Darling's of Dalal Street in Despair

Indian investoer in the Indian equity market might as well agree with Sir John Templeton, the legendary US-born stock investor, given the current gloom that pervades Dalal Street. Before the bearish sentiment could set in, a large section of experts was busy justifying the boom in Indian equities - a boom that saw the benchmark indices earn nearly 50% returns last year. A major part of their reasoning was based on the paradigm that in India, things were different then, compared to the early '90s.

However, just as in times of plenty the rise tends to be stratospheric, the fall during lean times is sharp. While many experts have come up with a number of theories regarding well-established stocks, little or no attention has been paid to the darlings of the bourses last year - initial public offers (IPOs).

How have companies, which listed since the beginning of January '07, fared in the recent carnage witnessed on Dalal Street? Were they fairly priced or did they just take advantage of a booming market to claim outsized premiums? In order to answer these questions, we decided to engage in a detailed study of all recent IPOs.

In the 12 months ended March '08 (FY08), 84 companies were listed on the BSE, raising Rs 41,810 crore. We are, however, limiting our discussion to the IPOs that were listed in the calendar year '07. This gives enough room for the scrips of listed companies to stabilise their movement on the stock exchanges.

In '07, as many as 101 companies got listed on the bourses altogether, raising Rs 36,692 crore. This is phenomenal in all respects. The primary section of the Indian equity market has not seen such a high number of listings at least in the past seven years. Further, the amount of money raised in a single year was also the highest in '07.

Construction, inclusive of real estate, was the buzzing sector in terms of number of listed companies and the money they raised. With 16 companies collecting over Rs 15,000 crore from the primary market, this sector topped the charts (see adjacent table). The amount of money raised by the sector was largely skewed due to DLF's IPO, which raised more than half of the sum in May '07. Oil & gas and power were the other sectors that raised relatively large sums from the market.

IT was another sector that saw a large number of IPOs - as many as 14 - but of smaller ticket size. The difference this time round was that a majority of the companies were niche players with India-centric business models, against the pure IT services companies that had dominated the stage in previous years. Investors also seemed to welcome the change, as many of the issues of such niche companies were oversubscribed multiple times.

The change in the taste of investors is a fall-out of increasing macro-economic challenges for the plain-vanilla IT companies. The performance of these IPOs has been akin to a roller-coaster ride for investors, given that the time span between January '07 and April '08 encompassed a strong boom and an equally steep fall in the secondary equity market.

No wonder then that the market capitalisation of all the 101 companies as on April 7, '08 was just about a percent higher than their m-cap at the time of listing.

This, of course, takes into account the difference in the duration of returns. The difference arises because even though the date of calculation of returns - which is April 7, '08 - is fixed, the date of listing may differ from stock to stock. Nevertheless, this gives an insight into the performance of new listings.

While a majority of the companies were listed at a premium, not all of them could hold on to the gains. Out of 101 listed companies, 75 earned returns on listing. However, only 43 were able to retain their premium valuations as of the second week of April. This can be attributed to a steep decline in overall valuations following the market crash.

However, it needs to be noted that there were a handful of companies that were able to earn handsome returns for investors even in the post-crash scenario. There were 25 companies that were trading at more than 50% premium to their respective offer price as on April 7,'08. Further, the list also had 15 companies that saw a two-fold jump in their market cap, and five companies which saw a four-fold rise in m-cap. Hyderabad-based MIC Electronics topped the list of gainers. The stock is currently quoting at more than four times its offer price. It was followed by SEL Manufacturing, a Ludhiana-based cloth and garment maker and Allied Digital, a Mumbai-based IT infrastructure company.

The list of companies that eroded investors' wealth was dominated by textile companies. Out of 10 textile companies that were listed in '07, seven were trading below their offer price as on April 7. Moreover, three textile companies figured in the list of five biggest value destroyers.

Broadcast Initiatives, a Mumbai-based broadcasting company, topped the list. It lost over three-fourths of its value in a span of one year. For retail investors who have put their money in these IPOs over the past one year, the situation has changed significantly. Even though these IPOs rode the boom in the market, the recent market crash has put a question mark on their future performance. Hope these IPO's will generate returns in the long term.

