Wednesday, October 2, 2013

An Indian Perspective on Politics


Indian Perspective

"This coalition politics is killing business and the country" moaned Suresh, the 2nd generation head of a family who's name is synonymous with Mumbai real estate. "More whiskey?"
"Yes please, single malt and soda" I replied. "Soda?" he asked, surprised.
"Please; when I'm thirsty, neat doesn't work for me".

We were on the penthouse terrace, of a restauranteur who has developed an all India chain in 4 years, not bad for starting with one restaurant. The last 10 years have been good for almost any business that rode on increases in disposable income of an upwardly mobile and growing urban population.
The ride was good but appears to have ended, to the chagrin of its beneficiaries. Most seem to blame coalition politics, the fact that India has so many regional political parties, and that the national parties, now only Congress and the BJP, appear unable to reclaim their lost glory of winning anything approaching a majority on their own.

Amongst the alternatives, in cocktail and dinner conversations, both the US and China are looked at with some envy, especially China, but no one really wants that kind of authoritarian rule.

It does make you wonder however, whether India could have a better system. A 2 party parliamentary democracy is often mentioned. Perhaps those who contemplate a 2 party Parliamentary democracy have not looked at the UK recently. To my mind it has not been a good example of holding its different parts together. The first to part ways with the UK, and quite some time ago, was Ireland. Now both Scotland and Wales already have a strong element of self-government, and Scotland will have a referendum on whether to stay or go its own way in autumn of 2014. While it is unlikely that Scotland and Wales could actually stand completely separate from the UK, one does begin to wonder – there is not much more that they could have fragmented.

When I look at how systems of government have performed, across many large countries, there appear to be two key factors at play, in deciding on a good system or even that keeps a country as one unit. These are the homogeneity of the population and the centralisation of power.

My hypotheses is that countries with a high degree of homogeneity in their population, think China with over 90% Han Chinese, or Japan, can survive with a very strong centre. However, for countries with a low homogeneity, there is a need for a weak centre, apparently, if the country is not to fragment.

It should follow that a strong centre, like in a Parliamentary democracy in the UK, with only 2 parties, in a country with a very heterogenous population, is likely to be a disaster in terms of keeping the disparate parts of the population together. With only 2 parties, the government in a Parliamentary democracy has the same people leading the Legislature and the Executive - a strong centre that can do, for 5 years at least, whatever it wants.

Indian should have perhaps paid more attention to what happened when the Congress had long periods in power at the centre in the 70s and 80s - I was often in Amritsar in the early 80s and have also travelled a lot in Jammu &Kashmir so have watched both those separatist movements with concern. In my admittedly subjective opinion, both those separatist movements were largely the outcome of a strong centre that discounted local concerns and tried to prop up or impose state level leaders with little or no legitimacy. In some cases, they even appeared to take away the political rights of people to elect their leaders, and the use of Article 356 typified what a strong centre can use, or abuse, to achieve its own ends. To my mind, most of India's major separatist movements started in that period. Interestingly, the last 15 years of coalition governments have resulted in no new separatist movements, and even appear to have muted many of the earlier ones in Assam and Punjab.

Perhaps Indians should consider themselves fortunate to have a multi-party system as a pressure relief valve for when a Parliamentary democracy, that they copied from the UK, becomes overbearingly powerful at the centre.

I am sure several Indians have thought of the US Presidential system, and at one time the BJP appeared very keen on it. After all, the US President is the most powerful man in the world, and yet, barring a civil war over a 100 years ago, that heterogenous population appears to do well.

Here's the surprising perspective, which appears to support my hypotheses. Intelligent analysts of the US constitution, especially from leading think tanks in the US that I spoke with, term their system as a weak centre! A little thought proves this view quite valid – firstly, the President while elected directly has no control over the Legislature, unless the voters wish to give that powerful a mandate. This is quite unlike a Parliamentary system, where the voters elect the Legislature, and the largest Legislature party in the Parliament decides on the PM, so the powers are aligned and greater.

In the US, even when the President, the Senate and the House are all with one party, the voters get to decide every 2 years (the term of a member of the House of Representatives and also when one third of the Senators face election) whether to continue to provide that centralisation of power. The US appears to work by much of the power residing with Sate Governors and State Legislatures rather than the centre, or Federal government. The US President, while appearing larger than life, appears powerful only in Foreign Policy and during wars and crises.

So here is my advice to all those Indian friends who have been so successful, whether in real estate or restaurants – coalitions, and strong local leaders, are a key part of what has held this vast and diverse country together. It is interesting that the BJP appears to develop many of its Chief Ministers from State level or grass-roots politicians, far more so than the Congress. Yet today I find Rahul Gandhi echoing the need to have many local level leaders (though his ‘man on a horse’ analogy left me cold), which I completely agree with.

Suresh comes back with bartender in tow –“Which single malt do you want – he has 15 different ones”.
“Lagavulin, if you have it” I tell the bartender.
We stand at the edge of the terrace and take in the Mumbai skyline, with real estate barons and restauranteur kings, with single malt and scotch.

