Month: December 2014 | Page 5

4 December, 2014

Sensex 4,20,000: Coming in 15 years at a stock market near you

Vivek Kaul

It is that time of the year when stock brokerages forecast their Sensex/Nifty targets for the next year. A few such reports have landed up in my mailbox and the highest forecast that I have come across until now is that of the Sensex touching 37,000 points by December 2015.
I was thinking of writing a piece around these forecasts, until I happened to read an interview in which big bull Rakesh Jhunjhunwala said that he would disappointed if the Nifty doesn’t hit 1,25,000 by 2030.
Nifty currently quotes at a level of around 8,500 points. The logic offered by Jhunjhunwla is very straightforward. He said that the earnings of stocks that constitute the Nifty index will grow by fifteen times over the next fifteen years. And that would take the Nifty to a level which is fifteen times its current level ( actually 15 times 8500 is 1,27,500, but given that Jhunjhunwala was talking in very broad terms let’s not nitpick). Hence, Nifty will be at 1,25,000 by 2030.
How reliable is this forecast? Not very, is a straightforward answer. A period of 15 years is too long a time to make such a specific forecast on the stock market or anything else for that matter. There are many things that can go wrong during the period (or go right for that matter). Hence, such forecasts need to be taken with a pinch of salt and seen as something that has an entertainment value more than anything else.
In matters of forecasts like these it is important to remember the first few lines of Ruchir Sharma’s Breakout Nations – In Pursuit of the Next Economic Miracles: “The old rule of forecasting was to make as many forecasts as possible and publicise the ones you got right. The new rule is to forecast so far into the future that no one will know you got it wrong.” Jhunjhunwala has done precisely that.
If earnings have to grow by 15 times in 15 years, the Indian economy also needs to grow at a breakneck speed. Over a very long period of time, the companies cannot keep growing their profits unless the economy grows as well. For 15% earnings growth to happen, the economy needs to grow at a real rate of 8-10% per year (the remaining earnings growth will come from inflation).
The trouble is that this kind of rapid long term economic growth in countries is an extremely rare phenomenon.
As Sharma points out in Breakout Nations:“Very few nations achieve long-term rapid growth. My own research shows that over the course of any given decade since 1950, only one-third of emerging markets have been able to grow at an annual rate of 5% or more. Less than one-fourth have kept that pace up for two decades, and one tenth for three decades. Just six countries (Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and Hong Kong) have maintained the rate of growth for four decades, and two (South Korea and Taiwan) have done so for five decades.”
In fact, India and China which have been among the fastest growing countries over the last ten years, were laggards when it come to economic growth. “During the 1950s and the 1960s the biggest emerging markets – China and India – were struggling to grow at all. Nations like Iran, Iraq, and Yemen put together long strings of strong growth, but those strings came to a halt with the outbreak of war…In the 1960s, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, and Burma were billed as the next East Asian tigers, only to see their growth falter badly,” writes Sharma.
Long story short: Rapid economic growth cannot be taken for granted and given this forecasts like Nifty touching 1,25,000 at best need to be taken with a pinch of salt. Indeed, Jhunjhunwala had predicted in October 2007 that the Sensex will touch 50,000 points in the next six or seven years.
Its been more than seven years since then and the Sensex is nowhere near the 50,000 level.
In October 2007, India was growing at a rapid rate. At that point of time it was almost a given that the country would continue to grow at a very fast rate. In fact, this feeling lasted almost until 2011, when the high inflation finally caught up with economic growth and the first set of low economic growth numbers started to come.
Also, Jhunjhunwala and most other stock market experts did not know in October 2007 that more or less a year later, the investment bank Lehman Brothers would go bust, and the world would see a financial crisis of the kind it had never seen since the Great Depression.
The stock market fell rapidly in the aftermath of the crisis. Once this happened the central banks of the world led by the Federal Reserve of the United States, printed and pumped money into their respective financial systems.
The idea was to flood the financial system with money so as to maintain low interest rates and hope that people borrow and spend, and in the process get economic growth going again. That happened to a limited extent. What happened instead was that big financial institutions borrowed money at low interest rates and invested it in financial markets all over the world.
In the Indian case the foreign institutional investors have made a net purchase of Rs 3,19,366.35 crore in the Indian stock market between January 2009 and November 2014. During the same period the domestic institutional investors sold stocks worth Rs 1,27,280.1 crore. The massive financial flows from abroad have ensured that the BSE Sensex has jumped from around a level of 10,000 points to around 28,450 points, during the same period, giving an absolute return of around 185%.
The point being that despite this massive inflow of money from abroad, the BSE Sensex is nowhere near the 50,000 level that Jhunjhunwala had predicted in October 2007. Over the long term a lot of things can go wrong and which is what happened after 2007.
To conclude, let me ride on Jhunjhunwala’s forecast and make my own forecast. Jhunjhunwala has predicted that the Nifty index will touch 1,25,000 points in 2030. This means the Sensex will cross 4,16, 420 points in 2030.
How do I say that? The Sensex currently quotes at around 28,450 points. In comparison, the Nifty is at around 8,500 points. This means a Sensex to Nifty ratio of around 3.33.
Hence, when Nifty touches 1,25,000 points, the Sensex will touch 4,16,420 points (1,25,000 x 3.33). For the sake of convenience let’s just round this off to 4,20,000 points. I know, the world is not so linear. If forecasts were just about dragging a few MS Excel cells, everybody would be getting them right.
But then it is the forecast season and everyone seems to be making one, and given that even I should be making one. And if in 2030 I am proven right, I will search this column and tell the world at large that I said it first way back in late 2014 on The Daily Reckoning.
To conclude, dear reader, remember you read it here first. That’s the trick and I know how it works.

