Kevin L, Author at Kevin Low

Paying for outcomes

As a consultant, we sometimes encounter clients who only want to pay for the outcome but not the inputs or the efforts. It is probably true that a client takes on the cost of the work and all of the risks when they are just paying someone for the efforts, but they do also get most if not all of the upside pertaining from the subsequent business success. Of course, the consultants get a track record or credential but that’s probably a win-win situation, not something you’d expect the consultant to be paying the client for.

But paying for effort, monitoring it and managing the risk continuously can sometimes be the only way to achieve success, rather than striking an agreement with someone whom you would only pay for success. You see, outcomes are often not a function of incentives, they are a function of effort, timing, chance and many things outside the agent’s control. By paying for success, you might not even be optimising the effort for success.

And that brings me to the payouts for Olympic medalists. A gold medalist for Singapore gets a payout of a million SGD, whereas an Australian gets a payout of $20k AUD, which is about $17.5k SGD at current market exchange rates. The point isn’t about whether that is a lot or little; and in any case, the Singapore government might say there are so many Aussie gold medalists that it would not be worthwhile paying them too much. The point is that Australia probably already spend a lot more money upfront in terms of public infrastructure for sports, supporting local sport teams, supporting talented coaches, and promoting a culture of sportsmanship. The ‘outcome’ of Olympic success is already ‘bought’ when they make those investments.

On the contrary, Singapore still thinks that sporting excellence and investing in sports is out of a desire to win. I think that’s a shame, because there are so many other great outcomes that comes from a strong sports culture. And I think the many years of ‘investing’ into Olympics thus far had been out of that desire to ‘buy outcomes’, which is probably why we are offering such a big payouts to the Olympic medalists for Singapore. It allows us not to spend taxpayers money if we don’t get the medal – but at what costs to our sporting culture?

If we are prepared to secure a gold medal, why not take 90% of that million dollars and spend it on something like paying coaches better so they can focus on coaching a one or two teams rather than two handfuls? And why not alter the education system so that civic values are also taught through sporting interactions? There are so many possibilities only if we are willing to put our minds to it, and think about the effort we want to pay for, rather than trying to buy an outcome.

Persuasion vs argument

I was having coffee with a friend yesterday, and the conversation went on about having disagreements at the workplace, particularly when there are also some kind of philosophical clashes.

I reminded her that too often, we try to get others to do what we suggest by being right, by arguing for why it is the right way, or how our proposed approach would be the best. Or why the alternative proposed is ‘wrong’ or suboptimal. The merits of the approaches in and of themselves can make for endless arguments. Because that exercise on resolving disagreements become one about tossing perspectives and viewpoints around.

There are a few key ingredients needed for resolution of such matters:

Some deadline for making the decision
Aligning expectations that the particular discussion outcome needs to be a decision and not just a plan to discuss more of it
Set aside time to argue for the other side; when you are forced to argue for the other side, you reset your thinking

Another thing we tend to forget is when there’s a disagreement, sometimes it is not about pointing out pros and cons about the approach or subject matter at hand. Often it is more of a persuasion, on how that approach of way of handling things would benefit the counterparty personally or their ‘side’ of the matter. The more we think of the discussion and conversation as a matter of persuasion rather than proving something, the more we allow ourselves to be flexible and think from the viewpoint of the person we are trying to persuade.

It also takes the ‘I am right and you are wrong’ dynamic out of the room.

Compelling stories

I was reading Morgan Hounsel’s Same as Ever and one key claims he make is that compelling stories are probably more important than well-researched, time-tested facts or truths. The challenge is that people would find it easier to believe, and digest compelling stories than truth that might be hard to swallow.

And this probably comes from various different ‘incentives’ that are at work including socio-cultural incentives (relationships, perceived or otherwise), compelling financial incentives but also some kind of psychological incentives relating the way the pieces of information somehow resonates.

To some extent, it is beautiful that humans are wired this way. We are not some hard calculating machine that spits out answers in binary form or just goes into system error and choke up in smoke. There’s something poetic in the manner we appreciate and take in information, work them in our minds. Yet it is also responsible for crippling us and causing us to go down the wrong path in terms of decision-making, and coloring our behaviours.

The challenge is we can’t quite help ourselves. Even when we know we are biased, we somehow fail to control for it appropriately. The fact we managed to get as far as we did is rather miraculous. And probably stands testimony to the fact that while as individuals we might not be that successful, we’ve managed to develop systems larger than ourselves to deal with some of those issues. And those challenges are not as fatal as long as they are not being synchronized somehow.

The risk is when we all keep converging towards the same false compelling stories. Or when we collectively as a society discriminate or eliminate the outlier types who tend to be more capable at cutting through bullshit.

The Singaporean

I grew up with a sense that the stereotypical Singaporean is reserved, quiet, unquestioning, and silently observing, taking notes, figuring out the rules, and conforming to them. He tries not to stand out too much or to speak too often, but when given the chance, he speaks, perhaps not too freely. He tries to press or push his point when the time is right but not too hard.

