![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Brazil, nice for holidays, Russia, Dangerous, India, inefficient, China, callous.
Well, there's yer BRICS in a stereotypical sentence.
I've long been a greater fan of China than of India in terms of investment potential. That doesn't mean that I'd put money into China-listed equities. If the rule is that the shareholder in the UK will get stiffed by malodorous executives stuffing their pockets before any dividends get paid, then the rule in China, where the most significant owner is the Chinese state, the problem is squared. For years, for example, the banks in China made dubious "loans" to various dignitaries based on their position in the Communist Party rather than any likelihood of them being repaid. But then (and all credit to the Chinese for their business acumen) they convinced foreign players keen to get a foothold in China to take on these banks and their non-performing loans, and to pay the Chinese state for the privilege.
Any country that can manage that kind of con trick is worth backing, providing you aren't one of the conees.
Contrariwise, I have long held a bias against India, mainly on the grounds that its political system is such that, by the time anything gets done, it is usually too late.
But now it appears that the old shareholder-stiffing was in full flow here in the 1990s as well. More than 100 companies listed on the various Indian stock exchanges in the 1990s, taking advantage of enthusiasm for a rapidly expanding economy., have since "vanished". India has a Ministry of Corporate Affairs. It is investigating the 121 companies that failed to fulfil filing requirements. The Securites & Exchange Board has barred more than 100 companies and 378 directors. But if you were an investor in these companies, write off your money. It's gone.
As Minister of Corporate Affairs Salman Kundu conceded; "there is not force to prosecute. The prosecution is hardly visible and doesn't bring confidence to investors".
++++++
Not that such shenanigans are unique to the developing world or the BRICS. A quick look at Hollywood, home of the most venal accountacny sharks, quickly confirms otherwise.
New York-based New Line Cnema is being sued by the heirs of JRR Tolkien, who sold the rights to the books 40 years ago for $250,000 and a share of the receipts on any films made.
One rule when signing these deals is, always go for the gross. That's because, as anyone in the US film industry knows, if you accept a share of the net profits, the net profits will be zero.
But the Tolkien deal was based on gross - Under the contract, New Line was to pay a percentage of all gross receipts, after deducting 2.6 times the production costs, plus advertising expenses in excess of a certain amount. The heirs claim that they have yet to see a cent of the $6bn made by New Line over the three films.
New Line (owed by Time Warner) is no stranger to legal action. Peter Jackson sued New Line in 2005, claiming a "miscalculation" of his proceeds from the first film. They settled for an undisclosed sum in 2007.
One alleged trick is that New Line is claiming that Warner Bros not New Line, received revenue for distributing the films abroad. New Line’s accounting also included 20% of home- entertainment revenue, instead of the 100% called for in the contract, the heirs say.
It's not as if I am planning on writing anything that Hollywood might get hold of, but it's a good idea to be aware that, if I ever did, my chances of ever seeing all of the money that might become due to me would be between zero and zero.
You wouldn't think that it would be possible to dislike anyone more than Entertainment lawyers, until you come across Hollywood accountants.
+++++++++++++++++
Well, there's yer BRICS in a stereotypical sentence.
I've long been a greater fan of China than of India in terms of investment potential. That doesn't mean that I'd put money into China-listed equities. If the rule is that the shareholder in the UK will get stiffed by malodorous executives stuffing their pockets before any dividends get paid, then the rule in China, where the most significant owner is the Chinese state, the problem is squared. For years, for example, the banks in China made dubious "loans" to various dignitaries based on their position in the Communist Party rather than any likelihood of them being repaid. But then (and all credit to the Chinese for their business acumen) they convinced foreign players keen to get a foothold in China to take on these banks and their non-performing loans, and to pay the Chinese state for the privilege.
Any country that can manage that kind of con trick is worth backing, providing you aren't one of the conees.
Contrariwise, I have long held a bias against India, mainly on the grounds that its political system is such that, by the time anything gets done, it is usually too late.
But now it appears that the old shareholder-stiffing was in full flow here in the 1990s as well. More than 100 companies listed on the various Indian stock exchanges in the 1990s, taking advantage of enthusiasm for a rapidly expanding economy., have since "vanished". India has a Ministry of Corporate Affairs. It is investigating the 121 companies that failed to fulfil filing requirements. The Securites & Exchange Board has barred more than 100 companies and 378 directors. But if you were an investor in these companies, write off your money. It's gone.
As Minister of Corporate Affairs Salman Kundu conceded; "there is not force to prosecute. The prosecution is hardly visible and doesn't bring confidence to investors".
++++++
Not that such shenanigans are unique to the developing world or the BRICS. A quick look at Hollywood, home of the most venal accountacny sharks, quickly confirms otherwise.
New York-based New Line Cnema is being sued by the heirs of JRR Tolkien, who sold the rights to the books 40 years ago for $250,000 and a share of the receipts on any films made.
One rule when signing these deals is, always go for the gross. That's because, as anyone in the US film industry knows, if you accept a share of the net profits, the net profits will be zero.
But the Tolkien deal was based on gross - Under the contract, New Line was to pay a percentage of all gross receipts, after deducting 2.6 times the production costs, plus advertising expenses in excess of a certain amount. The heirs claim that they have yet to see a cent of the $6bn made by New Line over the three films.
New Line (owed by Time Warner) is no stranger to legal action. Peter Jackson sued New Line in 2005, claiming a "miscalculation" of his proceeds from the first film. They settled for an undisclosed sum in 2007.
One alleged trick is that New Line is claiming that Warner Bros not New Line, received revenue for distributing the films abroad. New Line’s accounting also included 20% of home- entertainment revenue, instead of the 100% called for in the contract, the heirs say.
It's not as if I am planning on writing anything that Hollywood might get hold of, but it's a good idea to be aware that, if I ever did, my chances of ever seeing all of the money that might become due to me would be between zero and zero.
You wouldn't think that it would be possible to dislike anyone more than Entertainment lawyers, until you come across Hollywood accountants.
+++++++++++++++++
