Banking & Finance

IPO Watch – Enthusiasm remains

by Executive Staff
written by Executive Staff

Companies based in the Middle East and North Africa raised close to $15 billion in 2007 through initial public offerings (IPO), according to statistics from Zawya Investor. This equals almost 6% of the global IPO market which raised around $255 billion by the end of November 2007. According to a report published by Ernst & Young in early December, this IPO performance for the incomplete year already has surpassed the previous full-year record of $246 billion set in 2006. Analysts say it is good news because it shows a new spirit of innovation in the region and a continued momentum by local companies to become global players.

But wait, what about fears of a recession in the US and a global slowdown, uncontrollable swings on global stock markets and tightening credit conditions across the world. Would this perhaps create a sense of pessimism about the year ahead for the Middle East IPO market? The nervousness of investors showed in reported requests to postpone the trading debut of PetroRabigh, the Saudi petrochemicals joint venture between Saudi Aramco and Japan’s Sumitomo Chemical Co. A $1.2 billion IPO for 25% of the company was covered 3.48 times by demand in early January, especially from retail investors who subscribed at an issue price of $5.60 per share.

As petrochemical stocks suffered in the Saudi Stock Exchange market scare on January 20 to 22, Saudi media wrote of requests by retail investors who asked to delay the start of trading because they feared losses if the stock came in on negative sentiment — but when PetroRabigh shares started trading as originally scheduled on January 27, they opened at $11.50 and closed the first day at $13.90.

Given that the outlook for the largest stock markets remains jittery and whole choruses of US economic experts are singing opposing chants on the are-we-in-recession question, it would be unfair to ask for a consensus on the IPO expectations in Arab countries during 2008. There are reassuring signs such as the PetroRabigh story but there also are justifiable reasons to see the IPO mill grinding slower than some might think. In a massive hint at the length of time which some of the highly touted IPOs of state-owned corporate gems could take, the chairman of UAE carrier Emirates Airlines, Sheikh Ahmed bin Saeed al-Maktoum, said in an interview that a flotation should be expected up to two years after government approval of partial privatization through IPO. Last autumn, media reports quoted top managers at the airline that a huge Emirates IPO would happen in the first quarter of 2008.

Some regional research houses and market experts continue to support an optimistic outlook and claim that 2008 is set to be another record year citing a flurry of new IPO announcements in January which flooded the halls of the region’s stock markets — generating excitement not just for local investors but also for foreign ones.

Saudi Arabia, which boasts the region’s largest stock market, through the Saudi Capital Market Authority (CMA), announced two new IPOs with a combined value of $4.5 billion. Inma Bank, the country’s Islamic development bank, will be offering a whopping 1.05 billion shares or 70% of its capital in an IPO between April 7 and 16. With Samba Financial Group as the lead manager, the share price will be set at $2.67 for a total value of $2.80 billion.

CMA also announced that Zain Saudi Arabia, a subsidiary of Kuwait’s biggest mobile operator, Zain Group, will float 700 million shares or 50% of the company’s capital to the public from February 9 to 18. Share price will be set at $2.67 for a total value of $1.86 billion.

Meanwhile, the UAE had promised more IPO action for 2008. But in January, only two announcements were made. The first being Damas, the UAE’s largest jewelry chain, said it has confirmed plans to launch an $272 million IPO in the first half of 2008. Although the venue of the listing has not been confirmed, sources say the company will list on the Dubai Financial Market and possibly a dual listing on a foreign exchange as well. The second firm is DEPA United Group, which said it will launch a $500 million IPO in the second quarter of 2008. The joint lead managers for the interiors contracting company are Morgan Stanley and UBS. The company is expected to list on the DIFX.

Moving to the North Africa, the number of scheduled IPOs in Morocco for 2008 is expected to be around 10 on the Casablanca Stock Exchange, according to BMCE Capital Bourse. One of the largest rumored so far is the Chaabi Lil IskaneChaabi Lil Iskane real estate firm which is expected in the second quarter of 2008. Another potential for second half of 2008 is Delta Holding while Credit Agricole Morroco, will float its shares at the end of 2008.

Whether the region’s stock markets can ride out the storm of a global slowdown and a US recession is a question on the minds of many investors. The answer isn’t clear, but given the unprecedented high oil prices and economic liberalization across the region, substantial growth in all major sectors and unheard of interest in the region by foreign investors, observers who spoke to Executive said that local stock markets in general and the IPO market in particular, will continue to flourish in 2008. They claim that the turbulence in the US markets has not dampened the enthusiasm or the development drive in the region. The say that even if oil prices drop by $20 in 2008 the MENA region will continue to experience significant economic growth for many years to come.

 

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
By Invitation

Authoritarian CEOs are out, inclusive CEOs are in

by Bahjat el-Darwiche & Rabih Abouchakra
written by Bahjat el-Darwiche & Rabih Abouchakra
CEOs today must work cooperatively with a variety of stakeholders, including proactive boards, involved investors and other vocal constituencies.

There has been a dramatic shift over the past decade in the role of the CEO in corporations across the globe. The time of the “authoritarian” CEO, who roamed the corporate landscape not so long ago, has passed, as we enter the era of the “inclusive” chief executive officer.