The article originally appeared on www.equitymaster.com as a part of The Daily Reckoning, on Dec 4, 2014

4 December, 2014

It’s time big business stops blaming Rajan and RBI for everything

Vivek Kaul

When small children don’t get enough attention from their parents, they cry. And until they get attention, they keep crying.
Big business in India is a tad like that. For the last one year it has been crying itself hoarse in trying to tell the Reserve Bank of India(RBI) to cut interest rates. But the RBI led by Raghuram Rajan hasn’t obliged.
In the monetary policy statement released yesterday, the RBI decided to maintain the status quo and not cut the repo rate, as big business has been demanding for a while now. Repo rate is the interest rate at which RBI lends to banks.
The lobbies which represent the big businesses in India reacted in a now familiar way after the monetary policy. The Confederation of Indian Industries said that the economic recovery was still fragile and a decision to cut interest rates would have helped the small and medium enterprises (SME) sector, which is credit starved currently. The lobby further added that if interest rates would have been cut businesses would have borrowed more.
On the face of it this sounds like a very genuine concern. But Raghuram Rajan explained the real issue with SMEs not getting enough loans in a recent speech. The bad loans of Indian banks, in particular public sector banks, have gone up dramatically in the recent past.
As on March 31, 2013, the gross non performing assets (NPAs) or simply put the bad loans, of public sector banks, had stood at 3.63% of the total advances. Latest data from the finance ministry show that the bad loans of public sector banks as on September 30, 2014, stood at 5.32% of the total advance.
Why have bad loans gone up by such a huge amount? “The most obvious reason,” as Rajan put it was “that the system protects the large borrower and his divine right to stay in control.” Who is the large borrower? Big business.
As Rajan explained: “The firm and its many workers, as well as past bank loans, are the hostages in this game of chicken — the promoter threatens to run the enterprise into the ground unless the government, banks, and regulators make the concessions that are necessary to keep it alive. And if the enterprise regains health, the promoter retains all the upside, forgetting the help he got from the government or the banks – after all, banks should be happy they got some of their money back.”
Banks have tried to repossess assets offered as collateral against these loans in order to recover their loans, but haven’t been very successful at it. As Rajan put it in his speech: “The amount recovered from cases decided in 2013-14 under debt recovery tribunals was Rs. 30,590 crore while the outstanding value of debt sought to be recovered was a huge Rs. 2,36,600 crore. Thus recovery was only 13% of the amount at stake.”
Big businesses have been able to hire expensive lawyers and managed to stop banks from repossessing their assets. The small and medium enterprises haven’t been able to do that. Rajan said just that in his speech:“The SARFAESI [ Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest] Act of 2002 is, by the standards of most countries, very pro-creditor as it is written. This was probably an attempt by legislators to reduce the burden on debt recovery tribunals and force promoters to pay. But its full force is felt by the small entrepreneur who does not have the wherewithal to hire expensive lawyers or move the courts, even while the influential promoter once again escapes its rigour. The small entrepreneur’s assets are repossessed quickly and sold, extinguishing many a promising business that could do with a little support from bankers.”
Hence, small and medium enterprises have had to face problems because big businesses have decided to borrow and not to repay.
The CII further suggested that if RBI had cut interest rates businesses would have borrowed more. It needs to be clarified here that interest rates are not simply high because the repo rate is high at 8%. There are other reasons for it as well.
Big businesses have defaulted on such a huge quantum of loans that banks have had to charge the borrowers who are repaying a higher rate of interest. As Rajan put it in his speech “The promoter who misuses the system ensures that banks then charge a premium for business loans. The average interest rate on loans to the power sector today is 13.7% even while the policy rate is 8%. The difference, also known as the credit risk premium, of 5.7% is largely compensation banks demand for the risk of default and non-payment.”
This when the average home loan in the country is being given at 10.7%. Hence, a home loan to an individual is being given at a lower rate of interest than loans to power companies. And only big businesses defaulting on their loans are to be blamed for it.
Rana Kapoor who is the President of a business lobby called Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India said: “RBI has obviously overlooked strong demand from the industry for a cut in the interest rates. The industry’s demand for lower interest rates was fully justified.”
Kapoor is the founder managing director and CEO of Yes Bank. It needs to be pointed out here that the bad loans of Yes Bank for the period of three months ending September 30, 2014, went up by 178.3% to Rs 54 crore in comparison to the same period last year.
What is surprising here is that a banker whose bad loan book has exploded is demanding a rate cut. I am sure Mr Kapoor understands how credit risk operates.
Also, business lobbies and businesses tend to totally ignore the fact that the RBI cannot do much about creating economic growth beyond a point. As economist Tim Dudley puts it: “As long as people have babies, capital depreciates, technology evolves, and tastes and preferences change, there is a powerful underlying (and under-appreciated) impetus for growth that is almost certain to reveal itself in any reasonably well-managed economy.”
The phrase to mark here is “well-managed economy” and that is largely the government’s prerogative. Rajan acknowledged this in the latest monetary policy statement. As he said towards the end of the monetary policy statement “A durable revival of investment demand continues to be held back by infrastructural constraints and lack of assured supply of key inputs, in particular coal, power, land and minerals. The success of ongoing government actions in these areas will be key to reviving growth.”
Criticising or trying to tell RBI what it should be doing, is not going to help big business much. If they have to criticise, it is the government they should be criticising. But that as we all know is not going to happen any time soon. Meanwhile, the RBI will continue to be the favourite whipping boy of big business.

The article originally appeared on www.FirstBiz.com on Dec 4, 2014

(Vivek Kaul is the author of the Easy Money trilogy. He tweets @kaul_vivek)

