Mark Mobius, manager of Templeton Asset Management Ltd., says he has continued buying stocks in Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC) over the last 30 days, and considers the drop in the market a correction, in what he believes is an ongoing bull market.
Mobius said about BRICs, “Despite the fact that a lot of people think that we are entering into a bear market, we don’t believe so. This is a correction in an ongoing bull market.”
From its April 15 high, the MSCI Emerging Markets Index has plunged 14 percent, the reason many have been running from them.
The European sovereign debt crisis and the challenge China faces with inflation has driven down the emerging markets, and other markets as well, which has in turn cut demand for raw materials, which is what these countries have a huge exposure to.
Showing posts with label Russian Economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Russian Economy. Show all posts
Friday, May 28, 2010
Friday, August 21, 2009
BRIC Business | Rethink Them?
BRIC Business
An economic crisis will always bring out the best and worst, and the strenght and weakness of any economy, and the current economic crisis has provided fresh fuel to the debate over the feared decline of the West and rise of the East. The so-called BRICs – Brazil, Russia, India, and China – are often touted as the inevitable economic winners. But when you look behind the numbers, it suggests that the proclamation that these countries have won is far too premature.
The numbers at this time don't reinforce the assertions, and The World Bank’s dark forecasts see global GDP falling a record 2.9 percent in 2009, along with deteriorating current account balances, increased debt, soaring unemployment, gyrating stock markets and tumbling business confidence. Yes, there may be a few spots of recovery. China’s stimulus efforts – a quick expansion of fixed investment and credit to the state sector generated by huge foreign reserves – seem to have had a predictable positive, if likely short-term, effect. Perhaps broader, but still modest, recoveries in 2010 and 2011 are in the cards. And there is the looming risk of inflation to have to deal with, which could undermine China especially.
But the way to full recovery is not clear at this time. The global economy is at some kind of tipping or inflection point, a moment of paradigm shift. If the Anglo-American model of finance capital is yet another god that failed, so too the alternatives: Japanese networked capitalism, Euro-dirigisme, or various flavors of state capitalism (perhaps combined, as in China, with authoritarian politics) have not been widely embraced.
At this point, enter the BRICs. Before the severity of the looming economic storm was clear, the BRICs were the sweethearts of the investment sector. They were first lumped together in an influential Goldman Sachs research report in 2001. Goldman forecast that their ongoing GDP growth could outpace the rest of the world, with the GDPs of China and India surpassing those of the major Western economic powers before mid-century. To be sure, these “emerging markets” were not seen as risk free, but with their scale – continental powers with large populations and records of substantial economic growth – they looked attractive. Especially to punters playing the markets. If Goldman liked them, how could you go wrong?
But there’s more to economic prowess than GDP statistics and stock market indices. This is not to gainsay the BRICs’ – especially China and India’s – economic momentum and remarkable development. Visitors to China cannot be but wowed by what metropolitan colossi Beijing and Shanghai have become. India’s IT prowess dominates. But sustainable growth and economic leadership will ultimately have to be based on business environment fundamentals. International metrics that go beyond GDP suggest the BRICs have a long way to go.
Take, for beginners, corruption, the negative element that eats away at business confidence, rule of law and fair dealing. None of the BRICs rank very high in the 180-country survey published by Transparency International. Brazil and India come in at 80th and 85th place, roughly comparable to Burkina Faso, Saudi Arabia and Panama. Russia, unsurprisingly, is close to the bottom, ranking 147th – Kenya and Syria are neighbors. China does best, at 72nd place – right down there with Mexico. And if the current murky scandal involving China’s steel industry which has ensnared executives from Australia’s Rio Tinto shows anything, it’s that corruption of China’s legal system can eat business confidence away.
If there’s corruption, then it’s not so easy to do business there. The World Bank studies “the ease of doing business” in 181 countries. Brazil, Russia and India stand between 120 to 125 in those league tables. China comes in a little better, in 83rd place – a little higher than Belarus, a little lower than Kenya. The most difficult issues? Dealing with the local authorities in Russia and China; enforcing contracts in India’s clogged legal system, and, interestingly, taxes in Brazil.
None of the BRICs lead the World Economic Forum’s most recent “Global Competitiveness Report” (GCR). This sophisticated survey pulls together a large range of business environment variables, including social and political stability, economic concerns, technological sophistication and management quality. Of the 134 countries ranked, China comes in at 30th place (comparable to Spain); India and Russia land at 50th and 51st places respectively (about the same as Italy); and Brazil checks in at 64th place, close to Turkey and Kazakhstan. The GCR points out that all of these environments are plagued by bureaucracy, corruption, changeable business policies and problems with finance. (Not that the G-8 countries are 100% clean here either!).
And if social stability is a metric, then the fires that have fueled tragic communal violence in India and, more recently, China have to be a concern. You don’t push too hard against entrenched interests in Russia, where arbitrary arrest and even murder can be the outcome.
Should we really be surprised? From these perspectives, the BRICs don’t look that strong. These countries are all, in one way or another, still developing. Brazil and Russia rank in the middle of the United Nations’ Human Development Index; China is just a little below and India, is almost at the bottom. Russia and China face demographic challenges. China is growing older, while Russia has even more major population problems – it’s declining.
Their economic, social and political systems differ in a major way: Brazil’s economy is based on agriculture; India’s on services; Russia’s on price-sensitive energy resources, and China on manufactures for export. China and Russia have had problematic political relations; the disputed borders between China and India are still hot. What do they share? Growth potential. And a desire to take the U.S. dollar down a notch. Is that enough to assert that the answer to the world’s problems be found with the BRICs?
BRIC officials seem to think so. In the run up to the April 2009 G-20 meeting in London they pushed their own agenda, calling for new international finance rules, reform of the IMF and the World Bank, and resurrection of the Doha round. Overall, they are pushing for a multi-polar economic order, one less dominated by the US.
The Russians called for a new international currency backed by IMF SDRs (Special Drawing Rights) – an idea also picked up by Brazil and China. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said that the eyes of the world were on India in the “hope that India would be an engine of growth for the world economy.” Chinese officials touted their own “stimulus package” and quick action, noting the superiority of China’s command system “when it comes to making vital policy decisions.”
But at a “BRIC Summit” held in Yekaterinburg in July, there was less fire – a BRIC agenda did not surface. Still, the idea of a new international reserve currency hasn’t gone away.
We focus on these things not to criticize the BRICs individually but rather to put a little more reality into the important discussion of world economic recovery. First, they can hardly be considered a cohesive group. Second, sustainable leadership demands a sound business environment. On that score, the BRICs have a long way to go.
