As the ink on these pages begins to dry out, hundreds of delegates to the Festival of Thinkers will have commenced the proceedings of the gathering, which brings together Nobel Laureates, powerful media personalities and people who have made a difference. While the Festival of Thinkers conjures the image of a hall full of people sitting in exaggerated poses, hand under chin, contemplating and pondering, the reality is that it sets a wonderful stage for bringing together people on a platform from where if nothing, understanding will emerge.
We do live in a fragile world, where issues from global warming to man made political disasters are threatening large populations of humanity. There is a greater effort being made to destroy what humanity has rather than build something for the future. It is therefore all the more important that efforts like this Festival serve not only as a platform for bringing people together for discussions, but also to move the mind set into action, into creating concrete accountable action plans for change.
Today there are hundreds of alliances and foundations for bringing change and welfare to humanity and earth, and they all are carving out a nice, positive role. What we need to consider is to move the envelope of experience further out, and think of such a platform as the Festival of Thinkers to become the aggregator of these alliances under a banner of ‘humane thought’. Such a collective will serve a huge purpose to aggregate alliances, charities and foundations to bring about structural changes in the body of society and economic and eco systems to allow for sustainable recovery. The most vital element today is coordinating the efforts of so many noble minded alliances and charities into a concerted policy of action .
Some years back I recall with the earthquake in Pakistan there were tons of agencies, charities and foundations pouring in aid, and resources to help in the earthquake devastated areas but it cannot be over looked that a large number of these relief efforts were actually duplicating themselves, causing actually a waste in the system of care. The Festival therefore allows people of a diverse range of cultures, educations and attitudes to sit together an work out an agenda of social change which will be followed up and not merely left behind on the delegates tables to be cleaned out the next day.
We live in a world where we need understanding, compassion and empathy. We need to understand why we have, mostly in the past 100 years, undone the quality of life that our future generations could have enjoyed. We have to pause at this moment and create the synergy that is needed between thought, business and compassion. Our model of tomorrow cannot be politically utilitarian; neither can it be economically and socially myopic because the results of these will be catastrophic. A Festival of Thinkers must create an idiom of thought which will force us to make a difference.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Sher Value: Good Business or Bad Business?
Living in an ever shrinking world we are no longer isolated from the events that happens miles away. The famines of Africa, the effects of the Tsunami, the plight of children around the world, are all now in our face, and thanks to some TV channels, 24 hours a day. This is truly the ‘nano-second’ age and in such and age there are two options; either do something, or simply turn off the TV.
Over a decade ago, as a young CEO of a bank I was asked as to the reasons the bank supported causes like the WWF, the Arabian Leopard Trust, MSF and many others, and I recall saying if business cannot accept a social agenda for the betterment of people and earth then its not good business. I recall it was around 1992 when I had said that and most other CEO’s called to tell me I was losing the plot of running a bank. Perhaps plots are meant to be lost, perhaps we need a vision to make a difference.
Both Dubai and Abu Dhabi have launched high profile drives to raise money, and more importantly, awareness, to causes that concern the human condition. While Dubai had started a program of care towards education around the world, Abu Dhabi has taken up the challenge of a broader format, and in both cases the response from the public has been over whelming. I read somewhere that the US government spends over US$ 1 billion at the Pentagon a DAY! Now factor that into health and education around the world and instead of swords we create pens and clinics, I have no doubt the world will not only be a better place but a safer place.
So then why is the message of ‘good business’ so hard to get, because simply put it is putting your profits into social good which in turn brings you more expansion as the market place becomes better and vibrant. Perhaps because the near term gain is more important, cutting down forests for a profit seems better to some then perhaps creating forests that will replace what we mow down.
Indeed man has wrecked more havoc on man himself than nature and in it bad business, has never played a glorious role other than to further its own cause. The resulting impact has been that only now the big business companies are beginning to become ‘energy companies’ rather than simply ‘oil companies’ and with oil at $80 a barrel alternate energy and clean energy becomes an item on their agenda.
Then there is the bad business of governments, where conscious is abandoned for gain, where India’s oil minister signs three oil explorations contracts with the Burmese military junta the same day the streets are filled with Buddhist monks being shot at, where the issues of climate change are pushed aside into the rubbish pile where other agendas of social change lay buried. Good business and good government are getting together to make a difference and that’s the good news.
