Sunday, June 29, 2008

Subprime terms

Subprime Glossary
Key terminology related to the credit crisis.
Adjustable-rate Mortgage

A mortgage carrying an interest rate that is reset at regular intervals, typically every 12 months, after the initial low "teaser" rate expires. Resets are calculated by adding a fixed number of percentage points, or "margin," to an index that moves up and down as market conditions change. Typical indexes are the interest rate paid by U.S. Treasury bonds with one year to maturity. Margins on traditional "prime" ARMs are usually around 2.75%age points. Subprime loans often carry margins of more than 5 percentage points.

Appraiser

Real estate appraisers inspect homes prior to sale to determine their value, typically by comparing them to nearby properties that have recently been sold. Mortgage lenders require appraisals to assure the property is valuable enough to serve as collateral for the loan. Many critics believe that sloppy or dishonest appraisals contributed to the recent home-price bubble, setting the market up for the fall that followed. Critics point to several conflicts of interest: appraisers are paid by home buyers but frequently are recommended by real estate agents working for sellers. The agents make money only when a sale goes through and have no financial interest in the homeowner's ability to continue making mortgage payments or to sell the property for enough to pay off the loan. Critics also note that lenders ignored inflated home appraisals because lenders also can disregard borrowers' ability to make future payments. Lenders collect upfront fees and typically sell the mortgages they initiate to investors.

Auction-rate Security

A type of debt security, such as a corporate or municipal bond, that carries a floating interest rate that is frequently reset through an auction process. Rates may be reset as often as daily, but rarely at intervals longer than 35 days. These securities have generally been promoted as safe, liquid investments offering higher yields than other "cash" equivalents, such as money market funds. But the credit crunch that grew out of the subprime crisis caused this market to dry up, making it difficult or impossible for investors to sell these holdings even though few, if any, of the securities' issuers had actually defaulted. Problems in the auction-rate securities market are thus seen as a measure of the fear sweeping the credit markets.

Automated Underwriting

Using a computer program to assess whether a borrower is likely to repay a loan. Systems developed in the 1980s and 1990s looked at factors such as the applicant's credit history and information on the property and the loan, as well as and the data on how similar applicants in similar circumstances had performed in the past. The system speeds the loan-review process and removes human bias, but there was too little data on subprime loans and other new types of mortgages to accurately predict loan performance as interest rates rose and home prices fell.

Collateralized Debt Obligation

A security backed by a pool of loans, bonds or other debt. Typically, CDOs come in slices, or tranches, with riskier ones paying higher yields.

Commercial Bank

Although distinctions are blurring, commercial banks' primary business is taking deposits and making loans. This contrasts with investment banks, which are involved in underwriting new issues of stocks and bonds, as well as other activities in the securities markets. Repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, a Depression-era law that barred commercial banks from engaging in investment-bank activities, and vice versa, made the blurring of those lines possible.

Credit Crunch

A situation in which banks and other financial institutions cut back on lending, or raise interest rates so high that individuals, businesses and institutions reduce their borrowing. In the subprime crisis, the credit crunch arose from widespread fear that borrowers would default. This began with uncertainty about the financial health of market participants which held large numbers of mortgage-backed securities whose values were unknown.

Discount Rate and Discount Window

The discount window is a mechanism used by the Federal Reserve to make short term loans to qualifying banks which need cash to maintain liquidity. The discount rate is the interest rate charged on these loans. Historically, the discount window was limited to overnight loans to help with temporary emergencies. When the credit crunch arising from the subprime crisis made it difficult for banks to borrow, the Fed moved to open the window wider. In September 2007, it changed the terms so banks could borrow for as long as 30 days, and it cut the discount rate to 5.25% from 5.75%. Further cuts reduced the rate to 2.25% on April 30, 2008. On March 16, 2008, the discount-loan term was extended to as long as 90 days.

Equity

The difference between the value of a home and the debt remaining on the mortgage. In the years after a mortgage is taken out, a homeowner's monthly payments gradually reduce the remaining principal, or debt. During most periods, home values gradually increase. These two factors cause the equity to grow, assuring the homeowner that the property can be sold for enough to pay off the loan. However, in the past year or two, home prices have fallen by an average of about 13% nationwide, and by much more in some markets that had experienced very large price gains early in the decade. Since borrowers who took out loans only recently have not yet made enough payments to significantly reduce their debt, they are now "underwater" - their homes are not worth as much as they owe.

Fed Funds Rate

An interest rate set by the Federal Reserve's Open Market Committee that banks with deposits at the Fed charge one another for short-term loans. The Fed raises the rate to discourage borrowing, causing the economy to slow down and reducing the threat of inflation. Cutting the rate encourages borrowing, making money available to stimulate the economy.

Foreclosure

The process of a lender taking ownership of a property after the borrower has defaulted, or stopped making monthly payments. The home is used for collateral to minimize the lender's losses. This is why mortgages charge lower interest rates than credit cards, which have no collateral. Typically, lenders resorting to foreclosure recover only about half of what they are owed, because of legal fees, the missed payments for the many months the process takes and the difficulty in selling a poorly maintained property.

Glass-Steagall Act
Wharton Professor Marshall Blume

Passed in 1933 in response to the stock-market crash of 1929, the federal law barred commercial banks from engaging in investment-bank activities, and vice versa. The act was repealed in 1999 to encourage innovation, allowing commercial and investment banks to move into one another's lines of business. Many experts say repeal left gaps in regulatory oversight.

