Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Genocides by African dictators have pushed the continent centuries back! Libya has been actually far better off!

Yes Gaddafi is gone. As I wrote earlier, the Western world has taken its revenge for the billions of dollars that OPEC countries under Gaddafi’s leadership transferred from them to the OPEC coffers. Of course, the Western interest in Libya’s destruction is clear – the very high quality oil but obviously that Libya has with itself. The current Libyan situation is unfortunate because it shows the rise of a totally unipolar world where, at will, the Western nations are deciding which government gets to stay, where they have only one focus – where do the oil reserves exist? Libya has been one of the most developed African nations and all its socially relevant parameters – from education to health – were right at the top in Africa. It’s ironic that worse exploitation and destruction have killed millions of lives in most of the other parts of Africa; and in most of those cases, the West has not only watched the game of death and dictatorship in cold blood but also supported those blood-hungry dictators with money and guns.

In fact, Africa has been over the years reduced to a continent where democracy has been a tool in the hands of a few dictators who have been using it for their own convenience. As a result of this, the economic damage caused to Africa, however much horrifying, can be to some extent quantified, but the social damage is beyond comprehension. Around 31 African nations, at some point of time, were (some still are) ruled by ruthless dictators – the ruled area encompasses more than 60 per cent of total land area and population. Most of the dictators of Africa have come to power by military coups, and remained at the top by showcasing their tortuous means, that eventually helped them eliminate rival generals, usurp power and kill any probable protests. Most of the dictators channelized the economies that African resources created to their own personal accounts and left the poor Africans in the lurch for the rest of their lives – that is, if at all the civilians were fortunate enough to survive for long. In order to keep their thrones intact, dictators killed people ruthlessly and went ahead with mass genocide at will.

Dictators like Uganda’s Idi Amin, Zaire’s Mobutu Sese Seko, Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir, Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia have been case studies in themselves. Along with executing genocide and mass killings, these dictators created an environment where no human life could thrive. People who escaped genocide and inhuman treatment (rapes, torture and detentions) were left homeless, struggling for safe water and food. Millions of Africans died out of hunger and diseases. Dictators like Mugabe, Obiang, Biya and King Mswati of Swaziland, made fortunes by siphoning off monies that were meant for aid and other social development projects. Today, these dictators have properties (worth hundreds of millions) all across the world. Mass scale corruption, money laundering and pilfering of loans pushed Africa years back in development and today African nations are struggling to reach a point where they could have been two decades ago. Ironically, all the resources that made African investors rich were the very ones which made African civilians poor. Dictators used diamonds, oil and land to fill their coffers rather than using the returns for development of the nation. Rightly said and apt for Africa, their forefathers lived in a better world.

When it comes to flaunting wealth, the Obiang family does it the elite way. Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, popularly known as Obiang, president of Equatorial Guinea, managed to accumulate a wealth of $700 million, which is safely kept in the US Banks. Obiang and his family is said to own several private businesses in Equatorial Guinea, along with mansions in Maryland that are valued at multi-million dollar values. Recently, Obiang’s son, president in making, paid a whopping $700,000 as rent to Miscrosoft’s co-founder Paul Allen for his yatch and has expressed his plans to build a super-yacht costing $380 million. He, who also happens to be the agriculture minister of the country fetching a monthly salary of $6,799, also boasts of having a $35 million-dollar mansion in California, a $33 million private jet and scores of luxury sedans. Obiang, who is in power since the bloody 1979 coup, is a seasoned dictator with past records of mass killings and genocide. He has won elections thrice (through bogus votes and booth capturing) with more than 90 per cent margin every time. His 1996 victory was a record in itself as he won with 97.85 per cent votes – something that is practically and democratically impossible. However, this is just the tip of the iceberg. The point here is that this entire lifestyle that Obiang and his family enjoy is actually at the cost of millions of Africans who are left to die out of hunger every year. In spite of being one of the wealthiest African nations, over 70 per cent of the country’s population live below the globally ($2/day) defined poverty line. The life-expectancy rate is a pathetic 50 years with 20 per cent of children dying before the age of five.

Crony dictatorship and money laundering by the dictators of Equatorial Guinea have affected the economy to such an extent that the real GDP growth slowed down to 1.2 per cent in 2010 from a growth rate of 38 per cent back in 2004. Given the turmoil the nation is going through, Equatorial Guinea is experiencing a fall in World Bank’s Doing Business Index ranking since the last couple of years and ranks 164th as of 2011. Stringent rules, red-tapism, inconsistent policies and prevailing corruption makes it tough for investors to start and sustain a business.


Monday, July 30, 2012

Stratagem-AUTOMOBILES: FALL IN SALES

Rising Interest rates are Massacring The Automobile industry but players are hoping that the upcoming Festive Season will reverse the sluggish trend. Well, will it? 

