Let us understand the entire volume of money in transaction and try to ask a few questions? What is the Global GDP? How much is the world’s richest person’s share as compared to the total wealth?
A huge corpus of the money is floated around from person to person everyday – people buying at a price just to sell off to another person offering a higher price. A comparison with All Money in the bubble gives us an understanding how big a part – Digital Speculation of Financial Market is!
Ever wondered how stock price fluctuate? And what exactly is demand and supply affecting the market price to move up and down by the second?
It’s basically the bid and offer price. At any random given time, we have a number of buyers willing to buy a stock and a number of sellers willing to sell the stock at any given price. The exchange puts these ‘limit orders’ in a tabular form and decreasing order of “Buy Price” and increasing order of “Sell Price”. Bid price is the highest price (highest auction price) one is willing to pay to buy a stock. Offer Price is the least price (lowest sell price) one is willing to sell for this stock.
This is what we call the market depth. Generally, this bid price and offer price are very close to one another and offer price is slightly above bid price at any given time. This is called the Current Market Price (CMP): Offer Price for a buyer (because he will buy from the lowest seller) and Bid Price for the seller (because he will sell to the highest auction bidder).
How markets move? It’s generally BUY and SELL power. Huge buying will clear off all levels of Sell Price at the exchange and fresh bid will come thereby taking the CMP higher (higher demand). Sharp selloff can make the price come down as it will clear off Bid Price levels and fresh offers will come to settle.
Market Depth and how the Bid & Offer Prices move by the second
Now understand this. What if my intention of buying is just to sell off to the next buyer? Or in simple terms, my buying decision is simply based on the interest of the next buyer. Yes, this can happen when there’s a panic buying or selling – driven by emotions and this over a few trading sessions can end up to crazy valuations. In the stock market, some stocks to be intrinsically valued at 5rs sell at 50rs and some for 50rs sell at 5rs only.
Okay, at least for an asset class that produces something (like a farmland or a company share) – you have an entry point. A PE ratio – at what multiple of its present earnings you must pay to enter the business’ ownership! What about Gold or other metals? Or Cryptocurrency?
“BTC is an asset class that produces nothing” – Buffet
The concept of cryptocurrency is unique with hashing methodologies which can prevent time, infrastructure & cost of a conventional banking system. Though the idea has some challenges and markets do see the maximum future it can – should an idea be valued at $1 trillion with a single bitcoin trading at $57,000+?
The Power of Social Media Influence
Many of these price speculations are done not only by panic buying or insider trading – it can be as simple as a tweet or post. Provided the tweet comes a personality like Elon Musk. A stock price surging 1000% or BTC gaining a hundred billion dollars’ worth of valuation over a single tweet on a single day proves a ton on how emotions are linked with the current market price we see.
A single tweet increasing valuation of hundreds of billions of dollars is what the Power of Influence is
Will the Speculative Price Bubble Burst?
We all remember the US real estate bubble of 2007. Did AIG or Lehman Brothers see it coming 2 years in future? Super high rents on super expensive houses in New York City and thousands of defaulters and collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) finally resulted in the burst of bubble and bankruptcy of a some of the world’s biggest financial institutions in Wall Street.
Can this happen to BTC? Again, forget human emotions over a brilliant idea, tweets by richest people of the planet – isn’t it too highly valued over just an idea being speculated over each trading session?
Let’s understand what a crash is.
Consider February-March downfall in world markets over Covid pandemic. Investors of the world thought it to be a disaster and since markets see as much as they can see in the future – retail investors to corporate MFs started sharp selloffs. Somewhere along the line it feels “This is the End” and slowly it persuades others to escape. The prices slowly start to be driven by emotions than fundamentals and logical possible outcomes and thereby “Panic Selling” and huge decline happens!
Similarly a bubble burst (E.g. 2008 US Housing Bubble Burst, 2000 dot-com bubble burst) happens when there is a huge rally and overvaluation of an asset driven by emotions and speculations (“People buying betting on the excitement of the next buyer”). And then suddenly the balloon bursts due to the nature of the unhealthy growth beyond logical fundamentals.
Finance amalgamated in evolving modern technology is where the world is heading towards. Maybe cryptocurrency is the universally accepted alternative for the conventional banking across the world – and maybe from 2040 to look today in 2021 BTC is still very cheap in valuation!
The budget presented on 1st February 2021 was an important one for Indian agriculture. It was the 1st budget in the COVID era thus it had the ownership to bring back growth in a sector that employs 60% of India’s population. Also, in 2015, the government made a promise to double farmers’ income by 2022, thus it had the onus of one final push to fulfill this promise. In addition to that, this budget has been presented in the background of the ongoing Farm Law protests and could have been used to mollify the situation by increasing budgeted allocation for the agriculture sector.
This year, the government allocated Rs.1,23,018 crore to the Dept. of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers’ Welfare (DACFW) which is 8% less compared to Budgeted Expenditure (BE) in FY21. This department is responsible for the implementation of schemes such as Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana, which provides interest subsidy for short-term credit to farmers and promotes up-gradation of skills to enhance the adoption of technology in this sector. Due to this decline in budget allocation towards DACFW, the PM- Kisan Scheme, which provided direct cash support to farmers of Rs. 6000, has seen a decline of Rs. 10,000 crores to Rs. 65,000 crores in FY22. This is a surprising move considering the current political and economic situation of the country as it was expected that agriculture and allied sectors will not see a decrease in budgetary allocation. Although, due to COVID-19, the government had introduced a revised budget in 2020, thus the current allocation is 5% more than the revised estimates of FY21.
In this budget, the government has ensured its commitment to the APMC system, a point of contention in the recent farm protests. Now, APMC’s will become eligible to utilize Rs. 1 lakh crore financing under the Agriculture Infrastructure Fund (AIF) which will lead to enhancement of infrastructures of the mandis. In addition to this, 1,000 APMCs will be connected to the e-National Agriculture Market (e-NAM). An additional source of funding for the agriculture sector has been made through the introduction of an Agriculture Infrastructure and Development Cess (AIDC). Through this cess, the government hopes to raise Rs. 30,000 crores to build infrastructure facilities for post-harvest produce in the mandis. According to a study conducted by NABARD, there have been infrastructural gaps ranging from 10% in case of cold storage (bulk & hub) to 99.6% in the case of packhouses. In India, food worth Rs. 92,651 crores are lost in post-harvest processes. Insufficient private investment in such infrastructure and logistics is one of the principal reasons for such gaps. Thus, creating a cess fund for this purpose is a move in the correct direction.
In addition to the existing 6,000 Farmer Producer Organisations (FPOs), the government has budgeted Rs. 700 crores to the development of 10,000 new FPOs. Almost 86% of Indian farmers have small and marginal land holding sizes i.e. 0.58 hectares of land only. These small land sizes make it impossible for them to achieve economies of scale which come from increasing production thus leading to low costs. However, when farmers join FPOs, they get shared access to markets, schemes, and credit. For example, Maharashtra based Rushiwat Farmer Producer Company Ltd. (RFPCL) with 1270 farmer shareholders, now owns a seed and turmeric processing plant and a warehouse where the product is sorted and graded. In 2019-20, the FPCL made Rs. 1.32 crore and received a premium for the turmeric they grew. 
Although the FY22 budget does not make provisions for any immediate relief to the agriculture community, it has made necessary allocations that will make this highly inefficient sector self-reliant and resourceful.
The banking and Financial Services Industry is an integral part of the spine of the finances of our country. With a contribution of Rs.107.83 lakh crore just by the public sector banks in FY20 itself the segment is moving at an accelerated growth rate of 3.57% compounded annually. There has been a major influx in newer technologies into banking services with the internet boom and the higher acceptance of digital payments across the channels ever since the demonetization move in 2016. Private players like WhatsApp bringing in UPI payments facility and the setup of NPCI (National Payments Corporation of India) have also promoted the growth of BFSI and its overall infrastructure over time. These facts alone are good enough to justify the importance of the sector in our economy. A small dent in the variables or a minor positive plush may turn things around. The annual budget of each year has a similar impact. The trial continued with the budget of FY-21 with the proposal of new policies and plans, the highlights of which we try to closely analyze and assess with a forward-looking approach for the overall economy.
A retrospective view of the past few years has brought the banking sector and PSUs into the mainstream to a higher degree than before. As per the budget of 2021, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman unveiled the plans of divesting in all sectors barring four strategic areas. The government announced a budget of Rs. 1.75 lakh crore from the stake sale in public sector companies and financial institutions including 2 PSU (Public Sector Unit) banks and one insurance company in the next fiscal year. The move comes under the new PSE (Public Sector Enterprise) Policy unveiled in the current budget in the next fiscal year. The policy would entail the strategic sale of IDBI Bank, BPCL, Shipping Corp, Container Corporation, Neelachal Ispat Nigam Ltd. being the inclusions up for sales by the end of the year beginning on April 1. The disinvestment target is lower than the last year’s target of 2.1 lakh crore.