Whereas Authoritarian CEOs answered only to themselves, the power of today’s CEO is not as absolute: Boards of directors are becoming more critical and more closely involved in setting strategy, and are far more likely to insist that CEOs deliver acceptable shareholder returns and demonstrate ethical conduct. Boards are increasingly prepared to replace CEOs in anticipation of disappointing future performance, instead of merely as punishment for poor past performance. At the same time, large shareholders like private equity firms are taking a more active role in decisions that were once the sole purview of the CEO.

The emergence of this more demanding environment has accelerated CEO turnover. Our recent studies reveal that annual turnover of blue chips’ CEOs across the globe increased by 59% between 1995 and 2006. In those same years, performance-related turnover — cases in which CEOs were fired or pushed out — increased threefold. Whereas, in 1995, only one in eight departing CEOs was forced from office, last year, nearly one in three left involuntarily.

This new era will require new skill sets and impose new responsibilities on both chief executives and board members. Today’s inclusive CEOs must be willing to engage in dialogue with investors, employees, and government; to surround themselves with managers and advisors who complement their own capabilities; and to maintain transparency in their communications about financial results and compensation.
Boards are adapting 

The last decade has witnessed two fundamental shifts in the ways corporate boards address CEO selection and oversight: Boards are becoming less tolerant of poor performance, and they are increasingly splitting the roles of CEO and chairman.

Our research shows that CEOs who deliver below-average returns to investors don’t remain in office for long. Last year, a CEO in North America who delivered above-average returns to investors was almost twice as likely as one delivering sub-par returns to remain CEO for more than seven years. In contrast, in 1995, CEOs who delivered substandard returns to investors were just as likely to achieve long tenure — a perverse situation that reflected the durability of the Authoritarian CEO. The Middle East is catching-up fast with global CEO turnover rates as rapid-growing economies are bringing new pressures to corporate management and governance in the region.

The other major trend has been in governance, with both a shift toward separation of the roles of chairman and CEO and a shift toward chairmen who haven’t previously served as a company’s CEO. Splitting the roles of CEO and chairman while the former CEO stays on as chairman is a bad idea for three reasons: First, knowing that the former CEO will remain involved as chairman sometimes leads the board to embrace a candidate who was a great number two, but who’s unlikely to become an effective CEO; second, most chairmen who were CEOs protect their protégés, reducing the likelihood that the new CEO will be fired for poor performance; and third, some chairmen who weren’t really ready to give up their executive responsibilities go to the opposite extreme, firing their successor at the first sign of trouble and reassuming the chief executive position.

Inclusiveness, engagement, and involvement 

With the board of directors more deeply engaged and owners actively involved in governance and strategy, inclusiveness is the most critical new attribute for the CEO, starting with the ability to take into account the concerns and suggestions of investors, employees, and government. Given the unrelenting pace of change in global business today, stakeholders may see threats and opportunities sooner than the board and management team do. Listening to stakeholders increases the likelihood that a company will act quickly and effectively.

Transparency about results is another indispensable element of inclusiveness. Several CEOs have been dismissed in the last few years because of inadequate transparency — with regard to both the board and shareholders — about their compensation.

Including board members in the development of strategy — not merely asking them to approve a strategy developed by management — is the best way to gain the board’s confidence and buy-in. It’s an effort well worth making: Board backing is invaluable to CEOs who may face investor challenges while waiting to see if a new strategy will pay off.

The board of directors, in turn, must embrace deeper engagement. Because of intensifying global competition and ever-higher expectations about corporate performance, companies now need the board of directors to proactively offer suggestions, to debate threats and opportunities, to push back aggressively if management is heading in the wrong direction, and to make informed judgments.

Deep engagement requires directors to participate in dialogues with customers, channel partners, suppliers, and employees — not different in concept from the traditional role of the ideal director, but completely different from the usual practice. These dialogues in turn require directors to devote time beyond the quarterly board meetings, probably earning compensation greater than what they receive today.

Involved investors are also becoming the norm. Authoritarian CEOs survived because investors weren’t actively involved in the governance of publicly traded corporations, limiting themselves to selling off stock when they lost confidence in a company’s CEO. Today’s involved investors include not only members of family-controlled businesses, but also private equity buyout firms, raiders, and hedge funds that take a stronger hand in the actual running of the companies they’ve invested in.

New era challenges

Going forward, boards of directors will need to encourage constructive disagreement and debate, abandoning consensus habit as a vestige of the authoritarian age. They must also be proactive in grooming and retaining a sufficient bench of candidates for the chief executive position, and be creative and adaptable in searching for outside CEO candidates when necessary. In addition, they’ll have to address such new-era governance challenges as balancing the interests of active institutional shareholders — hedge funds and buyout firms, for example — against those of other investors.

This new age of corporate governance is still taking shape, with many of the rules of the new era still unclear and some probably yet to be written. What is clear is that all the constituencies interested in the health and welfare of the corporation — CEOs, boards of directors, investors, consultants, regulators, legislators, and the business press — should say goodbye to the era of the authoritarian CEO and prepare for change.

