Vivek Kaul
The investment bank Goldman Sachs is at it again. In a report dated March 14, 2014, the bank said that it expects the Nifty index to touch 7600 points during 2014. As I write this (on March 19, 2014, around noon) the Nifty is at around 6526 points.
This means that the Nifty needs to rally by around 16.5% from its current level to touch 7600 points. And if the Sensex rallies by similar levels it will cross 25,000 points during the course of the year.
Goldman Sachs offered a spate of reasons justifying the target of 7600 points for the Nifty (You can read them here). The only trouble here is that similar predictions made by Goldman Sachs in the past have gone majorly wrong.
Blogger and analyst Deepak Shenoy writes about these predictions in a post on his blog www.capitalmind.in. In November 2012, Goldman Sachs predicted that India will grow by 6.5% during 2013. The actual growth came in at less than 5%.
In March 2012, the investment bank predicted that by March 2013, Nifty would touch 6100 points. As on March 28, 2013, the Nifty was way lower at 5682.55 points. In August 2011, the investment bank predicted that by September 2012, the Nifty would touch 6600 points. As on September 28, 2012, the Nifty was at 5730.3 points. It only got anywhere near 6600 points very recently.
So that is how the past predictions of Goldman Sachs have gone. Hence, why take this new prediction seriously?
In fact, truth be told, Goldman Sachs is not the only financial firm making such predictions. They come by the dozen. Here are a few such predictions that were made at the beginning of this year. CLSA has predicted that the Sensex will touch 23,500 points by December 2014. Deutsche Bank Markets Research did better than CLSA and predicted that Sensex will touch 24,000 points by the end of this year. And Goldman Sachs in an earlier report dated November 5, 2013, had predicted that the Nifty would touch 6900 points by the end of 2014. This target has now been upped to 7600 points.
The economist John Kenneth Galbraith termed the entire business of prediction as a fraud. As he writes inThe Economics of Innocent Fraud “The fraud begins with a controlling fact, inescapably evident but universally ignored. It is that the future of economic performance of the economy, the passage from good times to recession or depression and back, cannot be foretold. There are more ample predictions but no firm knowledge.”
And why is that? “There is the variable effect of exports, imports, capital movements and corporate, public and government reaction thereto. Thus the all-too-evident-fact: The combined result of the unknown cannot be known,” writes Galbraith.
Given this, why are such predictions made? For one, making such predictions is a fairly lucrative career option. Also, investors (like most other people) want to know in which direction are the markets headed. In the recent past, there have been a spate of reports which essentially have been telling us that markets will continue to go up, because Narendra Modi will be the next prime minister of India.
The stock market investors are largely supporters of Modi, and any report that links Modi and the stock market going up is music to their ears. Sometime back an Indian stock brokerage predicted that Narendra Modi is likely to win the next elections and even made projections on how many seats the Bhartiya Janata Party is likely to win. This after some of its analysts had travelled six hundred kilometres through fifteen districts.
In a country where the most detailed polls go wrong, how can anyone in their right mind make a prediction on the number of seats a party is likely to win, after travelling through just 15 districts? The report was immediately lapped up by the pink papers and their readers, given that Narendra Modi winning the elections is music to their ears. As Galbraith puts it “The men and women so engaged believe and are believed by others to have knowledge of the unknown; research is thought to create such knowledge. Because what is predicted is what others wish to hear and what they wish to profit or have some return from, hope or need covers reality.”
Also, financial firms need a story to sell stocks to their clients. As the old saying goes, every bull market has a theory behind it. Andy Kessler, who used to be analyst with Morgan Stanley, recalls his experience in Wall Street Meat. As he writes “The market opens for trading five days a week… Companies report earnings once every quarter. But stocks trade about 250 days a year. Something has to make them move up or down the other 246 days [250 days – the four days on which companies declare quarterly results]. Analysts fill that role. They recommend stocks, change recommendations, change earnings estimates, pound the table—whatever it takes for a sales force to go out with a story so someone will trade with the firm and generate commissions.”