Interestingly, the two-wheeler segment is apparently less affected by the hike in interest rates, despite the fact that the demand elasticity was supposed to higher in this segment. For example, two-wheeler manufacturers like Hero MotoCorp, Bajaj Auto, HMSI & TVS Motor have posted a rise of 15%, 14%, 10% and 12% respectively in unit sales during the month of July. Given this dichotomy, car makers (like GM’s Sumit Sawhney, VP Marketing & Sales, who tells us that “there is enough potential in the Indian market and we will be able to post better numbers in the festive season as compared to the past year”) are still playing on the sentiment philosophy that the festive season will resolve the current logjam in demand and will beat 2010 too. Will it?

We’ll cut the comedy. The answer is a flat no. Auto sales are inversely correlated to interest rate hikes. From October 2008 till March 2010, RBI had actually reduced interest rates. The economy demand delay cycle (approximately of 12 months, which basically shows how much do banks delay in passing on RBI interest rate movements) ensured that auto demand got a fantastic push some quarters later due to lower interest rates, new products and fantastic pricing offers from auto makers in the succeeding months – to an extent that the months of September 2010, October 2010 and even January 2011 bested historic highs of auto sales in India. But since April-May 2010 till July 2011, RBI has hiked repo rates by ten times to 8% now, with the last hike coming in the final week of July 2011. In other words, if the April-June 2011 mayhem in the auto segment looked bad (the auto sector saw a growth of just 1.6% m-o-m in June 2011), the coming months could showcase a similar trend. The maximum that the festival season could do is temper the bloodbath to an extent.

But all in all, with RBI still open to increasing repo rates further (we’ve still not reached the highs of 9% of August 2008), there’s no logic behind the automakers positive sentiments for the coming season. In short, Hicks was right, they are wrong.


Saturday, July 28, 2012

Stratagem-INTERNATIONAL : P&G VS UNILEVER: THE BATTLE FOR GLOBAL DOMINANCE

Having been in existence for 173 and 81 years respectively, P&G and Unilever are legends in their own rights. After years of divestitures and streamlining, P&G has a strong lead. But with a little help from Acquisitions and Emerging market presence, Unilever could end up as The Undisputed consumer goods leader. 

Interestingly, P&G is aggressively focussing on shedding business units, which do not complement its core product categories. On April 5, 2011, P&G sold off Pringles, (the food brand, which generated over $1 billion in annual sales) for $1.5 billion. Pringles made up for roughly 1%-2% of P&G’s sales. Despite significant competitive advantage, P&G is facing the brunt of rising input costs, which is evident from their net sales and profits for 2010. The FMCG giant recorded sales of $78.9 billion in 2010 as against $76.9 billion compared to last year. However, net profits declined to $12.7 billion from $13.4 billion in 2009. Speaking to B&E from Chicago, Lauren DeSanto, Chief Operating Officer, Equity Research, Morningstar says, “Over the longer term, I think P&G can increase sales by 4.5% on an average, which assumes roughly 3% of organic sales growth and then an additional 1.5% annually from acquisitions”.

But unlike his rival, Polman is trying to make Unilever much more robust (which is evident from the bifurcation of responsibilities) by reinforcing its portfolio even if it means acquisitive growth. In 2010, the company acquired Sara Lee’s personal care business and Alberto Culver for $1.67 billion and $3.7 billion. Raison d’ĂȘtre? Unilever has suffered the misfortune arising out of a complex and decentralised structure just like P&G. A clear cut demarcation of segments would drive profitability much more realistically.

Although P&G is clearly ahead, Unilever may be the ultimate winner. One look at statistics and everything falls into perspective. In US and European markets (which contribute almost 70% to net sales), P&G grows at a rate of 1%, & in the developing markets it grows at 8%-12%. And this is where the US major loses out to Unilever. The Anglo-Dutch company invested a lot and much earlier in emerging economies, which make up for over 50% of its revenues.

But Unilever which recorded $62.64 billion in revenues needs to consider is that 50% of its sales come from packaged food products, while the remaining come from personal and home care. Thus, it needs to work on sustaining revenues from food brands in developed markets (which are stagnating. Moreover, it’s a lot more difficult to penetrate Western culinary delights in markets like India & China), while leveraging the scale and distribution prowess it already commands in emerging economies. A possible way to that might be acquiring more companies in the personal care segment (like it did with Alberto Culver and Sara Lee’s personal care arm) as well as in food. For now, Colgate-Palmolive is a good bet. At a current market value of $36.8 billion, it’s trading at less than nine times EBITDA. P&G cannot afford to make a remotely similar acquisition because that would invite regulatory scrutiny on anti-competitive grounds.