Pros and Cons: A Brief View
The annual budget like any other aspect has its pros and cons. While there are moves that can be called for a positive catalyst for the economy, there are some areas that have still scope for the rework to be done.
Constitution of ARC/AMC- Through the annual budget the government plans to work on the constitution of an Asset Reconstruction Company/ Asset Management Company. NPAs have been a burden on the economy, especially in the past few years. With a plan to subdue this burden to a different entity while the focus is kept on their reconstruction, the assets would be transferred and dealt with separately by a specially set up ARC/AMC done by an existing company in the business of ARC.
Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme- With an aim to restore the confidence of retail depositors in the banking industry an implementation framework would be in place whereby the depositors would be able to withdraw amounts up to 5 lakhs against their deposits. The success of this initiative would be directed by the seamlessness with which the deposit and withdrawal process continues.
Increase in FDI limits- With an increase in FDI limits, up to 74% in the insurance industry, the move is a welcome change as the control can rest between foreign JV partners with a dominance of specific safeguards such as the majority directors being Indian residents and 50% of the board comprising of Independent Directors.
Capital outlay for PSB revitalization- The budget entails an outlay of Rs.2000 crore to improve the financial health of the PSBs which would help in the further easy provision of capital during difficult times on the capital adequacy front. The privatization of banks would enable the other PSBs to gain an impetus for better performance and reflect a level of open-mindedness.
LIC (Life Insurance Company) IPO- The major move of the current budget is the disinvestment of the LIC and the decision of an IPO. The move would enable a significant cash inflow as well. The disinvestment being budgeted at Rs. 1,75,000 crores as per the budget. A discussion is also on the cards for the consolidation of the SEBI Act, 1992, the Depositories Act 1996, The Securities Contract (Regulations) Act, 1956, and Government Securities Act, 2007 into a rationalized single market code to streamline the multiple laws. The process would also lead to ease in implementation of the statute being easy from an administrative viewpoint.
Exemption of royalty income received from non-resident on account of the lease of aircraft paid by a unit in IFSC would be exempted from income tax in India
Investments in Unit Linked Insurance Plans (ULIP) would be taxable on maturity applicable on all policies taken on or after February 1, 2021. The move will create parity in terms of how mutual funds and ULIPs are taxed in the hands of the end consumer as an investment product.
GST reduction on medical insurance premium- An area missed out in the budget would be not reducing the GST on the medical insurance premium, which was a major expectation of the industry. Given the fact that the budget gives maximum importance to Healthcare and wellbeing, a reduction of tax from 18% to 12% could have further benefited the insurance industry making the premiums more affordable
Rationalization in the tax rate for Indian branches of foreign branches- The foreign banks looked forward to a rationalization in the tax rates from the current levels. The taxes currently levied at 40%, if reduced to lower a level as applicable on the domestic banks in India could have been a major tax reform in the banking sector.
Editor’s Note- A verdict
A narrowed assessment of all the positives and negatives affecting the BFSI sector, and an aggregate analysis helps us understand some key points coming into the picture.
Catch up with the change- Privatization and disinvestments being some of the key components of the budgets indicate the need for the PSBs to accept the changes and also gain pace to function stronger than before. The decision will bring in more competition in the environment.
Insurance will be the key game changer- On being compared to other developed nations and the emerging economies like Thailand and the Philippines, India has lagged in the insurance industry. The penetration level and density of insurance are far lower when compared to other Asian countries. This will gain good momentum with a proposed increase in FDI limits at 74% and proposed IPO of for LIC. An additional focus on health and well-being may also drive more capital inflow into the sector.
Increased spending levels- The RBI has worked through the repo rates by reducing them and hence making a subtle nudge for the banks to increase the spending of the consumers. With a greater and more definitive role, the Banks will act in the direction of giving cheaper and more attractive loans than before hence acting as an incentive to spend more.
Close watch on the NPAs- With an agenda to strengthen the core of banks and their functionality, the budget aims to scrutinize closely the balance sheets through its move to implement a special body to watch the NPAs and work towards their reconstruction. This in turn would provide value to customers and shareholders of the banks
The budget can be an easy charter for the BFSI sector to the growth and development which can be a positive variable in the overall function of the growth of the economy.
There are a lot of things that people wait for with baited breaths, but nothing in that list impacts their lives as much as the Union budget. There are generally always key focus areas that the budget presents every year and this year was no different, yet was historic. A sector that had never garnered enough focus was at the center-stage this year around- Healthcare has been at the center of all policy decisions due to the unprecedented medical crisis brought about by the ongoing pandemic. Dr. Prathap C Reddy, Chairman of the Apollo Hospitals Group, hailed this new outlook by the Government as “ground-breaking” and is optimistic that it will “fuel job creation and boost economic momentum”.
India has always been among countries that have the lowest healthcare budgets in the world. GDP percentages of Healthcare systems in India have consistently been below average and below recommended international guidelines by enormous margins. India’s healthcare sector only contributes to 1.3% of its GDP while the OECD countries have an average of 7.6% and even BRICS countries average of 3.6%. Even though the per capita government spending has almost doubled from Rs 1008 per person in FY15 to Rs.1944 in FY20 it’s a still low CAGR of 15%. Globally, Indians have the highest Out of Pocket Expenditure on healthcare.
This year however there have been a shift in the outlook albeit triggered by the prolonged pandemic. There have been a few hits along with a few misses:
The Government has announced a total outlay of Rs.2,23,846 Cr for health and wellbeing which amounts to a 137% rise from the previous year. Budget conveyed that healthcare is a priority for the government.
Several schemes like the PM Atmanirbhar Swasth Bharath Yojana scheme has been announced, and they have an outlay of Rs 64180 crore that will be run along with the National Health Mission.
The PM Jan Arogya Yojana (AB-PMJAY) are also a part of the increased healthcare budget. Every year close to 5 crore families are pushed below the poverty line just to bear healthcare expenses. This Yojana aims at providing healthcare cover of up to 5 Lakhs per family per year.
A sum of 2.23 lakh crore is set to be spent on health care, of which 35000 crores is to be spent on COVID-19 vaccines alone.
The budget aims at boosting primary healthcare as well. The focus this time is not limited to rural development but it also looks at urban areas with plans of 17000 and 11000 health and wellness centers in the rural and urban areas respectively. Integrated public health laboratories and public health units are in plans of set up.
Amongst all the upsides and promises for a better tomorrow, there have been a few questions and expectations unanswered and unaddressed.
The primary need of the hour, the reason the pandemic caught us all off guard is the fact that R&D is not focused on enough. No schemes have been announced to increase R&D in government institutes, neither has R&D spending in private pharmaceuticals been incentivized in any way.
Advanced medicals devices are primarily imported into the country, no reduction in import duties have been announced.
The GST on Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) is at the higher slab of 18%. This results in higher prices of the final product. Even though the reduction to 12% was anticipated and expected, the budget however did not reflect the same.
Nevertheless, despite all the shortcomings, the budget has been revolutionary in many ways. It reflects the changing mindset of the country where healthcare is steadily coming to the forefront. The COVID 19 provided the necessary impetus to focus on public health and the overall healthcare system. While it is evident that the steps are not enough to meet the colossal demand of healthcare and also meet the necessary OECD guidelines and other global standards, we still do have a long way to go. This is year’s Budget comes as a welcome change in the right direction, in a country where healthcare has always taken the backseat. The pandemic seems to have caused a paradigm shift in not only India but all over the globe.
We are doing our best every day, sitting on the same spot for hours, reading as much as we can, and gaining as much knowledge as possible to become valuable and be a solution provider to the world’s problems. Why are we doing this and what do we want to achieve by being valuable? Your answer can be anything from buying yourself a Tesla or a Bentley, or a sea-facing bungalow, or making the world tour dream come true or anything else. Now imagine a scenario where you do not have enough infrastructure to charge your Tesla or secure enough fuel for your Bentley, or enough power to light up your beautiful sea-facing bungalow. You might wish to work for the welfare of the poor and underdeveloped rural regions but that is impossible without securing enough electricity to light up their homes and empower their small businesses. I hope these few lines will be enough to make us understand the direct impact of power and energy sector on our lives. Also, the growth of the economy and its global competitiveness heavily depends on the availability of reliable and quality power at competitive rates to all consumers at all places.
In the previous year, the government focused its budget allocation towards reforming the distribution networks by introducing large scale smart metering and an expansion of the National gas grid. However, the allocation of INR 22,000 crore wasn’t just enough to quench this thirst and address the proposed reforms of the country. Also, as the pandemic hit the country, the need for power suffered a huge blow. There were not enough cashflows available with the distribution companies and therefore they were not able to fulfill their obligations to the power generation companies. Therefore, this year, the government had to focus a major expenditure of INR 1,20,000 crore on increasing the liquidity to support this supply chain and was forced to compromise on the structural reforms it wanted to introduce.