Predicting which way the stock market is headed is also a part of this game. Also, revising targets is an important part of this game. As Kessler writes “For some reason, Morgan Stanley was into price targets. I hated them. To me, they were pure marketing fluff. I would recommend Intel at, say $25. The first question I would get is what is my price target. My answer would be $40 for no particularly good reason. It was high enough to interest investors, but I was guaranteed to be wrong. If it hit $38, it was a great call, but I was wrong. If it went to $60, it was an even better call, but I was still wrong. What usually happened was that if the stock hit $35, I was asked to adjust my price target to $50, so that sales force would have a call to go out with.”
Let’s understand this in the context of Goldman Sachs’ Nifty target of 7600. In November 2013, the firm predicted that Nifty would touch 6900 by the end of 2014. Three months into the year the Nifty has already crossed 6500 points and hence, a target of 6900 points doesn’t sound ‘sexy’ enough. The solution, of course, is a new target which is at a much higher 7600 points.
What this also does is that it gives the financial firm a lot of coverage in the media. Every pink paper in the country, along with almost all business news websites have carried the news about Goldman Sachs’ new Nifty target. So, in a way it’s free advertising for Goldman Sachs.
Interestingly, when the stock market hit an all time high in January 2008, a stock brokerage which was looking to go public, released a report saying that the Sensex will touch 25,000 points before the end of the year. The report was covered comprehensively through the day across all business news channels. The next day the pink papers also splashed the news big time. So, the stock brokerage got the publicity that it needed. Of course, the Sensex still hasn’t touched 25,000 points, more than six years later.
This is not to say that the Sensex will not cross 25,000 by the end of the year or the Nifty will not touch 7600 points, as predicted by Goldman Sachs. For you all we know that might turn out to be the case. And the analysts at Goldman will then be termed as visionary. But when it comes to markets, it is always worth remembering what John Maynard Keynes, the great man that he was, once said: “Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.”
The article originally appeared on www.FirstBiz.com on March 19, 2014
(Vivek Kaul is a writer. He tweets @kaul_vivek)
Easy Money
For every rupee sold by Indians, foreigners have invested Rs 6.2 in the stock market
Vivek Kaul
The BSE Sensex has been flirting with new highs these days. It touched an intra-day high of 22,030.72 on March 18, 2014. The Sensex had touched similar high levels in January 2008, more than six years back. It is interesting see how the Indian investors and foreign investors have behaved since then.
The foreign institutional investors (FIIs) have bought stocks worth Rs 1,56,517.42 crore between January 2008 and March 14, 2014. During the same period the domestic institutional investors have sold stocks worth Rs 25,184.3 crore. Given this, for every rupee worth of stocks sold by the Indian institutional investors, the foreigners have invested Rs 6.21 (Rs 1,56,517.42 crore divided by Rs 25,184.3 crore) in the Indian stock market.
Why has that been the case? There are number of reasons for the same. The investment bank Lehman Brothers went bankrupt in September 2008. This unleashed the current financial crisis. In order to tackle this crisis, the Western nations have run an easy money policy, which includes maintaining low interest rates as well as printing money, in order to get their economic growth going. The idea being that people will borrow and spend money at low interest rates, which will benefit businesses and in turn lead to economic growth.
The easy money policy has allowed the big institutional investors to borrow money at very low interest rates and invest it in financial markets all over the world. That is the major reason behind foreign investors investing Rs 1,56,517.42 crore since January 2008, in the Indian stock market.
In fact, things get even more interesting if we consider data from December 2008 onwards, given that the western nations started to run an easy money policy towards the end of 2008. Since December 2008, the foreign investors have invested Rs 2,59,354.8 crore in the Indian stock market. During the same period the domestic investors have sold stocks worth Rs 96,244.8 crore.
What explains this contrast? The easy money policies explain one part of the argument, they clearly do not explain why Indian domestic investors have stayed away from the stock market. Lets look at some data that might throw up some clarity.
