Wednesday, March 28, 2012

GAAR and P-Notes


GAAR (General Anti-Avoidance Rule)

GAAR is a taxation regulation that will make investors pay tax who otherwise legally avoid it. It must be kept in mind that legal evasion of tax is not the same as avoidance of tax. That GAAR will be introduced in India as a part of the Direct Tax Code was mentioned by the finance minister a year back. But this year's budget made it clear it will be applicable from 1 April. So under GAAR, the revenue authorities will get to tax transactions or arrangements which were conducted or set up just to get tax benefits. So routing transactions through Mauritius when there is no substantial purpose to route it from there other than achieving the tax benefit will not be allowed.





P-NOTES

P-notes are financial instruments used by investors or hedge funds that are not registered with SEBI to invest in Indian securities. The investor does not have to fulfill KYC (Know Your Client) norms here and gets to invest whatever amount he wants by keeping his own identity hidden. There is confusion in the market whether the gains from these instruments will also be taxed. Now, with the finance ministry's statement, there could be temporary relief, but FIIs might not be wholly convinced. Sections 9 and 95 of the new Finance Bill (under which GAAR was introduced) says clearly that any transfer of shares in India which gives rise to income anywhere else will be taxable here. These sections will clearly have to be amended if cash investments of P-notes routed through tax havens like Mauritius will have to be exempted from tax.

Saturday, March 17, 2012

Budget 2012 Highlights

  Income tax exemption limit raised to Rs 2 lakh from Rs 1.8 lakh 
  No tax pp to Rs 2 lakh income 
 Rs 5-10 lakh at 20% 
 Above Rs 10 lakh taxed at 30%
 STT reduced by 20% on delivery-based transactions
 Standard excise duty hiked to 12%
 Duty on large cars raised to 27%
 ECBs proposed for aviation sector with a cap of $1 billion
 Rs 2-5 lakh taxed at 10% 
 Rs 2-5 lakh taxed at 10% 
 Direct, indirect tax reforms to miss deadline
 Excise duty raised to 12% from 10%
 Branded silver jewellery fully exempt from excise duty
 Customs duty on gold, platinum raised to 4% from 2%
 Duty on handrolled beedis increased
 Excise duty raised to 12% from 10%
 Diamonds emerald and ruby prices will increase
 Advalorem duty on some cigarettes
 Import of aircraft parts exempt from basic customs duty
 Customs duty on some gold and platinum products increased
 Cuts customs duty on rail equipment to 7.5% from 10%

  To allow external commercial borrowing to part finance rupee debt in power projects
  Proposes to remove sector-specific restriction on venture capital fund investments 
  Mobile phone parts exempted from basic customs duty
  Automated shuttle looms exempted from customs duty
  School education exempt from service tax
  Oil firms seek 7-yr tax holiday in Budget 
  LCD and LED panels exempted from custom duty
  Government hikes defence spending to Rs 1,93,407 crore
  Customs duty reduced from 7.5% to 2.5% for iron ore equipment
  Thermal power companies exempted from customs duty for 2 years
  Govt sees expenditure rising 29% in 2012-13
  Thermal power companies exempted from customs duty for 2 years
  Thermal power companies exempted from customs duty for 2 years
  LNG exempted from customs duty
  Full exemption on customs duty on coal
  Full exemption on customs duty on coal
  Fiscal deficit target set at 5.1% of GDP in Budget 2012-13
  Some infra construction services exempt from service tax
  FY 13 net market borrowing at Rs 4.8 lakh crores
  Rs 18,660 crore will result from service tax rise

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

25 Must-Read Quotes From Buffett’s Letter to Shareholders


Warren Buffett released his annual letter to Berkshire Hathaway on Saturday. If you have the time, it's worth reading the whole thing. If not, here are 25 important quotes.

On value: "The logic is simple: If you are going to be a netbuyer of stocks in the future, either directly with your own money or indirectly (through your ownership of a company that is repurchasing shares), you are hurt when stocks rise. You benefit when stocks swoon. Emotions, however, too often complicate the matter: Most people, including those who will be net buyers in the future, take comfort in seeing stock prices advance. These shareholders resemble a commuter who rejoices after the price of gas increases, simply because his tank contains a day's supply."