To be sure, their equity markets seem to be doing ok (China’s seems to be a bubble). But there’s more to the economy of any country than GDP projections and speculative bets about the future of a few leading companies.
But after all of this, we still have to remember that America had a lot of false starts and ups and downs in its early years or prosperity, so that shouldn't change for China or the other BRIC nations any time soon. Russia will struggle the most of all of them, while China and India will continue to lead them. Brazil, because it depends primarily on commodities, will do well when demand starts to increase again, and they could be right up there, and possibly surpass China and India as far as percentag of growth goes. Russia could do that too if it was in better position and strength, but it has a long way to go before that is a reality.
BRIC Business
An economic crisis will always bring out the best and worst, and the strenght and weakness of any economy, and the current economic crisis has provided fresh fuel to the debate over the feared decline of the West and rise of the East. The so-called BRICs – Brazil, Russia, India, and China – are often touted as the inevitable economic winners. But when you look behind the numbers, it suggests that the proclamation that these countries have won is far too premature.
The numbers at this time don't reinforce the assertions, and The World Bank’s dark forecasts see global GDP falling a record 2.9 percent in 2009, along with deteriorating current account balances, increased debt, soaring unemployment, gyrating stock markets and tumbling business confidence. Yes, there may be a few spots of recovery. China’s stimulus efforts – a quick expansion of fixed investment and credit to the state sector generated by huge foreign reserves – seem to have had a predictable positive, if likely short-term, effect. Perhaps broader, but still modest, recoveries in 2010 and 2011 are in the cards. And there is the looming risk of inflation to have to deal with, which could undermine China especially.
But the way to full recovery is not clear at this time. The global economy is at some kind of tipping or inflection point, a moment of paradigm shift. If the Anglo-American model of finance capital is yet another god that failed, so too the alternatives: Japanese networked capitalism, Euro-dirigisme, or various flavors of state capitalism (perhaps combined, as in China, with authoritarian politics) have not been widely embraced.
At this point, enter the BRICs. Before the severity of the looming economic storm was clear, the BRICs were the sweethearts of the investment sector. They were first lumped together in an influential Goldman Sachs research report in 2001. Goldman forecast that their ongoing GDP growth could outpace the rest of the world, with the GDPs of China and India surpassing those of the major Western economic powers before mid-century. To be sure, these “emerging markets” were not seen as risk free, but with their scale – continental powers with large populations and records of substantial economic growth – they looked attractive. Especially to punters playing the markets. If Goldman liked them, how could you go wrong?
But there’s more to economic prowess than GDP statistics and stock market indices. This is not to gainsay the BRICs’ – especially China and India’s – economic momentum and remarkable development. Visitors to China cannot be but wowed by what metropolitan colossi Beijing and Shanghai have become. India’s IT prowess dominates. But sustainable growth and economic leadership will ultimately have to be based on business environment fundamentals. International metrics that go beyond GDP suggest the BRICs have a long way to go.
Take, for beginners, corruption, the negative element that eats away at business confidence, rule of law and fair dealing. None of the BRICs rank very high in the 180-country survey published by Transparency International. Brazil and India come in at 80th and 85th place, roughly comparable to Burkina Faso, Saudi Arabia and Panama. Russia, unsurprisingly, is close to the bottom, ranking 147th – Kenya and Syria are neighbors. China does best, at 72nd place – right down there with Mexico. And if the current murky scandal involving China’s steel industry which has ensnared executives from Australia’s Rio Tinto shows anything, it’s that corruption of China’s legal system can eat business confidence away.
If there’s corruption, then it’s not so easy to do business there. The World Bank studies “the ease of doing business” in 181 countries. Brazil, Russia and India stand between 120 to 125 in those league tables. China comes in a little better, in 83rd place – a little higher than Belarus, a little lower than Kenya. The most difficult issues? Dealing with the local authorities in Russia and China; enforcing contracts in India’s clogged legal system, and, interestingly, taxes in Brazil.
None of the BRICs lead the World Economic Forum’s most recent “Global Competitiveness Report” (GCR). This sophisticated survey pulls together a large range of business environment variables, including social and political stability, economic concerns, technological sophistication and management quality. Of the 134 countries ranked, China comes in at 30th place (comparable to Spain); India and Russia land at 50th and 51st places respectively (about the same as Italy); and Brazil checks in at 64th place, close to Turkey and Kazakhstan. The GCR points out that all of these environments are plagued by bureaucracy, corruption, changeable business policies and problems with finance. (Not that the G-8 countries are 100% clean here either!).
And if social stability is a metric, then the fires that have fueled tragic communal violence in India and, more recently, China have to be a concern. You don’t push too hard against entrenched interests in Russia, where arbitrary arrest and even murder can be the outcome.
Should we really be surprised? From these perspectives, the BRICs don’t look that strong. These countries are all, in one way or another, still developing. Brazil and Russia rank in the middle of the United Nations’ Human Development Index; China is just a little below and India, is almost at the bottom. Russia and China face demographic challenges. China is growing older, while Russia has even more major population problems – it’s declining.
Their economic, social and political systems differ in a major way: Brazil’s economy is based on agriculture; India’s on services; Russia’s on price-sensitive energy resources, and China on manufactures for export. China and Russia have had problematic political relations; the disputed borders between China and India are still hot. What do they share? Growth potential. And a desire to take the U.S. dollar down a notch. Is that enough to assert that the answer to the world’s problems be found with the BRICs?
BRIC officials seem to think so. In the run up to the April 2009 G-20 meeting in London they pushed their own agenda, calling for new international finance rules, reform of the IMF and the World Bank, and resurrection of the Doha round. Overall, they are pushing for a multi-polar economic order, one less dominated by the US.
The Russians called for a new international currency backed by IMF SDRs (Special Drawing Rights) – an idea also picked up by Brazil and China. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said that the eyes of the world were on India in the “hope that India would be an engine of growth for the world economy.” Chinese officials touted their own “stimulus package” and quick action, noting the superiority of China’s command system “when it comes to making vital policy decisions.”
But at a “BRIC Summit” held in Yekaterinburg in July, there was less fire – a BRIC agenda did not surface. Still, the idea of a new international reserve currency hasn’t gone away.
We focus on these things not to criticize the BRICs individually but rather to put a little more reality into the important discussion of world economic recovery. First, they can hardly be considered a cohesive group. Second, sustainable leadership demands a sound business environment. On that score, the BRICs have a long way to go.
To be sure, their equity markets seem to be doing ok (China’s seems to be a bubble). But there’s more to the economy of any country than GDP projections and speculative bets about the future of a few leading companies.
