Growth isnít a god-given right
- IPL spot-fixing: Chennai Super Kings owner's kin under police scanner
- IPL 2013 LIVE SCORE: Sunrisers Hyderabad vs Rajasthan Royals
- Jessica Lall murder: Actor Shayan Munshi, ballistic expert Manocha to face perjury trial
- BJP tears into UPA govt on 4th anniversary, says it lacks leadership
- BCCI was forced to encash Pune Warriors' bank guarantee: Sanjay Jagdale
from a conversation between Ruchir Sharma and Sunil Jain.
Swaminathan Aiyar has said you're too pessimistic about India, that many things you obsess about ó crony capitalism, unskilled population, premature welfarism ó are exaggerated. You've read the column.
Yes! Everyone in India is interested in just what I have to say about India. Foreign Affairs published my chapter on Brazil and labeled it 'Bearish on Brazil' and it caused quite a stir there. Brazil, like India, is what anthropologist Edward Hall would describe as a 'high context' nation ó colourful, noisy, quick to make promises that can't always be relied on, and a bit casual about deadlines.
You're quite down on Brics: is 'From Brics to Cribs' an accurate summary of the book?
I'm not down on China ó I'm just saying its growth will slow. On India, I'm 50:50. All I'm saying is the last decade was really freaky because all emerging markets did so well, part of it was catch-up, part was liquidity driven by, not just Greenspan, but he led it. Brics was a great marketing term because it captured the largest emerging market economies.
But don't we still have so much liquidity sloshing around?
We do, but it's a lot more muted, nuanced... we have periods of risk-on, risk-off... it's not like between 2003 and 2007. I have this line in the book about how in the middle of the last decade, it seemed every man and his dog could raise money for emerging markets; by the end, it appeared that just the dog would do.
With liquidity no longer abundant, growth is reverting to pre-2003 levels in many emerging economies, the ones that stopped reforming since they thought they had a god-given right. You know my beginning with this spoilt, gelled kid in a Delhi farmhouse party where he shrugs after getting to know I'm a New York-based investor and says, 'Well, of course. Where else will the money go?' Of the Brics, China reformed the most. Russia was reforming, then the oil boom made it feel it didn't need to any more.
Why is Turkey a breakout nation? It hasn't been growing as fast for so long as to meet your criterion. You yourself say its savings are low.
Breakout is a function of several things, expectation levels are one of them. If expectations are low, it's easier to be a breakout nation. India's growth fell from 8-9 per cent to 6-7 per cent and its market fell 35 per cent in dollar terms ó so, expectations are key.
To talk of another breakout nation, Poland ó when the number geeks come and start talking about its potential, will its hype be over?
The lesson is we have too many shooting stars, and too few winners. And the winners can, and do change. We need to look at each emerging market individually and at each point in time. Don't take large trends and extrapolate. I was bullish on Russia five years ago, I'm not today.
Crony capitalism plays a big role in your classification. But East Asia was terribly crony capitalistic, so is China.
I'm aware that crony capitalism is seen as a rite of passage, but I think perception is the new reality. If the view is you got where you did because of patronage, there will be a backlash. Look at the list of billionaires (page 45!). China has more billionaires than India, which is to be expected, but the net worth of China's billionaires is 4 per cent of its GDP ó it is 17.2 per cent for India. When I wrote about this in September 2010, people said what's the big deal, but you get a backlash and that stops everything.
How do you get to stop crony capitalism and reduce wealth concentration? How did the US do it, how did South Korea, how did China?
The US got anti-trust laws, in Korea the 1997 crisis led to many chaebols just getting bankrupt. Basically, you need a lot of churn among wealth generators, you need these billionaires to come up in non-government-related sectors (tech, for instance) and there'll be no backlash.
But India's got a lot of churn. The older families are all but gone, the new infra-chaps like GMR and GVK didn't exist a decade ago.
I don't want to get into names, but India had a lot of churn and that seems to have stopped now. In the book, I talk of how 9 of the top 10 Indian billionaires in the 2010 Forbes list were holdovers from the 2006 list. The top 10 Sensex stocks account for two-thirds of its total value; in the case of the Dow this is half.
What do you want the government to do? Say, you're doing well, so nothing more for you?
Maybe the political system should have the maturity to diversify to new chaps!
You talk of commodity.com to explain the frenzy that drove countries like Russia. Are you saying commodity futures are a bad idea, that governments must restrict investments here?
I don't think bans are a good idea because you can't ever control markets, there's so much liquidity. But the correlation between where the money is going and commodity prices rising is there for all to see.
Don't trust commodity-driven economies, China's going to slow, India has stopped getting its act together. You're a fund manager, a successful one, where do you invest with all these caveats?
In all these places! But at the right time. I invested in Russia in the last decade, we were invested in commodities in the last decade. I'm invested in India which still has good picks.
What's your tipping point, your index of unsustainability? The Hilton Index?
Four Seasons actually! If at the Four Seasons, a room costs double the emerging markets average, as it does in Russia, or 60 per cent more, as it does in Brazil, it is time to move on. Mumbai, which is the most expensive in India, is still 14 per cent below the average! But Poland is 39 per cent below the average, and Malaysia 64 per cent below the average; the Czech Republic is 17 per cent below the developed markets average.
So the problem in India is that of the perfect storm, too many bad things happening together?
My point about India, and that's why I'm 50:50, is that many states are breaking out ó I was with Montek Singh Ahluwalia on TV and he said my next book should be about breakout states! ó while the Centre isn't. So don't stay in Delhi and you'll feel less pessimistic. FDI in retail, when it happens, will be in the states.
Isn't it difficult to divorce Delhi from states? Sure, Gujarat made big port investments in 'minor' ports, but you don't have many such windows.
Well, you can divorce tech or consumer businesses from government in a sense. But the general point is while you see a sense of urgency in several states, you don't see that at the Centre. The poverty fight was so unreal ó surely you should begin by growing what there is to distribute.
You're down on big debt, but the US where you see a revival is a big debt nation.
You have growth in the US, but because debt levels are high, this will shave off growth by 1 percentage point or so.
- Fixing probe now reaches Bollywood, son of Dara Singh held
- BCCI cashes Pune Warriors guarantee, 'disgusted' Sahara walks out of IPL
- Sreesanth spent Rs 1.95L on clothes, bought friend BlackBerry, paid in cash: Police
- Delhi firm with MoD as client is linked to Pak cyberattacks
- After Infosys, iGATE sacks Phaneesh Murthy for sexual misconduct
- 2 weeks after harassment, Haryana schoolgirls return, cops in tow