• SERVICES
  • INDUSTRIES
  • PERSPECTIVES
  • ABOUT
  • ENGAGE

WORLD ECONOMY

by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Commentary: USA to Re-Enter TPP but Only If It Calls the Shots

316views

When Donald Trump decided to pull the USA out of Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in January 2017, it was a huge setback for the remaining 11 countries – we wrote about it in our article TPP 2.0 – Minus the USA in May 2017. However, after months of discussions and deliberations, the surviving members (Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam) planned to move the partnership ahead without the USA, finally signing the pact in March 2018 and naming it Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). Soon after, while in talks over another bilateral trade deal with Japan, Trump said that he would join back TPP, if the USA was offered a deal it cannot refuse. Asserting on the fact that Trump government prefers bilateral trade agreements over multilateral, Trump made it clear, in an indirect manner though, that unless the pact brings massive benefits for the American economy, there is no way the country is joining back the TPP.

American reconsideration of getting back in the TPP is a strategic step to deal with its growing trade war with China. As per the initial outline of the pact, designed under Obama administration, it was supposed to eliminate or reduce tariffs on the ‘Made-in-America’ exports to TPP countries (e.g. automotive, ITC, agriculture products, etc.). However, by backing out of the TPP, Trump government ended up making a rod for its own back, and may have opened doors for China, if it wishes to enter the pact in the future. In order to safeguard its own interest against China, it seems that rejoining the pact would be a smart move on the USA’s part.

But the re-entry to the TPP will not be easy for the USA, and dictating its own terms for getting back into the agreement does not seem to work in favor of the Trump government either. With the member countries just signing their own trade deal very recently, setting terms and conditions for re-negotiating the pact again with the USA would be difficult and cumbersome. While some countries such as, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand appreciated the USA’s interest to return back to TPP, they are not very keen on altering the agreement, and even if the terms were to be amended again, this is unlikely to happen in the near future. Despite the fact that the American participation will make the deal stronger, member countries do not trust Trump’s trade policies and USA’s re-consideration of TPP membership again is being viewed with hostility, to a certain extent.

Taking into consideration the fact that the deal already took six years to finalize (five years prior to USA’s exit and one year to amend the agreement after its withdrawal), altering the deal again as per USA’s convenience seems unrealistic. The idea of starting negotiations from square one in order to fit in the USA, might be too much to ask for from the member countries. Now that the USA has lost an upper hand in the TPP, many countries may be in favor of the country joining back only if it accepts the existing agreement, which definitely does not seem to go down well with Trump. However, there is a slight possibility that member countries might be willing to contemplate the terms of the pact, if they are given better access to the American market (e.g. with the reduction in tariff rates), which is also unlikely to happen considering that the USA wants things to be its way.

Now that the trade agreement is already in place sans the USA, the American position to re-negotiate the terms has weakened. If this decision was made earlier, the country would have had a stronger bargaining power. Also, for the CPTPP member countries, unlike for the USA, bringing the existing agreement into force as early as possible is an immediate priority.

At this stage, the future of the USA joining TPP again is a question mark. Though both sides, the USA and the participating member countries, stand to benefit from this move – the member countries would benefit in terms of increased trade and the USA would be able to thwart China from entering the pact and to increase own exports – the current attitude and mindset of both sides seem to make the re-negotiations unlikely, at least under current circumstances. All participating countries are open to the USA re-joining the pact, provided it agrees to the terms originally negotiated, gives up wanting to call the shots, and agrees to mellow down its supremacy inclinations in the pact, none of which can be expected to be happening anytime soon, at least under the Trump administration.

by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Infographic: Vietnam Tourism Sector Taking Off

2.7kviews

Tourists are flocking to Vietnam to admire its natural beauty and cultural heritage. With record-level tourist arrivals in 2017, Vietnam is rising among the fastest growing travel destinations in the world.

This sector growth can be attributed to several government initiatives, including strengthening of tourism regulations, financial stimulus, and technology integration. However, some of the pressing issues such as unavailability of qualified workers for hospitality industry, natural disasters, or polluted tourist attraction sites may affect the growth momentum.

by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Can Cryptocurrencies Dent the Trillion-Dollar Banking Industry?

482views

Cryptocurrencies (such as bitcoin, ethereum, and litecoin) have definitely been the talk of the town this year. With their prices rising beyond bounds, everyone is sharing their two cents on the future of this fairly new concept of digital currency. Among these, are also players of the established financial system, which up till now have largely ignored cryptocurrencies terming them as a short-lived phenomenon. However, this has changed as bitcoin prices continue to soar and banks and other financial institutions evaluate not only the merits of the new currency and the technology behind it, but also the perils of not acting swiftly enough to adapt to the changing financial market scenario.

Cryptocurrencies and blockchain – what are we talking about?

Owing to an unparalleled rise in its prices, cryptocurrencies, especially bitcoin, have garnered massive interest from the public at large, however, very few understand how they and the technology that underpins them actually work.

Cryptocurrency is a digital form of money that is secure and largely anonymous. It uses encryption techniques to regulate the creation of the currency units and verify the transactions, thereby eliminating the need of a third-party verification (that is conducted by banks in case of traditional currency). However, to better comprehend the concept of cryptocurrencies it is vital to understand the core technology that enables its existence – blockchain technology.

Blockchain is a global distributed ledger or database of transactions running on an expansive peer to peer network, where transactions are securely stored and confirmed without the need of a central certifying body. Each and every transaction ever made historically is noted transparently and any new transaction is accepted/verified on the basis of all previous transactions undertaken (i.e. to ensure that the person undertaking the transaction has the credit to carry out the transaction).

Blockchain is increasingly finding application across industries – we wrote about its entry into the healthcare sector in our publication Blockchain Technology – Next Frontier in Healthcare? in March 2017.

