After racking up accumulated losses of Rs 50,000 crore, debt of Rs 55,000 crore, a failed Rs 30,000 crore bailout in 2012 and an aborted disinvestment attempt in 2001, the NDA government bit the bullet: last month, the Cabinet gave its nod to sell its stake in the beleaguered Air India. It isnt the only state-owned behemoth in which the government reckons it doesnt need to be wasting its time.

Half of Indias 235 Central public sector enterprises (CPSEs) are under scrutiny for a possible disinvestment. The governments think tank NITI Aayog has recommended a strategic sale in over 40 public sector undertakings (PSUs) and outright closure of 26 sick PSUs.

This time, it may not be all talk and little action. Various governments have toyed with disinvestment since 1991, but with limited success. The biggest sell-off surge happened under the NDA government of 1999-2004, when PSUs like Maruti, VSNL, IPCL and IBP were privatised. It is hard to argue against the economic rationale for privatisation.

While CPSEs contribute over 20% to Indias GDP and employ over 10 lakh people, many have turned into bloated, inefficient behemoths and a drain on the national exchequer. One-third of the CPSEs today are making losses. Even a maharatna like BHEL has slipped. Between 2011-12 and 2015-16, a recent CAG report points out, its turnover declined from Rs 49,510 crore to Rs 26,587 crore and profits slipped from Rs 7,400 crore to losses of Rs 913 crore. Between 2007 and 2016, sick CPSEs reportedly logged losses of Rs 19.68 lakh crore. Small wonder, then, that NITI Aayog CEO Amitabh Kant suggested that the government should hand over schools, colleges and prisons to the private sector as the government has no business to be in business.

The reality, globally, is a bit more nuanced. PSUs arent exactly out of fashion and have often been used to stoke nationalistic fervour. The French government has threatened to nationalise the shipyard in Saint-Nazaire instead of selling it to Fincantieri of Italy. Italians are nervous about French colonisation as many cross-border deals (like the 50 billion Essilor-Luxottica merger) have resulted in French firms having the upper hand.

Global Lessons In India, PSUs were created post Independence to build a self-reliant, state-led economy. Through the 1970s, amid a nationalisation drive, PSUs dominated the economic landscape before a bankrupt government was forced to rethink its strategy post liberalisation.

India echoed what was happening globally. Professors Aldo Musacchio and Sergio G Lazzarini talk about evolution of state capitalism in their book Reinventing State Capitalism (2014). Globally, too, state capitalism peaked around the 1970s. As a result, output of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) to GDP reached 10% in mixed economies and 16% in developing economies.

Then reality dawned. The oil shock of the 1970s and the liquidity crunch of the 1980s meant SOEs globally ran average losses equivalent of 2% of GDP, according to the World Bank. In developing countries, they stood at 4% of GDP. Between 1980 and the turn of the century, the focus shifted to a wave of PSU reforms that included minority stake sales, listings and overhauls of PSU management.

The year 2008 was an inflection point when state-led bailouts of distressed companies PSUs or even private became the norm. The US government bailed out private firms like GM and AIG. By some calculations, firms under government control today account for a fifth of the worlds total stock market capitalisation.

While state capitalism has been in vogue, governments have been trying to make it efficient. The book refers to two examples. In 2007, Brazilian private firm JBS acquired US-based Swift & Co for $1.4 billion to become the world's largest beef processing company. Then it acquired Pilgrim's Pride for $2.8 billion. JBS, identified as a national champion, was funded by Brazilian National Development Bank (BNDES), which became the largest minority shareholder in JBS. SOEs in China are coming from the other end. In 2010, Agriculture Bank of China's mega IPO raised $22 billion.

The two examples reflect the new forms of state capitalism taking root. Both are distinct from the traditional (often inefficient) PSU model where government owns and manages the SOE like an extension of public bureaucracy.

PSUs have often helped government deal better with economic cycles. "In China when the economy is in danger of recession, SOEs can quickly deploy government resources and play a counter cyclical role. India is different in that governments, especially Central governments, are relatively much weaker," says Xi Li, professor at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.

After its independence in 1965, Singapore government owned a lot of companies like SingTel and Singapore Airlines. In 1974, it set up Temasek Holdings, a sovereign wealth fund, to hold and manage its assets on a commercial basis and push the nation's growth agenda. Temasek today owns and manages a portfolio of over S$250 billion.