3 December, 2014

Rajan and RBI have done their bit, now the ball is in government’s court

One of the laws of forecasting is to publicize the forecasts that you get right. On November 17, 2014, I wrote a piece titled Raghuram Rajan won’t cut interest rates even in Hindi.
In the Fifth Bi-Monthly Monetary Policy Statement released yesterday (December 2, 2014), Raghuram Rajan, the governor of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), kept the repo rate unchanged. Repo rate is the rate at which the RBI lends to banks.
This was along expected lines. Rajan unlike many other central banks believes in clear communication. As Alan Greenspan, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve of the United States, the American central bank, from 1988 to 2006, once said “I guess I should warn you, if I turn out to be particularly clear, you’ve probably misunderstood what I’ve said.” Rajan does not believe in this school of thought and what he writes and says is normally very clear.
And that’s true about the latest monetary policy statement as well. He lays out very clearly what the Indian central bank is thinking at this point of time.
Let’s look at a few statements that Rajan made in the monetary policy statement. These statements are italicized and what follows is my interpretation of the statements.
“Further softening of international crude prices in October eased price pressures in transport and communication. However, upside pressures persist in respect of prices of clothing and bedding, housing and other miscellaneous services, resulting in non-food non-fuel inflation for October remaining flat at its level in the previous month, and above headline inflation.”
What Rajan means here is that overall inflation(i.e. rate of price rise) has been falling. But the prices of a part of the consumer price index which consists of non food and non fuel items haven’t been falling as fast as the overall inflation has been. Given this, its not yet time for the RBI to cut the repo rate or the rate at which it lends to banks.
“Survey-based inflationary expectations have been coming down with the fall in prices of commonly-bought items such as vegetables, but are still in the low double digits. Administered price corrections, as and when they are effected, weaker-than-anticipated agricultural production…could alter the currently benign inflation outlook significantly.”
Inflationary expectations (or the expectations that people have of what future inflation is likely to be) have been coming down. This means that people expect the rate of price rise to come down in the days to come. Nevertheless, the inflationary expectations are still on the high side, given that they remain in the low double digits.
Further, agricultural production is likely to fall as well. “It is reasonable to expect some firming up of these prices in view of the monsoon’s performance so far and the shortfall estimated for kharif production,” the statement read. This could push up inflation in the days to come. The RBI needs to wait and see how these factors pan out, before deciding to cut the repo rate.
“Inflation has been receding steadily and current readings are below the January 2015 target of 8 per cent as well as the January 2016 target of 6 per cent. The inflation reading for November – which will become available by mid-December – is expected to show a further softening. Thereafter, however, the favourable base effect that is driving down headline inflation will likely dissipate and inflation for December (data release in mid January) may well rise above current levels.”
A large part of the above statement is self explanatory. The Rajan led RBI expects the rate of inflation to have fallen further for November 2014. Nevertheless, a large part of this fall in inflation is because of the favourable base effect feels the RBI. What this means is that inflation in November 2013 was at a high level. This high inflation in November 2013 will make the inflation in November 2014 look small. (For a detailed explanation of the base effect click here). The RBI expects this base effect to go away after November and inflation to rise. Hence, it wants to wait and watch and see how the situation turns out by early next year.
