MIRA
INFORM REPORT
|
Report Date : |
06.08.2013 |
IDENTIFICATION DETAILS
|
Name : |
AARON SANDER INC |
|
|
|
|
Registered Office : |
580 5th Avenue, Ste 537, New York, NY 10036 |
|
|
|
|
Country : |
United States |
|
|
|
|
Date of Incorporation : |
16.05.2002 |
|
|
|
|
Legal Form : |
Corporation – Profit |
|
|
|
|
Line of Business : |
Subject is importer and
retailer of diamonds and precious stones |
|
|
|
|
No. of Employees : |
03 |
RATING & COMMENTS
|
MIRA’s Rating : |
Ba |
|
RATING |
STATUS |
PROPOSED CREDIT LINE |
|
|
41-55 |
Ba |
Overall operation is considered normal. Capable to meet normal
commitments. |
Satisfactory |
|
Status : |
Satisfactory |
|
|
|
|
Payment Behaviour : |
No Complaints |
|
|
|
|
Litigation : |
Clear |
NOTES:
Any query related to this report can be made
on e-mail: infodept@mirainform.com
while quoting report number, name and date.
ECGC Country Risk Classification List – March 31st, 2013
|
Country Name |
Previous Rating (31.12.2012) |
Current Rating (31.03.2013) |
|
United
States |
A1 |
A1 |
|
Risk Category |
ECGC
Classification |
|
Insignificant |
A1 |
|
Low |
A2 |
|
Moderate |
B1 |
|
High |
B2 |
|
Very High |
C1 |
|
Restricted |
C2 |
|
Off-credit |
D |
United States - ECONOMIC OVERVIEW
The US has the largest and most technologically powerful
economy in the world, with a per capita GDP of $49,800. In this market-oriented
economy, private individuals and business firms make most of the decisions, and
the federal and state governments buy needed goods and services predominantly
in the private marketplace. US business firms enjoy greater flexibility than
their counterparts in Western Europe and Japan in decisions to expand capital
plant, to lay off surplus workers, and to develop new products. At the same
time, they face higher barriers to enter their rivals' home markets than
foreign firms face entering US markets. US firms are at or near the forefront
in technological advances, especially in computers and in medical, aerospace,
and military equipment; their advantage has narrowed since the end of World War
II. The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a
"two-tier labor market" in which those at the bottom lack the
education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more
and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and
other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have
gone to the top 20% of households. Since 1996, dividends and capital gains have
grown faster than wages or any other category of after-tax income. Imported oil
accounts for nearly 55% of US consumption. Crude oil prices doubled between
2001 and 2006, the year home prices peaked; higher gasoline prices ate into
consumers' budgets and many individuals fell behind in their mortgage payments.
Oil prices climbed another 50% between 2006 and 2008, and bank foreclosures more
than doubled in the same period. Besides dampening the housing market, soaring
oil prices caused a drop in the value of the dollar and a deterioration in the
US merchandise trade deficit, which peaked at $840 billion in 2008. The
sub-prime mortgage crisis, falling home prices, investment bank failures, tight
credit, and the global economic downturn pushed the United States into a
recession by mid-2008. GDP contracted until the third quarter of 2009, making
this the deepest and longest downturn since the Great Depression. To help
stabilize financial markets, in October 2008 the US Congress established a $700
billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). The government used some of these
funds to purchase equity in US banks and industrial corporations, much of which
had been returned to the government by early 2011. In January 2009 the US
Congress passed and President Barack OBAMA signed a
bill providing an additional $787 billion fiscal stimulus to be used over 10
years - two-thirds on additional spending and one-third on tax cuts - to create
jobs and to help the economy recover. In 2010 and 2011, the federal budget
deficit reached nearly 9% of GDP. In 2012 the federal government reduced the
growth of spending and the deficit shrank to 7.6% of GDP. Wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan required major shifts in national resources from civilian to
military purposes and contributed to the growth of the budget deficit and
public debt. Through 2011, the direct costs of the wars totaled nearly $900
billion, according to US government figures. US revenues from taxes and other
sources are lower, as a percentage of GDP, than those of most other countries.
