Blog for Stock tips, Equity tips, Commodity tips, Forex tips: Sharetipsinfo.com

President Xi Jinping kicked off the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) National Congress, which charts its policy trajectory for the next five years and finalises its future leadership, with an address to the Party faithful for nearly 1 hour and 45 minutes.

This year, the CCP’s leadership conclave comes amidst a major strain on the Chinese economy with important segments like real estate, manufacturing, and retail bleeding either as a result of COVID-19 curbs or policy shifts. The International Monetary Fund’s World Economic Outlook, released in October, estimates China’s GDP growth at 3.2 percent this year; in contrast, India and ASEAN-5 are expected to post 6.8 percent and 5.3 percent growth respectively. There have been sporadic protests against curbs imposed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Another worry is China’s relationship with the US, which has deteriorated due to the former’s close ties with Russia, its refusal to criticise Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, and its threat to mount an invasion of Taiwan. Many of these concerns, along with Xi’s “achievements” since he assumed office in 2012, resonated in his speech. In 2021, the Chinese government announced that as many as 100 million had been brought out of poverty, which Xi touted as a major victory. On the issue of Hong Kong, Xi expressed satisfaction that “patriots” were presiding over the island’s affairs, and its diplomatic corps was doing a stellar job of upholding the nation’s dignity.

China’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic was to shutter down cities and initiate mass testing of the population, which has caused some dissent within the population. Liang Wannian, chief of China’s Epidemic Response and Disposal Leading Group—a committee that operates under the National Health Commission—admitted that there was an anticipation of returning to life as it was before the pandemic, but admitted that there was no exit strategy in an interview to the state broadcaster ahead of the Congress.

There have been nearly 1 million COVID cases in China since the start of the pandemic, which is around 0.07 percent of its population. According to China’s health officials, when compared with Western nations, both the rate of infection and total death toll (approximately 5,200) is low, but Liang expressed fears that in the absence of “better means of treatment”, abruptly discontinuing the policy could overwhelm the healthcare system and lead to more deaths. Nearly 90 percent of China’s population has been fully vaccinated against COVID as of mid-October and around 86.3 percent of those in the 60+ age group have also been vaccinated as of early October.

But given the CCP’s penchant of turning an adversity into an opportunity, Xi has sold China’s zero COVID-19 policy as prioritising the protection of lives of citizens. A recent article in People’s Daily, the CCP’s mouthpiece, justified the continuation of the zero COVID-19 policy. The article chided the approach of some nations that have “chosen to live with the virus” despite a huge death toll, contrasting it with China’s approach, which has “saved lives” but caused economic damage.

However, upon closer examination, the gloss around Xi’s accomplishments seems to be wearing off. The abrupt lockdowns necessitated by the zero COVID strategy have hit the poor and threaten to jeopardise the gains of China’s poverty alleviation programme, which the CCP touted as a feat that had “not been accomplished in human history”. The authorities in provincial Jilin recently started doling out 200 yuan (US$31.5) to low-income households and poor residents, along with vegetables and some medical supplies.

In 2022, more than 10 million students will graduate and the race for jobs is likely to get intense. This raises the prospects of high unemployment that may have a bearing on China’s growth in the long run. The findings of a study conducted by academics at Peking University revealed that China’s unemployment rate could reached the levels of 2020 under the pandemic prevention measures that are still in place. The research estimated the number of unemployed Chinese in mid-2020 could have been 92 million, which is nearly 12 percent of the working population. The state media’s portrayal of Xi as leading the campaign to fight the pandemic has tied him closely to China’s COVID-19 control efforts. Thus, any immediate relaxation after the Congress could contradict the claim that China’s stern response is intended at putting people’s lives and health first.

What does the future portend?

The decibel level of the audience applause on Xi’s pronouncements on Taiwan is, perhaps, a pointer to the direction of Cross-Straits relations and Sino-US relations. Xi assured the party and the people that he was up to the challenge of tackling the forces of separatism and foreign interference on the island. The CCP has showcased hard power after a visit to the island by US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in August; Beijing sees the broadening of contacts between the American and Taiwanese leaderships as a chipping away of the notion of one-China and as a major violation of its sovereignty. Following which, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) staged military exercises that was tantamount to a partial blockade and flew warships and aircraft with increasing regularity across the de-facto median line in the Taiwan Strait.