This statement is also important from the point of view of inflationary expectations. They start to come down only once the people see low inflation being maintained for a while. And if inflation actually has to be controlled, the inflationary expectations need to be controlled first.
“ Risks from imported inflation appear to be retreating, given the softening of international commodity prices, especially crude, and reasonable stability in the foreign exchange market. Accordingly, the central forecast for CPI inflation is revised down to 6 per cent for March 2015.”
In this statement the Rajan led RBI acknowledges that one of the reasons for the falling inflation is a fall in oil prices. The RBI also says that it largely expects the inflation not to spike from here but is not totally sure about it. And given that they have revised the inflation number for March 2015 to 6%. Earlier it was at 8%. This statement reaffirms the fact that the RBI wants to wait and watch and be sure that the low inflation environment is here to stay. In short, it doesn’t want to jump the gun.
“With deposit mobilisation outpacing credit growth and currency demand remaining subdued in relation to past trends, banks are flush with funds, leading a number of banks to reduce deposit rates.”
“Some easing of monetary conditions has already taken place. The weighted average call rates as well as long term yields for government and high-quality corporate issuances have moderated substantially since end-August. However, these interest rate impulses have yet to be transmitted by banks into lower lending rates.”
In these statements Rajan points out that interest rates on deposits have fallen despite the RBI not reducing the repo rate. He also acknowledges that RBI plays a limited role in influencing interest rates. Further, the overall rate of loan growth for banks has been falling. Given this, the government and big corporates have been able to raise money at lower interest rates since the end of August 2014.
This quip is aimed at the businessmen who have been asking Rajan to cut interest rates. Further, this slowdown in the loan growth for banks has not transmitted into lower interest rates for everybody as yet. The government and the big corporates are the only ones who have benefited from it.
“The Reserve Bank has repeatedly indicated that once the monetary policy stance shifts, subsequent policy actions will be consistent with the changed stance. There is still some uncertainty about the evolution of base effects in inflation, the strength of the on-going disinflationary impulses, the pace of change of the public’s inflationary expectations, as well as the success of the government’s efforts to hit deficit targets. A change in the monetary policy stance at the current juncture is premature. However, if the current inflation momentum and changes in inflationary expectations continue, and fiscal developments are encouraging, a change in the monetary policy stance is likely early next year, including outside the policy review cycle.”
This is the crux of the monetary policy statement. What Rajan is saying here is that the RBI is still not totally convinced about cutting the repo rate. It doesn’t feel comfortable in declaring that the battle against inflation has been won.
It feels that if the rate of inflation continues to remain low, the inflationary expectations continue to fall and the government is able to meet its fiscal deficit targets, only then would have the RBI achieved what it set out to, after Rajan took over as the governor in September 2013.
Fiscal deficit is the difference between what a government earns and what it spends. The difference is made up through borrowing. If the government borrows more, it pushes up interest rates because it leaves a lower amount for others to borrow.
Once the RBI sees these three factors under control it will start cutting the repo rate and it will do that at a rapid rate. This, the central bank feels is likely to happen early next year. It has also made it clear that once it is convinced about the need to cut the repo rate it will do that without waiting for the days on which monetary policy is scheduled.
The phrase to mark here is “early next year,” which is open ended. Since Rajan has talked about waiting to see if the government is able to maintain its fiscal deficit target, the repo rate cut is likely to happen after the budget is presented in late February.
There are a couple of other points that I would like to make:

