy, its issues stem from short-term debt commitments of RM10.66 thousand as of end-January this year. The troubled company’s finance prices for FY2022 ended Jan 31 was a whopping RM521.87 million.

    The initial speak was that Petronas might get into Sapura Energy and insert much-needed capital. This, however, was denied by Petronas.

    An industry viewer says, “It would be strange. Petronas is Sapura Energy’s client. So, a client overtaking its contractor? Does not look good, does it?”

    He gives that Sapura Energy’s most extraordinary shareholder, state-controlled product trust outfit Permodalan Nasional Bhd (PNB), which includes a 39.59% stake via its funds under the Amanah Saham banner, could quickly get a lot of flak if it plows more money to the company.


    In 2018, Sapura Energy declared an income call of RM4 thousand — RM3 thousand from the five-for-three renounceable rights issue at 30 sen and RM1 thousand with a two-for-five renounceable rights issue of new Islamic redeemable convertible preference given at 41 sen each. PNB also used the unsubscribed rights shows, leading to its shareholding ballooning up to almost 40% from 12.6% and turning it into the most significant shareholder of the company.

    PNB sunk RM2.68 thousand into Sapura Energy via the bucks call, around and over the total amount it’d applied to accumulate the 12.6% currently used in the company.

    While the total amount dedicated to Sapura Energy is little in contrast to PNB’s assets below management, which as of end-October last year came to RM337 thousand, the fact is that PNB makes payments to product members centered on money gets from the sale of gives and dividends obtained from companies. The expense in Sapura Energy has sent neither money gets nor dividends, and PNB’s paper deficits have encountered the billions.

    “PNB’s product members will not like it [PNB investing more in Sapura Energy] and will question why it’s injecting more funds into a PN17 (Practice Notice 17 or cash-strapped) business,” the market viewer adds.

    While there was speak that some large Sarawak-based companies might come in and insert new money into Sapura Energy, casual checks by The Edge with two of the more prominent people suggest this is not the case. The two are Cahya Mata Sarawak Bhd, managed by the family of former Sarawak primary minister and recent governor Tun Abdul Taib Mahmud, and Naim Holdings Bhd, which includes a 24.22% stake in Dayang Enterprise Holdings Bhd, one of the country’s more significant fat and fuel players.


    Things have taken a change for the worse at Sapura Energy, which at one time was a high-flyer with organizations in many areas of the world. In early April 2014, it had an industry capitalization of RM28.5 thousand and was the world’s 2nd most excellent oil-and-gas company after Italy’s Saipem SpA.

    As of last Thursday’s shut of 6.5 sen, Sapura Energy’s industry price had dwindled to RM973.72 million. In addition to the effect of low-fat prices, the company had performed some ill-timed acquisitions — among them Seadrill’s sensitive platform organization for US$2.9 thousand and Newfield’s Malaysian exploration assets for US$895 million — and created some large payouts to 13% shareholder Tan Sri Shahril Shamsudin, who helmed Sapura Energy from 2002, when it was SapuraCrest Petroleum, until 2021.

    From 2014 to 2018, Shahri’s annual remuneration was between RM71.9 million and RM89.4 million, while his real money from FY2013 to FY2021 was RM443.9 million — averaging RM49.3 million per year for the seven decades in review.

    Sapura Energy also compensated rational home and brand expenses amounting to RM438.4 million and company rents of RM149.4 million from FY2013 to FY2021, benefiting Shahril, who stepped down as president and CEO in April 2021, among others.

    For the financial year ended Jan 31, 2022, Sapura Energy endured an internet loss of RM8.89 thousand from RM4.13 thousand in revenue. The company had cash and cash equivalents of RM717.75 million, short-term borrowings of RM10.66 thousand, and no long-term debt commitments. Additionally, it had gathered deficits of RM13.52 billion.


    Continue Reading
    Click to comment

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


    What is Centralized Decentralized Financing (CeDeFi)?




    In our current world, blockchain technology is utilized in various industries, including the finance sector. CeDeFi is an abbreviation that stands for “Centralized Decentralized Finance.” CeDeFi is a financial system that employs both central and decentralized mechanisms. It blends the best features of traditional finance and Decentralized Finance (Defi).

    The basics of CeDeFi

    CeDeFi can be described as an acronym for “centralized financing decentralized.” CeDeFi refers to the Ethereum-based protocol class that seeks to offer the same advantages as Defi protocols but with more control and central decision-making.

    While Defi protocols are permissible and accessible to anyone who wishes to utilize the protocols, CeDeFi protocols are generally run by one entity or a limited number of organizations. This means that CeDeFi protocols have greater control over their functions and governance than Defi protocols.

