Saturday, April 28, 2012

A short introduction to Rating Agencies


Rating Agencies

Let’s go back to late 19th century when the US railway was starting to emerge.  It was considered an extremely profitable venture so naturally it attracted hundreds of investors from all across the country. Before giving out their money to companies and individuals, investors wanted to know their credit worthiness i.e. a numerical assessment that a certain company or individual will (not) be able to repay its debts (this is called credit rating). Many railway companies had gone bankrupt; dozens of investors had lost millions in bankruptcies and frauds.



Henry Varnum Poor (one of the fathers of Standard and Poor’s) met this demand of information by analyzing and publishing the financials of various railroad companies. John Moody (1868 – 1958) founder of Moody’s Investor Service, launched a similar publication in 1900s called Moody's Manual of Industrial and Miscellaneous Securities (other names: Moody's Manual of Railroads and Corporation Securities, Moody's Analyses of Investments). Fitch Ratings founder John Knowles Fitch claims to be the first to start the alphabetical rankings of sovereign debt in 1924.


The rating agencies then moved from US Railways to analyzing the credit worthiness of foreign companies, treasury bonds and sovereign debt etc. Basically anything that could be rated was rated. More and more rating agencies emerged but S&P, Moody’s and Fitch remained global leaders.

Credit rating primarily depends on 4 things
1. History of borrowing
2. History of repayment
3. Availability of assets
4. Extent of liabilities

AAA Rating

The AAA rating is the gold medal of ratings. If a country’s bond has an ‘AAA’ rating then this means that an investor will face very little risk of losing their money. Since, this is the safest investment therefore it involves lowest interest rate. The rating agencies are quick to point out the difference between ‘very little risk’ and ‘no risk’. They have pointed out that their rating lies within "within a universe of credit risk", accompany or a country can default because of hundreds of reasons that lie outside the “credit universe”.

It should also be noted that there is no “standard-AAA” rating instead different agencies use different rating methodologies.

Criticism on ratings

You would probably know that a Debtor is a person/company/country who owes money to others and a Creditor is a person/company/country who lends money to others. Most countries would normally owe billions in debt to other countries and at the same time they would have lent billions to other countries. To calculate whether a country is a net debtor or a net creditor we would do the following:

Money Lent to others on credit – Money taken from others as debt = If +ve answer (net creditor)
                                                                                                           If –ve answer (net debtor)
This isn’t difficult to comprehend, it’s no rocket science.

The rating agencies have managed to make this ten times more complex than rocket science.  The result is that Japan, which is a net creditor, has an AA- rating (Fourth highest rating by S&P’s) while US, which is the world’s biggest net debtor, has a much higher credit rating of AA+.



China, which is the world’s second biggest (after US) and the fastest growing economy couldn’t get the ‘AAA’ gold medal either. Why? Because S&P’s thinks that the Chinese banking sector possibly has “contingent liabilities” which could bring its economy down. In other words, S&P don’t want to give a AAA to China, it’s their medal and they can give it to whoever they want.  So if you thought that rating is pure science, fair and unbiased, then you were wrong.

Are ratings reliable?

If you thought that ratings are reliable then you were wrong again. Anything that is unfair and biased cannot be reliable. Up until 2009, Greece’s rating was A, which was then downgraded to ‘A-‘.  Three years later, the country is on the verge of bankruptcy.

Does anyone remember the role of these agencies before the global financial crisis? Several books have been written on answering this question.

Recommended Readings 
1. The Rating Agencies and Their Credit Ratings: What They Are, How They Work, and Why They are Relevant (The Wiley Finance Series)
2. Ratings, Rating Agencies and the Global Financial System
3. The New Masters of Capital: American Bond Rating Agencies and the Politics of Creditworthiness (Cornell Studies in Political Economy)

You might remember the terms ‘subprime mortgages’, ‘collateral debt obligations’ (CDOs) and mortgage backed securities (MBSs). These are fancy names for different financial instruments that were created by banks (and other financial institutions) and played a major role in bringing the financial crisis to our door steps.

These rating agencies were one of the primary causes for the financial crisis because they provided strong ratings to these risky instruments. If they would give an impressive rating to a security/financial instrument, naturally people would invest in that security.