The union budget of FY 2021-22 focused not only on bringing in structural reforms to step up on the ladder of development but also on providing aid to the distressed power sector. Therefore, the government allocated INR 3,06,000 crore to the distribution companies to support this important link of the entire power sector value chain. In addition to this, the Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd. will also raise about 69 % higher funds through the internal and extra-budgetary resources against what it raised previously. This is done to strengthen the sub-transmission and distribution networks in the rural areas, metering of distribution transformers/feeders/consumers in the rural area, and rural electrification.
Previously the government had discussed reducing aggregated technical and commercial losses which are currently at 26.31% (as per the Ministry of Power, Government of India) to below 15%. The present budget also has included this agenda to reduce technical losses with contemporary equipment for last-mile distribution. There is a proposal for pre-paid smart-metering which is a very expensive venture and still needs to be made clear with the kind of roll-out mechanism that will be put in place for its implementation.
As of now, we understand that in the previous year government could not contribute much to power generation companies, therefore this year a higher expenditure of INR 61,555 crore will be done, which is 22% higher than the revised estimates of the fiscal year 2021. This allocation will be made to increase the coal-based power generation capacity and build several hydroelectric power projects in Himachal Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir. In addition to increasing power generation, this will improve the transmission and distribution infrastructure under the Integrated Power Development Scheme by the Ministry of Power. IPDS also aims at strengthening the sub-transmission network, and also be involved in metering, IT application, customer care Services, provisioning of solar panels, and the completion of the ongoing works of Restructured Accelerated Power Development and completion of the Reforms Programme (RAPDRP). The government is also determined to set up a separate central transmission utility for easing the planning and execution division of Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.
Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd has been sanctioned INR 12,696 crore, approximately half of which is towards the development of renewable sources of energy and the rest half is towards the maintenance and expansion of the current resources. The government wants to establish a renewable energy capacity of 500 GW by 2030. It plans to install 175 GW of renewable capacity, including 100 GW of solar capacity by the year 2022. Presently we only have about 90GW of energy being produced by renewable sources and still require 85 GW to be installed to achieve this year’s target. The allocation to the solar energy corporation of India which will be funded by IEBR is set to boost the pace of the underdevelopment projects which will increase the power capacity by 32 GW using solar energy and 8 GW using wind energy.
Government expenditure in form of subsidies was seen under the KUSUM Scheme under the ministry of power and new & renewable energy. With the help of this scheme. the government is planning to update the irrigation system of India and as well as promoting solar power production by changing more than 3 crore diesel and petrol-driven pumps by solar-powered pumps. In addition to this scheme, the budget [DT1] also focused on increasing the subsidies for the development of grid-connected solar infrastructure under the solar rooftop program designed to expand access to solar savings for qualified residential customers who otherwise may not be able to use solar because of the high cost of installing panels.
The government also put yet another strong step forward for an Atmanirbhar Bharat by increasing the import duty on solar modules/cells and inverters up to 20% for 2021 from 5%. This increase in taxes is supposed to push the local manufacturing capabilities in India which in turn will reap its benefits towards increasing the solar power capacities in near future. These measures come with a backdrop to reduce India’s import dependence on Chinese products, as almost 80% of the imports of solar cells, modules, and inverters were from China.
Energy is an important input for economic development and the power sector is an indispensable part of the infrastructure in [DT2] any economy. Providing adequate and affordable electric power is essential for economic development, human welfare, and a better standard of living. The demand for power in a developing country like India is enormous and is growing steadily. Thus it is very clear that the government wishes to achieve a growth-centric, investor-friendly, and environment-conscious energy sector for the country. It is evident that the government is ambitiously putting in efforts to push towards a gas-based economy, developing infrastructure to enable cleaner use of fossil fuels and reliance on renewable sources to meet COP21 commitments as it also believes in “The nation that leads in renewable energy will be the nation that leads the world”.
India spends over 4 per cent of GDP on infrastructure, according to Oxford economics, as opposed to China, which spends about 6 per cent of GDP. To achieve UN sustainable development targets, India needs to invest at least 1.5 trillion more annually. Disputes between the government and vendors over infrastructure contracts often result in delivery delays and cost escalations.
On 1st February 2021 the Union Budget of India for 2020-21 was presented. It was led by Indian FM Nirmala Sitaraman and is the first one to be paperless due to the Covid Pandemic situation!
Let us look at the government budget’s exclusive Infra reports:
The Government has extended its ₹ 111 lakh crore ($1.5 trillion) national infrastructure pipeline so that by 2025 it can cover more projects to shore up economic growth as the nation recovers from the pandemic caused recession.
The National Infrastructure Pipeline, with 6,835 projects initiated, has now grown to 7,400 projects. Under some main infrastructure ministries, approximately 217 projects worth Rs 1.10 lakh crore have been completed.
The programme would need an increase in both government and finance sector support, she added. The government is planning to take three concrete measures for this purpose:
Creating structural framework Great traction on asset monetization Rising the proportion of capital expenditures in central and state budgets
Large thrust on asset monetisation
Increase in federal and state budget allocation in capital spending
To draw investment and make India a $5 trillion economy, building new highways, rail links and other social and economic infrastructure is crucial. The NIP, collectively sponsored by the central government (39%), the state government (40%) and the private sector (21%), aims to invest in projects across sectors such as electricity, social and business infrastructure, connectivity, water and sanitation.
In addition, a new construction financing institution named the National Bank for Infrastructure and Growth Finance will be set up by the government. This will be set up on a Rs 20,000 crore capital base and in three years it will have a Rs 5 lakh crore lending target.
The FM said, ““Infrastructure needs long-term debt financing. A professionally managed development financial institution is necessary to act as provider, enabler and catalyst for infrastructure financing”
Some of the other key announcements that the government announced with regards to the Infra-Sector:
It will launch a nationwide monetisation pipeline of future brownfield infrastructure properties.
To track progress and to provide investors with visibility, an asset monetisation dashboard will be developed.
NHAI and PGCIL to build confidence in infrastructure investment to draw worldwide funds. Five operating roads are being moved to NHAI InvIT with an approximate enterprise value of Rs 5,000 crore.
Transmission reserves to be transferred to PGCIL InvIT to the amount of Rs 7,000 crore
Rs 5.54 lakh crore for 2021-22 – a sharp rise in capital spending, which is 34.5 percent higher than the 2020-21 budget forecast.
To have more than Rs 2 lakh crore for the capital spending of states and autonomous bodies.
Gross budget funding for capital spending was substantially increased to Rs 5,54 lakh crore in 2021-22 BE (up 34% from 2020-21 BE and 26% from 2020-21 RE), with a higher allocation to the infrastructure market (roads, railways, etc).
Capital Outlay (₹ Crore)
2020-21 BUDGET ESTIMATES
2020-21 REVISED ESTIMATES
2021-22 BUDGET ESTIMATES
Growth over BE
Growth over RE
Road Transport & Highways
MRTS and Metrorail
Ports, Shipping and Waterways
The Union Budget has declared the creation of a new DFI with a capital of Rs.20,000 crore to increase the funding availability for the infrastructure sector. The goal of this organization is to finance and provide the infrastructure sector with debt more than Rs 5 lakh crore over the next three years, thus helping to bridge the infrastructure funding gap. The funding of infrastructure projects in India is primarily from the banking sector and a few NBFCs for infrastructure.
The Union Budget also provided the NIIF with Rs 5,000 crore, which would enable it to acquire infrastructure properties. Apart from this, the NIIF Infrastructure Debt Financing Mechanism was provided with another Rs 1,000 crore funding, which could be leveraged to provide the sector with substantial debt financing. The NIIF debt platform plans to develop a Rs 1 lakh crore debt portfolio by 2025 with the government’s funding of equity capital and the NIIF Strategic Opportunities Fund and future private sector equity involvement.
TDS on distributions were also removed from the budget by the InvIT, which would reduce the enforcement conditions of unit holders/investors. InvITs have a great ability to draw long-term capital to invest in secure assets for operating facilities and have a constant supply of longer-term cash flows.
Union Budget 2021, the first budget of the decade, also the first digital budget, presented in the backdrop of COVID-19 crisis, estimates total expenditure for 2021-22 at Rs 34.8 lakh crores. Expenditure in 2021-22 has increased at an annual rate of 14% over 2019-20. Revenue expenditure (expenditure for the normal running of government departments, interest charges on debt) is estimated to be Rs 29.3 lakh crores and capital expenditure (government spending that goes into the creation of assets like schools, hospitals, roads, etc.) is estimated to be Rs. 5.5 lakh crores.
Government Receipts (income of the government) are estimated at 19.7 lakh crores (an increase of 6% over 2019-20) leaving deficit of 15 lakh crores to be covered by borrowings (27% annual increase over 2019-20). Fiscal deficit (difference between the total income of the government and its total expenditure) is estimated to be 6.8% of GDP. Government borrowing from the market is planned around Rs 12 lakh crores. The rest is to be funded through multilateral borrowings, Small Saving funds and short-term borrowings. The nominal GDP is estimated to grow at a rate of 14.4% in 2021-22.