    CeDeFi protocols typically have similar features as Defi protocols, like loans and lending systems, secure currencies, and token swaps. Yet, CeDeFi protocols tend to be quicker and simpler to utilize than Defi protocols due to their centralization. The speed and ease of usage come at the expense of decentralization. CeDeFi protocols are not as resistant to censorship and have lower community involvement than Defi protocols.


    The most popular models for CeDeFi protocols include MakerDAO, Compound, and Synthetix. These protocols have provided similar features as Defi protocols but remain centralized.

    The centralization of CeDeFi protocols is more prone to attacks and hacks than Defi protocols. However, the usage of CeDeFi protocols is increasing because they provide a more comfortable experience for users than Defi protocols.

    The Binance Company and its Role in the creation of CeDeFi

    CeDeFi is a unique type of financial system that is built upon the Ethereum blockchain. CeDeFi was developed by a consortium of the top businesses in the crypto industry, including Binance, MakerDAO, and Kyber Network. CeDeFi gives users access to an open platform with access to a range of financial services like lending, borrowing, and payment transactions.

    Binance is among the biggest cryptocurrency exchanges in the world. It is also playing a significant role in the creation of CeDeFi. Binance has provided its knowledge of blockchain technology and security to the CeDeFi consortium. Furthermore, Binance Labs, the venture division of Binance, has invested in several CeDeFi initiatives.

    In 2022 in 2022, the CeDeFi system is still in the early stage of growth. But with the support of major companies such as Binance and Binance, CeDeFi could become a significant player in cryptocurrency finance.


    The features of CeDeFi

    CeDeFi is a decentralized finance protocol that allows the creation and trading of synthetic assets. In contrast to other protocols, it does not depend on borrowing or lending platforms. Instead, it utilizes the smart contracts system to create new tokens, which track the underlying value of the underlying assets. This lets users trade derivatives and not have to be able to trust a significant party.

    CeDeFi protocols also have numerous other benefits that include:

    • CeDeFi protocols are based on Ethereum, which means they are not vulnerable only to one point of failure.
    • CeDeFi protocols are available to anyone who has access to an Ethereum wallet.
    • CeDeFi protocols are compatible with other Ethereum-based protocols providing a broad range of applications.
    • CeDeFi protocol can be modified to make various derivative products.

    The primary drawback to CeDeFi protocols is that they are complicated to grasp for those new to the field. But as the industry grows, it is expected that user-friendly interfaces will be created. In general, CeDeFi represents a significant improvement in the decentralized financial sector and could transform the way trade financial instruments.

    CeDeFi protocols can transform the trade of derivatives. Removing the need for central exchanges will lower the risk of counterparties and allow traders to trade the products. Furthermore, CeDeFi protocols are in the early stage of development, which means they have a vast potential to grow in this field.

    CeDeFi is DeFi

    The cryptocurrency industry is filled with abbreviations and acronyms, and CeDeFi and Defi are among the most popular terms used. What is the difference between the two?

    As stated, CeDeFi stands for Centralized Decentralized Finance, whereas Defi is a reference to Decentralized Finance. Both CeDeFi and Defi encompass a broad spectrum of terms and refer to various financial products and services that can be developed upon a blockchain.


    However, the main distinction that separates CeDeFi and Defi is their methods of decentralization. CeDeFi, as the name implies, CeDeFi is centralized in its structure, with projects usually being developed and managed by a single organization. Contrarily, Defi projects are decentralized, typically being created and run by a collective of developers.

    Let’s take a close review of the significant distinctions between them.

    Centralization vs. Decentralization. As mentioned previously, the main distinction between CeDeFi and Defi is their distinct strategies for decentralization. CeDeFi projects are centrally managed; however, the Defi project is decentralized. This is evident in the governance model and development process for CeDeFi and Defi projects.

    Governance model. Governance models are a significant difference between Defi and CeDeFi. CeDeFi projects are generally managed by a single entity which could be a company or foundation. Contrary to this, Defi projects are usually controlled by the communities of developers who create and manage the projects. This dispersion of governance makes Defi projects more tolerant of any changes in direction or leadership.

    Development process. Development is centralized in CeDeFi, and an individual entity is typically responsible for creating and managing the project. The development method in Defi is decentralized, with various developers working on the same project. Decentralization in development results in Defi projects being more transparent and open and more resistant to changes in direction or leadership.


    Use cases. CeDeFi and Defi each have a broad array of uses. CeDeFi initiatives usually focus on offering central financial products and services, like lending and lending platforms, exchanges, and payment processors. Contrarily, Defi projects often focus on providing financial products and services that are not centralized, including smart contracts, protocols, and stablecoins.

