• About Us
    • Our History
    • Our People
    • Our Funding
    • Work With Us
    • Contact Us
  • Research
    • Democracy and Governance
    • Economics and Business
    • Public Finance
    • Social Policy
  • Events
    • Future Events
    • Previous Events
  • News & Opinion
  • Digital Media
  • Publications
  • About Us
    • Our History
    • Our People
    • Our Funding
    • Work With Us
    • Contact Us
  • Research
    • Democracy and Governance
    • Economics and Business
    • Public Finance
    • Social Policy
  • Events
    • Future Events
    • Previous Events
  • News & Opinion
  • Digital Media
  • Publications
  • Home
  • Publications
  • GLC
  • Brief IDEAS No 21 – GLIC Footprint in the Private Sector: Policy Dilemma
at April 27, 2020
Categories
  • GLC
  • DateApril 27, 2020
 
Brief IDEAS No 21 – GLIC Footprint in the Private Sector: Policy Dilemma

Brief IDEAS No 21

GLIC Footprint in the Private Sector: Policy Dilemma

Author: Lau Zheng Zhou and Zulaikha Azmi

Government-linked investment companies (GLICs) have higher presence in policy-driven industries such as Telecommunication and Media, Transport and Logistics, as well as Utilities. High equity ownership in the Finance industry is also particularly concerning as most GLICs have controlling stakes in at least one bank.

High degree of GLIC footprint in these industries poses concentration risk to depositors since their savings through these institutions have investment exposure to the same choice of companies. For example, in Telecommunications and Media, the GLICs are majority shareholders in Axiata, Telekom Malaysia and Time Dotcom who are competitors.

GLICs’ relatively strong presence in the Finance industry, particularly in banks, raises questions on the allocative efficiency and competitiveness of the financial market. High level of GLIC ownerships may also create “home field advantage” for Malaysian banks over foreign-owned entrants, but it is unclear whether this same advantage could also be reversed when the same banks compete abroad.

The concentration risk facing the GLICs may necessitate an increase in investment exposure abroad. But, given the market stabilization factor of GLICs, it is possible that a portfolio reallocation towards global markets may increase volatility in the local capital market and the economy in general.

One important debate to have moving forward is the need for a clear separation between ownership and regulation of GLICs. There is also a growing economic price to pay for GLCs to continue serving as a vehicle to pursue socio-economic policies as companies become more competitive through specialisation in the context of global and regional supply chains.

DOWNLOAD
Share

Related posts

August 6, 2021

Brief IDEAS No. 31 –The government’s policy commitments on State-owned enterprises (SOEs) in the National Anti-Corruption Plan (NACP) and the Shared Prosperity Vision (SPV) 2030


Read more
May 25, 2021

Reforming the Appointment Process of Directors in GLICs, GLCs and Commercially-Related Statute Bodies


Read more
September 2, 2020

Brief IDEAS No. 25 – Structural Changes and the Prospect for FELDA


Read more

Follow Us

Contact Us

  • +603 – 2070 8881 / 8882
  • +603 – 2070 8883
  • admin@ideas.org.my

Sign up for our newsletter

© Copyright - 2025 | ideas.org.my | Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (IDEAS)