Column : 50 ways to re-work your loan

Written by Sunil Jain | Updated: Nov 15 2011, 07:17am hrs
I dont know what did it for you, or for the countless worthies whove slammed any possible move to bail out Vijay Mallyas Kingfisher Airlines, but for me it was the F1, the pictures of Mallya, Senior and Junior, strutting around with the very very sexy Deepika Padukoneif a guy can own an F1 team, surely he can pay his oil bills on time, and if he cant, why didnt he sell off the airline instead of asking banks for a bailout for the second time this year So heres a word of advice: while negotiating with the bankers for a rollover, leave the Bentley at home. Its not for nothing that all savvy politicians still prefer to use the old Ambassador!

But whats done is done and, in a market like this, its not even certain if Mallya would get a good price for his yacht or any of the fancy homesafter all, if the buyers also looking for a bank rollover, it wouldnt look too good would it So what Mallya really needs is a good spinmeister since there are countless wonderful lines waiting to be used on bankers who, lets face it, are quite keen to work on a bailout packagewhy else would they convert R750 crore of his debt into equity at a premium of 35% in April and not even insist on a change in management even though their equity share is now 24%

Top on the list of useful lines that even the political class will start spouting once Mallya shows them the way is the level playing field line. There is the national interest one that Mallya has usedKingfisher is, at the end of the day, an Indian airline and so the government has to take care of it in other words, should a leading airline go bust, especially in an environment like this, it will reflect very poorly on the country and drive away investors. This is a powerful argument and the Prime Minister was mouthing a version of this the other day, but level playing field has a better ring to it.

For one, it is economic in nature. After all, if Air India is to get R40,000 crore or thereabouts of government assistance, doesnt this give it a huge advantage over the competition Linked to this is the consumer anglelook at how airline fares have skyrocketed after Kingfisher withdrew a third of its flights, imagine what would happen once all the flights are stopped. As the fares rise, the aam aadmis dream of flying will go for a tosssurely that has to count for something Nitpickers will argue this isnt quite true since, were Kingfisher to close down, its planes will be bought over by rivals and its airport slots will be allotted to them. This may be true, but remember this is a line that has worked, and worked wonderfully in the past.

Just some weeks ago, when the issue of how a bailout for Air India was anti-competitive came up in a panel discussion at CII, the ex-chief of the Competition Commission of India argued that (this is a broad summary, the argument was a bit more nuanced) if a bailout kept Air India in business, this was the best antidote to a possible cartelisation by private airlines. An extension of the argument: were Kingfisher to fold up, this would increase the chances of cartelisation in the sector. This may sound trite given the number of airlines there are in the market today, but you cant be too careful. There were 7-8 telecom firms in the mobile business when A Raja gave out new licences to, he said, break the cartel between thema decision that even the current minister has endorsed, even though he didnt agree with the fiddle that Raja did in terms of deciding to move a few favourites up the line.

There are countless such examples of consumer interest being used to prop up companiesin the late-1990s, when Koshika Telecom defaulted on its licence fee dues, the government argued the licence could not be cancelled since this would leave its subscribers high and dry; in 2003, when the TDSAT verdict went against Reliance Infocomm, the government argued the same consumer interest to argue that it needed to come up with a solution.

Its called facts-on-the-groundspend enough money on an illegal building, for instance, and then say the hundreds whove invested in it will be penalised for no fault of theirs.

Linked to this is the issue of banks. Weve seen how, in Mallyas case, the banks have more invested in the company than the promoters have, once you include the debt. If the airline is to be closed down, the banks balance sheets will take a bit hit, once again a winner of an argument that has proved its worth time and again.

Other lovely rollover lines include other-countries-do-it. Just look at the way the US bailed out its banks as well as companies like GM and Chrysler. You have to do it, the argument goes, when theres a systemic crisis and, lets face it, which airline firm is making moneyyou could argue IndiGo is, but that, as they say, is the exception that proves the rule! In any case, if you look at UTI or even the telecom bailout of 1999, the government actually made money out of the bailout. The old chestnut that workers will suffer if the airline closes down, it is truly surprising, hasnt even been mentioned once, though it is obvious this has huge currency with the political classthats why Indias entire privatisation programme has ground to a halt over the past seven years.

It is true the arguments cited are one-sided, and partial truths at best, but someone of Mallyas calibre is certain to be able to swing it while using them, so the bailout will happen. Heres to the next F1!