Yet time and again, I meet with Singaporeans, in Singapore or overseas, who challenge that view. The stereotype ultimately serves as a caricature of cherry-picking some of the behaviours that others have observed and found peculiar but not quite converging into any one single individual. Perhaps that is the nature of stereotypes but maybe it is more important to consider what is the narrative behind that stereotype.

The narrative I grew up with was probably one of smallness, the sense that we are trying to catch-up and, play fast follower, not trying to be ‘too smart’ and just aiming to be good based on the prevailing rules and norms but not carving out our own category of what being good or being the best means. Yet in perpetuating these, we’ve inadvertently created a category for ourselves, and uniquely positioned ourselves as Singapore. Maybe it is good to be more confident and to actually work hard, push ourselves not as a function of fear (whether it’s fear or losing or falling behind), but as a function of the recognition this is what got us here and will get us to further heights.

This message perhaps came in a bit overdue but Happy Birthday Singapore.

Carbon pricing

I’ve written about carbon credits (here and here); but I never really quite considered them from the perspective of carbon tax, because I generally thought of it as just another instrument that is used to price carbon. In reality, the different mechanisms actually work differently. And even for ‘carbon markets’, where you allow trading (which can take the form of credits or allowances, again slightly different conceptually), the carbon price can take on different meanings depending on the underlying instrument in question.

Singapore’s carbon tax system introduced the idea of allowing carbon credits to ‘offset’ these taxes. And the carbon credits are essentially international carbon credits generated from projects that removes or mitigates emissions in one way or another. This is not new as some other markets have allowed the use of offsets to reduce ETS liabilities (eg. Korea). In Singapore, companies who wish to do so can only have 5% of their carbon tax exposure offset using eligible carbon credits; and there are clear specifications of what works and what doesn’t.

This marriage of carbon taxes and pricing with the generation of quality international carbon credits is something critical to bring the next step of carbon pricing to maturity. Global ‘carbon resources’ in the form of means of removal and sequestration is not uniform, even when we are all sharing the same atmosphere. It is therefore necessary to be able to trade carbon. Technically, because there is negligible transport cost when you ‘trade’ carbon, global pricing of carbon should eventually converge to the same levels. It is potentially as close as it gets to a good that can be pure commodity. Yet because of the whole issue around measurement integrity and the lack of consensus around some of the dodgier types of carbon credit methods, it is going to be very difficult for pricing to converge any time soon. The variations globally in regulating carbon emissions and putting a price on carbon emissions would also serve to slow down global carbon trade.

At the end of the day, there are wider geopolitical and economic considerations blocking stronger climate action. Working along these forces will be necessary since fighting them is rarely an option.

Gas Transition

Natural gas seem to be the fossil fuel which was supposed to be a transition fuel that overstayed its welcome. In fact, it seem to have failed at its job at properly displacing coal and yet today, it is seen as a dirty fuel to be transited away from rather than towards.

That is actually a very anglo-saxon view of the energy transition and if you go around Asia, to some of the fast growing economies you’d realise that notion is somewhat deluded. Natural gas is still growing and providing more energy to more businesses, households and people not because of the gas lobby or some kind of oil & gas conspiracy but that plans laid down in the past to move towards gas are just cranking on and moving forward. Sure, things are not moving as fast as we would like them to, but it is incredibly challenging to keep trying to drive people off gas towards renewable electricity when we have not properly dealt with or created a realistic pathway out of coal power.

A premature transition out of gas, especially for currently non-electrified uses, could be expensive. And electrifying heavy industrial loads when a power system is still dominated by coal, is certainly emissions-blind.

SAF and fuel mandates

I wrote about the trickiness of cutting subsidies which raises the cost to various groups in the society. This is effectively changing the underlying dynamics of wealth transfer in the society. Another thing that could alter the dynamics is putting some kind of regulation into the system. This tends to be less controversial when people are in agreement that the regulation is necessary. For example, getting companies to increase climate disclosure or just improve packaging labels etc would raise prices for customers as companies need to bear these costs in order to comply.

One could argue the consumers benefit from those regulations so it is fair for them to pay the price. What about when passing environmental regulations? Essentially when you first pass them, it creates benefits for parties going beyond the consumers themselves. Take the case of putting pollution control regulations on a manufacturing plant; eventually the consumers of the product of that plant is paying the cost but the ones who benefit from the regulation are the ones living near the manufacturing plant. That is when you evoke the ‘polluter pays’ principle because in this case, you are regulating away a ‘cost’ that existed in the system rather than creating a new benefit.

That brings us to the issue of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. I work in the field of energy transition and this is intimate linked to those problems. For one, my day job is focused on solving these issues. What I’m wondering, as the CORSIA regulations kick in to push aviation industry to decarbonise, is whether national governments will choose to spend time going out to set up agreement to enable carbon credit trade which involves corresponding adjustments, or put in fuel blending mandates for Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) which can play a role in airlines meeting CORSIA obligations.