Data provided by the Association of Mutual Funds in India(Amfi) shows that in January 2008, around Rs 1,72,885 crore was invested in equity mutual fund schemes. It is important to understand here that the money was invested in equity mutual fund schemes and not necessarily stocks. A mutual fund scheme that invests more than 65% of the money that it manages in stocks is categorised as an equity mutual fund scheme. Money invested in equity mutual fund schemes formed around 32% of the total money managed by mutual funds at that point of time.
In February 2014, the amount invested in equity mutual fund schemes stood at Rs 1,57,227 crore. Money invested in equity mutual fund schemes formed only around 17% of the total money managed by the mutual funds.
In January 2008, the amount of money managed by mutual funds stood at Rs 5,48,064 crore. This has since then gone up to Rs 9,16,393 crore. Hence, mutual funds are clearly managing more money than they were a little over six years back, but the amount of money they manage under equity schemes has clearly come down.
Since August 2009, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) made it mandatory for mutual funds not to charge any entry load on mutual fund schemes. Prior to this, out of every Rs 100 put in by an investor in any equity mutual fund scheme, Rs 2.25 used to be charged as an entry load and passed onto the agent as a commission.
With almost no commissions on offer, agents stopped selling equity mutual fund schemes to retail investors. Hence, the amount of new money coming into the equity mutual funds and through them to the stock market has come down dramatically. What has also not helped is the fact that investors have redeemed their investments in equity mutual fund schemes big time since January 2008.
Investor interest has also gone away from unit linked investment plans (Ulips) offered by insurance companies. Ulips are essentially investment cum insurance plans which offer the investor an indirect option of buying stocks among other things.
In the bull market that ran from 2004 to 2008, banks and insurance agents mis-sold Ulips big time given the high commissions on offer and in a large number of cases promised to double the money invested in three years. By now a large number of Ulip investors have figured out that the only person who gained in case of Ulips was the insurance agent. Hence, investors have stayed away from investing in Ulips and through them into the stock market.
Given this, unlike the foreign investors, the Indian institutional investors have found it difficult to raise money to invest in the stock market over the last six years. And that explains to a large extent the fact that foreign investors have invested a lot of money in the stock market, whereas the Indian investors have stayed away.
The article originally appeared on www.firstbiz.com on March 19, 2014
(Vivek Kaul is a writer. He tweets @kaul_vivek)
Why there is no alternative to the dollar, the Russian threat notwithstanding
Vivek Kaul
Sergei Glazyev, a close advisor to the Russian President Vladmir Putin, recently threatened that if the United States imposed sanctions on Russia, over what is happening in Ukraine, then Russia might be forced drop the dollar as a reserve currency. He also said that if the United States froze the bank accounts of Russian businesses, then Russia will recommend that all investors of US government bonds start selling them.
How credible is this threat? Is Russia really in a position to drop dollar as a reserve currency? Or is any country in that position for that matter?
There are a host of factors which seem to suggest that the dollar will continue to be at the heart of the international financial system. As Barry Eichengreen writes in Exorbitant Privilege – The Rise and Fall of the Dollar, “The dollar remains far and away the most important currency for invoicing and settling international transactions, including even imports and exports that do not touch US shores. South Korea and Thailand set the prices of more than 80 percent of their trade in dollars despite the fact that only 20 percent of their exports go to American buyers. Fully 70 percent of Australia’s exports are invoiced in dollars despite the fact that fewer than 6 percent are destined for the United States…A recent study for Canada, a county with especially detailed data, shows that nearly 75 percent of all imports fromcountries other than United States continue to be invoiced and settled in U.S. dollars”
So, most international transactions are priced in dollars. Most commodities including oil and gold are priced in dollars. Over and above this dollar remains the main currency in the foreign exchange market. As Jermey Warner writes in The Telegraph “For instance, if you were looking to buy Singapore dollars with Russian roubles, you would typically first buy US dollars with your roubles and then swap them into Singapore dollars.”