The next aspect is to understand how cryptocurrencies are created/transacted. A new unit of currency is created when a “cryptocurrency miner” solves a complex computational algorithm to confirm a transaction and add it to the blockchain. For their service (i.e. to confirm and conduct the transaction), the miner generates a certain amount of the cryptocurrency for himself, thereby creating additional units of the cryptocurrency. Having said that, cryptocurrencies are limited in number (for example, there can only be 21 million Bitcoins and 84 million litecoins).

Cryptocurrencies are stored in a digital wallet, using which the user can spend the currency as well as check his balance.

Leading companies increasingly accept cryptocurrencies

While the reach of cryptocurrencies still remains largely limited when compared with conventional money, their acceptability and transaction value have been steadily rising. Several leading companies now accept bitcoins (the leading cryptocurrency) as a form of payment. These include Subway, Microsoft, Reddit, Expedia.com, WordPress.com, Virgin Galactic, Tesla, etc.

McDonalds announced that it will start accepting bitcoins in 2018, while Argos (a retailer) as well as British Airways have also expressed their intent to start accepting bitcoins as a mean of payments by 2018. In addition, the daily total value of bitcoins being transacted has also seen a substantial rise from about US$200 million worth of bitcoins being transacted daily in January 2017 to US$2 billion by November 2017. However, the per-day volume of transactions has witnessed a comparatively moderate rise as they ranged around 200,000-300,000 transactions per day at the beginning of the year and increased to about 350,000-450,000 number of daily transactions by December 2017.

Central banks evaluate risks to the banking system

This momentous rise in their popularity and acceptability over the past years has made central banks across the world realize and evaluate the risk posed by this revolutionary technology.

Cryptocurrencies bite into banks’ space

The traditional money used across the globe gains its credibility by being backed by a centralized authority (mainly a central bank of a country). However, cryptocurrencies remove the need of a third-party guarantor and depend on un-hackable peer-to-peer (blockchain) technology to guarantee value (i.e. when a transaction is made using cryptocurrency, the miners validate the transaction and unlock a small amount of cryptocurrency from the network as a compensation for their service.) Thus, in simple terms, they make the job of banks (who act as a third-party in terms of all money transactions) redundant.

Therefore, when using cryptocurrencies, consumers save on commissions that they have been paying to banks for processing financial transactions. These include credit and debit card transaction fee, international money transfer fee, clearing and settlement fee, among several others. This not only saves customers money but also time.

Moreover, the use of cryptocurrencies makes financing easier as it opens another avenue for financing for people who have been turned down by banks or other traditional channels. In case better terms and rates are offered in this form of peer-to-peer financing, customers eligible for bank loans may also steer towards digital money for financing.


Explore our other Perspectives on blockchain


Decentralized nature of cryptocurrencies protects the client identity

Another advantage of cryptocurrencies over conventional currency is security and privacy. Blockchain technology is known to protect client information and identity better than banks. Since it is a peer-to-peer network that is distributed across a host of computers across the world, it is less susceptible to cyberattacks when compared with bank servers that are usually located at one place (thereby making attacks comparatively simpler). Thus, the decentralized nature of blockchain and in turn cryptocurrencies makes it more secure than traditional banking. The anonymous nature of the transactions also makes it attractive to a certain type of customers who value privacy.

These factors pose a significant risk to the traditional banking system, which must act swiftly if it does not wish to cede further ground to cryptocurrencies. In order to compete with digital money, banks need to improve services, especially by offering digital services at a lower fee, and offer similar real-time services that cryptocurrencies offer. Moreover, they must realize the end of their monopoly on financial transactions and get rid of standard manipulations such as charging hidden fees on several financial services, such as credit and debit cards.

Banks start to embrace the revolution

Banks can also seize certain opportunities presented by the growing popularity of cryptocurrencies. These include providing escrow services, helping customers exchange their money for bitcoins, etc. For instance, in May 2017, Norway’s largest online-only bank, Skandiabanken announced its plans to offer clients the ability to link bank accounts to their cryptocurrency holdings.

At the same time, several banks (both central and private) are also looking at creating their own digital currency and are showing keen interest in understanding and adapting blockchain technology for interbank transfers.

People’s Bank of China (China’s central bank) is developing its own digital currency in an effort to reduce transaction costs, expand the outreach of financial services to rural areas and increase the efficiency of its monetary policy. On similar lines, Russia’s Communications Minister has announced in October 2017 the country’s plans to create and launch state-controlled digital currency, which would use blockchain to decentralize control and improve trust but would be issued and tracked like conventional currency. The Dutch Central Bank has also created its own cryptocurrency for internal circulation only to get an understanding of its working. On the other hand, the Bank of Japan and the European Central Bank have launched a joint research project on the adoption of blockchain technology.

The 2017 Global Blockchain Benchmarking Study, published in September, analyzed 200 central banks and stated that about 20% of central banks plan to deploy blockchain within the next two years, while about 40% plan to apply it within the decade. Moreover, about 80% claim to be researching blockchain technology with the aim of issuing their own cryptocurrencies.

On the private side, in July 2017, the Digital Trade Chain Consortium, which consists of seven European banks, namely Deutsche Bank, HSBC, KBC, Natixis, Rabobank, Societe Generale, and Unicredit awarded a contract to IBM to build a digital trade platform that will run on IBM’s cloud.

In another deal, IBM is working along with Japan’s, Aeon Financial Service, to develop a blockchain-based financial platform to provide settlement and transactions for both corporate as well as retail financial services, which will include virtual currency payments between individuals and businesses, loyalty points allocation and redemption, and transaction data management.

In September 2017, six major banking corporations (Barclays, Credit Suisse, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, HSBC, MUFG, and State Street) announced that they are partnering up to create a cryptocurrency of their own. The digital coin that is being called “utility settlement coin” would be used for clearing and settling transactions for these banks globally over a blockchain. Currently, the banks are in talks with central bank regulators regarding the same and are expected to launch their commercial-grade blockchain by 2018.