    Risk factors. It is also essential to remember that CeDeFi and Defi carry their dangers. CeDeFi projects tend to be riskier than Defi projects because of their centralization. The centralization of CeDeFi tasks makes them more vulnerable to hacks, fraud, and theft. Contrarily, Defi projects are generally considered safer because of their lack of centralization. However, Defi projects remain weak, and they are often complex and hard to comprehend.

    The advantages of CeDeFi

    CeDeFi is a unique form of decentralized finance that allows users to trade crypto assets without a central exchange. This means that users can deal directly with one another without an intermediary. CeDeFi also comes with a range of additional benefits, such as:

    Security. One of the significant benefits of CeDeFi is its increased level of protection than the conventional financial system. It is due to transactions being performed on a distributed network, making it difficult for hackers to attack.

    Speed. Another benefit to CeDeFi can be that the transactions process faster than the conventional financial systems. There’s no requirement for third-party approval, which may take weeks or even days.


    Cost. CeDeFi transactions are, in general, less expensive than traditional transactions. This is because there aren’t any middlemen with the procedure. Therefore, the costs are significantly reduced.

    Flexibility. CeDeFi systems are also greater than traditional banking systems. This is because they can be customized to meet the requirements of any customer.

    Privacy. Additionally, CeDeFi offers a higher amount of privacy than other financial systems. It is due to transactions being performed on a distributed network, making it harder for third parties to monitor.

    In the end, CeDeFi has several advantages over traditional financial systems. As more people are aware of the benefits, It is expected for CeDeFi is likely to continue to increase in popularity.

    Bottom Line

    CeDeFi is a category of Ethereum-based protocols which aim to provide the similar benefits of Decentralized Finance (Defi) protocols but with more control and central decision-making. While Defi protocols are permissive and available for anyone to utilize, they are usually run by one company or a smaller group of organizations. This means that CeDeFi protocols have greater control over their functions and governance over Defi protocols. CeDeFi has many advantages, and those who effectively implement them will benefit from more management and central decision-making.


    Continue Reading


    What Investors Need to Know About ESG Investments.




    ESG investing is focused on social, environmental, and governance principles. It has seen a rise in popularity over time.

    Sometimes called sustainability investing, impact investing, or socially responsible investment, ESG investing provides a means for investors to think beyond profits and think about the role that companies play in the greater good of society. This is what you need to know about it.

    The ESG metrics

    There are three primary measures used to judge businesses based on ESG standards. When you look at a company’s performance through an ESG lens can reveal aspects about it that you can’t be able to see when looking at financial statements, which is why it’s essential.

    The environmental component of ESG examines how a company’s activities impact the environment, particularly the effects of climate change. For example, many firms contribute to climate change through excessive energy and pollution. You should be aware of this, not just your company’s role in influencing climate change and the impact climate change will have on business and the wider industry shortly.


    The social element examines how a company interacts with its customers, employees, and society in general. It can address questions like diversification and inclusiveness, worker security and security, human rights, data security, how the company invests in the local community, and many more. If you’re an investor, no matter if you’re looking at ESG indicators or not, you must be aware of the position companies are in on these issues, as they could be expensive in the future. Employers who are treated poorly result in fewer top talent being retained, security breaches cost increased costs for security and public relations, and so on.

    Governance is how companies operate. It is essential to know this as you’re also a shareholder investor. When assessing companies’ management, institutions can consider the transparency, the quality of financial reporting, and the independents of the boards of directors. If a business has questionable operations, you’ll want to be aware. A few of the most prominent bankruptcy cases in the history of business were shocking to investors simply because they did not know what was happening behind the scenes.

    ESG funds

    Various funds focus on ESG indicators, which means it’s now easy to invest in investments that meet your sustainability goals. Certain funds have the three criteria components, and others decide to concentrate on only one or perhaps two. Some funds focus on particular topics, such as cybersecurity, clean energy, and climate change-related commitments, and general funds focus on the highest ESG standards.

    There isn’t a universal rating within ESG standards, so ESG funds do not constantly evaluate ESG indicators on the same basis. Some assign different weights for each of the three ESG practices, while others may be more focused on subtopics that fall within the category. If you’re passionate about a topic, make sure you review the fund’s mission statement and how the fund’s companies were selected.

    Don’t forget the basics.

    If you’re planning to concentrate on sustainable investments, which is a good thing to do, utilize ESG knowledge and traditional investing wisdom and guidelines. It’s not a good idea to reach a point where ESG standards are the only criteria you need to use when making decisions about your investments. In the end, investing is to earn money. There are many ways to do this sustainably, ethically, and according to your interests. However, it would be best if you didn’t ignore the primary goal of investing. It is still essential to think about your financial goals, the risk you are willing to take, and other relevant factors.