Hence, a major part of the foreign exchange transactions happens in dollars. As the most recent Triennial Central Bank Survey of the Bank for International Settlements points out “The US dollar remained the dominant vehicle currency; it was on one side of 87% of all trades in April 2013. The euro was the second most traded currency, but its share fell to 33% in April 2013 from 39% in April 2010.”
Over and above this, another good data point to look at is the composition of the total foreign exchange reserves held by countries all over the world. The International Monetary Fund complies this data.
The problem here is that a lot of countries declare only their total foreign exchange reserves without going into the composition of those reserves. Hence, the fund divides the foreign exchange data into allocated reserves and total reserves. Allocated reserves are reserves for countries which give the composition of their foreign exchange reserves and tell us exactly the various currencies they hold as a part of their foreign exchange reserves.
We can take a look at the allocated reserves over a period of time and figure whether the composition of the foreign exchange reserves of countries around the world is changing. Are countries moving more and more of their reserves out of the dollar and into other currencies?Dollars formed 71% of the total allocable foreign exchange reserves in 1999, when the euro had just started functioning as a currency. Since then the proportion of foreign exchange reserves that countries hold in dollars has continued to fall.
In fact in the third quarter of 2008 (around the time Lehman Brothers went bust) dollars formed around 64.5% of total allocable foreign exchange reserves. This kept falling and by the first quarter of 2010 it was at 61.8%. It has started rising since then and as of the first quarter of of 2013, dollars formed 62.4% of the total allocable foreign exchange reserves.
Euro, which was seen as a challenger to the dollar has fizzled out because Europe is in a bigger financial and economic mess than the United States is in. Given this, there is no alternative to the dollar and hence, dollar continues to be at the heart of the international financial system.
So where does that leave the Russian rouble and the recent threat that has made against the dollar? Here is the basic point. When the entire world has their reserves in dollars, they are going to continue to buy and sell things in dollars. So, when Russia exports stuff it will get paid in dollars, and when its imports stuff it will have to pay in dollars. And unless it earns dollars through exports, it won’t be able to pay for its imports.
Any country looking to get away from the dollar is virtually destined for economic suicide. Russia can throw some weight around in its neighbourhood and look to move some of its international trade away from the dollar. The Russian company Gazprom, in which the Russian government has a controlling stake, is the largest extractor of natural gas in the world, being responsible for nearly 20% of the world’s supply.
The gas that Gazprom sells in Russia is sold at a loss, a legacy of the communist days. But the company also provides gas to 25 European nations and this makes it very important in the scheme of global energy security. The company backed by the Russian state has been known to act whimsically in the past and shut down gas supplies during the peak of winter, which has led to major factory shutdowns in Eastern Europe.
This is Russia’s way of trying to reassert the dominance the erstwhile Soviet Union used to have over the world, before it broke up. But even when Soviet Union was a superpower it could not trade internationally in dollars, all the time, because nobody wanted Russian roubles, everyone wanted the US dollar.
The next step in the process is likely
to be an effort to price the natural gas which Russia sells through Gazprom in Europe in terms of its own currency, the rouble. Vladamir Putin has spoken out against the dollar in the past, calling for dropping the dollar as an international reserve currency.
This makes it highly likely that Russia might start selling its gas in terms of roubles. Countries which buy gas from Russia would need to start accumulating roubles as a part of their international reserves. Hence, there is a high chance of the rouble emerging as a regional reserve currency in Europe and thus undermine the importance of the dollar to some extent. Whether that happens remains to be seen.
The most likely currency to displace the dollar as the international reserve currency is the Chinese yuan. But that process, if it happens, will take a long time. As Warner writes in The Telegraph “this process is on a very long fuse and basically depends on China eventually displacing the US as the world’s largest economy.”
While the future of the Chinese yuan as an international reserve currency is very optimistic, it is highly unlikely that the yuan will replace the dollar as an international reserve in a hurry. For that to happen the Chinese government will have set the yuan free and allow the market forces to determine its value, which is not the case currently.