“What about Mumbai?” asks Suresh. “Do you think the property market will fall?”
“I am not bullish” I reply, and then add, after mulling over his question “I do not see infrastructure being created that will make a big difference, and people’s ability to afford is reaching its limit”.
“We need a strong Chief Minister, who will make things happen – a combination of shrewd politician and strong administrator” says Suresh.
“Perhaps, but any CM will divide his time between the rest of the state and Mumbai. How many MLAs does Mumbai contribute to the Maharashtra Assembly?” I ask.

I think perhaps India needs more power with the States, and less (at least for internal matters) with the Centre. Perhaps the States in turn need to give more power to the major cities – many have a population larger than the smaller states. Unfortunately the Indian Constitution did not think ahead to the needs of diversity and of mega-cities – directly elected Mayors, the norm in all major cities in the world, are completely absent in India.

“We need a Rudy Giuliani for Mumbai” say Suresh. “I really liked his talk when he visited Mumbai 3-4 years ago”.

I finish the single malt with a last appreciative look at the Mumbai Sealink – the only landmark infrastructure project I have seen happen here in the last 20 years.

“A Rudy Giuliani would not even appear in your political system” I sigh.



Brave New World


1. It is the end of the road for the 'cowboys' of finance - they will not range free and wild and instead will plough a narrow, safe and highly regulated furrow - it will be bankers of your fathers or (for some young ones) grandfathers generation that they will resemble. They will take deposits, and lend money prudently, with severe limits on leverage. Boring, but safe – that will be the banker’s mantra.
2. The world of finance will be a much smaller part of the brave new world - no longer will you bump into masses of highly paid 'money shufflers' at every party, every bar and hotel. There will be much less speculation, movements in asset prices will be small and only large investments of time and effort will yield decent returns – which will often be in single digits.
3. There will be fewer start-ups that will get funding – every business plan and idea will be scrutinized and weighed, debated and tested.
4. Older people in the US and EU will have to work longer and harder – standards of living will decline for the poor, perhaps even of the middle class.
5. China, and India, will gain in importance for the world (after slowing sharply in economic growth in the next 2-3 years), some parts of the Chinese miracle will be found to be hollow, but the infrastructure and cities and technology they have created will ensure that they get a bid for world leadership in the next 3 decades – with or without a major war!

That’s the imponderable, actually – we have 2 phases coinciding in the next few years – first, an economically challenging period and, second, the start of a period of transition of world leadership (that takes decades to play out) – both, separately, have been the cause of many of the major wars in history. Can we go through the next 5-10 years without a major (global/ semi-global) war? History is not on our side, but perhaps we have matured as a race?

A tale of two brothers…

A tale of two brothers…


So this is, like, deep mythology stuff, you know. About a man and his ambition and his quest...that kind of stuff. What? Oh yeah, lets get started already. Right. Excellent....

So there was this dude who wanted to be the richest and most powerful in India. Yes, all of India, even Kashmir and Mumbai...and he did a lot of tapasya (no not the food, jerk, that's Tapas), this is a kind of meditation, its Hindoo word.

The gods were impressed, but being gods they had these long memories and stuff, and knew that this kind of Tapasya was always for some wish to be granted. They knew this bugger ran some mill or factory and naturally his wish would be for something big. Anyhow, the Devta of the Day (what, you think they don't rotate these irritating responsibilities?) descended from the heavens and girded his loins (no, nothing to do with Apsara's, gosh you have a dirty mind!) to what he knew would be some massive ask.

So he tells this Tapas dude, ok, ok we're impressed, what boon do you want?

And the dude (he's pudgy and round, but has an avaricious gleam in his eye that no amount of tapas can take away) says - I want to be the richest and most powerful man in India and I want no one to be able to harm me or my family, ever!

The DOTD mulls this over, this pudgy chap with a mill sure knows how to ask for a boon...what does he think, life's a fairytale?

Now the Devta's are sharp, right, would have to be, hanging around all day, all year and for all time (well, apsara's can only take up so much time). So he nods grimly and says - You will get what you wish for - You will be the richest and most powerful man in India and no one outside your family will be able to harm you or your family, ever.

And ole pudgy goes and has two sons.....

Saturday, October 27, 2007

Why are Indian stocks so attractive?

Last week, over a cup of coffee with the Equities head of one of the large international broker dealers, I got a fascinating insight into the reasons why Indian stocks are so attractive. He gave me five reasons (caveat - I have not verified accuracy myself), aside from valuations (fairly rich at about 22x or so and climbing, nowhere as expensive as China), emerging markets attractiveness, India growth story etc..
1. Investing through Mauritius in India is completely tax free (for PNotes only?)
2. India has the largest number of single stock derivatives - some 330 stocks can be traded in the Future & Options (F&O) segment of the market - many of these stocks have low market caps ($1 billion and less) and low floating stock.
3. An investor can take a long futures position for a month at no cost by buying the stock future (he said India is unique in this aspect), even the earlier 'badla' system meant you paid for the financing for the long position. Now, you pay only after the month is over, to rollover the position. The margin paid is a requirement everywhere, but in other markets you pay a financing charge on the position.
4. Steady rupee appreciation means that currency moves are usualy in favour of a foreign investor - and can be as much as 2% in some months
5. Total anonymity in PNotes

So only the 5th and last reason has been (or will be) taken away by the new SEBI rules. The games of taking large positions in illiqiud stocks at the beginning of the month, driving them up over the course of the month and more games on settlement day (last Thursday of the month) will continue for now. And these clever speculators will earn anything from 5-15% at a minimum per month, tax free!