But after all of this, we still have to remember that America had a lot of false starts and ups and downs in its early years or prosperity, so that shouldn't change for China or the other BRIC nations any time soon. Russia will struggle the most of all of them, while China and India will continue to lead them. Brazil, because it depends primarily on commodities, will do well when demand starts to increase again, and they could be right up there, and possibly surpass China and India as far as percentag of growth goes. Russia could do that too if it was in better position and strength, but it has a long way to go before that is a reality.
BRIC Business
Saturday, August 15, 2009
BRICs Drive Export Demand
BRIC Driving Export Demand
With the U.S. consumers expected to hold back on spending for some time, the world continually is looking for the rebound from the BRIC countries in order to generate increasing demand for exports, which will help their domestic economies.
According to a recently released Goldman Sachs report, they assert the BRICs will account for around 50 percent of export demand as their domestic consumption grows; presumably from their emerging middle classes.
The report reiterated what we already know here, that China would perform particularly strong, more than likely accounting for 30% of the world’s consumption growth next year, which is more than the combined growth of the G3 — United States, Japan and Germany — as they slowly move out of recession.
Goldman Sachs, which dubbed the term BRIC in 2001, said the emergence of the BRIC consumer is an important development that will create demand and hence support the export markets of developed economies, and I would add that this will be going on for some time to come.
The report added that consumption in the BRIC economies would be supported by a shift in spending power from the richest countries towards a growing middle-income bloc in the emerging markets. Consumption would likely receive a further increase when the fast economic growth in China and India finally reaches their rural populations.
As these domestic economies emerge, the type of products they consume is also likely to slowly move away from low-value-added products, like agricultural goods, to those at the higher end, such as cars, office and telecom equipment.
The Goldman economists estimate that Chinese retail sales, a key indicator of consumption, rose 17.6% in the year ended June, with food and beverages products posting the biggest gains, although it remains to be seen whether this is a real rebound once their stimulus money runs it course and potential inflation arises. Retail sales in Brazil, while lower than in 2008, remained well supported and would likely increase in the third quarter as demand for commodities increase.
India does not measure retail sales, but individual components, such as vehicle sales are used to measure the consumer for consumption demand. Goldman said auto sales had increased in a big way, and were now selling quicker than before the crisis.
Russia, after years of strong growth, was the only BRIC country where retail sales growth had suffered, and is slowly losing the luster connected to being included with BRIC at this time. Sales in the year to June fell 6.72% on the back of a plunge in non-food products.
While most agree the BRIC countries will have an increasingly important role to play in the worldwide economy, not all are sure they can drive demand, but I think that's ludicrous based on China alone.
BRIC Driving Export Demand
With the U.S. consumers expected to hold back on spending for some time, the world continually is looking for the rebound from the BRIC countries in order to generate increasing demand for exports, which will help their domestic economies.
According to a recently released Goldman Sachs report, they assert the BRICs will account for around 50 percent of export demand as their domestic consumption grows; presumably from their emerging middle classes.
The report reiterated what we already know here, that China would perform particularly strong, more than likely accounting for 30% of the world’s consumption growth next year, which is more than the combined growth of the G3 — United States, Japan and Germany — as they slowly move out of recession.
Goldman Sachs, which dubbed the term BRIC in 2001, said the emergence of the BRIC consumer is an important development that will create demand and hence support the export markets of developed economies, and I would add that this will be going on for some time to come.
The report added that consumption in the BRIC economies would be supported by a shift in spending power from the richest countries towards a growing middle-income bloc in the emerging markets. Consumption would likely receive a further increase when the fast economic growth in China and India finally reaches their rural populations.
As these domestic economies emerge, the type of products they consume is also likely to slowly move away from low-value-added products, like agricultural goods, to those at the higher end, such as cars, office and telecom equipment.
The Goldman economists estimate that Chinese retail sales, a key indicator of consumption, rose 17.6% in the year ended June, with food and beverages products posting the biggest gains, although it remains to be seen whether this is a real rebound once their stimulus money runs it course and potential inflation arises. Retail sales in Brazil, while lower than in 2008, remained well supported and would likely increase in the third quarter as demand for commodities increase.
India does not measure retail sales, but individual components, such as vehicle sales are used to measure the consumer for consumption demand. Goldman said auto sales had increased in a big way, and were now selling quicker than before the crisis.
Russia, after years of strong growth, was the only BRIC country where retail sales growth had suffered, and is slowly losing the luster connected to being included with BRIC at this time. Sales in the year to June fell 6.72% on the back of a plunge in non-food products.
While most agree the BRIC countries will have an increasingly important role to play in the worldwide economy, not all are sure they can drive demand, but I think that's ludicrous based on China alone.
BRIC Driving Export Demand
Saturday, August 1, 2009
China, India Still Growing
Brazil and Russia slowing
BRIC is an acronym referring to the fast-growing developing economies of Brazil, Russia, India, and China. The acronym was first named and prominently used by Goldman Sachs in 2001. Goldman Sachs asserted that since they are developing quickly, by 2050 the combined economies of the BRICs could pass the combined economies of the current richest countries of the world. The four countries, combined, currently account for more than a quarter of the world's land area and over 40% of the world's population.
Goldman Sachs did not attempt to say that the BRICs would organize themselves into an economic bloc, or a formal trading association, rather that their combined growth would be substantial.
Even so, there are strong indications that the four BRIC countries have been seeking to form an 'alliance', and thereby converting their growing economic power into greater geopolitical clout because during the 21st century, success in global economy is judged by internal relations within like-minded groups for gains by collective bargaining. This has been easier said than done though.
On June 16, 2009, the leaders of the BRIC countries took part in their first summit in Yekaterinburg, in Russia and issued a declaration calling for the establishment of a multi-polar world order. The Foreign Ministers of the BRIC countries had met previously on May 16, 2008 also in Yekaterinburg. President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, President Dmitry Medvedev, Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, and President Hu Jintao, the respective leaders of Brazil, Russia, India and China, attended the summit.
The key focus of the summit was connected to improving the current global economic situation and discussing how the four countries can better work together in the future, as well as a more general push to reform financial institutions.
Remember that in last April in London, the G-20 leaders met in a summit. One of the decisions was the revamping of IMF and World Bank to ensure other nations are given greater influence and senior positions of IMF and World Bank will be open to candidates from the developing world.
There was also discussion surrounding how developing nations, such as those members of BRIC, could be better involved in global affairs in the future. In the aftermath of the summit the BRIC nations suggested that there was a need for a new global reserve currency that is 'diversified, stable and predictable,' although it would be a huge burden, gamble and risk for any country to do that in the near future.
