Investing in 2022

 This interview with Zee Business was published on 19th Jan 2022

Regulation of Crypto Assets - Need for a new Bretton Woods

This was published on the 8th Dec 2021 in Times of India  

It is crypto season around the world. Some countries are banning private cryptos (China), some enthusiastically embracing it (El Salvador), some moving towards wary acceptance (US) and yet some more are cautiously examining the landscape without foreclosing options (India).

As a fascinating new frontier of technology, the potential of crypto assets are immense — financial inclusion, tokenisation of illiquid/physical assets (like property and art), cheaper/faster payment systems. Alongside the immense potential, there are emerging areas of risks such as money laundering, terror finance, disturbing global financial stability, that need careful consideration.

Cryptos are large, and growing

Source: IMF

Through 2021, the total market capitalisation of crypto assets nearly doubled. At $2 trillion, it is still smaller than mainstream asset markets like equities and credit globally. But the pace of growth, despite intense volatility in the asset, demonstrates its rapid socialisation and acceptance.

Cryptoisation: Potential loss of sovereignty
Independent conduct of fiscal and monetary policies are a key feature of national sovereignty. It is not uncommon, however, for countries with weak macros to lose control over some or many aspects of the two.
There are dozens of African and Latin American countries, for example, where the US dollar has been (and is still) the default primary currency in use. Zimbabwe and Venezuela, in recent times, represent examples, where there are widespread questions on the ability of the state to govern, hence monetary and fiscal policies are outsourced to foreign or supra-national entities.

In some ways, it is similar to private residents raising private militias for security, as a result of a breakdown of confidence in the state’s monopoly over violence.
But “dollarisation” of domestic economies has a serious impact on monetary and fiscal policy settings. Domestic central banks lose the ability to influence interest rates and manage liquidity in the economy, if the dominant currency is issued by a foreign government. Further, the domestic central banks lose their seigniorage revenues — difference between the 0% interest on each currency note issued and the same deployed by the central bank into interest-bearing domestic financial instruments (like bank reserves, government securities etc). In effect, dollarised countries end up importing the monetary policy of the US Fed and losing seigniorage revenues to the US Fed.
Private cryptos as “currency” are rightly feared to have similar potential impact. Just as “dollarisation” effectively results in the economy importing US monetary and fiscal policy, “crypto-isation” will mean importing the monetary policy engendered by a privately owned currency. The larger the developed ubiquity of cryptos as a medium of exchange, the less influence will domestic monetary policy tend to have on monetary aggregates like interest rates, money supply, capital flows.

Cryptos are structurally global: Challenges to localised regulation

Most private cryptos, like the popular Bitcoin, have a public blockchain ledger. Transactions on Bitcoin are untethered from a specific financial institution or country, a peer-to-peer transfer can be made as long as someone has an internet connection and a Bitcoin wallet. There is no central repository in any one country that can be used to shut down or regulate Bitcoin activity.
The near-tautological incapability to control cryptos engender governments to completely ban them. Bans too, because of the same characteristics, are difficult to enforce. Ergo, global coordination is a sine qua non for effective regulation of cryptos.

National regulations have signalling effects, but not always in the right direction

Recently, rumours of the new crypto bill in India proposing to ban private cryptos sent crypto prices tumbling across all Indian exchanges, completely disconnected from price movements elsewhere in the world.
The Kimchi Premium, referring to the persistent premium of Korean-traded Bitcoins over US-traded ones, reflects both limits to the global free-trading presumptions as well as potential of local regulatory interventions on cryptos. But while local regulations can influence prices in a specific country/market, crypto exchange trading happens primarily through entities in offshore financial centres.

Source: IMF Global Financial Stability Report, 2021

In other words, independent national regulatory actions merely drive capital flows and trading outside to offshore financial centres. China, in a series of measures starting in 2017, has banned private crypto ownership and trading in mainland China.