In March 2010, President OBAMA signed into law the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act, a health insurance reform that will extend coverage to an
additional 32 million American citizens by 2016, through private health
insurance for the general population and Medicaid for the impoverished. Total
spending on health care - public plus private - rose from 9.0% of GDP in 1980
to 17.9% in 2010. In July 2010, the president signed the DODD-FRANK Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act, a law designed to promote financial
stability by protecting consumers from financial abuses, ending taxpayer
bailouts of financial firms, dealing with troubled banks that are "too big
to fail," and improving accountability and transparency in the financial
system - in particular, by requiring certain financial derivatives to be traded
in markets that are subject to government regulation and oversight. In December
2012, the Federal Reserve Board announced plans to purchase $85 billion per
month of mortgage-backed and Treasury securities in an effort to hold down
long-term interest rates, and to keep short term rates near zero until unemployment
drops to 6.5% from the December rate of 7.8%, or until inflation rises above
2.5%. Long-term problems include stagnation of wages for lower-income families,
inadequate investment in deteriorating infrastructure, rapidly rising medical
and pension costs of an aging population, energy shortages, and sizable current
account and budget deficits - including significant budget shortages for state
governments.
|
Source : CIA |
Company name & address
Company name: AARON SANDER INC.
Address: 580 5th
Avenue, Ste 537, New York, NY 10036 - USA
Telephone: +1
212-869-9685
Fax: -
Website: -
Company summary
Corporate ID#: 2767787
State: New York State
Judicial form: Corporation
– Profit
Date incorporated: 05-16-2002
Stock: 200
shares common
Value: No
par value
Name of manager: Aaron
SANDER
ACTIVITIES
& OPERATIONS
Business:
The Company is importer and
retailer of diamonds and precious stones.
Aaron Sander is also doing
business as Royal Diamond Co. but that name is not registered.
No name of foreign suppliers available.
EIN: -
Staff: 3
Operations & branches:
At the headquarters, we
find a store and office, on lease.
SHAREHOLDERS & MANAGERS
Shareholders:
This is a SANDER family
owned and managed company.
Management:
Aaron SANDER is the President, Director and CEO.
Bernard SANDER is a Manager.
As far as we know, they are not involved in other local corporations.
Subsidiaries
and partnership:
None
FINANCIALS
In United States, privately
held corporations are not required to publish any financials.
On a direct call, nobody
accepted to answer our questions.
We sent a mail but no
answer received.
However, sales estimate for
year 2012 is in the range of USD 350,000=
The business is said to be
profitable.
Banks: Valley National Bank
555 5th Avenue, New York, NY 10017
LEGAL FILINGS
Legal filings
& complaints:
As of today date, there is no legal filing pending with the Courts.
Secured debts
summary (UCC):
|
DIAMOND INDUSTRY –
INDIA
-
From time immemorial, India is well known in the world as the birthplace
for diamonds. It is difficult to trace the origin of diamonds but history
says that in the remote past, diamonds were mined only in India. Diamond production
in India can be traced back to almost 8th Century B.C. India,
in fact, remained undisputed leader till 18th Century when Brazilian
fields were discovered in 1725 followed by emergence of S. Africa, Russia and
Australia.
-
The achievement of the Indian diamond industry was possible only due to
combination of the manufacturing skills of the Indian workforce and the
untiring and unflagging efforts of the Indian diamantaires,
supported by progressive Government policies.
-
The area of study of family owned diamond businesses derives its
importance from the huge conglomerate of family run organizations which operate
in the diamond industry since many generations.
-
Some of the basic traits of family run business enterprises include
spirit of entrepreneurship, mutual trust lowers transaction costs, small,
nimble and quick to react, information as a source of advantage and
philanthropy.
-
Family owned diamond businesses need to improve on many fronts including
higher standard of corporate governance, long-term performance – focused
strategies, modern management and technology.
-
The diamond jewellery industry in India today
may be more than Rs 60000 mil and is rated amongst
the fastest growing in the world. Indi ranks
third in the world in domestic diamond consumption.
-
Utmost caution is to be exercised while dealing with some medium and
large diamond traders which are usually engaged in fictitious import – export,
inter-company transactions, financially assisted by banks. In the process,
several public sector banks lost several hundred million rupees. They mostly
diverted borrowed money for diamond business into real estate and capital
markets.