McDonald’s innovation engine may make a significant difference, but there is a pressing need for acquisitions for P&G. The company needs to dump more of its assets that cater to developed economies and look at targets in developing ones that are lucrative as well as safe from regulatory ire. Without this major realignment, P&G may continue to give Unilever an ‘unfair’ advantage.


Friday, July 27, 2012

Rec has seen its Numbers Grow at a Steady clip in The Past Few Years, but will have to now Tackle Increased Competition

With the Infrastructure Finance Company (IFC) status being granted to it, REC gets a competitive edge as lending exposure to the private sector has gone up to 25%. In addition, REC becomes eligible for issuance of Infrastructure Bonds and for raising funds up to $500 million through External Commercial Borrowings (ECB) in a year.

However, the company still faces a significant downside potential as the top 10 customers account for 80% of the loan disbursed. Operating in the power sector does have drawbacks, as deadlines are rarely adhered to in power projects, which affects timely payments; and ironically, SEBs are the major culprits. Power Finance Corporation (PFC) is the immediate competitor of REC. It was meant to disburse loans to the generation sector earlier while REC was concerned with the T&D segment. As requirements increased, they both have got into each other’s ground. REC’s five year average return on assets and return on investment stand at 2.58 and 2.71 respectively, while the same for PFC stands at 2.84 and 2.97 respectively (Reuters). If you look at REC’s profile, T&D comprises of 51% of the loan book. On an incremental basis, lending towards the generation segment is higher in H1, FY ‘11 which accounts for 59% of the incremental disbursals. There are signs of stiff competition with banks in the T&D segment as banks are also offering competitive market rates due to their access to cheap deposits. Indeed, REC has been quite proactive in tapping cheaper sources of funds in India and overseas in the last year. Foreign currency loans increased to Rs.56.91 billion in FY 2010-11, a mammoth growth of 840% y-o-y (post IFC status). Truly, continued access to low cost funds, monitoring of client spreads and retaining competitive lending costs will remain the key to ensure that REC’s numbers stay healthy in the tougher and more competitive times ahead.


Source : IIPM Editorial, 2012.

An Initiative of IIPMMalay Chaudhuri
and Arindam Chaudhuri (Renowned Management Guru and Economist).

For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles.

IIPM Best B School India
Management Guru Arindam Chaudhuri
Rajita Chaudhuri-The New Age WomanIIPM's Management Consulting Arm-Planman Consulting
IIPM Prof. Arindam Chaudhuri on Internet Hooliganism
Arindam Chaudhuri: We need Hazare's leadership
Professor Arindam Chaudhuri - A Man For The Society....

IIPM: Indian Institute of Planning and Management
Source : IIPM Editorial, 2012.

An Initiative of IIPMMalay Chaudhuri
and Arindam Chaudhuri (Renowned Management Guru and Economist).

For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles.

IIPM Best B School India
Management Guru Arindam Chaudhuri
Rajita Chaudhuri-The New Age WomanIIPM's Management Consulting Arm-Planman Consulting
IIPM Prof. Arindam Chaudhuri on Internet Hooliganism
Arindam Chaudhuri: We need Hazare's leadership
Professor Arindam Chaudhuri - A Man For The Society....

IIPM: Indian Institute of Planning and Management

Thursday, July 26, 2012

Hold on to Your Backyard, Folks!

Violence, Protests and Controversies have always Surrounded Land Acquisition in India. The Latest spate of Violent Clashes at Bhatta-Parsaul in UP over Acquisition of Farmers’ land has only brought to fore The Urgent need for Amendments to The Existing Archaic law.

George Bernard Shaw once wrote: “There is no love sincerer than the love of food”. He was an Irish. Good for him. Had he been an Indian, he would have probably ended the first Act of his play, Man and Superman (1903), with the line “There is no love sincerer than the love of land.” Why? Of course, the law that was enacted less than a decade before he penned down the play, would have given him some food for thought. Call it ‘The Land Acquisition Act’, which was carved out on stone literally, by the British in 1894, with the purpose of compulsory acquisition of privately held property or land by the State for ‘public purpose’. Post-independence, the Act was adopted by the Indian government as a tool to grab land. Though various amendments were introduced to the original script of the Act from time to time, the administrative procedures and the parameters dealing with determining the compensation which is to be paid to those displaced remains almost the same. Quite almost, proving how the Indian lawmakers have been quite hostile to innovation – at least in this regard. Expectedly, over time, the archaic Act has become a tool for exploitation of land owners and farmers. And it has all happened behind the facade of a convenient-yet-cosmopolitan scenario of economic development.

