Showing posts with label Economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Economy. Show all posts

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Big Three → Big Two

In last 15 years, Chrysler Motors has gone through every possible form of business entity – from a publicly traded corporation to acqusition by a prestigious European carmaker to a limited liability company owned by a private investment group to an impending merger with another near-bankrupt automaker with a possible government ownership. Nothing seems to have helped.

The details of GM-Chrysler merger are not finalized but if finalized this is what GM would get, in assets and in liabilities –

  1. $11 billion in cash
  2. Estimated $35 billion to $40 billion in yearly sales
  3. 47,500 union workers and network of 3,700 dealers
  4. Mostly unpopular products lines, very identical to GM’s own products (few exceptions like Jeep and Dodge Ram)
  5. Stake in Chrysler; valued at zero by Daimler AG, which owns 20% of ownership.

[Grant Thornton’s Corporate Advisory and Restructuring Services Group just published a report on possible merger between GM and Chrysler. Its forecasts closure of half of Chrysler's 14 existing manufacturing facilities.]

What Detroit lacked is the long term vision. Here is an example - Toyota introduced its mid-size hybrid car in 2001 when average crude oil prices were in mid twenties. In two years Honda launched its mid-size hybrid car. It took 2007 for GM to launch its mid-size hybrid Saturn Aura Hybrid. By that time Toyota has already sold over half a million of hybrid cars, captured the majority of the market and established the strong brand identity. Chrysler even doesn’t have any hybrid model!

Oil Prices ($/bbl) since 2000 and Hybrid Car Launches

GM has asked the $10 billion in assistance from the treasury. This is on the top of $30 billion assistance from Department of Energy. Yesterday Larry Kudlow harshly criticized the Detroit’s bailout – “It’s like industrial policy. It’s saving a failed industry, that’s what it is doing. …  It’s a Franco-German style industrial planning bailout. We are just protecting a failed industry. And I think it’s a completely bad policy”

In the days of economic contraction, FED’s printing press has very aggressive expansion plans!

© Rohit Deshpande

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Commodity Crash

Remember, just few months back everyone was speculating over commodities - Analysts at Goldman-Sachs forecasted price of oil barrel could reach $ 200, even oil baron T. Boone Pickens forecasted $ 150 (Pickens also spent millions of dollar to promote his oil independence plan)

And today oil is below $ 75, and it’s not only oil. Copper dipped to $ 2.15, wheat neared $ 550.




Does it help the consumers? Well, at least for short term. Especially decline in energy prices brings tax cut effect estimated up to $ 100 billion. But as prices fall, conservation efforts also come to halt and so does alternative energy development projects. It is interesting to see how alternative energy index fund collapsed with crude price decline.


Bizarre Mechanism : Central banks all over the world are pouring liquidity in the market. That should increase the inflation. Then how the prices are coming down? 

The latest commodity price decline is another classical example of free market mechanism. For example as  oil prices peaked demand in developing markets reduced since governments can no longer afford subsidies. Even in United States demand reduced. On the other hand, supply increased to OPEC increased production. Decreased demand and increased supply brought prices down. 

© Rohit Deshpande



Saturday, October 4, 2008

Citi never sleeps (?)

“Every time you sleep but your dreams are wide awake.  Because ambitions never sleep, aspirations neversleep, goals never sleep, hopes never sleep; opportunities never sleep; the world never sleeps. That’s why we work around the world. That’s why we work around the clock to turn dreams into realities. That’s why Citi never sleeps.”

 That’s the TV commercial CitiGroups has been airing for last many months. Citi, itself suffering financial crisis, last Monday announced buying commercial banking division of Wachovia, another mortgage security hit bank for $ 2.1 billion. The deal was backed by FDIC - Citi would have assumed $53 billion worth of debt and agreed to absorb up to $42 billion of losses from Wachovia's $312 billion loan portfolio. The FDIC agreed to cover any remaining losses in exchange for $12 billion in Citigroup preferred stock and warrants. The deal, referred as a forced acquisition, was almost done. But the dynamics changed since that – 

  1. Liquidity crisis becomes severe even after central banks over the world poured liquidity. (LIBOR peaks to 5.3%). On the contrary, bank deposits provide easy stream of liquid cash.
  2. On Tuesday, the Internal Revenue Service issued new guidance that would allow banks to take larger tax write-offs from the losses from loans and other bad debts held by other banks they acquire.
  3. Hopes rise as the Congress come closer to the financial rescue plan

 And deposit rich banks like Wachovia become valuable assets. On Friday, in a surprise announcement Wachovia Corp. agreed to be acquired by San Francisco-based Wells Fargo & Co. in the all-stock deal for about $15 billion. The deal would not need assistance from government.

