Investors Dump Indonesia Stocks as Prabowo Flexes Market Muscles
(Bloomberg) -- An unprecedented accumulation of power in Indonesia's corporate landscape is fueling investor concern about political influence and transparency in Southeast Asia's biggest equity market.
NJ College to Merge With State School After Financial Stress
Trump Administration Plans to Eliminate Dozens of Housing Offices
Where New York City's Zoning Reform Will Add Housing
Buffalo's Billion-Dollar Freeway Fix Is on Ice, But Not Because of Trump
Inside the 'Not Architecture' of High Line Designers Diller Scofidio + Renfro
Newly launched sovereign wealth fund Danantara — which has a direct reporting line to President Prabowo Subianto — announced last month it would take over management of seven state-owned enterprises. Its holdings include three of the nation's biggest banks, with total assets of more than $340 billion. Worries about the deal sent shares tumbling by the most in weeks, pressuring a stock market that's already one of the world's worst performers this year.
While sovereign wealth funds are commonplace across Asia, the swift consolidation of assets is offering investors an early glimpse into Prabowo's vision for economic governance just months after he took office. The fund would control firms that make up more than one-fifth of the benchmark Jakarta Stock Exchange Composite Index. Plans for Danantara to eventually take in all of the dozens of state-owned firms would mean direct control of assets equaling roughly half of the country's gross domestic product.
'Uncertainty over the new government's policies, in particular the formation of Danantara, could keep investors away for now,' Selvie Jusman, an analyst at Morgan Stanley, wrote in a recent note.
The upheaval comes at a critical time. Since hitting a fresh record in September, Indonesia's $700 billion stock market has stumbled as a stronger dollar and global trade tensions send investors fleeing from emerging markets. The JCI is down 6% this year, underperforming most global peers. Last month, the rupiah touched a five-year low as a weakening economy drags on the currency.
Goldman Sachs Group Inc. downgraded the nation's stocks to market weight from overweight on concerns about weaker earnings, domestic policy risks including SOE bank profitability and a wider fiscal deficit, they said in a note late Friday.
Danantara, or Daya Anagata Nusantara Investment Management Agency, will have initial capital of $20 billion and eventually have more than $900 billion in assets under management, according to Prabowo, putting it among the world's largest sovereign wealth funds. The president has indicated that funding will come from a mix of budget cuts and increased state firm dividends.
The wealth fund is seen as a key tool to help Prabowo achieve his strategic goals and return Indonesia to the 8% economic growth levels it last posted in the mid-1990s. Authorities are also hoping it will play a secondary role of boosting foreign investments. Danantara did not respond to a request for comment.
For years, investors have lamented that volatile and illiquid stocks have made long-term investments a challenge in Indonesia. That's forced global money managers to concentrate their investments into a handful of financial companies, which tend to be larger, have more free float and broader shareholder bases.
Danantara's entry has suddenly complicated that thesis.
The three banks set to come under the wealth fund's control — PT Bank Mandiri Persero, PT Bank Negara Indonesia Persero and PT Bank Rakyat Indonesia Persero — are popular investments among money managers thanks to their profitability and low valuations. Investors worry that any changes in strategy might hurt margins, particularly given a tough year ahead as weak commodity prices hit loan growth. Prabowo has said that he would boost SOE dividend payouts to finance Danantara.
Already, foreigners have headed for the exit, offloading a net $266 million of Mandiri shares in February, according to data compiled by Bloomberg, the most since records going back to 2020. In total, they've sold about $1.3 billion of Indonesian equities on a net basis so far this year.
'Investors are worried about the sustainability of the dividend payout and also will the SOE's strategy be changed to be less profit oriented,' said Jeffrosenberg Chenlim of Maybank Investment Bank Bhd. More details would help improve market sentiment, he added.
State firms used to be supervised by the Ministry of State-Owned Enterprises, while dividends were paid largely to state coffers. Danantara's operating model is different in that it will receive all SOE dividends and can leverage their assets for funding, including through bond issuance. A recently revised law means it will report to the president, sidestepping the finance ministry and the SOE ministry.