Last Year’s Fiscal Position
Budget 2020-21 estimated total expenditure at Rs 30.4 lakh crores, but the actual expenditure came out to be Rs 34.5 lakh crores. Revenue receipts which were estimated to give the government 20 lakh crores were revised to Rs 15.5 lakh crores. Fiscal deficit estimated at 3.5 % of the GDP was pegged at 9.5 % of the GDP.
Break Up of Government Receipts
Estimates (in lakh crore)
A. Tax Receipts
i) Indirect Taxes
11.2 (6.3 from GST)
ii) Income Tax
iii) Corporation Tax
iv) Excise Duty
B. Non-Tax receipts
Non-tax revenue consists of interest receipts on loans given by the centre, dividends and profits, external grants and receipts from general, economic, and social services, among others.
Gross Tax revenue is estimated at Rs 22.1 lakh crores, of which the central government’s share is Rs 15.45 lakh crore. Devolution to states, estimated at 6.65 lakh crores, is marginally higher than last year’s devolution.
DIRECT TAX PROPOSALS
Exemption from filing tax returns for senior citizens over 75 years of age and having only pension and interest income
National Faceless Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Centre to be established
Eligibility for tax holiday claim for start-ups extended by one more year
Capital gains exemption for investment in start-ups extended till 31 March,2022
INDIRECT TAX PROPOSALS
Reduction in Custom Duty: On certain Iron and steel products, Textile products, Gold and Silver, Chemicals.
MSME- To incentivise exports of garments, leather and handicraft items, exemption on import of duty-free items rationalised.
Agriculture- Customs duty on cotton set at 10% and increase on duty on raw silk and silk yarn from 10% to 15%.
What’s cheaper, What’s costlier
Mobiles and Home Appliances
Gold, silver and other precious metals like platinum and palladium
Medical devices imported by international organisation and diplomatic missions
The solution to every problem can be found only if the problem is first decoded till the first principle. India’s economic slowdown should be treated and decoded the same way. The first thing that needs to be identified is whether the current slowdown in the economy is a cyclical slowdown or a structural slowdown. Cyclical slowdown is one that is characterized as a part of the business cycle, going through a trough which will eventually be followed by a recovery and peak. In gist, it is a short-term problem which can be solved through government’s fiscal and monetary policy. However, what the country is witnessing today is a structural slowdown and in order to garner a remedy for the situation, there needs to be a better understanding of the problem and there after damage control.
India’s growth story has always been driven by consumption. In terms of the components of GDP- government expenditure has been whooping for the economy, however government expenditure forms only around 10% of the GDP. Additionally, the fiscal deficit of the government raises concerns about what extent can the government afford to stretch the deficit to, especially with staggering tax collections. The current fiscal deficit stands at 7.5%, which is a notch higher than all the developing countries, barring Pakistan. Investments have been stalling, even after the corporate tax rate cuts. The reason is that if there is a weak consumption demand, why will the businesses invest even despite the incentives? The consumption demand, which is the most worrying concern, ironically forms around 60% or more of the GDP today. In such a situation, any policies, incentives or break throughs will not revive the economy until and unless there is a boost or rather revival of the consumption story of India. The current situation is worse than the 1991 fiasco, as during that time even though the government lacked the forex reserves, the consumption demand was strong. Today the government has ample forex reserves, but the main growth driver of the country has taken a backseat.
The demand can be broken down into urban demand and rural demand. FMCG sector of India, which is generally known for being the resilient and safe sector for the economy has been under trouble, which clearly highlights the gravity of the situation. There were times when the rural segment used to contribute 1.5times the urban segment for this sector. However, during the past few quarters the rural contribution has fallen to the level of urban contribution, and has dipped even more. Currently, the rural FMCG sales is growing by 5.2% and the urban sales is growing by 7.4%
One of the reasons for the above being, India is divided into an organized and unorganized sector. While the organized sector contributes two-third of the GDP, the unorganized sector contributes the rest, and certainly cannot be avoided. The informal sector is responsible for more than 80% of the job creation in the country, according to economists. The implementation of GST was done with the intent of formalizing the country. There has been interestingly a pattern observed, big firms in the industry that competed with a large portion of informal firms benefitted immediately after implementation of GST. The informal firms bore the compliance costs, many informal firms either shut down or witnessed a large drop in market share. The same firms which benefitted post GST, have now witnessed a decline in sales-reasons being slump in demand arising out of losses of job and high level of unemployment in the informal sector. For instance, biggies like Britannia, Marico first witnessed a plunge post demonetization. They again picked up post GST, due to the lessening of rivalry by their informal counterparts and now again a slowdown, due to their stressed counterparts.
Additionally, there is an anomaly in the consumption behaviour of Indian consumers. According to the Consumption Expenditure Survey (CES), the expenditure compared between FY 12 and FY 19 indicates that the spending on durables, clothing, footwear, health, travel, entertainment and other miscellaneous good & services has actually increased. However, sectors like automobile and housing have witnessed a haunting slowdown. The anomaly is due to the lack of customer confidence. Customers do not want to spend on items requiring long term commitment in terms of maintenance and payments as they are not confident about their future income and revival of the economy. Hence, segments especially like travel and entertainment have seen robust growth figures as they are one-time expenditures for the customers. Additionally, events like big billion days witnessed e-tailors booking revenues worth $ 3 billion, plus 50% increase in terms of new customers for giants like Flipkart (mainly tier 2 and tier 3 cities). Major retail lending retail products, such as personal loans and credit cards continue to witness strong growth, though the pace may have decelerated. This brings us to the fact that slowdown does not necessarily showcase the lack of disposable income in the hands of urban middle class. These indicators highlight that there is sentiment issue, customers are still spending a robust amount of income in certain segments-segments which require one-time short-term low-ticket size expenditure, however not on those segments which are required to boost the economy. RBI’s consumer confidence survey for November booked the lowest figure since its implementation back in 2010. The index stood at 85.7, which is even lower than the number observed in September 2013, where the country faced a BOP crisis. A reading below 100 denotes pessimism in the economy.
Budget 2020. The budget 2020 is imperative to bring the country out of a turmoil. There is a consensus view that the budget is likely to bring reforms which will stimulate demand and confidence of revival in the mind of Indian consumers:
With the corporate tax down to 25%, the next expected move of the government is a reduction in the income tax slab to leave more money in the hands of consumer. The current exemption of no tax for income up Rs. 2.5 lakh is expected to be increased to Rs. 5 lakhs. Slab of 5-10 lakh subject to a tax rate of 10% (20% currently), 10-20 lakh subject to a tax rate of 20% (30% currently) and above 20 lakhs subject to a tax rate of 30%. Next is increasing the deduction limit under section 80C from current Rs. 150000 to Rs. 250000. In order to revive investment and promote the housing sector, deduction for housing loan interest for self-occupied property is expected to increase from current Rs. 2,00,000 to Rs. 3,00,000. The rural economy needs to be given a priority; hence the budget should be focusing on bolstering the NREGA programme and funding rural road construction.
While all this may or may not work for the country, certain imperative deep-rooted measures need to be addressed to bring a long-term solution the country. One of the main forces believed to be positively linked to the consumption in an economy is the demographic dividend. India is believed to be the fastest growing country and unanimously agreed that it will reap the benefits of a “large working-class population” in the coming years. While there is no doubt of authenticity in the statement, what we fail to realize is that the above statement will materialize only when the current young population is provided with an environment of quality education and up scaling of skills. India is much behind this aim. Reforms in education and healthcare will pave the path for economic development in India. Successful Asian economies like China, Japan, South Korea, first focused on bringing reforms in the agriculture sector by promoting full-scale efficiency. Similarly, India should focus on reforms in agriculture in terms of access to seeds, technology, power and finance. They should look for ways to improve connectivity and facilitate easier leasing of land. Focus on such areas would not only solve the current problems but also cater to the problems the country has been facing for years but have been left unaddressed.
The amalgamation of all presidency banks started the emergence of modern banking in India (Bank of Calcutta, Bank of Bombay, and Bank of Madras) in 1921 to form the Imperial Bank of India, which was run by European Shareholders. They set reserve Bank of India up in 1935 to address the irregularities in the Joint Stock Company. Post-independence, they nationalized the RBI in 1949 as per the Transfer to Public Ownership Act. In 1955, State Bank was nationalized under the State Bank of India Act in Parliament. In 1959, seven subsidiaries of State Bank were nationalized.
In 1969, Indira Gandhi presented a paper entitled “Stray Thoughts on Bank Nationalization” at the annual conference meeting of the Government of India. The paper emphasized on nationalization of Banks.
