&w=3840&q=100)
Daewoo deal helped us understand how to compete: Tata Motors exec
"The Daewoo acquisition helped us understand how to compete with global CV giants, as Daewoo operates in a market alongside players like Daimler, Volvo, and Traton,' Girish Wagh, Executive Director, Tata Motors said, adding that the Korean acquisition helped to develop capability of cross-cultural integration and synergy projects, which will be of significant use and benefit when they start employing that template on a much larger scale in the future.
For example, all of Daewoo's medium and heavy-duty trucks use a cabin developed in India and jointly adapted for the Korean market. "Even our entry into the light-duty segment there was built on Indian-developed aggregates.With that experience, we've built strong capabilities in cross-cultural integration and collaborative product development, and we intend to scale significantly as we begin our journey with Iveco,' Wagh said.
TaMo plans to tap into premium customer segments and cohorts of Iveco which complements its current positioning. Drawing from its JLR experience, Tata Motors intends to retain Iveco's brand identity, customer interface, and distribution channels as independent to preserve market-specific strengths.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
an hour ago
- Economic Times
US effective tariff on Indian goods jumped to 20.7% from 2.4% last year: Fitch Ratings
Synopsis Fitch Ratings reports a significant increase in US tariffs on Indian goods by 2025. This rise to 20.7% from 2.4% may hinder India's economic expansion. Goldman Sachs has already lowered India's growth forecasts. HDFC Bank also anticipates a GDP growth reduction. Moody's Ratings suggests potential challenges for India's manufacturing sector. However, India's economy is expected to remain resilient. Agencies New Delhi: The US effective tariff rate on Indian goods rose to 20.7% in 2025, up from 2.4% in 2024, due to the addition of an 18.3 percentage point increase this year, according to Fitch Ratings. The increase in tariffs poses some downside risk to India's economic growth. Overall, the US effective tariff rate is now 17%, around 8 percentage points lower than April 3 estimate, when higher reciprocal tariffs were originally announced, it said on Monday. "The US tariff rate of 17% reflects a 15% tariff rate on EU goods, including auto and auto parts, and higher tariffs for major trading partners Brazil, Taiwan, India and Switzerland," it added. Last week, US President Donald Trump announced 25% tariff on Indian goods, along with an unspecified additional penalty related to India's energy dealings with Russia. Goldman Sachs on Monday cut India's economic growth forecast to 6.5% for 2025 and 6.4% for 2026, due to US tariffs. "In our view, some of these tariffs are likely to be negotiated lower over time, and further downside risk to the growth trajectory mainly emanates from the uncertainty, " it to HDFC Bank, the tariff poses a downside risk of 20-25 bps to India's GDP growth. Christian de Guzman, senior vice president, Moody's Ratings, said, "Curtailed access to the largest economy globally diminishes prospects for India's ambitions to develop its manufacturing sector, particularly in higher value-added sectors such as electronics".He, however, added, "India's economy is expected to remain resilient as it is less trade-reliant than other large economies in the Asia-Pacific."
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
India's Wealthiest 1% Holds 60% Assets In Real Estate, Gold: Report
New Delhi: The top 1 per cent of India's wealthiest citizens have parked 60 per cent of their money in real estate and gold, according to a report on Monday. This segment of 'wealthiest citizens' is comprised of Ultra High Net Worth Individuals (UHNI), High Net Worth Individuals (HNI) and the affluent class, which accounts for only 1 percent of Indian households but controls nearly 60 per cent of the country's total assets, the report by US-based wealth management firm Bernstein said. This segment holds $11.6 trillion in total wealth and 70 per cent of India's financial assets, the report said. India's total household wealth is estimated at $19.6 trillion, out of which $11.6 trillion, or 59 per cent, is held by this wealthy segment of the population. Out of this, only $2.7 trillion is invested in serviceable financial assets that can be actively managed or reallocated, such as mutual funds, equities, insurance, and bank or government deposits. The remaining $8.9 trillion is held in non-serviceable assets, including gold, cash holdings, promoter equity, and physical real estate, according to the report. The report indicates huge growth potential for asset management firms to grow their assets under management (AUM) over the next decade, as India's affluent class is looking for avenues to diversify their portfolios beyond gold and real estate. The report highlighted how this wealth segment remains largely underpenetrated by formal wealth management services, with a considerable portion of financial wealth unmanaged. In a previous report, Bernstein had mentioned that specialised wealth managers currently hold only 11 per cent share in the liquid financial asset pool of India. The findings also underscore a broader structural trend in India: while income inequality is high, wealth inequality is even starker. "The top 1 percent earns 40 percent of all income, while the 'Rest of India' holds only a small fraction of both income and assets," the report said. There are approximately 35,000 UHNI households whose net worth surpassed $12 million (Rs 100 crore). These households have an average asset value of $54 million (Rs 472.5 crore), including $24 million (Rs 210 crore) in financial assets. According to the report, this affluent segment collectively held $4.5 trillion in financial assets, which amounts to 70 per cent of the country's total financial wealth.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
2 hours ago
- Business Standard
Retail's tug of war: India needs smart policies for ecommerce, local retail
