Blog for Stock tips, Equity tips, Commodity tips, Forex tips: Sharetipsinfo.com

For the last three years, we have lived in a surreal world that in normal times one would read about only in dystopian books or watch in horror movies. This is the period when humanity convulsed and the world went topsy-turvy thanks to the sudden dramatic onset of COVID-19. And just when we thought, we were close to the proverbial light at the end of the tunnel, the global economy was hit by the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Arguably, the Indian economy and companies have shown tremendous resilience and both are back on the track of growth. The country, even with a consistent new normal of 6-6.5% GDP growth rate over the next few years, will remain one of the fastest growing economies of the world and is expected to catapult from being the fifth largest economy to the third by the end of the decade.

But all is not well.

Corporate growth momentum is at the risk of getting lost due to varied factors – both external (uncertain supply chain and a challenging export market for goods and services) and internal (increasing input costs due and higher financing cost caused by an inflation-led spike in interest rates). And the early sign of such a reversal is already visible. 

For Indian companies to defy gravity and actualize the trajectory of sustainable high growth, resilience holds the key. The most successful Indian companies in such an uncertain, turbulent era will be those who adapt, react, and pivot into whatever the new normal is and stay ahead of the learning curve. 

How can Indian companies build and sustain resilience? Here are 9 key building blocks

First, It’s Never Too Late to Start Building Resilience 

When it comes to start building sustainable resilience in corporate entities, there is immense power in the Power of Now. Building organizational resilience is no child’s play — it requires deliberate intentionality and a tremendous amount of energy, time, effort, persistence, discipline and flexibility. There are low hanging fruits to be plucked, and often some gains of the effort arrive rather early. 

Second, Leadership Holds the Key 

In this uncertain, turbulent world, it is impossible to predict the future and despite corporations having developed specific resilience capabilities, when sudden disruptions occur, surprise gaps in those capabilities become visible and it is here that the leader plays the critical role. 

Sustainable organizational resilience begins with some attributes so far not considered central to leadership capabilities. These are absolute calmness amid turbulence, ability to lead with empathy and awareness, inherent capacity to create an organizational culture where genuine mistakes are condoned and innovations rewarded. A resilient leader must be able to rapidly connect with stakeholders; positivity, creativity and ability to experiment have to be his/her first nature 

Three, Resilience is a Culture Thing 

Leadership and culture are congenital twins; unless the leadership creates a culture where resilience thrives there is no sustainability. 

Creating culture where resilience thrives is the primary responsibility of the leader. The leader also has to empower resilience champions because when the canvas is fast changing and unpredictable, organizations need multiple layers of shock absorbers, innovators and change makers. 

Four, No Resilience without Transparent Proactive Communication with Stakeholders – Internal and External 

Resilience takes centre-stage when disruptive changes happen increasingly abruptly and unpredictably. Such situations will require quick measures to stop loss and rapidly regain the competitive advantage. A culture of secrecy is antithesis to a resilient corporate entity. What is needed is a transparent, proactive, and credible and rapid communication with key stakeholders, both internal and external, including but not limited to employees, customers, and vendors. 

Five, Resilient Organizations React Faster when Disruptions Occur 

We are living in an era where disruptions can arrive from any direction, and relate to any part of the organization. Disruptions by definition often cannot be stopped in its occurrence. But resilient organizations are the one that react and act fast when the disruptions occur. A key distinctive feature of such companies is that they are agile and free of silos. 

Six, Dynamic Business Resilience Forecasting and Rapid Adjustment is The Future 

The strategic long-range planning I was taught at the Asian Institute of Management (AIM) in Manila using Harvard Business School (HBS) case studies are passé in the era of disruptive change and disruptive technologies. A resilient organization in today’s era of rapid-fire disruptive change, has to work with dynamic business forecasting with an ability to modulate, adjust, replan and act-- this is critical whether the demand patterns change unpredictably or supply chains break down abruptly, as we have seen in the last three years. 

Seven, It Is Innovation, Stupid, That Will Keep the Resilient Organization Going 

Gone is the era of divisions, departments, compartments, and silos. A resilient company thrives on innovation and is perpetually in start-up and incubation mode. Valuing entrepreneurship is the most prized ornament of such company in normal times, but more so during crisis time. 

Eight, Managing End-to-End Risk Is a Daily Task 

A system of periodic preparation, comprehensive risk framework and monitoring was suitable to companies of yesteryears, Resilient companies use data mining, digital technology and artificial intelligence, and for them end-to-end risk management is a round-the-clock affair. It helps them avert disruption and to act swiftly if the disruption occurs. 