Bahjat El-Darwiche and Rabih Abouchakra are principals at Booz Allen Hamilton

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
By Invitation

Global footprints of sovereign wealth

by John Defterios
written by John Defterios

The last month will likely go down in the financial record books as the one which redefined how the world looks at sovereign wealth funds (SWFs). It is also part of a bigger geo-economic shift underway, which lends itself to the East-East moniker, meaning the wealth and trade belt from the Middle East to China.

While we have been covering the power of these government funds, where they are seeking to make a mark and the new emerging players within this space, it is only now that these funds are flashing on the global radar.

It is challenging to get hard figures on the total government investment funds under management, but there are a handful of Western banks attempting to do so. Standard Chartered Bank places the value at around $2.2 trillion dollars. I personally think this is off the mark since the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority may have more than half that amount itself.
SWFs — Big & Getting Bigger 

$2-3 trillion dollars in assets

$10-15 trillion dollars by 2015

Bigger than private equity

(source: Standard Chartered, Morgan Stanley)

More eye-popping clearly is the path ahead. If oil stays in the range of $60-$80 a barrel over the next five years, the amount will surge to $10-$15 trillion. To provide some context, the current sum is already bigger than the global private equity pool, which made all the headlines in the past two years with record buyouts.

Is this a new phenomenon? Certainly not. The Kuwait Investment Authority (KIA) can trace its roots back to 1953; the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority (ADIA) to the mid-

1960s. While they traditionally deployed assets in government bonds and currencies, that trend has changed over the past five years and accelerated in the last six months.

Chris Wheeler, banking analyst at Bear Sterns, points to global wealth surveys to illustrate the point that liquidity from record oil prices has to find a home. “A lot of excess funds are being generated which the SWFs are having to invest somewhere and they are finding interesting opportunities in difficult times in the banking sector.” Wheeler, like many others, believes the often talked about recession in the US will lead them to more bargains in other sectors.

This must sound familiar. Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal bought stakes in Citigroup back in 1991 at the equivalent of $2.75 a share. Even at the mid-twenty range it is today, he is (excuse the cliché) smiling all the way to the bank. He obviously thinks this latest downturn created a similar opportunity and so did others who jumped in this week. They are not traders, but investors who hold their stakes for years, sometimes decades.

Like the financial markets, which create buyers and sellers, this market and story will continue to evolve. One of the newer players on the scene, the Qatar Investment Authority, will re-emerge after its participation in the bid for UK supermarket giant J. Sainsbury, and Mubadala of Abu Dhabi has recently put itself on the map with its stake in investment banker The Carlyle Group.

G-8 Wish List

Invest on commercial grounds

Respect national transparency rules

Compete with private sector fairly

(source: OECD, IMF)

As the old and new sovereign funds begin to compete for Western assets, G8 countries are attempting to establish investment standards for all this capital. The US Treasury Department has lobbied to have the OECD, the Paris based think tank for industrialized nations, and the International Monetary Fund in Washington put forth guidelines for best practices and greater transparency.

That effort gathered momentum a few months ago, but the calls for concrete action have faded away, as the need for capital infusions on Wall Street rose rapidly.

The World Economic Forum in Davos provides a good opportunity not only for us to talk to the Middle Eastern and Far Eastern players making waves in global financial markets, but also to those who are trying to regulate their actions.

John Defterios is the presenter of CNN’s Market Place Middle East.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
By Invitation

Cheer up – the Arabian real economy steams ahead

by Imad Ghandour
written by Imad Ghandour

As I am writing these words, stock markets around the world are witnessing one of the most dramatic free falls in their history. The subprime problem is now snowballing to become a global recession. Banks are hesitant to even lend to each other. Central bankers are panicking. The Federal Reserve dropped its benchmark discount rate by 0.75% — the largest single drop in seven years.

Despite the talk of gloom and doom, I am cheerful. 

The markets back in 2000 were hit by the burst of the technology bubble, and then in 2001, they were slammed again by the 9/11 attacks. Thereafter, economic growth slowed considerably. But for private equity, investments made after 2001 yielded excellent returns. As valuations plummeted from their 2000 highs, private equity players in US and Europe were able to close deals post-2001 at bargain prices. The graph below shows CalPers (the largest investor in private equity funds) returns on its private equity portfolio by fund closing year (also known as “Vintage Year”).

Arabia will not be insulated from the black clouds that will be downing on the world financial markets over the next months and years. The reaction from the regional stock markets on Monday, January 21, confirms that Arabia is not as decoupled from the global economy as some people like to think. Even the super-insulated Saudi stock market, Tadawul, dropped by more than 20% over the course of several days.

Yet the Arabian real economy will continue to steam ahead despite hiccups in some sectors. The financial sector will be affected by the global turmoil, but less so than other regions in the world. Real estate may also be affected as global, and even regional, financing sources dry up. Transportation and logistics growth will also slow down as growth of transit shipments and passengers from east to west will be influenced by the probable recession in the US and Europe.

The biggest question will be to what extent oil prices will drop in the wake of a global recession, and consequently, whether oil may drop below $50 a barrel. Oil prices are the biggest determinant of Arabia’s economic growth. Psychologically, they form a leading indicator of GCC economic outlook. They are the main source for financing governments, which are still the main economic drivers for the economy as a whole. Fortunately, GCC governments have accumulated huge reserves, and they will be able to easily weather any short-term drop in oil revenues.