The existing Land Acquisition Act gives the government the right to acquire private land without the consent of the land owners if the land is acquired for “public purpose” projects, such as the development of towns and village sites, building of schools, hospitals and housing. Ironically, it is this controversial clause in the Act, which has been misused time and again for forceful acquisition and has also led to the maximum number of protests over land acquisition. Land grabbing is what it means, whether you are in Kashmir or in Uttar Pradesh. When it comes to land issues, the issue is, in India, it is vulnerable to local politics. Take the case of UP, where the latest aggravation in Bhatta-Parsaul villages in Greater Noida has turned the otherwise neglected area into a political battleground, with all major political parties eyeing for their share of limelight. Over 15,000 hectare of land have been acquired in the Greater Noida region over the last 20 years, using a controversial clause in the Land Acquisition Act. The clause empowers governments to acquire land without giving landowners or others the right to “a hearing”. Under the Act, governments which want to acquire land, must give any person affected by the acquisition, a right to make objections. In certain cases, however, where land is needed urgently, the government can skip the potentially time-consuming process of hearings, and acquire the land immediately after issuing a notification. This has been a key provision that the UP government has used for land acquisitions for years. Call it common sense, but it isn’t hard to guess that this ‘urgency’ clause to acquire land has been used as conveniently as a tube well, by local governments across the country, to speed up an otherwise slow process of land acquisition. That too, without much cost and crackle.

“In the last twenty years, almost all the land acquired by the government in Greater Noida has been done through the use of section 17 (the urgency clause),” says Akhilesh Singh, Deputy Chief Executive Officer of the Greater Noida Authority to B&E. Since mid-April, courts have struck down the UP government’s acquisition of a total of 433 hectare of land acquired through such means in Greater Noida. Many similar cases are pending in courts.


Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Increasing Shareholder value through Building Customer and Brand Equity

Under Pressure to Fulfill short term goals, The Management is giving in to The Practice of Myopic Management. But The Need of the hour is to stay away from such Practices and Concentrate on Long Term Strategic Issues

The problem
Management is increasingly under pressure to increase shareholder value. Given the immediate pressures of meeting short-term targets, many managers opt for reductions in long-term investments to achieve short-term goals. An empirical study conducted by Mizik and Jacobson (2006) found that 65% of organisations were applying this “myopic management”, thus harming intangible marketing assets and consequently destroying shareholder value in the long term.

Part of the challenge lies in the increasing importance of intangible assets to the value of the firm.

For the S&P 500 companies in 1980, traditional accounting assets composed on average 80% of market value; by 2002, this had fallen to 25%. Consequently, “75% of the value of the companies lies in their brands and other marketing-based intangibles”. While other intangible assets include intellectual capital, management expertise, employee skills, favourable supplier agreements, patents, etc, the focus of marketing is to leverage those marketing-based intangibles, particularly brand equity and customer equity:

Companies are under pressure to become more accountable with respect to the marketing investments that are made and the returns generated from these programmes. The challenges to marketers are whether to focus on building brand equity, customer equity, or both, to increase shareholder value?

For organisations operating in mass markets and through distribution channels, such as Coca-Cola in the fast-moving consumer goods market, brand Equity is a major driver. For organisations that can monitor and develop individual relationships with its customers, such as MasterCard in the financial services market, customer equity is a critical element.

The two concepts have different objectives – a brand equity focus drives product and brand investment decisions, whereas a customer equity focus is on customer management decisions, hence a broader focus, which is a response to trends in the field of marketing.

Customer equity and brand equity are not mutually exclusive, but overlap in many respect in terms of their interactions. The two concepts are presenting different perspectives of the same intangible asset, as the financial worth in both cases is estimated by taking the net present values of the same future cash flows. However, little research has been done to reconcile the relationship between these two concepts.

This paper analyses the current state of the Brand Equity/Customer Equity debate, draws some comparisons between the two schools, and proposes a model for guiding marketers in different industries.

The concept of customer equity was initially proposed by Blattberg and Deighton in 1996, and has been refined by extensive further research over the last several years. Central to customer equity is the concept of Customer Lifetime Value (CLTV), which is the discounted future income stream derived from acquisition, retention, and expansion projections and their associated costs.

Research into the field of CLTV has included:
1. Analysing the customer lifetime-profitability pattern in a noncontractual setting, where it was found that long-life customers are not necessarily profitable customers. 2. Development of a model to fill the gap between marketing actions and shareholder value.
3. Development of a framework to assess how marketing actions affect customers’ lifetime value to the firm.
4. Providing a conceptual framework to link CLTV to shareholder value.
5. Correlating customer value with firm market value for five organisations.
6. Integrating the concepts of customer equity and shareholder value, by making certain investment and financing adjustments to the former to calculate the latter.
Customer Equity is then the sum of all the customer lifetime values of the firm’s current and future customers. Various models of customer equity have been developed using different approaches, typically focused either internally or externally to develop optimisation models to guide marketing investments.

