|
Report Date : |
20.11.2014 |
IDENTIFICATION DETAILS
|
Name : |
SUN DIAMOND INC. |
|
|
|
|
Registered Office : |
145 |
|
|
|
|
Country : |
United State |
|
|
|
|
Date of Incorporation : |
12.09.1997 |
|
|
|
|
Legal Form : |
Corporation – Profit |
|
|
|
|
Line of Business : |
Importer and wholesaler of fine
diamonds and jewelry. |
|
|
|
|
No. of Employees : |
30 |
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 – June 1, 2014
|
Country Name |
Previous Rating (31.03.2014) |
Current Rating (01.06.2014) |
|
United State |
A1 |
A1 |
|
Risk Category |
ECGC
Classification |
|
Insignificant |
A1 |
|
Low |
A2 |
|
Moderate |
B1 |
|
High |
B2 |
|
Very High |
C1 |
|
Restricted |
C2 |
|
Off-credit |
D |
UNITED STATE - ECONOMIC OVERVIEW
The
|
Source : CIA |
Your order on: JACOBS & COHEN INC.
That business was incorporated in
ID# 1737026. On 04-17-2008, it merged into:
Company name: SUN DIAMOND INC.
Registered address:
Headquarters:
Telephone: +1
212-714-2702
Fax: +1 212-714-2712
Website: -
Corporate ID#: 2179763
State:
Judicial form: Corporation – Profit
Date incorporated: September
12, 1997
Stock: 100
shares common
Value: USD
0.01= par value
Name of
manager: dward JACOBS
Business:
The Company is doing business as SUN SOURCE.
SUN DIAMOND is importer and wholesaler of fine diamonds and
jewelry.
Office of the Foreign Assets Control (OFAC):
The company is not listed on the OFAC list.
The Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) List is a publication
of OFAC which lists individuals and organizations with whom
Suppliers include:
STRONG JEWELRY (HK) CO LTD
Kaiser Estate stage 3,
EIN: 13-3976380
Staff: 30
Operations & branches:
At the
headquarters, we find the corporate office and showroom, on lease.
Shareholders:
This is a
JACOBS family owned and managed company.
Management:
Edward JACOBS is the President, Director and CEO
Alex JACOBS is Secretary
As far as we know, they are not involved in other local
corporations.
Subsidiaries And
partnership: None
In
On a direct
call, a Secretary controlled the present report but deferred any financials.
We sent a fax
but no answer received.
However, sales
estimate for year 2013 is in the range of USD 30,000,000+
The business is
profitable.
Banks: Valley National Bank
Ph: +1 212-213-1260
Legal filings & complaints:
As of today date, there is no legal filing pending with the
Courts.
Secured debts summary (UCC):
|
1. |
Debtor Names: |
SUN DIAMOND, INC. |
255 W 36TH ST FL 9, |
|
|
Secured Party Names: |
GREATAMERICA LEASING CORPORATION |
625 |
|
|
File no. |
File Date |
Lapse Date |
|
|
201002105127520 |
02/10/2010 |
02/10/2015 |
|
2. |
Debtor Names: |
SUN DIAMOND, INC. |
|
|
|
Secured Party Names: |
SUSQUEHANNA COMMERCIAL FINANCE,
INC. |
|
|
|
File no. |
File Date |
Lapse Date |
|
|
201007275732542 |
07/27/2010 |
07/27/2015 |
|
3. |
Debtor Names: |
SUN DIAMOND, INC. |
|
|
|
Secured Party Names: |
THE CIT GROUP/COMMERCIAL SERVICES,
INC. |
|
|
|
File no. |
File Date |
Lapse Date |
|
|
201202175201285 |
02/17/2012 |
02/17/2017 |
|
4. |
Debtor Names: |
SUN DIAMOND, INC. |
|
|
|
Secured Party Names: |
THE CIT GROUP/COMMERCIAL
SERVICES, INC. |
|
|
|
File no. |
File Date |
Lapse Date |
|
|
201202175201336 |
02/17/2012 |
02/17/2017 |
|
5. |
Debtor Names: |
SUN DIAMOND, INC. |
|
|
|
Secured Party Names: |
SUSQUEHANNA COMMERCIAL FINANCE,
INC. |
|
|
|
File no. |
File Date |
Lapse Date |
|
|
201310036050449 |
10/03/2013 |
10/03/2018 |
|
|
|
|
|
-
From
time immemorial,
-
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.
-
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 –
-
Gem
& Jewellery Export Promotion Council in its statistical data has shown the
export of polished diamonds to have increase by 28 % in February 2013. Compared
to $ 1.4 bn worth of polished diamond export in February, 2012,
-
The
banking sector has started exercising restraint while following prudent risk
management norms when lending money to gems and jewellery sector. This follows
the implementation of Basel III accord – a global voluntary regulatory standard
on bank capital adequacy, stress testing and market liquidity.
|
|
|
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.
The
transfer and convertibility (T&C) assessment of the
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
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
The
political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as
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
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
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
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
Standard
& Poor's transfer T&C assessment of the
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.6183 |
|
|
1 |
Rs.96.56 |
|
Euro |
1 |
Rs.77.42 |
INFORMATION DETAILS
|
Analysis
Done by : |
KAR |
|
|
|
|
Report
Prepared by : |
VNT |
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 |
|
|
S |
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.