ET

World Economic Outlook- Not too Grim

IMF’s World Economic Outlook, put out on 9^th April, conforms to the now virtually unanimous perception that the US economy will slip into a recession during 2008. The IMF’s latest forecasts for US growth over the current and next year are 0.5 per cent and 0.6 per cent, respectively, which suggest that the recession will be relatively mild and also relatively short-lived. It is expected to peak during the fourth quarter of 2008, during which GDP will be 0.7 per cent lower than in the corresponding quarter of 2007. Against the backdrop of a US recession of this magnitude, the world economy is expected to grow by 3.7 per cent in 2008 and at about the same rate in 2009, 0.5 per cent below the previous forecast made three months ago.

This is significantly below the average of the past four years of about 4.8 per cent, but not dramatically so and compares favourably to the performance of the global economy in the preceding four-year period, which encompassed the previous US recession. The reason for the waning influence of US growth on global performance is obvious; other economies, notably China and India, have become far more significant. The IMF’s growth forecast for these two countries is 9.3 per cent and 7.9 per cent, respectively, for 2008 and a slightly improved 9.5 per cent and 8.0 per cent for 2009. Consequent on these, the overall outlook for the rest of Asia is also relatively benign.

Of course, all these forecasts are contingent on the US recession playing out as the report predicts. On this score, the report itself is relatively pessimistic. It emphasises that the risks are predominantly on the downside, and indicates that the probability of world GDP growth slipping below the 3 per cent mark in 2008 and 2009 is about 25 per cent.

There are two major reasons for these high downside risks, both of which are visible on the policy radar screen of virtually every country in the world. First, the meltdown in financial markets has made the recovery of credit flows to support real economic activity more difficult. Even an extremely accommodative monetary policy stance may not be able to stimulate a strong rebound in asset prices, which is key to the financial sector’s recovery. This is directly related to the second threat, global inflation , which renders an accommodative monetary policy stance more difficult and risky. Even with the growth slowdown, though, inflation rates are unlikely to soften by very much, if at all, driven as they are by the supply-side influences of surging commodity and food prices.

The report is cautious on policy approaches, acknowledging that the scenario poses serious challenges to countries at all levels of affluence. However, there is a case made for a co-ordinated approach, particularly by way of an expansionary fiscal stance by countries that are relatively comfortable in that department. Of course, collectivism in economic policy hasn’t been much in evidence of late, due in part to the scepticism that multilateral institutions like the IMF have evoked in recent years. Thankfully, in the IMF’s own baseline scenario, its irrelevance continues!

Powering the future,- Alternate energy

Once dismissed as kooky ideas spawned by impractical environmentalists, alternative energies are now part of the energy plans and policies of most nations. “Governments all over the world recognise the importance of renewable energy as fossil fuels are finite,” & now aggressively planning investments in renewable energy projects. “Worldwide, the renewable energy industry is growing at 20-30 per cent per annum. Demand exceeds supply in some sectors such as wind energy, and companies are generating returns in excess of their cost of capital.

Fifteen European Union nations, including Spain and Germany, who are world leaders in renewables, have committed to generating 20 per cent of the energy using alternative technologies by 2020. India has also put in place several renewable initiatives and the country is now the world’s fourth-largest generator of wind energy with an installed capacity of 7,093 MW.

Entrepreneurs are venturing into solar power because of the phenomenal growth potential. The United Nations Environment Programme Report (2007) states that renewable energy projects received a record $100 billion (Rs 4,40,000 crore then) in investment in 2006, up from $80 billion (Rs 360,000 crore then) in 2005. Interestingly, venture capitalists are now some of the biggest investors in alternative energy, and their track record of almost single-handedly creating the computer and bio-technology industries is also boosting the industry’s prospects. With glaciers melting, weather patterns changing and the hole in the ozone layer getting larger, western public opinion is increasingly pushing politicians to search for greener energy. In Asian countries such as India and China, there are also more mercantile reasons to follow suit.