Investment Bank

A financial institution primarily engaged in underwriting new issues of stocks, bonds and other securities, advising companies on mergers and acquisitions and other lines of business related to the financial markets. Until the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act in 1999, investment banks were barred from commercial bank activities such as taking deposits and making loans. The distinctions between the two types of banks have blurred in recent years.

Liquidity

Describes the ease with which things of value can be bought and sold. A liquid investment, such as a stock in a well-known company, can be bought or sold on short notice, while an illiquid investment cannot. Homes are generally seen as illiquid investments, since they often take months to sell. Liquid investments can become illiquid ones when conditions deteriorate. A corporate bond, for example, may become less liquid if the company that issued it runs into financial trouble, making investors worry that the company may not make the principal and interest payments promised.

Loan-to-Value Ratio
Wharton Professor Todd Sinai

Refers to the size of the mortgage relative to the value of the property. In the 1980s, lenders typically required down payments of 10% to 20% of the property's purchase price, writing mortgages to cover 80% to 90% of the cost. In the 1990s and 2000s, lenders took to writing mortgages for 95 to 100% of the purchase price, and sometimes even more, with the extra used by the homeowner to pay closing costs or make home improvements. Homeowners who have not made significant down payments do not have their own wealth at risk, and are more likely to stop making mortgage payments when they have financial problems.

Monoline Insurance

An insurance policy that guarantees that the issuer of a bond or other type of debt will make the interest and principal payments promised. By obtaining this insurance, the issuer can increase the debt security's rating, reducing the interest rate that must be paid to attract investors. Monoline insurance was originally used for municipal bonds. The insurers gradually expanded the types of debt they would cover, and many suffered deep losses when they were forced to pay claims when issuers of subprime mortgage debt defaulted.

Moral Hazard
Wharton Professor Franklin Allen

Originally an insurance industry term, this refers to situations where providing a safety net encourages risky behavior. Some argue that measures to help homeowners and lenders who have lost money in the subprime crisis will lead to more high-risk lending, while leaving them to suffer the full brunt of their losses will discourage it.

Mortgage-backed Security

A form of security, similar to a bond that is backed up, or collateralized, by thousands of home loan bundled together by a securities firm such as an investment bank. Investors who purchase mortgaged-backed securities receive regular payments representing their share of the interest and principal payments made by homeowners. Often, a pool of mortgages is divided into slices, or tranches, each offering differing risks and rewards from the others. Owners of the safest tranches receive the lowest interest rates but have first rights to homeowners' payments, while owners of the riskiest tranches receive high interest payments but are the first to lose money if any homeowners fail to make their monthly payments.

Off-Balance-Sheet Entities

A type of subsidiary set up by a parent corporation to finance or engage in a specific line of business. Because the subsidiary is a separate legal entity, its assets and liabilities do not appear on the parent's balance sheet, or accounting reports. While they have legitimate uses, off-balance-sheet entities have been used to conceal liabilities from the parent's shareholders. In the subprime crisis, financial firms used these entities for high-risk lines of business such as selling mortgage-backed securities backed by subprime loans. While the parent firms were not legally required to help when entities suffered losses, some felt compelled to in order to preserve relationships with customers who were losing money through the entities. As a result, the parent firms suffered losses their own shareholders did not expect.

Prepayment Penalty

Many subprime mortgages contained provisions for an extra charge to homeowners who paid their loans off within the first few years. This created an additional obstacle to borrowers who wanted to take out new loans under better terms to pay off subprime loans that were requiring higher monthly payments as interest rates rose.

Rating Agencies
Wharton Professor Marshall Blume

Credit-rating agencies give scores, or ratings, to securities such as corporate bonds. Their chief job is to assess risks that could determine whether the bond issuer makes the principal and interest payments promised to investors. Factors include the issuer's financial health, general conditions in the financial markets, even the health of other companies with which the issuer does business. A bond or other security with a top-quality rating, such as AAA, generally pays less interest than a riskier, lower-quality bond. Therefore, issuers save money when their securities receive high ratings. In the subprime crisis, many mortgage-backed securities turned out to be far riskier than their ratings indicated, leading to much criticism of ratings agencies. Some experts say ratings agencies did their best to assess new types of securities that had little track record. Critics point to the fact that ratings agencies have a financial incentive to satisfy the issuers who pay for ratings, and that ratings agencies often have other lucrative business ties to those firms.

Reset

The process of changing the interest rate charged for an adjustable-rate mortgage, or ARM. Most ARMs start with a low "teaser" rate that stays the same for one to three years. After that, the rate typically changes every 12 months as prevailing rates rise or fall.

Risk Premium

Refers to the higher return investors demand to offset greater risks. "Junk" bonds issued by corporations with shaky finances typically pay higher interest than ultra-safe U.S. Treasury bonds, since investors worry the corporations will not make the payments promised.

Securitization
Wharton Professor Richard Herring

Streams of income, such as homeowners' monthly mortgage payments, can be bundled together into a form of bond that is sold to investors. Securitization allows the original lender to exchange a holding with a long-term value, such as the payments it is to receive on 30-year mortgages, into an immediate payment, providing cash for making additional loans. Securitization thus makes more mortgage money available, and it allows the risk of mortgage lending to be dispersed among investors around the world. Investors' appetite for high-yield investments may have encouraged mortgage lenders to offer more subprime loans than was wise, contributing to the subprime crisis.