a) It was nice to see Rajan stick to his guns and not fall for the pressure to cut interest rates. This, despite the fact that Arun Jaitley went on an overdrive demanding that the RBI cut interest rates. He even met Rajan on December 1.

b) Further, Rajan has always maintained that if inflation is controlled economic growth will follow. As he wrote in the 2008 Report of the Committee on Financial Sector Reforms: “The RBI can best serve the cause of growth by focusing on controlling inflation.”

He repeated the same statement while talking to reporters yesterday. As he said “There is a major misconception in the industry that the RBI is not concerned about growth. The central bank is concerned about growth and the way to sustainable growth is to have a moderate inflation…RBI wants the strongest growth for India that is possible. We’re talking of years of sustainable growth for which you need to fight inflation.”
This statement should go a long way in countering those who had been trying to portray RBI’s efforts at countering inflation in a negative way and trying to hold it wrong for the low growth environment that prevails in the country these days.
In the end, like good central bank governors often do, Rajan acknowledged that there is only so much that the RBI can do. If economic growth has to be revived the government needs to get its act together. As he said towards the end of the monetary policy statement “A durable revival of investment demand continues to be held back by infrastructural constraints and lack of assured supply of key inputs, in particular coal, power, land and minerals. The success of ongoing government actions in these areas will be key to reviving growth.”
The RBI due to its own efforts and with some luck(like oil prices crashing) has brought inflation under some control. Now it’s over to the government.

The article originally appeared on www.equitymaster.com as a part of The Daily Reckoning, on Dec 3, 2014

2 December, 2014

Warren Buffett’s favourite business book tells us what is wrong with India’s tax system

