Exporters found ways to harass buyers who were badly in need of supplies to fulfil their commitments. However, this did not deter the writer as he had a large stock of inventories and a back up from other sources. This is the seventh part of the series describing the unknown triumphs and travails of doing international business in Asia in the seventies
We took different flights and both of us; I am sure felt disturbed by the fact that we were in a country for a good whole week, but did not even know what was happening outside, thanks to the strict control by the Chinese government.
We had the force maejure clause; after all, if the government notification effectively made our contract null and void, there was nothing we could do. But that would not solve the problem of irregular and inadequate supplies of pig iron and thousands of labourers, working on daily wage or piece-meal production basis, would suffer. Export contracts were already suffering, and whether anyone liked it or not, whether they admitted it or not, the fact remained that a great many unscrupulous non-existent foundry owners (who had actually no working foundry) but who had “pig iron” allocations, were selling the raw materials at a premium. There was no dearth of buyers. No one could open their mouths lest their business suffer. Some actual owners sold the raw materials and made the profit, simply avoiding the hassle of actual production.
For more than two decades, through the export promotion council, the government had ensured that many items had strict “floor prices” for export sale. In other words, every exporter of the commodity, let us say, cast iron pipes, fittings, and manholes, had agreed to a “floor price” below which they would not sell. These were fixed by the respective panels in the export promotion council. They were also permitted to give a maximum of 5% commission on the FOB (free on board) for agents abroad; if there was any Indian agent, they too would get not more than 5% on the floor price.
The incentives on export, in terms replenishment license (for re-importing essential/permitted raw materials) and cash subsidy on export FOB realization were thus standardized. No deviation was possible and exporters could not afford to lose the benefit of ‘selling’ the incentive licenses at a ‘premium’. It was one of those crazy situations where money and profits were made on exports simply because of the permissible items for import, under these licenses.
Exporters, naturally found many ways to circumvent these rules; and the honest injuns were always at the losing end. Of course, there were several very quality conscious and responsible exporters, including Kajeco, which invariably obtained a better market rate over these floor prices. But the inadequate supply of raw materials was a grim challenge.
There was one more hanky-panky practice that was in place in those days. There were, at times, genuine problems faced by the shipping companies, as they received more cargo than what they could take; or, perhaps, chose to pick a higher freight earning cargo than the dirty CI product. Well, whatever be the reason, the cargo was shut out, in spite of issuing Bills of Lading for the exporter. This caused tremendous hardships to the buyer because of non delivery of the anticipated consignments on a particular vessel and any amount of assurance for positive delivery in the “next shipment” would still mean a gap 30-40 days.
From an accidental happening in the first few shipments for various exporters, it became a regular organised racket. It must be remembered that exporter got his payment against the L/C as long as the documents were in order; banks were only “negotiating documents” and could not held responsible for physical delivery/arrival of goods at the destination.
When this sort of practice became rampant, the exporters faced a different kind of music from the importers, when, the later simply rejected or did not ‘accept’ the documents presented by his banker, on the technical grounds of ‘discrepancies’ found in the shipping (negotiable) documents. This led to goods being unloaded at the destination port, with demurrage being charged after the usual exempted period. This situation put the buyer on the upper hand who became adept in asking for discounts, etc. The exporter had no choice but to go back to the government and present their version of the story, obtain Reserve Bank of India (RBI) permission before the issue is resolved. In all such cases, the net effect was that 10% to 15% of the shipment value was lost in demurrage, other port expenses before exporter obtained his payment.
Many times, in anger, the buyer would refuse the deal with the exporter again and all the previous relationships would be conveniently forgotten.
Like others, we had faced such situations too. But simply because we maintained a large stock of fast moving items, we could invariably overcome some delays in shipments. But with the current situation of extremely poor raw material supplies, we were really in fix. We had to find some other alternative source of raw materials.
There was already a rumour in the Indian market that we had obtained guaranteed supplies of pig iron from China and from our own grapevines we came to know that the Government of India was not averse to our getting supplies from Pakistan.As luck would have, we had also received this feeler from our contacts, something that both Vijay and I were unaware, as we were flying back to our destinations. After all, we had supplementary support of pipes from Rumania; cheaper version of light duty manholes from China and we began our secret supply sources from Europe.
Couple of drinks calmed my nerves, followed by a sumptuous dinner. I dozed off, and woke up as we landed in the Dubai international port around mid night. My day would start very early, as early as 0745 the next morning.
(AK Ramdas has worked with the Engineering Export Promotion Council of the ministry of commerce and was associated with various committees of the Council. His international career took him to places like Beirut, Kuwait and Dubai at a time when these were small trading outposts. From being the advisor to exporters, he took over the mantle of a trader, travelled far and wide, and switched over to setting up garment factories and then worked in the US. He can be contacted at [email protected].)