While banks may be wary of the credibility of the currently regulated cryptocurrencies, most of them agree on and see blockchain technology as the difference-maker and are open to adopting blockchain to upgrade their services, such as improving payment systems. As per experts, blockchain technology can save the financial industry US$20 billion per year by 2020.

Cryptocurrencies’ drawbacks go beyond threats just to the banking system

However, not everything about cryptocurrencies works well, as the current set of cryptocurrencies being traded also has some shortcomings when compared with the traditional financial system.

While the anonymity of transactions may be seen as a positive to a certain group of users, it does pose a threat to the society in general. The anonymity makes cryptocurrencies a convenient choice for illegal activities, such as money laundering. Moreover, it also provides a window to terrorist financing as money can switch hands without being traced.

Cryptocurrencies, such as bitcoin, also have a drawback of being limited in number (the number of bitcoin is limited to 21 million). This limitation makes cryptocurrencies somewhat similar to the gold standard currency, wherein a country’s currency has a value directly linked to gold. This monetary approach has been deserted by most economists as this money supply policy that does not factor in the fact that changes in demand generate large fluctuations in prices (as being witnessed in bitcoins presently) and these fluctuations are not practical in the day-to-day workings of the society, especially wage payments. Therefore, while demand for bitcoin may be increasing, it cannot largely replace traditional currency due to such intrinsic characteristics.

Moreover, the current increase in bitcoin demand is speculated to be a bubble by several analysts who claim that the exponential rise in prices has more to do with an ongoing investment frenzy to make quick profits and exit, rather than actual established increase in usage.

cryptocurrencies

EOS Perspective

Whether it is a long-term replacement to traditional currency or not, cryptocurrencies cannot be ignored. The unimaginable rise in the prices of bitcoin (from close to US$1,000 in January 2017 to about US$17,000 in December 2017) has compelled banks to pay close attention to this upcoming competitor. While cryptocurrencies do offer several benefits (such as elimination of third-party, easier financing, and greater security) that are enticing consumers to move beyond traditional currencies and banking, they are no position to uproot the gigantic money market. However, that does not mean that banks can just ignore them.

While cryptocurrencies do offer several benefits, they are in no position to uproot the gigantic money market. However, that does not mean that banks can just ignore them

Banks must work towards innovating digital services and making them cheaper and faster. Cryptocurrencies also open doors for banks to launch few supplementary services, such as providing escrow services and syncing their bank accounts with their cryptocurrency digital wallets. While these may be short term goals, banks are most interested in testing and adopting blockchain technology especially for clearing and settling of inter-bank transactions.

While cryptocurrencies are unlikely to uproot the banking system any time soon, we believe it should be considered that blockchain has the capability to impact the financial sector the same way Internet impacted many industries back in the 1990’s.

by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

NAFTA 2.0 – Mexico Left with Little Choice but to Renegotiate, and Fast

Over the years, NAFTA has been one of the most contentious FTAs that have ever been inked, especially for the USA. While the treaty and its merits (or mostly alleged lack of them) featured in political campaigns of a few previous US presidential candidates, NAFTA’s shape and scope have never been revisited in its many years of existence – until now. Mexico, along with Canada, wishes to maintain the NAFTA as is, however US president Donald Trump has strongly condemned the treaty and, though earlier threatened to walk away from it completely, has agreed to attempt a renegotiation. Any possible changes to the shape of NAFTA might have profound impact especially on Mexico, however, the country has little choice but to renegotiate. Some of the negotiation objectives, such as tougher ‘rules of origin’, can be greatly damaging to Mexico’s several sectors, including the automobile industry. The upcoming elections in Mexico in July 2018 may further complicate matters – if the renegotiations are not completed by then (which is a highly probable scenario), they may be brought to a standstill, especially if the government changes. This presents a great deal of uncertainty for companies that have investments in Mexico.

The North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which came into force in 1994, removed trade tariffs and duties on most goods for trade between the USA, Mexico, and Canada. While the deal has been mostly considered a positive in Mexico and Canada, its benefits have often been debated in the USA. The main reason behind this remains the high US trade deficit with Mexico (which stood at around US$64 billion in 2016) and the loss of several US manufacturing jobs to the south of the US border.

The NAFTA issue also found itself at the center of Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, as he called the treaty one of the worst trade deals ever signed by the USA and talked about withdrawing from it once he came to power. Although several previous presidential campaigns also involved talks of renegotiating NAFTA (including campaigns of both Democratic candidates – Barrack Obama and Hilary Clinton, in 2008), none has been as strong-worded as Trump’s campaign. Therefore, with Trump coming to power in 2016, revisiting the 23-year old treaty became largely inevitable.

Chapter 19

Initially threatening to back out from NAFTA, Trump agreed to renegotiations, which according to him would ensure bringing jobs back to the USA. However, a few aspects on the renegotiation agenda are a hard line for Mexico. Firstly, the USA wishes to eliminate Chapter 19 of the treaty, which encompasses a dispute settlement mechanism wherein dispute resolution (in cases such as anti-dumping and countervailing duty disagreements) is undertaken by independent and binational panels instead of domestic courts. This prevents NAFTA countries from putting unfair duties on products from other NAFTA countries to protect their own industries. While the USA is trying to disregard this clause, Mexico is largely opposing it, as without Chapter 19, it would become much easier for the USA to implement protectionist policies and duties that would inherently threaten free trade. However, Mexico is not alone in pushing back this change as Canada also strongly opposes any change in the dispute settlement mechanism.