The statement that was released stopped short of making a direct attack on the perceived 'dominance' of the US dollar, something which the Russians have been critical of. However, it still led to a fall in the value of the dollar against other major currencies.
One week prior to the summit, Brazil offered $10 billion to the International Monetary Fund. It was the first time that the country had ever made such a loan.
Brazil had previously received loans from the IMF and this announcement was treated as a significant demonstration of how Brazil's economic position has changed. China also announced plans to invest a total of $50 billion and Russia planned to invest $10 billion.
BRIC countries are future growth engines of the world. These countries are emerging more quickly than most nations from the global economic crisis.
A criticism is that the BRIC projections are based on the assumptions that resources are limitless and endlessly available when needed. In reality, many important resources currently necessary to sustain economic growth, such as oil, natural gas, coal, other fossil fuels, and uranium might soon experience a peak in production before enough renewable energy can be developed and commercialized, which might result in slower economic growth than anticipated, thus throwing off the projections and their dates.
Though the BRIC countries have their differences, there are some who believe that this new bloc can play a major role in international arena. The importance of this should be perceived because of the reality that the world's largest growing economies got together on the same platform and discussed their respective concerns.
An interesting reality is that the world is neither dominated by a uni-polar power nor multi-polar powers. Currently we live in a non-polar world and the balance of power is going through a time of change.
The fact is the world itself is in transition. The world has changed since 1945, when Big-2 (US and UK) used to decide the fate of the free world. By the end of 20th century, Big -2 became G-7, then-G-8 only to be replaced by G-20 by the 21st century.
Things are going to be a lot different even 10 years from now with the emerging BRIC economies moving forward.
Brazil and Russia slowing
BRIC is an acronym referring to the fast-growing developing economies of Brazil, Russia, India, and China. The acronym was first named and prominently used by Goldman Sachs in 2001. Goldman Sachs asserted that since they are developing quickly, by 2050 the combined economies of the BRICs could pass the combined economies of the current richest countries of the world. The four countries, combined, currently account for more than a quarter of the world's land area and over 40% of the world's population.
Goldman Sachs did not attempt to say that the BRICs would organize themselves into an economic bloc, or a formal trading association, rather that their combined growth would be substantial.
Even so, there are strong indications that the four BRIC countries have been seeking to form an 'alliance', and thereby converting their growing economic power into greater geopolitical clout because during the 21st century, success in global economy is judged by internal relations within like-minded groups for gains by collective bargaining. This has been easier said than done though.
On June 16, 2009, the leaders of the BRIC countries took part in their first summit in Yekaterinburg, in Russia and issued a declaration calling for the establishment of a multi-polar world order. The Foreign Ministers of the BRIC countries had met previously on May 16, 2008 also in Yekaterinburg. President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, President Dmitry Medvedev, Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, and President Hu Jintao, the respective leaders of Brazil, Russia, India and China, attended the summit.
The key focus of the summit was connected to improving the current global economic situation and discussing how the four countries can better work together in the future, as well as a more general push to reform financial institutions.
Remember that in last April in London, the G-20 leaders met in a summit. One of the decisions was the revamping of IMF and World Bank to ensure other nations are given greater influence and senior positions of IMF and World Bank will be open to candidates from the developing world.
There was also discussion surrounding how developing nations, such as those members of BRIC, could be better involved in global affairs in the future. In the aftermath of the summit the BRIC nations suggested that there was a need for a new global reserve currency that is 'diversified, stable and predictable,' although it would be a huge burden, gamble and risk for any country to do that in the near future.
The statement that was released stopped short of making a direct attack on the perceived 'dominance' of the US dollar, something which the Russians have been critical of. However, it still led to a fall in the value of the dollar against other major currencies.
One week prior to the summit, Brazil offered $10 billion to the International Monetary Fund. It was the first time that the country had ever made such a loan.
Brazil had previously received loans from the IMF and this announcement was treated as a significant demonstration of how Brazil's economic position has changed. China also announced plans to invest a total of $50 billion and Russia planned to invest $10 billion.
BRIC countries are future growth engines of the world. These countries are emerging more quickly than most nations from the global economic crisis.
A criticism is that the BRIC projections are based on the assumptions that resources are limitless and endlessly available when needed. In reality, many important resources currently necessary to sustain economic growth, such as oil, natural gas, coal, other fossil fuels, and uranium might soon experience a peak in production before enough renewable energy can be developed and commercialized, which might result in slower economic growth than anticipated, thus throwing off the projections and their dates.
Though the BRIC countries have their differences, there are some who believe that this new bloc can play a major role in international arena. The importance of this should be perceived because of the reality that the world's largest growing economies got together on the same platform and discussed their respective concerns.
An interesting reality is that the world is neither dominated by a uni-polar power nor multi-polar powers. Currently we live in a non-polar world and the balance of power is going through a time of change.
The fact is the world itself is in transition. The world has changed since 1945, when Big-2 (US and UK) used to decide the fate of the free world. By the end of 20th century, Big -2 became G-7, then-G-8 only to be replaced by G-20 by the 21st century.
Things are going to be a lot different even 10 years from now with the emerging BRIC economies moving forward.
Brazil and Russia slowing
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Russia Struggling Most of BRIC
Russia continues to struggle most among BRIC nations
Some people have been questioning the continual inclusion of Russia among the BRIC economies, as they continue to underperform the rest during these difficult times, and Indonesia has been breathing down BRICs necks to be included among them. Maybe we'll begin to see it called BIIC if Russia doesn't turn things around soon.
China and India remain strong, with China projected to grow at a 8.4 percent rate and India a 6.2 percent rate. Brazil is also struggling with declines expected to come in at 1 percent, but that's no where near Russia's plunge of 8.5 percent.
Considering Brazil and Russia rely on commodities so strongly, it makes Russia's fall look even worse, based on direct comparisons.
The country’s natural comparison is with the BRIC countries — Brazil, Russia, India and China. In the first half of 2009, China and India have been surging ahead, while Russia’s GDP fell off the cliff by 10 percent.
Russia’s economy remains reliant by oil and gas, and its overall government policies depend heavily on the worldwide oil price. Three standard scenarios were formulated in the official Strategy 2020 program. The favored “innovation scenario” was supposed to generate an annual growth of 6.5 percent. It presupposed far-reaching reforms and investment in human capital, which is not a plausible option with an oil price above $60 per barrel.
The Kremlin’s negative “inertia scenario” assumed no significant reforms and forecasted an average growth of 3.9 percent a year. Such an authoritarian petrostate is likely if the oil price is $75 per barrel. In between, the Kremlin put an “energy and raw materials scenario” with 5.3 percent growth, which could be called status quo with an oil price of $60 to $75 per barrel, but such a policy is not likely to generate a high growth rate.