There were factors that led to the nationalization of banks. It was told that banks must play a social role in the economy and maintain social balance. They assumed capitalists to be imperialists. Indian freedom battles were against imperialism. Hence, people and government were conservative and influenced by the alternative to socialism. East India Company was a product of monopoly. There were few business people and rich authorities who used to dominate the banking sector and make a profit. The government of India wanted to stop this practice. Banks were set up in cities and also targeted the urban people who were very few at that time. It did not provide people living in rural areas with banking facilities. The banks before nationalization were focusing to perform transactions in the Corporate and Business sectors. They gave not much emphasis on infrastructure sectors. Despite being a country dependent on agriculture for its income and livelihood, they did not give farmers loans because of their poor economic condition.
In response to these factors, the major nationalization of Indian Banks was implemented within a month of the proposal. After this acquisition, the government-controlled around 91% of banking business in India.
Post Nationalization Reforms:
Indian Banking System experienced a good turn after nationalization. With nationalization, the government focused on components that led to this event. In 1975, the first regional rural bank was set up. Branches of banks were set up in the rural areas of the country. In 2013, the number of branches reached 109,811. Loans to farmers were granted. People, according to their economic status, were given subsidies. In 1975, the first regional rural bank was set up.
In 1969, under the chairmanship of Shri F.K.F Nariman, new objectives were put forward to discharge social responsibilities and to implement Lead Bank Scheme (At least one bank should have a lead branch in one district).
In 1975 and 1991, the Narshimha Committee (also known as Committee on Financial System) brought reforms in the banking sector by introducing the concept of big banks, three-tier system of banks, mega-banks, and more control.
In 1980, six more banks were nationalized. In 1993, Punjab National Bank was merged with the New Bank of India, which reduced the numbers of nationalized banks from 20 to 19. In 2018, Bank of Baroda was merged with Vijaya Bank and Dena Bank. In 2019, 10 more banks were merged into 4 major banks.
Need and Advantages of Mergers (Implementation of 4Rs: Regulate, Recapitalise, Resolution and Reform)
The number of PSBs is high. 27 Public sector banks in India were targeting the same potential customers. It made little sense for the government to compete to gain the same customers. Recapitalization will reduce if the mergers become successful. The government is facing fiscal constraints. Hence, a reduction in recapitalization is needed. The non-performing assets are very high in some banks. A proper check is required to reduce it. By merging, the regulatory burden on banks will reduce. Except for SBI, there is no big bank in India to compete on International Level. Merging banks will cause the formation of big banks with more total business and deposits.
Issues of Mergers
It is difficult for one bank to sync with a bank with higher NPAs. This might create complexities further and can have side effects. Different banks have their unique mission and visions. Merging the two different banks will need time to settle with the new system. If banks after merging are not assessed and controlled well can result in higher NPAs.
Why back to privatization?
To solve these issues, a new agenda is required. With Globalization and competencies in the Economy, the Government of India is gradually shifting to the Libertarian side of the economy. The business of government is not to run a business. As per the RBI Financial Stability Report, the Gross NPA ratio is likely to increase. Also, because of financial limits, it is proposing private players come forward and invest in banking. Market capitalization in Public Sector Banks is less than the private sector banks. The money used to recapitalize the banks to recover the stressed assets should be used in development projects and the improvement of infrastructure. The budget presented in 2021 states Rs. 1.75 Lakh Crore worth revenue will be generated by Private Sector. There was much emphasis on disinvestment, too. The budget also says two banks will be privatized in this financial year. The government will have a bare minimum presence in running them.
Privatisation is expected to decrease the recapitalization burden on government as India is already a capital starved country. Considering the business angle of the banking industry, PSBs are more leveraged than PVBs, making the former one risky. On the business expansion front, they have fallen way behind: their (y-o-y) CASA growth in September 2021 was 11.6 percent compared to 22.8 percent for PVBs and 17.2 percent for FBs.
Although much has been talked about privatization, the proper implementation and regulation is demanded so that banking reforms do not shift back to square one. In a country like where people expect populist reforms, we might not well appreciate this move. Also, bitter memories of private imperialism still haunt people. People can easily lose money in private banks if the employees of banks indulge them in malpractices. There is equal risk in public sector banks and the value of frauds in these banks is much higher than in private banks. The solution to every problem is better asset liability management and efficient use of capital, as well as policies.
Country post-pandemic is facing issues of rising inequality and inflation. Privatisation at this point in time would be very stricter move as people are unsure about the policy changes. How these banks will try to cater to people from different income group and different sectors, is still a question?
Financial markets of both developed, as well as emerging countries, usually have some kind of impact due to the United States Monetary Policy. Any changes made by the United States or even ramblings about potential changes can have both positive as well as negative impacts on the Exchange rates as well as Bond rates of Emerging Market Economies (EMEs). When Foreign Banks lend to firms in EMEs they essentially do them in terms of dollars. This creates a direct relation between the United States Monetary Policy and the credit cycles of the EMEs. The impact of the United States Monetary Policy is varied depending on the nation as well as the industries that are directly affected by them. The local lenders of EMEs do not have an offsetting impact on the foreign bank capital inflows, while the United States Monetary Policy affects the credit conditions both extensively as well as intensively. It has been found by many researchers that the spillover effect of the United States Monetary Policy is stronger for EMEs which have a higher risk.
FEDERAL OPEN MARKET COMMITTEE (FOMC) AND ITS ANNOUNCEMENTS
Monetary policy decisions in the United States have a significant impact on financial markets in both developed and developing countries. This was clear in the summer of 2013 when Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke first mentioned the prospect of decreasing the Federal Reserve Board’s security purchases on May 22. In the months that followed, this “tapering talk” had a significant negative influence on financial conditions in developing countries, with currency rates depreciating, bond spreads widening, and equities prices falling. A full-fledged balance of payments crisis appeared to be looming for several of the countries.
The US Federal Reserve chose to utilize the Federal Open Market Committee to undertake monetary policy changes in response to the Global Financial Crisis caused by the Sub-Prime Crisis in 2008. (FOMC). The FOMC chose to employ an unconventional monetary policy starting in 2008, as illustrated in the chart below.
Fig: Period of Unconventional Monetary Policy
The next era was highlighted by the Large-Scale Asset Purchase Program (LSAP), a programme of direct asset purchases, as well as prior indications on monetary policy direction. The research relied on high frequency variations in longer-term Treasury rates to detect monetary policy shocks because the federal funds futures rate no longer provided a suitable basis for doing so during the unconventional monetary policy phase. The identifying assumption is the same as for the traditional monetary policy period: Treasury rate fluctuations in a brief window around policy announcements are attributable to unanticipated changes in the US monetary policy stance.
Fig: Treasury Yields on FOMC days
Two-year Treasury rates are seen in the first panel of Chart 2. The period is characterised by medium-term patterns, in which yields declined between 2008 and 2011, stayed low from 2012 to 2013, and then rebounded, as well as shorter-term variations with more regularity. The vertical lines represent FOMC days where the percentage change in yields was 2 standard deviations below or above the period average.
The second panel shows the percentage change in yields on each of the FOMC days. Day-to-day changes in response to FOMC announcements that exceeded the two-standard deviation band around the average changes are indicated in red. The third panel compares the daily percentage change in rates on FOMC days to the daily percentage change in yields on all other days in the sample period. It shows that Treasury yields declined on FOMC days on average compared to non-FOMC days, and that the former had more tail events, such as sudden rises or drops in yields.
Finally, on the days of the FOMC announcements, we compare changes in 2-year Treasury yields to changes in 10-year Treasury yields in the last panel. On FOMC days, the fluctuations in 2-year and 10-year rates were significantly connected, as shown in the graph. There were only a few times when the yields’ near synchronisation was broken.
IMPACT OF US MONETARY POLICY ON INDIAN ECONOMY
There was a lot of research done to identify the effects of the US Monetary Policy on the Emerging Market Economies, various statistical as well as regression models were run to come to various conclusions. The most significant of which were the following.
Bhattarai et al (2018) estimated the spill-over effects of US QE on EMEs and assessed the differences in the responses in the policy of those economies, in which they found that the US quantitative easing (QE) resulted in currency appreciation for EMEs, as well as higher long-term bond rates, stock prices, and capital inflows.
Dahlhaus and Vasishtha (2014) studied the possible impact of the withdrawal of stimulus due to QE on EMEs which resulted them in finding for EMEs, the impact of QE tapering was predicted to be minor as a percentage of GDP. However, they warn that this might still create severe market volatility.
Gupta et al (2017) looked at the effects of QE and EMEs, in which they found In EMEs, QE had a considerable impact on exchange rates, stock prices, and bond yields.
Impact on India
Fig: INDM1 (Indian Money Supply), USMBASE (United States Monetary Base), EFFR (Effective Federal Funds Rate), INDBNCRE (Indian Bank Credit Rate), USD INR (Exchange Rate), and Indian Interest Rate changes
QE increased the money supply in the United States, which in turn increased capital inflows into emerging economies like India, increasing the economy’s money supply. At the same time, as the money supply shifted to growing economies such as India, the money supply in the United States shrank. As a result, there is a bi-directional causality between the money supply in India and the money supply in the United States. Indian Money Supply and Indian Bank credit rate also show a bi-directional causality due to the fact that the increase in bank credit will lead to increase in money supply.