Impact of NAFTA on Mexico

NAFTA Minimum Wage

Another negotiation objective (where Canada stands in support of the USA), is to incorporate some kind of standardization for trade-related labor issues and wages, by introducing a minimum wage across the three NAFTA participants. This will be greatly damaging for Mexico, which has for long benefited from lower wage rates that have incentivized several industries, such as automobiles, to shift base to Mexico to reduce costs and maximize profits. Stating that wage-related policies are an internal matter, Mexico has strongly opposed any such amendments and may make this a non-negotiable aspect.

Rules of Origin

However, one of the most dampening renegotiation objectives, especially for Mexico and in particular for its the automobile industry, are the restrictive changes to the rules of origin. As per the current NAFTA rules, for a car to qualify for a tariff-free entry in the NAFTA region, 62.5% of the value of the car must have originated in NAFTA countries. Thus, over the years, automobile manufactures have perfected their value chains, wherein auto components such as body-works, engines, gear panels, etc., are manufactured in various parts of NAFTA countries, and then assembled in another part of the region, to attain greatest benefits in terms of costs and quality. However, the current US administration is proposing changes to these rules, which may wash away a great deal of efficiencies and synergies attained by global automobile manufacturers under the current rules. As per the proposal, the US government aims to increase the US content in the finished vehicles to 50% for these products to attain tariff-free entry into the USA. In addition to going against the basic fabric of a free-trade agreement, this will jeopardize the competitiveness of the North American auto industry, which has greatly depended on integrated supply chains that also have deep roots in Mexico. This definitely spells bad news for Mexico, as the economy has significantly benefited from investments made by global automobile manufacturers in the country.

Moreover, apart from increasing the share of US content requirement to 50%, the US administration has also proposed raising the regional content requirement for NAFTA to 85% as against the current 62.5%. While this may seem to be a positive amendment for the region in general, analysts call it largely counter-productive as not all components can be competitively sourced from the North American region. If brought into action, automobile companies would have to spend huge sums to try to source/produce most components in the North American region at competitive prices. However, if they fail to accomplish that (which is quite likely) and as a result are unsuccessful in qualifying for tariff-free entry into NAFTA, they would shift to suppliers outside NAFTA and pay WTO tariff of 2.5% to access the North American market (which they will pass onto the consumers). Such developments might mean that by increasing regional content requirements, the region may end up pushing automobile players away from the region rather than encouraging them to continue and intensify their operations. This will be catastrophic not only for the Mexican automobile sector, but also for the US and Canadian auto market. To make matters tougher, the new proposal asks for technology-based automotive parts, electric vehicle batteries, etc., that are currently not included in the origin tracing list (as they did not exist when the NAFTA was originally negotiated). Most of these products are now sourced from Asian markets.

Due to the US president’s known cold sentiment towards NAFTA, the onus of ensuring the treaty remains unterminated is on Mexico and Canada. While Mexico (along with Canada) has previously mentioned that the American demands to change the rules of origin are unworkable with and unacceptable, the Mexican government is working on a compromise proposal to toughen the rules of origin clause in hope to meet the USA somewhere half-way. As per the proposal, Mexico is willing to accept the extensive tracing list and is also willing to negotiate on the 85% North American content requirement in exchange for the USA withdrawing from the 50% US content provision. The tracing list proposal will be drawn in a manner ensuring that low-cost technology-based components that are currently sourced from Asian countries would be sourced from within North America, especially Mexico. However, the proposal, which is not finalized yet, is not expected to be presented in the current (fifth) round of talks.

Sunset Clause

Mexico and Canada’s openness to negotiate can also be gauged by their willingness to work around the sunset clause proposed by the US administration during the fourth round of negotiations. As per the proposed clause, the treaty will expire every five years unless the member countries agree to keep it in place. While the remaining two parties refused to accept this clause when proposed, they have softened their stance on the matter during the current negotiations and counter-proposed a five-yearly review system. This showcases Mexico and Canada’s keen desire to ensure NAFTA is preserved and their willingness to work around USA’s fixed stance. While the review proposal may be a better option compared with the sunset clause, purely from a business or investment point of view, it still leaves room for a great amount of uncertainty for companies looking to invest, as five-year horizon is too short for several heavy-investment industries such as automobiles.

2018 Mexican Elections

Lastly, it is extremely critical that the negotiations are completed by the set date of March 2018 as any delay will result in their overlap with the 2018 Mexican elections and that will further complicate the matters. NAFTA has not only been instrumental in providing Mexico with economic stability, but has also played a significant political role, especially in terms of economic policy. The basic framework of the treaty has ensured protection for investments and, to an extent, economic equity as over the years it restricted the government from granting protections, incentives, and subsidies to a set of companies or industries, while discriminating against others. The termination of NAFTA would allow the future government to modify the current economic framework of the country, and this will directly impact Mexico’s attractiveness as an investment destination. This becomes all the more relevant in case the leftist candidate, Lopez Obrador, comes to power in 2018.

Mexico’s Contingency Plans

While Mexico is certainly hopeful and is working towards retaining the NAFTA, it is not putting all its eggs in that one basket alone. Mexican government is looking at deepening Mexico’s ties globally and reducing its dependence on the USA. Mexico is currently negotiating with the EU to modernize its existing FTA which is expected to be completed by the end of 2017. Moreover, it is looking at Argentina and Brazil as alternative sources of agricultural imports to replace those from the USA. In a similar move, Mexico’s foreign minister, Luis Videgaray, met with his Russian counterpart in Mexico to discuss Mexico’s openness to do business with nations other than the USA. In November 2017, Mexico participated in a meeting of the nations that were formerly a part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which ceased to exist in its previous form in early 2017 (we talked about it in our article TPP 2.0 – Minus the USA in May 2017). This meeting resulted in an official announcement that the TPP nations will negotiate a new deal, without the USA, and that it will be called the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). The creation of CPTPP will provide a much-needed cushion to Mexico’s automobile industry in case NAFTA fails. Also, in case NAFTA toughens its rules of origin but the CPTPP relaxes them, Mexico may continue to be part of the global automobile supply chain (this time in combination with CPTPP members such as Japan, Canada, and Chile – instead of the USA).

