Amber

Regulatory Changes Take a Bite Out of India ETN

Hi Don,

I am not an expert on this topic and nor is my intension to write to you ito defend SEBI (India's version of SEC) or Indian Finance Ministry... or RBI (India's version of Fed) But let me bring out few points as I understand them.

****"Like China, however, India has an opaque and sometimes unpredictable regulatory apparatus that makes it nearly impossible for individual investors to participate in the securities markets. "****

Well, rules are not opaque but evolving... And they are specially not like China (A good article on this would be to read "Spend some, then spend some more" from Economist)


**** and with "impossible for individual investors " ****
you mean Non-Indian investors I guess. Yes thats true.. and I would say it better for them b'se unlike US & EU/UK markets, Indian markets are not mature. And, information & data on listed companies is not as pervasive or freely available as in developed markets.

Things are far better today but they still have to go a long way to meet std. which a normal individual investors from developed world would expect or is used too.
(My point is they one might burn his/her hands badly, due to lack of information, hence it blessing in disguise)

****To purchase Indian securities, individual investors are required to gain regulatory approval from the Securities Exchange Board of India [SEBI] and obtain a Foreign Institutional Investor license. ****

Yes!!! But its good for markets, all SEBI is trying to do is get more transparency on money inflows. I think it is good for Indian markets, Indian investors and Foreign investors alike. SEBI chairman him clearly stated that its not to prevent flow of funds but to get check the quality and color of the fund.

**** To discourage speculation, foreign investors incur a 10 percent short-term capital gains tax on securities sold within one year of purchase, and other transaction fees and taxes may apply before investors can return their investment proceeds to their countries of origin.****

Well, even Indian investors have to pay short and long term gain tax. And I am sure most of the countries in the world put tax on the gains made in market transaction.

****India also limits foreign ownership in certain companies and industry sectors. Once these limits are reached, a prospective purchaser must enter trades in a queue, and an order is filled only when another foreign owner sells shares.****

Yes, India as limits on max. FII holding in companies. And this cap is based on which sector that company works in. This surely is a step to prevent foreigners taking over Indian companies. It should change & I think from time to time you will see this limit been relaxed also in almost all the sectors.

I agree we should not have them, but I think Govt of India & Indian Industrial houses see it as a necessary evil. Just look at it this way...

a) What if tomorrow a Chinese Sovereign fund wants buy 70% of Boeing OR ADIA wants to buy 55% in General Dynamics?
Will we not hope US govt do something to prevent it? I hope & I am sure it will not come to it, but it will it be worthy question to ask.

b) The total market cap of NSE in 2006 was US$ 1.46 trillion while that of NYSE was USD 25 trillion (2006) nearly 1/17 of US market alone. Here we are not talking about power of other players like PE etc. I think that says why India is so conservative.

Amber Ved
in-my-own-view.blogspo.../

Microsoft's Last Big Beat: Internet Domination or Death

Hi Dennis,

I understand that IBM & others spend a lot on Linux. Hence technically can not be called cheap or free. But when it come to user it is almost free and hence from Microsoft's end of the telescope it is free. And hence a hard nut to crack. It is a proxy war in which Microsoft cannot point & shoot one company.

And also I do not doubt that Microsoft is not gonna use open source in future.. b'se it a movement which is real and can not be ingnored.
But I think more bigger movement, is in Internet technology space. Hence my whole idea of my blog was to bring to the point... that one should reads between the lines here and recognize that MSFT has come in open now with its understanding that it is ready to take bold measures, to get into the Internet space in big way.

With great powers come great responsibility. And I think Yahoo is lucky to be in position it is in, but sadly they do not recognize what it means to be YAHOO!!

Amber Ved
in-my-own-view.blogspo.../

Yahoo Board to Decide Fate of Company Today

Doing away with search can save Yahoo from becoming part of Microsoft. But such a saving of skin is worthless (not worth less :D).

With no independent search, the whole business model for Yahoo would be on the mercy of Google. They can kiss the dream of been the best Internet company a goodbye once for all. At best Yahoo will become a huge web site just like AOL. Yahoo is far better than Google in all aspects expect search. But currently that item alone defines who is better. Giving up search is giving up soul.

If Yahoo ever wanted to be Number#1 Internet company. It has to stand-up and fight against Google and not Microsoft. I think Microsoft will be foolish to kill Yahoo brand and its products like search & email finance etc.... And I am sure Microsoft is not paying 44Billion$ for doing that. So, Yahoo should take a chance of rewriting the history. They should to get a better deal from Microsoft for its shareholders and should demand a good deal for its employees and product.

Microsoft + Yahoo gives both of them last chance to be number 1 again.