Over a decade ago, as a young CEO of a bank I was asked as to the reasons the bank supported causes like the WWF, the Arabian Leopard Trust, MSF and many others, and I recall saying if business cannot accept a social agenda for the betterment of people and earth then its not good business. I recall it was around 1992 when I had said that and most other CEO’s called to tell me I was losing the plot of running a bank. Perhaps plots are meant to be lost, perhaps we need a vision to make a difference.
Both Dubai and Abu Dhabi have launched high profile drives to raise money, and more importantly, awareness, to causes that concern the human condition. While Dubai had started a program of care towards education around the world, Abu Dhabi has taken up the challenge of a broader format, and in both cases the response from the public has been over whelming. I read somewhere that the US government spends over US$ 1 billion at the Pentagon a DAY! Now factor that into health and education around the world and instead of swords we create pens and clinics, I have no doubt the world will not only be a better place but a safer place.
So then why is the message of ‘good business’ so hard to get, because simply put it is putting your profits into social good which in turn brings you more expansion as the market place becomes better and vibrant. Perhaps because the near term gain is more important, cutting down forests for a profit seems better to some then perhaps creating forests that will replace what we mow down.
Indeed man has wrecked more havoc on man himself than nature and in it bad business, has never played a glorious role other than to further its own cause. The resulting impact has been that only now the big business companies are beginning to become ‘energy companies’ rather than simply ‘oil companies’ and with oil at $80 a barrel alternate energy and clean energy becomes an item on their agenda.
Then there is the bad business of governments, where conscious is abandoned for gain, where India’s oil minister signs three oil explorations contracts with the Burmese military junta the same day the streets are filled with Buddhist monks being shot at, where the issues of climate change are pushed aside into the rubbish pile where other agendas of social change lay buried. Good business and good government are getting together to make a difference and that’s the good news.
Friday, October 5, 2007
Sher View: Burma is India's Litmus Test
India has always celebrated its successes, as indeed would many countries, both in its domestic and foreign policy, around the principles of democracy, secularism and Mathama Ghandi's principles of non violence. While India today boasts of its secular ideals, and perhaps rightly so, it has sadly betrayed Ghandi's adherence to non violence in its support for the military Junta in Myanmar (Burma). On September 23, 2007 as demonstrators were gathering in Rangoon and other cities, Indian minister for oil was in Myanmar signing three agreements on oil exploration and quite blatantly ignoring the uprising of the monks without making a single reference to the trouble on his return home.
Today India runs a trade surplus of US$400 million with Burma, largely made up through the export of military hardware and ammunition. Faced with growing influence of China with the Myanmar regime, India, ten years ago, commenced it policy of engagement with the regime in Myanmar. While China, being a non democratic country can be expected to do no better, but India? Interestingly the Indian press and public support the pro democracy movement, a fact that the Indian government continues to ignore.
India cannot go on sitting on the sidelines and ignore the role it must play in bringing about change in a country where guns and ammunition supplied by New Delhi are mowing down peace loving Buddhist monks. It is time for a change in policy and it is clear that unless China and India do not change their policy on Burma, the chances are that there is little than the world community can do to help the pro democracy movement. While changing perceptions and policy is China are next to impossible, India on the other hand as a conscious to answer for, a conscious that seems woefully lost on its own leadership.
Today India runs a trade surplus of US$400 million with Burma, largely made up through the export of military hardware and ammunition. Faced with growing influence of China with the Myanmar regime, India, ten years ago, commenced it policy of engagement with the regime in Myanmar. While China, being a non democratic country can be expected to do no better, but India? Interestingly the Indian press and public support the pro democracy movement, a fact that the Indian government continues to ignore.
India cannot go on sitting on the sidelines and ignore the role it must play in bringing about change in a country where guns and ammunition supplied by New Delhi are mowing down peace loving Buddhist monks. It is time for a change in policy and it is clear that unless China and India do not change their policy on Burma, the chances are that there is little than the world community can do to help the pro democracy movement. While changing perceptions and policy is China are next to impossible, India on the other hand as a conscious to answer for, a conscious that seems woefully lost on its own leadership.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Sher Value: The Pressure of Growth
Growing an economy and expansion are the hallmarks of a successful business model and indeed in this sense the UAE has set a wonderful example. As skyscrapers move even higher into the stratosphere, and new hotels pop up with the regularity that is almost predictable there is a perceptible pressure for services building up. While this is inevitable that service standards do suffer through an expansion phase of an economy, good planning should, generally speaking, rid one self of the complain of bad service. However, the adherence to quality is more a buzzword and it is becoming appalling to see how a lax attitude has come into some of the service sector, to the point where the customer does not matter.
