SATYAM- The great (Un)Truth

Re: SATYAM- The great (Un)Truth

feeds@yuku.com (karticc) — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 23:09:59 GMT

Re: SATYAM- The great (Un)Truth

feeds@yuku.com (prashant73) — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 09:06:50 GMT

This topic refuses to die a natural death. So let me have a go at it again with the risk of repetition.
The title " PPP or else" that Kartic Sir wrote is very appropriate. Given our inefficient Tax/GDP ratio and extent of Fiscal deficit, if we really want economy to grow at our projected GDP growth, PPP is the only alternative left for boosting Infrastructure investment. And PPP doesn't mean we no longer have Govt investment. It only supplements govt investment.
...

Re: SATYAM- The great (Un)Truth

feeds@yuku.com (karticc) — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 03:40:47 GMT

Well, the option to government funding public infrastructure, is selling the public a bum deal like what the state of AP did with its metro. Why will some private entrepreneur invest money if he knows that the project will not make money? If the deal is lightly sweetened, then it is an ok proposition, but in Hyderabad's case, the deal was so sweet that it could have given diabetes to the whole of the country. It is darn sight better for government to make such investments in...

Re: SATYAM- The great (Un)Truth

feeds@yuku.com (pankajp) — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 01:53:20 GMT

"Public pay perpetually, might as well pay upfront"

So, the public must slog, earn daily wage and pay 70% of its daily earnings in taxes [both direct and indirect] so that Big monuments like "Delhi Metro" can be operated for convenienece of citizens of Delhi

Pay upfront justification is valid only if Delhi metro is constructed from funds generated by contribution of Delhi citizens only.

Re: SATYAM- The great (Un)Truth

feeds@yuku.com (baburaja) — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 23:35:37 GMT

ppp is public pays perpetually and not public private partnership as generally understood. mr. sreedharan, who has seen the country and the way it operates, has his views clear: eventually the public pays, might as well make it pay upfront.

Re: SATYAM- The great (Un)Truth

feeds@yuku.com (pankajp) — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 20:04:38 GMT

I agree with your views Prashant Sir

Justification for closure of this topic is "lack of participation".

Three participants cannot continue to write and stretch this topic

Re: SATYAM- The great (Un)Truth

feeds@yuku.com (prashant73) — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 01:27:35 GMT

The advert carried only the first page. Ofcourse, the entire information will be provided in the detailed docs on the link given in the NIT. But only people enthused with the NIT would care to download and read the fine print.

And that was exactly my point. We could have added one more line in the NIT, to summarise the overall scope of project.

And I am not suggesting that this is the reason, why we got no response. All I am suggesting is that we need to investigate the...

Re: SATYAM- The great (Un)Truth

feeds@yuku.com (pankajp) — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 00:57:02 GMT

http://www.indianrailways.gov.in/tenders/ppp/RCF-RFQ_160109.pdf

Above link shows availability of required information on Internet.

Re: SATYAM- The great (Un)Truth

feeds@yuku.com (prashant73) — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:35:55 GMT

The core issue in the case of "Coach factory at Rae Bareli" is about information provided in the NIT.

We wanted a private partner in a JV to manufacture and supply coaches. The NIT (or more correctly 'Notification for Request for Qualification') did not mention what production capacity we had planned for, in how many years we intend to start production and type of coaches and the proportion of equity in the JV.

The bidders have to get a sense of the...

Re: SATYAM- The great (Un)Truth

feeds@yuku.com (prashant73) — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 12:52:51 GMT

Parag,

Whether we should be awestruck with 'Global' or remain arrogant with 'local' is perhaps a subjective matter based on individual perception. However, I do respect your views.

My response was specific to the contents of the link provided. When IR published a global NIT, I presume it was done with a hope of getting global bids. If we really didn't care about propective global partners, then there was no need to publish in the Economist. Our Times...