Retail is changing in character, and India is undoubtedly at the forefront of this development globally. It is quite evident that consumers in India have taken to ecommerce in a big way. My home, for instance, has shifted almost completely to ordering online — so much so that even the maid is doing so. And if stories are to be believed, tier-III and tier-IV cities, as well as rural India, are also seeing rapid growth in online ecommerce. No doubt, the Unified Payments Interface (UPI), Aadhaar and other components of India's digital public infrastructure have helped drive this growth. Easy access to good quality digital infrastructure has enabled startups and small and medium enterprises (SMEs) across India to jump on this bandwagon and build technical capacity. To me, what is most important is that a large range of products is now easily available for the mass market. Ragi biscuits, ghee made traditionally, palm jaggery, semal pillows, khus mats for the cooler, and scores of other niche products that would have been impossible to obtain across India can now be standard purchases. Our consumption behaviour is consequently changing rapidly, with far more variety than was the case only a few years back. And as the consumption variety increases, so are the opportunities for the scores of small entrepreneurs, collectives and even non-governmental organisations (NGOs) who supply these goods. A few centuries ago, it is said that there was little retail in rural India, barter and other forms of quid pro quo marked transactions in rural economic relationships. Even in urban India, customers typically approached known shopkeepers. The relationship was fairly intimate, with repeated interactions and credit being prevalent practices. Consequently, the retailer has historically also been an important creditor for Indian customers. The informal sector has also been brilliant in providing a menu of services that even the most sophisticated modern retail is unable to match. All of these practices have come about because — unappreciated by many — traditional retailers have innovated, for they are closest to the Indian customers and understand their needs quite well. The retailer in India traditionally provides a low-margin service, frequently provides credit, and may source merchandise for specific needs. There is a lot of resilience in such an operation. For instance, when cash disappeared during demonetisation, this same resilience came into play. The relationship of trust between the vegetable seller/retailer and the customer ensured the supply of food, while the relationship between wholesalers and vegetable vendors ensured that their flow of food did not stop. No payments were made, simply verbal IOUs, since that was the need of the hour. During Covid as well, when uninformed policemen would indiscriminately stop vendors, this same set of retailers ensured the flow of food to many underserved areas. Note that the lockdown rules allowed retail, but in the interiors of slums and inner cities, it was the small, and largely informal vendors who serviced customers. The point is not about human interest, though there is that element too, but that there are economic imperatives that keep this form of delivery functioning despite low margins and many difficulties. And so now we are faced with this unfortunate conflict — the large gig economy players providing a phenomenal range of goods at low prices versus the small retailer, not always but sometimes informal. There are some similarities between the two. Just as in traditional retail, we have those who may be mobile and those who are fixed to a place, so too does ecommerce provide such options. Just like traditional retail was always innovating (home delivery from the kirana store appeared in the last millennium), so is ecommerce, changing with quick commerce and 10-minute delivery being the latest offering. So then what is the difference? And why might this distinction be important? The biggest difference between the two classes is that traditional retail operates within the framework of a market, where there are many vendors and there are many people they may source from. Most importantly, historically, the barriers to entry have been limited for this segment. This ensured high levels of competition and low margins. It is argued by some that this form of retail could not innovate enough, as it never had adequate surpluses to enable innovation. The new e-commerce is, however, mostly an oligopoly. A few large players compete with one another and with the traditional retail industry, using large-scale operations and stronger bargaining power to ensure low-cost merchandise sourcing. Despite being around for some time now, most such ecommerce players are not profitable. Are these ecommerce losses part of a diabolical strategy to eliminate traditional retail and then raise prices later? If true, it would be good policy to either tax this form of retail higher or place regulatory or policy hurdles in its growth. If, on the other hand, that is not the case, then policy would need to study how best to ensure that the employment, innovation, and price outcomes of this new form of retail are promoted. Economics literature provides some insights. The first is related to the form of competition. It is difficult for firms to sustain high profits when they compete on prices. In the ecommerce space, service differentiation would need to be very high for ensuring sustained high profits. Second, profits can be high in the long run only when entry into that segment is difficult. Given that there are a multitude of both domestic and global players, that's already taken care of — unless the incumbent firms collude to divide up different customer or product segments among themselves. Third, if indeed the objective is to eliminate conventional retail, future entry of small retail players would have to be prevented. Given the dynamism of the small entrepreneur, how might that be ensured? On the face of it, the answers to each of the above three questions are self-evident. But another question needs to be introduced to this equation. How can policy ensure that traditional retail innovates and prospers? Note that traditional retail, whether of the kirana variety or in the informal sector, does create surpluses, serves customers, innovates and, of course, creates employment at a massive scale. Therefore, good retail policy would enable them to be more dynamic. Such policies would probably include a range of well-known solutions, including adequate space, easier credit, freedom from corrupt municipal inspectors and local policemen, and fewer regulations. But arguably the most important policy contribution would be to empower traditional retail and ecommerce to work with each other. For instance, what might enable conventional retail to access the lower-cost merchandise available to ecommerce firms? Similarly, what might enable ecommerce players to access the customer knowledge and networks of local retailers? If that were possible, then the benefit of long-term trusting relationships and customer knowledge of traditional retail can complement the scale economies and process-driven methods of ecommerce. We are already seeing such models being piloted. How can policy help in their rollout?