Structured Investment Vehicle

A fund that makes money by selling short-term securities on which it pays low interest rates and buying long-term securities paying high interest rates. Many SIVs ran into trouble in 2007 as short-term rates rose and mortgage-backed securities became harder to trade. Although financial firms that set up SIVs generally were not legally obligated to back up these independent entities, many felt they had to in order to preserve relationships with investors.

Subprime Mortgage
Wharton Professor Todd Sinai

Generally understood to be a mortgage offered to borrowers with low credit ratings or some other characteristic that increases the risk they will default, or fail to make their monthly loan payments. To offset this risk, subprime loans charge higher interest rates than ordinary "prime" loans. Most subprime loans start with a low "teaser" rate charged for the first one to three years. After than, the rate is reset by adding a set number of percentage points to a base rate, such as market driven rates on certain bonds. Starting in 2005, resets caused monthly payments for many subprime borrowers to increase by 50% or more, leading to a rising rate of delinquent payments and home foreclosures.

Systemic Risk
Wharton Professor Franklin Allen

Refers to risk to the financial system as a whole, like a contagion or domino effect. For example, the bankruptcy of one institution can harm other institutions with claims on its assets. The harm to those institutions can harm others in the same manner, creating a domino effect. The fear of systemic risk led the Federal Reserve to take steps to prevent the collapse of Bear Stearns.

Term Auction Facility

Set up by the Federal Reserve in December 2007 to improve liquidity in the financial markets. The TAF provides loans to banks for up to 28 days. The Fed has gradually increased the amount of funding available through the TAF to $150 billion.

Term Securities Lending Facility

Set up by the Federal Reserve in March 2008 to make 28-day loans to primary dealers - the major banks and investment banks. Loans can total up to $200 billion. Instead of cash, the TSLF lends U.S. Treasury securities, taking riskier securities as collateral. Those include mortgage-back securities and securities backed by student loans, credit card debt, home equity loans and automobile loans.

Tranche

A slice of something bigger. Mortgages are bundled together and converted to a kind of bond sold to investors. Although the pool as a whole may be too risky to earn an AAA investment rating, the securities can be offered in a series of tranches with varying risks. A high-risk tranche would be the first to suffer losses if homeowners stop making their monthly payments, but this tranche would pay the highest yield. Other tranches would have first rights to borrowers' monthly payments, making them safer, but their yields would be lower. By concentrating risks in low-rated tranches, investment banks can create AAA-rated securities out of a mortgage pool that as a whole could not qualify for such a high rating.

Transparency
Wharton Professor Franklin Allen

Refers to how easily outsiders can see what is going on. The U.S. stock market is said to be transparent because financial reporting requirements provide detailed information on profits, losses, assets, liabilities, executive pay, lawsuits and other factors that can affect stock prices. A lack of transparency, or opaqueness, contributed to the subprime crisis because it was difficult for investors, regulators and the public to see the factors that governed the values of securities based on subprime loans. As the crisis unfolded, investors worried there were more risks in the system than they could see.

Saturday, June 28, 2008

The president

With Americans facing gasoline prices of $4 a gallon, record home foreclosures and fears about unemployment, presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama are increasing their focus on economic policy in their campaigns for the presidency.

For the most part, the positions of the presumptive nominees, Republican McCain and Democrat Obama, fall along traditional party lines: Obama leans more toward government involvement in the economy, while McCain's proposals rely on private sector solutions. Both plans, however, would certainly add to already troubling deficits, according to Wharton faculty and economic policy analysts who point to worrisome elements of both candidates' plans.

"It's early in the election cycle. Both candidates have an opportunity to refine -- and rethink -- their economic policies," says Wharton finance professor Richard Marston. "Both had better do more rethinking before one of them becomes president."

Voters are growing increasingly concerned about the nation's financial situation. More than half of Americans, 56%, describe the country's economic condition as poor, while 33% say the economy is only fair, according to The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.

"People are very attuned to the economy. In the polls, it has taken precedence over the Iraq war, which has perhaps faded to a dull roar in people's consciousness," says Brooks Jackson, director of Annenberg Political Fact Check, a group based at Penn's Annenberg Public Policy Center that monitors the accuracy of statements by major U.S. political players. "We're going through an unprecedented and very scary period with home prices and an unprecedented increase in energy prices. Nobody knows where it's going to stop."

The divide between the two major candidates is clear in tax policy. Obama wants to let the Bush Administration's tax cuts expire, as scheduled, at the end of 2010 and provide new tax breaks for low-income workers, senior citizens, students and start-up companies. When McCain launched his campaign, he opposed the tax cuts because he said they favored the wealthy and reduced the availability of government resources during wartime. Now he says the cuts should remain in place because allowing them to expire would amount to a tax increase at a time when the economy is already weak.

McCain also wants to reduce the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%. Obama supports a corporate tax rate cut as well, but has not specified exactly how large. In addition, Obama would raise capital gains taxes on Americans earning more than $250,000 a year, while McCain would maintain current tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

On the campaign trail, Obama has called Bush "fiscally irresponsible" and said McCain is running to serve George W. Bush's third term -- only more irresponsibly. "When it comes to taxes," Obama has added, comparing McCain to the incumbent president is "not being fair to George Bush." McCain's camp has fired back with charges that Obama's ideas are unrealistic and will result in government intervention that will slow economic growth. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, chief economic aide to John McCain, said Obama's proposals are "like being for kittens, puppies and sunshine."

