April 24, 2024

A Summer of Troubles Saps India’s Sense of Confidence

But a summer of difficulties has dented India’s confidence, and a growing chorus of critics is starting to ask whether India’s rise may take years, and perhaps decades, longer than many had hoped.

“There is a growing sense of desperation out there, particularly among the young,” said Ramachandra Guha, one of India’s leading historians.

Three events last week crystallized those new worries. On Wednesday, one of India’s most advanced submarines, the Sindhurakshak, exploded and sank at its berth in Mumbai, almost certainly killing 18 of the 21 sailors on its night watch.

On Friday, a top Indian general announced that India had killed 28 people in recent weeks in and around the Line of Control in Kashmir as part of the worst fighting between India and Pakistan since a 2003 cease-fire.

Also Friday, the Sensex, the Indian stock index, plunged nearly 4 percent, while the value of the rupee continued to fall, reaching just under 62 rupees per dollar, a record low.

Each event was unrelated to the others, but together they paint a picture of a country that is rapidly losing its swagger. India’s growing economic worries are perhaps its most challenging.

“India is now the sick man of Asia,” said Rajiv Biswas, Asia-Pacific chief economist at the financial information provider IHS Global Insight. “They are in a crisis.”

In part, the problems are age-old: stifling red tape, creaky infrastructure and a seeming inability to push through much-needed changes and investment decisions. For years, investors largely overlooked those problems because of the promise of a market of 1.2 billion people. Money poured into India, allowing it to paper over a chronic deficit in its current account, a measure of foreign trade and investment.

But after more than a decade of largely futile efforts not only to tap into India’s domestic market but also to use the country’s vast employee base to manufacture exports for the rest of Asia, many major foreign companies are beginning to lose patience. And just as they are starting to lose heart, a reviving American economy has led investors to shift funds from emerging-market economies back to the United States.

The Indian government recently loosened restrictions on direct foreign investment, expecting a number of major retailers like Walmart and other companies to come rushing in. The companies have instead stayed away, worried not only by the government’s constant policy changes but also by the widespread and endemic corruption in Indian society.

The government has followed with a series of increasingly desperate policy announcements in recent weeks in hopes of turning things around, including an increase in import duties on gold and silver and attempts to defend the currency without raising interest rates too high.

Then Wednesday night, the government announced measures to restrict the amounts that individuals and local companies could invest overseas without seeking approval. It was an astonishing move in a country where a growing number of companies have global operations and ambitions.

The Indian stock markets were closed Thursday because of the nation’s Independence Day, but shares swooned at Friday’s opening. Many analysts are predicting that the markets will continue to decline.

“I think things will get much worse before they get better,” said Sonal Varma, an India economist at Nomura Securities in Mumbai. “The government is between a rock and a hard place.”

The problem for India, analysts say, is that the country has small and poorly performing manufacturing and mining sectors, which would normally benefit from a weakening currency. Meanwhile, India must buy its oil, much of its coal and other crucial goods like computers in largely dollar-denominated trades that have become nearly 40 percent more expensive over the past two years.

That is helping feed inflation, which jumped in July to an annual rate of 5.79 percent from 4.86 percent in June, far above what analysts had expected.

The Reserve Bank of India, the central bank, has recently responded to the rupee’s weakness by raising interest rates, but those moves have already begun to hurt a huge swath of India’s corporate sector. Growth rates had already slowed to 5 percent in the most recent quarter, and India now has a far harder time meeting its current-account deficit.

Analysts fear that higher inflation, softening growth, a falling currency and waning investor confidence could spin into a vicious cycle that will be difficult to contain.

“There’s a risk of a spiral downward,” said Mr. Biswas, the IHS Global economist. “It will be very hard to break.”

The submarine explosion revealed once again the vast strategic challenges that the Indian military faces and how far behind China it has fallen. India still relies on Russia for more than 60 percent of its defense equipment needs, and its army, air force and navy have vital Russian equipment that is often decades old and of increasingly poor quality.