Nine, Resilience Has To Be an All-Encompassing, Multidimensional Suite 

A McKinsey framework provides for a six-dimensional resilience approach, namely: 

Firstly, financial resilience to balance both short- and long-term financial aims 

Secondly, Operational resilience to maintain robust production capacity that can be flexible to meet demand changes as well as remain stable when operational disruption happens 

Thirdly, Technological resilience with investment in strong, secure and flexible infrastructure, including managing cyber threats, technology breakdown avoidance, disaster-recovery capability and a system that uses high-quality data, duly respecting privacy, without bias and compliant with regulatory requirements 

Fourthly, Organizational resilience that creates a diverse, inclusive, equal opportunity workplace that recruits best talent, develop that talent equitably, upskill or rapidly reskill it flexibly, implements strong people bias-free processes, with a pan-organization, robust succession plans 

Fifthly, Reputational resilience, one wherein institutions align their values with their actions and words. Resilience demands a strong sense of self—enshrined in mission, values, and purpose, which guides actions, along with flexibility and openness in listening to and communicating with stakeholders, anticipating and addressing societal expectations and responding to criticism of the firm’s behaviour. 

Lastly Business-model resilience, one that can adapt swiftly to significant shifts in customer demand, the competitive landscape, technological changes and the regulatory terrain. 

It is a no-brainer that the firms with capabilities to prepare for and respond to disruption dynamically are more resilient across all the above six dimensions. 

The decision of the Indian Air Force (IAF) to acquire 100 mini unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), or drones, will allow the organisation to hone its operational capabilities without looking over its shoulder all the time. The IAF going in for such a large suite of UAVs is obviously to strengthen its air base defences after the drone attack on a Jammu air base last year. That was a rude wake-up call for the Ministry of Defence (MoD) on the clear and present danger posed by armed drones that sneak in from across the western and northern borders.

The MoD is now shopping for mini UAV platforms equipped with electro-optic and thermal imaging capability to detect targets on land and air from afar. This serves the dual purpose of thwarting cross-border terrorist activity as well as dealing with intruder drones. Not surprisingly, the IAF has awarded the contract for the UAVs to an Indian company in line with the government’s resolve to indigenise defence acquisitions. It also complements the IAF’s plan to protect air bases in the subcontinent with home-grown anti-drone systems.

UAVs have come a long way since American inventors Elmer Sperry and Peter Hewitt designed the first ‘aerial torpedo’ in 1916 by integrating three key technologies — automatic stabilisation, remote control and autonomous navigation — on a single aero-model. In 1930, defence scientists in Britain and the US used the aerial torpedo to develop radio controlled ‘target drones’ to train anti-aircraft gunners. But the potential of UAVs as a weapon of choice for armies was largely ignored even during the Cold War when the military-industrial complexes of the US and the erstwhile USSR merely considered UAVs as nuisance weapons. What a contrast from the current combat drones, with their reach and lethality, which are critical force multipliers indispensable to militaries across the world!

India was a late starter in the global military drone market which is currently estimated to be worth $12 billion, and predicted to grow to $31 billion in the next seven years. The country’s indigenous UAV programme was launched in the early 1980s when the IAF modified the American Northrop Chucker remotely piloted vehicle as a desi drone. Eventually, the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) would use this as a template to develop the Lakshya target drone for practice firing of beyond-visual-range missiles.

The DRDO has since followed it up with several short range drones like the catapult-launched Nishant and its advanced variant, Gagan, equipped with a Synthetic Aperture Radar that produced high-resolution 3-D images. The real deal, however, is the vaunted Medium Altitude Long Endurance UAV, Rustom 2 with auto landing capabilities ideal for surveillance and reconnaissance. A more advanced High Altitude Long Range drone is also being developed with an eye on the Sino-Indian border in eastern Ladakh.

It’s time to get realistic about the worsening energy situation. A power shortage is approaching and few alternatives to bridge the green transition exist right now. Nuclear is re-emerging as a front-runner, as are doubts and skepticism around its safety as memories of past accidents loom large along with haunting images of mushroom clouds. South Korea, though, shows why nuclear isn’t just a pipe dream — or a fuel to fear.

The country’s worries — like those of many others — aren’t just people feeling cold this winter, or rising prices. It’s the lack of electricity that will ultimately hamper everything from industrial production of goods and food to electric vehicles and the infrastructure to charge them — industries account for over half of the nation’s consumption. South Korean firms that supply high-tech goods to the rest of the world, including cars, batteries and chips, seem to have come to that realization. These energy-intensive sectors won’t run on wind, solar and biofuels alone because the actual capacity just isn’t enough and for large-scale operations, it isn’t consistent. If power starts becoming an issue, so will their profits and global technological heft.