Brand equity is a market-based intangible asset that can be leveraged to improve the performance of the organisation.

There are four major asset categories that make up brand equity:
a) Brand name awareness: the strength of a brand’s presence in the consumer’s mind, and measured by recognition and recall.
b) Brand loyalty: the willingness of customers to repurchase the same brand.
c) Perceived quality: the reason-to-buy of many customers, for which they are prepared to pay a price premium.
d) Brand associations: the attributes that consumers associate with a brand, e.g. lifestyle for Harley-Davidson.
Brand Equity therefore provides value to the customer by enhancing the customer’s interpretation/processing of information, confidence in the purchase decision, and use satisfaction. It also provides value to the organisation by enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of marketing programmes, brand loyalty, prices/margins, brand extensions, trade leverage, and competitive advantage.

Link to shareholder value
Rust, Ambler, Carpenter, Kumar & Srivastava (2004), researching marketing productivity, concluded that it is possible to show how marketing expenditures add to shareholder value. The CLTV methodology has been further expanded to integrate the concepts of customer equity and shareholder value, adding certain investment and financing adjustments (such as tangible capital employed and tax rates) to the former to calculate the latter (Bauer & Hammerschmidt). Gupta et al (2004) have found that Customer Value approximated firm Market Value quite well for three (Ameritrade, Capital One and E*Trade) of the five organisations studied – the two exceptions were Internet-based companies Amazon and eBay. This could be due to the fact that traditional market valuations are not factoring in some components of value of Internet companies.


Read more....

Source : IIPM Editorial, 2012.

An Initiative of IIPMMalay Chaudhuri
and Arindam Chaudhuri (Renowned Management Guru and Economist).

For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles.

IIPM Best B School India
Management Guru Arindam Chaudhuri
Rajita Chaudhuri-The New Age WomanIIPM's Management Consulting Arm-Planman Consulting
IIPM Prof. Arindam Chaudhuri on Internet Hooliganism
Arindam Chaudhuri: We need Hazare's leadership
Professor Arindam Chaudhuri - A Man For The Society....

IIPM: Indian Institute of Planning and Management


          

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

The Indian Real Estate space

PE Investors are Amassing Unusual Stakes in Indian Real Estate companies. But given their Short Term Profit Interest, there is a Critically huge Potential threat for The Industry. A close look at these Unregulated Flip Artists in The Indian Real Estate space.

A cursory glance of the happenings in the real estate domain in the last three months of the calendar year 2011 brings to light interesting facets: Parsvnath Developers Ltd (a New Delhi based realty firm) has raised a billion rupees by selling 49.9% stake in a housing project (Parsvnath Exotica) to private equity firm Sun Apollo India Real Estate Fund LLC; Red Fort Capital Advisors Pvt. Ltd. is investing Rs.1.5 billion in Ansal Properties and Infrastructure; the real estate market is abuzz with the news that Pune-based Kumar Developers is negotiating with private equity players to raise up to $250 million; Lodha Developers is apparently in talks with Standard Chartered Private Equity to raise approximately Rs.4-5 billion; Shriram Properties is expected to raise over Rs.7 billion from private equity placements while global private equity giant Blackstone based out of US, with a corpus of Rs.49.5 billion is planning to make its India real estate foray by investing close to Rs.2 billion in Bengaluru-based Embassy Property Development. If these examples give you an impression that all that these PE firms have in their hearts is to contribute wholeheartedly towards India’s growth and towards providing housing for the less privileged sections of our society, relax. PE firms are worse than fair weather friends, as they singlehandedly have the potential to ensure the destruction of the ‘fairness’ in the weather. Take these case study examples.

While we had the likes of Morgan Stanley (which invested $68 million in Mantri Developers through its real estate arm), Siachen Investments (invested $100 million investment in Nitesh group), the Chatterjee Group (proposed $450 million investment in commercial properties), Trinity Capital, et al during the mid 2000s who invested, we also had the opposite club led by examples like Symphony Capital (exited its investment in DLF Assets Ltd; DLF bought the stakes from Symphony Capital in a deal valued at $695 million), Siva Ventures (exited Amby Valley Ltd’s in a buyback deal valued at $323 million). Numerically speaking, data from Venture Intelligence reveals that in 2010, there was about $1.5 billion worth of investment across 46 deals in the real estate sector compared with $749 million across 23 deals in 2009. A simple back of the book analysis makes it amply clear that the Indian real estate sector accounted for approximately 20% of all PE investment in 2010 and about 15% of all deals. Now comes the real hitter. In 2010 itself, there were eight exits in the real estate space worth $1.24 billion (statistics from VCCEdge indicate that in the current year, there have already been six recorded exits worth a combined $124 million). It doesn’t require a high profile stock analyst to deduce that PE firms, overall, have been simply playing the Indian real estate market, using opportune moments to buy in or sell out, behaving more like hot money stalwarts in the FII market than as the quasi FDI investors they were supposedly expected to be. PE investments overall have been growing; no doubt about it (PE investment in India rose 57% reaching $3.3 billion in Jan-March 2011).

