S&P affirms RIL’s CCR to 'BBB'; revises outlook to ‘stable’ from ‘negative’

The ‘stable’ outlook reflects the high level of integration in RIL's core businesses, the global scale of the company's operations, a strong competitive position, and expectation that the company will maintain its financial risk profile

Ratings agency Standard & Poor's (S&P) has said that it has affirmed its long term corporate credit rating on Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL) to 'BBB' and revised the outlook to ‘stable’ from ‘negative’ on expected improvement in the company's financial metrics.

"We have assumed that going forward, RIL would use most of its internal cash flows for investment in growth opportunities. We also believe that RIL's financial metrics currently do have some headroom to accommodate a potential adverse ruling on the legal dispute," said Suzanne Smith, credit analyst and managing director for corporate and government ratings, South and Southeast Asia, S&P.

S&P said it expects RIL to further improve its operating performance by maintaining the existing level of gas production and a potential improvement in refining margins. But this depends on the favourable resolution of RIL's legal dispute with Reliance Natural Resources Ltd and NTPC Ltd that relates to the company's gas business, the ratings agency added.

The ratings agency said it expects RIL's earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) to have increased by 20% for the fiscal year ended 31 March 2010. The improvement is driven by gas production at the KG D6 block surpassing 60 mmscmd (million standard cubic metres per day) of gas within 12 months of starting production, the strong market conditions for the petrochemical business and the successful ramp-up of the new Jamnagar refinery. These factors offset the effects of the very weak market environment for the refining business, S&P said.

The ‘stable’ outlook reflects the high level of integration in RIL's core businesses, the global scale of the company's operations, a strong competitive position, and expectation that the company will maintain its financial risk profile, the ratings agency said.


A slip between the bottler and the lip

Coca-Cola has got back to us on the issue we had raised earlier on insects being found in a 200-ml Coke bottle

We had earlier reported on how a few insects were found in a 200-ml Coke bottle (http://www.moneylife.in/article/8/4652.html) and the delay in Coca-Cola's reply (http://www.moneylife.in/article/78/4694.html).

The soft-drink major has got back to us. In an email received by us today, Coca-Cola clarifies: “The outlet has no Coca-Cola 200 ml stock of 20 March 2010 in the store. Other filled stocks and empty bottles present in the store are of different manufacturing dates. Therefore, the possibility of any spurious products getting into the outlet is being investigated. We have on occasion received complaints of spurious and counterfeit products, and have in the past sought support from police and other law-enforcing authorities to unearth such rackets. What compounds our ability to accurately conduct a product and package integrity investigation in our laboratory is that the package in the given case is open and empty."

Coke has gone on to describe its state-of-the-art manufacturing machinery and has invited Moneylife to inspect its facilities at Wada, near Mumbai.

All through, our intention has not been to malign the reputation of the manufacturer. The points that Coke makes in its letter are well taken. However, we would hasten to add that control on the entire supply-chain mechanism is a responsibility that lies squarely on Coca-Cola's shoulders. There is no point in manufacturing a quality product if there are leakages in the last-mile connectivity.

Again, caveat emptor cannot be applied in this case, as you cannot expect a customer to inspect a bottle before consuming the contents.

Whether the product is spurious or otherwise, the jury is out on this one.




7 years ago

It is not correct on CocaCola/India's part to wash its hands of responsibilities as far as adulteration by outside elements is concerned. Reasons are as follows:-

a) The sealing technology (press cap) that they use for their soft drink in bottles in India is now centuries old. Better and cheaper technologies are available. Biggest question - why don't they change?

b) Carbonated waters sold from "fountains", in open condition, are no better. There is no control on water quality at such outlets. Invites to factories, fine, why not surprise checks on the fountains?

c) It is an open and known secret that at the ground level the fake bottlers and regular salespersons are aware of each other's existence, and are often hand in glove.

d) The fake product tastes exactly like the genuine product because the powder formulations are very easily available. For Coke/Pepsi et al, a sale is a sale, whether genuine or through grey channels. Something like mobile phones, whether bought directly from the legal market or from the grey market.

You should not let Coke/Pepsi off the hook in such cases.Please do take the ppoints listed above and pursue the matter further. Thanks/


7 years ago

I beg to differ.
A case in point: in TN, lots of spurious medicines were seized (in Crores of Rupees)
How does one expect to control these but for the Govt. machinery?
It is a mafia out there
Poor Coke: Neither can they chew nor gulp - just stay stuck in the mouth (translation of a Tamil proverb)
Coca Cola cannot be expected to leave its bottling & dedicate a marketing machinery to the nook & corner of the country.
NB: I am not a Coca cola fan nor a Cola fan.

ICICI Bank directed to pay Rs12.85 lakh to NRI customer

Tamil Nadu’s IT secretary has ruled that the financial institution failed to put in place a foolproof Internet banking system with adequate levels of authentication and validation

In a verdict in the first case filed under the Information Technology (IT) Act in the country, Tamil Nadu IT secretary and adjudicator for the State, PWC Davidar has directed ICICI Bank to pay Rs12.85 lakh as compensation to a non-resident Indian (NRI) customer, who complained he lost money from his account due to phishing in 2007 in Chennai, reports PTI.

The order came on a petition filed by Umashankar Sivasubramaniam who claimed he received an email in September 2007 from ICICI Bank, asking him to reply with his Internet banking username and password, or else his account would become non-existent.

Though he replied, he found Rs6.46 lakh transferred from his account to that of a company, which withdrew Rs4.60 lakh from an ICICI Bank branch in Mumbai and retained the balance in its account.

In his application for adjudication filed under the IT Act to the State IT secretary on June 26, 2008, he held the bank responsible for the loss.

Mr Davidar, in his order, directed ICICI Bank to pay Rs12.85 lakh to Mr Sivasubramaniam, saying that the bank has been found guilty.

He said that there was no way by which customers could identify an email as being from a respondent bank (in this case, ICICI Bank). The Bank could have obtained a digital signature from the officer responsible for communicating with customers, thereby providing a layer in authentication of such mails.

There appeared to be no effort of that nature by ICICI Bank, Mr Davidar said, adding that access to the petitioner’s account details “reflects very poorly on ICICI’s systems and procedures in the event of a customer facing this situation.”

“ICICI (Bank) has appeared to function in a manner that would indicate it has washed its hands of the customer. The Bank seems not to have taken RBI’s directives seriously,” he said.

ICICI Bank has failed to establish that due diligence was exercised to prevent contravention of the nature of unauthorised access, Mr Davidar said, adding, “I find the petitioner justified in the instant case.”

“The Bank failed to put in place a foolproof Internet banking system with adequate levels of authentication and validation,” he added.




7 years ago

Please see the copy of the judgement at http://www.naavi.org along with other related info.

Shadi Katyal

7 years ago

What a shame that one cannot trust even the bank. Did it not happen before in a call center whee a worker stole funds by a stolen credit card.What kind of persons we hiring and where are the ethics.
Banks should be held responsible with some fines if such practices persist.

We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.

To continue

Sign Up or Sign In


To continue

Sign Up or Sign In



The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Magazine and Lion Stockletter)