Japan and Korea took a different approach. Chaebols in Korea and Keiretsu in Japan have played a key role in the economic growth of the two countries. And governments in both the countries have nurtured them. This also led to crony capitalism which they are now trying to tackle. For example, Chaebol reforms was a key issue in the 2017 election in Korea. "To avoid the trap of import substitution and make local firms globally competitive, governments gave these companies export targets. When achieved, they were given special credit and land," says Ajay Chhibber, visiting distinguished professor, NIPFP, a research institution.

India's Path NITI Aayog CEO Amitabh Kant recently told ET Magazine that "the government should spend money on improving social indicators like health, education, nutrition". Beyond disinvestment and sell-off, some shifts are already visible. PSUs like BHEL are morphing to be relevant. Besides renewable energy, it now wants to make components for metro rail and defence. "To facilitate public spending, new PSUs are sprouting in areas like inland waterways, metro rail and renewable energy," says Vinayak Chatterjee, chairman, Feedback Infra. The government has set up the National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation to build highways. New mechanisms are being explored to help PSUs operate efficiently. For example, National Investment and Infrastructure Fund (NIIF) will help fund projects where the government's stake will be capped at 49%.

Former bureaucrat Pradeep Baijal says PSUs are a necessity in areas where government has a natural monopoly; like railways, metro rail, utilities or sensitive areas like satellite or nuclear power. In a rapidly evolving world, there should be a model of constant review of the PSU portfolio - what to retain and what to divest," adds Amit Sinha, partner, Bain & Company.

Gaurav Taneja, partner, EY, says PSUs are necessary in areas where private sector is not keen to invest, like public health in rural areas. "In fact, government should convert many of these operations into public sector outfits and set up a strategic framework to evaluate their performance," he says. Consider the case of not-so-profitable Jan Dhan scheme where public sector banks were asked to roll it out without adequate compensation and yet are expected to compete with the private sector.

"The difficulty with PSU emanates from a misplaced sense of their reason for existence," says Utkarsh Palnitkar, partner, KPMG in India. "Distortions come into play when a PSU is expected to perform on similar lines as private sector units yet is deprived of management autonomy," he adds. Experts recommend that disinvestment proceeds must be parked in a separate fund to be used in infrastructure investment. "We should not be selling the family silver to pay the grocery bills (which is the case now)," says Chhibber.

Ranen Banerjee, partner, PricewaterhouseCoopers India, says: "Private and public sector need not be completely divorced. While PSUs can build and own the infrastructure, private sector could do operations and maintenance efficiently." An example: railway tracks could be state-owned, and trains with the private sector. Any takers?

See the rest here:

How some of India's PSUs are set for a logical evolution through disinvestment - Economic Times

In movie trailer voiceover voice:

In a world where the third time seldom is the charm, when source material often devolves into convoluted chaos, when the expansion of combinatorial storylines undermine the value of the product, a madman has defied the odds. But not just any madman, a Fantasy Madman.

In the fight to engineer a world-beating system to fantasy football draft strategy, the Madman has ignored complacency while avoiding the pitfalls of overcomplication. He has identified the confusing complexity of his past evaluations and has taken action. The days of sliding scales are over. The era of required cross-referencing player ratings is a thing of the past. This is a new world of player rankings.

This is the DVQ 3.0.

Sometimes, simpler is better.

Weve seen it before: a disappointing third installment of a beloved franchise. The Dark Knight trilogys weakest entry was the third. Spider-man 3 was a disaster, as well as the third X-Men or Matrix movies the list of part-three disappointments is long. Heck, a third presidential term isnt even allowed.

But the Madman, he perseveres. Past incarnations of the draft value equation (DVQ) have been functional but admittedly overly complex. With this, the third edition, we make it easier. This third entry is more Lord of the Rings: Return of the King than Godfather Part 3. It is the pinnacle of the DVQ thus far.

In the past, the DVQ addressed draft value with a sliding scale. Each player was evaluated based on projected results compared with their average draft position. It worked; were proud. But it wasnt as helpful as we wanted. The ratings varied based on where in the draft you were targeting a player, and it admittedly required cross-referencing to understand player-to-player comparisons.

But that was like going to a restaurant that only serves dishes a la carte. Even if the food is great, Give me a No. 8 is easier and quicker than surfing through an entire menu for individual items.

This season, the new DVQ 3.0 lets you simply order a full meal. It gauges each players value independently then assigns a draft position rating. The number reflected in each player rating is the spot in the draft at which the Madman projects the best value. Note: There is a parabolic curve near the top, where there is greater separation in individual projections, thus a greater separation between DVQ ratings.

