Indonesia's Biggest Risk Isn't Its Economy. It's Whether Investors Can Trust Its Markets.

Salutations, Olio aficionados! 👋

Welcome to the 306th edition of Weekly Olio. We’re thrilled to introduce a fresh new twist to your Sundays: Publisher Parmesan, our hand-picked, thoughtfully crafted edition designed to spark inspiration and insights for the week ahead.

It’s the perfect way to unwind, recharge, and prepare for the week with something truly worth savoring.

If you’re new here and you’re looking for more long-form, crispy writing, click the link below to subscribe 👇

Are you ready? As revealed in our holiday playbook, Roku Ads Manager lets you easily set up, measure and optimize your self-serve holiday ad campaign. You can even create a shoppable ad unit that lets streamers buy directly from their remote.

Set up your campaign today.

Indonesia has spent years building its reputation as an emerging-market powerhouse. It is Southeast Asia's largest economy, a G20 member and a major global supplier of commodities such as thermal coal and nickel. For international investors, it has represented an opportunity to participate in the next phase of Asian growth.

That reputation is now under pressure.

MSCI, one of the world's most influential index providers, is considering moving Indonesia from emerging-market status directly to standalone status. The immediate trigger is concern about opaque share ownership, questionable free floats and coordinated trading. But the deeper issue is institutional: can foreign investors trust the rules governing Indonesia's capital markets?

The timing could hardly be worse. President Prabowo Subianto wants to accelerate economic growth to 8%, an ambition that will require substantial domestic and foreign investment. Indonesia's challenge is no longer simply attracting capital. It is convincing the world that its markets deserve it.

Indonesia has many of the characteristics international investors look for in an emerging market.

It is the largest economy in Southeast Asia, a member of the G20, the world's largest exporter of thermal coal and the biggest producer of nickel. Its expanding domestic consumer market and natural-resource base have made it a familiar destination for investors seeking exposure to Asia's growth.

Yet the mood has changed dramatically.

Indonesia's stock market has fallen around 40% during the year, making it the world's worst-performing market over that period. Foreign investors have withdrawn approximately $5 billion.

Then came an announcement from MSCI.

The index provider said it was considering downgrading Indonesia from emerging-market status to standalone status. The announcement triggered an almost 12% fall in the stock market in a single day, its steepest daily decline since the 1998 Asian financial crisis.

The proposed move is particularly striking because standalone status sits below both emerging and frontier markets. It is a category generally associated with markets that are difficult for international investors to access or assess.

No Asia-Pacific market is currently classified as standalone.

For Indonesia, the possibility raises an uncomfortable question: how did one of the region's largest economies reach a point where global investors might struggle to justify investing in its stock market?

The answer has less to do with economic growth and more to do with the credibility of the market itself.

To understand the significance of the proposed downgrade, it is important to understand what MSCI actually does.

MSCI is not a regulator or a credit-rating agency. It creates and maintains financial market indices, grouping countries according to the development, liquidity and accessibility of their equity markets.

At the top are developed markets such as the United States, the United Kingdom and Japan. Below them are emerging markets, including Brazil, India and Indonesia. Frontier markets sit another level down, generally comprising smaller and less liquid economies. Standalone markets are tracked separately but excluded from MSCI's broad global and regional indices.

Why does this matter?

Because enormous pools of investment capital are benchmarked against these indices.

Passive funds tracking an MSCI emerging-market index are required to hold the securities represented in that benchmark. If Indonesia is removed, those funds must sell their Indonesian holdings. Active managers are not forced to follow the same rules, but many may reduce exposure as well.

The consequences can extend beyond the initial selling.

Lower demand can push share prices down, reduce liquidity and make it harder for companies to raise capital. If investors begin questioning the broader credibility of the market, the pressure can spread to the currency and bond markets.

Experts estimate that a standalone downgrade could trigger more than $8 billion in outflows.

That is a substantial amount of capital for Indonesia to lose, particularly when the government is trying to attract more foreign investment.

MSCI does not need to control Indonesia's stock exchange to influence its access to global capital. Its classifications help determine how much of that capital is willing or required to be there.

The concerns behind MSCI's decision had been building for months.

In January, MSCI froze certain changes to Indonesian stocks in its indices and warned that the country could be downgraded to frontier-market status.

The underlying concerns were serious: coordinated trading, questionable free floats and incomplete ownership disclosures.

A company's free float represents the shares genuinely available for public trading. It matters because index providers use it to determine how much of a company's stock is accessible to investors.

But what happens when the reported free float does not reflect genuine market availability?

Some Indonesian companies and insiders may have been using affiliated shareholders to make their free floats appear larger than they really were. Coordinated trading could then push share prices higher, making companies appear sufficiently large and liquid to qualify for MSCI indices.

This practice was reportedly known locally as the "MSCI trade."

The potential incentive is obvious. Once a stock enters an important index, passive funds tracking that index may have to buy it. That creates additional demand, potentially lifting the share price and making it easier for the company to raise capital.

The problem is that the apparent market demand may not reflect genuine investor interest.

A market can have thousands of listed companies and substantial trading volumes while still being difficult to invest in. If investors cannot establish who actually owns shares, whether the available float is genuine or whether prices are being manipulated, the market's liquidity becomes much less meaningful.

This is the distinction Indonesia now has to address.

It is not enough to demonstrate that shares are trading. The country must demonstrate that those prices are credible and that ownership is transparent.

For the first time, see the system that runs GTM at Attio, the #1 fastest-growing CRM on Brex and Ramp.