The Sindhurakshak is one of 10 Russian-made Kilo-class submarines that India has as part of its front-line maritime defenses, but only six of India’s submarines are operational at any given time — far fewer than are needed to protect the nation’s vast coastline.

Indeed, India has fewer than 100 ships, compared with China’s 260. India is the world’s largest weapons importer, but with its economy under stress and foreign currency reserves increasingly precious, that level of purchases will be increasingly hard to sustain.

The country’s efforts to build its own weapons have largely been disastrous, and a growing number of corruption scandals have tainted its foreign purchases, including a recent deal to buy helicopters from Italy.

Unable to build or buy, India is becoming dangerously short of vital defense equipment, analysts say.

Meanwhile, the country’s bitter rivalry with Pakistan continues. Many analysts say that India is unlikely to achieve prominence on the world stage until it reaches some sort of resolution with Pakistan of disputes that have lasted for decades over Kashmir and other issues.

Gardiner Harris reported from New Delhi, and Bettina Wassener from Hong Kong.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/19/business/global/a-summer-of-troubles-saps-indias-confidence.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

India Ink: What Foreign Investors Want to Hear From India

A man counting U.S. dollars at a Western Union money transfer outlet in Ahmedabad, Gujarat.Ajit Solanki/Associated Press A man counting U.S. dollars at a Western Union money transfer outlet in Ahmedabad, Gujarat.

This week, India’s finance minister, P.Chidambaram is headed to stump for foreign direct investment in the United State and Canada. This comes after a recent similar run through Singapore, Japan, Hong Kong and Britain. His messages are familiar: the India growth story, reducing fiscal deficits and an admission that 5 percent growth is uninteresting.

But he may be missing the point: investors (including small-time ones like me) already know the sales pitch and want to believe it. But they’re not buying: foreign direct investment into India dropped by $5 billion in 2012, to $27 billion. What is holding back foreign investment decisions are the risks associated with investing in India, which Mr. Chidambaram needs to address head on.

Here are the top five things he should tackle to convince foreign investors to put money into India:

1. Exchange rate stability: The Reserve Bank of India reference rate for Indian Rupee versus U.S. dollar exchange was 40 in April 2008 and lately has been hovering around 54. Investments made in 2008 via F.D.I. need to generate 35 percent returns just to break even after repatriation. Instead of generating a risk premium for having believed in the emerging market story, most investors will not make money on these investments.

India’s current account deficit hit a record level of $32 billion in the December 2012 quarter, up 46 percent from a quarter before, and is approaching 7 percent of GDP. At these levels investors will likely have no confidence in the currency, so the finance minister should be looking to present a credible plan to cut this deficit without focusing purely on promoting exports.

2. Taxation predictability: The timing and extent of GAAR (General Anti Avoidance Rules, proposed by Mr. Chidambaram’s predecessor) is an unpredictable overhang that will keep investors at bay. How does an investor model returns when the tax burden is unknown? And please, let us not bring up “retroactive” taxation in any context (with the exception perhaps of fraudulent transactions).

Most investment vehicles are ephemeral and pooled at many levels, so claw-backs of gains or coughing up historical tax expenses are unfair to the last person left holding the figurative bag.

3. Progressive regulation: There are certain sectors where the regulator has changed the rules after sizeable foreign investments were made. Imagine acquiring a license to operate, investing billions of dollars in operations and then having the license revoked, or having the fees you can charge your customers changed, or the commissions you can pay your distributors decimated. Overtly investor-friendly regulatory regimes are the need of the hour.

4. Impediments to entry: To begin with, let us remove sector limits on F.D.I. and year-long approval processes as these are anachronistic in a competitive market for capital. When allowed, a number of well-meaning valuation guidelines on transactions involving Indian counterparties make free market investment decisions slow and cumbersome.

5. Hurdles to exit: Restrictions on overseas listings destroy significant investor value – certain sectors, especially technology, are not well understood in retail equity markets in India. Nothing will drive F.D.I. more vigorously to India than a string of IPOs that attain stratospheric valuations on global exchanges.