But as data shows, so have PE exits. For an industry to grow over the years, what in general is critically important is a continuous supply of money, where the overall money supply within the industry keeps growing. The case, especially in the real estate industry, and more specifically due to the PE behaviour, is that there only remains an illusion of money moving; with the reality being a constant fight by real estate developers for stable sources of funds. The illusion of PE money flowing into a domestic real estate firm creates the subsequent move towards higher valuations – a self fulfilling and deprecating move. An IIT Madras study that studied VC and PE investments over a period of 2004-9 mentions how surprised the researchers were when they found that the average duration of such investments is only 17 months. 17 months? Are we supposed to believe that real estate projects in our country are being planned, implemented and sold within 17 months on an average?

Even industry players like Suresh Swamy, Executive Director, PwC, Vikram Hosangady, Executive Director, Transaction Services KPMG India, accept this phenomenon of PE involvement and the effects beyond. But the blame in this case perhaps rest completely with the government, and specifically with the RBI and SEBI. Till date, after so many years of brandishing the liberalisation and globalisation flag, and after so many years of allowing foreign capital to enter Indian markets, there is still no regulatory act or guideline or body that controls PE investment into India. While statements there have been many, all that would remain plain filibustering until the bodies that were supposed to be responsible for controlling foreign fund inflow put their words into action. What is required is for RBI and SEBI to set up a set of guidelines that defines the exact procedure under which a PE would be allowed to function, the minimum price at which it would be allowed to buy into a domestic company, a lock in period that would ensure that PE firms do not hold the domestic firm to ransom, a preferred or proposed exit strategy (for example, IPOs are the most transparent of all exit strategies) and most importantly, a body that would register not only each and every entry or exit of any PE firm, but also their financial transactions to the tee. Of all these requirements, there is no gainsaying the fact that the most important one is the lock in period. Currently, such lock-in periods are engineered solely on the negotiating power of the domestic firm, and on how desperate it is for funds – for example, just as recently as in March 2011, six PE firms were lined up to invest in Hero Investments, for providing the money to the Hero group to buy out Honda’s investment in Hero Honda; with the clause being that the PE firms would have an eight year lock in period. That, for all practical purposes, resolves the issue there and then. But now every company in India has the negotiating power of the Hero Group, and least so in the Indian real estate sector.

India requires approximately 7.5 million housing units to take care of its surging demographics. Being part of an approximately $12 billion sector, which is growing at a CAGR of 30% and accounts for about 5% of the country’s GDP, it is ironical that outside players are taking undue advantage of the supply side constraints. While on one hand, the RBI has not even been able to handle the issue of inflation properly, on the other hand, we have SEBI which is more intent on moving proposals that would now allow it to tap phones of market traders (and for that matter anybody and everybody they wish). We guess they have a lot of staff and time at their disposal for doing that... Some moments invested in this issue won’t harm them either.



Friday, July 20, 2012

Intruders Save The Day for Detroit

The dose of Fresh Energy and The Ability of their CEOs to think differently has worked well So Far for The “Detroit Three’. But can these so called ‘Ousiders’ continue to spell Magic for them in The Long run as well?

It has been more than 20 months since the Detroit majors General Motors (GM) and Chrysler took the Chapter 11 route to overcome their woes that stemmed from the devastating recession that had hit the world in 2008 unlike Ford that chose to chart its own comeback. Today, while Ford has surprised many by coming out of the woods at an astounding pace, GM is taking its share of time via planned restructuring, and is doing well. No doubt, Chrysler is still striving hard to regain its past stature, but it has certainly managed to come a long way since then.

Though, some of the growth, especially in Ford’s case, came at the expense of Toyota, which stumbled throughout much of the last year as it struggled to deal with numerous safety recalls that damaged its reputation and led to record fines by federal officials, overall it was the cost-cutting measures taken up by the ‘Detroit Three’ that worked off well for them in 2010. While Ford and Chrysler have reported their largest growth rates in 2010 (a 17% increase in unit sales each), GM’s unit sales increased by 7%. What’s more? Two of the three companies even reported a profitable 2010, their first profitable year since 2005, with combined unit sales of cars and light trucks by all three topping 5.6 million (a 19% increase from 2009, the worst year for these auto giants since 1982).