Why? Because they use words like “Triple-A”, “Double-A”, “long term”, “reward”, “extremely strong capacity” to lure investors towards investment and most importantly because people trust them. It was their job to provide a fair and unbiased numerical assessment of these instrument's creditworthiness within a universe of credit risk.

These agencies gave strong credit ratings, investors rushed to invest, then they would rapidly downgrade the rating and people would end up losing millions.

So the short answer is ‘No’, they are not reliable, you’re probably better off doing research yourself (if you know a thing or two about Financial Accounting and Macro Economics) than relying on their analysis.

Half-Bridge (Return to main page)

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Apple's Profits for 2012 Q1

25th April, 2012

iPhone raises Apple’s Profits by 94%

Apple has released its results for the first quarter of 2012 with almost a double increase in sales as compared to the same period in last year owing to an increase in iPhone sales in China and twenty one other countries.  

Its net income has increased by 94% to $11.6 billion, up from $6 billion recorded last year. Analysts had already predicted an increase in sales to $36.9 billion; Apple has exceeded the expectations by $2.3 billion. It recorded an increase of 59% in sales to $39.6 billion translated as $12.30 per share.

Apple has now surpassed Google in the first quarter results which reported revenues of $10.65 billion.

Apple sold nearly 35 million in China and other countries. Sales from China alone account for 20% of Apple’s total revenues. The high disposable income of Chinese consumers makes it an ideal place for high end technology and luxury products.

Apple is already in discussing terms with China Mobile, world’s largest carrier with 600 million subscribers in China.

Apple’s investors had earlier seen a drop in share value by 13% in two weeks owing to decrease in sales in US but the current results should allay any investor fears regarding the pace of Apple’s growth. Stock markets have reacted positively to the news with shares rising by 7% to $601 in after-hours trading.

Apple’s CEO Mr. Tim Cook revealed that Apple sold about 67 million Mac PCs in 24 years while it has reached the same mark with iPad in two years. Total iPad sales during this period stood at 11.8 million units, an increase of 150% from last year. The company now has $110.2 billion in cash reserves and investments.

Meanwhile Microsoft Corporation, IBM and Texas Instruments Inc have all reported an increase in sales and are expecting higher profits.


Half-Bridge (Return to main page)

Friday, April 20, 2012

Case of Barclays and Bob Diamond



For one reason or another, Barclays somehow manages to capture business headlines. This time it’s about the Chief Executive of the bank Mr Bob Diamond and its other executives. Mr Diamond has successfully lead Barclays since October 2010 and for his services in 2011, he earned a remuneration of $2.16 million in salary, $4.32 million in bonuses, $3.6 million in long term incentive payments. He has not yet received his yearly bonus and in the current environment, it is unlikely that he will get the full amount. The bonuses were supposed to be paid in shares over three years in equal yearly installments.


The salary structure enables Mr Diamond to earn nearly four times more in bonuses and incentives. This calculation is based on very simple estimates. To calculate the actual value, we will have to find out the present value of the future shares he will receive (bonus payment) in the coming years. The Pensions and Investors Research Consultants (Pirc) revealed to Barclays shareholders that the net present value of his remuneration package is approximately $18.88 million, nine times more than his salary.
=============================
Amazon Best Buy Electronic Products This Week
======================================================================

It should be noted however, that the current uncertain economic environment makes it almost impossible to predict the present value of a Barclays shares. In 2011 alone, the bank has seen a decline of 26% in share value.


(Europe has Barclays and Mr Bob Diamond, US has Citigroup and Mr Vikram Pandit. Find out who is more greedy? Read this new post and comment. )

The shareholders feel that if the bank cannot meet its target and fails to improve its share value then its chief executive does not deserve any bonus. Standard Life, Fidelity, Aviva and Scottish Widows who represent more than 6% of Barclay’s shares have decided to protest over Mr Diamond’s bonus. Many are quoting Lloyds, a leading British retail banker, as an example who has cut $3.2 million in bonuses.   

Barclays, unlike Lloyds, is basically an investment bank and therefore it pays more to its investment bankers. The shareholders feel that it pays more than what is required or considered an industry standard. The board members consider Barclays as a premier investment banks therefore such payments are justified. The shareholders believe that the bank should settle for less. Mr Diamond, Marcus Agius, the Chairman and Alison Carnwarth the head of remuneration committee are all investment bankers.

