It is still almost imperceptible. But the jostling in India's private sector for a position in what promises to become one of the country's biggest industries has already begun.
Uranium Exploration Australia, a Sydney-listed company, announced last week that it had formed an alliance with India's Reliance Industries. Under the deal, India's largest private sector company will earn a 49 per cent interest in eight exploration licences held by UXA for A$3.45m ($3.04m).
The deal follows the purchase by Blackstone, the US-based private equity company, of a minority stake in MTAR Technologies, a precision-engineering firm that serves India's nuclear industry.
Atomic energy in India is still in its infancy. The country's 17 state-owned plants contribute just 2 per cent of India's energy needs. But, according to a report led by Arvind Mahajan of KPMG, India is considering allowing private-sector operators to enter the industry. More importantly, the government is pushing ahead with negotiations with the US for civil nuclear co-operation.
This will give India access to the fuel supplies and modern technology it needs to lift the contribution of nuclear energy to levels closer to that of the US, where the industry supplies 20 per cent of power.
The hitch remains the Congress Party-dominated government's communist allies, who oppose a nuclear deal with the US. But, with India's oil and coal import bill soaring by the day, the country may soon have little choice but to try all options.
Bank terminator has more house cleaning to do
Marcel Ospel said on Monday he would remain in his post as UBS chairman and his resignation was not an issue for the Swiss bank's board or himself. Indeed, he continues to see himself as "part of the solution".
So Mr Ospel continues to believe that he remains an asset for his bank. The question the chairman must ask himself is when might he become a liability? After all, Mr Ospel has always adopted an American style to business an approach he developed while working for Merrill Lynch in the 1980s.
As a result, Mr Ospel wielded the sword without hesitation around him when senior executives and managers failed to meet his ambitious targets. It is all about performance, he insists, seeking to make all those working for him think like aggressive Wall Street bankers.
Embarrassingly now, having recently sacked all the top people in the bank the chief executive, the finance chief and the head of investment banking he is the last man standing at the top.
By his own American yardsticks, he should clearly be considering standing down. Of course, Mr Ospel could always argue that it would be difficult to replace him. Look at Citigroup, which ditched its chief executive following a similar hefty subprime hit but is still struggling to find a replacement. This, in itself, suggests that the crisis is probably more serious than people think. A year or so ago, top bankers would be queuing for a chance to run Citigroup but today they are not so enthusiastic.
Mr Ospel could also argue that after taking the latest $10bn writedown on subprime-related losses and enlisting the backing of two big new investors in Singapore and the Middle East, the bank is now out of the woods. The market was clearly reassured by the moves and sent UBS shares higher.
It all looks like an all-too familiar, short-term, relief rally. Investors are looking for comfort but they should not start relaxing too soon. UBS, like Citigroup, has been able to offset the horrible news of a second and far bigger write-off in barely six months, coupled with a new profit warning, by the good news of fresh investors shoring up its capital.
But it must have been worried for some weeks, if not months, that the real scale of the problem was far greater.
Otherwise, how could it have negotiated the terms for selling stakes to the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation and the mystery Middle East investor? Under the circumstances, surely it might have been better to have been a bit more open earlier with analysts and its investors on its concerns over the seriousness of the situation.
UBS, again like Citigroup, has been obliged to offer its two new big investors very attractive terms. This also seems to reflect the predicament facing the Swiss bank. It raises another related concern. The bank has had to turn to strategic investors from rich emerging countries to compensate, presumably, for the lack of capital from its traditional sources, underlying the generally dire liquidity environment.
Last but not least, if all were rosy in the Swiss bank's garden it would not be proposing to replace its 2007 cash dividends with shares. Nor would it be abandoning plans to cancel treasury stock.
The only way that UBS can fully win back the total confidence of the market is to clean its house thoroughly to remove even the smallest cobweb. The problem is that the man who created this house is still there and still in overall charge.
And as long as he remains there, the markets will never be utterly convinced that the house has been completely and properly swept.
As the terminator par excellence, Mr Ospel should abide by his own rules and do the right thing -- fire himself elegantly.