Setting up fuel blending mandates will cost the airlines, who will then pass on the cost to the passengers. And perhaps that will reduce the tourism to the country, or perhaps it could increase the cost of doing business and hence make it less attractive for inbound investments. All of that factor causes it to be unclear who is paying the cost for the environmentalism and whether it ends up hurting the country more. Fuel blending mandate could nevertheless bring about new manufacturing jobs and opportunities that offset the job losses. And at the same time, you might attract relevant, future ready technologies to be based in your country.

Looking at the situation now, it is unlikely for SAF or other green fuels to get into the market through a supply push. The fact is that without a proper, transparent and accepted carbon price, there is no incentive to use a greener fuel that would cost more expensive. And this are green fuel that still ends up emitting carbon dioxide albeit in the short-cycle and hence considered to have zero greenhouse warming potential. Government should take the stance that they will have to mandate the blending and then manage the impact of the costs later. In this case, the ‘polluter pays’ principle could be evoked as a foundation but then various other instruments and tools can be used to cushion the impact for various groups to continue achieving economic objectives.

Cutting subsidies

So having ranted incorrectly about energy subsidies, I saw this article about Malaysia and was reminded of this set of principles I suggested to one of the officials at the Single Buyer of Peninsular Malaysia while working with them on a project. These are ideas on how to move towards a regime where subsidies are reduced and does not apply to everyone:

1. Make them transparent: Start by making clear where there is a subsidy; even when there is a blanket subsidy, make sure that the amount of subsidy is clearly shown to those receiving the subsidy, and that the burden of the subsidy is properly attributed, reported, even publicly. Where price controls are used, the implicit subsidy needs to be made explicit.

2. Share a cross-section of the beneficiaries: Often, fuel subsidies are meant to help manage the cost of living for the lower income. But when it is implemented through price controls or blanket subsidies, it disproportionately benefits the largest energy users. By publicising who are the beneficiaries of the subsidy and how much who gets, you can start considering how to reduce the subsidy for select groups of beneficiary that will be impacted the least.

3. Reduce subsidy for beneficiaries not aligned with policy intents: unless the state policy intention is to benefit the fossil fuel industry, there are always some groups benefiting from a blanket subsidy whose profile doesn’t align with the target group you are trying to help.

4. Keep the subsidy only for groups targeted: once the policy intents are clearer and there is social consensus of who the target groups should be, the subsidies can be pared back to be given only to those who need them. This means that subsidies need to shift from producer-side towards consumer-side. This should be aided by improvements in technology, government data-collection, and new channels for disbursing benefits.

The truth is that economics of renewables have improved and could match fossil energy in some cases. Cutting subsidies for fossil fuel will not just help reduce the reliance on them but free up more government resources to accelerate the transition. We should not allow subsidies to stand in the way of the transition.

Energy subsidies

I don’t really remember the last time I dealt with the topic of subsidies. There are huge transfers that takes place in the economy as a result of government interventions through a combination of taxes and subsidies. It is hard to see what the real effects are because the result is always nett of a combination of different forces and programmes. As a result, it is hard to see whether the end result was intentional or not. Often, the end result can be intentional but brought about through a combination of transfers or policies with differing stated intents.

Take for example the whole issue of fuel and energy subsidies. There are explicit and implicit subsidies and they are applied at different levels, to different parts of the value chain, captured by different parties. Of course, the result is to some extent lower cost of energy, but it is also more energy used than otherwise would be. Well, why would you favour wasting energy? Often, it’s because it can help to divert perhaps certain industrial activities that could have downstream impacts such as helping to alleviate poverty, create employment, strengthen social cohesiveness and the list goes on.

After a while, you realised that in the sphere of politics and governance, economics only holds to a certain extent. And competition often can be defined within a single dimension but actually practised over that. What this means is that if you think you’re working hard for school grades, you’d be outcompeted by someone who recognizes that his grades mean little if it is not directed towards getting to a good school or a good job. There is always a greater arena that you are actually competing within.

What this means for renewable energy is that they are not just competing with fossil fuel in terms of adoption and capital for deployment but also consumption and subsidies. Of course there is lots of subsidies going around – for example, for hydrogen. The question is whether it is worthwhile pouring subsidy into that or a more mature energy vector that has the potential to decarbonise (for example, biomethane). However, there are limitations to biomethane or bioenergy because of feedstock limitations, because of the dispersed nature of the feedstock, and the difficulties associated with deployment.

Well, there are also budget limits and land limits. It is strange how people prefer to invest in areas that have more unknowns and uncertainties rather than areas where limits are more ‘known’, but the market could still be sizable. In Australia especially, I think there is incredible upside to taking the long-term view in things because it is a market where sensibilities do tend to eventually prevail.

Originally the intent was to rant about fossil energy subsidies but look where that got me.

What stays the same

Interesting how just when I was thinking about pivot points for change, I chanced upon this Farnam Street article on Bezos and Buffett’s thinking on the impacts of the new on the financial markets. The focus is not so much what will change but what stays the same.

Governments around the world would benefit from the same way of approaching problems – not so much by considering what will change but rather, what is going to stay the same. It is more important to consider what are the new elements that can build upon the existing than to go wild with considering what could throw things off the current course (why, everything and anything, of course!)