The standoff between shareholders and the board continued for about a week until the board decided to change its executive bonus plan, just days before the shareholder’s meeting. The new bonus plan focuses on Mr Diamond and Mr Chris Lucas, the finance director. From now onwards, they will receive only half of their agreed bonuses’ yearly installments.

===============================================
Recommended Readings

========================================================================


If however, they are able to turn the bank around i.e. Barclays’ return on equity becomes more than its cost of equity, then they will receive full bonuses that year. So the bonuses have been tied to the bank’s performance. The current target is very difficult to achieve and it is highly unlikely that they will be able to do it this year. Currently the bank’s return on equity is 6.6% while its cost of equity is 11.5%.

How does this work?

Their bonuses are not being completely cancelled but are “postponed”.
  • If they fail to achieve the target for this year then they will only get half of their bonus.
    • (i.e. Mr Diamond will get $720,000 of $1,440,000)
  • If they fail to achieve the target in the second year then they will receive half of their bonus.
    • (i.e. Mr Diamond will get $720,000 of $1,440,000)
  • If they fail to receive the targets on third year as well then they will receive the Full Bonus PLUS two unpaid half bonuses of previous years.
    • (i.e. Mr Diamond will get full $1,440,000 for this year PLUS $720,000 AND $720,000 unpaid of previous two years)


The deal will then roll on for the next three years. Its a win-win for Mr Diamond. If he is able to achieve his targets then he will get the reward 'now'. If he fails, then he will get half of it now and half of it 'later'. So in the end, he will eventually get his bonus whether shareholders and investors like it or not. 

Half-Bridge Updated (Return to main page)



Thursday, April 19, 2012

IMF: New Warning for Europe


"Austerity alone cannot treat the economic malaise in the major advanced economies." IMF
==================================================

19th April, 2012

The International Monetary Fund has recently warned Europe over the Eurozone Debt Crisis which it fears could rise up again, any time, and can potentially send the global economy into another recession. The current debt crisis and global recession has left little options for policy makers to maneuver their respective economies. Such an environment, the IMF fears, could produce a 1930’s style economic depression. 



If all the European banks implement their austerity cuts at the same time, then they might trigger a global financial crisis by damaging asset prices, credit supplies and economic activity within Europe.  

The single European currency makes it harder for Eurozone economies to be more competitive in the international market. Olivier Blanchard, IMF’s Chief Economist, says that they are doing everything possible to make sure that no country leaves the euro. If however, any country decides to do so, then the results would be catastrophic not only for the relevant country but the entire region. The output of such a country would fall significantly while the value of sovereign bonds of other nations might also see a decline.

All the European countries facing the debt crisis and declining growth have started pursuing austerity measures to make their economies sustainable in the medium and long term. IMF has warned them by saying, “Austerity alone cannot treat the economic malaise in the major advanced economies.The smaller fragile economies, the IMF said, might suffer even more from austerity cuts as they might not be strong enough to sustain short term economic cuts.

=============
Very Interesting Recommended Reading
===================================


Global growth is expected to be around 3.5% in 2012, down from 3.9% in 2011. In the Eurozone, the current debt crisis will worsen as Europe might experience a small recession while output is expected to fall by 0.3% in the monetary union. As economies shrink, lending from banks will become more and more expensive. Many European firms who rely on these banks will find it difficult to operate



IMF has revised its outlook for Spain and expects it to be worse than it originally thought three months ago. Unemployment is expected to increase in all advance European economies.

Though Italy and Spain are at the centre of the financial crisis, UK’s finances are in even worse shape. IMF has reduced UK’s GDP growth and expects it to run a budget deficit of 8% for 2012 and 6.6% in 2013.  UK will continue to witness deficits until 2017. The deficit reduction plan of the Cameron government, it seems, is not working. UK might actually witness even more austerity measures. The good news for them is that global markets have still not looked at them with suspicion. Currently all eyes are focused on Italy and Spain while UK is considered a safe haven by most. Had it been a part of Eurozone then things might have been quite different.  

