Indian Economy

[nwoodman]

Ouch, what a shitshow.

 

Railway stocks tank 20% as election trends diverge from exit polls

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/markets/stocks/news/railway-stocks-tank-13-as-early-election-trends-diverge-from-exit-polls/articleshow/110693788.cms

Download Economic Times App to stay updated with Business News -
https://etapp.onelink.me/tOvY/135dde21

Edited June 4 by nwoodman

[gfp]

Look at that - you put Ben Watsa in charge for one day and the entire Modi mandate crumbles.  Bring back Prem before we lose decades of progress!

 

Seriously though, I think even the opposition would be in favor of privatization and airport IPOs and it sounds like Modi will get a coalition and alliances and all that.

[gamma78]

There is a narrative that for privatization India needs Modi. While he has been a good accelerator to many development issues (and infrastructure in particular) make no mistake: India is a strongly growing country in of itself, no matter which party is in charge. And it has been a high growth country pretty much since 1990 with alternating governments of different types and stripes. That is the real testament to the strength of growth. Zoom out and you see that this result works just fine over time. 

[dartmonkey]

Ouch, what a shitshow.

 

Railway stocks tank 20% as election trends diverge from exit polls

 

Definitely a disappointment that the BJP looks like it will not get an outright majority.

 

True, with 272 seats necessary to pass laws, it looks like his NDA coalition is heading towards about 292 seats. This is substantially less than the NDA hoped for (355-370), and less than the outgoing parliament (353), but still 20 seats over a majority. But Modi's BJP party, while it is by far the biggest party in the NDA coalition, will only get about 240 seats, so they will need about 32 additional votes from one of the parties they campaigned with (there are about 30 of them). That will obviously mean compromises to Modi's political agenda. 

 

https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-politics/lok-sabha-results-bjp-nda-partners-9372070/

[Munger_Disciple]

15 minutes ago, dartmonkey said:

Ouch, what a shitshow.

 

Railway stocks tank 20% as election trends diverge from exit polls

 

Definitely a disappointment that the BJP looks like it will not get an outright majority.

 

True, with 272 seats necessary to pass laws, it looks like his NDA coalition is heading towards about 292 seats. This is substantially less than the NDA hoped for (355-370), and less than the outgoing parliament (353), but still 20 seats over a majority. But Modi's BJP party, while it is by far the biggest party in the NDA coalition, will only get about 240 seats, so they will need about 32 additional votes from one of the parties they campaigned with (there are about 30 of them). That will obviously mean compromises to Modi's political agenda. 

 

https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-politics/lok-sabha-results-bjp-nda-partners-9372070/

 

More importantly BJP won 303 seats in 2019, a majority by itself before counting on its partners in NDA. That has gone now, so Modi has to rely on his partners (who have varying ideas) to get anything done. Definitely a negative for reform plans of Modi. 

Edited June 4 by Munger_Disciple

[juniorr]

What are everyone's thoughts on outlook for India given BJP is no longer majority government? Would this be an issue for foreign investments ?

[whatstheofficerproblem]

5 hours ago, gamma78 said:

While he has been a good accelerator to many development issues (and infrastructure in particular) make no mistake: India is a strongly growing country in of itself, no matter which party is in charge.

 

Please do read the manifestos.

 

 

Edited June 4 by whatstheofficerproblem

[whatstheofficerproblem]

10 minutes ago, juniorr said:

What are everyone's thoughts on outlook for India given BJP is no longer majority government? Would this be an issue for foreign investments ?

 

They got complacent, but it precisely the places that lost BJP that are going to miss it the most. They will be back in power in 2029 again. Nothing changes from here on out, as a matter of fact, Modi getting aggressive majority only means more protests because apparently he is a dictator lmao.

[Munger_Disciple]

1 hour ago, juniorr said:

What are everyone's thoughts on outlook for India given BJP is no longer majority government? Would this be an issue for foreign investments ?

 

Not good for BJP's economic reform agenda at least for the next few years. 

[Haryana]

16 hours ago, nwoodman said:

Ouch, what a shitshow.

 

Railway stocks tank 20% as election trends diverge from exit polls

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/markets/stocks/news/railway-stocks-tank-13-as-early-election-trends-diverge-from-exit-polls/articleshow/110693788.cms

Download Economic Times App to stay updated with Business News -
https://etapp.onelink.me/tOvY/135dde21

 

 

People expect better than SUCH senSHITnalism.

 

Had Modi swept a landslide like last time,

it would just add to confirmation bias of

highly educated West Washed Brains

that Modi is dictator of a failed democracy

which they will continue to BELIEVE even now.

 

[nwoodman]

4 minutes ago, Haryana said:

 

 

People expect better than SUCH senSHITnalism.

 

Had Modi swept a landslide like last time,

it would just add to confirmation bias of

highly educated West Washed Brains

that Modi is dictator of a failed democracy

which they will continue to BELIEVE even now.