    Ten stocks we prefer more than Walmart

    If our award-winning team of analysts provides investment advice you should consider, it is worthwhile to pay attention. For instance, the monthly publication they’ve been running for more than a decade, Motley Fool Stock Advisor, has tripled the value of the market.

    Continue Reading


    How can big-scale Finance be used to boost sustainability?




    The ability to raise vast amounts of money to move towards a low-carbon economy is within the capabilities of the world economy; however, it will require significant adjustments to the way financial markets operate.

    The ever-growing climate issue will require the most continuous movement of capital in the history of mankind. The minimum is $100 trillion that must be invested between 20 and 30 years to switch to a low-carbon economy. Moreover, an additional $3-4 trillion in annual investment is required to reach the targets of Sustainable Development Goals by 2030 and stabilize the world’s oceans.

    The ability to raise these massive sums and invest them wisely is within reach for the world economy and the financial markets that exist. However, it will require significant modifications to the way these markets function. Mainly conventional financial institutions would require assistance in finding the most suitable projects, easing the process of negotiating and drafting transactions, and raising the capital needed to finance these projects.

    A majority of sustainability initiatives are small-scale. This is the nature of innovation in which ideas are developed to be tested, tested, and when they are successful, copied. However, the disconnect between the people developing sustainability initiatives and traditional Finance makes scaling such initiatives not easy.


    Without risking simplifying the issue, sustainability advocates could be wary about “Big Finance” and its track record of funding nonsustainable industries. Investors, however, are likely to be skeptical of a fanciful approach that overlooks the realities of the bottom line and might not be interested in smaller-scale transactions.

    With this in mind, How do we grow sustainable initiatives from small investments up to the $100 million range that starts to draw big Finance and billions required to create a world-changing impact?

    Three specific steps are required. The first is that securitization methods are an excellent way to combine several smaller projects into one with enough critical mass to make it worthwhile. Securitization earned a bad rap in 2007 and 2008 due to its part in an economic crisis involving subprime loans which caused the entire world close to financial ruin.

    If properly controlled, jointly financing many projects lowers the risk of failure, as the chance that each will face similar operational and financial concerns at the same time is very minimal. The resulting total will be available to investors in the interest market. Smaller projects must share standard features so that they can be grouped. This can’t be done in the future.

    For example, we must come up with general terms of reference and terms for similar asset pools like what is being done within the US residential solar market. In addition, we must expose the basics of securitization to more local innovators via regional gatherings, which bring together financiers and sustainable project developers.


    The second is to reduce the complexity of transactional terms, making it simpler to create and negotiate the particulars of the instruments used to fund sustainable projects. In the established financial markets, replicating vital elements of successful deals in the past is much simpler than creating a new agreement for every buy. This method works because major financial players have approved many of the conditions and terms for future deals.

    Making the most successful innovations more noticeable to investors is crucial. To achieve this, we must create an open-source, high-profile clearinghouse for previous sustainable projects, including those that were successfully funded and those that did not. It would be similar to the currently used databases but is openly accessible and with trustworthy third-party oversight to ensure accuracy.

    Thirdly, the variety of sources of financing for sustainable projects must be increased and made more transparent. Because sustainable investments could provide lower returns based on historical market metrics, traditional asset allocation methods, in the context of “efficient markets,” would result in a lower appeal.

    But the old benchmarks don’t adequately reflect the growing area of impact investing, which has different return and time requirements and is responsible for around $2.5 trillion in assets. The idea of securing tranches of various kinds of impact investment could become a significant game-changer in sustainability-focused financing.

    Therefore, it is sensible to develop an open-source database of investor interest similar to the project database described above, but that can be accessed by designers and innovators of innovative sustainable initiatives. This will make it easier to find investors – whether equity, credit, or a hybrid who are willing to fund. It could also be placed by organizations such as the International Finance Corporation, the United Nations, or the Global Impact Investing Network.


    There are positive precedents. Green bond markets began around a decade ago. The total issuance amount could already reach $1 trillion by the end of this year. In November, the majority of the world’s financial community was present at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) in Glasgow. Under the direction of UN Special Envoy Mark Carney, the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) has pledged $130 trillion of climate-related commitments.

    When he was in 1983, Muhammad Yunus founded Grameen Bank to offer banking services, specifically loans, to those (primarily women) that were previously considered “un-bankable.” By the time Yunus received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006, “micro-lending” had become an international phenomenon, with traditional financial institutions securitizing the loans.

    The financial revolution Yunus began transformed how retail lenders lend and how these transactions are structured and opened up an entirely new source of investment capital. To address the present environmental challenges, the financial markets, as well as their key players, must be more creative and be open to unconventional, sometimes even disruptive, ideas and voices.

    Continue Reading