There is good news for some leading industrial G7 nations as well particularly US, Canada and Japan. They are expected to be the fastest growing of the G7 nations with growth expectations of around 2%. China’s growth rate is expected to fall to 8.2% in 2012 from its peak of 10.2% in 2010.


Half-Bridge Updated (Return to main page)
==============================
World Economic Outlook (Magazine)
Published by IMF
----------------------




Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Argentina vs. Spain: YPF Oil



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Argentina has just shot itself in the foot in a really bad way," Spain's foreign minister, José Manuel García-Margallo

"This president won't respond to any disrespect or insolent phrases ... I am a head of state, not a bully." Argentine President Cristina FernĂ¡ndez
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argentina and Spain are going head to head against each other over YPF oil.

YPF was originally an Argentinean state-owned oil company, one of the biggest in the region and biggest in Argentina. In 1999, the Spanish based energy giant Repsol purchased 57.4% of YPF’s shares during privatization. Since then, YPF has been one of the primary business operations for Repsol. It accounted for nearly 60% of total Repsol’s production and represented a quarter of Repsol’s profits.
==================
Recommended Reading
========================================================================

Argentinean government plans to seize 51% of YPF’s shares through legislation. All of these shares will come out from Repsol’s pocket (57.4% shares) which will be left with just 6.4% shares.

Expressing outrage over Argentina’s decision, Spain’s Industry Minister Jose Manuel Soria has threatened with retaliation. Repsol’s executive chairman Antonio Brufau plans to seek $10.5 billion in compensation. He was quoted as saying, “This is being done to cover up the social and economic crisis in Argentina," The Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner has already appointed her minister for planning and public investment as the new chief of YPF.

According to Argentine President, Argentina is the only Latin American country whose oil is managed by another country. Furthermore, Argentina became a net importer of oil for the first time in 17 years and spent around $10bn in 2011 on oil expenditure. Argentina is going through an energy crisis and the government believes that the crisis is due to poor management of state’s natural resources by YPF.

The import bill on oil and gas for the current year (2012) is expected to be around $12 billion. This expenditure, the government believes, is due to YPF’s inability to meet the local oil demand.

Argentinean government blames Repsol for not investing much in its oil industry instead it has taken away more than 90% of YPF’s profits.


The takeover is bound to raise eyebrows of foreign investors. YPF’s shares have already lost 18% on Wall Street while BP, a major investor in YPF, is refusing to give any comments.

It was only about 11 years ago, in 2001, when Argentina’s President Fernandez announced that Argentina won’t be paying back its foreign debt. 

Instead of solving the debt problem, that announcement sent the entire country into recession. Some analysts believe that the decision on YPF might create more problems than an easy solution. According to an analyst at London based Tudor Pickering Holt, “They are going to be closing the country as an investment destination,"
------------------------
Highly Recommended DVD
---------------------
The company had recently announced a major oil discovery of one billion barrels of shale oil in November. After the news of nationalization, a Chinese news report revealed that the state owned Sinopec, China’s energy giant, was negotiating to buy YPF. Meanwhile in early April, a Spanish newspaper reported CNOOC, another Chinese company, was negotiating to buy YPF for $12bn. 

Tuesday, April 17, 2012

Eurozone Debt Crisis Exlpained


By Sarfaraz A.K. (2012)

2011 has been the year of Arab Spring, Japanese Tsunami, Osama Bin Ladin and Eurozone Crisis. Greece had hit all the major headlines in 2011. In 2012, we had other European nations waiting (not so anxiously) for their chance to shine, with Spain and Italy being at the forefront. So what exactly happened in Europe? Hadn't all the European nations claimed that they were out of the global financial crisis / global recession? Now they all seem to be talking about “expenditure cuts”. So what happened?
=============================
Recommended Reading (Amazon Link) 
===================================================

We will need to go a little back in time in 1997 when the Euro was being created. Back then, all the EU leaders came on one platform and agreed to set a borrowing limit to 3% of their respective economies’ output. They set up a barrier for themselves; do not borrow more than 3% of the total economic output. This rule was meant to bring stability and growth to the Eurozone. It was supposed to be followed in letter and spirit to avoid any ‘debt crisis’. Countries were, however, allowed to cross the 3% limit under exceptional circumstances, (e.g. during recession).