In his work report, Xi promised to make utmost efforts to unify Taiwan peacefully, but also reiterated that the Party retains the right to use force to bring it back to the fold. Additionally, Xi has pledged that the complete reunification of China would see fruition soon, and that the Chinese military expedite its efforts to become a superior war machine that has the ability to win regional wars. The rhetoric on Taiwan, in conjunction with the exhortation to the PLA to ramp up its might, presents a possibility that Xi will place Taiwan on the front burner in his third term, which must worry the world community.

Techno-nationalism too featured in Xi’s address. Ahead of the Congress, the Biden administration has upped the ante on two key factors that played a role in China’s rise– capital and technology. It has further restricted China’s access to high-end semiconductors that have application in Artificial Intelligence, and also added more companies to a blacklist that bars US citizens from investing in them. In his address, Xi made repeated references to China’s scientific development in the field of space exploration, nuclear technology, medical  breakthroughs, and ocean exploration China poured a record 2.79 trillion yuan (US$388 billion) into research and development in 2021, a rise of more than 14 percent from 2020. His thrust on China becoming more innovative and self-sufficient in the technological sphere is, thus, a response to the Biden administration’s actions.

To conclude, Xi paints a picture of the future as one replete with opportunity and danger as evidenced from his warning that “external forces” could seek to “blackmail, contain and blockade” China. The sub-text is clear that it is under his stewardship that China has been able to come to grips with the problems and that it is his strong leadership that has been able to made a difference. However, one aspect that Xi has overlooked is the naming of a successor. A large country like China needs a defined line of succession, and any void can risk the chances of political tensions.

(This article first appeared in the ORF.) 

Kalpit A Mankikar is a Fellow with Strategic Studies programme at ORF’s Delhi centre. Views are personal and do not represent the stand of this publication.

India's external finances are becoming "less of a strength" but continue to be sufficient to cushion risks emanating from abroad, Fitch Ratings said on October 19.

"External finances are becoming less of a strength in India's credit profile, but we expect foreign-exchange reserves to remain robust and India's current-account deficit to be contained at a sustainable level," the rating agency said in a note.

The comments by Fitch, which rates India at BBB-with a stable outlook, come amid a sharp decline in the country's foreign exchange reserves, which have been deployed by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to stem a rapid fall in the rupee.

According to data released earlier this week, the RBI sold a gross $23.11 billion in August following the record-breaking sale of $38.77 billion in July. However, despite the central bank's intervention in the foreign exchange market, the rupee has continued to weaken against the greenback and crossed the 80-per-dollar mark for the first time in mid-July.

Earlier on October 19, the rupee sank to a new low after it broke past 83 to a dollar.

"The RBI recently reiterated that it does not have a target level for the exchange rate, but we expect the authorities will continue to use reserves to manage exchange-rate volatility. This will probably erode reserve buffers further in the near term, but the impact will depend on the scale and duration of intervention," Fitch said.

Sliding rupee 

So far this calendar year, the rupee has depreciated by over 10 percent against the dollar, while India's foreign exchange reserves have fallen below $550 billion.

On October 7, India's foreign exchange reserves stood at $532.87 billion, down $110 billion from its early September 2021 peak of $642.45 billion.

"Reserve cover remains strong at about 8.9 months of imports in September. This is higher than during the 'taper tantrum' in 2013, when it stood at about 6.5 months, and offers the authorities scope to utilise reserves to smooth periods of external stress. Large reserves also provide reassurance about debt repayment capacity. Short-term external debt due is equivalent to only about 24 percent of total reserves," Fitch noted.

However, it added that public finances continue to be the key driver of India's rating and are only "modestly affected" by current external developments due to the limited exposure to external financing.

"Gross external debt stood at 18.6 percent of GDP in 2Q22 (April-June), which is low compared with the median of 72 percent for 'BBB' rated sovereigns in 2021. Sovereign exposures are small, with only about 4 percent of GDP in primarily multilateral financing," Fitch said.

The rating agency expects India's current account deficit to widen to 3.4 percent of the GDP in FY23, nearly three times the FY22 level of 1.2 percent.

Commenting on the Indian monetary policy, Fitch said there were upside risks to its forecast of the repo rate peaking at 6 percent in FY24 due to a "significant chance" of interest rate hikes in the US exceeding what its forecasts assume.

On September 30, the RBI's Monetary Policy Committee increased the repo rate by 50 basis points to 5.9 percent, taking its cumulative rate hikes since the start of May to 190 basis points in its battle to lower persistently elevated inflation.

In India, political funding and the mechanism to raise monies remain a bone of contention amid arguments over transparency in donations from individuals, groups, and entities, especially the big corporations. The exercise of conducting elections are now a regular feature every year largely on account of elections to the state assemblies that follow different cycles of completion of tenures.

Elections require political parties to spend huge amount of money for a range of activities, from advertising to logistics, and much more. Over the years parties have raised funds through various methods with donations from supporters, party workers, and businesses (small and big) which poured in largely in the form of cash.

In order to address the challenge of cash collection, and to formalise fund raising channelised through the banking system, the then Finance Minister Arun Jaitley during the 2017 Budget mentioned of electoral bonds aimed at cleansing the mechanism and injecting transparency. Nearly a later, the Government of India notified the scheme.

According to reports compiled by the Association of Democratic Reforms, a non-government organisation working for improvement in India’s electoral system, between March 2018 and July 2022, 18,779 electoral bonds worth Rs 10,245.2 crore were sold, and most of it were encashed by political parties. The ADR and two others challenged the electoral bonds in the Supreme Court, which heard the matter recently, and scheduled to take it up further in December.

During debates, several political parties raised objections when relevant laws of income tax, foreign contributions, companies and representation of the people, were amended to incorporate features of the electoral bonds on the grounds that the new mechanism contained opaqueness. The amendments among other features allowed anonymity to the extent that only the donor knows how much has been distributed to a political party. The government defended the provision that past experience showed that donors did not find attractive the scheme where donations were made public, and thus preferred cash donations. The earlier provision required political parties to identify donations over Rs 20,000.

The electoral bond is the method through which a citizen or a body incorporated in India is eligible to purchase the bond, which is issued for any value in the multiples of Rs 1,000, up to Rs 1 crore. These bonds are issued periodically for a limited time by specified branches of the State Bank of India. These instruments in the form of interest-free promissory notes can be purchased by fulfilling KYC norms and through a bank account. The beneficiary political party identified by the purchaser can get the donation only if it is registered, and secured not less than one percent of the votes at the last Lok Sabha or assembly elections.

Explaining the rationale and benefit of the new system of funding envisaged, late Jaitley had said in an article: “…the choice has now to be consciously made between the existing system of substantial cash donations which involves total unclean money and is non-transparent and the new scheme which gives the option to the donors to donate through entirely a transparent method of cheque, online transaction or through electoral bonds.” He then noted that the government was willing to consider all suggestions to further strengthen the cleansing of political funding.

The idea of regulating political donations through regular banking channels introduced an element of transparency, but there is scope to improve and take steps in the direction of increasing reporting and mandatory disclosures.

Indian authorities have asked a court to quash Pernod Ricard's bid to halt proceedings related to a $244 million tax demand, accusing the French spirit giant of being a "habitual litigant" and conspiring to "defraud" the government, legal documents show.

The Oct. 3 Mumbai court filing by India's customs authority, which has not been reported previously, underlines the growing dispute between Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government and Pernod's local unit over how the company valued some of its imports for over a decade.

The customs authority says Pernod did so to evade full payment of import taxes.

The tussle comes when Pernod Ricard is facing business and regulatory stress in India, one of its key growth markets where it accounts for a 17% share. It has previously told Modi that long-running disputes over the valuation of liquor imports had "inhibited fresh investments" in India.

After India demanded back taxes from the maker of Chivas Regal and Absolut vodka in June, Pernod challenged it in court, saying the investigation should be put on hold as it relied on incorrect industry data, and the process was "neither fair nor reasonable."

In the 43-page October filing, India's customs authority said the French company was resorting to "delay tactics" by approaching a court for relief, instead of responding to the government's tax demand notice.

It accused the company of a conspiracy "to defraud the Govt. of India of its legitimate revenue."

Pernod has been "a habitual litigant and always attempts to abuse the due process of law," the filing added, referring to some previous tax demands Pernod challenged in India.

Asked for comment, Pernod referred Reuters to a previously issued statement, which said the company is actively working on demonstrating its position to Indian authorities and has "always endeavoured to act with full transparency and in compliance with customs and regulatory requirements."

It declined further comment due to ongoing litigation and because the filing by the customs authority wasn't public. The court case will next be heard on Oct. 20 in Mumbai.

The Indian investigation assessed Pernod India's import bills of liquor concentrates from a group subsidiary, UK-based Chivas Brothers, and found they were undervalued for years.

To compensate for the undervalued imports, Pernod paid "hefty" dividends to the group's holding company, Pernod Ricard in France, which also owns Chivas Brothers, the investigation found. Import duties on liquor concentrates are 150% while dividends attract lower taxes.

The long-standing tax disputes Pernod faces in India has led to business uncertainty - in July, the company wrote a letter to a federal tax authority saying the company was "facing significant business continuity challenges", asking for a resolution.