Going back to private equity, the next few months will be difficult for all financial players. But as private equiteers come to grips with the consequences of the downturn, and as new realities settle in, the playground for private equity players in the region will be even greener. On one hand, as a result of dropping oil prices, stock markets’ downturn, and gloomy global economic prospects, valuations will be beaten down to reasonable levels. The market will shift to become more balanced, after being under the mercy of the sellers. Secondly, liquidity, although not easily accessible, will not evaporate. Whatever the severity of the global recession, the region still exports daily $700 million to $1 billion worth of oil. Furthermore, governments’ reserves will continue to trickle down to the rest of the economy — sustaining corporate profits and public investments. Last but not least, global funds will realize that growth in Arabia is more robust than in other regions, and hence, the theory of “Arabia is negatively correlated with the rest of the world” will translate into a shift towards further investment by global institutional investors in Arabia’s stock markets and funds. But this will probably happen after the recession settles in.

Be ready for a tumultuous 2008. Remember: Luck favors the prepared and the courageous.

Imad Ghandour is the chairman of the Information & Statistics Committee Gulf Venture Capital Association.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Capitalist Culture

The American Empire – Contemplating isolation.

by Michael Young
written by Michael Young

One of the more interesting subtexts of the presidential campaign in the United States has been the debate over whether the nation should withdraw from most of its foreign entanglements. The issue has not been at the center of voters’ concerns, however it has hit a nerve among them, because the proposal comes at a time when the US is bogged down in Iraq and is uncertain about its role internationally.

The candidate who has gotten the most mileage out of this is the libertarian Republican Ron Paul. He has situated his foreign policy aims between the twin goalposts of the ideas expressed by America’s Founding Fathers and a defense of state sovereignty. As his campaign website explains: “Both [Thomas] Jefferson and [George] Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America […] We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. […] Under no circumstances should the US again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations.”

Paul’s “republican fundamentalism” — the partial return to the principles of the republic of the late 18th century — is hardly new. Partly that’s because the Founding Fathers sought to achieve the right balance between liberty and stability, and that discussion is ongoing in a country where state power has reached troubling levels. Foreign entanglements, the early leaders of the republic felt, would not only force the US to pursue the more authoritarian (and implicitly more corrupt) ways of “old Europe”; it would, in effect, oblige Americans to behave like a continent from which separation had been a major factor in forging the US national identity.

Much like the Europeans, the US participated in the race for empire at the end of the 1800s and into the early 1900s. With the US the strongest world power after World War II, the republic’s internationalists (after an initial period of American retreat) defended extended American participation in world affairs. That logic was used to justify the open-ended, global commitment to fighting Soviet power that developed into an international cold war.

Whatever one thinks of American “republican fundamentalists”, and they have long served a valuable role in defining the necessary limits to state power on issues of domestic civil liberties, it’s not clear how realistic their views are when applied to the world today. There is also something remarkably self-centered in their advocacy of liberty at home next to their abandonment of that principle — behind a wall of sovereignty — overseas.

The Middle East is the ideal place to test the theory of American retreat from foreign entanglements. One can make a good case, for example, that advancing democracy by force is a mistake, and that argument has been often used to condemn the Bush administration’s policies in Iraq. Yet at the same time, it is true to say that Arab authoritarianism has been one of the most significant reasons for the expansion of militant Islam — in some cases, as 9/11 showed, a militant Islam that can wreak havoc against the US. If so, doesn’t American respect for the sovereignty of its Arab partners risk provoking blowback against the American homeland?

Paul’s campaign argues: “Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised.” That’s true. But it’s equally true that the US is often despised for not intervening. One could paper the sky with articles written by Arab critics of the US who unfailingly urge Washington to resolve everything from the Arab-Israeli conflict to Arab economic underdevelopment. It’s a case of America being damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t, and the republican fundamentalists have few real solutions to that conundrum.

There is also the matter of stability. Could the international system absorb the shock of a significant American retreat? What would happen in the Korean peninsula if the US pulled its soldiers out? Or Afghanistan? Or Iraq? What would happen if America’s refusal to “get involved” led to actions with a negative impact on global markets and the international financial system? As historians have long recognized, throughout history empires, good or bad, have helped stabilize the international system. As the Scottish historian Niall Ferguson has argued, the US is an empire, whether Americans like it or not, and must embrace its role as defender of a stable liberal political and economic international system, much as the British Empire did during the 1800s.

Not surprisingly, Ferguson is advising John McCain, Paul’s rival for the Republican nomination. That only shows the diversity of opinion within the same political party and how the destiny of the US continues to be a source of considerable national disagreement.

Michael young

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Comment

Trousers down, arms up!

by Paul Cochrane
written by Paul Cochrane
Over the last few months work and pleasure have taken me from India via the Middle East to Europe and onto North America. That’s a lot of flying, and a lot of security checks.