The the major thing to learn is that the higher the oil price is, the lower Russia’s long-term economic growth is likely to be, because the ruling elite will thrive on energy rents rather than pursue reforms or invest in human capital. The greater the corruption is, the more repression the rulers need to defend their fraudulent revenues.
Russia’s course is hard to figure out because overt economic policy changes every few months with the oil price. During the period from May to July 2008, the inauguration of President Dmitry Medvedev raised hopes that he would initiate economic and political reforms — particularly as it related to his anti-corruption initiatives — but we saw no important changes.
Prime Minister Vladimir Putin intimidated Mechel in late July, threatening to send a “doctor” to clean out the company’s problems, and the war in Georgia two weeks later augured a period of darkness and reaction. Russia’s attempts to accede to the World Trade Organization were suspended and a renationalization of leading companies became a priority.
But the devastation caused by the financial crisis and gradual devaluation allowed reformist ideas to surface again. Russia saw a renewed openness from February until May that could almost be labeled a thaw, but again no legislation was passed.
In early June, the oil price surpassed $70 per barrel, and the reactionaries got into action again. In Pikalyovo, Putin declared the not very market-oriented view that private businessmen have to produce for the sake of producing. Numerous governors threatened private enterprise owners with confiscation if they did not rehire workers and keep decrepit factories alive. Several weeks later, Putin suspended Russia’s attempted accession to the WTO and he even went on a personal tour to control sausage prices. Naturally, rumors are ripe of possible new confiscations of large corporations.
This is a terrible to run economic policy. In effect, Russia is pursuing the status quo or inertia scenario — but without the benefit of stability. With its quarterly swings in declared economic policy, the government destabilizes the business environment and fails to carry out any economic policy. Both the vagaries and passivity are dangerous to the country’s economy as is evident from the extraordinary fall in GDP. No wonder that not only China and India but also Brazil are much more successful.
Russia’s only sensible policy has been its fiscal policy with a persistent budget surplus in the good times from 2000 until 2008, which allowed it to build huge international reserves that, while reduced, remain at roughly $400 billion today. This means that Russia can safeguard itself from some fluctuations of the global financial market.
But it is not doing so. On the contrary, it is causing unnecessary domestic financial problems. The ultimate folly was Russia’s gradual devaluation during the period from November to January. Naturally, everybody speculated against the ruble, which meant that the Kremlin instigated a domestic liquidity freeze. It was probably the main reason for the excessively sharp drop in Russia’s industrial output. Amazingly, this operation is officially hailed as a success,ensuring that the danger of a continuation could persist.
The state-dominated banking system remains a disaster. The five dominant state banks are in horrid shape. The government pours more and more money into them, but it helps little as the banks lose it in short order on politically motivated, nonperforming loans. The state banks pose a threat of nationalizing big Russian companies, while they provide little credit. In effect, the Kremlin maintains a detrimental liquidity squeeze.
Senior officials interfere however they want to in big enterprises, asking them to hire more workers, to reduce prices and to expand production under threat of confiscation, further undermining the country’s weak property rights.
Gazprom appears to be the greatest management failure of them all. It is difficult to fathom how it has succeeded in scaring so many customers away in half a year that it has been forced to cut its output by 35 percent. In any other country, save Congo, such a harmful management would be fired without delay. There is no reason to expect any significant improvement as long as the managers remain the same.
Russia’s ultimate shortcoming is its pervasive top-level corruption. Remember that it has failed to extend its road network since 2000. A country that cannot build roads cannot develop much more.
There is no doubt that Russia will recover somewhat because of higher oil prices, the global recovery and recovering exports, but nothing has been done about the country’s profound structural problems, which have only been aggravated during a year of financial crisis. Worse, Russia’s economic policy is in such flux that nothing is being done. Gradually, the question is moving from complaints about how Russia is being governed to criticism that it is not being properly managed.
Russia continues to struggle most among BRIC nations
Some people have been questioning the continual inclusion of Russia among the BRIC economies, as they continue to underperform the rest during these difficult times, and Indonesia has been breathing down BRICs necks to be included among them. Maybe we'll begin to see it called BIIC if Russia doesn't turn things around soon.
China and India remain strong, with China projected to grow at a 8.4 percent rate and India a 6.2 percent rate. Brazil is also struggling with declines expected to come in at 1 percent, but that's no where near Russia's plunge of 8.5 percent.
Considering Brazil and Russia rely on commodities so strongly, it makes Russia's fall look even worse, based on direct comparisons.
The country’s natural comparison is with the BRIC countries — Brazil, Russia, India and China. In the first half of 2009, China and India have been surging ahead, while Russia’s GDP fell off the cliff by 10 percent.
Russia’s economy remains reliant by oil and gas, and its overall government policies depend heavily on the worldwide oil price. Three standard scenarios were formulated in the official Strategy 2020 program. The favored “innovation scenario” was supposed to generate an annual growth of 6.5 percent. It presupposed far-reaching reforms and investment in human capital, which is not a plausible option with an oil price above $60 per barrel.
The Kremlin’s negative “inertia scenario” assumed no significant reforms and forecasted an average growth of 3.9 percent a year. Such an authoritarian petrostate is likely if the oil price is $75 per barrel. In between, the Kremlin put an “energy and raw materials scenario” with 5.3 percent growth, which could be called status quo with an oil price of $60 to $75 per barrel, but such a policy is not likely to generate a high growth rate.
The the major thing to learn is that the higher the oil price is, the lower Russia’s long-term economic growth is likely to be, because the ruling elite will thrive on energy rents rather than pursue reforms or invest in human capital. The greater the corruption is, the more repression the rulers need to defend their fraudulent revenues.
Russia’s course is hard to figure out because overt economic policy changes every few months with the oil price. During the period from May to July 2008, the inauguration of President Dmitry Medvedev raised hopes that he would initiate economic and political reforms — particularly as it related to his anti-corruption initiatives — but we saw no important changes.
Prime Minister Vladimir Putin intimidated Mechel in late July, threatening to send a “doctor” to clean out the company’s problems, and the war in Georgia two weeks later augured a period of darkness and reaction. Russia’s attempts to accede to the World Trade Organization were suspended and a renationalization of leading companies became a priority.
But the devastation caused by the financial crisis and gradual devaluation allowed reformist ideas to surface again. Russia saw a renewed openness from February until May that could almost be labeled a thaw, but again no legislation was passed.