Sounds astounding at a time when Detroit’s three top bosses – Alan Mulally, CEO, Ford Motor Co., Dan Akerson, CEO, GM and Sergio Marchionne, CEO, Chrysler are not the real ‘car-guys’ who have ruled the Detroit in the past. Coming from totally different backgrounds (except Sergio Marchionne who has the experience of running FIAT before he got to Chrysler) they are not the veterans who live and breathe automotive engineering & design. While GM’s top boss is a former naval officer and private equity boss, Mulally joined Ford as chief executive only in 2006 after spending 37 long years at Boeing. Even the Canadian-Italian chief executive of Chrysler was trained in accounting and rose through a series of jobs outside carmaking, before being recruited by the Agnelli family to run FIAT in 2004. “There are several advantages of having people with such diverse experience at the helm of affairs. Not only do they bring experience from other industries, having no past record with auto companies also allows them to try new things to drive growth,” Laurie A. Harbour, President, Harbour Results, a US based operational and financial advisory firm tells B&E.

While with Akerson at the top GM is now following the consumer focused approach, Ford under the leadership of Mulally has enhanced its focus on new markets with its “One Ford” strategy. As far as Chrysler is concerned, Marchionne’s magic may take more time than initially expected to reflect in the balance sheet of the company, but he has ensured that Chrysler sustains and makes a quick comeback.


Thursday, July 19, 2012

Why and How we Must Save Farmers and Agriculture to Save India

There would be little doubt that a large reason for this is the extent of indebtedness of farm households across India. ‘Reliable’ data for the same are available only from the National Sample Survey No. 59 of 2003. In that survey, Andhra topped the charts with more than 80% of farm households being indebted (Around that time, Andhra had also acquired the dubious reputation as the number one farmer suicide state of India). In the same period, 61% of farm households in Kerala, 65% in Karnataka, 51% in Madhya Pradesh, 74% in Tamil Nadu and 55% in Maharashtra were found to be indebted. Things and times have changed since then and independent research now suggests that Maharashtra, Andhra and Karnataka now lead the table in indebtedness of farmers. They also happen to be the top states when it comes to farmer suicides.

Beyond Farmer Suicides
There is a larger picture that is hidden behind these numbers; and that is the shameful neglect of the agriculture sector by the Government of India, and by successive finance ministers of the country, though they all regularly pay lip service to the cause of the farmer. The most telling indicator of this is shockingly declining levels of investment in this crucial sector. One particular set of data shows how pathetic the situation is. During 1980-81, the share of Gross Capital Formation (GCF) in agriculture out of total GCF was just about 18%. Now, 18% for a sector on which close to two thirds of the total population depend on livelihoods is bad enough. What happens subsequently is worse. The percentage keeps falling steadily since then and by the end of the 20th century, it is a pathetic 5.8% (See Chart). Even as the Indian farmer has suffered ignominy after ignominy, the government has kept on reducing investments in agriculture. By the time, the UPA came to power in 2004, there was a lot of talk of turning things around. And, during the Eleventh Five Year Plan (2007-12), there was talk of a substantial increase in investments in agriculture. The two finance ministers since 2004, P. Chidambaram and Pranab Mukherjee have used every Budget speech they have given to announce more and more fancy schemes for the farmer and the agriculture sector. In fact, it was proudly announced that the allocation for agriculture and allied sectors in the 11th Five Year Plan was raised to Rs.50,924 crores, up from Rs.21,068 crore during the 10th Five Year Plan. Yet, the mid term review of the 11th Five Year Plan officially admits that the share of agriculture and allied sectors in total plan allocation has not budged a millimeter from the 2.4% it was in earlier five year plans. So much for the government claims about really caring for the farmer and trying its best to bring about a transformation in Indian agriculture.

There are some more shocking facts that I would like to highlight about agriculture. The first is the abysmal performance of India as compared to other countries when it comes to productivity. Even the top states of the country in terms of productivity, Punjab and Haryana, perform very badly when compared to China and quite pathetically when it comes to countries like South Korea, Japan, Australia and the United States, to name just a few countries (See Chart). But let’s not confine ourselves to the usual comparisons and go on a spree of belittling India by merely comparing it with other countries that have delivered performances that should make our politicians and policy makers hang their heads in shame. Let us look only at statistics from within India to understand why agriculture is facing such an unprecedented crisis.