Out of all the airport security I encountered, it was Western airport security — unsurprisingly — that was the most invasive. It was also the most pointless, despite the rhetoric that it supposedly makes us “feel safer” and that it is necessary to thwart the terrorist threat by having to queue for hours, then shuffle through the metal detector in your socks while holding up your belt-less trousers — after, of course, quaffing whatever drink you accidentally had in your bag.

The biggest irony is that the Middle East (bar Jordan), that hotbed of terrorism and conflict, is one of the easiest regions on earth to pass through airport security. Equally puzzling is why, after nail clippers and a can of shaving cream are removed from my hand luggage in Europe and the States, I can waltz onto the plane with a glass bottle of duty free whiskey — nay hard to smash the bottle of booze and stab someone with, if one was so inclined.

Then there is the idiocy of some of the items given onboard — metal cutlery that could be turned into what the prison community calls a “shiv,” as well a set of headphones that could easily be used as a garrotting wire.

After all, what’s the point of taking away nail clippers? Threaten the stewardess with the forcible clipping away of her finely manicured nails? “Open the cockpit or her nails geddit!”

As a friend once remarked, the most dangerous thing a passenger has is their hands and legs — the limbs of a well-trained martial artist for instance. A ballpoint pen is equally dangerous, as the mob film Casino graphically illustrated when a man is repeatedly stabbed in the neck with a writing instrument.

A vivid imagination as well as Hollywood can give a wannabe killer a lot of ideas, but that is not the point. The point is that there are innumerable ways to kill someone and provoke terror, and there is not much even the tightest security can prevent — just ask a warden at a maximum-security prison about his experiences.

That said, security is of course necessary, but to what degree?

As the head of Lebanon’s Civil Aviation Authority, Hamdi Chaouk, told me, “Technology is so advanced they don’t need to do this, stripping and removing shoes. The EU has not been able to compromise on what people need and security. Who can tell me this security has done something?”

Well, unfortunately, no one can. A team at the Harvard School of Public Health recently found no evidence that X-raying carry-on luggage prevents hijackings or attacks. They also found no evidence that making passengers take off their shoes and confiscating small items prevented any incidents. In fact, of the 13 million seized items by the United State’s Transportation Security Administration last year, most of the prohibited items were nail clippers and cigarette lighters, not guns or explosives tucked inside someone’s socks.

So why all the inconvenience to get on a plane? (While not on a bus or a train?)

It strikes me that the billions of dollars now being spent on security is a great way of making money and creating jobs. Indeed, at New York’s JFK International Airport, seven people were needed to process one line, from the X-ray machine to the pat-down, to the swabbing of laptops. Furthermore, the cosmetics and water bottling sectors (as well as the nail-clipper industry) must be rubbing their hands with glee due to the increased sales that result from the need to replace everything removed from passengers.

But let’s not be flippant. Security is no laughing matter. It’s a $59 billion a year business that by 2015 is set to treble worldwide to $178 billion, according to industry tracker Homeland Security Research. And that prediction is all dependent on another grandiose 9/11 terrorist style attack not happening. If a major attack occurs in the United States, Europe or Japan the security market will increase twelve-fold by 2015 to $730 billion, with the USA accounting for 42% of that expenditure.

That’s good news for the security sector. But the saying “one man’s gain is another man’s loss” is also applicable here. Although some undoubtedly profit from the whole security rigmarole, a report has estimated that for every 624 million passengers that each spend two hours a year waiting in line, the annual loss to the economy is some $32 billion. Furthermore, additional security expenditure means costs are passed down to passengers. It’s no surprise then that people are opting to travel by car, train, boat and bus instead, which is not good news for the airline sector, already hit by rising fuel prices.

So for the benefit of everyone, it should seem a no-brainer that airport security should be taken much more seriously, not for the time consuming joke it currently is.

PAUL COCHRANE is a freelance journalist based in Beirut. For his next trip to Europe or the States he is mulling the option of going by sea.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Comment

The strength of diversification

by Riad Al-Khouri
written by Riad Al-Khouri

Arab stock markets make progress, but still have some way to go.

Stock exchanges, in the Arab World as elsewhere, mirror the economy of a state or region. However, bourses are more than just reflections of changes in the “real” sector, especially in emerging economies. Widening share ownership is usually associated with opening up of economic systems, as business power devolves away from states or oligarchies. Bourses are also places where people or companies raise fresh capital to set up new businesses, or to expand old ones, perhaps the most important of their functions.

In these and other respects, Arab bourses are laggards no more. Developing regional share markets over the past few decades have served to make doing business easier — and help people become richer. When the first oil boom began in the mid-1970s, most Arab countries did not have bourses; today, the majority of regional capitals can boast a stock exchange of increasing size and sophistication. In the context of overall economic liberalization in the Arab World, the establishment, development, and reform of bourses has interacted positively with other change, as more transparent and professionally run share exchanges have emerged hand in hand with liberalizing economies.

Jordan is an example of how things have gone well in this respect, with the Amman Stock Exchange (ASE) proving to be an important element of positive economic change in the country. Last year confirmed this trend, as the ASE general index jumped 36% during 2007, and market capitalization surged by 39% to $41.2 billion, representing 289% of Jordan’s gross domestic product. The latter percentage is one of the highest in the world, reflecting the importance of bourse activity in Jordan’s economy. Moreover, the trend in this indicator is sharply up, with bourse capitalization having been a mere $11 billion in 2003, closer to the equivalent of the Jordanian GDP at that time.