Voters Need a Clearer Vision

According to Marston, McCain's proposal to extend the Bush tax credits amounts to campaign rhetoric in the current climate. "There is no way all of the cuts will be extended now that the political winds have shifted," he says, adding that McCain has not been able to articulate which of his proposed tax cuts is most important. "Voters need a clearer economic vision."

Obama's tax policy, he suggests, is more refined than those presented by the Democratic candidates in the last two elections. For example, his plan explicitly aims taxes at Americans making more than $250,000 a year. "The thought appears to be that those making less than that will readily approve such tax increases. It remains to be seen whether this is the case, but it's a definite change in strategy." Marston says Obama and his advisors have not addressed the issue of whether higher taxes will have an impact on incentives for businesses to reinvest and create new growth. "Will this affect risk-taking by entrepreneurs who provide the innovation that the country thrives on?" Marston asks. "If so, would other tax increases, say on dividends, be preferable?"

Janet Rothenberg Pack, Wharton professor of business and public policy, suggests McCain's support for the Bush tax cuts is a mistake because they will continue to deepen the U.S. budget deficit. "The deficit and the trade deficit -- which are related -- are hurting us and are going to hurt us a lot more in the future."

As for Obama, Pack says his tax and spending policies are more complicated than McCain's, making it more difficult to gauge their impact. "While I like the idea of undoing the Bush tax cuts, Obama's plan is not that simple and it's not exactly clear what the net effect would be." For example, Obama has outlined plans to spend $15 billion a year for 10 years on energy technology funded by revenue collected through a system of trading pollution permits. He also would create an "infrastructure reinvestment bank" that would finance $60 billion in high-speed railways, energy grids and other projects over 10 years.

According to the Tax Policy Center, a joint venture between the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, the two candidates' specific non-health tax proposals would reduce tax revenues by $3.6 trillion (McCain) and $2.7 trillion (Obama) over the next 10 years, or approximately 10% and 7% of the revenues scheduled for collection under current law.

"Both sets of policies are bad in that they don't balance the federal budget and they would each run up deficits," says Roberton Williams, principal research associate at the Tax Policy Center. "Those are deep holes to fill back in with spending cuts. If we run deficits like that somewhere down the road we will have to worry about paying back those costs." He says the need to raise taxes in the future may outstrip the gains made by cutting taxes now. "Both plans would impose costs on our children and grandchildren at a time when Baby Boomers in retirement will be demanding more and more resources as well."

Touching the 'Third Rail'

Each candidate has already made some statements about Social Security, which is sometimes called the "third rail" of politics because addressing the issue of solvency is likely to rile beneficiaries. Kent Smetters, Wharton professor of insurance and risk management, says Obama wants to eliminate the payroll tax limit, but give an exemption for people making between $102,000 and $250,000 a year. He would also eliminate the income tax on Social Security benefits for people making less than $50,000 a year. He notes that McCain wants to appoint a bipartisan commission to explore changes to the system. Unlike Bush's previous commission, which was handpicked by the White House, McCain will let Democrats pick their own representatives, says Smetters, adding that McCain's commission will likely be composed of members of Congress in order to force the issue on them.

Obama's proposed tax increase on people making above $250,000, who already pay the majority of the nation's taxes, will mean a marginal tax rate on wages of around 65% in high tax states such as California and New York, up from about 45% today, Smetters adds. "Even then, Social Security and Medicare will be quite broken and so more revenue will be needed from them. So we are talking about a very sharp increase in taxes. While most everyone agrees that the rich should pay a larger proportion of their income in taxes, even John Kennedy thought it was a bad idea to hit the job creators that hard."

He also points out that Obama's tax reduction on those making below $50,000 essentially defeats the purpose of the Earned Income Tax Credit, which already offsets taxes on the poor.

"However, Obama, being a Democrat, is more likely to be trusted by the public to control the growth rate of benefits, and so he might be more effective at creating overall reform," says Smetters. "McCain will need the commission for cover."

Smetters argues that the best approach to Social Security is to control the growth rate of benefits for richer people at a rate no higher than inflation, while getting some additional revenue by removing the preferential tax treatment on employee benefits that he says encourages over-utilization.

Medicare, he notes, is a much bigger problem and harder to solve equitably. "To McCain's credit, he voted against Bush's disastrous Part D Medicare expansion even though McCain represents one of the most aged population states in the country. That obviously took a lot of guts. I don't see Obama ever taking that type of risk."

McCain and Obama have at least begun to discuss Social Security fairly early in this campaign, perhaps for two reasons, says Smetters. One is that this is the first presidential election in which the Baby Boom generation is entering retirement. The other is that McCain has used the "privatization" label in the past to describe a proposal to allow young workers to earmark Social Security savings in private plans. McCain is polling well with people above age 65 and needs to reassure them that Social Security will be there for them, Smetters says, adding that Obama will probably use the "privatization" label on McCain's plan because that term polls poorly. The candidates are not likely to put forth more extensive plans before the election, because that might require tough medicine for beneficiaries or "gimmicks. Either way you open yourself up to criticism."

Cracking Down on 'Reckless Behavior'

The candidates' economic proposals come against a background of financial instability linked to the subprime credit meltdown and call for greater regulation of credit companies. In a speech before the National Small Business Summit, McCain said Americans "are right to be offended" by the "extravagant salaries and severance deals" of corporate officers who have engaged in "reckless corporate behavior." He vowed that federal prosecutors will go after wrong-doers.

