US Presidential Inuaguration and Market Gains

There is high expectation on Mr. Obama to deliver. Markets are banking on his economic proposals to revive the Wall-Street. Not all presidents have succeeded in matching the market expectations. If we look at look at the presidential inauguration since 1980s majority of presidents have given markets a respectable gain a year after their inaugurals.

Bill Clinton is the president who gave markets’ their biggest gain a year after his first presidential inauguration. It was whopping 28.9%, highest for any president sine 1980. he is the only president to have given markets positive gains in both terms as US president. Ronald Regan and George W Bush, are other two presidents who have been president twice. They are also the presidents who gave negative returns to the markets a year after inauguration of their first term. But they succeeded in giving markets a good gain a year after inauguration of their second term.

George W Bush has been the worst performers amongst all presidents since 1980s. Markets have gained only 7.4% a year after his 2005 presidential inauguration. His father George H W Bush had performed better, markets gained over 16% a year after his presidential inauguration in Jan 20, 1989.

It would be interesting to watch how markets perform during these turbulent times.

Who Will Save Large US Banks?

The US banking giant, Citibank, is once again toying with the ideas of acquiring banks though it’s domestic regional banks now. But with large number of banks still on the FDIC’s list of bank with riskier assets and monthly new additions to the failed banks list (Security Pacific and Franklin Bank, this month), consolidation in the US banking sector has become a needless exercise.

As the US economy scenario is expected to deteriorate further, the number of banks going bust is likely go to higher. A large number of these failed banks are likely to be acquired by big US banks, some of the directive of treasury. This is bound to add more trouble to the large banks, which are already facing credit crisis. The imminent question is- what would happen when these large banks would be on brink of bankruptcy? Will government let them fall?

No. the government already has minor stake in several leading banking firms but this would not their reason for the survival. The US government has put some legislation that almost guarantees the survival of such large firms and puts the “onus” of safeguarding and protecting such organizations on the government. In 1999, Gramm-Leach-Billey (GLB) Act aka Financial Services Modernisation Act was passed that repealed key parts of Glass-Steagall Act. Section 108 of GLB Act states that “Use of subordinated debt to protect the financial system and deposit funds from ‘Too big to fail’ institutions.”

At this moment it is not clear if federal government is pushing large banks to acquire smaller ones knowing that ultimately they would have to save them, or it is these large banks which interested in creating “too big to fail” institutions.

India ranks poorly in the top 50 of UNIDO’s global Industrial Competitiveness; Automobiles and Textile industry make it to the top

India has been ranked 41st in the latest industrial competitiveness report prepared by United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO). The ranking is based on the competitive industrial performance of countries. It is based on two sets of components viz., industrial development indicators and the competitive industrial performance index. It benchmarks a country in the backdrop of liberalization and globalisation. The scorecard suggests about competitive performance of a country, which is measured in terms of manufacturing value added per capita and manufacturing exports per capita.

The scorecard also takes note of industrialization, which suggests share of manufacturing value added in GDP and of medium and high technology in manufacturing.
UNIDO, in an accompanying statement said, that the scorecard brings out a persistent pattern of performance over the years among regional groupings of countries, with industrialized countries leading the rankings and transition economies tightly grouped in the middle ranks.

Singapore topped the ranking followed by Ireland, Switzerland, Japan, Belgium, Sweden, Finalnd, Germany, Republic of Korea, Taiwan, France, USA, Hong Kong SAR, Austria and Slovenia in the top 15. India although ranked 41st fared better than its neighbours with Pakistan ranking at 55, Bangladesh at 67 and Sri Lanka occupying the 75th position.

However, India made it to the top 15 automakers of the world, and among the top five in the leading developing countries category of a separate UNIDO report on motor vehicle manufacturers, thanks to a growing auto industry. According to the report, India ranked 12th in the list of world's top 15 automakers, which is led by Japan followed by the US and Germany. In the leading developing countries category, India ranked fourth. The list is topped by Mexico, followed by Korea, Iran. Brazil held the fifth position.

Also, Indian textile industry came fifth amongst top 15 textile producing countries in the world and India also made it to the list of world's top 15 producers of chemicals, electrical machinery, basic metals (iron and steel, non-ferrous metals) and other products.

WTO fiasco : its US fighting India

After inking nuclear deal to encourage nuclear trade between India and the US, both countries are at loggerheads on terms of trade for agricultural items. It’s the second week of the all important World Trade Organisation (WTO) talks at Geneva, already finger pointing and blame game had began. Trade ministers have repeatedly broken up their meeting, while blaming others for the break up. The WTO secretariat is releasing the revised texts reflecting the convergence achieved so far in agricultural goods and industrial products. But the texts also have blank spaces denoting disagreements. The US without naming India and China has accused them of unraveling the talks. Meanwhile, India in its own might has blamed the US of digging in its heels.

A major point of objection for a large number of developing economies, including India and China, is the safeguards against import surges. An effective remedy will have to wait till imports surge by 40% by volume, a trigger they think is too high. To lower cotton subsidies the US wants China to lower import duties. It wants the large developing countries to abolish import duties on automobiles, chemicals and textiles, while itself taking 10 years to lower high duties on items of interest to India and China, that is textiles and garments. Though there is agreement on many issues, unless some of these politically sensitive issues are settled, the talks could be back to where they were.

Meanwhile, India’s Commerce Minister, Kamal Nath, said that, "We have issues on NAMA (non-agricultural market access), we are opposed to anti-concentration, we want to protect our auto sector. We have given nothing and got nothing because nothing is settled yet. "

With just few days to go for the talks to end, time is wearing out and patience is wearing thin. The developing countries say they have yielded a lot, but have got little in return, though these talks were supposed to address their developmental concerns.

However there is still hope for a positive development in the time left. As Commerce Minister Kamal Nath said that, India still hopes make-or-break talks at WTO to salvage a global trade pact will make progress even though he disagreed with last week's compromise.

We will have to wait and watch in the next few days, whether these WTO talks churn out something fruitful, or will it end in a fiasco.