However, the ASE remains dominated by the stock of one business, the Arab Bank, which still makes up a big chunk of market capitalization and activity. Though robust and soundly managed, if that august institution reports any bad news, the whole ASE suffers. Not that this isn’t a feature of other Arab bourses: for example on the Beirut Stock Exchange (BSE), 74% of total trading activity of the last week of 2007 (and the lion’s share of that for the whole year) was in one company, Solidere, the real estate developer, typical of that firm’s dominance of the Lebanese bourse.

Be that is it may, though the Beirut exchange wobbled nervously in 2007 due to the country’s chronic political crisis, the BSE’s landmark BLOM Stock Index still managed a 26% annual rise during the year. Although not as strong as some other Arab bourses, the achievement was quite good, considering lagging Lebanese growth. The beginning of 2008 on the other hand saw shares zooming upward on news of an Arab reconciliation initiative to bring feuding Lebanese factions together, but the next months could still mostly be ones of economic instability — mirrored by an edgy bourse. Still, the Beirut bourse and most other regional exchanges outperformed many of their big brothers in the West, though not the price of oil or gold.

Although the BSE is an extreme case, a handful of key shares tend respectively to overshadow most other Arab bourses. On the Palestine Stock Exchange, for example, the Palestine Telecommunications Company and Palestine Development & Investment Ltd. (better known as PADICO) are dominant, with about 78% of all traded shares in the market in 2007.

Though under present circumstances it is difficult to see massive expansion and diversification on the Palestinian bourse or the BSE, nevertheless, other regional stock exchanges continue to diversify. For example, the 2007 climb in the ASE general share price index was due more to the 31% rise in industrial shares than the 14% gain in the financial sector, which the Arab Bank dominates. This trend has also been evident in most of the rest of the region.

Diversity in the nationality of shareholders is also becoming a more important feature of Arab markets. For example, net foreign investment on the ASE was almost 49% of overall market capitalization at end-2007, compared to the 2004 figure of 41%; non-Jordanian Arabs’ contribution was close to 36% while that of others accounted for about 13%. Sectorally, non-Jordanian ownership of industry stood at 52% while that of the financial institutions was 51% and other services 36%. Though a more smoothly running stock exchange helped, these high percentages would have been unimaginable under restrictive Jordanian investment laws a decade ago, a change toward liberalization paralleled in other Arab countries; and such a trend should get stronger in the years ahead.
RIAD AL KHOURI is Visiting Scholar, Carnegie Middle East Center, Beirut; and Senior Fellow, William Davidson Institute, the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Comment

It takes more than two to tango

by Claude Salhani
written by Claude Salhani

US President George W. Bush returned from his Middle East trip confident that a settlement to the Palestinian-Israeli dispute will be found by the time he leaves office next January. The president’s optimism, however, is hardly shared by all.

While in Israel and the Palestinian territories the American president was able to see for himself just how complex the problem is, and that ultimately, it boils down to a question of land, or to be more precise, a question of lack of land. That is one of the fundamental obstacles to a lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Not only is real estate in the Holy Land at a premium, but who can own a piece of it is further complicated by religion and nationality.

Of the three prime issues in contention — the final borders, the status of Jerusalem and the right of return of Palestinian refugees — it is this last point which will likely hold up the peace process. There are multiple facets to the issue of the right of return, not least in that it involves more than the two principal protagonists.

First, it touches upon the question of Israel’s identity as a Jewish state. Open the immigration doors to over a million Arab Palestinians, the overwhelming majority of which are Muslims, and the Jews in Israel will overnight find themselves turning into a minority, placing into question the whole raison d’être of the state of Israel. No Israeli government will ever allow that to happen, not least that of a weak prime minister hanging on by a thread, as is the case of Ehud Olmert.
Aside from the political implications which already represent insurmountable obstacles, there are also economic and social aspects to this issue. And while politics guides the ship of state, at the end of the day it is the economy that ultimately decides on the well-being of the nation.

With that in mind, assuming, just assuming, for a brief moment that Israel did allow Palestinians who fled in 1948 to return, where would they return to? The homes they once owned have long since disappeared. And from a purely economic perspective it would be disastrous for the Jewish state. Among the generation of refugees who fled Palestine — not their children and grandchildren born in exile — the youngest returnee would be 60 years old, assuming he or she were just a few months old when they first became refugees. Think of the financial burden injecting such a large number of retirees would have on the state. Or the manner in which the country’s health care system would be taxed by the arrival of tens of thousands of elderly people.

So if the refugees are not allowed to “return,” what is to become of them? According to UNWRA — the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian refugees in the Near East — as of December 31, 2006, there were a total of nearly 4.5 million registered refugees spread across 58 camps in Jordan (1,858,362), Lebanon (408,438), Syria (442,363), the West Bank (722,302) and Gaza (1,016,964). If for no other reason, the question of the refugees alone demands the inclusion of other countries — namely Lebanon and Syria — in the final peace process.