The People’s Bank of China, the Chinese central bank, intervenes in the market regularly to ensure that the yuan does not appreciate in value against the dollar, which would mean a huge inconvenience for the exporters. An appreciating yuan will make Chinese exports uncompetitive and that is something that the Chinese government cannot afford to do.
These are things that China is not yet ready for. Hence, even though yuan has a good chance of becoming an international reserve currency it is not going to happen anytime soon. Economist Andy Xie believes that “There is no alternative to the dollar as a trading currency in Asia.” He feels that the yuan will replace the dollar in Asia but it will take at least thirty to forty years.
Meanwhile, the Russians can go and take a walk.
The article originally appeared on www.FirstBiz.com on March 7, 2014
(Vivek Kaul is a writer. He tweets @kaul_vivek)
Dear FM, CAD is falling, but what about $10 bn worth smuggled gold?
Vivek Kaul
You can’t go wrong if you start off as a cynic – Hanif Kureshi in The Last Word
Like your relatives, you can’t choose your followers on Twitter. And so, you get all kinds.
Yesterday, a Congress troll, who follows me, tweeted to me “u concede defeat on CAD?”. This particular gentleman has been having a heated debate with me on the current account deficit (CAD) for a while now. He thinks that is the only economic worth looking at, given that he never has anything else to say on any other economic number.
Sometime last year he asked me what was my forecast for the CAD for the year 2013-2014 (the period between April 2013 and March 2014)? Those were the days when things on the rupee-dollar front were going all wrong. And in the heat of the moment I suggested a very large number.
In technical terms, the current account deficit is the difference between total value of imports and the sum of the total value of its exports and net foreign remittances. Or to put it in simpler terms, it is the difference between outflow (through imports) and inflow (through exports and foreign remittances) of foreign exchange.
The actual CAD number as it stands now is considerably lower than I had predicted at that point of time. Of course, at that point of time I had no idea that the government and the Reserve Bank of India would clamp down on the import of gold as hard as they did. As John Maynard Keynes, the most celebrated economist of the twentieth century once said “When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?”
Data from by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) shows that the current account deficit for the October to December 2013, narrowed sharply to $4.2 billion or 0.9% of the GDP.
In comparison, the CAD during the same period of 2012 had stood at $31.9 billion or 6.5% of the GDP. The CAD during the period July to September 2013 had stood at $5.2 billion or 1.2% of the GDP.
The fall in the CAD has particularly been on account of two reasons. The merchandise exports increased by 7.5% to $79.8 billion during October to December 2013, in comparison to the same period during 2012. As the RBI release points out this was “on the back of significant growth especially in the exports of engineering goods, readymade garments, iron ore, marine products and chemicals.”
The second and the major reason for the falling CAD was the government and the RBI clamping down on gold imports by increasing the import duty to 10% from 2%, over a period of time. Gold imports during October to December 2013, fell to $3.1 billion from $17.8 billion during the same period last year. Overall imports, also declined to $112.9 billion from $132.5 billion during the same period in 2012.
Hence, imports during the period October to December 2013, fell by close to $19.6 billion($132.5 billion minus $112.9 billion) and not all of it is on account of falling gold imports. What this tells us is that imports on the whole have slowed down due to a slowdown in economic growth leading to a dampening in consumer demand. As the recent IMF country report on India points out “In addition, non-oil, non-gold imports have declined in line with weak domestic demand.”
In fact, the IMF report projects that non oil non gold imports for 2013-2014 will come in at $321.3 billion. This is significantly lower than $333.8 billion in 2012-2013 and $344.6 billion in 2011-2012.
So, yes, the falling current account deficit is good news, but not all of it is good news. The falling CAD also shows sign of the overall Indian economy being in trouble.
In fact, a clamp down on the import of gold has led to huge smuggling in gold. As Somasundaram PR, the World Gold Council’s managing director for India recently told Reuters “Despite all the curbs, demand has come in at 975 tonnes. The question obviously is where the supplies came from…We have seen anecdotal evidence of smuggling. Our estimate is 150-200 tonnes, more towards the upper end.”