Attio’s Rev Ops and Solutions leads have written up all of it, including how it spots at-risk accounts early and surfaces upsell opportunities while they’re still warm.

Read the playbook.

Initially, Indonesia's response appeared encouraging.

Senior leaders at the stock exchange resigned and were replaced. The financial regulator also underwent leadership changes. Authorities began meeting MSCI representatives every two weeks, and there was a growing expectation that Indonesia would avoid the worst outcome.

But the situation deteriorated again.

On October 16, MSCI announced that it was formally considering moving Indonesia directly to standalone status, rather than simply downgrading it to frontier-market status.

The government responded with a series of measures. It imposed fines of 117 billion rupiah (approximately $7 million) in cases involving three listed companies, alongside sanctions against brokers and other market participants.

It also proposed removing stocks with highly concentrated ownership from its local benchmark index, improving disclosures around affiliated shareholders and gradually increasing minimum free-float requirements.

These are meaningful steps. But MSCI is looking for something more fundamental.

The concern is not simply whether Indonesia has introduced new rules. It is whether those rules can be enforced.

MSCI wants stronger deterrents against market manipulation, potentially including prison sentences and bans from participating in financial markets. It also wants more effective surveillance systems capable of monitoring trading activity and ownership across roughly 1,000 listed companies.

This is where the problem becomes much harder.

A regulation can be announced in a week. Building the institutional capacity to enforce it consistently takes much longer.

Investors need to know that manipulation will be detected, that powerful shareholders will face consequences and that the rules apply equally across the market.

Without that confidence, even well-designed reforms may not be enough.

Indonesia's regulatory challenge is also a political one.

Some of the companies under scrutiny are associated with powerful tycoons and some of the country's wealthiest businesspeople. That creates a difficult question for the government: is it prepared to confront influential economic interests in order to restore confidence in the market?

An independent regulator must be able to investigate powerful companies. Ownership disclosures must be accurate even when the shareholders involved have political or economic influence. Penalties must be credible enough to change behaviour.

These are not merely technical requirements.

They require political support at the highest level.

President Prabowo's economic ambitions make the issue particularly consequential. He wants to lift Indonesia's economic growth to 8%, a level the country has not consistently achieved since the mid-1990s.

That will require more than commodity exports and domestic consumption. Indonesia will need investment in infrastructure, manufacturing, technology and other productive sectors.

Foreign capital will be important to that ambition.

But investors do not simply allocate money to countries with attractive growth forecasts. They allocate money where they believe the rules are sufficiently predictable and their capital can be protected.

A country can have extraordinary economic potential and still be a difficult place to invest.

Indonesia is discovering that the credibility of its institutions is itself an economic asset.

The immediate risk is that a downgrade triggers further selling in Indonesian equities. But the broader consequences could be more damaging.

The rupiah is already near record-low levels. A loss of investor confidence could put additional pressure on the currency and raise borrowing costs for both the government and private companies.

That would create a difficult feedback loop.

Less foreign investment could weaken the currency. A weaker currency could increase the cost of imported goods and financing. Higher borrowing costs could discourage businesses from investing. And slower investment would make the government's 8% growth target even harder to achieve.

There is also a reputational dimension.

Indonesia has long been considered one of the more interesting, if riskier, destinations within emerging markets. Investors willing to accept volatility have been attracted by its size, resources and long-term growth potential.

A standalone classification would send a very different message: that the market is difficult enough to invest in that even investors accustomed to emerging-market risks may decide to stay away.

There is a reason this matters beyond Indonesia.

Emerging markets compete for a limited pool of global capital. Investors can choose between India, Brazil, Vietnam, Indonesia and dozens of other destinations. If one market becomes harder to access or less transparent, capital can move elsewhere.

Indonesia's challenge is therefore not just to avoid a downgrade. It is to prevent the market from disappearing from the investment consideration set of global funds.

Indonesia's economic story has always been compelling. It has the population, natural resources, geographic position and domestic market to become one of Asia's most important economies.

But potential and investability are not the same thing.

The MSCI controversy has exposed a weakness that cannot be fixed through a stimulus package, a new industrial policy or an ambitious GDP target. It requires something less visible but more fundamental: trust in the institutions that govern the market.

Indonesia can change its disclosure rules, raise free-float requirements and impose larger penalties. But the real test will be whether regulators are willing and able to enforce those rules against powerful interests.

There is also a timing problem. MSCI has been raising concerns for months, and Indonesia has already introduced several reforms. Yet the possibility of a double downgrade remains.

The country may still avoid the worst outcome. But even if it does, the episode should be a turning point.

Indonesia wants foreign investors to finance its next phase of growth. Before asking them to commit more capital, it must demonstrate that the market they are investing in is fair, transparent and credible.

A country can attract investors with the promise of growth. It keeps them with trust.

HubSpot's CRM is so smart, it now updates itself. Calls get logged and summarized the moment they end. New leads get researched and a first outreach drafted, automatically. Deals move forward on their own, with next steps flagged before you have to ask. 

Even the one repetitive task you've been meaning to fix can now run itself, no code required. Customers using it are already seeing the difference. 

This isn't the CRM you have to work hard to figure out. It's the one already working before you log in.

Get a Demo

That’s all for this week. If you enjoyed this edition, we’d really appreciate if you shared it with a friend, family member or colleague.

We’ll be back in your inbox 2 PM IST next Sunday. Till then, have a productive week!

Peeyush and Mohit

Disclaimer: The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in the text belong solely to the author, and not necessarily to the author's employer, organization, committee or other group or individual.