QE increased the money supply in the United States. As a result, inflows into emerging economies like as India increased dramatically. This should have caused the Indian rupee to appreciate against the US dollar during QE and depreciate during tapering. In contrast, the rupee has been progressively losing strength versus the US dollar. This is because the Reserve Bank of India intervenes in the foreign exchange market to prevent the Indian currency from gaining too much, lowering volatility. The influence of QE on the currency rate has been negligible as a consequence of the RBI’s involvement.
According to our research, surprise US policy pronouncements have a big and significant influence on asset values in developing countries. Our estimates demonstrate that in developing nations, a surprise monetary easing, as assessed by a decline in the 2-year Treasury yield on the day of the FOMC announcement, leads to exchange rate appreciation, equities price gains, and bond yield reductions. A surprise tightening, as measured by an increase in the 2-year Treasury rate, on the other hand, has the opposite effect.
Evidence suggests that monetary policy shocks have a lesser spill-over in other advanced economies, such as the euro-zone, Japan, and the United Kingdom, owing to their weaker financial connectivity with emerging economies.
The signaling effect or portfolio rebalance effect, of US policy statements may have an impact on emerging economies. The findings highlight the impact of unexpected US monetary policy pronouncements for emerging economies and add credence to emerging market policymakers’ concerns in recent years. They emphasize the necessity for emerging economies to remain cautious in the face of US policy changes.
The Federal Reserve Bank of the United States, and to a lesser extent other advanced countries’ central banks, prepare the markets well in advance by providing unambiguous guidance, particularly when policy tightening is expected. The influence would then dissipate over a longer period until the day of the announcement, and emerging economies would be unlikely to see significant short-term financial upheaval.
Jaswal, A., & Ahuja, B. R. (2021). Unconventional US Monetary Policy: Impact on the Indian Economy. The Indian Economic Journal, 0019466221998627.
Bräuning, F., & Ivashina, V. (2020). US monetary policy and emerging market credit cycles. Journal of Monetary Economics, 112, 57-76.
Gupta, P., Masetti, O., & Rosenblatt, D. (2017). Should emerging markets worry about US monetary policy announcements?. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, (8100).
Arora, V. B., & Cerisola, M. D. (2000). How does US monetary policy influence economic conditions in emerging markets?
The US-China trade war started in 2018 and it hasn’t ended even though there has been a change in the US administration. These two countries have great importance in the world trade and any changes in policies with respect to it affect the whole world. This report studies the impact US-China trade war on the stock market of various countries during the period 2018-19.
The two giant economies of world USA and China have been in constant growth trade relations since 1970s. These trades accelerated after China entered World Trade Organization in 2001. The US has consistently imported from China their onwards and the bilateral trade deficit in of US rose to $375.6 billion in 2017. During Donald Trump administration, US started imposing tariffs and trade barriers on China in hope to reduce the trade deficit and provide market for home grown industries. The imposition of tariffs escalated quickly resulting countries taking some drastic measures which in-turn converted into a trade war.
This imposition of tariffs had ripple effects around the world. Some countries benefitted to some extent from it and some countries paid the similar price via tariff hikes. By 2019, the US had placed tariffs on about $350 billion in Chinese imports, while China had countered with duties on US exports worth more than $100 billion. The tariffs were imposed to reduce the trade deficit, but in 2020, the US-China trade deficit hit a new high of $915.8 billion and the goods and services deficit hit a new high, the most since 2008. The decision to impose tariffs affected consumers, the importing firm also absorbed some cost The US consumers paid the price in the end of all the tariffs imposed onto China. The impact on US producers with significant exposure to Chinese markets was also captured in stock market valuations. The equity price performance of US companies with high sales to China underperformed relative to US businesses exposed to other international markets, after tariffs linked to the $34 billion retaliation list by China were implemented.
Impact of US Tariffs on Sales
Tariffs affecting top 10 importing sectors
The above charts show impact of tariffs onto top 10 imports of US from China. The sectors which import the maximum in terms of $ are telecom and electrical industry, computer industry and households’ items.
First, Trade Policy uncertainty about trade policy affects investment decisions of companies. If it were 100% certain that the tariffs stay in place, the producer in the import competing sector could raise investments and if it were sure there would be an agreement about the reduction of tariffs to pre-trade conflict levels, the producer in the exporting sector could raise investments. If it is uncertain what will happen, companies in both sectors will wait with investing. This slows down the whole manufacturing cycle ultimately hurting parties on both sides.
Second, the trade policy uncertainty had a much larger impact on the stock market than on investment itself, the S&P 500 fell by 2.5% on March 22, 2018, the day the US announced higher tariffs on 50 billion dollars of Chinese imports. Many companies listed on the stock market have substantial commercial business outside of the US which were also heavily affected by the new tariffs. This uncertainty has weighed on investor confidence around the world and has contributed to losses. In 2018, Hong Kong’s Hang Seng index fell more than 13% and the Shanghai Composite slumped nearly 25%. Both indices have recovered some ground and were up 12% and 16% respectively 2019 (Fig-1: Shows the performance of US and China stock index)
Impact of Trade war on Stock Market of US & China
Impact of US-China trade war on other countries:
The trade war between the United States and China had a significant worldwide impact, with some countries benefiting while others suffered the brunt of the consequences, and some economies remaining unchanged.
While trade flows between the US and China dropped, trading prospects for other countries increased. Here, we have picked a few countries to analyze the impact of the trade wars:
During the US-China trade war, Vietnam was one of the countries that benefitted as US, over the years, has been the biggest market for Vietnam’s exports, and China was the 2nd largest source for Vietnam’s imports.
Vietnam’s exports rose to around $290.4 billion, and the country saw a trade surplus of $34.78 billion with the US. Meanwhile, Vietnam faced a trade deficit of $24.17 billion with China in 2018. However, Vietnam spent US$57.98 billion on imports during the first quarter of 2019. Additionally, there a GDP growth of 7% majorly due to manufacturing, consumption, and tourism. The expansion of manufacturing helped in gaining more investors and thus aided in increased exports including apparels, furniture, shoes, seafood to the US.
While there is an increase of exports to US to a large extent (by 27.3% in 1st half of 2019), the increase to exports to China was only 0.3%. Vietnam’s exports to China mainly consisted of electronics, semiconductors, apparels, furniture.
There is a benefit as the effect of tariffs on the Chinese goods consumed are also produced and consumed in Vietnam. Therefore, such products were exported to the US, and gain market share from Chinese goods subjected to tariffs, while exporting to US. This led to increase in FDIs, expanding the job market.
Another benefit was that the companies based in China shifted production operations to Vietnam. However, investors are finding it strenuous as the quality of manufacturing and sourcing materials are not at par with China.
Despite the jump in exports and investments, Vietnam also saw a negative impact as it faced similar tariffs as China due to the increasing trade surplus with the US. Vietnam is also not immune to US taxes.
China’s rampant exports to the country would lead to an increase of Vietnam’s trade deficit with China, and Vietnam’s domestic firms will face difficulty from rising competition from Chinese goods. Due to the trade wars, if China decides to consume the exports instead of exporting to other countries, Vietnam will find it challenging to export to China.
Vietnam-US Trade (2017-2019)
Vietnam-China Trade (2017-2019)
Taiwan was also one of the countries that benefitted from the US-China trade wars due to the effect of trade diversion, gaining unexpected earnings of $4.2 billion in 2018-2019. The country earned the most out of office machinery equipment by gaining around $2.8 billion dollars.
Due to increasing labor charges, productivity challenges, IP rights violations, Taiwan had already begun shifting its operations from China back to Taiwan. Therefore, now those goods turned from made-in-China to made-in-Taiwan. Additionally, Taiwanese investors invested back NT$610 billion from China back to Taiwan.
Taiwan had initially faced a loss due to steel and aluminum tariffs, but as it is a rich ICT hub, it gained the most in precision engineering products and electronics ($2,941.6 million, and $310.7 million) the effects of trade diversion was made up for. However, Taiwan also faced negative effects in services like Business, transportation, trade, finance ($58.323 million, $36.6 million, $25.3 million, $24.5 million).
In 2018, Mainland China was Vietnam’s largest trading partner (with 23.9% total trade, 18.6% Taiwan imports).
US was Taiwan’s 2nd largest trading partner (with 11.8 % of total trade and 12% of Taiwan imports), the countries had a total transaction in goods and services of $94.5 billion – with $40.3 billion in exports, $54.2 billion imports, where Taiwan faced a trade deficit of $13.9 billion. Taiwan’s GDP grew to 2.96% in 2019 from 2.79% in 2018.
Goods exported from Taiwan – overall (Source: Statista.com)
As Mexico is a country of low tariffs, it was viable for companies to move their production from China to Mexico during the trade wars between US and China.