A 30 day wait to get an internet connection in the Jumairah area, a 15 minute hold on the phone to make a claim, a 10 day wait to get the simplest information back from a bank, or indeed a 30 minute lapse for a cup of coffee changes the meaning of the phrase ‘instant coffee’. There is no denying that growth in the country has stretched the resource side of the market to the point where it is more than strained, but then where were the planners, the trainers, the human resource specialists all planning for the boom?
There are three distinct phases of the process; design build and operate, and it is at the latter part of his process that the model is beginning to fall off the seams. What is surprising is that this is happening at all the scales of the economic spectrum, so bad service is as common with the major telecom company, as it is with a coffee shop on Sh Zayed road. Why isn’t anyone doing something about it? Well simply put the business is already too good, so if a few customers go to bed complaining about things then so what as there are enough waiting in the sidelines. This is indeed the worse possible thinking in a situation like the one we are currently faced with.
Here are my suggestions; stop all Quality Awards immediately because companies that have already won the award have little interest in quality and the ones who have not won it really seem more caught up in making money rather than being ‘good’. Secondly it is high time that a customer care system is put in place to deal with complaints and please given them enough operators so that phone is atleast answered.
The country is on the cutting edge of the financial and service sector and needs to compete and needs to renew its pledge for service. This can only be achieved if there is a clear cut recognition that we currently have a problem of deteriorating service and attention to detail and this is hurting the image of the country. Too much has been invested into the country for a brighter future to let a bad service at one point of contact with clients to tarnish that image. Things need to be fixed and fast!!!
A 30 day wait to get an internet connection in the Jumairah area, a 15 minute hold on the phone to make a claim, a 10 day wait to get the simplest information back from a bank, or indeed a 30 minute lapse for a cup of coffee changes the meaning of the phrase ‘instant coffee’. There is no denying that growth in the country has stretched the resource side of the market to the point where it is more than strained, but then where were the planners, the trainers, the human resource specialists all planning for the boom?
There are three distinct phases of the process; design build and operate, and it is at the latter part of his process that the model is beginning to fall off the seams. What is surprising is that this is happening at all the scales of the economic spectrum, so bad service is as common with the major telecom company, as it is with a coffee shop on Sh Zayed road. Why isn’t anyone doing something about it? Well simply put the business is already too good, so if a few customers go to bed complaining about things then so what as there are enough waiting in the sidelines. This is indeed the worse possible thinking in a situation like the one we are currently faced with.
Here are my suggestions; stop all Quality Awards immediately because companies that have already won the award have little interest in quality and the ones who have not won it really seem more caught up in making money rather than being ‘good’. Secondly it is high time that a customer care system is put in place to deal with complaints and please given them enough operators so that phone is atleast answered.
The country is on the cutting edge of the financial and service sector and needs to compete and needs to renew its pledge for service. This can only be achieved if there is a clear cut recognition that we currently have a problem of deteriorating service and attention to detail and this is hurting the image of the country. Too much has been invested into the country for a brighter future to let a bad service at one point of contact with clients to tarnish that image. Things need to be fixed and fast!!!
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Sher Value: An elegant end.
Just when we thought we are going to be in for a long fight the tables turned neatly with the announcement that Borse Dubai and Nasdaq had arrived at a settlement where by after the purchase of OMX, Borse Dubai will swap all the stock for a stake in both NASDAQ and the London Stock Exchange. In a sense it clearly shows that the spirit of compromise was there on the side of Dubai and that its interest in OMX was not so much about controlling all the stock but to consider viable investments, irrespective of the size of the shareholding. From Borse Dubai’s perspective that is important is that with this deal they get 20% of NASDAQ shares and 25% of LSE stocks, which are significant shareholdings in the exchanges.