EOS Perspective

It is safe to say that Mexico and its automobile industry have a lot riding on the NAFTA negotiations. While Mexico along with Canada are working hard to ensure NAFTA stays, US president’s tough stand on several aspects and his willingness to walk out of the deal in case his demands are not met, complicate the negotiations greatly. It is uncertain how the situation is going to develop, and even if NAFTA continues, new provisions that might find their way into the revised treaty may not offer a great deal of benefits for companies to invest and for intra-regional trade to flourish.

The pressure of upcoming elections in Mexico in 2018 makes the situation even tighter. If the negotiations are not completed before the elections, all progress made up till then can easily go in vain in the event of the government change. Therefore, companies are extremely cautious about investing/expanding in Mexico at the moment, and are likely to wait at least up till mid-next year. They may find respite in the fact that the Mexican government is trying to do its best – both in terms of being flexible during negotiations as well as diversifying its export markets and import sources – but this respite might just not be enough to ease investors’ minds and businesses’ worries over the operating and trade environment within the North American region.

by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

UK Airlines Expected to Face Turbulent Times with Brexit on the Horizon

As the UK heads towards a hard Brexit, one of the industries that could be facing the maximum heat is the airline sector. The country’s aviation sector has for long enjoyed the perks of UK being an EU member, as its business greatly benefits from two of the EU’s four fundamentals of freedom of movement – freedom of movement of people and of cargo/goods (with the other two being freedom of movement of capital and of services). However, with UK triggering Article 50 (divorce clause) of the EU treaty, the European Commission has warned British airlines about several restrictions that are likely to be imposed on their EU routes in case the UK and EU fail to reach a new agreement. This has left the airline sector in a state of high uncertainty. While several airlines, such as EasyJet, have already started working on a contingency plan, others chose to follow a wait-and-watch approach.

Airlines industry has definitely been one of the key beneficiaries of the UK being an EU member. As per the EU’s Open Skies Agreement, all EU members are allowed to fly anywhere across the EU states. This rule gave the British airlines access to fly not only from London to Paris but also from Milan to Paris, expanding the airlines’ passenger base.

However, with Brexit being an absolute certainty, UK airlines fear losing access to the EU’s single aviation market which they have for long promoted and championed. Since the EU-UK divorce seems to be a rough one, airlines have little hope for a continued Open Skies Agreement. The sector’s worries have been further deepened by the fact that British PM, Theresa May, has clearly expressed her inclination to end the authority of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) over the UK matters. Since ECJ (which is the highest court in the EU in matters of European Union law) also presides over European Aviation Law and in turn the Open Skies Agreement, the end of its authority over the UK will automatically result in the removal of UK’s aviation sector from the Open Skies Agreement.

Moreover, within days of the UK triggering Article 50 of the EU treaty (i.e. formalizing the exit process that needs to be completed over two years), the European Commission has sent out warnings to British airlines about several compliances they must adhere to, to continue flying intra-EU post Brexit. In order for these airlines to continue flying on these routes, they must comply with EU’s strict ownership rules, which state that airlines operating intra-EU flights must be based in an EU state and their majority stake must be owned by EU citizens. Failing to abide by these regulations will result in the UK losing its rights to fly intra-EU flights. Alternatively, as a counter to EU’s regulations on UK airlines, it is well expected that the UK will put similar stipulations on EU-based airlines that wish to fly intra-UK flights.

These two-sided restrictions will affect several airlines such as British EasyJet, Irish Ryanair, and IAG-owned airlines – Irish Aer Lingus as well as Spanish Iberia and Vueling, which derive a great deal of their business from flying within the EU countries and UK cities. While some of these airlines have preemptively started deploying a contingency plan, others are still waiting for some more clarity and are hoping for a positive outcome in the form of an agreement similar to Open Skies.

UK Airlines Expected to Face Turbulent Times

EasyJet

One of the first movers with regards to an action plan has been EasyJet. Being a UK-based company deriving a large part of its revenue from low-cost intra-EU flights, EasyJet will be one of the airlines hit the worst. Since losing its intra-EU business is not an option for the carrier, it has already set up a European sister company in Vienna, EasyJet Europe, in July 2017. About 100 planes have been assigned to the subsidiary and the total cost of the project is about US$13 million.

EasyJet does not face a major hurdle with regards to ownership requirements for EU airlines. It is currently 84% owned by EU citizens, a stake that will fall to 49% post Brexit provided that the shares of its owner, Stelios Haji-Ioannou, who is a dual UK and EU citizen, are accounted as EU citizen-owned. However, since the 49% ownership is going to be only slightly below the required mark, the airlines will not have much issue in meeting the requisite ownership requirement.

With these two aspects settled, the EasyJet is likely to be able to continue operating its international and domestic flights across the EU states.

Ryanair

Ryanair, unlike EasyJet, does not need to move its base as it is already headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. However, the airline faces ownership pressure as the shares owned by EU citizens will fall from 60% to 40% after Brexit. To ensure compliance with the ownership rule, as a first step, the airlines could possibly ask the fund managers holding their stock to switch the funds in which the shares are held from their UK-based funds to Dublin-, Milan-, Frankfurt-, Ireland-, or Luxembourg-based funds. However, if that does not work, the company does have extraordinary provisions in its articles of association to force non-EU investors to sell their stake to ensure major control and ownership by EU nationals.