 

I am no expert but there are times in a countries economic development that you need a strong leader with a mandate in order to get stuff done.  I wouldn’t call that a dictatorship but perhaps a “necesssary evil’.  The risk here is that we go back to horse trading and India loses some of its momentum.  An issue in terms years but irrelevant in the context of decades.  
 

Taking a glass half full perspective, perhaps it is “the pause that refreshes’ and it results in a better outcome long term.  The market thinks otherwise.

[Haryana]

The "crash" of the market in the context of 1 year.

 

 

 

[gamma78]

10 hours ago, nwoodman said:

I am no expert but there are times in a countries economic development that you need a strong leader with a mandate in order to get stuff done.  I wouldn’t call that a dictatorship but perhaps a “necesssary evil’.  The risk here is that we go back to horse trading and India loses some of its momentum.  An issue in terms years but irrelevant in the context of decades.  
 

Taking a glass half full perspective, perhaps it is “the pause that refreshes’ and it results in a better outcome long term.  The market thinks otherwise.

 

"Need a strong leader to get stuff done" is as alluring as it is dangerous. 

 

Once the dust settles people will see this for what it is - a relatively minor setback in the grand scheme of things. Firstly because power hasn't exactly shifted. It's the same coalition in power, with a different dynamic. Who knows, maybe even better longer term. Markets always overreact to short term news. if they didn't we wouldn't be here selecting individual equities, we would merely buy indices. 

 

Economic development in India will continue, perhaps not on a vertical trajectory. But onwards and upwards as it has done, with fits and starts - compounding and increasing since 1990. I for one did not start investing in India only in 2014. And frankly I did very well after that. But I did very well before that too. 

 

Buffett says that America has a secret sauce and that of course politics over time swings in roundabouts - but the ultimate trajectory is upwards. It's why he says never bet against America. 

 

The Indian story of opening to the world and truly creating significant and participatory wealth started very small in 1991. Since then it has continuously compounded. It will continue to. This is still going to be the Indian century.

 

If your thesis relied only on one man, it was a very very shallow thesis. 

 

This is really no great shakes. 

 

 

[Xerxes]

In the short term democracy will always have its fits and starts, but in the long run it always pay off. 
 

 

my brainwashed simplistic Western view 

[Viking]

2 hours ago, Xerxes said:

In the short term democracy will always have its fits and starts, but in the long run it always pay off. 
 

 

my brainwashed simplistic Western view 

I think looking at the flow of people might be a good indicator. People ‘vote’ with their feet. It seems an awful lot of people from the rest of the world desperately want to get into the US/Canada/Western Europe. I don’t think your view is a ‘brainwashed simplistic Western view.’ 
 

Hong Kong provides a great case study. They went from a democracy to a dictatorship. My understanding is pretty much everybody who could get out got out (or made alternative arrangements to be able to exit at some point in the future).

 

How about Russia? My son is at an age where he would likely have been conscripted into the army and would be fighting in the war in Ukraine. No thanks (putting it politely). 
 

India will be interesting to watch moving forward. I certainly hope they continue to shift towards capitalism (and away from socialism). While maintaining their democratic/rule of law framework.

Edited June 5 by Viking

[gamma78]

3 hours ago, Xerxes said:

In the short term democracy will always have its fits and starts, but in the long run it always pay off. 
 

 

my brainwashed simplistic Western view 

 

I completely agree. Which is why the results of this election are in no way a barrier to development and perhaps increase resilience over time of the growth story. India's growth is fascinating and very significant. But then again it must be - because it has a huge population of young people that need jobs. So growth is literally the only way forwards. 

 

@Viking - India doesn't really need to "choose" capitalism. It did that ages ago. Every capitalist society has its restrictions in terms of how open the economy is - the US has them (ask Chinese companies....). Europe certainly does (and gets a lot of shit for them). China has them in spades. So does Japan, Taiwan, etc etc. There are very few completely laissez faire capitalist economies - if any.

 

India is on its own path. "India needs to become capitalist" is old hat. That happened around 30 years ago. GDP growth since 2000's has consistently been pretty stellar - only drowned out by China's even more stellar growth in the early 2000's. FDI has been steadily increasing (across every government type, you name it). Restrictions have been steadily and continuously lifted. Perhaps not at the pace that some investors would have liked (particularly Indian billionaires, who frankly love having close friend they can fawn over in the government - again no matter what stripe that govt is). But continuously nonetheless. 

 

We will still see very significant growth in India for a generation. And all of Prem's remarks will still hold true (for example regarding expected growth of the banking sector). 

 

People tend to confuse their own personal return (I want an airport IPO  this year or to buy a public sector bank tomorrow) with the overall issues of the country. Maybe things slow down, maybe they don't.

 

But the Indian equity story is still strong as hell. Don't sell now, for crying out loud. This party is still just getting started. 