Vivek Kaul

Business books are soporific. They put me to sleep.
Nonetheless, now and then, one does come across an excellent business book as well. These days I am reading John Brooks’ Business Adventures. The book is a collection of 12 long articles that Brooks wrote for the New Yorker magazine.
In July 2014, Bill Gates wrote a blog titled The Best Business Book I’ve Ever Read. As he put it : “Not long after I first met Warren Buffett back in 1991, I asked him to recommend his favorite book about business. He didn’t miss a beat: “It’s Business Adventures, by John Brooks,” he said. “I’ll send you my copy.” I was intrigued: I had never heard of Business Adventures or John Brooks. Today, more than two decades after Warren lent it to me—and more than four decades after it was first published—Business Adventures remains the best business book I’ve ever read.” This blog by Gates sent the book to the top of the best-sellers lists almost everywhere.
The third chapter of the book is called The Federal Income Tax. Brooks makes several points in the chapter about the income tax system in the United States as it had prevailed in the fifties and sixties. Some of the points I feel are as applicable to the general tax environment in India today as they were in the United States back then.
As Brooks writes in the context of the federal income tax in the United States: “A good deal of the attention given to the income tax is based on the proposition that the tax is neither logical nor equitable. Probably, the broadest and most serious charge is that the law has close to its heart something very much like a lie; that is, it provides for taxing incomes at steeply progressive rates, and then goes on to supply an array of escape hatches so convenient that hardly anyone, no matter how rich, need pay the top rates or anything like them.”
Long story short: The rich were “supposed” to be taxed at a high rate, but at the same time enough loopholes were built into the income tax laws ensuring that they did not pay the highest tax rates in reality.
A similar sort of scenario prevails in India when it comes to the Income Tax Act in particular and taxes in general. Along with the budget every year, the government of India puts out a statement of revenue foregone under the central tax system.
What is the purpose of this system? “The estimates and projections are intended to indicate the potential revenue gain that would be realised by removing exemptions, deductions, weighted deductions and similar measures,” the latest statement of revenue foregone points out.
The deductions, exemptions and other measures lead to a loss of revenue for the government. As can be seen from the accompanying table the revenue foregone for the government during the year 2013-2014 has been estimated to be at Rs 5,72,923.3 crore.

Statement of Revenue Foregone

Tax	Year	(in Rs crore)
	2012-2013	2013-2014
Corporate Income Tax	68,720.0	76,116.3
Personal Income Tax	33,535.7	40,414.0
Excise Duty	209,940.0	195,679.0
Customs Duty	254,039.0	260,714.0
	566,234.7	572,923.3

A simplistic way of looking at it is that the revenue foregone number is greater than the fiscal deficit of the government for 2013-2014, which stood at Rs 5,42,499 crore.
Nevertheless it needs to be pointed out that the statement of revenue foregone is based on certain assumptions. As the statement points out “ The estimates are based on a short-term impact analysis. They are developed assuming that the underlying tax base would not be affected by removal of such measures….The cost of each tax concession is determined separately, assuming that all other tax provisions remain unchanged. Many of the tax concessions do, however, interact with each other. Therefore, the interactive impact of tax incentives could turn out to be different from the revenue foregone calculated by adding up the estimates and projections for each provision.”
So the revenue foregone figure needs to be looked at with these limitations in mind. Having said that, the government of India is losing out on revenue because of the exemptions and deductions. There is no denying that. As can be seen from the above table corporate India is a major beneficiary of the same, like the rich were in the United States, around the time Brooks wrote about the federal income tax.