On market moves: "Here a confession is in order: In my early days I, too, rejoiced when the market rose. Then I read Chapter Eight of Ben Graham's The Intelligent Investor, the chapter dealing with how investors should view fluctuations in stock prices. Immediately the scales fell from my eyes, and low prices became my friend. Picking up that book was one of the luckiest moments in my life."

On foreclosures: "A largely unnoted fact: Large numbers of people who have 'lost' their house through foreclosure have actually realized a profit because they carried out refinancings earlier that gave them cash in excess of their cost. In these cases, the evicted homeowner was the winner, and the victim was the lender."

On share buybacks: "The first law of capital allocation – whether the money is slated for acquisitions or share repurchases — is that what is smart at one price is dumb at another."

On predicting turnarounds: "Last year, I told you that 'a housing recovery will probably begin within a year or so.' I was dead wrong."

On housing: "I believe [low housing construction] is the major reason a recovery in employment has so severely lagged the steady and substantial comeback we have seen in almost all other sectors of our economy."

On everything besides housing: "Though housing-related businesses remain in the emergency room, most other businesses have left the hospital with their health fully restored."

On recovery after the bubble: "[The] supply/demand equation is now reversed: Every day we are creating more households than housing units. I believe pundits will be surprised at how far unemployment drops once that happens. They will then reawake to what has been true since 1776: America's best days lie ahead."

More on buybacks: "Charlie and I favor repurchases when two conditions are met: first, a company has ample funds to take care of the operational and liquidity needs of its business; second, its stock is selling at a material discount to the company's intrinsic business value, conservatively calculated. We have witnessed many bouts of repurchasing that failed our second test."

On conditions for share buybacks: "First, we have the normal hope that earnings of the business will increase at a good clip for a long time to come; and second, we also hope that the stock underperforms in the market for a long time as well. A corollary to this second point: 'Talking our book' about a stock we own — were that to be effective — would actually be harmful to Berkshire, not helpful as commentators customarily assume."

On risk management: "[I]f the insurance industry should experience a $250 billion loss from some megacatastrophe — a loss about triple anything it has ever faced — Berkshire as a whole would likely record a moderate profit for the year because of its many streams of earning."

On acquisitions: "We now have eight subsidiaries that would each be included in the Fortune 500 were they stand-alone companies. That leaves only 492 to go."

On Burlington Northern: "We must, without fail, maintain and improve our 23,000 miles of track along with 13,000 bridges, 80 tunnels, 6,900 locomotives and 78,600 freight cars. This job requires us to have ample financial resources under all economic scenarios and to have the human talent that can instantly and effectively deal with the vicissitudes of nature, such as the widespread flooding BNSF labored under last summer."

On Berkshire's subsidiaries: "Some of the businesses enjoy terrific economics, measured by earnings on unleveraged net tangible assets that run from 25% after-tax to more than 100%. Others produce good returns in the area of 12[%]-20%. A few, however, have very poor returns, a result of some serious mistakes I made in my job of capital allocation. These errors came about because I misjudged either the competitive strength of the business being purchased or the future economics of the industry in which it operated. I try to look out ten or twenty years when making an acquisition, but sometimes my eyesight has been poor. Charlie's has been better; he voted no more than 'present' on several of my errant purchases."

On committing to bad investments: "Any management consultant or Wall Street advisor would look at our laggards and say 'dump them.' That won't happen. For 29 years, we have regularly laid out Berkshire's economic principles … [describing] our general reluctance to sell poor performers (which, in most cases, lag because of industry factors rather than managerial shortcomings). Our approach is far from Darwinian, and many of you may disapprove of it. I can understand your position. However, we have made — and continue to make — a commitment to the sellers of businesses we buy that we will retain those businesses through thick and thin. So far, the dollar cost of that commitment has not been substantial and may well be offset by the goodwill it builds among prospective sellers looking for the right permanent home for their treasured business and loyal associates. These owners know that what they get with us can't be delivered by others and that our commitments will be good for many decades to come."