Re: SATYAM- The great (Un)Truth

feeds@yuku.com (pkatre) — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 03:03:10 GMT

Railways is a very niche market and Global Firms who operate in this market are fully aware of the lingo used by IR. All the major firms like Bombardier, Alsthom, ABB etc are already doing business with us. In these times of recession it is these "Global Firms" who should be trying to learn our jargon rather than the other way round. And it's about time we stopped looking at everything "Global" with such awe. The only thing
that is global today is the endless...

Re: SATYAM- The great (Un)Truth

feeds@yuku.com (prashant73) — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 22:31:37 GMT

If we don't get a response from the private sector, we should investigate the possible reasons and make a renewed attempt.

This may be a peripheral point, but I happend to see some of IR's Global NIT in the Economist and FT. The way the NIT was drafted, it was possible only for an officer of Indian Railways to really comprehend the NIT. The text was drafted poorly with all sorts of Railway based abbreviations (possibly with a noble intention to save some money for IR on...

Re: SATYAM- The great (Un)Truth

feeds@yuku.com (pankajp) — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:28:44 GMT

http://steelguru.com/news...dhepura_loco_venture.html

Re: SATYAM- The great (Un)Truth

feeds@yuku.com (prashant73) — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 03:01:38 GMT

Getting govt to build the Mumbai metro is a no-brainer. We have been doing that for centuries. And there is nothing special about a Mass Transit system project that it should be treated differently than every other Infrastructure project. Govt has already issued a clear mandate that they want to build the Infrastructure using PPP. A Metro system is not a Nuclear power plant or a project of strategic importance that the private sector cannot be involved. If the farebox revenues themselves...

Re: SATYAM- The great (Un)Truth

feeds@yuku.com (pankajp) — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 23:17:03 GMT

Funding of Mumbai Metro through DMRC Model is always possible provided there are adequate funds available with Central/State governments.

Or do we expect more fiscal deficit (which is already high) in budget of central government, just to construct particular line of Mumbai Metro.

As the following link states:

Re: SATYAM- The great (Un)Truth

feeds@yuku.com (karticc) — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 23:05:27 GMT

State eyes Delhi model for 2nd Metro line Ashley D'Mello I TNN Mumbai: The Delhi model for building a Metro rail link, which showcases a line funded by the government instead of by the private sector, has been highlighted once again as a possible alternative model for the second line of the Mumbai Metro from Charkop-Bandra-Mankhurd. This model has come up for discussion among transport circles as the Public Private Parternership(PPP) model for the second line-in which private companies...

Re: SATYAM- The great (Un)Truth

feeds@yuku.com (prashant73) — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 05:38:32 GMT

Haven't we come back full circle. I guess that means it is time to close this discussion.

Re: SATYAM- The great (Un)Truth

feeds@yuku.com (karticc) — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 02:52:18 GMT

Sreedharan, who served as a consultant for Hyderabad Metro project, remarked that making 'available 296 acres of prime land to BOT (build, operate and transfer) developer for commercial exploitation was like selling the family silver'. He also felt that the land concession could lead to a 'big political scandal some time later'. 'It is apparent the BOT operator has a hidden agenda which appears to be to extend the metro network to a large tract of his private land holdings...

Re: SATYAM- The great (Un)Truth

feeds@yuku.com (pankajp) — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 19:58:43 GMT

What is amazing is that DMRC itself is following PPP route for real estate development. Then, what is the logic of DMRC in opposing PPP route for construction of Metro.

One interesting news:

Re: SATYAM- The great (Un)Truth

feeds@yuku.com (prashant73) — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 11:52:09 GMT

A very stimulating and vibrant discussion seems to have suddenly derailed.
Let us put the issue back on track.
So what is the conclusion. Is BOT model workable for Metro projects? If not, why?
Will BOT Metro projects be more expensive than Metro projects carried out through govt procurement? If so, why?

Or should we take Mr Sreedharan words as gospel truth and refuse to see any other point, and close the discussion?

SATYAM- The great (Un)Truth

feeds@yuku.com (pkatre) — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 04:20:49 GMT

The more I read about Satyam episode the more I feel like admiring the 'foresight' of Ramalinga Raju. Here is why:

He siphons out 7000 Cr and then admits to a lesser...