 These are not the everyday deals. JP Morgan Chase gets Bear Stearns and WAMU; Bank of America gets Countrywide and Merrill Lynch; Barclays gets Lehman Capital; Well Fargo would get Wachovia. As Warren Buffet says – “You buy a farm during drought”.

 

It is not the end of the world for Citi.  It has announced a legal action. It will try to get something from the deal. Or will buy a regional bank. But for now it looks like Citi did sleep for 48 hours. 






© Rohit Deshpande


Saturday, April 5, 2008

Protectionism Questioned

Recently there have been many concerns about the motives of multinationals and foreign investments, not in communist China but in United States, mother of capitalism and free trade. As a matter of fact, there is a growing sentiment of protectionism in United State: much of it can be attributed to the loss of manufacturing industry and high-paying blue collar jobs to foreign countries. The sentiment can be clearly heard on campaign trails of Democratic Party’s presidential candidates, production floors of few remaining manufacturing plants, TV and radio shows like Lou Dobb’s War on Middle Class, and most surprisingly on the recent cover page of the Business World, a leading business magazine!! Let’s try to address this with the case of Indian economy.

The early policymakers of independent India were highly influenced by the economic model established by socialist USSR as well as Gandhi’s philosophy of self-sufficiency and controlled spending. This helped to establish and develop the key road and railroad infrastructure, strategic industries like steel and cement, mammoth agricultural reforms to feed huge population, public rationing system and state-of -the-art technological institutions. Most of these enterprises were state-owned and funded with combination of domestic capital and foreign aid but not the foreign investment capital. The private industry was generally encourage but largely controlled with the system of quotas, permits and licenses lampooned as quota-license-permit raj (state of quotas, licenses and permits). The system allowed only state and few private industrial houses to control to most of the industry and market. Indian companies enjoyed a great protective environment without fear of competition.

But something changed in late eighties. Social and political instability was at the peak. The long-embraced socialist model collapsed with the collapse of socialist regimes in East Europe and USSR. The balance-of-payments came under severe liquidity crisis fuelled by rising fuel prices in the wake of first Gulf war. The foreign exchange reached bottom and the federal government had to use its gold reserve to obtain foreign exchange, widely viewed as national disgrace. Practically the nation was on the verge of bankruptcy and was forced to take massive economic reforms – ending quota-raj, opening several sectors for private sectors once reserved for private sector, easing import regulations and most importantly encouraging foreign direct investments and multinational companies.

Multinationals soon started investing India- setting manufacturing plants and launching superior products with very aggressive marketing. The Indian companies were not ready for the competitions in terms of products, technology, marketing and capital. Many multinational started acquiring Indian businesses thus taking advantages of established marketing and distribution networks and the brand loyalties. For instance, Coca-Cola acquired Parle, the largest player in soft drink in the market that virtually enjoyed monopoly since Coca-Cola’s exit from India in 1977. Hindustan Lever, a subsidiary of Unilever, acquired many Indian companies including Tata Oil Mills Co. (TOMCO), part of giant Tata group.

Most of the people didn’t like these reforms and tried to forge an unusual alliance of socialists, trade-unionists, Old Gandhians, and even right conservatives to oppose these ‘anti-national’ reforms. The acquisitions of Indian companies by giant multinationals were compared to the colonization of India by British East India Company. I was in mid-school that time. I remember the huge campaigns and rallies against multinational.

But again things changed in few years. Instead of getting into the uneven fight with giant multinationals, Indian companies changed their business model. Instead of producing everything they preferred to specialize on few. They concentrated to on IT, engineering, heavy industries leaving Fast Moving Consumer Goods sectors for multinationals. They innovated the new products and processes (e.g. outsourcing services) and refined business model (e.g. inexpensive products). Indian companies soon started acquiring foreign businesses once they feared of. Acquisition of Corus by Tata Steel, another Tata group company, may be seen much symbolic in the perspective of acquisition of Tata Oil Mills by Unilever in 1993.

This questions the validity of the original question -Does protectionism really help a nation’s economy?