Getting back to Brooks, he also points out that laws and the regulations were so vast that the critics thought it was an “undemocratic state of affairs, for only the rich can afford the expensive professional advice necessary to minimize their taxes legally”.
This is what is happening in India as well. Companies have an army of chartered accountants and lawyers, working towards legally minimizing taxes, whereas most individual tax payers find it difficult to afford the services of a good chartered accountant who can help them.
Brooks also talks about the favoured treatment of capital gains. This is something that really helps the rich because they are the ones primarily investing in stocks and bonds. In India short term capital gains on equity gets taxed at 15%. There is no long term capital gains tax on equity i.e. if you buy and then sell a share after one year, you don’t have to pay a tax on the capital gains you make when you sell the shares. Equity mutual funds are treated in a similar way.
In case of debt mutual funds, long term capital gains come into the picture if the investment is held for a period of more than three years. Long term capital gains are taxed at either 10% or 20% with indexation, whichever is lower. Indexation allows inflation to be taken into account while calculating the cost of purchase. This brings down the tax significantly.
Now compare this to the common man’s investment—the humble fixed deposit. In this case the interest earned is taxed at the marginal rate of tax. Why is there a favourable treatment for investing in equity? I have often been told that this is because the investor investing in stocks is taking on more risk than the fixed deposit investor, and hence needs to be encouraged through a favourable tax treatment.
This I guess is “bullshit” (pardon my French!) of the highest order perpetuated by those who invest in equity and do not want to pay any tax on it. The amount of risk that an individual wants to take on with investments, is his or her personal preference and should have nothing to do with the prevailing income tax system. Nevertheless that’s the way things stand. Equity gets preferential tax treatment all over the world.
Other than this, the Indian Income Tax Act has a very interesting provision for those taking on a home loan to buy a home. In fact, the Act encourages people to speculate in real estate. There is no restriction on the number of homes against which you can claim a tax deduction on the interest paid on the home loan to fund the property. Only one of these properties needs to categorized as a self-occupied property. On this self-occupied property, an interest of up to Rs 1.5 lakh can be claimed as a tax deduction.
But this limit does not apply to the remaining homes that an individual may choose to buy. Any amount of interest paid on home loans can be claimed as a deduction as long as a “notional rent” is added to the income.
We all know that these days “rents” are relatively low in comparison to the EMIs that need to be paid in order to repay the home loan. Hence, the interest component tends to be massive during the initial years and helps people with two or more homes, claim huge tax deductions.
In a country where a large number cannot afford to buy a home what is the logic in having a regulation like this one?
The Direct Taxes Code, which is supposed to be replace the Income Tax Act, in its original form simplified the income tax system. In fact, I remember reading a large part of it when it first came out and was very impressed by its simplicity.
But a simple tax code doesn’t benefit those who currently make money out of the Income Tax Act being as complicated as it is. These include chartered accountants, tax lawyers, corporates and the income tax officers. Over the years, the Direct Taxes Code has been revised and from what I am told by those in the know of such things, it has become more or less as complicated as the Income Tax Act currently is.
To conclude, the tax system in India currently favours those who need to pay more taxes. This is something that needs to be addressed in the days to come.