But the impact of that has been a shift of Chinese crypto activity from exchanges to per-to-peer Decentralised Finance (DeFi), which it allows users to trade sans any exchange or intermediary, making it harder to ban/control.
China remains the largest centre of crypto activity in Asia, although the bulk of it is now in the form of DeFi. DeFi, given its architecture, has less oversight possible from regulators; and doesn't have the same KYC/AML obligations of regulated exchanges (and market participants). Net effect: A national ban has moved cryptos towards riskier, less-monitorable avatars.

Need for Crypto Bretton Woods

The end of World War II, with its horrific human and physical costs, led to the creation of Bretton Woods institutions. The aim was to promote international economic cooperation to rebuild a better economic architecture via new institutions, rules and globally accepted common norms.
Eight decades on, the report card can be judged to be quite positive. Expansion in global prosperity (even if unequal), especially in Asia, massive increase in global trade, cooperative mechanisms like FATF to tackle financial crimes, it’s an impressive record.
Cryptos present a new requirement for a Crypto Bretton Woods today. It’s a feature of the asset that it spans geographies, is nimble enough to find new variations, and if left unregulated, can wreak havoc at weaker economies. Above all, it has natural immunity against isolated national regulations. It also holds great promise as a technology frontier. A new set of globally coordinated rules are urgently needed, so that we harness the promise while mitigating the real risks.

Markets post Covid - What's next?

 This was telecast on CNBC on 3rd Dec 2021

Cryptocurrency regulation - Web 3.0 or Digital Haji Mastans?

 This was published on 30th Nov 2021

Why Timing is Perfect for India-UK Trade Deal

 This was published in the Times of India on 14th Oct 2021

Free trade is dead, long live free trade!

A 75 year old, post-WW2 global consensus on rules-based free trade is breaking down. Some of it for good economic reasons – global supply chains have grown massively, but have also sacrificed redundancies at the altar of efficiency. As a result, small disruptions (or even potential disruptions) cause snowball effect on global supplies of critical goods – the recent semiconductor shortage being a case in point. But a lot of it is political – the axiomatic assumption of “winners and winners” out of free trade are being questioned by those who think there have been too many “losers” too. Add to that the recent geopolitical tensions around China, the factory of the world, and free-trade-wallahs are at the receiving end of sharp backlash.

India’s public junking of RCEP, the China-led mega trade bloc that was supposed to be the mother of all multilateral trade blocs in Asia, was in the same mien. Endemic trade deficits with China and heightened border tensions meant India was loathe to risk being in a Chinese tent where China could dominate rule-making. Brexit was driven by UK’s very similar frustrations – too many seemed to be “losing out” due to a rigid rules-based EU architecture.

A different set of compulsions have come to the fore in a post-Covid world. Faced with severe economic slowdown and having adopted a tight-fisted fiscal strategy, Government of India (GOI) has been pushing through a slew of supply-side “reforms” to prepare the ground for the cyclical upturn, whenever the latter happens. Strategic bilateral FTA are part of the reform tool-kit, and hence back in flavour. Similarly, a big premise of Brexit was UK’s ability to strike “better deals” individually with strategic partners like India. An Indo-UK comprehensive FTA is a key part of the Enhanced Trade Partnership understanding reached at Prime Ministerial levels.

In a nutshell, the rationale for an Indo-UK FTA has gotten stronger on politico-strategic grounds. However, the economic rationale too is quite compelling.

Indo-British trade has moved significantly away from a shared colonial legacy. Looked at from a headline perspective, India and UK are no longer very important to each other on trade – neither country figures in the other’s Top 10 list of trading partners.

But looked under the hood, the importance is rather more than headline numbers.

Beyond the Headlines

For starters, UK is one of the few large economies with which India enjoys a merchandise trade surplus – amongst the G20 countries, India’s trade surplus with UK is second only to that of the US. Once trade in services is added, the total trade surplus is even higher. Further, UK is the third largest export market for India’s textiles – an industry that has long been the focus on policy attention due to its high employment-intensity.

