Russia pours through oil export gap left by Opec
May 16, 2008
While South Africa thinks itself lucky to achieve a budget surplus approaching 1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), Russia recorded a surplus of 9 percent of GDP in the first four months of the year.
The surplus has been boosted by revenue flows derived from the accelerating commodity boom.
Unlike South Africa, a net exporter of valuable commodities like platinum but a net importer of increasingly costly oil, Russia is described by Bloomberg as the "world's biggest crude oil and natural gas exporter". This puts it in the pound seats in a commodity boom. Last year its economy grew 8.1 percent.
In view of the way its oil industry is creaming off profits, the Russian government has agreed there is a need "to help the industry" by lowering its tax rate.
The reason: there had been "a slight stagnation of extraction", a minister said. Clearly Russia does not believe in saving resources for another day, nor does it fear Dutch disease.
This attitude is fortunate for the world's oil consumers.
Opec takes a very different view, thumbing its nose at US president George W Bush and others who are pressing the organisation to increase oil production.
Opec member countries believe in conserving reserves and, though they claim otherwise, pushing up oil prices by keeping supplies tight.
Opec spokespersons claimed they were concerned about the strength of the global economy, which is slowing in the face of sky-high prices and other problems.
If growth subsides and becomes an economic contraction, oil demand will fall.
So it makes sense for Opec to try to moderate prices.
However, Opec maintains that prices have nothing to do with the level of production. And it has revised downwards its estimate of oil demand to underscore its determination not to increase output.
However, the markets do not share its views on the direction of demand - and oil prices continue to rise.
Not really on board
The Estate Agency Affairs Board (EAAB), the statutory consumer protection body of the property agency industry, has defended itself vehemently in recent years against criticism that it was failing to efficiently and effectively perform its role.
The attacks have been consistent in that they have tended to involve the same issues despite coming from a variety of different companies in the industry. Regardless of the criticism, the industry has maintained that very little has improved.
Major criticisms have focused on the inability to get through to the board on the telephone, the poor communication between the board and the industry, and the failure of the board to issue fidelity fund certificates to agents despite payment having been made. The latter is particularly irksome to the industry, as agents need the certificate to operate legally as an estate agent and earn commission.
Business Report reported earlier this year on the experience of Willie Marais, the chairman of the Institute of Estate Agents of SA, who claimed he had paid for his renewal last November but only received it in February - with an incorrect date of issue.
Today we report on the experience of the Centurion office of Seeff Properties, which claims that 29 of its agents have not received their certificates despite making payment. A personal visit to the EAAB's offices has partially rectified this situation, but nine Seeff agents are still without their certificates.
These examples are indicative of a major problem at the EAAB.
Another is the recent admission by the board that it had R9 million in a suspense account representing payments it was unable to match up with agents.
The fact that it costs only R855 for estate agent principals to renew their certificates - and R529.80 for its employees - is indicative of the extent of the administrative nightmare facing the board.
Healthy debate?
A speaker at the second annual health reporting conference yesterday raised a critical point that most people who have an interest in the industry, journalists included, rarely touch on, even though it should be the most important factor guiding policy makers.
Vicki Pinkney-Atkinson, the chairman of the Patient Health Alliance of non-governmental organisations, spoke about the importance of consulting patients, since they were the key stakeholders in the industry. She focused on how medical schemes treated members and capitalised on their "lack of understanding".
Pinkney-Atkinson questioned how medical schemes arrived at decisions on what their members wanted, which informed their decisions on what they would (or would not) pay for.
"Where are the surveys that show what the consumers want?" asked Pinkney-Atkinson. She followed this with an even more scathing comment: "Schemes do not treat members as customers. They are just people to be manipulated around set rules and regulations."
Of course, Pinkney-Atkinson's views were one-sided and motivated to push her organisation's agenda. This was easily detectable from her passionate presentation, which bordered on anger.
One could argue that the platform she used was not appropriate for the issues raised, because, after all, the conference's objective was to improve relations between the media and the news makers in the industry.
But perhaps Pinkney-Atkinson saw the opportunity to draw our attention to this important matter. She capitalised on the fact that the media would be there and might explore the issue further. Whatever her motives, there was undeniably a good deal of truth in what she said.
Edited by Peter de Ionno. With contributions by Ethel Hazelhurst, Roy Cokayne and Slindile Khanyile
|
|
