Not interested in the US anymore ?

So says Huawei. Really ?? No, not really. They are very interested in the US. Its just that they have realised that the doors to the US are simply shut for them. There has been a spat going on between the US politicians and Huawei for some time. It looks like the politicians have won.  And it begs the bigger question - can any company in the world be exclusively in one country or region (however big that might be) and hope to be a major player in the world.

Huawei is a telecoms company. They sell networking equipment significantly cheaper than say Cisco. They used to be crappy ( Cisco would snigger at the mention of their name). Not any longer. Same quality, half the price. In an uncomplicated world, companies  should be falling over themselves to buy from them.  But then, the world is not an uncomplicated place.

Huawei is a Chinese company. So what, you might ask ? Huawei's founder and leader was formerly in the Chinese army. Still so what ? Well, the ties with the Chinese government/army/party (same thing) never go away and its quite possible that Huawei will do whatever the Party in China asks it to. Huawei is not a transparent company. It largely refuses requirements that it be so.  And cyber espionage and hacking are weapons that the Chinese government uses against other countries constantly.The world's chief bugger (if you will pardon the bad pun) is China.

So Huawei is a pariah right. Wrong ? The US, and possibly every other major country does the same thing. Except that Obama cannot order Cisco to spy on his behalf while Xi Jinping can so order Huwaei. But then there is enough regulation and oversight in the US to prevent that from happening, or at least knowing that it is happening. And its not at all certain that Huawei would do anything major in the spying arena - its a $35 bn company. If its shown that it is doing something underhand, overnight, it would be expelled from the entire wold. But pompous Senators have repeatedly blocked Huawei from winning major deals in the US. Huawei has tried hard, but has won nothing. In frustration, they have simply given up. The beacon for capitalism and freedom, of course, does not think of the US consumers' interests (of getting things cheaper) and, of course, Cisco and other US competitors have been scrupulously fair , have never lobbied to stall Huwaei and surely windbag Senators have only the national defence of the US at heart.

Begs a question - why is only the US so paranoid. Every country in Europe has no problems dealing with Huawei . Even India, normally a completely paranoid country has plenty of Huawei here. The Chinese brass of Huawei in India go around with names like Ashok Li and Sundar Zhang. By the way, I have to recommend that Ramamritham Liu and Rajalakshmi Wang would also be worthy additions to their team. The only offense they have done to India is to start a Chinese canteen of their own on the grounds that what goes for Chinese food in India is unrecognisable by them and surely Gobi Manchurian is an abomination !

So what will happen to Huawei. They have admitted that they will have to revise their growth plans downwards. Without being truly global, no company can aspire to the big league. 

Or is that really true ? Could a company that's almost exclusively in one country be the largest in the world in its field ? We'll examine that in the next post.

Oh ! What a mess

Come on Argentina. How often do you ask everybody to cry for you ?  On Wednesday, a US District Court Judge detonated an atom bomb (metaphorically, thankfully), in the world of financial markets. As usual, Argentina was at the centre of it. Here is the story, with a little bit of history.

In 2001, Argentina defaulted on its sovereign debt - one of the rare instances of a major country doing so. A default essentially means that a country has no money on the due date to repay a loan it had taken and tells the creditors to fly a kite. The consequences of such an action are drastic - the country immediately becomes an international pariah in financial markets and nobody would lend to it anymore. That has been Argentina's lot for the last decade, and the situation Greece is desperately trying to avoid today.

When Argentina defaulted, most of its creditors got together and negotiated a "restructuring package" which meant that they would get something back at least - spread over a long period of time. It was a crappy deal for the creditors, but at least they would get something. They did this settlement twice- once in 2005 and again in 2010.

Two hedge funds Elliott Associates and Aurelius Capital, however chose not to negotiate and filed a case in the US courts asking for payment in full. The court gave its sentence last Wednesday, which is the metaphorical atom bomb I referred to. The judge ruled that Argentina will have to pay in full to these two hedge funds who sued, even in priority to the vast majority of creditors who settled ! The amount is some $1.3 bn.

