Reclaiming Indian Ocean identity vital for Sri Lankan economy

[Azizam]

Sri Lanka should reclassify itself as an Indian Ocean country instead of a South Asian country to secure further foreign direct investments (FDIs), exports, tourism and foreign expertise in the future, according to Foreign Affairs Minister Mangala Samaraweera. “By and by, we came to be classified as a South Asian country and our own imaginations and those of others turned towards the Indian hinterland. Reclaiming our Indian Ocean identity helps us and others unlock the tremendous opportunities for attracting FDI, accessing markets and developing our tourism industry,” he said. Samaraweera is envisioning Sri Lanka reclaiming its ancient glory as the link among all nations in the Indian Ocean rim, spanning from Africa, the Arab Gulf, Persia, South Asia, Southeast Asia to Australia and as the centre of the East-West and South-South trade routes.

“Sri Lanka can no longer depend on aid to create jobs, generate growth and improve our living standards,” he said. Therefore, he expressed that the Foreign Ministry’s new duties would include salesmanship in addition to statesmanship. “While we look towards the sea, the Indian hinterland and further away China also beckon. As study after study has noted, Sri Lanka’s failure to integrate into Indian supply chains and into the Indian economy in general has significantly hampered our economic development,” Samaraweera noted. He said that the country’s foreign policy must be aligned to the interests and welfare of all Sri Lankans.

“This of course means cautiously navigating the emerging multipolar regional order, while taking the initiative to harness the tremendous opportunities of the Asian Century,” he concluded.

Reclaiming Indian Ocean identity vital for economy: Mangala ::: Dailymirror.lk ::: Breaking News

 

[ito]

I see no reason why Sri lanka cannot integrate economically with the four southern Indian states. Classifying ether as a South Asian or Indian Ocean should not make lot of deference . Investors invest when they get more returns than their cost of capital.

 

[Azizam]

I see no reason why Sri lanka cannot integrate economically with the four southern Indian states. Classifying ether as a South Asian or Indian Ocean should not make lot of deference . Investors invest when they get more returns than their cost of capital.

Because the identity of South Asia is so polluted that when someone thinks of South Asia, it's automatically associated with poverty, islamic extremism and other sorts of bullshit and it discourages investors. Despite Sri Lanka having a higher GDP per capita than many ASEAN countries, it's popular as a poor country in contrast to South East Asia. That's why it's needed to rebuild the identity of Sri Lanka as an island nation in the Indian ocean rather than just another South Asian country and it is also in Sri Lanka's interest to see an economically emerging India.

 

[Pakistanisage]

Being considered " South Asian " Country has no relevance or relationship to Indian Ocean. It is its proximity to India that lumps Sri Lanka as South Asian Country. Pakistan is not in Indian Ocean either as our coast is on Arabian Sea and yet we are considered South Asian.

If Sri Lanka was in Indian Ocean by itself some 3000 miles South of India , you could argue your point. Heck even Maldives which is much further south to your Country is considered South Asian.

BTW, if you were out there in middle of nowhere, you would be considered a " Banana Republic " and I seriously doubt that would be an improvement on your present status as a South Asian Nation.... ....

I see no reason why Sri lanka cannot integrate economically with the four southern Indian states. Classifying ether as a South Asian or Indian Ocean should not make lot of deference . Investors invest when they get more returns than their cost of capital.

Which bogus " Business School " did you get your Finance degree from ?

Investors invest where they get Maximum return on their investment and " NOT just more return than their Cost of Capital ". The other main consideration while comparing different returns is taking into account the " Risk/Return " trajectory.

 

[ito]

Because the identity of South Asia is so polluted that when someone thinks of South Asia, it's automatically associated with poverty, islamic extremism and other sorts of bullshit and it discourages investors. Despite Sri Lanka having a higher GDP per capita than many ASEAN countries, it's popular as a poor country in contrast to South East Asia. That's why it's needed to rebuild the identity of Sri Lanka as an island nation in the Indian ocean rather than just another South Asian country and it is also in Sri Lanka's interest to see an economically emerging India.