The article originally appeared on www.equitymaster.com on Dec 2, 2014

2 December, 2014

Central banks wouldn’t have printed money if…

Vivek Kaul

Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, the president of Argentina, was visiting the United States in the autumn of 2012. A part of her itinerary included speeches at the Harvard and Georgetown universities.
Students at these universities asked her about the rate of inflation in Argentina. As Bill Bonner writes in his new book Hormegeddon—How Too Much of a Good Thing Leads to Disaster, “Her bureaucrats put the consumer price index—at less than 10%. Independent analysts and housewives know it as a lie. Prices are rising at about 25% per year.”
Fernandez turned the tables at a press conference and asked her accusers: “Really, do you think consumer prices are only going up at a 2% rate in the US?”
This is a very important question to ask given that inflation is one of the most important numbers that are put out in the public domain. As Bonner writes “The ‘inflation’ number is probably the most important number the number crunchers crunch, because it crunches up against most of the other numbers too.”
What does Bonner mean by this? If your house price has doubled and if the price of everything else doubled as well during the same period, then you haven’t made any gains at all. The same stands true for your salary as well.
At a broader level, the economic growth (as measured by the growth in the gross domestic product (GDP)) is also adjusted for inflation. So, if the growth is 8% and inflation is also 8%, then there is no real growth. For real growth to happen the rate of growth has to be greater than the rate of inflation.
The point being that the rate of inflation is used to correct distortions that creep into other numbers. As Bonner writes “In pensions, taxes, insurance, and contracts, the CPI[consumer price inflation] number is used to correct distortions caused by inflation. But if the CPI number is itself distorted, then the whole [thing] gets twisted.”
Moral of the story: It is very important to measure the inflation number correctly. But is that really happening in the United States? As Nick Barisheff writes in $10,000 Gold—Why Gold’s Inevitable Rise Is the Investor’s Safe Haven, “The need to distort actual values of inflation became even more important once governments began prodding social programs and indexed government pensions [i.e. government pension went up at the rate of inflation]. A single-point rise in the official rate of inflation would likely cost the U.S. government hundreds of billions of dollars in indexed government pension payments.”
The Boskin Commission was set up in 1995. It was formally called the Advisory Commission to Study the consumer price index. The commission came to the conclusion that the consumer price index overstated inflation. “These findings also concluded that since the CPI was used to measure indexed pensions, the projections for budget deficits were too large,” writes Barisheff.
The recommendations of the commission changed the way inflation was measured in the United States. As Barisheff writes “The changes implemented after the Boskin Commission’s report were significant, with the main distinction being that the CPI used to measure a “fixed standard of living” with a fixed basket of goods. Today, it measures the cost of living with a constantly changing basket of goods, measured with metrics that are themselves constantly changing.”
This change in methodology led to the inflation being understated due to various reasons. A World Gold Council report titled Gold Investor: Risk Management and Capital Preservation released by the World Gold Council points out “The weights that different goods and services have in the aforementioned indices do not always correspond to what a household may experience. For example, tuition has been one of the fastest growing expenses for US households but represents only 3% of CPI (consumer price index). In practice, tuition costs correspond to more than 10% of the annual income even for upper-middle American households – and a higher percentage of their consumption.”
Then there is the issue referred to as “hedonic” adjustments. Let’s say you go to a buy a computer. The computer is being sold at the same price as last year. But its twice as powerful. “Now you are getting twice as much computer for the same price. You don’t really need twice as much power. But you can’t buy half a computer. So, you reach in your packet and pay as much as last year,” writes Bonner.
Those calculating inflation look at the scenario differently. They assume that since the new computer has more power, it has basically gone down in cost. “This reasoning does not seem altogether unreasonable. But a $1,000 computer is a substantial part of most household budgets. And this “hedonic” adjustment of prices exerts a large pull downward on the measurement of consumer prices, even though the typical household lays out almost exactly as much one year as it did last,” writes Bonner.
Further, hedonic adjustment does not take into account the rapid change in technology. As Barisheff points out “Hedonics overlooks hidden inflationary events, such as the rapid pace of technological development and lower production standards, which combined mean we need to replace appliances more often. In the 1960s, we bought one home telephone every decade, if that. We purchased a new television perhaps a little more frequently. Now we are changing our tech devices every couple of years. Hedonics, to be, fair, should account for this extra cost, but it does not.”
Other than hedonics, the substitution bias is at work as well. In this case, it is assumed that consumers substitute “cheaper goods for more expensive goods when relative prices change.” As Barisheff writes “The government is saying that when steak gets too expensive, people will forgo steak for hamburger. Somehow, this does not account for the fact that steak is getting more expensive, or that consumers do not automatically substitute.” Using, susbstitution, the government determined that food prices rose by 4.1% between 2007 and 2008. Nevertheless, the American Farm Bureau which tracks exactly the same basket of goods said prices rose by 11.3%.
Long story short, the inflation as it is being measured is being under-declared. Bonner points out that if they measured inflation now like they did in 1980, the rate of inflation in the United States would have been 9% and not 2%.
And if that were the case a lot of other things would change. If inflation would have been 9% and 2%, the Federal Reserve of the United States and other central banks around the developed world would not have printed the quantum of money that they have.
Economist John Mauldin in a recent column titled The End of Monetary Policy estimates that central banks have printed $7-8 trillion since the start of the financial crisis.
This was done primarily to ensure that with so much money floating around the interest rates would continue to remain low. At low interest rates people would borrow and spend. This would create some inflation. Looking that prices were going up, people would come out and shop, so that they don’t have to pay more later.
What has happened instead is that financial institutions have borrowed money at low interest rates and invested it in financial markets all over the world.
Nevertheless, if the inflation was 9% and not less than 2% as it stands now, central banks wouldn’t have printed all the money that they have in the first place.
This leads Bonner to ponder that “the problem with the “inflation” number runs deeper than just statistical legerdemain.” “It concerns the definition of inflation itself. Does the word refer only to rise in consumer prices? Or to the rise in the supply of money? The distinction has huge consequences. Because, in years following the 08′-09′ prices, it was the absence of the former that permitted central banks to add so much to the latter…As long as consumer price inflation didn’t manifest itself in a disagreeable way, central bankers felt they cold create as much agreeable monetary inflation as they wanted,” writes Bonner.
And that is something worth thinking about.

The article originally appeared on www.FirstBiz.com on Dec 2, 2014
(Vivek Kaul is the author of the Easy Money trilogy. He tweets @kaul_vivek)