There are other concerns brewing. Prabowo allies dominate the fund's management, raising questions about state overreach. Risks over strategy, capital allocation and possible off-balance sheet spending add to the list of worries, according to Citigroup Inc. analysts. While the launch looks positive overall, the fund's success will depend on factors including its ability to attract foreign capital and improve SOE efficiency, the bank added.
Danantara's full leadership lineup, including various advisory boards, is still being finalized and should be announced in coming weeks, according to local media. For now, investors are in wait-and-see mode, choosing more of a risk-off stance until more details are announced.
'Institutionalizing governance and focusing on returns above the cost of capital is the right direction, but how it balances strategic national interests with commercial discipline remains to be seen,' said Mohit Mirpuri, a fund manager at SGMC Capital Pte. 'If done right, it could enhance long-term SOE valuations rather than just extracting dividends. For now, it's one to watch rather than assume success.'
--With assistance from Claire Jiao and John Cheng.
(Updates with Citi comment in third to last graph)
How Natural Gas Became America's Most Important Export
The Mysterious Billionaire Behind the World's Most Popular Vapes
Greenland Voters Weigh Their Election's Most Important Issue: Trump
An All-American Finance Empire Drew Billions—and a Regulator's Attention
Germany Is Suffering an Identity Crisis 80 Years in the Making
©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Epoch Times
17 minutes ago
- Epoch Times
Trump Says Musk Will Face ‘Very Serious Consequences' If He Backs Democrats
President Donald Trump on June 7 warned that Elon Musk could face 'serious consequences' if he decides to back Democratic political candidates in upcoming elections. While Musk campaigned for Trump's 2024 presidential run and was a key member in the Trump administration's fight against fraud and waste, the two were involved in a public spat this week, apparently fueled by their disagreements over Trump's budget priorities in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump drops Nasa nominee Jared Isaacman, scrapping Elon Musk's pick
The White House has withdrawn as its nominee for Nasa administrator, abruptly yanking a close ally of Elon Musk from consideration to lead the space agency. Donald Trump said he would announce a new candidate soon. 'After a thorough review of prior associations, I am hereby withdrawing the nomination of Jared Isaacman to head Nasa,' the US president posted online. 'I will soon announce a new Nominee who will be mission aligned, and put America first in space.' Related: Drugs, marital advice and that black eye: key takeaways from Trump's Oval Office send-off for Elon Musk Isaacman, a billionaire private astronaut who had been Musk's pick to lead Nasa, was due next week for a much-delayed confirmation vote before the US Senate. His removal from consideration caught many in the space industry by surprise. Trump and the White House did not explain what led to the decision. Isaacman, whose removal was earlier reported by Semafor, said he was 'incredibly grateful' to Trump 'and all those who supported me throughout this journey'. 'I have gained a much deeper appreciation for the complexities of government and the weight our political leaders carry,' he posted. 'It may not always be obvious through the discourse and turbulence, but there are many competent, dedicated people who love this country and care deeply about the mission.' Isaacman's removal comes just days after Musk's official departure from the White House, where the SpaceX CEO's role as a 'special government employee' leading the so-called department of government efficiency (Doge) created turbulence for the administration and frustrated some of Trump's aides. Musk, according to a person familiar with his reaction, was disappointed by Isaacman's removal. 'It is rare to find someone so competent and good-hearted,' Musk wrote of Isaacman on X, responding to the news of the White House's decision. Musk did not immediately respond to a request for comment. It was unclear whom the administration might tap to replace Isaacman. One name being floated is the retired US air force Lt Gen Steven Kwast, an early advocate for the creation of the US space force and a Trump supporter, according to three people familiar with the discussions. Isaacman, the former CEO of the payment processor company Shift4, had broad space industry support but drew concerns from lawmakers over his ties to Musk and SpaceX, where he spent hundreds of millions of dollars as an early private spaceflight customer. The former nominee had donated to Democrats in prior elections. In his confirmation hearing in April, he sought to balance Nasa's existing moon-aligned space exploration strategy with pressure to shift the agency's focus on Mars, saying