This action is like poking a stick in a hornet's nest. All sorts of ramifications abound. First is the predictable response from Argentina, telling the US judge to go stuff himself, saying he cannot order a sovereign nation to do anything. But since the original debt was issued in the US and in dollars, there is some jurisdiction for US courts. However, short of sending in the army, how would the US enforce this decision ? It is hardly likely to start a war to satisfy two hedge funds.  It can resort to freezing Argentinian assets and the like, creating a messy situation.

The creditors who negotiated and settled are crying foul. They will have to wait for some 30 years and get a percentage of the amount, whereas these two funds are supposed to get their money in full immediately. They are suing to stay the decision giving these two funds priority. So anybody who negotiates in future is an idiot. Greece, which is trying to negotiate a restructuring package currently is quivering in the boots.

Then there is the question of a nation "starving" to raise money to pay "evil hedge funds". An angle that is sure to stoke the fires against wicked capitalists. Cristina Fernandez, the Argentinian President, who can effectively rabble rouse, is already singing this tune.

Argentina is appealing (interestingly while saying that the US courts should f@&* off at the same time !) . This will go all the way to the US Supreme Court. 

All this raises the issue of countries borrowing too much and not being in a position to pay the debt back. Very often the money borrowed is wasted away - in subsidies, doles, etc etc. Every country is guilty of this; just witness what the US is up to with debt at completely unsustainable levels - where are they spending the money they are borrowing ? - in fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, in providing free health care to the elderly and the poor and doling out money to the unemployed. How will any of this yield a return so that the debt can be paid back ? Every country is simply borrowing more to pay back the original debt and keep doing exactly what it has been doing.

 Oh ! What a mess.

Stooping to conquer

I am getting tempted to write political posts, despite all my resolutions to stay away from that area. The culprit is my good friend Sriram who continuously tempts me in that direction with incisive writing in his excellent blog. We then debate and counter debate on email !!

So made a guest post there - taking the crazy liberty of  writing a letter to the President of the United States !

US law should stop at its borders

I recommend that Benjamin Lawski, head of New York state's Department of Financial Services takes my good friend Sriram's  Geography 101 course . He might want to learn where the borders of the United States lie and where his jurisdiction is. The laws of the United States are enforceable in the United States. They are not enforceable on the world.

I am referring to the spat between the DFS and Standard Chartered Bank. The problem is this. US law does not allow US entities to have any business dealings with Iran - neither the country nor its nationals. The US is perfectly entitled to have such a law - its merits or otherwise is for US citizens to decide. The problem is that the US would like everybody in the world to follow that law. That deserves the response - mind your own business.

Standard Chartered Bank is a UK headquartered bank that largely deals with Asia and Africa. It has very little business in the US. However it does have a branch in New York where transactions are routed through if they are in US dollars - since most Asian and African countries deal in US dollars for their international trade, much of it gets routed through the US.

There is no doubt that Standard Chartered Bank deals with Iran. But the laws of the UK where it is registered and the other countries where it operates, does not prohibit it from doing so. There are certainly laws  prohibiting dealings with crooks and terrorists, but it is a reasonable fact (that may however be surprising to Mr Lawski) that all Iranians are not crooks or terrorists. US law  permitted in the past  the sort of transactions that Standard Chartered did, called U turn, but there are grey areas and , no doubt, this case will be enmeshed in legalese.

But the impact of the DFS report has been devastating on Standard Chartered Bank. The damage has been done, irrespective of whether the bank is found guilty or not. It's share price tanked some 16% yesterday. 

Standard Chartered is livid and has said it would vigorously contest the case (code for saying screw you). It is asking the British government to intervene and put the DFS in its place. One Standard Chartered executive described the colourful DFS report – packed with allegations of “deception”, “fraud” and a “staggering cover-up” – as “like a John Grisham novel”. A director is reported to have allegedly remarked to a colleague "You f---ing Americans. Who are you to tell us, the rest of the world, that we’re not going to deal with Iranians? "

My language is somewhat more restrained, but I must admit I have to agree with the worthy !