On banking: "The banking industry is back on its feet, and Wells Fargo [ (NYSE: WFC  ) ] is prospering. Its earnings are strong, its assets solid and its capital at record levels. At Bank of America [ (NYSE: BAC  ) ], some huge mistakes were made by prior management. Brian Moynihan has made excellent progress in cleaning these up, though the completion of that process will take a number of years. Concurrently, he is nurturing a huge and attractive underlying business that will endure long after today's problems are forgotten. Our warrants to buy 700 million Bank of America shares will likely be of great value before they expire."

On derivatives: "Though our existing contracts have very minor collateral requirements, the rules have changed for new positions. Consequently, we will not be initiating any major derivatives positions. We shun contracts of any type that could require the instant posting of collateral. The possibility of some sudden and huge posting requirement — arising from an out-of-the-blue event such as a worldwide financial panic or massive terrorist attack — is inconsistent with our primary objectives of redundant liquidity and unquestioned financial strength.

On bond yields: "Today, a wry comment that Wall Streeter Shelby Cullom Davis made long ago seems apt: 'Bonds promoted as offering risk-free returns are now priced to deliver return-free risk.'"

On fixed-income: "Most of these currency-based investments are thought of as 'safe.' In truth they are among the most dangerous of assets. Their beta may be zero, but their risk is huge. Over the past century these instruments have destroyed the purchasing power of investors in many countries, even as the holders continued to receive timely payments of interest and principal. This ugly result, moreover, will forever recur. Governments determine the ultimate value of money, and systemic forces will sometimes cause them to gravitate to policies that produce inflation. From time to time such policies spin out of control. Even in the U.S., where the wish for a stable currency is strong, the dollar has fallen a staggering 86% in value since 1965, when I took over management of Berkshire. It takes no less than $7 today to buy what $1 did at that time. Consequently, a tax-free institution would have needed 4.3% interest annually from bond investments over that period to simply maintain its purchasing power. Its managers would have been kidding themselves if they thought of any portion of that interest as 'income.'"

On liquidity: "Under today's conditions, therefore, I do not like currency-based investments. Even so, Berkshire holds significant amounts of them, primarily of the short-term variety. At Berkshire the need for ample liquidity occupies center stage and will never be slighted, however inadequate rates may be."

On gold: "Gold … has two significant shortcomings, being neither of much use nor procreative. True, gold has some industrial and decorative utility, but the demand for these purposes is both limited and incapable of soaking up new production. Meanwhile, if you own one ounce of gold for an eternity, you will still own one ounce at its end. What motivates most gold purchasers is their belief that the ranks of the fearful will grow. During the past decade that belief has proved correct. Beyond that, the rising price has on its own generated additional buying enthusiasm, attracting purchasers who see the rise as validating an investment thesis. As 'bandwagon' investors join any party, they create their own truth – for a while."

On stocks: "Whether the currency a century from now is based on gold, seashells, shark teeth, or a piece of paper (as today), people will be willing to exchange a couple of minutes of their daily labor for a Coca-Cola [ (NYSE: KO  ) ] or some See's peanut brittle. In the future the U.S. population will move more goods, consume more food, and require more living space than it does now. People will forever exchange what they produce for what others produce."

On why Berkshire chooses businesses over gold or fixed-income: "Berkshire's goal will be to increase its ownership of first-class businesses. Our first choice will be to own them in their entirety — but we will also be owners by way of holding sizable amounts of marketable stocks. I believe that over any extended period of time this category of investing will prove to be the runaway winner among the three we've examined. More important, it will be by far the safest."

On opportunity: "[T]wo categories enjoy maximum popularity at peaks of fear: Terror over economic collapse drives individuals to currency-based assets, most particularly U.S. obligations, and fear of currency collapse fosters movement to sterile assets such as gold. We heard 'cash is king' in late 2008, just when cash should have been deployed rather than held. Similarly, we heard 'cash is trash' in the early 1980s just when fixed-dollar investments were at their most attractive level in memory. On those occasions, investors who required a supportive crowd paid dearly for that comfort."

On smart investing: "Investing is often described as the process of laying out money now in the expectation of receiving more money in the future. At Berkshire we take a more demanding approach, defining investing as the transfer to others of purchasing power now with the reasoned expectation of receiving more purchasing power — after taxes have been paid on nominal gains – in the future. More succinctly, investing is forgoing consumption now in order to have the ability to consume more at a later date."