You may want to read more:
With sales of Indian equity funds declining, fund companies would be hoping foreign investments would lure investors
Recently Franklin Templeton launched a scheme Franklin US Opportunities fund and now Reliance Mutual Fund and DSP BlackRock Mutual Fund, respectively, are planning to launch open-ended fund of funds (FoF) schemes investing in the US markets, according to offer documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). The Reliance scheme, Reliance US Dollar Fund, would be available in three variants—a debt plan, an equity plan and a money market plan. The Reliance US Dollar-Debt Plan would be investing 95%-100% of its assets in overseas mutual funds which primarily invest in a diversified portfolio of US debt and debt-related securities. In the same way the equity plan would invest 95%-100% of its assets in overseas mutual funds investing in a diversified portfolio of equity on recognised stock exchanges in the US and the money market plan will be investing 95%-100% of its assets in a diversified portfolio of US money market mutual funds. The remaining part of the portfolio would be invested in money market schemes and liquid schemes of Reliance Mutual Fund.
So far the underlying schemes have not been identified, Reliance AMC (asset management company) will identify appropriate securities of overseas mutual funds for each plan prior to the launch and make appropriate disclosures concerning such underlying schemes at the time of launch. This would be the second overseas FoF scheme to be launched by Reliance Mutual Fund after Reliance Natural Resources fund. The scheme would be managed by Jahnvee Shah who has only six years of experience in the capital market.
DSP BlackRock has launched several overseas FoF schemes in the past. It has a World Agriculture Fund, World Energy Fund, etc, all of which invest in units of BlackRock Global funds. The new scheme—DSP BlackRock US Flexible Equity Fund—would be investing 95%-100% of its assets in the overseas fund, BlackRock Global Funds US Flexible Equity Fund (BGF - USFEF), the rest would be invested in money market securities or liquid schemes of DSP BlackRock Mutual Fund. BGF-USFEF invests at least 70% of its total assets in the equity securities of companies domiciled in, or exercising the predominant part of their economic activity in the US. According to the offer document, BGF-USFEF normally invests in securities that exhibit either growth or value investment characteristics, placing an emphasis as the market outlook warrants.
As on 31 December 2011, 99.91% of its assets were invested in equity. The fund which has been in existence for over nine years has returned 18.6%, 13.4% and 0.3% in rupee terms in the one-year, three-year, five-year period ending 31 December 2011, but its performance has fallen short its benchmark—Russell 1000 Index—on all these occasions. Since inception the scheme has returned 6.1% compared to its benchmark which returned 7.5%. Its top five holdings include Pfizer Inc, Exxon Mobil Corp, Apple Inc, Philip Morris International Inc and Abbott Laboratories.
Mehul Jani who is a dedicated fund manager for overseas investments will be managing this fund along with Laukik Bagwe who manages the liquid schemes of DSP BlackRock.
In many of the overseas FoF schemes it is very difficult to get the benchmark performance. On comparing the performances of these funds with the Sensex we find that in the last one-year and two-year period most of these schemes have outperformed the Sensex. However in the last three-year period all of the funds which were in existence since then have underperformed the Sensex.
It is not clear what extra advantage investors would get by investing in these funds apart from diversification. Many investors are shying away from Indian equity. Fund companies are probably hoping to lure investors by introducing foreign funds. Last year when ICICI Pru planned to launch a US Blue Chip Equity Fund, Moneylife mentioned that only about 30% of mutual funds beat the S&P 500 in any given year. (Read: http://www.moneylife.in/article/81/21395.html) Therefore investors should be wary before investing in such funds.
The Indian High Commissioner had claimed that the high commission simply provided a literal translation in English of two short artworks in Hindi. However, Cricket Australia faced a fine for violating the anti-tobacco ban
India put up a more embarrassing show on field in the recently concluded Australian cricket tour than what was apparent.
India put up advertising placards featuring two tobacco-based “mouth fresheners”, which did not go down well with the Australians. However, when the Indian High Commission was contacted by the Australian authorities, the former simply provided a literal translation of the product names and washed its hands off the matter. However, Cricket Australia received a warning from the country’s health ministry and the advertisements had to be pulled down.
A response to a query submitted by RTI activist Subhash Chandra Aggrawal shows that on 14th December in Canberra, the high commission received a letter from Stadia Media asking for the translations of the text on placards that advertised ‘Chaini Chaini’ and ‘Kamla Pasand’. The Indian High Commissioner provided the translation respectively: “fragrant Chaini Chaini mouth freshener” and “Kamla likes” or “Kamla liking”.
However, on 12th February, anti-tobacco organisation Action on Smoking and Health (Australia)—ASH—contacted the high commissioner, seeking clarification on the issue. The high commissioner replied, “At no point of time (the high commission) may assert about the product per se. The high commissioner had simply provided a literal translation in English of two short artworks in Hindi… at no stage the ostensible objective of these artworks was made known to the high commission.”
The unimpressive response was rejected by the anti-tobacco organisation. However, Cricket Australia soon received a warning from the health ministry and it faced fines of up to Aus$66,000 (US$70,000) for each breach of the 1992 tobacco advertising ban. The advertisements were then pulled down.
ASH head Anne Jones said in a media statement that these advertising ploys are like “brand stretching”; i.e. advertising non-tobacco products by tobacco brands for getting exposure.