The 3% rule was insisted on by German finance minister Theo Waigel and it was ironic that Germany (along with Italy) was the first country to break this rule. France saw what Italy and Germany were doing and it was not to be left behind, it broke the rule thrice in nine years, still not as bad as Germany (four times between 1999 – 2007) and Italy (six times between 1999 – 2007). 

Greece on the other hand was in a league of its own. Not even did it break all the rules, it manipulated the economic statistics to join the Eurozone in the first place. Surprisingly Spain was the only big Eurozone economy that did not break the rule and never borrowed more than 3% of its economic output between 1997-2007.

So if Spain remained within limits then why is it facing the debt crisis? Well, the total national debt is made up of government debt and private debt (companies and mortgage borrowers). If we focus on only on government debt  then Spain’s economic condition looks very strong, better than France, Germany or Italy.




If you look at their private debts, only then the picture changes entirely. Spain emerges as a nation deep in debt. 


So Spain, as it turns out, followed the 3% rule in letter but definitely not in spirit. This actually explains why markets have been unwilling to lend money to Spain while capital was readily available for Germany and France whenever they required. In fact Italy attracted more FDI, particularly in Solar energy sector during 2010-11, than Spain.
=============================
Recommended Reading (Amazon Link):
==========================================
Despite breaking the 3% rule five out of 9 times, the Germans have done pretty well for themselves. Their overall national debt is much lower as compared to France, Italy and Spain. Out of all the European countries, Germany is the only one whose private sector debt has fallen during 2000-10 and is the only country whose overall debt increase was due to increase in government borrowing.  

So what did these countries do with all the money they borrowed?  With all that borrowed money flowing into the economy; Italy, Spain and France went on a shopping spree. Their imports soared and wages rose.  Their quality of life significantly improved, with all the imported products and increased wages.

The Germans followed a different strategy altogether. While their neighbors were out shopping, the Germans were out selling. Germany’s exports increased dramatically in this period. Furthermore, they kept their general wage levels fairly constant for ten years (2000-2010). It was (partially) due to the steady wage levels that Germans were able to offer most competitive export prices to their buyers. Eventually Germany has now surplus funds available when other European economies are facing recession and debt crisis. 


Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Petrol Pricing For Dummies ;)

The prices of petrol are one of the most unstable of all the commodities. Petrol is consumed in all sectors of the economy in one form or the other. Any increase in petrol prices directly results in a rise in general price levels. In unstable third world economies, a rise in petrol prices creates a completely unpredictable and often chaotic multiplier effect*.
--------------------
Recommended Reading
Understanding Oil Prices: A Guide to What Drives the Price of
Oil in Today's Markets (The Wiley Finance Series)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The actual cost of the raw material for petrol, i.e. oil, is actually about one-third of its price. Suppose if petrol is sold for 120p, then the cost of oil it represents is 40p. Most of what we actually pay, more than 55% at least, goes to the government in fuel duty and VAT. About 1%, and sometimes up to 5%, goes to the retailer.

Thus in reality, when we are buying fuel, more than half of what we actually pay goes to the government. The second biggest component of petrol price is the cost of oil itself. Sounds ridiculous but this is how this industry operates.


The refining cost of crude oil is actually very little and normally represents around 1% of the total cost of petrol. Any increase or decrease in the refining cost or the retailer margin will not change the price of petrol substantially. What matters is the cost of oil and the government taxes.
If the government decides to keep the taxes unchanged but the cost of crude oil in the international market goes up then the government can either
  1. Decrease its level of taxes to keep the petrol prices unchanged
  2. Keep the taxes/duties constant and let the petrol prices increase.
The cost of oil can then be further broken down into different components and this is where things start to get a bit complicated. Firstly there is very little transparency involved here. Oil companies operate in different countries around the world, thus they are subjected to international laws and their respective native laws. Secondly, all the oil of the world is not generated from a single place hence there is no standard costing model to follow. Oil is generated from thousands of rigs around the world, from barren deserts to deep seas. All involve variety of different costs therefore there is no such thing as a “standard barrel of oil”.