LIC & ONGC: An insurer discovers love in dying minutes


Looks like the disinvestment ministry has taken the Life Insurance Corporation's tagline ('Why go anywhere else?') a bit too seriously.

Minutes before the government's first-ever disinvestment through the auction route was about to end in a fiasco, India's government-owned life insurer had to throw its owners a lifeline. It was roped in to bail out ONGC's floundering issue 1on Thursday.

The disinvestment ministry's additional secretary, Siddhartha Pradhan, of course, completely denied that there was any pressure on LIC to invest in ONGC.

Having the government of India as owner is the biggest risk to the future of the LIC.

As if one cue, the insurance company on Friday said that it "had found value" in the stock and that is why it had made a small purchase worth Rs 3,880 crore.

Nice Coincidence.

This amount, by some strange coincidence, was almost equal to the shortfall that the issue faced at the close of trading hours. To top it all, LIC's buying announcement came late in the night and the delay was conveniently attributed to technical and punching errors.

It is understandable if a small retail broker makes such an error, but the orders were directed through some of the biggest brokers in the country by a fund (LIC) which buys and sells crore worth of shares every month. And if an order worth Rs 3,880 crore was to be punched, the senior-most executive is generally present. In a normal day, given the brokerage given by LIC to its brokers, this would have resulted in a brokerage income of Rs 3.8 crore in one transaction only.

The other quaint fact is LIC's discovery of value in the ONGC stock a few minutes before the auction closed. The fact is the insurer has been holding nearly 3 percent of ONGC shares and has been regularly trading in and out of the company. LIC needs to re-evaluate its discovery process as the stock did not bleep on its radar when the price was 20 percent lower a month back.

The insurance company has also 'discovered value' in a series of banks, which needed equity infusion from the government. Given the series of disinvestments planned over the next few weeks, it would not be surprising if LIC's discoveries take it the UTI way.

For a company that has made money on the pretext of covering risk, it needs to follow its own advice.

Having the government of India as owner is the biggest risk to the future of the LIC.

Disinvestment debacle - LIC lifesaver?

A desperate seller unwilling to compromise on the product's price; a product that is plagued by a major shortcoming; buyers who are aware of both the seller's desperation and the expensive price of the product. What do you get when you combine all these? Answer: a debacle called ONGC disinvestment.

The details are murky but one fact is clear: the auction process for ONGC could have bombed on the government and but for LIC coming to its rescue, the Centre may have been left red-faced with the mortification of seeing its Maharatna's shares having no takers. The insurance major coughed up as much as Rs.12,000 crore of the Rs.12,767 crore raised from the auction, or 94 per cent.

It can never be proved conclusively whether LIC was ordered to bridge the large shortfall in demand. Circumstantial evidence, however, offers some pointers. Until 3.20 p.m. on the day of the auction, only 1.43 crore shares were bid for on the BSE and NSE. It is difficult to believe that bids for the balance 40.6 crore shares were made in the remaining 10 minutes before the offer closed at 3.30 p.m.

Second, the details of the bids were declared close to midnight on Thursday, eight hours after the auction closed. Why did it take so long for the bids to be tabulated? The auction was screen-based and the exchanges have efficient computer systems that have handled several big ticket initial public offerings (IPOs) in the past. So the explanation of glitches is not convincing and the exchanges have also clarified there were no technical problems.

Third, it is also difficult to believe that institutional investors putting in large bids will wait until the last 10 minutes of the auction. One explanation being given is that they were waiting for the indicative price to be declared by the exchanges. This did not happen because there were just 1.43 crore shares bid and the exchanges could not arrive at the indicative price from them. The fact is that all bidders, not just institutional, could see the trends live on the websites of the exchanges and were aware that the indicative price might not be announced. The question of indicative price arises only if there is excessive demand which was not the case with the ONGC auction.

The evidence, therefore, points in the direction of possible intervention by the government to save the auction. That institutions such as LIC and others have in the past been treated as handmaidens of the government only bolsters the case. It might well be that LIC will make handsome gains from the investment at some point in the future. Yet, that should not be confused with whether it is right for the government to lean on such institutions to bail it out of a tricky situation of its own making. The test question is: Would LIC have invested such a large sum in a single stock on its own volition?