Complementarity of trade

India and UK also have complementary trade profiles. World Bank’s Trade Complementarity Index (TCI) for both countries are at relatively high 50s and 60s – demonstrating that India export basket fits in well with UK’s import basket and vice versa.

Source: WITS, World Bank

Investment Flows and Geopolitics – Linking up the sinews

India’s interest in UK as an investment destination outstrips, on relative importance, India’s trade relations. Led by the Tata group’s acquisitions of marquee British companies like Corus and JLR in the early part of the 21^st century, India is today the second-largest source of FDI for UK (behind US). The London capital market eco-system has also proved to be one of the leading hubs of capital raising for Indian companies. Several British institutions are setting up operations in GIFT City IFSC.

However, it is at the geopolitical level that the congruences have gotten sharper. India’s a key pillar of Indo-Pacific strategies of all Western powers, UK included. The China variable has gotten ever-so-angular in recent months, prompting a revisit of military level equations in geopolitics by all major powers. UK, while undergoing a massive reprioritization of defence expenditure, has committed to a continuous naval presence in the Indo-Pacific. The AUKUS arrangement further cements those commitments.

India’s experience with FTA – At the margin, not bad

A popular chestnut is that India has been on the receiving end of FTAs and has ended up importing more and exporting (relatively) less. The Economic Survey 2020 did an exhaustive analytical study on the point – it showed actual results to the just the reverse. The coverage of the study was 14 FTAs concluded by India with various countries and regional groupings (like ASEAN) in the 21^st century. On the whole, India exported more than it imported, incrementally, as a result of FTAs.

 

Source: Economic Survey 2019-20

In terms of total trade, overall impact of FTAs was 10.9% on exports and 8.6% on imports. Specifically for manufactured products, the impact was higher – 13.4% for exports and 12.7% for imports. Ergo, India “gained” a trade surplus of 2.3% per annum on total merchandise trade and 0.7% on manufactured products trade.

 An Indo-UK FTA checks most of the contemporary boxes – strategic alignment, economic interests and above all congruence of local political opinion about the deal. Its an idea whose time has come, and come quite clearly.

 

The author is the Managing Partner and CIO, ASK Wealth Advisors. The views and opinions expressed in this article are personal.

 

National Monetisation Programme - Nash Equilibrium trumps Pareto Optimum

 This was published in the Observer Research Foundation on 23rd Sep 2021

India’s trade dependence on China – Triumph of Group-think

This was published in the Times of India on 12th Aug 2021

The concept of Group Think was first introduced by the psychologist Irving Janis in 1971. He described it as a situation where “individuals tend to refrain from expressing doubts and judgments or disagreeing with the consensus”. While Group Think is widely prevalent in several social contexts, its presence in higher policy-making and inferences can have outsized impact. Perhaps the most well-known example of Groupthink in recorded history is the Bay of Pigs invasion. A CIA operation to overthrow the new revolutionary government of Fidel Castro in Cuba, it failed spectacularly – and became the showpiece evidence of how groups of smart people rush to consensus without fully analyzing the data.

India’s trade dependence on China falls in the same category – the overwhelming consensus in the commentariat is that there is a structural and large import-dependence, one that China can use as a geopolitical weapon in times of sharp political contestations. Headline numbers are trotted out in support – how imports from China have kept going up despite Government of India’s (GOI) Atmanirbhar campaign and backlash against Chinese goods post-Galwan. There is also a suggestion that China has been able to weaponize its trade surplus with India, using the surplus for enhanced military expenditure while making India “dependent” on Chinese imports for day to day economic life. Most of the hypotheses are in the realm of myths rather than facts.

Myth # 1 – India imports too much from China

China is the largest trading nation in the world – its trade volumes with all countries are very high. It is a function of both China’s size as an economy (at $14 trillion, the second largest in the world) as well as its manufacturing prowess. For India, China accounts for 15-16% of aggregate imports (20-21% of non-oil imports). This number is actually lower than many major economies in the world, and most major economies in Asia. US, Australia and Japan – fellow members of the Quad, have more than 20% of their imports originating from China.