Meanwhile, Obama has come out in support of measures to help homeowners protect themselves against foreclosure and additional oversight of the credit industry. Pack says the current mortgage meltdown is the predictable result of policies created during the Bush and Clinton administrations encouraging homeownership for people who should not have been qualified for mortgages. "It was crazy at the time and the results could have been foretold, but it was a popular policy among certain people."

Marston predicts financial sector regulation will be a major issue after the election, especially following the rescue of Bear Stearns. "The precedent has been set for the Fed to help rescue an investment bank -- not a commercial bank as it has in the past -- so the new president will have to figure out what that means for regulation," he says. "It's a big issue, but we have no idea what Obama or McCain will do about that."

According to Marston, trade is another area of concern. In the Ohio Democratic primary debate, Obama suggested he might renegotiate the North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA). "I think that is just campaign rhetoric. But it remains to be seen whether he is as much of a free trader as Bill Clinton was," says Marston, who adds that NAFTA would never have been approved without strong support from Clinton.

"Obama probably won't reverse previous advances, but we don't know whether his heart will be in new initiatives. McCain will back free trade just as Reagan and every president since then has done, but Obama is a question mark."

Pack says that to pull back on current trade policies would be a mistake. "There's hardly an economist in the world who would argue that expanding free trade is not a good thing. [A pullback] may be popular with unions or some employees, but it is not the way to go. It's really sad to see that after President Clinton pressed for NAFTA and a reduction in tariffs, this is such a big issue. It's pandering." Pack argues that low-income consumers in the United State benefit from free trade which allows them to buy goods cheaper from developing nations that, in turn, need access to markets to help their populations emerge from poverty. "The major animus is directed at China and there are many reasons for that besides trade. A lot of people are buying things from China they could not otherwise buy. "

Overseas Views

The trade debate is of interest overseas -- but many economic analysts in key trading-partner nations such as China and India and in Latin America consider the campaign-related comments on trade to be mostly pre-election bluster.

Yuan Zheng, associate director of the U.S. Diplomacy Research Center of the China Social Science Academy, has suggested that U.S. trade policies with China are based on U.S. national interest rather than on the personal views of the president. Some people will send strong signals on certain topics to get elected, he adds, but after being in office for a while, the president will then get back to further boosting the Sino-U.S. relationship.

"You hardly see any Chinese intellectuals with a strong preference [for either of] these two candidates," says Xiao Geng, Director of the Brookings-Tsinghua Center in Beijing. "No matter who wins, things will come back to the expected policies.... [the] China-U.S. relationship is way too important."

Still, some researchers expect the dollar to get stronger after the election, which could have an impact on trade; a weaker dollar makes Chinese products more expensive in the U.S. and U.S. products more expensive in China. As the dollar strengthens, the U.S. trade deficit with China could become a bigger political issue. Jian Feng, director of the structural finance research center at the China Social Science Academy, said in a speech in early April that "if you look at what happened in the past, the dollar generally depreciates pre-election and then appreciates post-election. I think [after] this year, you will mostly see the dollar get stronger."

In the Indian business magazine Business Today, V.K. Kaul, professor of business economics at Delhi University, said that rating the most favorable candidate from India's perspective is a futile exercise. "Any U.S. president will look to promote only that country's interests. Who comes to power is, therefore, immaterial."

"If one was to look purely from a trade and outsourcing perspective ... McCain seems to be a better choice for India," says Ravi Bapna, a professor at the India School of Business. "But when push comes to shove, even the Democrats, despite all their rhetoric during campaigning, will not be able to walk away from globalization. No U.S. president can walk away from market-based mechanisms which are now so deeply embedded.

"What are perhaps more important issues are geopolitical stability, the war in Iraq and how to get America back to the intellectual standards that it once had and which have been eroded in recent years," Bapna adds. "In that sense, Obama is much more of a dynamic personality who can really bring back America's intellectual place in the world. And if that happens, then other good things will follow naturally."

Yogen Lal, chief operating officer (COO) of the Mumbai-based Unity Infraprojects, one of India’s leading players in infrastructure development, sticks to conventional wisdom. “Democrats have traditionally supported India,” he says. “In my opinion, Obama will be better for India.”

Pradeep Mukherjee, who previously worked for Citibank for several years in the U.S and now is CEO of Mumbai-based HR consultancy Potential Unlimited, says that if he had to choose, he would opt for Obama, but not for any business or economic reasons. “I expect Obama to ask the question: ‘Why does the world hate America so much these days?’ He may not have an easy solution, but he will at least be looking for the answers. Secondly, I respect Obama for what he has achieved at his age and against all the odds.”

McCain, he asserts, “is an unknown quantity” in India. “Nobody knows what he stands for. But because he belongs to the same party as Bush, he starts off with several strikes against him.”

Rajesh Chakrabarti, assistant professor of finance at the Hyderabad-based Indian School of Business (ISB), says that the Bush presidency was quite favorable for India. Chakrabarti spent nearly a decade at the Georgia Tech College of Management and is thus keenly aware of both the U.S. and the Indian political process and sensitivities.

“The Clinton presidency was very good for India too,” Chakrabarti adds. “Of course it is difficult to estimate as to how much of that was because of the presidency or because of world events. If one looks back, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the relationship between India and the U.S. has warmed and improved almost continuously during both Republican and Democratic presidencies. There was some freeze because of the nuclear testing but that was a one-time event and any president in power would have acted the same. The way in which the Republicans and the Democrats handle the world affairs, especially in the Middle East, could have an indirect impact on India. But here also I don’t see any major difference between the two in terms of new developments.”

