Dillon wrote:You Say [i]‘the argument put forth is probably the very same fundamentals one has always associated with Dubai. If one turned back the dates and instead of 2010 put 2000, the arguments would be the very same.’ OK then look at the Growth since 2000![/i]
Agreed, but I believe in saturation point too. One can't keep spending on and on and on. After a point the dynamics change and a new game plan is the order of the day.
Your argument sounds sometin like this, if they built two man made islands then, then they should build two more now. If it was good then it must be good now!!!
Dillon wrote:The report was compiled from statistics gathered from October to December 2009 so at that time, would take into account current trends and the respondents were 3rd level executives of the largest Fortune 1000 Companies with businesses in emerging markets and regional & business heads, 3rd level Executives are targeted, as board recommendations are their responsibility.
Now all of the above is listed in the report, had you read and understood it, there would have been no need to ask the questions? I don’t take kindly to being treated as a research assistant
No I disagree!
The respondents were selected from the largest corporations in emerging countries. No-where is it mentioned as to weather these corporations are private of state funded. So for all you know they could've surveyed execs from Sovereign funds, and other major cos like Etisalat maybe?
The reason for my inference is that if you've read the report you might have noticed that on Pg 7 it's noted that Telecom is a major investment avenue for investors. Errr? I dnt see any private players participating in that sector? Do you?
So would you appreciate then such a survey to be valid ?
Out with it Dillon, Fortune 500 or Fortune 1000 is a figment of ur imagination. No where is it implicitly stated that respondents were from those companies.
Dillon wrote:[i]‘Yes, statistics can be manipulated, and I’m not suggesting by my post that the report is as positive as the presented statistics claim, I am a realist, but the overall essence of the report is positive and good for Dubai in particular, and the wider MENA region.’[/i]
Dude I appreciate the attempt at realism. But ultimately what validity does an FDI confidence index have if it fails to bring in FDI?
It almost like how the Brits seem to think they have the best football team in the world, but without any silverware to show for it..the inference is void!!!
My bone with it is that the report is highly inaccurate in more ways than one,
For instance the report forecasts Middle East GDP 2010 to be 5.5%, the IMF forecast put's 3%...which is far less than inflation. So what then is the real GDP?
This is just one inaccuracy, there are numerous others, like when the report states that offshore banking in Switzerland , Singapore and Bahrain is now trailing DIFC !! (really?)
At the end of the day as a realist
I can stomach a few flaws here and there, but when it get's one to many I'm afraid the report is best chucked out.
So much for AT Kearns and they're reputation eh?
Just to finish I agree with certain aspects of the FDI index. That the Middle East as a whole definitely beats more established centers like Japan, Russia etc. But the reasoning is entirely ridiculous.