Sunday, November 25, 2012

250 TIMES PREMIUM....

Future Generali stake transactions don't add up

Published: Sunday, Nov 25, 2012, 21:13 IST 
By Rajiv Ranjan Singh | Place: Mumbai | Agency: DNA
A company with no asset of its own issued shares to two different companies on the same day. While one company bought the shares at a face value of Rs10, the other paidRs2,500 apiece.
And these weren't one-off deals. Thepractice has gone on for five years now – in Sprint Advisory Services PvtLtd.Sprint, incorporated in 2005-06 as a chain marketing company andrechristened as Sain Advisory Services in 2007-08, and further as Sprint Advisory Services in 2010-11, has no employees on record.What's more, it has posted losses year after year and gets only a paltry income through consultancy services, which has never exceeded Rslakhper annum in the last five years.Still, it has been able to command a 250-time premium.What gives?
Well, Sprint Advisory holds 49% stake in Future Generali Life Insurance Company, while Pantaloon Retail India and Maatschappij GraafsschapHolland NV hold 25.5% stake each.Between 2007-08 and 2010-11, Maatschappij, a little known firm based out of a tax heaven in Netherlands, invested Rs268 crore directly in FutureGenerali Life, while Pantaloon Retail invested a like amount, to take at 25.5% each.For the remaining 49% stake in Future Generali Life, Sprint Advisory invested Rs515 crore with an almost equal contribution coming fromMaatschappij and Pantaloon Retail.
Maatschappij started investing in Sprint in 2007-08, against which Sprint Advisory issued shares at Rs2,500 a share for a face value of Rs10. As of 2010-11 fiscal end, Maatschappij had invested Rs283.66 crore in Sprint, but got just a 0.4% stake. However, Pantaloon Retail invested Rs283.54 crore in it and commanded a 99.96% stake.For 2010-11, Sprint registered a loss of Rs15.90 lakh, though its income from consultancy services stood at Rs1.2 lakh and other income atRs69,000.To be sure, between 2007-08 and 2011-12, Future Generali Life has attracted investments of Rs1,200 crore from these players, though DNAcould only collate the figures till March 2011 as Sprint is yet to file its annual return for the last fiscal.
As these numbers show, despite investing 50% in the share capital of Future Generali Life, Maatschappij holds just 25.5% stake in the company, thanks to the hefty premium charged by Sprint Advisory, in which VijayBiyani, Future Group chairman Kishore Biyani's brother, is one of the four directors. The other three are Prakash Chandra ToshniwalKrishnakantRathi and Roberto Gasso.For the record, Biyani and Gasso are also on the board of Future GeneraliLife, as Sprint representatives.Surely, all this can't be a coincidence; there has to be a game plan somewhere.Makes one ask – was theMaatschappij and Sprint Advisory transaction done to bypass the norm of a 26% limit for foreign companies in insurance?A detailed questionnaire sent to Sprint Advisory remained unanswered.
Deepak Sood, CEO, Future Generali Life refused to give any answer.Curiously, there is little in the public domain about Maatschappij or its key executives.As per Bloomberg BusinessweekMaatschappij Graafsschap Holland NV was founded in 1975 and is based in Diemen, the Netherlands. ParticipatieMaatschappij Graafschap Holland NV operates as a subsidiary ofAssicurazioni Generali SpA.It is ironical that the absurd pricing scheme in Sprint was not questioned by the star-studded board of Future Generali Life. Former SEBI chairman GNBajpai, who is supposed to be an authority on pricing of shares, has headed the board for the last three financial years and Gorakhnath Agarwal, the head of the Acturial Society of India, is on its board and acts as the chief actuary and chief risk officer.It is also reliably learnt that Girish Kulkarni, one of the pilots of the absurd pricing scheme of Sprint Advisory, working as the chief marketing officer and a director of Future Generali in 2007-08 when Maatschappij started paying the premium for Sprint, now heads Star Union Dai-ichi, an insurance company promoted by a public sector bank.
http://www.dnaindia.com/money/report_future-generali-stake-transactions-don-t-add-up_1769378-2