the US can plan for travel to both destinations. As a potential leader of Nasa's 18,000 employees, Isaacman faced a daunting task of implementing that decision to prioritize Mars, given that Nasa has spent years and billions of dollars trying to return its astronauts to the moon. On Friday, the space agency released new details of the Trump administration's 2026 budget plan that proposed killing dozens of space science programs and laying off thousands of employees, a controversial overhaul that space advocates and lawmakers described as devastating for the agency. The Montana Republican Tim Sheehy, a member of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation committee, posted that Isaacman had been 'a strong choice by President Trump to lead Nasa'. Related: Universe's mysteries may never be solved because of Trump's Nasa cuts, experts say 'I was proud to introduce Jared at his hearing and strongly oppose efforts to derail his nomination,' Sheehy said. Some scientists saw the nominee change as further destabilizing to Nasa as it faces dramatic budget cuts without a confirmed leader in place to navigate political turbulence between Congress, the White House and the space agency's workforce. 'So not having [Isaacman] as boss of Nasa is bad news for the agency,' Harvard-Smithsonian astronomer Jonathan McDowell posted. 'Maybe a good thing for Jared himself though, since being Nasa head right now is a bit of a Kobayashi Maru scenario,' McDowell added, referring to an exercise in the science fiction franchise Star Trek where cadets are placed in a no-win scenario. With Reuters
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump vowed to help US farmers. These four say his policies are ‘wreaking havoc'
Donald Trump may have won the votes of the US's most farming-dependent counties by an average of 78% in the 2024 election. But the moves made by his administration in the past few months – imposing steep tariffs, immigration policies that target the migrant labor farmers rely on, and canceling a wide range of USDA programs – have left many farmers reeling. 'The policies of the Trump administration are wreaking havoc on family farmers. It's been terrible,' said John Bartman, a row crop farmer in Illinois. Bartman is owed thousands of dollars for sustainable practices he implemented on his row crop operation as part of the USDA's Climate-Smart program. And he's not the only one. Other farmers across the country are reporting that the Trump administration's policies have destroyed their markets by ending programs that help farmers sell their produce to local schools and food banks; implementing draconian immigration policies that destabilize the farm labor pool; and generally creating volatility that makes it hard for farmers to plan ahead. One group of farmers, the Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York, joined organizations like Earthjustice and the Natural Resources Defense Council in suing the USDA for removing department webpages focused on climate change, arguing that the move was unlawful and undermines farmers' ability to adapt and respond to climate threats. (On 13 May, the coalition declared a kind of victory when the government committed to restore the purged content; the government is set to provide more information about the restoration process on 11 June.) Some farmers, such as Bartman, loudly oppose Trump. 'I've met some Democrats who'll say: 'You farmers deserve this. You voted for him.' Well, I didn't vote for the guy. The programs that have been impacted the most are targeted towards farmers that care about the environment.' Others, such as those living near North Carolina farmer Patrick Brown, are experiencing 'buyer's remorse', said Brown, 'but they don't want to say it because they voted for the current administration'. No matter who they voted for, farmers across the country are living in the new reality created by the Trump administration's agricultural policies. The Guardian spoke to four farmers about what it's like trying to grow crops, feed people, and keep their operations afloat in 2025. John Bartman, Bartman FarmMarengo, Illinois I am a vegetable and grain farmer; we're mostly a row crop operation. My family has been farming in Illinois since 1846; we have the oldest continuous running vegetable stand in McHenry county. I farm 900 acres. I try to use the least amount of fertilizer and herbicides that I can. Three main policies have been impacting us. Number one is the cancellation of USAID. That's about a billion dollars worth of grain that the United States purchases from farmers like me, and they give it to third world nations who are hungry. To kill that program is a disaster. It's morally bankrupt, and it hurts farmers' bottom line. Another thing that's very pressing is the payment freezes to farmers from the USDA. I was involved in the Climate-Smart practices. We were paid to implement stewardship practices that the USDA has been