Cooperative Politics: How the BJP continues with Congress' Policies

 

Fake five-star reviews being bought and sold online

Dan Box and Sachin Croker BBC Technology

Fake online reviews are being openly traded on the internet, a BBC investigation has found.

BBC 5 live Investigates was able to buy a false, five-star recommendation placed on one of the world's leading review websites, Trustpilot.

It also uncovered online forums where Amazon shoppers are offered full refunds in exchange for product reviews.

Both companies said they do not tolerate false reviews.
'Trying to game the system'

The popularity of online review sites mean they are increasingly relied on by both businesses and their customers, with the government's Competition and Markets Authority estimating such reviews potentially influence £23 billion of UK customer spending every year.

Maria Menelaou, whose Yorkshire Fisheries chip shop is the top-ranked fish and chip shop in Blackpool on several review sites, said the system has replaced traditional advertising.

"It brings us a lot of customers ... It really does make a difference. We don't do any kind of advertising," Mrs Menelaou said.

While three quarters of UK adults use online review websites, almost half of those believe they have seen fake reviews, according to a survey of 1500 UK residents conducted by the Chartered Institute of Marketing and shared with BBC 5 live Investigates.

Some US analysts estimate as many as half of the reviews for certain products posted on international websites such as Amazon are potentially unreliable.

"Sellers are trying to game the system and there's a lot of money on the table," said Tommy Noonan, who runs ReviewMeta, a US-based website that analyses online reviews.

"If you can rank number one for, say, bluetooth headsets and you're selling a cheap product, you can make a lot of money," he said.

'5 star is better for us'

In 2016, Amazon introduced a range of measures prohibiting what it called "incentivised reviews", where businesses offered customers free goods in exchange for positive reviews.

Mr Noonan said this effectively drove the problem underground, leading to the emergence of Facebook groups where potential Amazon customers were encouraged to buy a product and post a review in return for a full refund.

BBC 5 live Investigates identified several of these groups and, within minutes of joining, was approached with offers of full refunds on products bought on Amazon in exchange for positive reviews.

"5 star is better for us" said one person making such an offer, in an exchange of messages with the BBC. "We value our brand, will refund you as we promised ... All my company do in this way."

It was not possible to identify the people making these offers, nor contact the businesses whose products they were seeking reviews for.

"We do not permit reviews in exchange for compensation of any kind, including payment. Customers and Marketplace sellers must follow our review guidelines and those that don't will be subject to action including potential termination of their account," Amazon said in a statement.

Responding to adverts posted on eBay, the BBC was also able to purchase a false 5-star review on Trustpilot, an online review website that describes itself as "committed to being the most trusted online review community on the market".

"Dan Box is one of the most respected professionals I have dealt with. It was a pleasure doing business with him," this review said - word for word as requested by 5 live Investigates.

Trustpilot, whose platform allows anyone to post a review, said they have "a zero-tolerance policy towards any misuse".

"We have specialist software that screens reviews against 100's of data points around the clock to automatically identify and remove fakes," the company said.

In a statement, eBay said the sale of such reviews is banned from its platform "and any listings will be removed".

Hedge funds betting millions against Britain's high street

Hedge funds are betting there will be blood on the high-street this Christmas as Britain’s retail stocks dominate a list of big short positions that has been published for the first time.

The secretive financiers have bet millions of pounds that companies including WH Smith, Home Retail Group, Ocado, Sainsbury, Tesco and Dixons will fall in value, according to a list published under new rules by the Financial Services Authority (FSA).

Lansdowne Partners, one of London’s best known hedge funds, has short sold 0.63pc of the value of Tesco - a £163m bet that the supermarket’s shares will fall. The Mayfair-based group has a 2.51pc short position in WM Morrisons, worth £159.8m.

GMT Capital, an American group, has built up a 3.56pc short position in Carpetright - which is worth just £16.3m but is the third biggest position of the list relative to the size of the company.

Barrington Wilshire, another US fund, has a bet against Mothercare worth £8.24m or 3.18pc of the company’s market value. Two hedge funds have revealed big short positions in Marks & Spencer, whose shares rose 1.18pc yesterday despite revealing a 10pc slide in profits.

Jim Chanos, the famed US short-seller who runs Kynikos Associates, has a 2.52pc short position in Asos, the online fashion retailer. 

The biggest short position by percentage of market value is Greenlight Capital’s bet against Daily Mail & General Trust. The fund manager David Einhorn has built up a short position of 4.4pc of the company worth £80.7m.

But in terms of monetary value, Glencore has attracted among the biggest bearish bets. Och Ziff has a 0.82pc short stake worth £202m in the mining giant which is trying to merge with Xstrata. Elliot Management has a 0.71pc short stake in Glencore worth £175m.

The list, which is the most comprehensive view of bearish bets ever seen, follows the introduction of European rules that came into force on November 1. Under the regulations, all short positions worth more than 0.2pc of a company’s market capitalisation have to be revealed to the regulator. Positions of more than 0.5pc of the market value have to be published.

Hedge fund managers, who prove their worth by making money in markets that go down as well as up, are concerned that the disclosures could hamper their efforts.

Experts in London, where more than 80pc of Europe’s hedge funds are based, argue that short selling improves efficiencies in the markets. But European politicians have held the opaque trading practises responsible for volatility in the markets.

On Tuesday, fund managers said the rules unfairly penalise independent funds while allowing the big investment houses to keep their short positions secret.