Friday, November 23, 2012

USA- FISCAL CLIFF




Nov. 21, 2012, 12:55 p.m. EST 10 people who led us to the ‘fiscal cliff’ Commentary: From Laffer to Obama, they fed our greed and guilt By Rex Nutting, MarketWatch
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — With our political leaders locked in a fiscal struggle that threatens to throw the economy off a so-called cliff and into recession, you might be wondering how we got to this place.
Remember that this supposed fiscal cliff is the direct result of two contradictory impulses in American life: Greed and guilt. Greed for low taxes, a strong military, a strong safety net and lots of government spending for everyone. And guilt that we weren’t paying our way. Read “Stop calling it a ‘fiscal cliff’”
All of us (or almost all) had a role in this melodrama, either benefiting from the spending or from the lower tax rates. Despite our culpability, it took strong national leaders to foster the heady mix of greed and guilt that brought us to this spot.
Here are the 10 people most responsible for bringing us to the edge of the fiscal cliff:

 

Arthur Laffer. Laffer was the economist who proved the existence of the free lunch. His Laffer Curve showed, in theory, that cutting tax rates would actually increase tax revenue. He gave intellectual cover to those conservatives who wanted to cut taxes, but who didn’t want to be seen as contributing to a big deficit. He gave them a guilt-free way to cut revenue.
There’s only one problem: Laffer’s ideas didn’t pan out in practice: Tax cuts don’t pay for themselves. Tax cuts are a major cause of our $16 trillion national debt.
Pete Peterson. If there’s one person who we can blame for making us feel guilty about the federal deficit, it’s Peterson, a hedge-fund billionaire who was a cabinet secretary in the Reagan administration. Peterson founded, funded or supported most of the institutions in Washington devoted to publicizing the problem of the deficit, including the Concord Coalition, the Peterson Foundation, The Fiscal Times, and the anti-deficit documentary “I.O.U.S.A.”
Without Peterson’s billions and the guilt it bought, the deficit would be a fringe issue.
Bill Clinton. President Clinton made budget surpluses look easy. The budget was in the black the last four years of his administration. What’s worse, he made surpluses look like a sure thing.
Clinton’s surpluses were partly the result of Washington going on a serious budget diet, with higher taxes paired with moderation in spending. But it was the booming economy — and higher taxes on capital income — that turned the modest deficits of the early Clinton years into surpluses.
By the time Clinton left office, politicians were beginning to talk about perpetual surpluses, in exactly the same way that hucksters on Wall Street were talking about a perpetual bull market. And with exactly the same outcome.
Alan Greenspan. Greenspan was a high priest of both guilt and greed. He had always warned Congress about the dangers of the deficits, but his biggest failure as Federal Reserve chairman was the day in 2001 he told Congress that the worst thing it could do was pay down the debt because that would destroy the Treasury market and the Fed’s power to control the economy.
That was the day he endorsed the Bush tax cuts. The Maestro’s endorsement gave intellectual cover to the conservatives who wanted to cut taxes, but who didn’t want to feel guilty.
Greenspan also catered to our greedy side as a serial bubble-blower. He inflated the housing bubble in the 2000s by keeping interest rates low and by refusing to regulate the shadow banking system.
George W. Bush . No one is more responsible for racking up our debt than Bush. He campaigned in 2000 promising to cut taxes in order to avoid paying down the national debt. And when the recession of 2001 arrived, he said tax cuts would revive the economy. And when the economy didn’t revive, he cut taxes some more. Tax cuts for all occasions. And it was all guilt-free
Dick Cheney. While Bush was busy cutting taxes, Cheney was busy planning the war on terror. For the first time in our history, we sent our military into battle without raising taxes at home to help pay for it. It added trillions to the debt.