However, the airline might be facing a larger threat looming on the horizon. In case the UK replicates similar flying barriers on EU-based carriers, Ryanair might be negatively affected, as the UK is an important domestic market for the airline. To ensure smooth operations in the UK, the company will need to apply for a domestic UK Air Operator Certificate (AOC) which will let it continue its operations without major changes.

IAG-owned Airlines (British Airways, Aer Lingus, Iberia, and Vueling)

IAG-owned British Airways is likely to remain among one of the least Brexit-affected airlines as is does not fly intra-EU flights. Moreover, the group’s other airlines including Spanish Iberia and Vueling, as well as Irish Aer Lingus already are based in the EU and therefore can continue flying within the EU. However, the group has refused to comment on its shareholding structure which will be required to be majority EU-based for the latter three airlines to continue intra-EU operations. As per industry experts, IAG, which also has extraordinary provisions for force sale in their articles of association, may need to divest some of their non-EU-based stake and replace it by stake held by EU nationals.

EOS Perspective

While there is a significant uncertainty about the fate of the airline industry post Brexit, there is a common consensus that the sector is likely to be hit hard by the divorce. The UK and EU markets aviation sectors are largely inter-dependent, whether it is about air traffic or employment in the sector, and potential lack of regulations similar to the Open Skies Agreement will be detrimental to the industry in general as well as its consumers. This makes it vital for the Brexit negotiators to try to develop a mutually beneficial deal for the sector in general.

Having said that, it is clear that the airlines must prepare for the worst as the UK and EU seem to be heading for a hard divorce. Brexit process was formally started in March 2017 and the UK has two years to conclude all procedures and negotiations leading to the EU exit, which also puts the same timeframe for the sector to develop contingency plans. Some players, such as Ryanair hope that some form of Open Skies Agreement will be replicated, and continue to put pressure on their government for such a similar agreement to be negotiated. Other players, such as EasyJet, seem to take a more proactive approach, already investing resources in ensuring their smooth operations even if the worst case scenario materializes. Such an uncertainty about shifts in the operating environment is never favorable for any sector, UK airlines included, and as the future developments of the operating framework lie largely in the hands of negotiators, the industry players hold rather limited control over the future changes.

by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

OBOR – What’s in Store for Multinational Companies?

1.4kviews

One Belt One Road (OBOR) Initiative, also known as Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), is part of China’s development strategy to improve its trade relations with countries in Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. OBOR envisions to not just bring economic benefits to China but to also help other participating countries by integrating their development strategies along the way. It has the potential to be one of the most successful economic development initiatives globally. Opportunities are countless for investment along this route. Multinational companies are looking to make the most out of this project, however, capitalizing on this opportunity will not be easy. To benefit from this initiative, companies need to understand that assiduous research and effective long-term planning is crucial, as the nations involved, though offer economic growth, will also present a series of geopolitical risks and challenges.

Chinese President Xi Jinping unveiled OBOR in 2013, aiming to improve relations and create new links and business opportunities between China and 64 other countries included in the OBOR. The initiative has two main segments: The Silk Road Economic Belt (SREB), a land route designed to connect China with Central Asia, Eastern and Western Europe, and the 21st-Century Maritime Silk Road (MSR), a sea route that runs west from China’s east coast to Europe through the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean, and east to the South Pacific. These two routes will form six economic corridors as the framework of the initiative outside China – New Eurasian Land Bridge, China-Mongolia-Russia Corridor, China-Central Asia-West Asia Corridor, China-Indochina Peninsula Corridor, China-Pakistan Corridor, and Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar Corridor.

OBOR brings opportunities and challenges

Multinational companies will have a plethora of opportunities to explore along these economic corridors – for instance, trading companies can take advantage of these routes for logistics, while energy companies can use these corridors as gateways for exploring new sites of natural resources such as oil and natural gas. Along with dedicated routes, OBOR will require huge investment which is proposed to come from three infrastructure financing institutions set up as a part of this initiative – Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), The Silk Road Fund (SRF), and The New Development Bank (NDB).

The development of OBOR opens up a range of opportunities for overseas businesses. However, with the initiative being launched by the Chinese government and all the six corridors running across the country, it is clear that China will play a major role in most of the business collaborations. Thus, multinational companies investing in OBOR can prefer to partner with Chinese companies and leverage the partnership to access projects and assignments in other countries. Companies are also likely to be able to access new routes to sell products cheaply and efficiently, but looking for opportunities across OBOR would definitely involve initial partnerships between multinationals and Chinese state-owned enterprises.

OBOR – What’s in Store for Multinational Companies

Oil, gas, coal, and electricity

OBOR has the potential to open up opportunities for collaboration in the areas of oil, gas, coal, and electricity. Several energy opportunities may emerge with the OBOR initiative, and these energy-related investment projects are likely to be an important part of OBOR. For instance, the Gwadar-Nawabshal LNG Terminal and Pipeline in Pakistan includes building an LNG terminal in the Balochistan province and a gas pipeline between Iran and central Pakistan. Estimated at a total value of US$46 billion, the project was announced in October 2015 along the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor.

Energy projects along OBOR include initiatives largely by Chinese companies due to funds coming in from China-led financial institutions. In another investment, General Electric, an American corporation, signed a pact with China National Machinery Industry Corporation (Sinomach), in 2015, to offer project contracting (for supply of machinery and hardware tools) for developing a 102-MW Kipeto wind project in Kenya. The project aims to set up 2,036 MW of installed capacity from wind power by 2030. Kipeto wind project was originally a part of US president Barack Obama’s ‘Power Africa’ initiative, but with Sinomach joining in hands, it is clear that more initiatives like this can be expected to come up in the near future as a part of OBOR.