Tim Steer, a fund manager at Artemis, said: “Under the rules, managers have to disclose a net short position so big asset management groups can hide their short positions because somewhere they will have a fund that has long-only positions which cancel them out. Pure hedge funds are being penalised because their short positions could antagonise companies.” Investment houses that have hedge funds as well as long-only funds are absent from the list, including Blackrock, JP Morgan Cazenove and Jupiter Asset Management.

No Walmart, Please

By Justice Rajindar Sachar (retd)

17 December, 2011
The Tribune, India

Govt’s claim is questionable

If the combined Opposition had sat down for weeks to find an issue to embarrass the UPA government and make it a laughing stock before the whole country, they could not have thought of a better issue than the free gift presented to it initially by the government by insisting that it had decided irrevocably to allow the entry of multi-brand retail super stores like Walmart and then within a few days, with a whimper, withdrawing the proposal.

As it is, even initially this decision defied logic in view of the Punjab and UP elections and known strong views against it of the BJP and the Left. Many states had all the time opposed the entry of Walmart which would affect the lives of millions in the country.

Retail business in India is estimated to be of the order of $ 400 billion, but the share of the corporate sector is only 5 per cent. There are 50 million retailers in India, including hawkers and pavement sellers. This comes to one retailer serving eight Indians. In China, it is one for 100 Chinese. Food is 63 per cent of the retail trade, according to information given by FICCI.

The claim by the government that Walmart intrusion will not result in the closure of small retailers is a deliberate mis-statement. A study done by IOWA State University, US, has shown that in the first decade after Walmart arrived in IOWA the state lost 555 grocery stores, 298 hardware stores, 293 building supply stores, 161 variety stores, 158 women apparels stores and 153 shoe stores, 116 drug stores and 111 men and boys apparels stores. Why would it be different in India with a lesser capacity for resilience by small traders.

The fact is that during 15 years of Walmart entering the market, 31 super market chains sought bankruptcy. Of the 1.6 million employees of Walmart, only 1.2 per cent make a living above the poverty level. The Bureau of Labour Statistics, US, is on record with its conclusion that Walmart’s prices are not lower.

In Thailand, supermarkets led to a 14 per cent reduction in the share of ‘mom and pop’ stores within four years of FDI permission. In India, 33-60 per cent of the traditional fruit and vegetable retailers reported a 15-30 per cent decline in footfalls, a 10-30 per cent fall in sales and a 20-30 per cent decline in incomes across Bangalore, Ahmedabad and Chandigarh, the largest impact being in Bangalore, which is one of the most supermarket-penetrated cities in India.

The average size of the Walmart stores in the US is about 10,800 sq feet employing only 225 people. In that view, is not the government’s claim of an increase in employment unbelievable? The government’s attempt is to soften the blow by emphasising that Walmart is being allowed only 51 per cent in investment up to $100 million. Prima facie, the argument may seem attractive. But is the Walmart management so stupid that when its present turnover of retail is $ 400 billion it would settle for such a small gain? No, obviously, Walmart is proceeding on the maxim of the camel being allowed to put its head inside a tent and the occupant finding thereafter that he is being driven out of it by the camel occupying the whole of the tent space. One may substitute Walmart for the camel to understand the danger to our millions of retailers.

The tongue-in-cheek argument by the government that allowing Walmart to set up its business in India would lead to a fall in prices and an increase in employment is unproven. A 2004 report of a committee of the US House of Representatives concluded that “Walmart’s success has meant downward pressures on wages and benefits, rampant violations of basic workers’ rights and threats to the standard of living in communities across the country.” By what logic does the government say that in India the effect will be the opposite? The only explanation could be that it is a deliberate mis-statement to help multinationals.

Similar anti-consumer effects have happened by the working of another supermarket enterprise, Tesco of Britain.

A study carried out by Sunday Times shows that Tesco has almost total control of the food market of 108 of Britain’s coastal areas — 7.4 per cent of the country. The super stores like Walmart and Tesco have a compulsion to move out of England and the US because their markets are saturated. These companies are looking for countries with a larger population and low supermarket presence, according to David Hogues, Professor of Agri-Business at the Centre for Food Chain Research at Imperial College, London. They have got nowhere else to go and their home markets are already full. Similarly, a professor of Michigan State University has pointed out that retail revolution causes serious risks for developing country farmers who traditionally supply to the local street market.

In Thailand, Tesco controls more than half the Thai market. Though Tesco, when it moved into Thailand, promised to employ local people but it is openly being accused of indulging in unfair trading practices. The claim that these supermarket dealers will buy local products is belied because in a case filed against Tesco in July 2002 the court found it charging slotting fees to carry manufacturers’ products, charging entry fee of suppliers. In Bangkok, grocery stores’ sales declined by more than half since Tesco opened a store only four years ago.

In Malaysia, seeing the damage done by Tesco since January 2004, a freeze on the building of any new supermarket was imposed in three major cities and this when Tesco had only gone to Malaysia in 2002.

It is worth noting that 92 per cent of everything Walmart sells comes from Chinese-owned companies. The Indian market is already flooded with Chinese goods which are capturing the market with cheap offers, and traders are already crying foul because of the deplorable labour practices adopted by China. Can, in all fairness, the Indian government still persist in keeping the retail market open to foreign enterprises and thus endangering the earnings and occupations of millions of our countrymen and women?

The writer is a former Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi