Suchergebnisse

This study aims to find the market response on the stock market to the announcement of PMK Nomor 152/PMK.010/2019 regarding Tobacco based Product Excise by using the Event Study method using abnormal return and trading volume activity indicators. The existence of PMK Nomor 152 / PMK.010 / 2019, which aims to regulate and control public tobacco consumption through an average tax increase of 21.56%. This research conducts in 5 listed companies included in the tobacco manufacturing classification. The data used are secondary consist of daily stock prices, daily stock trading volume, and a composite stock price index (JKSE) five days before, one day at the time, and five days after the event. The Paired Sampled T-Test uses to test event studies. The result indicates that only three out of five companies experienced significant negative abnormal returns during the study period, which meant that the market responded to this event as bad news. The increasing significance of the trading volume activity did not spread evenly among those five companies. It shows the formation of an efficient market in the form of half-strong information. Therefore, investors expect to diversify their portfolios to mitigate risks that involve the detriment of government regulations. ; Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menemukan respon pasar pada pasar modal terhadap pengumuman PMK Nomor 152/PMK.010/2019 tentang Cukai Hasil Tembakau dengan menggunakan metode studi peristiwa (Event Studies) dengan menggunakan indikator abnormal return dan trading volume activity. Adanya PMK Nomor 152/PMK.010/2019 yang bertujuan mengatur dan mengendalikan konsumsi tembakau masyarakat lewat peningkatan cukai rata-rata sebesar 21,56%. Ada lima emiten yang termasuk dalam klasifikasi manufaktur tembakau sebagai sampel, dan data yang digunakan adalah data sekunder berupa harga saham harian, volume perdagangan saham harian, dan indeks harga saham gabungan (IHSG) dalam periode lima hari sebelum, satu hari saat, dan lima hari setelah peristiwa. Pengujian event study dilakukan lewat uji beda Paired Sampled T-Test. Hasil penelitian membuktikan hanya tiga dari lima emiten yang mengalami abnormal return negatif yang signifikan selama periode penelitian yang berati pasar merespon peristiwa ini sebagai kabar buruk. Selain itu, adanya kenaikan signifikansi terhadap trading volume activity yang tidak terdistribusi secara merata ke seluruh emiten, menandakan terbentuknya kondisi pasar efisien setengah kuat secara informasi. Oleh karena itu, investor disarankan untuk melakukan diversifikasi portofolio untuk memitigasi risiko yang berpotensi merugikan dari adanya peraturan pemerintah.

Indonesia consists of different ethnicities, cultures, religions, and beliefs. This diversity is a gift, but also a challenge for the Indonesian nation. Differences that exist often cause problems and conflicts between tribes and between religions and beliefs. In the midst of this pluralistic situation, the Church in Indonesia needs to develop inculturation in order to be open and to be able to make dialogue with every culture that exists in Indonesia, with different religions and beliefs as well as with the concrete situation occurring in Indonesia. This paper uses an analytical descriptive method to describe and analyze the concrete situation of the Church in its efforts to respond to socio-religious and political problems and challenges in Indonesia. It appears that the Church in Indonesia is very open and fully respond to every problem and challenge that exist in the midst of Indonesian people and society. This paper is expected to be an inspiration for the local Churches in developing its role to contribute to the development of the nation and the State of Indonesia, as well as to be an inspiration to other Churches in other parts of the world wherever experiencing situations more or less similar to the pluralistic situation in Indonesia.

Source at http://dx.doi.org/10.7557/13.4190 ; This article discusses the relationship between the private international oil company (IOC) Royal Dutch Shell and Russia as an oil producing and oil exporting state during a period when oil prices were moving towards unforeseen heights (2005-2007). By examining this dynamic relationship, this study aims to contribute to an understanding of Russia's discursive and culturally produced history. The history of a state-oil company interaction has shown that the use of legal instruments is a good indicator to determine the nature of the relationship between oil-producing states and IOCs – a relationship that often has been characterized by periods of cooperation or conflict.At the centre of inquiry is how the oil major understands the law in Russia, and in particular the enforcement of the country's formal written rules during legal conflicts over the development of the Sakhalin-II oil and gas fields (in which Shell until December 2006 controlled a majority stake). After identifying the violations of formal laws, I conclude that Shell understands that the formal rules of the game are subordinate to the unwritten laws of energy politics and in particular the informal demands of contemporary Russian society. The article also illustrates that oil-producing states have the upper hand in conflicts over the development of oil and gas resources.

This thesis is an attempt to better understand the sometimes tumultuous relations between international oil companies (IOCs) and the Russian state by examining conflicts over regulatory practices and the enforcement of environmental regulations, and their interpretation in the Western media. This research focuses on two cases, one involving Royal Dutch Shell, the majority owner of company Sakhalin Energy, and the other involving BP's Russian joint venture, TNK-BP. The two cases were selected as windows on the changing relationship between the state and IOCs in Russia during a specific political era – the first two presidencies of Vladimir Putin. This was also a period during which oil prices rose steadily and remained at historically high levels. Such periods tend to strengthen the hand of oil-producing states and strain their relations with IOCs. Sakhalin Energy is the operator of the Sakhalin II project, and was until December 2006 controlled by Shell and later by the Russian state company Gazprom. TNK-BP was the main owner of the Kovykta natural gas field which was central to the conflict – initially between the Russian authorities and a united TNK-BP and later on between the Western and Russian shareholders in TNK-BP. In the cases of both BP and Shell, the Russian authorities accused the IOCs of violating formal regulations, such as environmental regulations. The sanctions that the Russian authorities imposed on the IOCs and their motivations for doing so were the subject of extensive discussion among IOCs, other Western actors and the Western media. This dissertation aims to find out how Western actors such as the media and IOCs understand the rules of the game in Russia, relating it to Alena Ledeneva's work. Ledeneva (2006) outlines a framework explaining the enforcement of regulations and regulatory practices in Russia and their use and abuse for informal purposes. Her main point is that law enforcement practices in Russia differ from those in the West because in Russia regulations are often used selectively and manipulatively for purposes unrelated to the actual legal dispute. Ledeneva's framework is written from a Russian perspective, assuming that Russians understand law enforcement and regulatory pressure in Russia as selective and manipulative. The lack of respect for the law among the Russian public, in combination with the great difficulty of complying with the complicated legal framework, results in a situation in which the law can be used against anyone at any time. The two cases analysed in this dissertation are clear examples of this phenomenon. On the background of shortcomings in Russia's legal and regulatory system, such as incoherency and the use of informal practices to bypass complicated formal procedures, the Russian authorities were effectively able to pressure Shell and BP into giving up control over major oil and gas projects. The analysis of both conflicts shows that regulatory pressure on Shell and BP increased gradually, until both companies ultimately gave in, resulting in a reduction or take-over of their shares in oil and gas projects by Gazprom. It also shows that both companies actively involved the public in their conflicts with the Russian authorities by launching public debate emphasizing the negative aspects of the investment climate and the impact on foreign investment in Russia, in unsuccessful attempts to put counter-pressure on Russian policy-makers. The storylines in the Western media made clear these negative impacts by stressing how the enforcement of formal regulations in Russia is driven by ulterior motives. However, uncertainty remains as to whether these storylines were the direct result of the influence of BP and Shell and their strategies towards the Western media. Both Shell and TNK-BP clearly understood that the core issue was not the violation of environmental regulations or licence agreements, but competing interests in large-scale oil and gas projects. Both companies faced situations in which full compliance with the formal rules was impossible due to the shortcomings of the law itself. For Shell, compliance with the regulations would have meant violating the company's own environmental action plan. Similarly, complying with the licence agreements of the Kovykta field was impossible without the approval of gas exports to China from the field. Both Shell and BP appeared to understand Russian society as Ledeneva stipulates that it works, as a system of interconnected formal and informal levels in which the informal level is dominant. However, their strategy of challenging the authorities within this system by publicly pressuring them indicates that they either still failed to understand the system fully, or misread the policy shift towards foreign companies in the petroleum sector, or overestimated their own strength. Most likely it was a combination of these misconceptions that got the two companies entangled in protracted conflict. Moreover, Western actors forgot an important lesson that has been repeated many times in the past around the world: when oil prices rise, oil-producing states tend to lean forward and IOCs need to be prepared for tough negotiations.