David Lereah. Lereah was the chief economist for the National Association of Realtors and was perhaps the most enthusiastic and public cheerleader for the housing bubble. Even after the bubble began to deflate, Lereah still insisted that real-estate investments would never lose money.
Of course, Lereah didn’t cause the bubble all by himself, but he does embody the greed that engulfed the real estate industry, the Wall Street banks that profited from it, and the homeowners who took on more debt than they could ever hope to repay.
Grover Norquist. As the head of a powerful lobbying and campaign-finance organization, Norquist forced almost every Republican officeholder to sign a pledge to never raise taxes under any circumstance. If anyone declined to sign or dared to violate the pledge, Norquist would back a primary challenger. The threat worked.
The Norquist pledge blocked any possibility of a budget deal between Democrats and Republicans over the past two years. Democrats insisted that any plan to balance the budget must include more revenue as well as spending cuts, but Republicans held solid against any tax increase.
There are signs that Norquist could be losing his hold on the party. Several Republicans won elections this year without signing his pledge, and several incumbents have said they don’t feel bound by the pledge any more.
Barack Obama. Obama may be the perfect representative of our age, because he encapsulates our national schizophrenia over the budget. He honors both the greed and the guilt. He presided over the largest deficits in history, including a large fiscal stimulus, bailouts of the auto industry, and an expansion of the safety net.
But Obama also lectures us about the need for the government to tighten its belt, even during a recession. He wants to raise taxes, if only on a few, and he’s expressed willingness to cut into the great middle-class entitlements. It was Obama’s administration that first suggested the bargain in 2011 that created the fiscal cliff.
John Boehner. The House speaker is trapped in Grover Norquist’s world. He’s a pragmatic legislator who accepts that the government needs more revenue, but his caucus in the House doesn’t agree. In the summer of 2011, Boehner nearly forced the nation to default on its debt because he couldn’t deliver the votes necessary to raise taxes.
In the end, Boehner was forced to punt the problem down the road. Today’s fiscal cliff showdown is the result of Boehner’s inability to lead the House Republicans to a deal.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/10-people-who-led-us-to-the-fiscal-cliff-2012-11-21?pagenumber=5

USA-FISCAL CLIFF and LEADERS...

REX NUTTING Archives | Email alerts

Nov. 21, 2012, 12:55 p.m. EST 10 people who led us to the ‘fiscal cliff’ Commentary: From Laffer to Obama, they fed our greed and guilt By Rex Nutting, MarketWatch
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — With our political leaders locked in a fiscal struggle that threatens to throw the economy off a so-called cliff and into recession, you might be wondering how we got to this place.
Remember that this supposed fiscal cliff is the direct result of two contradictory impulses in American life: Greed and guilt. Greed for low taxes, a strong military, a strong safety net and lots of government spending for everyone. And guilt that we weren’t paying our way. Read “Stop calling it a ‘fiscal cliff’”
All of us (or almost all) had a role in this melodrama, either benefiting from the spending or from the lower tax rates. Despite our culpability, it took strong national leaders to foster the heady mix of greed and guilt that brought us to this spot.
Here are the 10 people most responsible for bringing us to the edge of the fiscal cliff:
 Arthur Laffer. Laffer was the economist who proved the existence of the free lunch. His Laffer Curve showed, in theory, that cutting tax rates would actually increase tax revenue. He gave intellectual cover to those conservatives who wanted to cut taxes, but who didn’t want to be seen as contributing to a big deficit. He gave them a guilt-free way to cut revenue.
There’s only one problem: Laffer’s ideas didn’t pan out in practice: Tax cuts don’t pay for themselves. Tax cuts are a major cause of our $16 trillion national debt.
 Pete Peterson. If there’s one person who we can blame for making us feel guilty about the federal deficit, it’s Peterson, a hedge-fund billionaire who was a cabinet secretary in the Reagan administration. Peterson founded, funded or supported most of the institutions in Washington devoted to publicizing the problem of the deficit, including the Concord Coalition, the Peterson Foundation, The Fiscal Times, and the anti-deficit documentary “I.O.U.S.A.”
Without Peterson’s billions and the guilt it bought, the deficit would be a fringe issue.
 Bill Clinton. President Clinton made budget surpluses look easy. The budget was in the black the last four years of his administration. What’s worse, he made surpluses look like a sure thing.
Clinton’s surpluses were partly the result of Washington going on a serious budget diet, with higher taxes paired with moderation in spending. But it was the booming economy — and higher taxes on capital income — that turned the modest deficits of the early Clinton years into surpluses.
By the time Clinton left office, politicians were beginning to talk about perpetual surpluses, in exactly the same way that hucksters on Wall Street were talking about a perpetual bull market. And with exactly the same outcome.
 Alan Greenspan. Greenspan was a high priest of both guilt and greed. He had always warned Congress about the dangers of the deficits, but his biggest failure as Federal Reserve chairman was the day in 2001 he told Congress that the worst thing it could do was pay down the debt because that would destroy the Treasury market and the Fed’s power to control the economy.
That was the day he endorsed the Bush tax cuts. The Maestro’s endorsement gave intellectual cover to the conservatives who wanted to cut taxes, but who didn’t want to feel guilty.
Greenspan also catered to our greedy side as a serial bubble-blower. He inflated the housing bubble in the 2000s by keeping interest rates low and by refusing to regulate the shadow banking system.
 George W. Bush . No one is more responsible for racking up our debt than Bush. He campaigned in 2000 promising to cut taxes in order to avoid paying down the national debt. And when the recession of 2001 arrived, he said tax cuts would revive the economy. And when the economy didn’t revive, he cut taxes some more. Tax cuts for all occasions. And it was all guilt-free
 Dick Cheney. While Bush was busy cutting taxes, Cheney was busy planning the war on terror. For the first time in our history, we sent our military into battle without raising taxes at home to help pay for it. It added trillions to the debt.