So when you see 16.9 beside Jimmy Catchgood, that is the spot in the draft at which the Madman believes that players projected-point total agrees with the value of that draft pick. By shifting our evaluation to this paradigm, it accomplishes multiple tasks with one rating.

It shows where you should target a player. It will include clusters of players with similar ratings, which reveal the mash-up of similar values. It also will unveil tier cliffs, where there is a substantial divide in player ratings. And it does all of this with one number. One number that conveys actionable information. One number that simultaneously separates and groups players of varying or similar values. One number to rule them all.

So now that you know this, how do you employ the DVQ 3.0 in your personal draft strategy? First, no plan is foolproof. If there is a player you adamantly want on your roster, and you dont think they will be there when you pick again, take them when you can.

Use the DVQ as a guide. For example: You want Wilhelm Runningwell on your roster, and he has a DVQ of 29.3. Youre picking with the 22nd pick, and you dont think Wilhelm will last that long, then take him. But, say, you really want that player, and his average draft position (ADP) is drastically higher than the DVQ rating, then perhaps you should re-evaluate that choice.

For example: Christian McCaffrey has an ADP of 31.7 in a 12-team PPR (points per reception) redraft league, but a DVQ of 89.9. Chances are, if you really want McCaffrey, you will have to pick him well ahead of where the DVQ recommends. The Madman says wait. The Madman says that player is being overvalued. The Madman says there are more reliable options at the point in the draft when McCaffreys ADP indicates he will go. The Madman says, you must be mad!

The short story is: Play the odds. And the DVQ 3.0 is a method to convey those odds. Weve made it more simple to follow. Weve made it more universally informative. Weve made it easier.

This is the Bourne Ultimatum of third installments. This is a Christmas Vacation of fantasy advice. This is the DVQ 3.0.

Sometimes, simpler is better.

See original here:

DVQ 3.0: The latest evolution in fantasy football draft strategy - New York Post

WooliebuGGer recently released Constant Evolution Parts 1 & 2, from his forthcoming EP or album, slated to drop later this year. Hailing from Aurora, Illinois, WooliebuGGer began creating music at the age of 14, stating, I am inspired everyday by the idea of what can be accomplished.

Stylistically, WooliebuGGers sound encompasses electronic, experimental, ambient, minimal and glitch elements. And his musical influences include Brian Eno, Kraftwerk, Future Sound Of London, Stereolab, Pink Floyd, The Doors and The Beatles.

Constant Evolution is a single, lengthy song composed of two distinct segments: part 1 consists of a radiant dance beat, while part 2 dampens the rhythm and takes on a flowing, almost psychedelic flavor rife with extended, syncopated notes.

The bipartite song begins with a percolating synth rhythm, followed by a mesmerizing, futuristic melody that exudes electronic dance elements riding on leitmotifs projected by the synths. The leitmotif gives the impression of gazing into a sonic mirror that reflects the melody in ever devolving fractal patterns. The groove is provided by handclaps that ebb and flow, depending on the intensity of the synth matrix. Part 1 concludes with a protracted synth note that vibrates horizontally as part 2 enters riding a clicking, popping groove, with white noise sound effects and an escalating shrill tone that abruptly halts. The tune segues into percussive effects backed by, and riding on, a rapidly stuttering synth, which eventually fades, leaving only the percussive effects, which assume a light industrial feel that elongates and increases in tension, like something out of 2001: A Space Odyssey. As the tune culminates, two part harmonies percussion and synth slowly fade, increase and end on a vibrating tone.

The overall sound of parts 1 and 2, together, is electronic ambient music that is kept fresh by the replicating leitmotifs serving as an elastic melody, a melody that ultimately devolves into an austere, minimalist series of detached sonic expression in Part 2. Even though part 2 depicts an almost mechanical detachment, it remains intense with suppressed energy.

Constant Evolution Parts 1 & 2 evokes turbulent, stylish sonority, along with tensile flamboyance under precise control. The latter component, the tensile flamboyance, provides the tune with an edgy tightness that imbues the music with pressure and strain that borders on apprehension. To that end, although its eccentric and quasi-experimental, it is good. That being said, if youre searching for relaxing ambient music, this is not it. On the other hand, if youre searching for ambient music that is pregnant with mysterious sonic symbolism stridently asserting its vitality, this is just the ticket.

Find out more about WooliebuGGer here.

Listen to more WooliebuGGer here.

The Morning Email

Wake up to the day's most important news.

Read more here:

Music Review: Constant Evolution Parts 1 & 2 WooliebuGGer - HuffPost