Sri Lanka is an Indian Ocean country. Except for geographic description, In reality there is no such thing as 'South Asia'. Investors understand this. This region including India is projected to grow as one of fastest regions in the world. Most probability Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, India, Nepal and Bhutan and may be even Burma may form some sort to trade union.

 

[Azizam]

Being considered " South Asian " Country has no relevance or relationship to Indian Ocean. It is its proximity to India that lumps Sri Lanka as South Asian Country. Pakistan is not in Indian Ocean either as our coast is on Arabian Sea and yet we are considered South Asian.

If Sri Lanka was in Indian Ocean by itself some 3000 miles South of India , you could argue your point. Heck even Maldives which is much further south to your Country is considered South Asian.

BTW, if you were out there in middle of nowhere, you would be considered a " Banana Republic " and I seriously doubt that would be an improvement on your present status as a South Asian Nation.... ....

It's not about replacing "South Asian" with "Indian Ocean". It's about promoting the identity as an Indian ocean island instead of South Asian country. Because, the identity of Sri Lanka as a South Asia has to rely on performance of India when promoting itself to the international stage. Current performance of India is a burden for Sri Lanka and it discourages investors and tourists. IMO if SL was positioned at least 100km away form India, it would be better off than it is now.

 

[ito]

Being considered " South Asian " Country has no relevance or relationship to Indian Ocean. It is its proximity to India that lumps Sri Lanka as South Asian Country. Pakistan is not in Indian Ocean either as our coast is on Arabian Sea and yet we are considered South Asian.

If Sri Lanka was in Indian Ocean by itself some 3000 miles South of India , you could argue your point. Heck even Maldives which is much further south to your Country is considered South Asian.

BTW, if you were out there in middle of nowhere, you would be considered a " Banana Republic " and I seriously doubt that would be an improvement on your present status as a South Asian Nation.... ....





Which bogus " Business School " did you get your Finance degree from ?

Investors invest where they get Maximum return on their investment and " NOT just more return than their Cost of Capital ". The other main consideration while comparing different returns is taking into account the " Risk/Return " trajectory.

No sir, I am an engineer, but I understand investments. Investors don't invest because they can get maximum returns, if so everybody would have brought junk bonds or only a section of stocks such as tech stocks. Each investor is different and each have different degree of risk aversion. Ex: a young guy would invest in growth stock, while a pensioner will invest in either mutual funds or a mature industry stocks that pay a lot of its returns through dividends.

Institutional investors are not that different from individual investors. Private equity and hedge funds invest in high risk securities and derivatives and many hedge funds do have absolute return strategies that are tailored to high net worth individuals who have high risk bearance, while mutual funds and pension funds invest majority of their assets in stable industries that give moderate return at moderate risk and moreover they are controlled by governments on where to invest and how much to invest.

But there in one absolute truth. No investors will invest at lower returns than the cost of capital..

 

[Pakistanisage]

No sir, I am an engineer, but I understand investments. Investors don't invest because they can get maximum returns, if so everybody would have brought junk bonds or only a section of stocks such as tech stocks. Each investor is different and each have different degree of risk aversion. Ex: a young guy would invest in growth stock, while a pensioner will invest in either mutual funds or a mature industry stocks that pay a lot of its returns through dividends.

Institutional investors are not that different from individual investors. Private equity and hedge funds invest in high risk securities and derivatives and many hedge funds do have absolute return strategies that are tailored to high net worth individuals who have high risk bearance, while mutual funds and pension funds invest majority of their assets in stable industries that give moderate return at moderate risk and moreover they are controlled by governments on where to invest and how much to invest.

But there in one absolute truth. No investors will invest at lower returns than the cost of capital..

You continue to amaze me with your ignorance of Finance.

In my response to you earlier I had mentioned something about Risk Return Trajectory.

Investors compare and invest in Projects that give MAXIMUM RETURN for roughly the same level or RISK.

Junk Bonds have much higher risk profile and you don't lump it with other Investment opportunities with lower risk.