Logistics

Players in the logistics industry can also benefit from the improved infrastructure along the OBOR. In 2015, DHL Global Forwarding, providing air and ocean freight forwarding services, started its first service on the southern rail corridor between China and Turkey, a critical segment of China’s OBOR initiative. This rail corridor is expected to strengthen Turkey’s trading businesses along with benefiting transport and freight industries of Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, and Georgia. Logistics companies can also initially partner with local postal or freight agencies to set up new business in these regions. OBOR can provide fast, cost-effective, and high-frequency connections between countries along the route. Improved infrastructure, reduced logistics costs, and better transport infrastructure will also contribute to driving e-commerce businesses in the regions.

Tourism

Tourism is expected to also see a major boost as a result of OBOR initiative. As connectivity between countries improve and new locations become easily accessible, the tourism industry is expected to see positive growth in the coming years. To support tourism, Evergreen Offshore Inc., a Hong Kong-based private equity firm, in 2016, launched a US$1.28 billion tourism-focused private equity fund called Asia Pacific One Belt One Road Tourism Industry Fund to boost relations between China and Malaysia by investing in tourism sector. The company invested in Malaysia as the country is considered an ideal investment destination for a long-term gain. This is in sync with the long term vision of OBOR to promote tourism sector in countries and regions along the MSR.

As OBOR develops, new markets along the routes are likely to open to business. The already existing routes will experience business diversification as infrastructure and connectivity improves. Trade barriers will most likely reduce as developing countries become more open to international investment which brings new jobs, better infrastructure, economic growth, and improved quality of life. There is bound to be growth in consulting business, professional services, and industrial sectors apart from trade and logistics.

EOS Perspective

While OBOR initiative assures opportunities for multinational companies, the path may not be smooth for all. Investing in these new geographies, companies will come across various economies with different legal and regulatory frameworks. Political stability is also a matter of concern – some regions may have sound political structures while others may be dealing with ineffective government policies. In fact, political instability and violence are some of the key challenges in the development of OBOR. Weak government policies and lack of communal benefit lead to political instability including terrorism and riots. These factors influence the availability of resources, negatively impact the setting up of businesses locally, thus resulting in financial losses for multinationals. Local investments need policies and investment protection backed by the governments to facilitate growth which is far more difficult to achieve in case of political and economic instability. Taking advantage of the opportunities associated with OBOR may be of strategic importance, but the companies need to be cautious about the obstacles associated with it.

While OBOR initiative assures opportunities for multinational companies, the path may not be smooth for all. Political instability and violence are some of the key challenges in the development of OBOR.

Local competitors will also present obstacles to multinational firms. The competition is stiff for international players as local companies can operate better in riskier environment at low operating costs. Not only will regional companies pose a threat for survival of multinationals, in many scenarios, partnering with Chinese companies will also be a massive challenge. Many Chinese companies do not implement a clear structure while partnering with other international companies. Decision making and profit sharing is often not properly documented. Lack of clarity in business dealings give these state-owned enterprises an upper hand.

Complexity and lack of transparency in local regulatory framework for setting up a new business is also a hindrance for investments in many geographies along the OBOR. Absence of clear policies and delays in decision-making processes can prove too challenging for companies to adapt to which may even lead to financial losses or failed attempts to establish local operations. Issues such as corruption, challenges associated with supply chain security, and financial risks are some of the other obstacles that companies are likely to face while setting up businesses in new countries along the OBOR route.

Complexity and lack of transparency in local regulatory framework are a hindrance for investments in many geographies along the OBOR.

OBOR is still in the initial years of implementation. The initiative offers great potential for developing regions in need for improved infrastructure and economic growth but what this really means for multinational companies is still somewhat unclear. It encourages participation from international companies to turn the initiative a success, but there are no clear guidelines on how these investments would be integrated into the OBOR. With a major part of investment coming from China-based institutions, dominance of Chinese companies in major projects cannot be avoided. While the underlying aim of the initiative is to reduce China’s industrial overcapacity and to strengthen its economy, there are concerns about the part being played by multinational companies. To what extent would they participate, who would be the main investor (Chinese company or multinational companies), and how much share and what say would the multinational company have in a project, etc., are some of the questions that still remain unanswered.

With major part of investment coming from China-based institutions, dominance of Chinese companies in major projects cannot be avoided.

In view of these risks and challenges, we believe it is too early to estimate the scale of potential monetary benefits for companies wanting to invest along the OBOR route to expand their businesses. It will surely not be easy for multinational companies to compete for benefits from OBOR in an environment heavily dominated by Chinese companies. Developing business policies and financing schemes through related institutions can help the multinational firms to benefit from this initiative in the long run. There is no doubt that OBOR has the potential to open new markets for doing business by redrawing the global trade map, however, with no clarity and transparency on the role MNC’s as part of OBOR initiative, companies need to correctly identify the best opportunity by accessing the right market and find effective ways to mitigate a wide range of associated risks. For now, the future role of MNC’s in this environment is uncertain. They will have to wait and watch to work out a stable business arrangement. But in current times of global geopolitical turbulence, such a harmony is never guaranteed.

by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

GCC to Introduce VAT: What It Means for Businesses, Economy, and People

The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries are gearing towards rolling out a 5% Value Added Tax (VAT) starting January 1, 2018. Economies of GCC countries are highly dependent on the oil and gas sector revenues, which account for about 80% of the GCC governments’ budgets. The recent volatility in oil prices have battered GCC nations’ revenues, which motivated the governments to initiate a reform in the form of indirect taxation with a goal to diversify income sources. VAT is a measure that will impart more stability and robustness to the governments’ income considering the outlook for crude oil still remains volatile, while diversified revenue sources will cushion the GCC economies in times of financial crisis.

A standard rate of 5% will be applied on most products, except specified food items, domestic public transportation, and healthcare, education, and financial services. The proposed VAT rate is much lower in comparison with rates in most European countries, China, and Australia. Nonetheless, the GCC countries still stand to gain in income with the tax implementation – for instance, the UAE is forecast to generate US$3.27 billion revenue during the first year of VAT introduction.