The global economy was facing a slowdown as there was a decrease in investment in manufacturing, but due to the shift of operations to Mexico, the country had opportunity to grow through employment, investment, and market.
Due to the effects of increased tariffs imposed by US on China, Mexico replaced China as a major trade partner in 2019 as the value of Mexico exports to US increased as compared to China
Mexico exported a total goods and services of US$ 361 billion to the US (majorly automobiles with reciprocating piston engine – where Mexico’s US market share rose 15%, and China’s dropped 9%; raw materials), and imported a total goods and services of US$ 235 billion (majorly petroleum) million in 2019.
When it comes to China though, the scale tips considerably to China as Mexico exports to China was only US$ 7.1 billion, whereas China’s exports to Mexico was around US$ 93 billion. However, there is a steady increase from US$ 6.7 billion in 2017
Mexico did benefit from the trade war, as the resulting exports of China to US reduced, opportunities grew for Mexico. Additionally, China started using Mexico as an export platform to reach US as the tariff for exporting from Mexico was lesser than the 25% tariff of exporting directly from China
However, Mexico’s GDP declined by -0.177% and entered recession in early 2019 as the country couldn’t handle the slow industrial output, and decreased business investments
Bottom line for the US-China trade war is that both the countries being economic superpower share huge stake in fostering open trade and investment. Any geopolitical disputes among these countries will have and had serious repercussions on countries all over the globe. Some countries may have benefited from this, but majority of the countries had to face some difficult time. Both the countries risk losing billions of dollars’ worth of money which could have contributed to their GDP due to this trade war. US’s changes in trade policy could have been based purely on politics and to reduce the China’s economic growth and its growing importance in the world economy. Since it has not benefited any of the two countries. The China’s government in its turn has a goal to achieve leadership in robotics, biotechnology, and artificial intelligence. It will provide financial support to high-tech industries and will do everything possible not to let the US stop or slow down the modernization and digitalization of the China’s economy.
India has been battling a severe coal supply shortage for the past few months. The situation was critical when India saw a massive power supply shortage in October’21. It was due to a scarcity of coal, which had reached the point where 135 thermal plants in the country didn’t even have a four-day supply.
So what is fuelling this coal shortage?
Let us first understand the source of India’s coal supply. India is the second-largest consumer of coal after China. Coal accounts for 70% of India’s electricity generation. Though India is the fifth-largest holder of coal reserves which is close to 10% of the world’s share, it still imports 25% of its coal consumption. India imports 80% of its import coal requirement from Indonesia, Australia, and South-Africa. Coal India Ltd. (CIL) and Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. (SCCL), both being government-owned corporations are the major contributors to the production and dispatch of coal in India.
Causes of the Coal crisis
Prices of coal are rising globally, seeing a gain of 160% in the last few months. This could be attributed to the reviving economy and increasing demand for electricity. The year 2020 experienced a sharp decline in demand for coal as production was halted in various industries because of the pandemic. But the reviving economy is demanding both, an increase in production as well as consumption of coal. Therefore, the imports had to be substantially curbed due to the rise in global rates building a gap between the demand and supply and leading to the supply crunch. High imports of coal by China is one of the reasons inflating the coal prices.
High imports of coal by China is one of the reasons inflating the coal prices. Along with India, China has also been facing a energy crisis due to flooding in one of its key sources of coal. Also, it has been taking steps to reduce coal consumption to reach its carbon neutrality goals, which is not practical currently as its economy is reviving and the industries are heavily reliant on coal-sourced power.
Indonesia, being one of biggest exporters of coal has currently announced a ban on coal exports for a month due to not meeting domestic production targets. This has led to a disruption in market causing rise in price.
Rising demand for electricity
As the economy revived in 2021, India saw a 13.2% increase in demand for power and reached its all-time peak in the month of July. As the electricity generation increased rapidly, energy crisis was unfolding as most of the thermal plants were running out of coal stock reaching critical and semi-critical inventory levels. According to Central Electricity authority, power demand in April-August 2021 was 203014 MW which was significantly higher compared to 171510 MW in the same period last year. The mismatch of demand and supply has created a disequilibrium in the market leading to increase in price of coal.
Domestic Coal production
Domestic coal production has been stagnated since 2018. Due to water logging in coal-bearing areas caused by severe rains in September and early October’21, dispatches from coal mines were hampered, resulting in lower-than-normal stock accumulation by thermal power plants in October.
Coal India Ltd. has monopoly over the coal supply as it supplies over 80% of the total supply. As per the data below, CIL has been failing to expand and instead the production is seeing a decline since 2018. Though India has the fifth-largest share of coal reserves, it is yet to ramp up its coal production.
Following data shows the production of coal during the last 10 years. The data points out the decline in production in 2020-21 which is also the first ever decline in production in the span of last 10 years.
Let us now examine the causes for India’s failure to increase coal production.
Delayed payments to coal miners and distributors
One of the major reasons for the slowing down production and supply of coal, is the high amount of dues which are yet to received by the coal mining and producing companies like CIL and SCCL
De-allocation decision in 2014
In 2014, government after being blamed for illegal allocation of mines, had to re-allocate as per the decision of Supreme court. The government took this opportunity to bring in new players and actively promoted by introducing stimulus packages to attract new players in this market. It failed to work as it is a tough industry and it is very difficult to compete against an established corporation like CIL. Also CIL’s prices have always been significantly lower than the global prices and majority of thermal plants rely on CIL. Not only competing with prices would be an entry barrier, but the bureaucratic and political hurdles to pass through would be very difficult compared to CIL. Therefore, CIL continued to have the monopoly but has been the backbone of the entire coal industry.
I would like to talk about the criticality of this crisis on our economic recovery. If we think about it, Indian sources 70% of its electricity through coal, therefore it is an extremely critical issue to look into as it hampers the recovery as well as the future growth of the economy.
As we saw, there are multiple reasons why this industry has stagnated in the last few years. But one of the reasons which surprised me the most is the fact that though CIL has been always given the complete monopoly over mining and distribution, it has not improved its production. Majority of its shares is owned by the government, and it also receives tariff support from the government which allows them to keep the prices low. It was predictable that the power demand and consumption is going to rise as government designed many booster packages for the economy for its post-covid revival but government owned CIL did not prepare well for the upcoming demand. Government had also decided to curb imports, but it was practically not possible when the domestic production could not keep up with the rising demand.
The issue of delayed payments by DISCOMS might not be highlighted as much as the other causes, but it is one of the major reasons behind delayed production of coal. Operating inefficiency on part of DISCOMS leading to higher costs have delayed payments, especially state-owned DISCOMs.
As many other government-owned and controlled industries are now permitting private entrants, could coal industry too benefit from this trend? But this could only be possible if government gives them a fair chance by supporting these companies. It needs to provide support if they have to compete against prices of CIL. These new enterprises would also require significant capital, and if they are unable to attract coal consumers owing to price disparities, they will be unable to survive.
Therefore, the coal crisis being a substantial obstacle to our economic prosperity, it must be addressed at all levels.
Economists tried hard to predict and prepare for the risks due to the pandemic in 2021. But their predictions didn’t work out. They are again trying hard to predict what 2022 has in store for economies across the world, amid new variants of COVID-19, inflations, hard Brexit, a fresh euro crisis, rising food prices, energy crunches, and peak oil prices. Let us now look at some of these potential risks that can pose global economic threats in the year of 2022.
Omicron and Lockdowns
Though it is early to predict how deadly the new variant of COVID-19, the Omicron can be, though, more contagious than the earlier variants, it may also prove to be less deadly. This can help the world get back to the pre-covid levels of spending, thus increasing the demand and supply of goods. A rebalancing of these spending levels can help and boost global growth upto 5.1%
On the other hand, all of this can be proven to be our wishful thinking. A more contagious and deadly variant can loom on economies across the world, pushing countries into the toughest 2021 restrictions and making economic growth sluggish in 2022.
In such a scenario, demand and supply will fall, workers will be kept out of labor markets leading to worse supply chain and logistic problems. Such scenarios are already evident in the Chinese city of Ningbo which is home to one of the world’s busiest airports, now seeing fresh lockdowns. A new wave of COVID-19 can push the already hit traveling industry into a reel of losses.
With post-COVID-19 recovery and supply chain bottlenecks, the widespread surge in power and energy sectors, the costs have been rising, leading to global inflation. The inflation of the US is currently at around 7% contrary to the forecast of 2% by the end of the year 2021. Such major misses in controlling the inflation rates are very much possible with potential causes like Omicron, wage rates which are already rising at a rapid pace in the US. Tensions between Russia and Ukraine can lead to a surge in gas prices.
Similarly, in India though RBI expects the inflation to ease in 2022, the inflation might rebound to 6% in early 2022 due to unexpected higher prices of food, core commodities and services. RBI has been doing a great work in inflation targeting which is evident from the fact that the inflation stayed within the RBI’s target range of 2%-6% for a fifth straight month. But how well inflation in India can be targeted and curtailed in 2022 remains to be seen.