I wonder why Indian citizens don't protest this favored treatment of foreigners?

The Indian speculator pays short term taxes at the maximum marginal rate, some 35%, which the foreign speculator does not.

The foreign speculator pushes up the Indian currency, making the best industries in India - IT, textiles, auto component exports etc. - less competitive. The large inflows will probably fuel inflation and push up domestic interest rates, almost ensuring that domestic demand will slow as will the economy. Then he will move out fast, leaving a sinking stock market and a slowing economy, having made a packet and paid not a cent in taxes. Wow! Talk about a government providing perverse incentives.....

Why does India have this sweetheart deal with Mauritius, where investors that come through that country do not pay taxes. Why Mauritius? Reminds me of the explanation I once got when I asked about these little pockets in India called Union Territory (UT). Must be some historic
anomaly, but they serve a very useful purpose - I was told they are ideal for evading excise on liquor when the state next to that UT either has a high excise duty on liqour or does not permit liqour......

Money, liquor,.....politicians favorite pastimes.

Here's a forecast - the Indian government will take away the 5 reasons given earlier, one by one or faster and the party will be over. Most domestic investors will not understand until its too late and the stock market has sunk by 50% or more; and it could be that it will be so fast that they will assume its yet another 'correction' on the path to a new high. Then with the tatters of stock prices and a slowing economy the blame game will start.

Usually they blame themselves and the foreigners in equal measure. So "Nuclear deal, no Sensex at 30,000, no 9% growth, elections again.....ahhh, we have shot ourselves in the foot yet again."

And like every other time it will not be true. Give it 4-5 years for some recovery, some infrastructure investment and capacity de-bottlenecking and the Indian bull will run again.

I'm really getting ahead of time. Here this bull run has not yet ended, and I am talking of the next one. Time to get back to my fully hedged positions in the Indian stock market.

Golden thoughts...

At a presentation by the IMF on their outlook for the world economy in Feb/ Mar this year, with wonderful charts and graphs that depicted their view of the world growing at a healthy 4.8% for 2007, I asked the presenter - one of the regional or executive directors - whether he could could compare the risks to the world economy (which he had touched upon briefly) to any other period in history or in his memory in terms of severity.

Background note - I was thinking 1929! With $400+ trillion in derivatives compared to global GDP of $50 trillion odd, everyone busy speculating, fortunes being made by trading......

He thought about it and said that, roughly, the risks were a little like (in order of magnitude/ scale) perhaps the mid-1990's. Wow! We did'nt have any of this craziness (huge derivatives positions, crazy imbalances) then and he thinks mid 90's!

So in the cocktails after that I got to talking with a couple of central bank (CB - for short) people (and fairly senior ones, guys 1 level below the chairman or governor of country's CBs) and they said that in the meetings attended by them with major CBs, the overall view was as sanguine and comfortable. Oh yes, there were risks and imbalances in the world but what the hell, the world economy was growing at a rapid clip......

Then all hell breaks loose with CDOs and sub-prime that seems to spread from Europe to Australia (after CBer Ben Bernanke and Paulson have repeatedly said that sub-prime will be contained!!) and suddenly the whole global financial system looks far more fragile.

A little more about those derivatives I spoke of - roughly $450 trillion (its gone up since Feb/ Mar), about 70% is in currency derivatives, 20% in debt/ bond derivatives, the rest 10% between equities, commodities etc.

So next week we will see Bernanke make a choice -

If he cuts the Fed Funds rate by 25bp, gold will continue to rocket, the dollar will continue its decline against major currencies - and most commodities will continue to rise. This path is a sure bet to financial armageddon - not only will it devalue the dollar, it runs the risk of triggering major losses on the large 70% of derivatives that are on currencies - it will make the CDO/ sub-prime problems look pedestrian.

If he does not cut, the stock markets will take a hit, the influential broker-dealers will not be happy since short term funds will not be cheaper. But guess what, if the Fed shows even the slightest sign of a spine in fighting inflation v/s a slowdown (which is a given, with the mess that is US housing), 10 and 30 year bond yeilds will actually drop or stabilize (they went up after the 50 bp cut!) and make home loans cheaper in the US.

I am still long gold, short base metals (though I have pared my long gold positions last week, to buy back in at lower levels, which I hope I get, no certainty).

The last decade or so has created quite a mess for the future - in the world of finance and in the environment.......

Must choose a more optimistic topic/ post next time.....