Industries such as construction and automotive are likely to benefit from VAT implementation, while retailers might feel a pinch due to dwindling margins. The sentiment among the citizens is wary to say the least – for instance, according to a survey conducted by CFA Society Emirates, citizens of the UAE did not seem quite optimistic towards the economic impact of VAT across certain parameters such as price inflation, cost of doing business, and inflow of foreign direct investments (FDI).

GCC to Introduce VAT

EOS Perspective

Introduction of VAT could empower the GCC economies by bolstering revenue generation, aiding infrastructure development, and improving productivity levels. While some may believe that VAT implementation could tarnish GCC countries’, particularly the UAE’s, competitiveness and tax-free haven status, it is important to consider that GCC markets’ attractiveness goes way beyond only the tax benefits. GCC’s appeal also lies in developed infrastructure, competitive labor costs, lower trade barriers, and proximity to the developing Asian and African markets – implementation of a new tax reform will not change this favorable business environment.

There have been some discussions regarding the negative implications of VAT, considering residents and businesses have grown accustomed to high incomes and low deductibles for a long time. Post VAT implementation, businesses are expected to incur certain additional costs related to administrative expenses, upgrading IT systems, and training staff members, among others.

Also, highly competitive industry sectors, or those operating with thin margins are likely to witness cash flow burden, as they will be required to meet the VAT costs on purchases before they can be reclaimed from the government – in certain scenarios, when the businesses end up paying more as VAT to suppliers as compared to the VAT collected from customers, the difference can be reclaimed from public funds. The way businesses operate is likely to fundamentally transform once VAT is applied, however, with adequate preparation businesses should be able to introduce systems and processes to avoid unnecessary cost implications as well as smoothly align themselves with the new tax system.

The way businesses operate is likely to fundamentally transform once VAT is applied, however, with adequate preparation businesses should be able to introduce systems and processes to avoid unnecessary cost implications as well as smoothly align themselves with the new tax system.

VAT is not expected to have much impact on a common man, as vital household expenditure items will be exempted from it – this includes about 100 varieties of staple food items and essential services such as healthcare and education. However, for a section of the population with an appetite for luxury goods, services, and lifestyles, as well as for tourists (along with VAT, they will have to pay duty tax again on some goods in their country of origin) the brunt of new taxation is likely to be felt.

Nonetheless, a modest tax rate of 5% will ensure that certain social-economic distortions often associated with VAT are minimized. Also, the decision to exempt a few vital sectors (basic food items, and healthcare, financial, and education services) will ascertain that they are not affected by the tax reform.

VAT imposition is expected to become an essential part of GCC regions’ economic reforms and the taxation policy will immensely aid in diversification of revenue sources. Further, the pre-implementation period should be used by the GCC countries to develop a modern tax administration system that ensures compliance, so that once VAT is implemented, businesses and residents are able to smoothly adapt themselves to the new taxation policy.

by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Brazil – Long Road Ahead

373views

Sentiments regarding economic recovery in Brazil rose high when Index of Economic Activity of the Central Bank (IBC-Br) recorded growth in January and February this year, only to be dampened by the March data, which showed 0.44% decline in the index. Hope of economic revival was hinged on good show by service sector, coupled with anticipation of improvement in agriculture and industrial sectors in the first quarter of 2017.

Fluctuations in IBC-Br, which is considered as a preview of Brazil’s GDP performance, indicate the fragile condition of the country’s economy, shaken by two back-to-back recessionary years. Downturn of 2015 and 2016 was uncommon in the country’s recent economic history, which had not seen the GDP declining for two straight quarters on more than four occasions since 1996. Brazil was among the few countries that were able to withstand the global financial turmoil of 2008-2009.

Reasons behind the deterioration of the Brazilian economy seem to be clear. Reliance on commodity exports for growth and high consumer debt were among the key factors that burst Brazil’s economic bubble. Unless these issues are addressed, Brazil’s long-term economic recovery will remain doubtful. Hence, it is imperative to look where the country stands with respect to each of the factors that contributed so considerably to the deterioration over the past two years.

EOS Perspective

In near term, commodities are likely to retain high share in Brazil’s external trade, as increasing the export share of finished or semi-finished goods would require significant efforts that Brazil currently is unlikely to be capable of making. Commodity prices are expected to remain volatile in near term, with soybean, sugar, and wheat likely to continue registering decline in prices (as witnessed year on year, April 2016 – April 2017). Therefore, unless the domestic demand picks up, commodity export is unlikely to assist significantly in boosting the Brazilian economy in the near future.

Keeping interest rates low is one of the ways to boost spending, and the country’s falling inflation, which in April 2017 plummeted to 4.08% (below the market forecast of 4.1%), has enabled the central bank to slash interest rates from 12.25% to 11.25%. This is expected to reduce the cost of credit for households, thereby boosting spending (amid fears of debt burden ballooning up again).

Brazil needs to create more assets to increase productivity and to create more income sources. Capital formation (a measure of investment) as a share of GDP was at about 15.5% in 2016 (fourth quarter) as compared with the high of 23% in 2013 (first quarter). The country needs to invest more, and one way to unlock funds for this would be through reforming the pension scheme (bill related to pension reforms was passed in lower house of Congress in May 2017 amid protests), which is the primary reason behind Brazil’s fiscal deficit. Brazil currently spends more than 10% of its GDP on pensions. Reforms seek to fix minimum retirement age at 65 for men and 62 for women. At present, many Brazilians qualify to retire in early to mid-fifties, and this not only impacts the productivity but also puts pressure on the government coffers.

There is a general consensus that Brazil will come out of recession in 2017, registering a modest sub-1% growth. However, to sustain this recovery, it will require a political will, fiscal discipline, and a vision for long-term growth.

Top