Still, Chakrabarti says, he worries about the Democratic Party’s trade stance. “In their election campaigns, the Democrats have been making noises about being more protectionist, less trade oriented, reducing the flow of outsourcing, etc.,” he notes. “Whether it is rhetoric or whether they will actually implement it if they come to power is not very clear. I don’t really believe that they will in fact do any of this if they come to power. However, it seems on the face of it that the Republicans are better for India because of their open trade approach. McCain is probably a safer bet for India in that not much is likely to change in terms of economic policies.”

“Traditionally the Republicans have been more open and less restrictive in terms of trade agreements,” says Ashok Soota, executive chairman of the Bangalore-based software consultancy MindTree Ltd. “Obama, on the other hand, has made some remarks which could be construed as somewhat negative, but that’s more restricted to the NAFTA. My belief is that the forces of globalization are so strong that I don’t think anything fundamental will change with either of them... [However], I believe that we will not see the strong positive thrust that we got with Bush with either McCain or Obama.”

For Latin Americans, says Fausto Hernández Trillo, an economist and researcher at CIDE, the center for research and teaching in Mexico, "the only thing that you need to pay attention to [in campaign speeches] is a certain flirtation with the Hispanic population in the U.S., for purely electoral goals." No matter who wins the next election. "I don't think that the close economic relationship between Mexico and the U.S. will suffer."

Latin America is not a priority for the United States nowadays, Trillo adds, beyond making sure that the relationship between the U.S. and the region does not deteriorate. "Interest [in the region] is more about drug trafficking."

Still, Hugo Macías Cardona, a professor at the University of Medellín in Colombia, worries about the future of the bilateral U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement. Macías says he believes it would help Colombia if McCain won the presidency. However, if Obama wins, the U.S. will have to continue to maintain a close relationship with Colombia.

Colombia is one of the principal allies of the U.S. on the continent, and one of its partners when dealing with regional problems, especially when it comes to neutralizing the impact of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, who has been very critical of the U.S. and the role that it plays in the region, he states. "This relationship has become stronger under the Republican Party, which is much closer from a philosophical view to the approach of the right-wing and center-right groups that have been in power in Colombia."

As Macías notes, a fragmented form of integration is emerging in the region, in which Central America and the Caribbean are strengthening their ties with the U.S. whereas South America -- except for Colombia -- is coming together and strengthening its relationships with Europe more than with the U.S. In this context, "Colombia will continue to be a strategic ally of the U.S., even under a Democratic-controlled government and Congress."

Gayle Allard, a professor at the IE business school, points out that McCain has declared his support for the free-trade pact with Colombia. In contrast, Obama has said nothing specifically about the treaty -- which, according to her, is an unfortunate omission. "If you want to know what economic policy the new president is going to pursue, you have to look at the Congress, which might be more in tune with Obama," Allard notes. She believes that the bilateral treaty will eventually be approved by the U.S. Congress.

Outmoded Cuba Policy?

On the other hand, Allard notes that American policy toward Cuba, which has been the target of a trade embargo by the U.S. for decades, "is a bit outmoded; you have to recognize that fact and change the policy. Obama could very well lead such a change because he can count on a great deal of support from the Congress on this issue." Obama said recently that he favors removing restrictions on traveling to Cuba and sending money to that country.

Beyond such concrete differences, Allard believes that for the world at large, the impact of a victory by one candidate or the other will mostly be on the image of the U.S. "McCain projects more of the traditional image of the American conservative while Obama's image is radically new and more attractive for Europeans," she states. The image of the U.S., which has deteriorated a great deal under Bush, would improve if Obama wins because his "rhetoric about people fighting for global causes extends beyond the U.S." She expressed approval of the effort to elect a president who reflects the country's diversity so well. "This, more than any economic policy that the U.S. might undertake, would be the most positive thing if Obama winds up winning." Finally, Allard predicts that Obama, if elected, would have a greater potential for creating a dialogue with Europeans because he is the son of an immigrant and has an international background.

Now that the long primary campaigns have finally ended, Pack says it seems likely both major party candidates will have to sharpen their positions. "We're not really into the season quite yet although [the candidates] started so early it seems like we've been in it for the last five years," says Pack. "They will probably flesh things out more after the conventions, which is too bad because it gives them a long time to speak vaguely."


Warton school of business


Coffe cafe day

V.G. Siddhartha, chairman of the Bangalore-based Amalgamated Bean Coffee Trading Co. (ABC) and the man behind India's largest café chain, Café Coffee Day (CCD), has set his team a stiff target: By March he wants to expand the chain to 950 cafés.

From where it stands today, with 595 cafés across 100 cities in India, three in Vienna, and two in Karachi, this means opening more than one café a day -- and not just in India. Siddhartha has strong global ambitions: He wants 50 of these cafés to be located outside India.

While this might appear to be a tall order, CCD's investors feel otherwise. They see enough potential in the coffee retail market for CCD to ramp up even faster. According to Naresh Malhotra, formerly CCD's chief executive officer and now a director at the venture capital firm Sequoia Capital: "This space has enough potential for Coffee Day to open a café every 200 yards in the country, within five minutes' walking distance of one another." Sequoia invested $20 million in ABC, one of India's largest integrated coffee conglomerates, two years ago.