-
Excerpts from Times of India dated 30th October 2010 is as
under –
DIAMOND SAGA –
DIRTY DOZEN STUCK WITH 2K CR DEBT
This could be the biggest credibility crisis
the Indian diamond industry has ever faced. Fifteen banks run the risk of
losing Rs 2000 crore lent
to a dozen diamond firms in Surat. Until about two
months ago, they had not repaid these dues. Bankers believe many diamantaires borrowed money during the economic downturn
two years ago and diverted funds to businesses like real estate and capital
markets. Many of themselves made money from these businesses but their diamond
companies have gone sick and declared insolvency.
-
Most of the money borrowed from the banks in the name of their diamond
business has been diverted in real estate and the share market. The banks are
not in a position to seize their properties because in many cases, these were
purchased in the name of their relatives and friends.
Standard
& Poor’s
|
United
States of America Long-Term Rating Lowered To 'AA+' Due To Political Risks,
Rising Debt Burden; Outlook Negative |
|
Publication
date: 05-Aug-2011 20:13:14 EST |
·
We have lowered our long-term sovereign
credit rating on the United States of America to 'AA+' from 'AAA' and affirmed
the 'A-1+' short-term rating.
·
We have also removed both the short- and long-term ratings
from CreditWatch negative.
·
The downgrade reflects our opinion
that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration
recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to
stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics.
·
More broadly, the downgrade
reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of
American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of
ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when
we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.
·
Since then, we have changed our
view of the difficulties in bridging the gulf between the political parties
over fiscal policy, which makes us pessimistic about the capacity of Congress
and the Administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a
broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government's debt
dynamics any time soon.
·
The outlook on the long-term rating
is negative. We could lower the long-term rating to 'AA' within the next two
years if we see that less reduction in spending than agreed to, higher interest
rates, or new fiscal pressures during the period result in a higher general
government debt trajectory than we currently assume in our base case.
TORONTO (Standard &
Poor's) Aug. 5, 2011--Standard & Poor's Ratings Services said today that it
lowered its long-term sovereign credit rating on the United States of America
to 'AA+' from 'AAA'. Standard & Poor's also said that the outlook on the
long-term rating is negative. At the same time, Standard & Poor's affirmed
its 'A-1+' short-term rating on the U.S. In addition, Standard & Poor's
removed both ratings from CreditWatch, where they
were placed on July 14, 2011, with negative implications.
The
transfer and convertibility (T&C) assessment of the U.S.--our assessment of
the likelihood of official interference in the ability of U.S.-based public-
and private-sector issuers to secure foreign exchange for
debt service--remains
'AAA'.
We lowered our long-term
rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over
raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate
indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public
spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising
revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a
contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal consolidation
plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week falls short of
the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government
debt burden by the middle of the decade.
Our lowering of the
rating was prompted by our view on the rising public debt burden and our perception of greater policymaking uncertainty, consistent with our
criteria (see "Sovereign Government Rating Methodology and
Assumptions ," June 30, 2011,
especially Paragraphs 36-41). Nevertheless, we view the U.S. federal
government's other economic, external, and monetary credit attributes, which
form the basis for the sovereign rating, as broadly unchanged.
We have taken the ratings
off CreditWatch because the Aug. 2 passage of the
Budget Control Act Amendment of 2011 has removed any perceived immediate threat
of payment default posed by delays to raising the government's debt ceiling. In
addition, we believe that the act provides sufficient clarity to allow us to
evaluate the likely course of U.S. fiscal policy for the next few years.
The political
brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance
and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable
than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of
default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal
policy. Despite this year's wide-ranging debate, in our view, the differences
between political parties have proven to be extraordinarily difficult to
bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting agreement fell well short of the
comprehensive fiscal consolidation program that some proponents had envisaged
until quite recently. Republicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to
relatively modest savings on discretionary spending while delegating to the
Select Committee decisions on more comprehensive measures. It appears that for
now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options. In addition,
the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in
other entitlements,
the containment of which
we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal
sustainability.
Our opinion is that
elected officials remain wary of tackling the structural issues required to effectively
address the rising U.S. public debt burden in a manner consistent with a 'AAA'
rating and with 'AAA' rated sovereign peers (see Sovereign Government Rating Methodology and
Assumptions," June 30, 2011,
especially Paragraphs 36-41). In our view, the difficulty in framing a
consensus on fiscal policy weakens the government's ability to manage public
finances and diverts attention from the debate over how to achieve more
balanced and dynamic economic growth in an era of fiscal stringency and
private-sector deleveraging (ibid). A new political
consensus might (or might not) emerge after the 2012 elections, but we believe
that by then, the government debt burden will likely be higher, the needed
medium-term fiscal adjustment potentially greater, and the inflection point on
the U.S. population's demographics and other age-related spending drivers
closer at hand (see "Global Aging 2011: In The U.S., Going Gray Will Likely
Cost Even More Green, Now,"
June 21, 2011).