preaching since the Dust Bowl. The added benefit is these practices combat climate change. That's what the current administration doesn't want anything to do with. I'm supposed to be paid close to $100 an acre. Then the current administration came in and put a freeze on everything. $100 an acre may not sound like much, but there are some years where we're happy if we make $20 an acre off of things. I have an operating loan that I haven't been able to pay off because I was counting on this money. I have rent that's due. I have seed costs. I have chemical costs. I try to explain to people, if I were a repair person, and I went to my local grade school and fixed their furnace, and in the meantime, a new school board was elected, I still deserve to be paid. I've signed a contract with the USDA. The full faith and credit of the United States is at risk, because if Uncle Sam will renege on a farmer, they'll renege on anybody. The third one is the tariff situation. China is and has been our number one export for soybeans; 100% of the soybeans that I grow are exported. During Trump's first administration, half of all the soybeans that China purchased were from the United States. By the end of his first administration, it was down to a quarter. Now Brazil has taken over our role as the number one importer of soybeans into China. From an environmental standpoint, that means more deforestation in the Amazon. Mexico purchases 40% of all the corn in the United States. And he wants to have a trade war with Mexico? Mexico can just as easily buy their grain from Argentina and Brazil. The USDA has also canceled a lot of contracts for food pantries and school districts to purchase from local farmers, and that's absolutely devastating. I was just in Springfield, Illinois, testifying and hearing testimony from other farmers. Many of them are first-generation farmers, and that program gave them an outlet for their produce. It's so sad listening to them saying, 'I finally had my dream of owning my own farm and making a living at it. Now I don't know what I'm going to do, because my market has dried up.' Shah Kazemi, Monterey MushroomsSanta Cruz county, California People don't recognize that we either have to import our labor, or import our food. We operate five farms right now: in California, Tennessee, Texas and Mexico. We have close to 2,000 employees. Our business has been totally dependent on migrant workers, just like all other ag businesses in this country. Without them, there is no food on anybody's table. In 1983 we acquired a farm in Loudon, Tennessee. At the time we didn't have one migrant worker in that plant. By the early 1990s we had about 20% migrant workers, and by the early 2000s we had 85%, because nobody wants to do that kind of work any more in this country. When you're bent over picking strawberries, cucumber, lettuce, zucchini, whatever the crop is – try to do that for eight hours. See how your back feels, how the rest of your body feels. Farming is hard, physical work. These are skilled workers, harvesting at a certain rate to stay productive; you have to know your trade. A skilled mushroom picker can pick about 75 to 80 pounds an hour, and some of them exceed 100 pounds an hour. A new picker comes in, their productivity is in the 20s, and it will take six to eight months to get them up to 50. So if you had to replace a guy that's picking 80 pounds an hour with people who are picking in the 20s, you need three or four of them. We have a lot of respect and admiration for these people. They're really underappreciated. I have a friend who is in the farming business. About a month ago, there was an Ice [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] raid in the area. The following day, most of his employees didn't show up. Even the people who have been here for a long time, they're listening to the news and hearing that people with green cards are being deported. The fear factor has been heightened significantly. That's what has happened with the new administration coming in. If we don't have enough workers, we cannot harvest our crops. And if you don't harvest, then it's all wasted. The uncertainty and erratic decision making creates volatility in the marketplace. And now we're concerned about where we're going to get future workers. What's going to happen a year from now, as some of these people get deported, or they feel so fearful they go back to their home country? Who's going to replace them? We need to have a program that lets people come in who can do the work, and then at the end of whatever the term is, they can go back home. They have a guest worker program in Canada that works significantly better than what we have here. Nobody pays any attention to the farmers, and we are the people who put food on the table every day. And the migrant workers, those are the hands that pick the crops that you eat. Josh Sneddon, Fox at the ForkMonee, Illinois I got into farming because I love to