In fact there is such a thing called RISK ADJUSTED RETURNS and those are the returns investor compare.

Your concept of investors just seeking " greater returns " than cost of capital is convoluted ( as mentioned in your earlier post #2 ).

As an Investor I will seek investment opportunities which give me the highest return for similar risk profile.

is that a difficult concept for an Engineer like yourself to fathom.

 

[ito]

You continue to amaze me with your ignorance of Finance.

In my response to you earlier I had mentioned something about Risk Return Trajectory.

Investors compare and invest in Projects that give MAXIMUM RETURN for roughly the same level or RISK.

Junk Bonds have much higher risk profile and you don't lump it with other Investment opportunities with lower risk.

In fact there is such a thing called RISK ADJUSTED RETURNS and those are the returns investor compare.

Your concept of investors just seeking " greater returns " than cost of capital is convoluted ( as mentioned in your earlier post #2 ).

As an Investor I will seek investment opportunities which give me the highest return for similar risk profile.

is that a difficult concept for an Engineer like yourself to fathom.

When you combine maximum return for the same level of risk, then you are right. But unfortunately you didn't include that in your original post.

Regarding junk bonds you are wrong. investors do combine junk bonds with other asset classes. Majority of Investors seek returns from a portfolio and not from single security. Junk bonds are valuable as they can get you high return inside a portfolio while the portfolio will diversify the risk for you.

Risk Adjusted return is more useful in judging risks across securities than return across securities.

I repeat the first principle in finance - "No investors should invest at lower returns than the cost of capital"..

 

[Pakistanisage]

When you combine maximum return for the same level of risk, then you are right. But unfortunately you didn't include that in your original post.

Regarding junk bonds you are wrong. investors do combine junk bonds with other asset classes. Majority of Investors seek returns from a portfolio and not from single security. Junk bonds are valuable as they can get you high return inside a portfolio while the portfolio will diversify the risk for you.

Risk Adjusted return is more useful in judging risks across securities than return across securities.

I repeat the first principle in finance - "No investors should invest at lower returns than the cost of capital"..

You are displaying classical symptoms of a typical Indian Response which is:

" Argument for the sake of Argument and damn the logic "

I give up. Enjoy your life.

 

[tsinga]

Being considered " South Asian " Country has no relevance or relationship to Indian Ocean. It is its proximity to India that lumps Sri Lanka as South Asian Country. Pakistan is not in Indian Ocean either as our coast is on Arabian Sea and yet we are considered South Asian.

Just so that you know your geography..

Arabian Sea is a part of Indian Ocean. So yes, Pakistan does have its coast on the Indian Ocean.

 

[anonymus]

Does Sri Lankan Foreign Affairs Minister ,Mangala Samaraweera, thinks that their investors are bunch of giggling teenagers who care about the identity that Sri Lanka has?

 

[Brickwall]

I think Sri Lankan Foreign Affairs Minister ,Mangala Samaraweera should immediately update his facebook page, highlighting his new location, may be srilanka can get new investors and he may get some likes

 

[Azizam]

Does Sri Lankan Foreign Affairs Minister ,Mangala Samaraweera, thinks that their investors are bunch of giggling teenagers who care about the identity that Sri Lanka has?

I don't like that guy but as a broken clock he once in a while gets one or two things right. Actually, identity and image do matter.

I think Sri Lankan Foreign Affairs Minister ,Mangala Samaraweera should immediately update his facebook page, highlighting his new location, may be srilanka can get new investors and he may get some likes

He doesn't say that SL is not a South Asian country. What he says is that Sri Lanka should reinstall its identity as an Indian ocean island hub.

 

[Saradiel]

Does Sri Lankan Foreign Affairs Minister ,Mangala Samaraweera, thinks that their investors are bunch of giggling teenagers who care about the identity that Sri Lanka has?

I think Sri Lankan Foreign Affairs Minister ,Mangala Samaraweera should immediately update his facebook page, highlighting his new location, may be srilanka can get new investors and he may get some likes

Yes he is a big big idiot!