Industry analysts estimate that fewer than 1,000 cafés make up India's organized space, but they put the potential at around 5,000. The largest player after Coffee Day, Barista, has about 200 cafés. Java Green (around 75 cafés) and Mocha (around 25 cafés) are further behind. Venu Madhav, head of operations at Café Coffee Day, has started quietly thinking about a farther-out café target number for his team: 2,000.

The Coffee Day story is not just in its numbers, though. Coffee Day has been a pioneer. According to Harish Bijoor, a visiting professor at the Indian School of Business (ISB) at Hyderabad and CEO of Harish Bijoor Consults, "Coffee Day has brought about a paradigm shift in the café space in India." Subroto Bagchi, co-founder of the IT and R&D services company MindTree Consulting, and author of the book, The High Performance Entrepreneur, adds: "Café Coffee Day has redefined the coffee experience; it has been a trendsetter in the café space. Siddhartha has raised the coffee from a brew to an experience."

Bagchi's association with Siddhartha dates to MindTree's first days, in 1999, when Siddhartha's technology holding company, Global Technology Ventures, invested in MindTree. When Siddhartha opened the first Café Coffee Day outlet in Bangalore, India's silicon capital, in 1996, it was positioned more as an Internet café. This was the very early days of the Internet in India, and customers trooped in to Coffee Day to experience the Internet. Coffee was just an extra.

Siddhartha, though, had other plans. The Internet was the bait. Coming from a family of coffee plantation owners and as chairman of ABC, which owns more than 10,000 acres of coffee plantations in the southern Indian state of Karnataka, Siddhartha's aim was to sell coffee. The space he was operating in, as an exporter of green coffee beans, offered low margins and these fluctuated depending on the vicissitudes of pricing in the world coffee market. A café, in contrast, operates at the highest end of the value chain. Its margins can be 35% to 40% higher than those of bean exports, notes Bijoor.

"At that time, coffee drinking in India was limited to South Indian traditionalists, the intellectuals and the five-star coffee shop visitors," Siddhartha says. "I saw that in the neighboring international markets of Southeast Asia there was a popular culture of consumers visiting a café for experiential purpose in addition to consuming a glass of beer. These cafés were also promoting cyber-culture and offering Internet access. These trends inspired us. We realized that there was a potential for building a coffee brand for the India market, and we launched the first cyber café model based on the international lessons, but replaced beer with coffee. This is when Coffee Day was born."

Expansion and Experimentation

ABC is privately held, and as such does not disclose its financial results. Competitors estimate the company's revenues last year to be around Rs 600 crore ($140 million), of which half, they say, came from a café business that they believe turned profitable a few years ago. The rest of ABC's revenues come from its other business groups, all of which operate under the Coffee Day brand. These include Coffee Day Exports, Coffee Day Xpress (fast food and beverage outlets that are much smaller than the cafés and are franchised), Coffee Day Take Away (coffee vending machines), Coffee Day Fresh 'n Ground (ground coffee retail outlets) and Coffee Day FMCG (packaged filter coffee powder). ABC has 775 Xpress outlets, 7,000 vending machines in diverse locations such as railway stations, hospitals, gas stations and office campuses, and 400 Fresh 'n Ground outlets. Operating across this spectrum has allowed Siddhartha to expand his brand presence rapidly.

Siddhartha is experimenting now with new formats, such as lounge cafés serving plated meals in addition to the sandwiches, pastries and croissants offered in the cafés. The idea is to see whether this format can attract and retain customers who typically go elsewhere during mealtimes. Unlike the cafés, which cater primarily to the 15 to 30 age group, this format targets consumers who are more than 30 years of age. In two airports in India -- in Mumbai and Bangalore -- these lounge cafés serve liquor to cater to those locations' specific audiences. Whether this plays well with consumers or just confuses the brand remains to be seen.

Meanwhile, Siddhartha is believed to have raised some $100 million for his expansion plans during the past few months. While much of this apparently is through debt, around $25 million has come from the Darby Asia Mezzanine Fund, a unit of Franklin Templeton Investments. According to Richard H. Frank, CEO of Darby Overseas Investments, "Coffee Day has successfully consolidated its market leader status and is positioned to take further advantage of the ongoing macroeconomic, demographic and lifestyle changes. We are attracted to ABC because of its leadership position within India's rapidly expanding consumer lifestyle segment and its strong execution capabilities."

In its early years, however, Coffee Day had neither clear positioning nor significant presence. In fact, it lost ground to Barista Coffee, which was founded in 2000 by Amit Judge of the investment company Turner Morrison. Barista positioned itself as an upmarket, premium coffee café and targeted executives who saw it as a less expensive alternative to coffee shops in five-star hotels. In 2002, Barista had some 85 cafés around the country, while Coffee Day had just 35.

But after a faltering start, Siddhartha pulled things together. What turned the tables in Coffee Day's favor was its subsequent strong positioning as a "third place" away from the home and college or workplace for the young and the young at heart. Siddhartha made people ages 15 to 30 Coffee Day's prime target. "With the advent of cable television and growing consumerism, the urban youth in India were exposed to the lifestyles of youth across the world," he says. "They were seeking an experience which was world class in nature and yet easily accessible -- an urban youth 'hangout venue' that allowed them 'their culture'. We fulfilled this latent demand."

Having zeroed in on the target, elements such as pricing, ambience, food, music and promotions fell into place. Says CCD's president of marketing, Bidisha Nagaraj: "We have a single-minded commitment to the young in India and everything we do is centered on that. We see our cafés almost like a brick and mortar social community network where people can express themselves in a friendly, clean, non-inhibitive and non-intimidating environment that offers an excellent range of products at affordable prices."