Powering Up

In South Korea, nuclear generation, a baseload source, accounts for over a quarter of electricity production.

To deal with it, South Korea’s biggest companies are putting their weight behind nuclear power plants, which contribute to about 27% of electricity there — an astute move. Samsung C&T Corp., the trading and construction arm of the Samsung empire, is working with NuScale Power Corp. to construct the first small modular reactor, or SMR, in the US and in eastern Europe. Meanwhile, Doosan Enerbility Co. has also tied up with NuScale to supply equipment. The US firm is the first and only to have had its SMR design receive certification — after a rigorous review process by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The one-two punch of rising US interest rates and a strengthening dollar is making investors crave spicy yields. Markets were in turmoil last week when 10-year UK gilts struggled to find takers even at 4.5% — and only calmed down when the Bank of England stepped in as a buyer. However, it isn’t just British fare that’s getting passed up for being too bland. Look at a large emerging economy like India, which has tried for three years to get asset managers to commit to its $1 trillion government bond market. But they’re stalling. Why aren’t 7%-plus yields hot enough for them?

FTSE Russell said Thursday that it would continue to keep Indian government bonds on its watch list for possible inclusion in its emerging markets debt index until March 2023, when the next assessment is due. Separately, Reuters has reported that India’s much-desired entry into a similar benchmark maintained by JPMorgan Chase & Co. may also get pushed out to next year. A decision is expected in the coming days. (Bloomberg LP is the parent of Bloomberg Index Services Ltd., which administers indexes that compete with those from other service providers.)

Foreigners own just $17.8 billion, or 2%, of Indian government bonds. By contrast, overseas ownership is more than a third in Indonesia and nearly 10% in China. In 2019, the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi flirted with sovereign dollar debt, but dropped the inaugural $10 billion issuance when it drew flak. And rightly so. It would have been risky for a government that has always struggled with high budget deficits to borrow in a currency the country is often short of, thanks to its heavy energy imports. The revised aspiration since then has been to get as much as $40 billion over two years (in rupees, not dollars) by pushing for India’s inclusion in global bond indexes.

That’s the right way to go, but pesky taxation issues have come in the way. New Delhi imposes up to a 30% capital-gains levy on listed bonds sold within one year. There is also a 5% withholding tax on interest income for foreign portfolio investors.

With Russia going off the benchmarks, asset managers would welcome the yield kick India would offer. However, they’re hoping that in its desperation to find a new source of capital ahead of further rate increases by the Fed, the Modi administration will blink first and offer tax concessions. Hence, the standoff. That any trading in rupee bonds may have to be settled onshore, and not on an international platform like Euroclear, isn’t the showstopper it’s often made out to be. As Bloomberg News noted last week, even Indonesian and Chinese bonds aren’t on Euroclear but are part of the JPMorgan Index. The real issue is that the operations people at large asset managers are balking at the idea of getting a tax certificate ahead of settling each trade onshore in India.

What will break the impasse and when? Apart from some simplification of processes and taxation, a lot will depend on the Reserve Bank of India’s policies, especially on exchange rates.

While the relentless surge in the dollar is putting pressure on economies across Asia, responses by individual nations have been “eclectic,” as Nomura Holdings Inc. noted recently. The Philippines, China and South Korea have taken a more hands-off approach to depreciation, while India, Thailand and Indonesia have intervened more heavily and sold a larger number of dollars from their official coffers to shore up their local currencies. The RBI’s reserves, which were as high as $641 billion last September, are down to $537 billion and falling. The question before investors is, how long before the RBI switches tracks? In 2013, when India got dragged into the Fed’s taper tantrum, its hard-currency war chest was enough for six months of imports. In Nomura’s estimates, the current coverage is adequate for a little over eight months.

A more laissez-faire approach to the exchange rate won’t be an easy choice. The risk is that the rupee becomes a sitting duck for speculators trying to pull it down in one-way bets. In that case, no investor — equity or bond — will venture near India. The outlook for next year’s economic growth, already uncertain because of cratering global demand, will become more dicey.

Maybe the trick is to just suspend the ambition of landing $40 billion in foreigners’ money until the Fed is finished tightening. Right now, an investor gets virtually no additional kick by giving up on three-year US Treasury yields of 4.2% and exploring options half a world away. In the foreign-exchange market, the cost of insuring against rupee deprecation eats up almost the entire 3 percentage point extra yield offered by Indian government debt of similar maturity. By that yardstick, the three-year British gilt yields are even less appetizing — which is why analysts mostly agree that the Bank of England will have to keep raising rates. India, too, increased its policy rate by half a percentage point for a third straight time last week to 5.9%; economists expect the RBI to be done only when it reaches 6.5%.

