Posted on 10/03/2004 4:22:37 PM PDT by Willie Green
For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.
New Delhi, Oct 3 (UNI) Top 100 global financial companies will offshore jobs worth over 200 billion dollars to India and other countries in 2005, says a new research by Deloitte and Touche.
''Financial institutions are moving business functions to India because they are recognising compelling cost advantages and they are able to lock in savings and manage risks effectively,'' Mr Peter Lowes, the US leader of Deloitte's outsourcing practice, said.
In 2005, Deloitte expects the top 100 global financial companies to offshore a total of 210 billion dollars of their operating costs, saving on average, 700 million dollars.
The survey, covering 43 financial services companies around the world, suggests that the number of firms taking the offshore option increased by 38 per cent last year.
Deloitte also estimated that by 2010, 20 per cent of the operating costs of global financial institutions would be centred abroad, reducing costs by about 37 per cent.
Analyst Datamonitor also said earlier this year that outsourced, offshore call centre positions will more than double by 2007 to 241,000, from close to 110,000 at the end of last year.
However, the Deloitte survey said most of the companies sending jobs to India and other countries had concerns about risk management. Half of those surveyed had contingency plans if the offshore operation went wrong.
''Risks related to government change and policy changes are prompting companies to have a multiple-country strategy, which makes it easy for them to migrate services if there is a problem in any operation,'' Mr Lowes said.
Apart from India, other countries with high proficiency in English are emerging as popular destinations, including Malaysia and the Philippines, the report added.
Have you noticed that the only health care procedures going up in price are those procedures covered by insurance?
Lasik and cosmetic surgery prices are steadily declining.
Amazing what happens when you have to spend your own money to pay for things, isn't it?
Doctors are forced to compete for your business.
It's amazing to me how people fail to grasp the most basic concept of a market...the market is in place to compete for the consumer dollar. Most people in here believe that the consumer dollar should be forced to maintain a non-competitive market alive, and they think that's a GOOD thing.
Then they turn around and argue that the conservative thing to do is to have the government control the natural ebb and flow of industry, employee wages, and the ability of business owners to expand their business as they see fit.
They are demanding socialism in the name of "conservative values".
Oy vey.
Does anyone want to live in India? The answer is NO!!
Do the citizens of India need a better life?-------YES!!
First off, Torie, forget KerryEdwards. Anybody who actually reads their campaign statements on the issue understands immediately that it will be more of the same, with a few showpiece tweaks that are meaningless...
PLUS a lot more spend-and-tax.
Like it or not, this issue is non-partisan--which is to say, neither Party has picked up on the significance of it, by and large.
However, Republicans in Wisconsin, and other industrial States, are decidedly running AWAY from Bush's positions on trade, which should be a signal, should Mankiw & Co. actually have ears and eyes.
Further, your intellectual quotient is a bit too high to refer to posters as "Luddites" and as 'wailing over a non-existent Golden Age.'
Here's something to chew on: at what point in time will America's chief export be Entertainment, and what will THAT say about this society?
There are concerns here which are far more significant than whether the UAW wins or loses another wage increase--or whether Carly Simon's comp package is "too high."
It has to do with the core values in the Republic, and it's a good time to re-examine them.
Finally, politicians can and must (unfortunately) have the final say, because only the Feds make trade policy.
ERRATUM: Should have been "Carly Fiorina", not "Carly Simon."
That's not what I said--that "all" CEO's are like that.
Someone asked for a few examples of bozos in the CEO chair. I am sure there are more, just as I am sure that the vast majority of them, at least in small-/mid-cap businesses, are just fine folks who do their best for all parties.
But I'm not as easily convinced about the Fortune 100 guys, who seem to think that being 'transnational' exempts their organizations from certain responsibilities.
We could discuss that.
What's your point? I was addressing the alleged increase in IBM employment, not Kodak's troubles (which resulted from a horrific mis-judgment made in the CEO-suite about 15 years ago, by the way.)
What's your point? I was addressing the alleged increase in IBM employment, not Kodak's troubles (which resulted from a horrific mis-judgment made in the CEO-suite about 15 years ago, by the way.)
The steel tariff situation was an excellent example of Goobermint incompetence and should not be used without a good deal of conditional language.
Looking at the price of steel over the last 12 months, one can discern easily that the bitching over the tariff was misplaced--demand simply went up, VERY fast, although Bush's tariff was designed to save West Virginia and Pennsylvania votes.
Ohio (and Wisconsin) manufacturers are STILL paying more for steel; but at least the overseas fabricators no longer have the advantage handed them by the nincompoop who designed the "tariff."
This is largely a tax issue and was the result of an agreement made in the 1940's between the auto industry, the UAW, and the Gummint (FDR's...)
The industry had to attract workers; the Gummint needed the industry's products (at the time, war materiel); and as a result, 'health insurance' became a deductible expense.
Later, Ted Kennedy fouled the water even more with some magic incantations on the 'self/vs.non-self'-insured regs.
You SHOULD be making a case for the National Retail Sales Tax, which would eliminate corporate taxes altogether, thus removing the gerrymandering of corporate "expenses."
Oh? Then why in the world were you talking about financial auditors in your post to me? I never said anything about there being a shortage of financial auditors.
Because I said that 'any decent financial auditor' can do this job, and I meant it.
Standards and procedures audits are a PART of fin'l auditing, as they are a part of IT audits.
I will grant you that security audits within an IT network may require some technical smarts not commonly found in fin'l audit types; but then, so what? That expertise can be purchased for a brief period and the knowledge can be downloaded to a fin'l auditor who is not afraid to punch a few buttons.
The point I was trying to make, and which you seem to avoid understanding, is that this Critical Need is largely an invention of consultants...
I suppose if a financial auditor has enough IT background, the individual could audit IT security and the like. In general, however, when we hire IT auditors, we focus on candidates whose primary experience has been in the IT field.
Oh, and lest I forget . . . more "evidence" suggesting that no one is studying engineering, causing me to discover that engineering grads are the most highly paid, and in #228 (later pulled) the ridiculous claim that the US lost a military air exercise with India because our radar software was outsourced.
just to let you know, Attila the Hun was definately not Roman trained (The leading Roman general against Atilla was Hun trained, however); romans mainly outsourced their military to captured german tribes.
Secondly this is not just our war, it is a world war on terror. Its their war on the West, not just the US.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.