 David Lereah. Lereah was the chief economist for the National Association of Realtors and was perhaps the most enthusiastic and public cheerleader for the housing bubble. Even after the bubble began to deflate, Lereah still insisted that real-estate investments would never lose money.
Of course, Lereah didn’t cause the bubble all by himself, but he does embody the greed that engulfed the real estate industry, the Wall Street banks that profited from it, and the homeowners who took on more debt than they could ever hope to repay.
 Grover Norquist. As the head of a powerful lobbying and campaign-finance organization, Norquist forced almost every Republican officeholder to sign a pledge to never raise taxes under any circumstance. If anyone declined to sign or dared to violate the pledge, Norquist would back a primary challenger. The threat worked.
The Norquist pledge blocked any possibility of a budget deal between Democrats and Republicans over the past two years. Democrats insisted that any plan to balance the budget must include more revenue as well as spending cuts, but Republicans held solid against any tax increase.
There are signs that Norquist could be losing his hold on the party. Several Republicans won elections this year without signing his pledge, and several incumbents have said they don’t feel bound by the pledge any more.
 Barack Obama. Obama may be the perfect representative of our age, because he encapsulates our national schizophrenia over the budget. He honors both the greed and the guilt. He presided over the largest deficits in history, including a large fiscal stimulus, bailouts of the auto industry, and an expansion of the safety net.
But Obama also lectures us about the need for the government to tighten its belt, even during a recession. He wants to raise taxes, if only on a few, and he’s expressed willingness to cut into the great middle-class entitlements. It was Obama’s administration that first suggested the bargain in 2011 that created the fiscal cliff.
 John Boehner. The House speaker is trapped in Grover Norquist’s world. He’s a pragmatic legislator who accepts that the government needs more revenue, but his caucus in the House doesn’t agree. In the summer of 2011, Boehner nearly forced the nation to default on its debt because he couldn’t deliver the votes necessary to raise taxes.
In the end, Boehner was forced to punt the problem down the road. Today’s fiscal cliff showdown is the result of Boehner’s inability to lead the House Republicans to a deal.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/10-people-who-led-us-to-the-fiscal-cliff-2012-11-21?pagenumber=5