Standard & Poor's
takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue measures that Congress and
the Administration might conclude is appropriate for putting the U.S.'s
finances on a sustainable footing.
The act calls for as much
as $2.4 trillion of reductions in expenditure growth over the 10 years through
2021. These cuts will be implemented in two steps: the $917 billion agreed to
initially, followed by an additional $1.5 trillion that the newly formed
Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction is supposed to
recommend by November 2011. The act contains no measures to raise taxes or
otherwise enhance revenues, though the committee could recommend them.
The act further provides
that if Congress does not enact the committee's recommendations, cuts of $1.2
trillion will be implemented over the same time period. The reductions would
mainly affect outlays for civilian discretionary spending, defense, and
Medicare. We understand that this fall-back mechanism is designed to encourage
Congress to embrace a more balanced mix of expenditure savings, as the
committee might recommend.
We note that in a letter
to Congress on Aug. 1, 2011, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated
total budgetary savings under the act to be at least $2.1 trillion over the
next 10 years relative to its baseline assumptions. In updating our own fiscal
projections, with certain modifications outlined below, we have relied on the CBO's latest "Alternate Fiscal Scenario" of June
2011, updated to include the CBO assumptions contained in its Aug. 1 letter to
Congress. In general, the CBO's "Alternate
Fiscal Scenario" assumes a continuation of recent Congressional action
overriding existing law.
We view the act's
measures as a step toward fiscal consolidation. However, this is within the
framework of a legislative mechanism that leaves open the details of what is
finally agreed to until the end of 2011, and Congress and the Administration
could modify any agreement in the future. Even assuming that at least $2.1
trillion of the spending reductions the act envisages are implemented, we
maintain our view that the U.S. net general government debt burden (all levels
of government combined, excluding liquid financial assets) will likely continue
to grow. Under our revised base case fiscal scenario--which we consider to be
consistent with a 'AA+' long-term rating and a negative outlook--we now project
that net general government debt would rise from an estimated 74% of GDP by the
end of 2011 to 79% in 2015 and 85% by 2021. Even the projected 2015 ratio of
sovereign indebtedness is high in relation to those of peer credits and, as
noted, would continue to rise under the act's revised policy settings.
Compared with previous
projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003
tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed
our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue
to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress
reinforced by passing the act. Key macroeconomic assumptions in the base case
scenario include trend real GDP growth of 3% and consumer price inflation near
2% annually over the decade.
Our revised upside
scenario--which, other things being equal, we view as consistent with the
outlook on the 'AA+' long-term rating being revised to stable--retains these
same macroeconomic assumptions. In addition, it incorporates $950 billion of
new revenues on the assumption that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners
lapse from 2013 onwards, as the Administration is advocating. In this scenario,
we project that the net general government debt would rise from an estimated
74% of GDP by the end of 2011 to 77% in 2015 and to 78% by 2021.
Our revised downside
scenario--which, other things being equal, we view as being consistent with a
possible further downgrade to a 'AA' long-term rating--features less-favorable
macroeconomic assumptions, as outlined below and also assumes that the second
round of spending cuts (at least $1.2 trillion) that the act calls for does not
occur. This scenario also assumes somewhat higher nominal interest rates for
U.S. Treasuries. We still believe that the role of the U.S. dollar as the key
reserve currency confers a government funding advantage, one that could change
only slowly over time, and that Fed policy might lean toward continued loose monetary
policy at a time of fiscal tightening. Nonetheless, it is possible that
interest rates could rise if investors re-price relative risks. As a result,
our alternate scenario factors in a 50 basis point (bp)-75
bp rise in 10-year bond yields relative to the base
and upside cases from 2013 onwards. In this scenario, we project the net public
debt burden would rise from 74% of GDP in 2011 to 90% in 2015 and to 101% by
2021.