India’s import concentration with China, while it went up sharply from 10% in 2010 to 16% in 2017, has stabilized at the latter levels now. For some of the more critical, truly strategic import categories, the trend has either reversed or there is energetic efforts underway to reduce dependencies. 

Myth #2 – India is dependent on China for imports, creating strategic leverage

This is perhaps the most important hypothesis, meriting closest scrutiny. The largest components of Chinese imports are Heavy electricals and machinery, Power equipment and Organic chemicals. A few trends are quite clear from the chart below.

Source: Ministry of Commerce

In absolute terms, the largest category – Electrical and Electronics goods – are on their way down in absolute terms. The Production Linked Incentive (PLI) programmes rolled out over the last couple of years initially focused largely on this segment, and as capacities under the programme come on stream, the impact is likely to be felt even more. Above all, most of these areas are not “monopoly chokeholds”, ie, there are alternative sources of supply including domestic, albeit at higher prices.

The same holds true for the second largest category of imports – Power Equipment. Very similar to Electricals and Electronics, this is an area where China has built a price advantage over global (and Indian) suppliers over the years, and the current dominance is a function of that relative price advantage. A mix of tariff walls, PLI incentives and the US-sponsored global movement of supply chain diversification (popularly termed as China + 1 in trade circles) are creating insurance against China-enforced supply disruptions. Significantly again, China does not have a supply monopoly choke-hold here either – ergo, sourcing from elsewhere is a function of price rather than availability in many cases.

It is the third category – Organic Chemicals – where things are trickier. It includes Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API), the essential intermediate input for a vast majority of pharmaceuticals. China is a dominant global manufacturer of API, and this could represent a significant tricky dependence. Till about a decade back, India was self-sufficient in APIs, before much cheaper Chinese capacities drive most pharma companies towards imports. Good news is that there are no great technology hurdles in the segment, merely one of cost and capacity. Already, several Indian companies are investing heavily in the area. Over the next few years, the dependence on China will likely come down.

It is actually in a smaller (by absolute $ value) category, Rare Earth metals, that there are critical strategic issues. China is the source of a range of rare earth metals that are used in critical electronics, telecommunication and other hi-tech equipment. It isn’t an India-specific problem, the world is grappling with the same. The Chinese dominance in the area was sparked off by gradual US withdrawal from mining/processing of rare earth oxides and simultaeneous large investments by China. Already, a US-sponsored globally coordinated effort under President Biden’s diversification of supply chain initiative is underway. But this is likely to take time and careful handling by India.

Myth 3 – India’s strategic nirvana would be to cut down on consumer goods production

There is a general (most economist wisdom driven) hypothesis that too much of India’s China imports are to fuel elite consumer goods (like cars and mobile phones). India needs to wean off an economic model that fuels production of such import-intensive consumer goods. This is equivalent of cutting one’s nose to spite one’s face. Industries like automobiles, consumer electronics and mobile phones are not only clusters of large-scale manufacturing employment, they also provide enormous network benefits by spawning entire eco-systems of finance, supply-chain and other related services. They also engender manufacturing exports – small cars, eg, is a rare manufacturing export success story from India. India’s strategic vulnerabilities will rise (and not go lower) in case critical manufacturing bases are hollowed out in an attempt to curb imports. Imports from anywhere, China or otherwise, are not “bad”, and exports of anything is not tautologically “good”. Both are economic transactions with outcomes – the focus has to be on outcomes rather than inputs.

The China import issue, to a large extent, is a bogey. India’s vulnerabilities, as seen above, are far less than is popularly believed. India’s also part of the recent global instincts towards de-globalisation, which is actually nothing too different from redundancies in supply chains (which in turn is elementary risk management strategy, forgotten for too long). Our responses, therefore, need to be deliberate rather than paranoid, focused on key areas (like APIs and Rare Earth metals) rather than looking to up-end all benefits from liberalized trade that have accrued to India since the 1991 reforms. In a nutshell, Groupthink pitfalls need to be zealously avoided!