 

 

[Xerxes]

2 hours ago, Viking said:

I think looking at the flow of people might be a good indicator. People ‘vote’ with their feet. It seems an awful lot of people from the rest of the world desperately want to get into the US/Canada/Western Europe. I don’t think your view is a ‘brainwashed simplistic Western view.’ 
 

Hong Kong provides a great case study. They went from a democracy to a dictatorship. My understanding is pretty much everybody who could get out got out (or made alternative arrangements to be able to exit at some point in the future).

 

How about Russia? My son is at an age where he would likely have been conscripted into the army and would be fighting in the war in Ukraine. No thanks (putting it politely). 
 

India will be interesting to watch moving forward. I certainly hope they continue to shift towards capitalism (and away from socialism). While maintaining their democratic/rule of law framework.

Broadly speaking I am not pushing back on any of this. 
 

you give an example of being conscripted to serve in Russia, the flip side is the person could be born as an enterprising lad in Russia and who in their 30s lived in Russia in the 1990s, or in Singapore in the 60s, Japan in the 70s. Not all sons of Russia serve. Sometimes you are born at the right time   
 

opportunities are everywhere. Whether one is there at the right time and age, is a different matter. 
 

but what West offers is a framework for a structured approach (works really well for families). For those seeking unstructured approach they better off elsewhere. 

[Xerxes]

Dan Yergin wrote this amazing book called the “The commanding heights”. 
 

it goes over each of the Asian economic power. It has been 13 years since I read it. Needs to be reread I think.  

[Thrifty3000]

On 6/5/2024 at 10:33 AM, Viking said:

I think looking at the flow of people might be a good indicator. People ‘vote’ with their feet. It seems an awful lot of people from the rest of the world desperately want to get into the US/Canada/Western Europe. I don’t think your view is a ‘brainwashed simplistic Western view.’ 
 

Hong Kong provides a great case study. They went from a democracy to a dictatorship. My understanding is pretty much everybody who could get out got out (or made alternative arrangements to be able to exit at some point in the future).

 

How about Russia? My son is at an age where he would likely have been conscripted into the army and would be fighting in the war in Ukraine. No thanks (putting it politely). 
 

India will be interesting to watch moving forward. I certainly hope they continue to shift towards capitalism (and away from socialism). While maintaining their democratic/rule of law framework.

At first governments build walls to keep people out, then eventually they build walls to keep people in.

[dartmonkey]

At first governments build walls to keep people out, then eventually they build walls to keep people in.

 

That's pretty pessimistic - I don't think most countries have ever prevent people from leaving.

 

But I'm curious, what governments are currently forcing people to stay? I can't think of a lot of examples. I don't think China prevents people from immigrating. And obviously the emigration ban that used to apply in the USSR and the Eastern Bloc has now disappeared. Even Cuba now allows people to leave, although passports are expensive. Are there any others?

[TwoCitiesCapital]

51 minutes ago, dartmonkey said:

At first governments build walls to keep people out, then eventually they build walls to keep people in.

 

That's pretty pessimistic - I don't think most countries have ever prevent people from leaving.

 

But I'm curious, what governments are currently forcing people to stay? I can't think of a lot of examples. I don't think China prevents people from immigrating. And obviously the emigration ban that used to apply in the USSR and the Eastern Bloc has now disappeared. Even Cuba now allows people to leave, although passports are expensive. Are there any others?

 

There's the "physical" leaving and then there's actually leaving

 

The US allows you to go - so long as you continue to pay US taxes on your foreign earnings and etc. If you want to get out from the US taxes and associated enforcements, it's not easy nor cheap. 

[Thrifty3000]

46 minutes ago, dartmonkey said:

At first governments build walls to keep people out, then eventually they build walls to keep people in.

 

That's pretty pessimistic - I don't think most countries have ever prevent people from leaving.

 

But I'm curious, what governments are currently forcing people to stay? I can't think of a lot of examples. I don't think China prevents people from immigrating. And obviously the emigration ban that used to apply in the USSR and the Eastern Bloc has now disappeared. Even Cuba now allows people to leave, although passports are expensive. Are there any others?

 

I believe North Korea has the strictest ban on emigration. Other countries, like Iran, make it VERY difficult to leave. Some charge exorbitant rates to purchase an exit visa or passport, making it all but unaffordable for the average citizen.

[Thrifty3000]

“Freedom has many difficulties and democracy is not perfect, but we have never had to put a wall up to keep our people in, to prevent them from leaving us.”

 

- John F. Kennedy

 

’Merica!

[cwericb]

Interesting isn't it that Cubans can pretty much travel the world while Americans are essentially restricted from traveling to Cuba by their government. Freedom?

[Hektor]

8 hours ago, TwoCitiesCapital said:

If you want to get out from the US taxes and associated enforcements, it's not easy

Why is it difficult to give up US citizenship?