In early June, the oil price surpassed $70 per barrel, and the reactionaries got into action again. In Pikalyovo, Putin declared the not very market-oriented view that private businessmen have to produce for the sake of producing. Numerous governors threatened private enterprise owners with confiscation if they did not rehire workers and keep decrepit factories alive. Several weeks later, Putin suspended Russia’s attempted accession to the WTO and he even went on a personal tour to control sausage prices. Naturally, rumors are ripe of possible new confiscations of large corporations.
This is a terrible to run economic policy. In effect, Russia is pursuing the status quo or inertia scenario — but without the benefit of stability. With its quarterly swings in declared economic policy, the government destabilizes the business environment and fails to carry out any economic policy. Both the vagaries and passivity are dangerous to the country’s economy as is evident from the extraordinary fall in GDP. No wonder that not only China and India but also Brazil are much more successful.
Russia’s only sensible policy has been its fiscal policy with a persistent budget surplus in the good times from 2000 until 2008, which allowed it to build huge international reserves that, while reduced, remain at roughly $400 billion today. This means that Russia can safeguard itself from some fluctuations of the global financial market.
But it is not doing so. On the contrary, it is causing unnecessary domestic financial problems. The ultimate folly was Russia’s gradual devaluation during the period from November to January. Naturally, everybody speculated against the ruble, which meant that the Kremlin instigated a domestic liquidity freeze. It was probably the main reason for the excessively sharp drop in Russia’s industrial output. Amazingly, this operation is officially hailed as a success,ensuring that the danger of a continuation could persist.
The state-dominated banking system remains a disaster. The five dominant state banks are in horrid shape. The government pours more and more money into them, but it helps little as the banks lose it in short order on politically motivated, nonperforming loans. The state banks pose a threat of nationalizing big Russian companies, while they provide little credit. In effect, the Kremlin maintains a detrimental liquidity squeeze.
Senior officials interfere however they want to in big enterprises, asking them to hire more workers, to reduce prices and to expand production under threat of confiscation, further undermining the country’s weak property rights.
Gazprom appears to be the greatest management failure of them all. It is difficult to fathom how it has succeeded in scaring so many customers away in half a year that it has been forced to cut its output by 35 percent. In any other country, save Congo, such a harmful management would be fired without delay. There is no reason to expect any significant improvement as long as the managers remain the same.
Russia’s ultimate shortcoming is its pervasive top-level corruption. Remember that it has failed to extend its road network since 2000. A country that cannot build roads cannot develop much more.
There is no doubt that Russia will recover somewhat because of higher oil prices, the global recovery and recovering exports, but nothing has been done about the country’s profound structural problems, which have only been aggravated during a year of financial crisis. Worse, Russia’s economic policy is in such flux that nothing is being done. Gradually, the question is moving from complaints about how Russia is being governed to criticism that it is not being properly managed.
Russia continues to struggle most among BRIC nations
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Only China and India Expected to Grow
BRIC Business
Of the 15 largest economies in the world, only China and India are expected to enjoy growth in 2009.
Brazil's government still thinks it can just make positive growth for the year too, although outside forecasters don't agree with it. In mid-June, leaders of the BRICs even held their first summit meeting. But Russia, a resource-rich land with an otherwise weak economy and a declining population, is in a different situation from its BRIC brethren. It's having a terrible year, with the World Bank predicting that its GDP will contract 7.9%, far worse than that of any other top-15 economy.
Before the financial panic of last fall, many business and government leaders in the BRIC countries spoke confidently of "decoupling" from their economic reliance on the U.S. Such talk faded as a subsequent collapse in global trade left no nation untouched. Yet with their big populations and growing middle classes, the BRICs now seem to have suffered only a glancing blow. The word redecoupling is beginning to appear in the media. Nandan Nilekani, who is about to leave the chairmanship of Indian tech company Infosys for a government post, speaks of "tactical coupling" and "strategic decoupling." That is, nobody could escape the short-term effects of a global crisis, but the basic BRIC growth story still holds.
If the BRICs can keep growing even as the U.S. and Europe flounder, it would spell an end to America's long reign as the driving force in the global economy. Goldman's O'Neill has said it's "conceivable" that China's economy will be bigger than that of the U.S. in less than 20 years and that the BRIC countries as a group will carry as much economic weight as the G-7 group of Western powers plus Japan. This sounds like bad news for the U.S. — and it will certainly bring all sorts of new complications to the global political scene. From a purely economic standpoint, though, the rise of the BICs is great in that it offers the only remotely attractive path out of our current conundrum.
Discussions of the U.S. losing its spot as global leader often get mired in predictions of doom and comparisons to the Roman Empire. When Rome fell, technological advances were lost for centuries, and Europe descended into the Dark Ages. The rise and fall of economic powers since the dawn of modern capitalism in the 17th century has been a different story. There have been shifts in relative power, and some have led to violent conflict, but living standards have continued to improve over time, even in lands that lost the crown of most powerful — Britain being the most recent example.
And so while U.S. economic dominance appears to be giving way to something more mirky, this doesn't imply absolute decline. The U.S. retains a lot of strong points — great universities, millions of ambitious immigrants, a culture that celebrates risk-taking — that are hard for any other nation to match. Just because the U.S. is no longer all-important doesn't mean it will no longer be competitive.
In fact, the U.S. might turn out to be more competitive. American dominance has in recent years been a mixed blessing. Many countries got addicted to selling to American consumers and poured capital into the U.S. to keep the buying going. These inflows kept the dollar strong, making life tough for U.S. exporters; they also saddled Americans with the unsustainable debt loads that led to the financial crisis. Now no one abroad is willing to lend to deadbeat American households, and the U.S. government has temporarily taken over as the world's chief borrower and spender. But as we've just learned from the example of the American consumer, one can't borrow and spend forever.
Sometime in the near future, then, the U.S. will have to start living within its means — or at least a lot closer to them than it currently does. To keep this new American frugality from battering the global economy even more than it's been battered, somebody has to pick up the resulting slack in demand. Europe and Japan have been hit harder by the downturn than the U.S. has, and they have aging, slow-growing populations unlikely to ignite consumer booms. That leaves the BRICs as pretty much the only remaining candidates. These economies are still too small to take up all the slack: together their GDP amounts to less than half that of the U.S. But they are expanding rapidly. Yes, their ascent spells relative economic decline for the U.S. The faster it happens, though, the sooner a durable global economic recovery will get under way.
There's no doubt BRIC economies are the key to future economic growth.
BRIC business
Of the 15 largest economies in the world, only China and India are expected to enjoy growth in 2009.
Brazil's government still thinks it can just make positive growth for the year too, although outside forecasters don't agree with it. In mid-June, leaders of the BRICs even held their first summit meeting. But Russia, a resource-rich land with an otherwise weak economy and a declining population, is in a different situation from its BRIC brethren. It's having a terrible year, with the World Bank predicting that its GDP will contract 7.9%, far worse than that of any other top-15 economy.