Last week, Pernod said its India CEO, Thibault Cuny, had stepped down due to health reasons.

The crash and recovery of UK gilts after the United Kingdom government reversed nearly all the tax cuts may have one positive side-effect on global markets: it could reassure markets that even if there are unknown unknowns like overleveraged institutions, regulators and authorities won’t mind bending the rules and eating humble pie, to avoid a default like Lehman Brothers. The rise of not just UK bonds but indeed many global risk assets in the past 24 hours is probably in celebration of this point.

Since the June fall the S&P 500 has repeatedly seen selling between 4,100-4,200 levels. One can pinpoint to similar resistances (17,900-18,000) in other major indices like Nifty as well. One big reason for this resistance has been a latent fear that the rapid hiking of rates and sucking out of liquidity by all major central banks will catch some institutions swimming naked. The events in the UK in the last fortnight proved that these fears are well-founded. No one expected that in a developed financial market like the UK, pensions funds — known to be solid risk averse institutions — will be found overleveraged or holding derivatives.

Nor did anyone expect the UK government — the oldest democracy in the world, with the world's oldest global financial centre in its jurisdiction — to indulge in such thoughtless policy flip-flop: to announce a yawning fiscal deficit in the teeth of double digit inflation, when bond markets were already skittish with uncertain geopolitics, and unprecedented energy prices. Such immature policy adventures are expected from banana republics, and from the derisively termed ‘under developed’ countries.

But the crisis also reassured global markets of mature reaction by politicians and regulators, when systemically important institutions or markets come to the brink. As leveraged pensions funds started off a panic vicious bond-selling, the Bank of England shrugged off all fears of criticism and boldly reversed its bond sale plan. It went out and bought bonds for a full two weeks unconcerned about criticism that it is diluting its monetary stance; the idea was to give pension funds adequate time to arrange for funds at not-too-distressed prices. Even more sensible was the way in which it ended the bond purchase programme, giving the UK government adequate notice that it won’t reverse its inflation-fighting mandate beyond a point, and it was time now for the fiscal authorities to undo their part of the damage.

UK Prime Minister Liz Truss and her Cabinet appear to have taken the hint and acted with equal speed and sense. The finance minister, the author of the tax cuts in the mini-budget, was sacked and a new chancellor of the exchequer was appointed, who quickly announced a near complete reversal of the tax cuts which created the chaos in the first place.

In July, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) released its report on the pricing practices of 12 corporate hospitals. Though not surprising that these hospital chains were overcharging patients, what drew peoples’ attention was that for the first time an audit of sorts was carried by an arm of the government with powers to penalise ‘wrongful’ gains.

It was a report long overdue, and so welcomed by citizens struggling with the issue of exploitative prices without accountability to outcomes or ethical considerations. This then raises the issue whether it is time for government to regulate the pricing of services charged by private hospitals with the attendant question of should it, and can it.

Theory For Government Intervention

Asymmetry of information that creates an unequal power structure between care providers and patients is a typical characteristic of the health sector, providing a compelling argument for government intervention. It is basic economics that tells us that perfect competition and markets can only function when there are certain conditions such as perfect knowledge between suppliers and buyers, and no barriers to entry among others. Therefore, says economic theory, since health is not amenable to the fair allocation of resources between competing interests, it quickly slips into exploitation and exclusivity, unless controlled. This then sets the stage for the entry of the State.

In July, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) released its report on the pricing practices of 12 corporate hospitals. Though not surprising that these hospital chains were overcharging patients, what drew peoples’ attention was that for the first time an audit of sorts was carried by an arm of the government with powers to penalise ‘wrongful’ gains.

It was a report long overdue, and so welcomed by citizens struggling with the issue of exploitative prices without accountability to outcomes or ethical considerations. This then raises the issue whether it is time for government to regulate the pricing of services charged by private hospitals with the attendant question of should it, and can it.

Theory For Government Intervention

Asymmetry of information that creates an unequal power structure between care providers and patients is a typical characteristic of the health sector, providing a compelling argument for government intervention. It is basic economics that tells us that perfect competition and markets can only function when there are certain conditions such as perfect knowledge between suppliers and buyers, and no barriers to entry among others. Therefore, says economic theory, since health is not amenable to the fair allocation of resources between competing interests, it quickly slips into exploitation and exclusivity, unless controlled. This then sets the stage for the entry of the State.

Building value-based and non-adversarial work environments in the health sector is critical since all stakeholders have in the ultimate analysis one primary goal — the benefit of the patients, and their well-being as all are dependent on each other, and cannot do without the other.