Even without all these risks, investors do not have it easy in the Indian market. They face operational challenges ranging from corporate governance to high valuations. In listed markets, India’s return on equity spreads (the additional return relative to the global indexes) have narrowed recently, so returns no longer justify the risks in the near term.

Especially when capital flows have many options, it behooves India to highlight reforms that allow investors to focus on generating returns instead of fighting the system. India sorely needs F.D.I. to return to 8 percent-plus growth. So dear Mr. Chidambaram, we are happy to hear the sales pitch, but please linger on the risks as well this week.

Shyam Kamadolli is an Indian American entrepreneur turned venture capitalist.  His investment portfolio includes technology startups in the US and in India.  He blogs on entrepreneurship, investments and other passions at blog.kamadolli.com and can be followed on twitter @kamadoll.  All opinions expressed are his own personal views.

Article source: http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/17/what-foreign-investors-want-to-hear-from-india/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Senate Panel Backs Treasury Choice

Mr. Lew, a longtime Democratic budget expert, received the support of all of Democrats on the committee as well as six Republicans, including Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, the senior member of the opposition. The final vote was 19 to 5. Mr. Lew is widely expected to win confirmation, becoming the second Treasury secretary of Mr. Obama’s presidency.

The vote in the committee came as the Senate was heading toward a floor vote to cut off debate on the nomination of former Senator Chuck Hagel to be defense secretary. If Mr. Hagel receives the 60 votes to end the Republican filibuster, he is expected to be confirmed by Wednesday.

“This is the one vote that makes a difference,” Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma and an opponent of Mr. Hagel, said, urging his colleagues to block Mr. Hagel.

Mr. Lew is a longtime Democratic budget expert. In the Obama administration, he has served as chief of staff, budget director and a high-level State Department official. Before then, he worked as budget director in the Clinton administration and on Capitol Hill.

Mr. Lew’s short stints in the private sector drew considerable scrutiny during his confirmation process – his third during the Obama administration, and fourth over all.

Just before the financial crisis, Mr. Lew was an executive at Citigroup, where he worked for a spell in a proprietary-trading unit that at one point benefited from the housing collapse. Mr. Lew never made investment decisions. But he did draw hundreds of thousands of dollars in salary and bonuses, and his contract contained an unusual provision allowing him to keep certain bonus income if he returned to a high position in the federal government.

Mr. Lew also won an unusual exit payment and a form of housing assistance from New York University, where he served as an administrator.

Republicans on the Finance Committee, particularly Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, pressed Mr. Lew for more details on his contracts with Citigroup and New York University, as well as an investment based in the Cayman Islands. Before the Finance Committee vote, Mr. Grassley, who did not support Mr. Lew, said that he felt that the nominee’s answers were still unsatisfactory.

Ultimately, Mr. Lew – known as bookish and unassuming, and a familiar figure in Congress – won Republicans over. Senator Hatch praised his testimony during his hearing earlier this month, and said again Tuesday that he liked him personally. Republicans including Richard Shelby of Alabama and Rob Portman of Ohio have lined up behind him.

Mr. Lew is expected to win the support of the full Senate. As Treasury secretary, succeeding Timothy F. Geithner, he would face a slate of complicated budget issues.

On March 1, so-called “sequestration” comes into effect, and $85 billion in budget cuts, mostly to discretionary spending on the military and domestic programs, need to be made before the end of the fiscal year.

Later in March, Democrats and Republicans are gearing up for a fight over financing the government, threatening a government shutdown. And over the summer, the debt ceiling, a statutory limit on the amount the government can borrow, would need to be raised again.

More generally, the White House and Congress are still seeking a way to rein in large federal deficits without harming the sluggish recovery. The White House hopes to raise new tax revenue, primarily by closing loopholes in the tax code. Republicans are still seeking to reduce long-term spending on the entitlement programs of Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/business/senate-panel-backs-treasury-choice.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Fair Game: Enriching a Few at the Expense of Many

To this, Albert Meyer, a money manager at Bastiat Capital in Plano, Tex., responds with a resounding “phooey.”