Before the financial panic of last fall, many business and government leaders in the BRIC countries spoke confidently of "decoupling" from their economic reliance on the U.S. Such talk faded as a subsequent collapse in global trade left no nation untouched. Yet with their big populations and growing middle classes, the BRICs now seem to have suffered only a glancing blow. The word redecoupling is beginning to appear in the media. Nandan Nilekani, who is about to leave the chairmanship of Indian tech company Infosys for a government post, speaks of "tactical coupling" and "strategic decoupling." That is, nobody could escape the short-term effects of a global crisis, but the basic BRIC growth story still holds.
If the BRICs can keep growing even as the U.S. and Europe flounder, it would spell an end to America's long reign as the driving force in the global economy. Goldman's O'Neill has said it's "conceivable" that China's economy will be bigger than that of the U.S. in less than 20 years and that the BRIC countries as a group will carry as much economic weight as the G-7 group of Western powers plus Japan. This sounds like bad news for the U.S. — and it will certainly bring all sorts of new complications to the global political scene. From a purely economic standpoint, though, the rise of the BICs is great in that it offers the only remotely attractive path out of our current conundrum.
Discussions of the U.S. losing its spot as global leader often get mired in predictions of doom and comparisons to the Roman Empire. When Rome fell, technological advances were lost for centuries, and Europe descended into the Dark Ages. The rise and fall of economic powers since the dawn of modern capitalism in the 17th century has been a different story. There have been shifts in relative power, and some have led to violent conflict, but living standards have continued to improve over time, even in lands that lost the crown of most powerful — Britain being the most recent example.
And so while U.S. economic dominance appears to be giving way to something more mirky, this doesn't imply absolute decline. The U.S. retains a lot of strong points — great universities, millions of ambitious immigrants, a culture that celebrates risk-taking — that are hard for any other nation to match. Just because the U.S. is no longer all-important doesn't mean it will no longer be competitive.
In fact, the U.S. might turn out to be more competitive. American dominance has in recent years been a mixed blessing. Many countries got addicted to selling to American consumers and poured capital into the U.S. to keep the buying going. These inflows kept the dollar strong, making life tough for U.S. exporters; they also saddled Americans with the unsustainable debt loads that led to the financial crisis. Now no one abroad is willing to lend to deadbeat American households, and the U.S. government has temporarily taken over as the world's chief borrower and spender. But as we've just learned from the example of the American consumer, one can't borrow and spend forever.
Sometime in the near future, then, the U.S. will have to start living within its means — or at least a lot closer to them than it currently does. To keep this new American frugality from battering the global economy even more than it's been battered, somebody has to pick up the resulting slack in demand. Europe and Japan have been hit harder by the downturn than the U.S. has, and they have aging, slow-growing populations unlikely to ignite consumer booms. That leaves the BRICs as pretty much the only remaining candidates. These economies are still too small to take up all the slack: together their GDP amounts to less than half that of the U.S. But they are expanding rapidly. Yes, their ascent spells relative economic decline for the U.S. The faster it happens, though, the sooner a durable global economic recovery will get under way.
There's no doubt BRIC economies are the key to future economic growth.
BRIC business
Monday, June 8, 2009
OECD Projects More Slowing of Indian Economy
BRIC Business India
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) predicted further slowing down of the Indian economy, even while indicating that China has hit the bottom and is likely to show improvement in the next six months.
With regard to other BRIC nations, the Composite Leading Indicators (CLI) prepared by the OECD suggests that economies of Brazil and Russia would continue to perform on the down side.
The CLI designed to provide early signals of turning points in business cycles, rose by 0.4 per cent for India in April 2009.
According to the OECD -- a grouping of rich nations -- business cycles refer to fluctuations of economic activity around its long-term potential level.
"The CLI for China increased 0.9 point in April 2009 but was 8.3 points lower than a year ago. The CLI for India increased by 0.4 point in April 2009 but was 7.9 points lower than in April 2008," OECD said in a statement today.
Along with India, the OECD has forecast "slowdown" of the economy for the US, Japan and Germany, among others.
Having recorded a growth rate of 9 per cent for consecutive three years ending 2007-08, the Indian economy slipped to 6.7 per cent during 2008-09, mainly on account of the results of the global financial meltdown.
According to the Reserve Bank of India's recent projections, the growth rate could slip to 6 per cent in the current fiscal year.
Even President Pratibha Patil in her address to the joint session of Parliament last week said, "The current financial year is expected to see a slowing down of growth on account of the global recession."
The grouping has projected "strong slowdown" for the Russian and Brazilian economies.
Among the BRIC nations, Russia and Brazil saw the CLI decline in April. While the indicators for Russia dropped by 0.3 point, that of Brazil decreased by 0.7 point.
Meanwhile, the OECD has noted that some major economies are witnessing an "easing pace of deterioration".
"While it is still too early to assess whether it is a temporary or a more durable turning point, OECD composite leading indicators (CLIs) for April 2009 point to a reduced pace of deterioration in most of the OECD economies with stronger signals of a possible trough in Canada, France, Italy and the United Kingdom," the statement noted.
For the G-7 nations -- Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the US -- the grouping has forecast a "slowdown".
BRIC Business India
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) predicted further slowing down of the Indian economy, even while indicating that China has hit the bottom and is likely to show improvement in the next six months.
With regard to other BRIC nations, the Composite Leading Indicators (CLI) prepared by the OECD suggests that economies of Brazil and Russia would continue to perform on the down side.
The CLI designed to provide early signals of turning points in business cycles, rose by 0.4 per cent for India in April 2009.
According to the OECD -- a grouping of rich nations -- business cycles refer to fluctuations of economic activity around its long-term potential level.
"The CLI for China increased 0.9 point in April 2009 but was 8.3 points lower than a year ago. The CLI for India increased by 0.4 point in April 2009 but was 7.9 points lower than in April 2008," OECD said in a statement today.
Along with India, the OECD has forecast "slowdown" of the economy for the US, Japan and Germany, among others.
Having recorded a growth rate of 9 per cent for consecutive three years ending 2007-08, the Indian economy slipped to 6.7 per cent during 2008-09, mainly on account of the results of the global financial meltdown.
According to the Reserve Bank of India's recent projections, the growth rate could slip to 6 per cent in the current fiscal year.
Even President Pratibha Patil in her address to the joint session of Parliament last week said, "The current financial year is expected to see a slowing down of growth on account of the global recession."
The grouping has projected "strong slowdown" for the Russian and Brazilian economies.
