Subsidy बहुत सीधी साधारण सी बात पूछी जा रही है नेता जी से कि आपने कहा कि सक्षम लोग सब्सिडी न लें तो लाखों लोगों ने इसे नही लिया पर जो लोग सक्षम हैं उन्हें आरक्षण न लेने के लिए भी तो बोलना चाहिए … पर नही शायद नेता लोग अपना वोट बैंक बनाए रखने के लिए यह बात कभी नही बोलेंगें …
रही बात खुद की तो वो ढेरों सांसद सब्सिडी का भरपूर लाभ ले रहे हैं
Mutton cutlet for Rs 18 and Dosa for Rs 6: Government faces heat over subsidy on Parliament canteen food
At a time when the Narendra Modi government is taking steps to cut subsidies, there is a shocking response to an RTI query. It has been revealed that many of the food items served in Parliament canteen are sold at just one-tenth of the cost of raw-materials used in preparing them.
For instance, the cost for procuring raw items for a dish like vegetable stew comes to about Rs 41 while the MPs are getting it for just Rs 4, which is a subsidy of about 90%.
The canteens in Parliament got a total subsidy of Rs 60 crore during last five years, revealed the RTI plea.
Talking about the issue, Union Parliamentary Affairs Minister M Venkaiah Naidu said that he would discuss the issue and make attempts to reach a solution.
“I don’t deny it as a Minister. There’s the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, and everyone should be attentive about this,” he added.
Parrying queries over whether his government would discontinue with the subsidy, he said it has been going on for long and was not something decided by the BJP government.
The RTI activist, whose plea made the revelation, slammed the government over the issue, saying, “They tell others to give up on subsidies, but Parliament canteen gets heavy subsidy. The government should end this.”
In his RTI plea, the petitioner had sought answers to questions like “Has the Union government had taken cognizance of adverse media reports and public relations on providing food-items in canteens of Parliament at highly subsidised prices?”
Meanwhile, Aam Aadmi Party leader Alka Lamba said it was shocking that such subsidy was given in Parliament canteen, pointing that the food was already cheap for the members.
Congress, meanwhile, backed a re-look at the huge subsidy being given to the canteens, saying a “course correction” is needed on the matter. Party spokesperson Tom Vadakkan said, “If you look at the scale of subsidy being provided, I think there needs to be some course correction.” He, however, noted that subsidised canteens function in different ministries. See more…
The post Subsidy appeared first on Monica Gupta.
By Adam Grossman
On Sunday, the NBA approved the sale of the Los Angeles Clippers to former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer for $2 billion. From a brand management and crisis perspective, it is easy to see why the NBA wanted to approve this sale as quickly as possible. I, among many others, have written about the damage that current owner Donald Sterling has done to both the team and the league.
From an economic perspective, it becomes clearer why the NBA wanted to approve the sale as well. Using virtually any standard valuation metric that exists today, Ballmer has agreed to vastly overpay for the Los Angeles Clippers.
Finance industry professionals (investment bankers, venture capitalists, and private equity firms) primarily use three valuation approaches: inherent valuation, relative valuation, and comparable valuation. Using any of these approaches, it is virtually impossible to see how the Clippers are worth $2 billion.
To complete a valuation of a sports team, you need to start with understanding an organization’s revenue streams. Six revenue streams account for virtually all money earned by a sports organization. Like many new owners buying sports franchises, Ballmer is betting that two revenue streams will increase significantly to make his investment profitable: media rights and subsidy. Media revenue refers to the television, mobile, and digital distribution agreements signed by an individual organization. Subsidy revenue includes all revenue shared by a sports league with individual franchises.
The Los Angeles Clippers revenue will increase significantly in both areas after the 2015-16 season. Both the team’s local media rights deal and the NBA’s league wide revenue deals expire after that season. According to Forbes, the Clippers’ local television rights deal can increase to as high as $75 million per year from its current $18 million per year value. In addition, the NBA’s league wide media rights deal is expected to double from its current $930 million per year value. This means the Clippers will receive double its current media rights subsidy from a new deal – about $30 million per year.
Minnesota Timberwolves-LA Clippers game at Staples Center. Photo by David Jones, 2012. CC BY 2.0 via davidcjones Flickr.