Suppose you have around $500m in your bank account. That is enough for you to get into the oil business and open your own deep sea oil rig. First you will start exploration and you have one in four shot of hitting the black stuff.
_______________
Highly Recommended Reading
==============

During this time you will realize that someone else is either exploring or extracting the oil from your favorite location. You will probably have move to farther and farther away. This will increase your cost of exploration. But don't worry yet because you have plenty of cash available.

Suppose that you were eventually successful in finding oil in some remote corner of the world. That portion of land belongs to some country that is located near that remote corner. You will have to get a lease and a license from that country to start your operations.

Once you’re done with all the paper work, it’s time for you to start building your rig for digging and pipelines for oil transportation. You’ll need to purchase lots of expensive heavy machinery and you need hundreds of workers to work for you. You’ll need a shipping contract as well to transport all of that oil to an oil refinery.

Now check into your bank account, you’ve spent nearly $350m dollars and have $150 in reserves, that’s really good, well done. Now look at your watch, it has taken you only seven years to complete the project. Your accountants will now assess all of your costs and incorporate them in the price of crude oil. This will include the initial $350 million and other subsequent expenses plus an extra for all of your time and effort.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiplier effect: E.g. if you introduce (or withdraw) $1 into an economy, it results in a chain reaction that might cause an overall increase of e.g. $10. Multiplier in this case will be 10 (i.e. $1 x 10 = $10).
You might have seen this in cartoons, when a small snowball starts rolling down a glacier, it gathers more snow as it builds up momentum and the result is a 10ft high gigantic ball of snow.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Wednesday, April 4, 2012

Solar Industry around the world: A brief analysis


Sarfaraz A.K. (2012)

Subsidies by several European countries on photovoltaic cells have increased their demand in Europe. Production has therefore increased causing a decrease in average cost of a single cell by as much as 50% over the past year. A small solar-power system that cost around $900 a year ago can now be bought for $500. Chinese manufacturers are now giving even cheaper solar power solution to homes and businesses. Rising energy needs, unstable fuel prices and other geo-political factors are pushing the governments of even developing countries towards solar power solutions. As a result, the demand for solar-energy has shown consistent increase over the past few years.

==================
Recommended Books
===================================================


In India, the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy is working with the private sector to set up domestically manufactured solar power plants. The Ministry is targeting production of 4000 MW to 10,000 MW in the first phase of the project. The first solar energy plant of India, owned by billionaire Anil Ambani of Reliance Power, started operations in March, 2012 and is now generating 40MW of electricity. The Pakistani Prime Minister has recently held meeting with the Chairman & CEO of Suntech Power Holdings of China, the biggest PV manufacturer of the world, who is expected to visit Pakistan sometime this year.

The production and consumption of photovoltaic cells in Asia are primarily centered on the developed countries, such as China, Japan, South Korea & Saudi Arabia. The US has recently imposed duties on Chinese PV manufacturers but their sales in Japan to households have increased tremendously owing to the Fukushima Plant Disaster. In South America, Brazil has introduced pro-solar-energy legislation, giving tax benefits to solar energy consumers.

In Canada, the President of Canadian Solar Industries Association Elizabeth McDonald could see solar energy contributing 20% of all the Canadian energy needs in the coming 20 years. The Ontario power authority’s feed-in-tariff program can serve as a role model for developing countries to follow. In Europe, Germany is leading the way by covering 15% of its energy needs through solar power. On the other hand, the government in the United Kingdom was in a legal battle with the solar industry over subsidy cuts. The French PV market continues to grow, despite being ignored by the government. Feed-in-Tariffs in France have been reduced by as much as 70% whereas tax credits given to those purchasing solar PV systems have been halved. The French PV market, along with the Italian, has accounted for more than 75% of the total PV market growth for Europe in 2011. 
--------------------
Highly Recommended Book on Strategy & Game Theory
Must Read for Students
-----------------------
In North America, governments, rights groups and members of civil societies are debating on ascertaining the true cost of solar power plants i.e. the opportunity cost of the plot of land utilized for solar power generation. The primary problem faced by emerging markets of developing countries over solar energy production is poor infrastructure and lack of availability of funds while mature markets of developed countries are facing problems related to strategic decisions on power generation.