> Reliance’s timing was uncanny: when tariffs went up, Reliance happened to have stockpiled the goods in question; when their inventories ran down, tariffs dropped. It’s unclear when the system switched from Reliance knowing what the government would do to Reliance deciding what the government would do, but clearly at the peak of their power they were able to call the shots.
> As a public company, Reliance engaged in some novel financial engineering—issuing convertible bonds with ambiguous conversion terms, exploiting those terms to get cash when necessary, and at one point cornering the market in their own stock. Perhaps the high point of Reliance’s financial engineering was in 1986, when the company publicly stated that earnings would rise, then found that earnings weren’t rising after all. The solution: an 18-month fiscal year. Record profits secured.
> Jio’s fundraise was opportunistic in two directions: Reliance wanted to delever, and outside investors wanted access to India’s market. It’s not a coincidence that this fundraising occurred at the same time that tensions with China erupted; a country that can ban TikTok and restrict Chinese investments can do the same to other countries, too. And, of course, it helps that Jio is getting more liquidity at the same time that its competitors mysteriously found themselves on the hook for giant fines.
For clarity's sake, usually bribery, securities fraud, money laundering, revenue recognition fraud and other demonstrably fraudulent activities gets you put in jail. Not lauded as being clever.
If the investments put in by Facebook and Google are used to manipulate the local political environment, does this mean that they're on the hook for liability via 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1, et seq.? Or, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act? Do the firms have liability, or are they shielded via virtue of the "investment"?
Their history is hard to believe and harder to square away. Will this lower FB and G's liability shield? Any thorough due diligence should easily uncover more in this wretched hive of scum and villainy.
A little bit more Googling will tell you that Kirti Ambani, the man accused of ordering the hit, was no relative of Dhirubai, the Godfather.
Nusli Wadia, the man he was supposedly getting killed, is the head of an important textile firm himself and the grandson of the founder of Pakistan.
The scandal of which this episode is but one battle, led to the downfall of Rajiv Gandhi's government and triggered the long downfall of the Congress party, which is how Dhirubai's son Mukesh finds himself so close to the current regime whose predecessors, ironically, benefited enormously from the alleged chumminess between the father Ambani and Rajiv.
Wretched hive of scum and villainy seems a bit overwrought though; par for the course for robber barons and way less scummy and violent than Andrew Carnegie or Cecil Rhodes and other titans of western industry.
Plus they haven't caused coups in Central American countries. Yet. Though I wouldn't mind if Mukesh bhai bought England and replaced the Union Jack with the Tricolour.
> As a public company, Reliance engaged in some novel financial engineering—issuing convertible bonds with ambiguous conversion terms, exploiting those terms to get cash when necessary, and at one point cornering the market in their own stock. Perhaps the high point of Reliance’s financial engineering was in 1986, when the company publicly stated that earnings would rise, then found that earnings weren’t rising after all. The solution: an 18-month fiscal year. Record profits secured.
> Jio’s fundraise was opportunistic in two directions: Reliance wanted to delever, and outside investors wanted access to India’s market. It’s not a coincidence that this fundraising occurred at the same time that tensions with China erupted; a country that can ban TikTok and restrict Chinese investments can do the same to other countries, too. And, of course, it helps that Jio is getting more liquidity at the same time that its competitors mysteriously found themselves on the hook for giant fines.
For clarity's sake, usually bribery, securities fraud, money laundering, revenue recognition fraud and other demonstrably fraudulent activities gets you put in jail. Not lauded as being clever.
If the investments put in by Facebook and Google are used to manipulate the local political environment, does this mean that they're on the hook for liability via 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1, et seq.? Or, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act? Do the firms have liability, or are they shielded via virtue of the "investment"?
-
Some Google searches later, one of their executives, p̶r̶e̶s̶u̶m̶a̶b̶l̶y̶ ̶a̶ ̶f̶a̶m̶i̶l̶y̶ ̶m̶e̶m̶b̶e̶r̶, tried to get someone killed by calling in the mob, https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/cover-story/story/1989083...
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2014/08/02/an-unloved-bill...
Their history is hard to believe and harder to square away. Will this lower FB and G's liability shield? Any thorough due diligence should easily uncover more in this wretched hive of scum and villainy.