Regardless of how you spin this issue, some of the refugee will have little choice but to remain in their host countries. On the other hand, the big debate will come over what to do with those 400,000-plus refugees in camps in Lebanon where, once the settlement of the Israeli dispute resolved and a new Palestinian state sees the day, technically, they cease being refugees, as they would become citizens of the new state.

Solving the issue of the right of return would require mass movement of refugees from their present locations. This is what Bush meant when he mentioned the word, “compensation.” In fact, a financial compensation package would be offered to the refugees not returning to Palestine, but who would opt to immigrate.

While in principle all 4.5 million refugees would be able to apply for — and obtain — citizenship of the future Palestinian state, not all would be authorized to reside in the new Palestinian state, or in Israel. There is a precedent for this: when in 1972 Uganda’s dictator Idi Amin expelled tens of thousands of Asian traders, many of them were in possession of “Type B” British passports.

These travel documents allowed them to travel anywhere in the world, including Great Britain, but did not give them the right of residence in the UK. The solution to the Palestinians right of return lies in finding a similar formula, which would give Palestinian refugees the following:

a) A passport, therefore giving them dignity and forever removing the status of refugee;

b) A financial compensation package that would allow them to restart their lives in a dignified manner in a country where they will be able to immigrate and integrate in that society, all while retaining their Palestinian identity and ties to the “old country.”

Bush’s optimism to see the creation of a Palestinian state within the year would necessitate the cooperation of all countries concerned. In this instance, it would certainly take more than two to tango. But when some of the parties concerned won’t even step onto the dance floor, it’s hard to share the president’s optimism.

Claude Salhani is editor of the Middle East Times and political analyst in Washington, DC.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Comment

Overruling Ahmadinejad

by Gareth Smith
written by Gareth Smith

In Iran — like anywhere else — political disagreements have a tendency of going upwards to be resolved. The more serious or bad-tempered the disagreement, the higher up it can go.

But in Iran, the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei officially has the religious, as well as the political, last word, and is hence loath to be seen as involved in daily politics. Ayatollah Khamenei prefers to remain aloof even if his office is involved in every branch of government.

Hence Tehran’s chattering classes have become agitated when Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel, the parliamentary speaker, revealed he had brought Ayatollah Khamenei into a dispute between the parliament and president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad over heating supplies.

Ahmadinejad had refused to implement a bill passed by parliament offering relief to villages suffering gas cuts at a time of plunging temperatures. Parliament’s move was a response to many areas being left without heating in Iran’s coldest winter for years. At least 64 people were reported dead in a country with the world’s second-largest reserves of both natural gas and oil.

The publicity surrounding Ayatollah Khamenei’s intervention in overruling the president arose from tension between deputies about upcoming parliamentary elections. Elected politicians dislike volatility, and Iran has been politically energized since Ahmadinejad’s victory when he steamrolled the reformists’ agenda of social freedom by calling for a more egalitarian distribution of oil income.

Ahmadinejad elicited a wide expectation that politicians should provide a tangibly better life for ordinary folk. Iranians, well aware oil prices are at record levels, are in no mood to tighten their belts.

Bringing Ayatollah Khamenei to help freezing Iranians served a clear political purpose for Haddad-Adel, who topped the Tehran poll in the 2004 election.

With a new election looming, Haddad-Adel is not keen on being too close to Ahmadinejad’s government, especially with a wave of media criticisms of the president over rising prices. Inflation is officially at 17%, but in reality it is probably over 20%.

Haddad-Adel is relatively close ideologically to the president, but Ahmadinejad’s opponents are also firmly focused on the parliamentary elections.

The reformists in particular are looking for a parliament that will hem in the president for the final year of his first term. In the process, they hope for a shift in political advantage away from the president and his fundamentalist allies, perhaps even opening the door for a more productive relationship with the West.

With Iran’s near absence of parties, its electoral politics are hard to understand much less predict. But in the run-up to next month’s poll, there is a drift towards polarization between one camp of reformists, and some pragmatic conservatives, and another camp comprising the fundamentalists.

While it seems unlikely the reformists will agree to a single list, there will be an overlap of names on the two main lists, which some analysts suggest could be as much as 80% in common.

The reformists’ prospects will depend in the first instance on whether the Guardian Council, the constitutional vetting body, repeats the mass disqualifications — mainly of reformists — of the last parliamentary election in 2004.
Former reformist president Mohammad Khatami, former parliamentary speaker, Mehdi Karrubi, and to a lesser extent Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the former president who heads the Expediency Council, have all spoken obliquely about the dangers of disqualification. Any public row could drag in Ayatollah Khamenei. While the leader allowed disqualifications in 2004, he did intervene in the 2005 presidential election to allow the two main reformist candidates to run.

Meanwhile, the United Front of Principle-ists (or fundamentalists) claims half of its election lists have been agreed. Their coalition comprises three currents, only one of which is closely identified with the president, that have established committees in all 30 provinces to organize lists.

But three important figures, Mohsen Rezaei, former commander of the Revolutionary Guards, Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf, Tehran’s mayor, and Ali Larijani, the former chief security official, have so far refused to join the coalition. They are keen to keep their distance from the government, despite the dangers of division in the conservative camp.