India officially imported around 655 tonnes of the yellow metal during the first 11 months of 2013. The demand for gold was at 975 tonnes. So how is the difference between supply and demand being met? Some part of the difference between supply and demand is being met through scrap gold. But the entire difference between supply and demand cannot be met through scrap gold.
This is where smuggling comes in. Now 200 tonnes of gold is not small change by any stretch of imagination. The average price of gold during 2013 was $1531 per ounce (one ounce equals 31.1 grams).
If we assume a gold price of $1300 per ounce that would mean around $8.4 billion worth of gold has been smuggled in. At a price of $1531 per ounce around $9.9 billion worth of gold has been smuggled in. Of course, this has huge social consequences, which no one is talking about.
A lot of this gold is being smuggled in through Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal and Sri Lanka. In these countries the import duty on gold has been less than the 10% duty in India, ensuring that there is money to be made first importing gold and then smuggling it into India. The Indian Express reports that Sri Lanka recently imposed a 10% import duty on gold. Pakistan recently temporarily banned the import of the yellow metal for a period of 30 days. The country had done so even in last August.
This can’t be good news for India and has the chances of making our neighbouring countries even more hostile towards us. All in all, yes the CAD is falling, but it has led to repercussions which no one seems to be talking about. Not even my Twitter follower.
The article originally appeared on www.FirstBiz.com on March 6, 2014
(Vivek Kaul is a writer. He tweets @kaul_vivek)
If Chidu’s growth prediction has to be met India will have to grow by 8% this quarter
Vivek Kaul
Economist Bibek Debroy in a recent column in The Economic Times wrote about a perhaps apocryphal story about John Maynard Keynes, the greatest economist of the twentieth century. Keynes it seems was once asked “How is your wife?”. “Compared to whose wife?” Keynes questioned back (on a totally unrelated note Keynes was married to a Russian ballerina named Lydia Lopokova).
The point Keynes was perhaps trying to make is that comparisons are always relative.
The finance minister P Chidambaram has been following this for a while now. He has been comparing the Indian economic scenario with the Western countries, and trying to tell us that we’re not in as bad a scenario as is being made out to be.
In interim budget speech Chidambaram said “World economic growth was 3.9 percent in 2011, 3.1 percent in 2012 and 3.0 percent in 2013. Those numbers tell the story. Among India’s major trading partners, who are also the major sources of our foreign capital inflows, the United States has just recovered from a long recession; Japan’s economy is responding to the stimulus; the Eurozone, as a whole, is reporting a growth of 0.2 percent; and China’s growth has slowed from 9.3 percent in 2011 to 7.7 percent in 2013…The challenges that we face are common to all emerging economies. 2012 and 2013 were years of turbulence. Only a handful of countries were able to keep their head above the water, and among them was India.”
So, if we compare India to the other countries, we are not in as bad a situation as is being made out to be. Or so Chidambaram has tried to tell us over and over again. In fact, in July 2013, he had said that “People should remember India continues to be the second fastest growing economy after China. Even China’s growth which was at 10% has come down to 7% now, while our growth has slid to 5% from 9%…Economic slowdown is there in all the countries. When there is slow growth rate in the world, India cannot remain unaffected.”
Now compare this with what he said in January, 2014. “India remains one of the fast growing large economies of the world,” Chidambaram said on January 15, 2014.
From being the second fastest growing economy in the world in July 2013, India had become one of the fast growing large economies in the world, as per Chidambaram. What happened during this period? What is Chidambaram not telling us?
As Mythili Bhusnurmath wrote in a recent column in the The Economic Times “Because we’re not even among the top five or 10! A look at recent World Bank data on GDP growth in 2013 shows we’ve been overtaken not just by China but by a host of countries: Cambodia (7.3%), Philippines (6.9%), Indonesia (6.2%), Myanmar (6.8%), Vietnam (5.1), Sri Lanka (7.0%) and, hold your breath, Bangladesh (5.8).”