India currently produces 130,000 MW of energy a year and this figure will need to double within the next decade. The cost of building the mostly coal-fired plants slated to produce this energy will be a staggering Rs 5,34,000 crore. The environmental and health costs will be even steeper. India is already the world’s fifth-largest polluter, and hospitals across the country are reporting sharp increases in lung and breathing problems, from asthma to cancer. India’s oil bill has also shot up from $7.5 billion (Rs 26,250 crore then) in 1996 to a whopping $50 billion (Rs 2,20,000 crore). By 2010, when Indian consumers are estimated to own 15 million cars, the country’s oil consumption will be twice today’s 2.1 million barrels a day, the US Energy Information Administration says. With global oil production barely 1 million barrels over the global consumption rate of 81 million barrels a day, the surge in demand from India (and China) could eventually lead global demand to outstrip supply, causing fuel prices to shoot up to $100 a barrel. This could cause India’s oil bill to quadruple to $200 billion a year by 2025! More significantly, India will be the only major economy in the world other than Japan importing 90 per cent of its oil needs, a strategic lacuna.

So why hasn’t the alternative energy revolution already happened? Until, recently, the technology just wasn’t there and the cost of producing a MW of wind or solar power was up to five times that of fossil fuels. Now, the costs are evening out, but the challenge for the alternative energy industry is to achieve the scale necessary to become competitive. Standing in the way of this is the powerful oil and gas lobby, which has consistently tried to tie down the alternative energy industry like a bonsai tree. There are only two ways of combating the environmental and human cost of using fossil fuels. “If the government levies an energy tax, like a tax on the pollution caused due to use of conventional energy, it can then try to cover the (environmental and human) cost. This is a rational option but not a social one, as the common man will suffer. The alternative is to provide renewable energy a privileged market: no taxes, zero interest rates, and a new tariff law.”

According to US media reports, the Bush administration, after a series of meetings with a group of energy industry representatives and lobbyists, drew up a controversial National Energy Plan, which doled out $33 billion in public subsidies and tax cuts to the oil, coal, and nuclear power industries. In India, the privatisation of oil exploration has also created a huge anti-alternative energy lobby led by oil companies such as Reliance, Essar Oil and Videocon, in cahoots with auto companies. A sign of their power came when New Delhi recently withdrew a Rs 1 lakh per car subsidy it was about to give the Reva, India’s first electric car.

More importantly, supporters of alternative energy insist that the “full cost” of using fossil fuels is hidden — and could even be higher than the cost of many alternative technologies — because the health, environmental, and defence costs associated with using fossil fuels are not built into their purchase cost. For example, The US-based International Center for Technology Advancement says a gallon of gasoline in the US that costs consumers about $3 (Rs 120) would end up costing the nation about $15 (Rs 600), if the full cost of the medical costs associated with treating people suffering from pollution-related illness, the economic costs of the days lost at work because of people ill with pollution-related problems, the cost of cleaning up the environmental damages caused by fossil fuels and astronomical defence costs associated with oil security were added up.

Given the oil and auto industries have more than a trillion dollars in revenues and have planned investments of nearly $50 billion by 2010, Governments are worry that hurting these industries could dampen growth and damage other industries, such as shipping and ports, steel, petrochemicals, auto ancillaries, and rubber. But supporters of alternative energy, say these losses would be balanced by the totally new industries renewables would create, in the same way that the IT revolution initially cost jobs and killed some industries, such as answering services, but went on to boost global growth.

Significantly, with renewable energy technology maturing and awareness rising, many consumers are sidestepping such policy conundrums and turning into early adopters of these technologies. Still, no alternative energy technology is even close to fulfilling its full promise. More than technological changes, consumers will have to change their attitudes and habits before alternative energy can become what it should — the only energy. Imagine mankind powered by infinite renewable energy. The benefits are driving governments, businesses and individuals all over the world to follow that dream. They know there is no real alternative.