Our revised scenarios
also take into account the significant negative revisions to historical GDP
data that the Bureau of Economic Analysis announced on July 29. From our
perspective, the effect of these revisions underscores two related points when
evaluating the likely debt trajectory of the U.S. government. First, the
revisions show that the recent recession was deeper than previously assumed, so
the GDP this year is lower than previously thought in both nominal and real
terms. Consequently, the debt burden is slightly higher. Second, the revised
data highlight the sub-par path of the current economic recovery when compared
with rebounds following previous post-war recessions. We believe the sluggish
pace of the current economic recovery could be consistent with the experiences
of countries that have had financial crises in which the slow process of debt deleveraging in the private sector leads to a persistent
drag on demand. As a result, our downside case scenario assumes relatively
modest real trend GDP growth of 2.5% and inflation of near 1.5% annually going
forward.
When comparing the U.S.
to sovereigns with 'AAA' long-term ratings that we view as relevant
peers--Canada, France, Germany, and the U.K.--we also observe, based on our
base case scenarios for each, that the trajectory of the U.S.'s net public debt
is diverging from the others. Including the U.S., we estimate that these five
sovereigns will have net general government debt to GDP ratios this year
ranging from 34% (Canada) to 80% (the U.K.), with the U.S. debt burden at 74%.
By 2015, we project that their net public debt to GDP ratios will range between
30% (lowest, Canada) and 83% (highest, France), with the U.S. debt burden at
79%. However, in contrast with the U.S., we project that the net public debt
burdens of these other sovereigns will begin to decline, either before or by
2015.
Standard & Poor's
transfer T&C assessment of the U.S. remains 'AAA'. Our T&C assessment
reflects our view of the likelihood of the sovereign restricting other public
and private issuers' access to foreign exchange needed to meet debt service. Although
in our view the credit standing of the U.S. government has deteriorated
modestly, we see little indication that official interference of this kind is
entering onto the policy agenda of either Congress or the Administration.
Consequently, we continue to view this risk as being highly remote.
The outlook on the
long-term rating is negative. As our downside alternate fiscal scenario
illustrates, a higher public debt trajectory than we currently assume could
lead us to lower the long-term rating again. On the other hand, as our upside
scenario highlights, if the recommendations of the Congressional Joint Select
Committee on Deficit Reduction--independently or coupled with other
initiatives, such as the lapsing of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners--lead
to fiscal consolidation measures beyond the minimum mandated, and we believe
they are likely to slow the deterioration of the government's debt dynamics,
the long-term rating could stabilize at 'AA+'.
FOREIGN EXCHANGE RATES
|
Currency |
Unit
|
Indian Rupees |
|
US Dollar |
1 |
Rs.60.82 |
|
UK Pound |
1 |
Rs.92.97 |
|
Euro |
1 |
Rs.80.73 |
INFORMATION DETAILS
|
Report Prepared
by : |
SDA |
RATING EXPLANATIONS
|
RATING |
STATUS |
PROPOSED CREDIT LINE |
|
|
>86 |
Aaa |
Possesses an extremely sound financial base with the strongest
capability for timely payment of interest and principal sums |
Unlimited |
|
71-85 |
Aa |
Possesses adequate working capital. No caution needed for credit
transaction. It has above average (strong) capability for payment of interest
and principal sums |
Large |
|
56-70 |
A |
Financial & operational base are regarded healthy. General unfavourable factors will not cause fatal effect.
Satisfactory capability for payment of interest and principal sums |
Fairly Large |
|
41-55 |
Ba |
Overall operation is considered normal. Capable to meet normal
commitments. |
Satisfactory |
|
26-40 |
B |
Capability to overcome financial difficulties seems comparatively below
average. |
Small |
|
11-25 |
Ca |
Adverse factors are apparent. Repayment of interest and principal sums
in default or expected to be in default upon maturity |
Limited with
full security |
|
<10 |
C |
Absolute credit risk exists. Caution needed to be exercised |
Credit not
recommended |
|
---- |
NB |
New Business |
---- |
This score serves as a reference to assess SC’s credit risk and
to set the amount of credit to be extended. It is calculated from a composite
of weighted scores obtained from each of the major sections of this report. The
assessed factors and their relative weights (as indicated through %) are as
follows:
Financial
condition (40%) Ownership
background (20%) Payment
record (10%)
Credit history
(10%) Market trend
(10%) Operational
size (10%)
This report is issued at your request without any
risk and responsibility on the part of MIRA INFORM PRIVATE LIMITED (MIPL)
or its officials.