Why do think Indian stock market is not transparent?
With regards to the Indian governments' fudging of macroeconomic stats, this article may be helpful: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-14/india-now-...
What indian economy lacks - 1. new credible entrepreneurs e.g. existing group co's have gotten into more new businesses and expanded into traditional sectors as compared to a handful of new names. 2. new business models e.g. most business are copying what has existed in US such as ecommerce, taxi aggregators, etc. 3. enhancing regulation in existing markets e.g. real estate.
"Data releases have become much less transparent and truthful at both a macro and a micro level. At a macro level the key issue is the ever increasing importance of China and India. China is the world’s second largest economy, but already much larger than the US in a broad swathe of sectors. India will be the world’s third largest economy within a decade. Unfortunately their rise is increasing the global cost of capital because an ever growing share of the most important data they produce is simply not credible. Currently stated Chinese real GDP growth is 7.1% and India’s is 7.4%. Both are substantially over stated. This obfuscation and distortion of data, whether deliberate or inadvertent, makes it increasingly difficult to forecast macro and hence micro as well, for an ever growing share of our investment universe."
http://www.businessinsider.com/nevsky-capital-closing-letter...
Aside from the fact that they are (a) both very large, and (b) both rapidly developing countries/economies, China and India share very little in common.
There are challenges to investing in either China or India, but the reasons behind those challenges are about as different as you can get. The underlying issues in the two countries are dramatically different.
I really do not understand how anybody with even a little understanding of the two countries can lump India and China together in the same political/financial group.
Are you asking how the term 'BRIC' came about?? If so, the paper where the term was first used is available online and it is remarkably readable. The pdf is located:
http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/archive/archive-pdf...
There were at least two follow up reports that I'm sure are also available online.
From the standpoint of an investment banker (which is where the term BRIC comes from) any differences between them are largely irrelevant - they all have a large population, a government that is stable enough to protect their business investments, and an improving distribution of wealth to ensure widening participation in the economy to sustain growth for decades (this is important when macro investing; a rising tide raises all ships, and macro investors are basically investing in all ships). But that's about where the similarities between these 4 countries end, so using the term "BRIC" to speak about cultural similarities is meaningless.
> There are challenges to investing in either China or India, but the reasons behind those challenges are about as different as you can get. The underlying issues in the two countries are dramatically different.
I agree; and you probably know this all, so it's for others' benefit. China is a centrally-planned economy that has transitioned to a capitalist-style oligarchy. Culturally, they value society as a whole as being more important than the individual or individual groups. The Chinese government is still the ultimate authority, though many factions exist within the Communist party. Everything coming from the central Communist party is reviewed and OKed by a dozen officials to ensure a consistent story - so any bad numbers are a result of deliberate overstatement at some level. It also means that stakeholders at every level have the opportunity and incentive to falsify numbers (because missing your numbers means losing your job and ending up in poverty). It's not a giant conspiracy; but there is little downside to falsifying accounting numbers (which will get you a prison sentence in the US).
India is on the opposite end of the spectrum - it's basically a free-for-all with a bunch of very different groups of people pushed together to try to make it work. There are thousands of ethnic groups, many of whom hate each other. So in order to keep the peace, they have to allow each ethnic group a wide berth. This means that when you say "the Indian government" you're talking about an entity that is a multi-headed hydra (or even multiple hydras). There are many competing desires and biases present in the Indian government, and it's politically difficult to deal with those problems when your population is as fragmented as India's is (and why the election of a more modern leader with a global focus like Modi was a huge step forward).
We dont have anything similar to EDGAR.