The announcement has barely hit the airwaves when there was noise about the ‘implications’ of this deal on ‘US security’. Some have argued that this is reminiscent of the DP World’s take over of P&O which resulted in 6 US ports being owned by DP World and what followed was an over exaggerated drama on security and others aspects. In the end the 6 ports management was sold off to other operators allowing the P&O deal to continue. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd called for a ‘careful review’ to ensure that there are no security implications from the deal whereby Borse Dubai owns 20% of a US stock exchange.
I find politicians to not only be naïve but also seriously myopic. The honorable Chairman Dodd should ask for the foreign holdings report from the US Treasury department, and indeed he will realize that a 20% stake in their stock exchange is the least of the issues. Foreign Holdings of US treasury debt have increased by 50% between 2003 and 2006. In addition more than half the US current account deficit is funded by foreign government purchases of US Securities(US$448 billion in 2006). Between China, Japan and the Arab oil producing countries they hold 60% of US securities and any decision by them to reduce these holdings will cause a serious damage to the US financial system.
NASDAQ is a US$ 4 billion market cap company, hardly the sort that would cause a national catastrophe if 20% of NASDAQ is owned by Borse Dubai. Indeed as President Bush said a review of the deal is needed and Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi call the deal as being different from the ports deal and more a ‘marketplace’ issue and nothing else.
The hawks in Capitol Hill should be careful about raising the hysteria level too much on what is a simple financial transaction. Let me assure you that a 20% stake cannot do any harm to US security as it does not even give the new shareholder the power to appoint a doorman at the exchange entrance. The vulnerability of the US financial system is through the foreign holdings and more a result of economic weaknesses, as indeed a continuing slide of the US dollar makes the investments for foreigners less attractive. So stop worrying about friends buying some stock.
The announcement has barely hit the airwaves when there was noise about the ‘implications’ of this deal on ‘US security’. Some have argued that this is reminiscent of the DP World’s take over of P&O which resulted in 6 US ports being owned by DP World and what followed was an over exaggerated drama on security and others aspects. In the end the 6 ports management was sold off to other operators allowing the P&O deal to continue. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd called for a ‘careful review’ to ensure that there are no security implications from the deal whereby Borse Dubai owns 20% of a US stock exchange.
I find politicians to not only be naïve but also seriously myopic. The honorable Chairman Dodd should ask for the foreign holdings report from the US Treasury department, and indeed he will realize that a 20% stake in their stock exchange is the least of the issues. Foreign Holdings of US treasury debt have increased by 50% between 2003 and 2006. In addition more than half the US current account deficit is funded by foreign government purchases of US Securities(US$448 billion in 2006). Between China, Japan and the Arab oil producing countries they hold 60% of US securities and any decision by them to reduce these holdings will cause a serious damage to the US financial system.
NASDAQ is a US$ 4 billion market cap company, hardly the sort that would cause a national catastrophe if 20% of NASDAQ is owned by Borse Dubai. Indeed as President Bush said a review of the deal is needed and Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi call the deal as being different from the ports deal and more a ‘marketplace’ issue and nothing else.
The hawks in Capitol Hill should be careful about raising the hysteria level too much on what is a simple financial transaction. Let me assure you that a 20% stake cannot do any harm to US security as it does not even give the new shareholder the power to appoint a doorman at the exchange entrance. The vulnerability of the US financial system is through the foreign holdings and more a result of economic weaknesses, as indeed a continuing slide of the US dollar makes the investments for foreigners less attractive. So stop worrying about friends buying some stock.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Sher Value: OMX bid
In the long history of bidding wars, the OMX issue will eventually go down as just another bid. However, the detail in the fine line is always difficult to read; quite simply NASDAQ, the US exchange, bid $3.7 billion for OMX the Nordic exchange. A few days later Borse Dubai bid $4 billion all cash for OMX, in comparison to the partial cash, partial stock deal of NASDAQ. I am no rocket scientist but clearly the Borse Dubai deal is better, but the surprise is that the management of OMX led by Magnus Boecker have seemingly thrown in their lot with the NASDAQ bid.
First of all the rules of any bid are that the management of the company does not take sides. Secondly, it would seem that the NASDAQ proposal is for Mr. Boecker to the chairman of the combined company that will be created by the NASDAQ-OMX combination. Mostly importantly, the NASDAQ bid also assures the senior management will be given generous pay rises which are built into the plan that NASDAQ has submitted for the combined company.