While this is all great news for the Clippers, it does not make the team worth $2 billion. An inherent valuation approach uses a discounted cash flow model to evaluate an asset’s worth. This essentially means looking at how much profit is generated by an organization and discounting the profits based on the potential risk factors. Factor in both idiosyncratic (risk associated with owning the Clippers specifically) and systemic risk (risk associated with any financial asset). In our analysis, the Clippers generated an estimated $11 million in annual operating profit from now through 2015-16 season. Starting in the 2016-17 season when the new media rights and subsidy revenue streams start, the Clippers would generate $54 million in annual operating profit in perpetuity. Using this approach, we found the Clippers to be worth $1.05 billion.
We don’t want, however, to rely on a single technique for our assessment of the Clippers’ value. Therefore, employ a relative valuation approach that compares a company’s value using a standard valuation metric. The most common metric used is a price to earnings (P/E) ratio. This means that you compare the price of an asset compared to the amount of annual profit that asset is generating. For example, the average P/E ratio on the S & P 500 is currently at 18.3. The Clippers would have an estimated 36.8 P/E ratio given our estimated operating profits after the 2016-17 season after Ballmer purchases the team. Using the average P / E Ratio of the S & P 500 would produce a value of $990 million.
The only real argument that could be made for the Clippers being worth $2 billion would be by using a comparable valuation. With this approach, an investor looks at what other similar assets have been sold for to determine a value. You only have to look at the Clippers’ baseball neighbors to see a team that recently sold for a similar amount. The Los Angeles Dodgers were recently sold for $2.15 billion to a group led by Guggenheim Partners. While both are sports organizations, the Clippers and the Dodgers are actually very different types of properties. Because it has a bigger venue and plays many more games, the Dodgers currently make as much or more in annual ticket sales revenue than the Clippers make from all revenue streams. The Dodgers also recently signed a $7 billion 25-year local media rights agreement that will pay it far more in average annual dollars than any new media rights deal the Clippers could negotiate. A more appropriate comparison would be to examine the Clippers compared to other NBA franchises. The Milwaukee Bucks recently sold for a league record of $550 million. Ballmer is now paying 3.6 times more than the record amount paid for an NBA franchise.
To be fair to Ballmer, both the media rights and subsidy deals could far exceed expert expectations. The Los Angeles Lakers recently signed two new media rights deals for their English and Spanish broadcasts for $4 billion over 20 years, an average of $200 million per year. The NFL has recently signed new media rights deals that pay the league $7.25 billion in annual revenue, an average of $227 million per team. If the Clippers end up receiving $150 million per year in media rights revenue and the NBA contract triples from its current value then we would estimate the team being worth $2.05 billion. It is also likely that ticket sales and sponsorship revenue will increase significantly with a new owner.
ESPN’s Bill Simmons recently stated that the sale of the Clippers resembled the purchase of a home without the buyer being able to complete a home inspection. The sale of the Clippers was happening so quickly that it was impossible for Ballmer to know what exactly he was buying. However, Ballmer can (and likely has) completed an inspection of the Clippers similar to the one we just described — and he will discover there is no way to generate a $2 billion valuation for the Clippers.
Adam Grossman is the Founder and President of Block Six Analytics (B6A). He has worked with a number of sports organizations, including the Minnesota Timberwolves, Washington Capitals, and SMG @ Solider Field, to enhance their corporate sponsorship and enterprise marketing capabilities. He is the co-author of The Sports Strategist: Developing Leaders for a High-Performance Industry with Irving Rein and Ben Shields. Read his previous blog posts.
Subscribe to the OUPblog via email or RSS.
Subscribe to only business and economics articles on the OUPblog via email or RSS.
The post Ballmer overbids by one billion appeared first on OUPblog.
Edward A. Zelinsky is the Morris and Annie Trachman Professor of Law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law of Yeshiva University. He is the author of The Origins of the Ownership Society: How The Defined Contribution Paradigm Changed America. In the article below he looks at the Clinton’s federal tax returns.
President and Senator Clinton’s federal tax returns provide much fodder for commentators who are debating a diverse set of questions in light of those returns: Has Mr. Clinton understandably maximized his post-presidential income in our celebrity-crazed culture – or has he exploited the presidency for unseemly financial gain? Does the Clintons’ private foundation reflect a worthy model of charitable giving – or the federal fisc’s subsidization of Senator Clinton’s presidential candidacy? Was Mr. Clinton financial relationship with Yucaipa appropriate for a former president – or for the spouse of a prospective president?