Executive pay is not only a sign of how a company views its duties to shareholders, Mr. Meyer says, but it is also a crucial tire to kick when making investment decisions.

“When compensation is excessive, that should be a red flag,” Mr. Meyer says. “Does the company exist for the benefit of shareholders or insiders?”

As investors scan corporate proxy statements this spring and prepare to vote in annual elections for company directors, executive pay is again moving to center stage. After a few years in the wilderness, top executives are getting hefty raises, according to Equilar, a compensation analysis firm in Redwood City, Calif. But while outrage over executive pay has been eclipsed in recent years by anger over the causes and consequences of the financial crisis, compensation issues still resonate among many investors.

Of course, pay is just one item that Mr. Meyer takes into account when analyzing companies. In his search for shares he can own “forever,” he also hunts for companies with high-quality earnings — that is, those that don’t depend on accounting tricks — as well as generous cash flows and management integrity. Companies he avoids include those that award oodles of stock or options to their executives. Such grants vastly dilute the earnings left over for a company’s owners: its shareholders.

“Stock-based compensation plans are often nothing more than legalized front-running, insider trading and stock-watering all wrapped up in one package,” Mr. Meyer says.

A former professor of accounting, he earned recognition when he identified a Ponzi scheme in Philadelphia that had scammed nonprofits out of hundreds of millions of dollars. It was called the Foundation for New Era Philanthropy, and it went bankrupt in 1995. As an equity analyst, he has identified aggressive accounting at Tyco, Enron and other companies over the years.

At Bastiat Capital, a money management firm he founded in 2006, Mr. Meyer oversees $25 million in private clients’ capital. About $8 million of that is invested in the Mirzam Capital Appreciation mutual fund, which he manages. It is up an annualized 4.5 percent, after expenses, since its inception in August 2007. It is up 4.57 percent this year.

His interest in executive pay has led Mr. Meyer to a raft of international companies whose pay and other corporate governance practices are, in his view, more respectful of shareholders than those of similar companies in the United States. He cites as good stewards Statoil, the Norwegian energy company; Telefónica, the Spanish telecommunications concern; CPFL Energia, a Brazilian electricity distributor; and Southern Copper of Phoenix, a mining company with operations in Peru and Mexico. These and other companies he favors have performed well, while paying relatively modest amounts to executives, he says.

Mr. Meyer’s favorite pay-and-performance comparison pits Statoil against ExxonMobil. Statoil, which is two-thirds owned by the Norwegian government, pays its top executives a small fraction of what ExxonMobil pays its leaders. But Statoil’s share price has outperformed Exxon’s since the Norwegian company went public in October 2001. Through March, its stock climbed 22.3 percent a year, on average, Mr. Meyer notes. During the same period, Exxon’s shares rose an average of 11.4 percent annually, while the Standard Poor’s 500-stock index returned 1.67 percent, annualized.

According to regulatory filings, Statoil paid Helge Lund, its chief executive, 11.5 million Norwegian krone in 2010 (roughly $1.8 million at the exchange rate last year). There were no stock options in the mix, but Mr. Lund was required to use part of his cash pay to buy shares in the company and to hold onto them for at least three years.

By comparison, Rex W. Tillerson, the chief executive of ExxonMobil, received $21.7 million in salary, bonus and stock awards in 2009, the most recent pay figures available from the company. Mr. Tillerson’s pay is more than double the combined $8.3 million that Statoil paid its nine top executives in 2010.

OTHER aspects of Statoil’s governance also appeal to Mr. Meyer. Its 10-member board includes three people who represent the company’s workers; management is not represented on the board. In addition, Statoil has an oversight group known as a corporate assembly, something that is required under Norwegian law for companies employing more than 200 workers. This 18-person group oversees the company’s directors and the chief executive’s management and makes decisions about Statoil’s operations that affect its work force. The assembly members are elected for two-year terms; shareholders elect 12 and workers elect 6.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/10/business/10gret.html?partner=rss&emc=rss