In the most lenient analysis one cannot escape the fact that management is being bribed by the offer, and clearly it is in their interests to work against the Borse Dubai bid for the company irrespective of the merits of the case. The Wallenberg family, who own 10% of the OMX stock have also joined the fray with comments indicating that the NASDAQ bid might actually be higher when analyzed compared to the Borse Dubai bid! This I must see because the NASDAQ offer in August included a swap of stock of 0.502 stock of NASDAQ for each OMX share that are ofcourse susceptible to the vagaries of the stock market. Nevertheless to say that $3.7 billion is more than $4 billion is not the sort of thing that one’s math teacher will be very proud off.
We also have to consider the argument that a transatlantic link up for OMX is better than a link with the markets in Dubai. NASDAQ’s bid comes on the heals of its failed bid for the London Stock Exchange, and increasing pressure from changes to the way securities are being traded in the US, i.e. the proposed Goldman Sachs ‘single dealer platform’ which will drive exchange driven benefits more into a seamless electronic trading environment. But then this could all be an ego trip for Bob Greifeld, the CEO of NASDAQ who loves to battle; just consider the recent move to block LSE from issuing new stock to funds LSE’s proposed take over of Borsa Italiana.
Compare the conduct of NASDAQ as it battles at home, goes nasty after a failed bid for LSE and then basically is offering silver spoons to the management of an exchange it is trying to take over.
In contrast for OMX the opportunities that come from joining one of the most dynamic financial plays of modern history cannot be under estimated. In the first instance the liquidity that comes from the Gulf and through Dubai is phenomenal and through my days as a banker I know that fund managers love investments coming from this region. What OMX will find is a new doorway opens to them, rather than enter portals into the US market that are frankly well traversed and over valued. Yet I would close on the note that NASDAQ doesn’t fight clean, but were it another other competitor than Brose Dubai, who don’t like ugly battles, the chances are Bob and Boeckr would find themselves fighting legal battles for what is essentially a pay off to management.
First of all the rules of any bid are that the management of the company does not take sides. Secondly, it would seem that the NASDAQ proposal is for Mr. Boecker to the chairman of the combined company that will be created by the NASDAQ-OMX combination. Mostly importantly, the NASDAQ bid also assures the senior management will be given generous pay rises which are built into the plan that NASDAQ has submitted for the combined company.
In the most lenient analysis one cannot escape the fact that management is being bribed by the offer, and clearly it is in their interests to work against the Borse Dubai bid for the company irrespective of the merits of the case. The Wallenberg family, who own 10% of the OMX stock have also joined the fray with comments indicating that the NASDAQ bid might actually be higher when analyzed compared to the Borse Dubai bid! This I must see because the NASDAQ offer in August included a swap of stock of 0.502 stock of NASDAQ for each OMX share that are ofcourse susceptible to the vagaries of the stock market. Nevertheless to say that $3.7 billion is more than $4 billion is not the sort of thing that one’s math teacher will be very proud off.
We also have to consider the argument that a transatlantic link up for OMX is better than a link with the markets in Dubai. NASDAQ’s bid comes on the heals of its failed bid for the London Stock Exchange, and increasing pressure from changes to the way securities are being traded in the US, i.e. the proposed Goldman Sachs ‘single dealer platform’ which will drive exchange driven benefits more into a seamless electronic trading environment. But then this could all be an ego trip for Bob Greifeld, the CEO of NASDAQ who loves to battle; just consider the recent move to block LSE from issuing new stock to funds LSE’s proposed take over of Borsa Italiana.
Compare the conduct of NASDAQ as it battles at home, goes nasty after a failed bid for LSE and then basically is offering silver spoons to the management of an exchange it is trying to take over.
In contrast for OMX the opportunities that come from joining one of the most dynamic financial plays of modern history cannot be under estimated. In the first instance the liquidity that comes from the Gulf and through Dubai is phenomenal and through my days as a banker I know that fund managers love investments coming from this region. What OMX will find is a new doorway opens to them, rather than enter portals into the US market that are frankly well traversed and over valued. Yet I would close on the note that NASDAQ doesn’t fight clean, but were it another other competitor than Brose Dubai, who don’t like ugly battles, the chances are Bob and Boeckr would find themselves fighting legal battles for what is essentially a pay off to management.