A combination of high yields and a sufficiently-weakened currency could finally convince global investors to bite. For now, though, it looks like they may work up an appetite only by next year.

Credit Suisse Group AG is in a tight spot, but it isn’t “on the brink,” as the fevered typists of social media imagined over the weekend. The Swiss bank, however, is going through its darkest hours at exactly the worst time, when markets are volatile and everyone is nervous about what’s around the corner. Disappointment is still more likely than disaster.

The terms of trade in financial markets are worsening for all players. This is a new era of higher volatility as policymakers raise interest rates to battle inflation, increasing trading costs and risks. It’s a time when missteps by politicians or central banks can suddenly expose surprising concentrations of risk — just look at last week’s entanglement between the UK government bond market and Britain’s pension funds.

Unfortunately for Credit Suisse, this is going to encourage companies, investors and savers to do more business at banks with the strongest balance sheets and most stable business models, making speed crucial for Chairman Axel Lehmann to complete the bank’s strategic review and get its restructuring underway. On the one hand, the Swiss lender is just suffering a more exaggerated version of the travails of its peers. But the collapse in its share price and sharp rise in the cost of buying insurance on its bonds are making its turnaround harder. And there’s another three weeks until it’s scheduled to tell investors how it will cut back its investment bank to focus more on wealth management.

The bank has more than enough capital to run its business. It just isn’t making good enough returns. To change that picture quickly, it needs money to pay for a restructuring — analysts estimate potentially $4 billion through asset sales or capital raising. Without that, the less it can change and the longer its troubles will last. The weaker it appears, the costlier it’ll be to raise any money and the harder it will get squeezed by potential buyers of any of its assets. Markets feed on desperation, and you’ll find fewest friends when you’re most in need.

But this is a story of relative decline, not one of bank runs or existential crisis. This is well known to investors and analysts who follow Credit Suisse but not so much to the broader market. That’s why the sharp rise in the cost of protecting Credit Suisse bonds against default in derivatives markets spooked some finance professionals as well as social media.

Senior Credit Suisse executives spent time reassuring clients and counterparties over the weekend about the health of its balance sheet, the Financial Times reported. In the US, some investors began to fret about contagion to the banking system there from problems at a large European bank. Citigroup Inc. banks analyst Keith Horowitz was moved to pen a note to clients reassuring them that the “current situation is night and day from 2007.”

Investors and traders are jittery because the cost of protecting bank debt against default using credit default swaps (CDS) is rising everywhere. Some are starting to see a harbinger of bank failures, but that’s wrong. A lot of this rise is a function of how banks manage the risks of trading with each other — and of how their clients also manage that risk.

When banks trade with each other, there is always a risk that one bank fails to fulfil its side of the bargain – that is called counterparty credit risk. The world of over-the-counter derivatives, those that aren’t traded on an exchange or through a clearinghouse, are one big source of counterparty risk. Just how much is involved depends on the size of your trading book but also how volatile is the underlying market. High volatility often means more — and more frequent — collateral calls, as Britain’s pensions industry showed last week.

Banks (and their clients) also need to look at the financial strength of their trading partners as they work out what risk they present: Credit Suisse’s collapsing share price makes it look riskier than some rivals. This is a real problem because it makes the bank a costlier counterparty and less competitive. Deutsche Bank went through a similar thing around the final months of 2016, when its capital base was weak and it faced a potentially existential fine from US authorities. Credit Suisse isn’t in such dire straits as Deutsche Bank was then, but losing revenue will still be painful.

There is a further nuance worth noting that explains why the headlines about Credit Suisse are worse than the reality. Without laboring the technicalities too much, many European banks have two kinds of CDS that refer to senior debt: One is riskier and less widely traded than the other. These exist because different creditors get different treatment under bank resolution rules: Depositors and derivative counterparties typically are more likely to get their money back if a bank gets wound up than are bondholders.

Long story short, and slightly simplistically: There is a CDS for senior bonds and a less risky CDS for counterparty credit risk. The former version is often more volatile, the latter is more important for competitiveness and revenue. For Credit Suisse, it’s the more volatile, riskier version that has gone wildest in recent days and become a popular chart for Twitter’s excitable storm chasers.

Credit Suisse is still priced as a riskier counterparty than Deutsche Bank or Barclays Plc, for example, but it’s not in existential peril today. It is at a business disadvantage and faces another hurdle to its restructuring . Nothing that has happened in markets or been communicated by the bank since it launched its review in the summer has been helpful. Financial markets aren’t getting any friendlier. The quicker that Credit Suisse’s board can complete its strategic plan and end the uncertainty the better.