The thing with comparisons is that one can choose who one is compared with, and make oneself look better. And that is what Chidambaram has been doing all this while. When Indian economic growth is compared with countries in the emerging markets, the ‘real’ picture comes out. Our economic growth (as measured through GDP growth) is slower than that of even Bangladesh.
Over and above this, when comparisons of these kind are made, the “base effect” also comes into play. As per World Bank Data the gross domestic product of the United States in 2012 was around $16.2 trillion dollars. If the US economy grows by 2% it adds around $324.9 billion of output to the economy.
The size of the Indian economy(i.e. Its GDP) in 2012 as per the World Bank data was $1.82 trillion. So, if the Indian economy has to grow by $324.9 billion in a year, it will have to grow at close to 17.6% or nearly nine times the pace at which the US economy grew. Hence, a 2% growth in the US goes a much longer way than even a 10% growth in India, because the growth is on a higher base. Also, this growth is to be shared among fewer people in comparison to India, and hence, has a greater impact.
Lets try and understand this through real numbers. During 2013, the US economy grew by 2.5%. At the end of 2012, the GDP of the US economy was $16.2 trillion, as mentioned earlier. A growth of 2.5% means that around $406 billion of output was added to the economy. This added output is to be shared among 32 crore Americans.
Now lets to the same exercise for India. During the period 2013, the Indian economy grew by around 4.7%. In 2012, the GDP of the Indian economy was at $1.82 trillion. This means an output of around $86.5 billion was added to the economy. This added output is to be shared among more than 120 crore Indians.
Hence, the US is much better of at 2.5% growth than India is at 4.7%.
Also, the United States, most countries in the Euro Zone and Japan are developed countries. Hence, even if they grow at low rates, it does not matter beyond a point. That is not the case with India, which continues to be a very poor country, and the only way for it to come out of this rut is faster economic growth.
India’s economic growth, as measured by the growth of the GDP, for the period between October and December 2013 came in at 4.7%. In fact, the fastest growing industry was financing, insurance, real estate and business services, which grew by 12.5%, in comparison to the same period in 2012.
This industry had grown by 10% in the three month period between July and September 2013. And it had grown by 8.9% during April and June 2013.
So how did this growth suddenly jump to 12.5%? An editorial in The Financial Express has an explanation. “Had it not been for the $34 billion the RBI managed to get by way of FCNR[Foreign Currency Non-Repatriable] deposits in the last quarter of 2013—the result of it agreeing to share the cost of currency hedging with investors—the growth would have been dramatically lower than even the 4.7% headline number. The bulk of growth in Q3 came from a bump in the financing/insurance sub-sector where the major change was really the FCNR deposits growth… Since this segment’s growth rose from 10% in Q2 to 12.5% in Q3, this alone resulted in a higher growth of 0.48 percentage points. In which case, it is a safe bet to assume Q3 GDP growth was around 4.3-4.4% without the one-time RBI bump.” Hence, if the FCNR deposits hadn’t suddenly shot up, the growth would have been lower than 4.7%.
In the first quarter of the 2013-2014(i.e. the period between April 1 and June 30, 2013) came in at 4.4%. In the second quarter (i.e. the period between July 1 and September 30, 2013) it came in at 4.8%. So what this means is that we are set of another year in which the economic growth will be less than 5%.
Chidambaram had said in February that there are signs of upturn in the economy and the economic growth for the year 2013-2014 (the period between April 1, 2013 and March 31, 2014) will be at 5.5%. A back of the envelope calculation shows that the economy will have to grow by 8.1% in January to March 2014, for the Indian economy to have grown by 5.5% during 2013-2014. And that is not going to happen. Economic growth for the period 2013-2014 will be less than 5% and that is a safe prediction to make. This is the first time since the mid 1980s that India will grow at less than 5% for two consecutive years.
Of course, Chidambaram is not telling us that.
The article originally appeared on www.FirstBiz.com on March 4, 2014
(Vivek Kaul is a writer. He tweets @kaul_vivek)