cook. When I was in New Jersey and I was getting my food from local farmers, ranchers and fishermen, the quality of the food was so much better that my spice cabinet became essentially salt and pepper, because the food was good enough [on its own]. I took my entrepreneurial spirit and applied it to my interest in building a local food system driven by higher-quality foods, greater accessibility, and a climate smart focus on our food system. Fox at the Fork is a 10-acre regenerative farm – we grow fruit and nut trees like pecans, persimmons and currants, while also stewarding approximately one acre of land intensively in annual vegetables. It's my fifth year in business. In prior farm bills and administrations, the USDA supported individuals like me who are considered 'beginning farmers'. That's one of their historically underserved categories. The USDA [formerly] created and reinforced programs that supported individuals who hadn't had the same opportunities – Bipoc, LGBTQ+, beginning, veteran farmers – to have an equitable shot at growing and establishing small-scale food businesses in their communities. Being considered a beginning farmer was part of the criteria that has helped me secure NRCS [Natural Resources Conservation Service] grants, one of them being a Conservation Stewardship Program contract. That's a five-year contract that recognizes all of the conservation practices we implemented. For us, that's about [protecting] native prairie; cover cropping; building bird boxes to bring back native kestrels and owls. Almost all federal grants require that some of the money spent is yours and is not reimbursed. So farmers have a stake in the game; it's not just the government giving out corn and soy subsidies. The other program that really helped our farm last year [that has been canceled under the current administration] is the LFPA, the Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program. It was getting up to $25m [in Illinois] that had been obligated to the state for food distribution organizations like food banks, who provide food to the community and pay a fair market value to us farmers. I also have a Reap contract – the Rural Energy for America Program – which is another program that faced direct cuts. At the end of last year, I spent approximately $79,000 to install solar, having already received approval and signed paperwork. That grant is a 25% reimbursement through the USDA reap, which is for me, $19,784. I'm still waiting for that. Not receiving that $19,784 has slowed what investments I'm going to make for the year. It's hard to predict the long-term impacts, but the short-term impact is more anxiety, fewer investments on the farm, and likely greater effort trying to get my food placed in the community at a fair market price. Patrick Brown, Brown Family FarmsWarren county, North Carolina I'm a fourth-generation row crop farmer. My home farm is about 165 acres. I also grow industrial hemp fiber and produce – watermelons, leafy greens, tomatoes, sweet corn. We're an impoverished community, and we don't have access to a lot of food, so I try to get healthy options to children especially. We were participants for the past two years in a USDA project – which has just gotten terminated – providing fresh food to local schools. We also created a non-profit to help create a path for young kids that want to become farmers. And I also am a director of a non-profit called Nature for Justice, and we were awarded a USDA Climate-Smart contract to help farmers with conservation practices. All my projects that were funded by the federal government have been terminated during the current administration. It's caused us to pivot. We're so used to not having anything – as a minority farmer, that's the way things have always been. But when you sign a government contract, you feel some sense of, 'this can't be taken away.' I was doing two projects: one for cover crops and nutrient management, and the other one to plant trees to help with erosion and chemical drift, and to create habitat for wildlife. We did all this work and invested all this money, all for them to say, as of 29 January, the project is no longer in place. We were expecting to get over $65,000 this year from work we did in 2024. They claim that I will eventually get the money, but who knows how long that will be held up? Plus, the announcements made during this administration through the secretary of agriculture are not getting down to the rural community offices that represent small farmers. It's almost as if things are announced on social media, and then the offices hear about it. And our local NRCS offices and our Farm Service Agency offices are more understaffed than they've been in 20 years. The technical assistance is non-existent. The main thing we need right now is for our local legislators to speak up for us. A lot of them are being quiet. But we need to advocate against the wrongdoing that is being done to farmers.