Strong and Stable Parentage

According to ISB's Bijoor, "Coffee Day has mastered the core competency of opening outlets, building a strong brand, and making a strong emotional connection with its target group." He says that while Coffee Day moved from strength to strength because of its clear positioning, Barista lost its initial advantage because of multiple ownership changes and a consequent change in focus.

Since its launch in 2000, Barista's ownership has changed hands from Turner Morrison to the Tata Group to the Sterling Group and, last year, to Italy's leading roaster, the Lavazza Group. "Barista tried to be everything to everyone and ended up being nothing to anyone," Bijoor says. Coffee Day's strong and stable parentage, he says, has given it a significant advantage.

Coffee Day also was sharper than Barista in finding the right locations, a critical success factor in the café business. Siddhartha himself considers the biggest challenge to be "ever-fluctuating real estate prices."

Taking Coffee Day to the next level of growth, of course, has its challenges. Competition, for one, is likely to play a larger role. Barista, too, has now decided to target the young adult and, like Coffee Day, is riding the affordability plank. Rini Dutta, vice president of marketing and product development at Barista, notes: "Our focus now is on young adults aged between 20 and 35 who have global lifestyles and value a great cup of coffee in a warm and friendly environment. Our prices are more or less on par with key café players."

When Lavazza acquired Barista and the Fresh & Honest vending business from Chennai-based Sterling Group in March 2007, it put its total investment for the acquisition and development of the two businesses at €100 million from 2007 till 2010. The target was to take the number of Barista cafés from 150 then to 400 by 2010. In a press note, Lavazza Group CEO Alberto Lavazza said, "The acquisition is part of our strategy aimed at expanding our operations in markets with a high development rate and a high growth potential. We are delighted to enter the rapidly growing Indian market through Barista and Fresh & Honest."

Another significant competitor in the coming years could well be the global coffee giant Starbucks. In June 2007, Starbucks put its India plans on hold because of foreign direct investment regulatory issues. But India is too big a market for Starbucks to ignore. In a press statement, Starbucks said: "Starbucks is reviewing all options and evaluating how we can proceed related to our entry into one of the fastest-growing economies in the world. We remain excited about the great opportunities that India presents to Starbucks."

Other recent global players in India include Britain's Costa Coffee, Australia's Gloria Jeans and Italy's illycaffe. Meanwhile, domestic chains such as Java Green, from the Reliance Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group, are looking to expand. Aruna Ramesh, head of marketing at Java Green, notes: "We started as an in-store café for the Reliance World outlets to cater to our in-house customers. While we have no independent cafés yet and are continuing with our store-in-store format, we are now partnering with other chains and are also present in corporate campuses."

Siddhartha is not unduly worried. "The café space in India is opening up and newer players are entering the market and offering more options for consumers," he says. "This is healthy, as competition will ensure that each player delivers his best to be the consumer's first choice. As long as one is committed to delivering world-class quality, there is no need to change the rules of the game just because of new entrants." CCD's Madhav adds, "We believe that more players will bring in more awareness and excitement in the space. This will only help the market to grow."

Coffee Day's Advantages

Malhotra, of Sequoia, notes that while Coffee Day can't afford to be complacent, it is well ahead in the game. He points out that with each outlet needing an investment of around Rs 40 lakh ($100,000), this is a business that needs to be funded aggressively. Also, the low per-unit revenue makes it a difficult market to crack. "Coffee Day has a tremendous advantage because it has its own plantations, procurement agents, curing works, etc.," Malhotra says. "The scale of its café operations brings its own advantages." Outside of ABC, Siddhartha has launched a small business that supplies furniture for his cafés and a residential hospitality college that trains young people who can be absorbed into the business.

Malhotra believes that given its large number of outlets, instead of sourcing food from outside, Coffee Day should maximize value by putting up its own kitchens. This, he says, will ensure quality control and make it easier to introduce changes and create excitement around the menu. Sequoia's most immediate concern, however, is that Siddhartha needs to bring a chief executive officer on board for the café business. Ever since Malhotra left in July 2007 after a six-year stint with CCD, Siddhartha has played that role himself. "Siddhartha has other interests that take up his time, and we have been insisting that he get a CEO soon," Malhotra says.

Apart from his interests in coffee, Siddhartha is founder and managing partner at Global Technology Ventures and founding chairman of Way2Wealth, an investment consultancy. He is also on the board of MindTree, Ittiam Systems and Liqwid Krystal. In addition, he has other plans: He wants to leverage ABC's picturesque coffee plantations into a new business opportunity. "We have identified the burgeoning luxury tourism market as a suitable growth opportunity," he says. "With this we will be catering to an older target audience." As for getting a CEO for Coffee Day, Siddhartha admits that he will "have someone to fill this position" but this will not happen immediately.

A key focus for Siddhartha at the café business is to make greater use of technology, both at the back and front ends. At the back end, Madhav is working on strengthening the supply chain and logistics. At the front end, Nagaraj is focusing on making the cafés wi-fi enabled, digitizing the in-house magazine Café Beat, building loyalty programs, and using technology such as Bluetooth to stream music across the cafés. Nagaraj, who has worked for technology majors Google, Intel and Compaq, says: "Once we have our consumers hooked on to Bluetooth in our cafés, we can create a whole lot of excitement and energy around it, and make communities and build further on that."