Disruptive weather conditions due to climate change may continue to rise food prices increasing the Wholesale Price Index, worsening the Global Hunger Index of developing countries. India stands at 101st out of 116 countries with a score of 27.5 which depicts a level of hunger that is serious.
Source: Website of globalhungerindex.org
Source: Website of globalhungerindex.org
Uncertain Federal Reserve Policies
Uncertain Federal Reserve Policies concerning managing inflation rates is one of the biggest risks global economies are facing. While the causes are driven by complex factors beyond disrupted supply chains and increased consumer spending, there is no doubt that the solution lies with the Federal Reserve and its Chairman Jerome Powell. The White House might raise taxes to control inflation since other programs to control inflation have not been showing impressive results.
Adding to the risks are already-elevated asset prices. The S&P 500 Index is near bubble territory, and surging home prices suggests that the housing-market risks are bigger than during the sub-prime crisis back in 2007 which might lead to a recession at the start of 2023.[SJ2]
Federal Reserve policies also influence the RBI. Increase in Fed interest rates narrows the spread between US and Indian government bonds leading to pulling out of money by foreign investors from Indian Government Securities. This might push RBI to increase interest rates in the country to prevent outflow of Foreign Portfolio Investments (FPI) from Indian Bond Market which will weaken the rupee further leading to inflation.
Once the US dollar strengthens further as interest rates of dollar denominated securities might begin to move higher. This will lead to decline in rupee.
Impact of Fed Lift-off on Emerging Markets
To curtail repercussions of COVID-19, USA has been buying bonds and securities in large scale, a process called as Quantitative Easing, which helps in inducing liquidity in its economy. This increased liquidity in the economy helps lower the interest rates, encourages businesses to invest more and consumers to spend more, thereby increasing the aggregate demand. However, this might lead to the central bank running into the risk of higher inflation and hence in September 2021, US Fed Reserve hinted at starting to reduce its large-scale asset purchases, a process known as ‘tapering’ which may lead to higher interest rates in 2022. The tapering process would affect the supply and demand dynamics which can lead to short-term volatility in certain market segments and raise the interest rates. This would mean a global risk aversion as global investors pulls out their money from emerging markets and invest in ‘safe-haven’ assets like gold and US treasury instruments, bringing back the memories of the “taper tantrum” episode of 2013.
Countries like India, the emerging markets, might take the brunt of such taper tantrums due to reduction in funds infused by Fed and increases fed fund rate which will impact the availability and cost of overseas finance of Indian companies. After signals of hike in interest rates in June, the benchmark Sensex fell 461 points or 0.87% The rupee also lost 0.75 paisa or 1% against the dollar during the time.
China’s Great Wall of Debt
In the third quarter of 2021, China’s economy has slowed down due to the weight of the Evergrande (a real estate company that bears $300 billion in liabilities), repeated COVID lockdowns, and energy shortages. This slowed down the economic growth to 0.8% on contrary to the world accustomed economic growth pace of 6%
While the energy crunch caused by high coal costs and inflexibility in electricity prices might show signs of easing in 2022, the ‘Zero-COVID strategy’ of Beijing might call for more lockdowns. According to some government statements, the plan of Chinese government to curtail the Evergrande real estate slump is to manage a controlled implosion by selling off some of Evergrande assets while limiting the damage to homebuyers, businesses and without bringing down the epic property boom of China. But with the dire situation in real estate, the sector which contributes to a quarter of China’s GDP and worth $52 trillion, China’s economy might have to fall further.
On the flip side of the coin, what can go right in 2022?
Amid lockdowns due to new variants of COVID-19, tapering process of US and other developed countries, higher inflation rates and uncertain monetary policies to curtail it, what can go right in 2022?
Globally, households are sitting on trillions of dollars of excess money saved from cutting down on spending during the pandemic during lockdowns. If the world is back to pre-covid times and that money gets spent, boosting the consumer spending, demand, and supply and hence the growth would accelerate.
In China, investments in green energy and affordable housing which is already stated in the country’s 14th Five Year Plan could increase investments. Asia’s Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership – which includes 2.3 billion people and 30% of global GDP can boost exports in the region.
Countries have been recovering surprisingly rapidly, proving economists wrong in their predictions of sluggish recoveries. This can be true next year, too like in 2021.
There hasn’t been any industry that COVID-19 hasn’t impacted and one of the most impacted sectors in the economy was the Oil and Gas Industry. The Oil Price fell to an all-time low of negative $37.63 on the WTI (West Texas Intermediate) index in April 2020, there was an excess of supply and for that time, there was no need to produce any more oil. All OPEC and OPEC+ countries together decided to reduce their production of Oil and Gas by about 10 million barrels per day. This decrease in production revisited a question in the minds of many in the energy sector… Have we reached Peak Oil?
What is Peak Oil?
Peak Oil is defined as the moment at which the global oil production will reach its maximum rate after which it will gradually decline. This happens as the rate of extracting new reserves becomes more expensive. This puts a strain on the existing resources which are being rapidly exploited and will be depleted if new sources are not found faster than the rate of depletion of current resources. So, the fear of Oil getting completely depleted was genuine, thus sparking a deluge of multiple experts trying to predict. This was a major concern till new technologies were developed and there was a strong need to develop renewable sources of energy due to the rise in the realization of the Global Warming phenomenon in the late 1970s.
Fig 1: Hubbert’s Peak Oil Model
Peak Oil Demand
It was always assumed that the ‘supply’ of oil would eventually come to an end. Due to scarcity, the oil prices would increase, making Oil Expensive. In the past 40 years or so for every 1 barrel of oil consumed, 2 new were discovered and could be recovered at an economic rate. In recent research by Industry experts, it was found that the oil required for the world till the year 2050 was available twice over and due to abundance in technology, this value will increase multifold. This tells us that the world will not fall short on Oil any time soon and there might never be a shortage of oil as earlier predicted. It also means that most of the identified recoverable sources of oil may never be recovered. Due to the world moving towards renewable sources of energy, the dependence on conventional sources like oil, gas, and coal is reducing as you read this.
The world is still dependent on conventional sources like Oil, Gas, and Coal to achieve its energy requirements, however, there is now a shift towards more renewable sources of energy and now it is evident that the demand for Oil will gradually decrease. The moment in time when the demand for oil reaches its maximum and then starts reducing, it is called Peak Oil Demand.
Fig 2: Projections for Peak Oil Demand
The next question which comes to mind is When will Peak Oil supply occur?
Analysis has been done and potential dates ranging from 2028-2040 have been estimated. The range is very large and there are many factors that are responsible for the determination of Peak Oil Demand. Due to the new Environmental Protocols and with the proper observance of these regulations and promises, this date can take place even earlier. The world is already preparing for peak oil demand in terms of energy, but we are yet to understand the economic impacts of this phenomenon.
Impact on the Oil Market
With this shift in recognition from apparent scarcity to proven abundance, the behavior of oil-producing economies will change. It will cause the Oil market to become even more competitive than it is now. The Oil market hasn’t been behaving normally over the past decade as high-cost producers are able to compete with low-cost producers even if the high-cost oil has a multifold price difference as compared to low-cost oil. By the law of competitive markets, these high-cost producers should have been shut down or should have been driven out of the market.
This has not happened as the low-cost producers have rationed their resources to be able to produce over the next 100 years. This made sense in a scarce market, however, since the market has now shifted to being abundant this method of rationing will not work. In an abundant market, the low-cost producers will now try to force out the high-cost producers from the market. In such a market, the money in the bank is more valuable than the oil in the ground. This means that the low-cost producers would have to utilize the “high-volume, lower price” model to stay relevant in the market, this model heavily benefits the consumers. For the high cost to somehow survive in this highly competitive market they would have to give very lucrative contracts so that they can continue this business.
Both these models have problems, for the low-cost model, there is an operational problem as it becomes difficult for any producer to suddenly up their production even by 50%. Whereas for the high-cost producers there is a risk of their resources being depreciated in exchange for their contracts due to the lower price of oil.
Economic forces and dynamics take a lot of time to take effect, so for this situation to become a market norm it will take some time to become more competitive and will face significant challenges before these forces have their full effect.
Peak Oil Demand is a huge rage in the energy sector. The fact that the demand for oil will eventually reduce is not going to change. Rather than finding the date of the peak, the shift in paradigm needs to be shown more concern. The world will still need large quantities of oil at least for the next few decades.
The shift from an era of perceived scarcity to an age of abundance will result in a highly competitive market environment. This will result in oil-producing countries starting diversifying in order to survive in a world without Oil. The rate of this diversification as well as how much it is diversified will impact the oil prices in the coming few decades. However, it is unlikely that these changes will ever cause the major oil producing economies to have heavy fiscal deficits and the average price of oil will depend more on the social cost rather than the technical cost of production
.Peak Oil Demand is an interesting phenomenon and will result in the change of the energy sector in the coming few years. The decrease in the demand for oil will not only change the way energy is consumed but also be a factor for change for the better.