We all knew that the Green Revolution was a reality by the 1970s and India had finally broken out of the famine trap by then. We also know how politicians, policy makers and analysts keep reminding us of the wonders of Green Revolution and how it made India self sufficient when it comes to food. That much is true. But what is hardly ever talked about in policy circles and the media – barring some honorable exceptions – is how Green Revolution is history and how all the fruits of that endeavour have already been frittered away. Between 1980 and 1990, the average annual growth in the per hectare yield of wheat was a commendable – if not spectacular – 3.1%. During the period from 1990 to 1999, the growth rate in yield declined heavily to 1.83 %. Worse, between 2000 and 2009, the average annual yield growth rate in wheat crashed to a meager 0.68%. Everybody knows that spectacular growth in wheat production and yield was one of the highlights of the Green Revolution. Even official data now clearly indicates that growth has almost completely tapered off. Rice has not performed much better. During the 1980 to 1990 decade, average annual growth rate in yield was 3.19%; it crashed to 1.34% during the next decade before recovering marginally to 1.61% during 2000-2009. This steady and consistent decline in the growth rate of yields is the principal reason why India lags so miserably behind other major nations when it comes to farm productivity. And it is also the major reason why farm incomes have not been going up in a manner they should.

Look at it another way. In the 60 years between 1950 and 2010, food grain production went up by a factor of 4.5. In the same period, production of steel went up by 65 times; the output of cement soared by about 60 times and the generation of electricity went up by more than 140 times (Just for your information, agriculture accounted for 31% of total electricity consumed in India in 1995. By 2008, the share had crashed to 24%). Interestingly, even the consumption of fertilizers – used only in agriculture – went up by more than 70 times in 50 years between 1960 and 2010 (See Chart).


Wednesday, July 18, 2012

BHARTI VS RCOM

The Illogically costly 3G Auction Evidently has Strategic Implications for both Bharti and Reliance Communications. B&E does a Snapshot 'dummies guide' Competitive Analysis Primer on The Two

Bharti led in terms of payout at Rs,122.95 billion, whereas RCom’s payout was Rs.86 billion. Ravinder Taneja, former VP, Enterprise Business, Tata Teleservices and currently Senior VP, Sales & Operations, Head-end-In-The-Sky (HITS), WWIL, tells B&E that the prices were high, but adds, “If the government has taken three long years to announce 3G spectrum auctions, it is an opportunity for companies to invest in it for the long term. Spectrum is a scarce resource, so when it comes up, players don’t have any choice.” That’s especially true for incumbents, who have a lot to gain, and in this case, lose. The strategy has been to mostly take up 3G spectrum in their key circles, which would be a ploy to protect their high ARPU subscribers and improve revenue yield from them as well. According to Kedar Sohoni, President, Informate Mobile Intelligence, “The ‘low hanging fruit’ is going to be the operator’s own postpaid set of retail and enterprise users. They have the highest ARPU and capacity to pay.”

In that sense, Bharti, despite paying the most, looks like the one that would be most disappointed. A Macquarie report points out that “Bharti has not got 3G spectrum in nine circles which cumulatively contribute 31.6% to its overall wireless revenue.” RCom has taken up a mix of Metro and C circles, and its total revenue coverage (GSM +CDMA) in the circles it has won is estimated at 41% of its total (Angel Broking data). But Bharti has reasons to be optimistic. Airtel and Idea are likely to have the highest ROI followed by Vodafone, Tata & Reliance. Going by the data, metros will struggle on ROI, but the key markets that will determine future ROI are UP, Maharashtra, AP, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. Apart from eastern UP, Maharashtra and Gujarat, Bharti has got all these key circles, but RCom hasn’t won any of them. However, in the 9 circles that Bharti didn't win, it is among the top three operators, and Goldman Sachs predicts in a report that it could face significant customer churn in those circles. RCom, meanwhile, has taken up circles like Punjab, Madhya Pradesh, Kerala, Orissa, West Bengal, et al; which are aligned particularly to its GSM circles.

The subscriber market for data will remain restricted to specific markets and not be uniform like voice. In terms of subscriber numbers, Bharti is at around 130.6 million users (COAI, April 2010), while RCom has crossed the 100 million mark fairly quickly; with subscriber numbers at 105.15 million (April 2010, COAI). ARPU data confirms that Bharti has more of a high value customer mix, a consequence of its pioneer advantage. That also means a better shot at 3G, which is more about high value customers in the initial phase. On the other hand, Reliance has a great momentum going for it and will rely on volumes.

he company’s decision to enter GSM space has helped it widen its customer base. By April 2010, the company had won 16.11 million GSM subscribers (COAI), a span of just 16 months since launch, and company officials from RCom are quick to point out how they were able to build a pan-India GSM network in such a short time. RCom’s strategy would now be to aggressively expand GSM presence in its key circles and play on higher volumes to gain revenues from its 3G services. Rahul Jain, Research Analyst, Angel Broking, tells B&E, “Value addition in form of VAS only works with a small section of the subscriber base... The only differentiator to acquire and sustain subscribers is price”