But it is far from clear the reformists are set for any electoral breakthrough. Their agenda of social freedoms and political reform has been overwhelmed recently by the conservatives’ concentration on day-to-day economic matters.

The conservatives have followed a deliberate strategy since 2002-3, based on an assessment of the aspirations of the baby-boomers born after the 1979 Revolution. Conservatives have judged, apparently correctly, that the baby-boomers would become less concerned with social freedom and more with the costs of marriage and having children.

Hence the most likely result of poll on March 14 remains a conservative majority, albeit a reduced one.

GARETH SMYTH was the former Financial Times Tehran correspondent between between 2004 and 2007

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Comment

Fairouz in Damascus

by Nicholas Blanford
written by Nicholas Blanford

For someone who has always abjured the political fray, the much beloved Lebanese diva, Fairouz, recently found herself inadvertently embroiled in the poisonous rift between Lebanon and Syria.

It is sadly inevitable that art and sport have a tendency to become the chattels of feuding politicians, and given the iconic status of Fairouz, there was little surprise that her decision to sing in Damascus would evoke condemnation, feelings of betrayal, sympathy and Schadenfreude on either side of the border in roughly equal measure.

The 73-year-old diva performed her classic 1970 musical “Sah al-Nom” in a six-day run, as part of a year-long series of events to mark UNESCO designating Damascus the 2008 Arab capital of culture.

Her decision to sing in Damascus, however, split her fan base in Lebanon between those arguing that Fairouz should not sing before the rulers of a country blamed for a string of assassinations in Lebanon over the past three years, and others who maintain that the Lebanese diva is above petty politics and should be allowed to sing wherever she wishes.

Still, the timing of her first concert in Syria since 1982 was awkward. A day after she traveled to Syria, Captain Wissam Eid, a top investigator in the intelligence bureau of the Internal Security Forces was killed along with four other people in the largest car bomb explosion since the assassination of Rafik Hariri almost three years earlier.

“Those who love Lebanon do not sing for its jailers,” said March 14 MP Akram Shehayeb. “Our ambassador to the stars, you painted for us the dream nation, so don’t scatter that dream like the dictators of Damascus scattered our dreams of a democratic free country.”

A poll conducted by the “Now Lebanon” web portal, which is sympathetic to the March 14 coalition, found that 67% of respondents were against Fairouz in Damascus.

“Simply, this is not the moment for a musical love-in,” a Now Lebanon editorial said. “Fairouz must decide. She is a Lebanese icon, and, as such she must repay the people who have backed her and who love her with a modicum of solidarity.”

Although she and the Rahbani brothers, her long-time musical collaborators, apparently were sympathetic to the ideology of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, Fairouz has consistently kept her art detached from politics, saying her music was for the people only. Her songs were banned for six months in 1969 by the Lebanese government when she refused to give a private concert for the then Algerian President Houari Boumedienne. And apart from a single concert in 1978, she famously refused to sing in Lebanon during the 1975-1990 civil war in disgust at the warring militias, whose gunmen continued to adore her anyway.

For an older generation of Lebanese, Fairouz’ hauntingly beautiful voice evokes a nostalgia for Lebanon’s golden years in the 1950s and 1960s. For a younger generation, more accustomed to the scantily-clad sirens of the contemporary Arab music scene, Fairouz’ lack of stage charisma — standing ramrod erect at the microphone, unsmiling and disdaining banter with the audience — has done little to dent their adoration for the legendary singer.

Fairouz’ first post-civil war concert in Lebanon was in September 1994 when she sang in Martyrs’ Square before a crowd of thousands of Lebanese and a host of officials, including the late former president, Elias Hrawi, and then-Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, an event that for many Lebanese signaled that the war was really over.

Eleven years later, Martyrs’ Square became the final resting place for Hariri and the venue for the Beirut spring protests that led to Syria’s troop withdrawal and to the current political impasse.

A renowned recluse who has only given a handful of interviews in her five-decade career, Fairouz remained silent toward the criticism surrounding her decision to perform in Damascus. However, her former musical partner Mansour Rahbani said her decision was “a message of love and peace from Lebanon to Syria. A message of friendship not subservience.”

Elias Harfoush, writing in Al-Hayat, said “Fairouz on her way to Syria during the worst moment in the history of relations between the two states and nations is probably the best ambassador to the Syrians, bearing the message that whatever link has been broken by political and state interests should not entail a rift between [the peoples] in both countries.”

Certainly, Syrians were delighted that Fairouz was back in Damascus. “The Syrians are thrilled, especially the Damascenes,” said Sami Moubayed, a historian of Syria’s post-independence period in the 1950s. “She reminds them of the ‘good old days’,” adding that apart from “nostalgia, talent, her gigantic standing [and] heavenly voice … everybody is pleased that she is defying the anti-Syrian team in Lebanon and coming.”

Still, for most ardent fans, Fairouz is a symbol of unity rather than division and her standing will long outlast the current quarrel.

Nicholas Blanford is a aBeirut-based journalist and author of “Killing Mr Lebanon: The Assassination of Rafik Hariri and its Impact on the Middle East”, IB Tauris, 2006.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail