Indonesia's Q2 current account deficit widens to 0.8% of GDP
The deficit widened from $200 million in the first quarter, and was driven by rising dividend and coupon payments by companies, aligning with the quarterly cycle, the central bank said in a statement.
BI maintained its outlook for a full-year current account deficit of between 0.5% and 1.3% of GDP in 2025.
The balance of payments for the second quarter saw a deficit of $6.7 billion, compared with a deficit of about $800 million in the previous quarter, BI added.
The deficit was due to foreign capital outflows in the form of domestic bonds, the central bank added.
Indonesia's current account position is closely monitored by investors and policymakers because it is seen a as source of economic vulnerability that makes the country susceptible to capital outflows and weakens the rupiah currency.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
9 hours ago
- BBC News
Philippines: Fast-food giant Jollibee blames fraudsters for raffle row
The Philippines' beloved fast-food chain Jollibee said fraudsters rigged the results of its online raffle, following complaints from customers and a brief government said "fraudulent third parties" placed multiple entries "despite existing safeguards" for a chance to win burgers and concert company said it complied with the government investigation and that the situation had been social media users were in disbelief when the winners' names were posted on Jollibee's Facebook page last week. They said names like Hobby Dynamics, Noble Beer and Alfreda Corkery could have been made up using AI. Jollibee said it "immediately implemented corrective measures" and disqualified the "invalid major prize winners". It also suspended succeeding draws and said a re-draw would be held."We want to assure everyone that we have fully addressed the issues raised and strictly complied with the investigation initiated by the Department of Trade and Industry," Jollibee said in a statement late on names on the winners' list baffled social media users as they are uncommon in the country. Filipino first and last names are a mix of English and Spanish inherited from its former colonisers from America and names also include Belle Thompson, Arielle Wintheiser and Gilda Block."LIKE SERIOUSLLLLLY?!?!" one Facebook user commented. "Your AI must be too lazy to come up with these kinds of names"."They probably thought people didn't have time to read," another wrote. Some drew comparisons to a corruption controversy involving Vice-President Sara Duterte, whose office allegedly paid government funds to individuals with fictitious-sounding Department of Trade and Industry said on Wednesday that it would "continue to oversee the resumption of the Jollibee Burger Blowout Promo", ensuring "fairness and transparency in all promotional undertakings".Jollibee started as an ice cream shop in the 1970s before opening its first burger restaurant in downtown Manila in the early 1980s. It has expanded its business rapidly in the last five years, acquiring US cafe chain The Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf and Michelin-starred Hong Kong dimsum chain Tim Ho founder, Tony Tan Caktiong, is the son of poor immigrants from southern China. The chain's mascot, a perpetually smiling bee with a red jacket, is a nod to Filipinos' hardworking of Filipinos see the brand as a part of their national identity, with its signature fried chicken, burgers and spaghetti becoming a staple for family 2014, a shortage of its Chickenjoy fried chicken led to the #ChickenSad trend on social has 1,600 stores in 17 countries, including the UK, the US, Spain and Singapore.
Reuters
13 hours ago
- Reuters
Indonesia's Q2 current account deficit widens to 0.8% of GDP
JAKARTA, Aug 21 (Reuters) - Indonesia ran a current account deficit of $3 billion in the second quarter, equal to 0.8% of its gross domestic product, after a deficit of 0.1% of GDP in the previous quarter, the central bank said on Thursday. The deficit widened from $200 million in the first quarter, and was driven by rising dividend and coupon payments by companies, aligning with the quarterly cycle, the central bank said in a statement. BI maintained its outlook for a full-year current account deficit of between 0.5% and 1.3% of GDP in 2025. The balance of payments for the second quarter saw a deficit of $6.7 billion, compared with a deficit of about $800 million in the previous quarter, BI added. The deficit was due to foreign capital outflows in the form of domestic bonds, the central bank added. Indonesia's current account position is closely monitored by investors and policymakers because it is seen a as source of economic vulnerability that makes the country susceptible to capital outflows and weakens the rupiah currency.
Reuters
a day ago
- Reuters
Growing trend: State AGs making investigations public
August 20, 2025 - State Attorneys General wield considerable influence through their bully pulpits, which they utilize in various ways to impact policy and corporate behavior. This article delves into a recent trend of State AGs publicizing when they initiate an investigation. As State AGs shift from traditional confidential inquiries to public disclosures, companies must adapt to mitigate potential repercussions. Traditionally, State AGs kept confidential their investigations into private companies and only publicized the existence of an investigation when the issues involved a substantial emergency or when a lawsuit had been filed or a settlement had been reached. In fact, many states have codified this custom by rendering subpoena responses exempt from open records laws, despite the presumption that records should generally be made available to the public. State AGs have recently voiced frustration with this traditional process. Keeping investigations confidential may result in companies not taking the investigations seriously and may limit the State AGs' ability to share with constituents (i.e., voters) the actions being taken to protect them. Conversely, many State AGs believe that attention from publicizing an investigation incentivizes companies to respond and to prioritize a quick settlement. Revealing a State AG's accusations can increase a company's public relations exposure, thereby forcing a company to choose between cooperation or the risk that accusations of bad corporate behavior become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Such incentivized cooperation has led to prompt settlements in several cases. For example, the Texas AG publicly announced its investigation, opens new tab into General Mills for allegedly misrepresenting certain products were "healthy," and it quickly resulted in a settlement, opens new tab just one month after the announcement. Publicizing an investigation typically occurs via a press release and perhaps an accompanying press conference. Texas and Montana are among the states that have recently followed this strategy. In fact, their releases include a link to the subpoenas and timelines by which the investigated party must respond. Publicizing an investigation is not always a winning strategy. State AGs can only publicize an investigation once, and publicizing right away means they lose the leverage to publicize (or threaten to publicize) later. Further, if a State AG announces an investigation, a company may presume that the state has already reached a conclusion about its actions, which may disincentivize a company's cooperation. The increasing trend of publicizing investigations highlights the political nature of State AG offices. State AGs are powerful figures, but they routinely leverage their positions as stepping stones to higher office. Consequently, so long as State AGs remain political figures, we expect them to use every tool available, including publicizing investigations, to advance their causes. Parties on the receiving end of this tactic must move quickly to minimize the fallout. Below are a few recommendations for managing such crises. Before taking any action, a company must understand why a State AG believed that it was appropriate and necessary to publicize an investigation. With this information, a company can better strategize its response, ensuring that it is responsive to the office's actual concerns. For instance, a company's responses differ if an investigation is prompted by a more policy-oriented issue as compared to an investigation driven by an increase in consumer complaints. The source of the concern can also allow a company to assess the regulator's goals. Therefore, the company can determine whether such concerns are limited to that state (e.g., a hospital merger), whether the concerns will be prioritized by other regulators of the same political party (e.g., ESG), or whether the concerns are a nationwide issue (e.g., consumer protection). Companies should assess whether similar issues have attracted attention from other State AGs, federal agencies, or international regulators. Additionally, analyzing recent trends in enforcement actions and settlements in the industry can provide insights into how regulators are likely to respond. By gaining a comprehensive view of the regulatory environment, companies can better anticipate challenges and opportunities, allowing them to craft a defense strategy that minimizes risks and aligns with broader compliance goals. When a state announces that it has opened an investigation, third parties, such as plaintiff's counsel, are likely to issue public records requests seeking the contents of the investigation — both during the investigation and after a resolution is reached. Accordingly, investigated companies must proactively determine the confidentiality protections that state law affords them. Numerous state statutes guarantee the confidentiality of subpoena responses, but the strength of those protections vary. For instance, some state laws require a State AG to keep subpoena responses confidential, while others provide the State AG with discretion to share the responses. In many states, the confidentiality protections afforded to a company's responses during the course of an investigation do not exist after the investigation concludes. This is why negotiating confidentiality agreements, prior to the production of responsive documents, is so important. Insisting on a confidentiality agreement provides an opportunity to negotiate an array of confidentiality issues, including who can view the responsive documents, with whom those documents may be shared, and what notice the company receives before any information is shared. Confidentiality agreements also provide the company an opportunity to tease out whether other investigations are occurring under the surface. When negotiating a confidentiality agreement, companies should consider the possibility that this information may be shared with other regulators and, in turn, used to facilitate additional investigations without the company's knowledge. Even if a company negotiates an airtight confidentiality agreement, a state's publication of an investigation means additional scrutiny from federal, state, and local regulators. It also means private lawsuits, where applicable, are likely to follow. Companies benefit by proactively establishing a plan to defend against lawsuits and investigations on multiple fronts, mindful that responses to one action may impact the outcome in others. Companies may find it more difficult to reach a resolution when a State AG publicizes an investigation and additional scrutiny follows. This is because if a company agrees to make changes or reach a resolution, other regulators and the plaintiff's bar may interpret that concession as proof that the investigation has merit and/or that the company is not inclined to vigorously litigate the issue. If a resolution is contemplated, the foremost goal is to assess the likelihood that such resolution will make it more or less likely that the company is able to achieve global peace. As a result, when entering into a settlement, a company should prepare a risk matrix of all regulators and private plaintiffs that could take subsequent action. This risk matrix should analyze the relevant statutes of limitation and historical instances where that regulator has entered into a settlement that post-dates an initial settlement from another regulatory body.