Among the BRIC nations, Russia and Brazil saw the CLI decline in April. While the indicators for Russia dropped by 0.3 point, that of Brazil decreased by 0.7 point.
Meanwhile, the OECD has noted that some major economies are witnessing an "easing pace of deterioration".
"While it is still too early to assess whether it is a temporary or a more durable turning point, OECD composite leading indicators (CLIs) for April 2009 point to a reduced pace of deterioration in most of the OECD economies with stronger signals of a possible trough in Canada, France, Italy and the United Kingdom," the statement noted.
For the G-7 nations -- Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the US -- the grouping has forecast a "slowdown".
BRIC Business India
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Russia and India Sign Agreement to Work Closer Together Economically
In an attempt to work closer together after years of cool relations, Russia and India signed a pact concerning economic trade and cooperation.
A major deal involved building of nuclear reactors by Russia for India to use for energy.
“The signing of the agreement on civil nuclear cooperation with Russia marks a new milestone in the history of our cooperation in the field of nuclear energy,” Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said in New Delhi after talks with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.
The two countries have a goal of increasing trade to about $10 billion by 2010, while working on improving relations that have been strained since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
In reference to military related items, the two countries signed deals for the sale of 80 helicopters to India, worth over $1 billion according to the state arms selling agent and CEO of Rosoboronexport, Anatoly Isaikin.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, said he hopes to extend the accord to 10 years, while working with India to develop and produce missiles and aircraft jointly.
Other partnerships would include working together on metals, space, machine building, pharmaceuticals, nuclear powered submarines, biotechnology and information technology.
A major deal involved building of nuclear reactors by Russia for India to use for energy.
“The signing of the agreement on civil nuclear cooperation with Russia marks a new milestone in the history of our cooperation in the field of nuclear energy,” Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said in New Delhi after talks with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.
The two countries have a goal of increasing trade to about $10 billion by 2010, while working on improving relations that have been strained since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
In reference to military related items, the two countries signed deals for the sale of 80 helicopters to India, worth over $1 billion according to the state arms selling agent and CEO of Rosoboronexport, Anatoly Isaikin.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, said he hopes to extend the accord to 10 years, while working with India to develop and produce missiles and aircraft jointly.
Other partnerships would include working together on metals, space, machine building, pharmaceuticals, nuclear powered submarines, biotechnology and information technology.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
BRIC TV: Russian President Dmitry Medvedev meets with Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev meets with Brazilian counterpart Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva
Saturday, November 8, 2008
BRIC Economies Slowing but will Still Remain Healthy
While there's no doubt every country in the world is being hurt by the economic crisis, BRIC countries will continue to grow, albeit at a significantly slower pace than in the recent past. The CIS states, as far as emerging markets go, will be hit the worst, according to the International Monetary Fund.
For BRIC countries, Russia's growth will drop to about 3.5 percent, a decline of 2.6 percent; Brazil will fall by close to 2 percent; and India will fall by over 3 percent in GDP. China will also plunge by about 3 percent, but will still grow at a healthy rate of over 8 percent in 2009.
One positive development that is helping the BRIC countries is a growing middle class, which has created domestic demand for products and services, which in turn is helping bolster their economies, even as their export markets dry up.
For BRIC countries, Russia's growth will drop to about 3.5 percent, a decline of 2.6 percent; Brazil will fall by close to 2 percent; and India will fall by over 3 percent in GDP. China will also plunge by about 3 percent, but will still grow at a healthy rate of over 8 percent in 2009.
One positive development that is helping the BRIC countries is a growing middle class, which has created domestic demand for products and services, which in turn is helping bolster their economies, even as their export markets dry up.
Monday, November 3, 2008
How is India Faring Among the BRIC Countries?
For now at least, it looks like India will outperform other BRIC countries, primarily because it relies less on imports than the rest, although Brazil is strong in that sense too.
Russia has of course been pummeled by the worldwide economic conditions, as its markets have lost 65 percent of their equity since July. China and Brazil or close, with China losing 40 percent and Brazil 38 percent of market value. Brazil has been hit hard because of their reliance on commodities.
India on the other hand, has only dropped by 27 percent since July, a testament to their focus on domestic consumption rather than exports.
"India imports about 85% of its oil requirements and hence, the drop in prices augurs well for the trade and current account deficits. On the other hand, we are one of the few economies driven by domestic consumption and investment , unlike other regional economies which are dependent on exports. This makes us relatively insulated to global slowdown," Sukumar Rajah, chief investment officer (Equity) of Franklin Templeton Investments India said.
Another key factor in retaining a fairly strong position in a difficult climate has been the fall in commodity and energy prices, which has eased inflation in the country. Earnings have also been stronger the expected, so a more positive attitude has been maintained in spite of the challenges.
India is hoping investors and financial institutions will take note of this, and they will have an interest in continuing to invest in the country.
The downside of course is when demand from emerging markets surges again, and prices of commodities go up, making the more insular business climate of India not as robust as its competitors. But for now, as far as BRIC countries and a number of their Asian neighbors, India has a much stronger economic position to work with.
Russia has of course been pummeled by the worldwide economic conditions, as its markets have lost 65 percent of their equity since July. China and Brazil or close, with China losing 40 percent and Brazil 38 percent of market value. Brazil has been hit hard because of their reliance on commodities.
India on the other hand, has only dropped by 27 percent since July, a testament to their focus on domestic consumption rather than exports.
"India imports about 85% of its oil requirements and hence, the drop in prices augurs well for the trade and current account deficits. On the other hand, we are one of the few economies driven by domestic consumption and investment , unlike other regional economies which are dependent on exports. This makes us relatively insulated to global slowdown," Sukumar Rajah, chief investment officer (Equity) of Franklin Templeton Investments India said.
Another key factor in retaining a fairly strong position in a difficult climate has been the fall in commodity and energy prices, which has eased inflation in the country. Earnings have also been stronger the expected, so a more positive attitude has been maintained in spite of the challenges.
India is hoping investors and financial institutions will take note of this, and they will have an interest in continuing to invest in the country.
The downside of course is when demand from emerging markets surges again, and prices of commodities go up, making the more insular business climate of India not as robust as its competitors. But for now, as far as BRIC countries and a number of their Asian neighbors, India has a much stronger economic position to work with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
![[Most Recent Exchange Rate from www.kitco.com]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_v22Xm-sOdEgzaszGd1Jsp8PVrxW8Bs_AUIT9ZOQDyOVfMDNL-ByxWb0vhXKIvQcSnFjPHv2_HgBsafVG8DkpiV501qvVrvHyh0phI-aw4tdwpnORt9cu8=s0-d)