Saturday, September 8, 2007
Sher Value: Inflation Monster
We all, without exception, love growth, it symbolizes that we are doing something positive and the benefits of our policies and hard work are bearing fruit. However, as most economists will tell you, growth comes with its challenges and pitfalls. Some of these can be faced through good fiscal and monetary policy and others can be dealt with in terms of a strategic framework, while not all risks from hyper growth can be mitigated, there is little denying that a good framework is usually a good thing to have.
UAE has been experiencing phenomenal growth, with oil prices having averaged close to US$ 60 per barrel for over a year, a massive expansion in the real estate sector, the growth of banking, hospitality and services all abode well for the future. With growth, usually comes the competition of money seeking those goods and services which become more dear resulting in inflation. Classically, the best way to fight inflation is to have a proactive monetary policy, where indicators are watched and action is taken prior to inflation becoming a chronic problem for growth. Central bank regulators usually balance the needs of economic growth by a variety of measures, the most common and perhaps effective, being the use of interest rates and money supply to either spurt the economy on or rein in too much money supply.
However, for the UAE its linkage to the US dollar creates a unique set of issues, most of which being that while domestic growth has been robust, the UAE Dihram has slid by over 15% last year against the Euro alone on account of the UAE Dihram being pegged to the US Dollar. In addition, while not explicitly stated, UAE interest rate policy closely reflects the movements in the US interest rates creating a dichotomy.
Take the current situation, the US needs to get out of a credit crunch and hence has to make lending easier and provide liquidity to the markets by lowering interest rates. UAE on the other hand had to rein in money supply and curb inflation for which it would typically increase interest rates! While it is commonly stated that a delinking for the US Dollar would reduce the value of UAE’s exports (mostly in dollars) and its investments, (also mostly held in dollars) these adjustments would be notional and allow the UAE to either let its currency float (not recommended by me as it needs active monetary management) or to adjust the peg against the dollar. Ideally, I hae argued that the UAE should create a basket of currencies and adjust its rate against the basket on a regular basis. This will also mean that the UAE Central Bank will have to play a more active part in issuing longer term treasuries to soak in the liquidity and redeem them when it needs to provide liquidity.
UAE, as an economy, is dynamic, robust and becoming more integral to the world capital markets and it has to move away from reactive financial management to a more proactive model. Growth is a great story around the dinner table and something we have to be proud of, but inflation is a pretty stubborn customer that could upset the apple cart.
UAE has been experiencing phenomenal growth, with oil prices having averaged close to US$ 60 per barrel for over a year, a massive expansion in the real estate sector, the growth of banking, hospitality and services all abode well for the future. With growth, usually comes the competition of money seeking those goods and services which become more dear resulting in inflation. Classically, the best way to fight inflation is to have a proactive monetary policy, where indicators are watched and action is taken prior to inflation becoming a chronic problem for growth. Central bank regulators usually balance the needs of economic growth by a variety of measures, the most common and perhaps effective, being the use of interest rates and money supply to either spurt the economy on or rein in too much money supply.
However, for the UAE its linkage to the US dollar creates a unique set of issues, most of which being that while domestic growth has been robust, the UAE Dihram has slid by over 15% last year against the Euro alone on account of the UAE Dihram being pegged to the US Dollar. In addition, while not explicitly stated, UAE interest rate policy closely reflects the movements in the US interest rates creating a dichotomy.
Take the current situation, the US needs to get out of a credit crunch and hence has to make lending easier and provide liquidity to the markets by lowering interest rates. UAE on the other hand had to rein in money supply and curb inflation for which it would typically increase interest rates! While it is commonly stated that a delinking for the US Dollar would reduce the value of UAE’s exports (mostly in dollars) and its investments, (also mostly held in dollars) these adjustments would be notional and allow the UAE to either let its currency float (not recommended by me as it needs active monetary management) or to adjust the peg against the dollar. Ideally, I hae argued that the UAE should create a basket of currencies and adjust its rate against the basket on a regular basis. This will also mean that the UAE Central Bank will have to play a more active part in issuing longer term treasuries to soak in the liquidity and redeem them when it needs to provide liquidity.
UAE, as an economy, is dynamic, robust and becoming more integral to the world capital markets and it has to move away from reactive financial management to a more proactive model. Growth is a great story around the dinner table and something we have to be proud of, but inflation is a pretty stubborn customer that could upset the apple cart.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)