The Clintons’ tax returns raise one further issue which also requires public discussion: The federal subsidy the Clintons have received over the last seven years while earning in excess of $100 million. Mr. Clinton’s aggressive pursuit of post-presidential income is incompatible with
the extensive public support he has received from federal taxpayers since leaving office. That public support was designed to preclude the nation’s chief executives from facing financial hardship after their terms of office. It was not intended to subsidize the aggressive pursuit of a post-presidential fortune.
The federal taxpayer’s subsidy of Mr. Clinton has several components. First, as a former president, Mr. Clinton is entitled to receive, for the remainder of his life, the salary of a cabinet secretary. That salary is today $191,000 per annum. In addition, as a former president, Mr. Clinton also receives, at taxpayer expense, “suitable office space appropriately furnished and equipped.” Mr. Clinton’s office in New York City costs federal taxpayers over $700,000 per year to lease and operate. Federal taxpayers also defray the salary and benefits for office staff and some of Mr. Clinton’s travel outlays. The General Services Administration currently budgets for all of these costs a yearly total of $1,162,000 for Mr. Clinton. The equivalent annual figures for former President Bush and former President Carter are $786,000 and $518,000 respectively.
In addition, Mr. Clinton is also entitled, at taxpayer expense, to Secret Service protection for the remainder of his lifetime – even though, as president, Mr. Clinton signed legislation limiting Secret Service protection for his successors to the first ten years after they leave office.
For most Americans, Mr. Clinton’s package would constitute a heady lifestyle. For President and Senator Clinton, however, this post-presidential package merely provided a tax-financed base for the aggressive pursuit of unprecedented financial gain for a former chief executive.
Mr. Clinton has apparently treated as tax-free much of the federal largesse he has received. While the Clintons’ federal tax returns report as taxable income his cabinet-level salary payments, he has apparently elected to exclude from his taxable income the other benefits he receives, namely, his federally-financed office, staff, travel costs and protection.
If the Clintons had treated these items as taxable, they most likely would have been reported on their Forms 1040 on line 21 for “other income”. On the Clintons’ 1040 for 2006, line 21 is blank, suggesting that they did not include in income the office, staff, travel costs or protection provided to them by federal taxpayers.
The tax-free treatment of this federal subsidy of Mr. Clinton makes it particularly valuable for him.
This post-presidential package and the federal subsidy it represents were not intended as a conventional deferred compensation arrangement. They instead reflect the judgment that former presidents should not be required to hustle in the marketplace after they leave office.
The story of an impoverished Ulysses Grant, financially-impelled to write his memoirs as he was dying of cancer, is an iconic image of American history. From this tragedy, the world received one of the great military autobiographies of all time. However, most Americans would prefer that the nation’s former leaders not confront the kind penury which plagued Grant at the end of his life.
The immediate stimulus for the modern post-presidential compensation package was the report that former president Truman lacked the resources to return his mail from the American public.
This post-presidential package was designed to preclude Grant’s and Truman’s successors from experiencing the financial problems they confronted. It was not intended to serve as a federal subsidy for the aggressive pursuit of a post-presidential fortune.
President Clinton is not required to accept all or any of the proffered subsidy from the federal Treasury. He can also make a payment to the federal fisc reimbursing it, in whole or in part, for the costs of this subsidy. Such reimbursement could, for example, be geared to the taxes Mr. Clinton would pay if his post-presidential benefits were treated as taxable income.
The federal taxpayers provide post-presidential benefits so that former chief executives will not replicate the unfortunate financial history of Grant or even the more moderate financial discomfort in which President Truman found himself. We do not subsidize former presidents so that they may pursue lucrative private sector careers. As a federal taxpayer subsidizing Mr. Clinton’s lifestyle, I hope he feels my pain.
ShareThis
Check out Cheryl Rainfield's blog . She is an avid reader, teen fiction writer, book-a-hoic and blogs about children's and teen fiction. Her latest post is about children's book reveiws and discussion podcasts. Cool things there.
Subsidy बहुत सीधी साधारण सी बात पूछी जा रही है नेता जी से कि आपने कहा कि सक्षम लोग सब्सिडी न लें तो लाखों लोगों ने इसे नही लिया पर जो लोग सक्षम हैं उन्हें आरक्षण न लेने के लिए भी तो बोलना चाहिए … पर नही शायद नेता लोग अपना वोट बैंक बनाए रखने के लिए यह बात कभी नही बोलेंगें …
