Manage the risks and profit from global market uncertainty - The world of country and political risk assessment has changed significantly over the last decade, with a plethora of views and approaches that can often obfuscate clear and balanced

1. Volatile Years, Steady Calls
In our January 2013 report on Egypt, PRS noted that the growing polarization of Islamist and secular political forces made the survival
of President Mohamed Morsi’s government contingent upon the backing of the military, and it was our view that the government’s ability
to maintain order and protect the interests of the armed forces would determine whether the regime could count on such support. As
we predicted would be the case if the government failed to fulfill those conditions, the military forced Morsi and the Islamist government
from power in July 2013.
In October 2013, PRS highlighted the risk of a renewed bout of destabilizing political demonstrations in Thailand if the PTP government
made any moves to clear a path for former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra to resume an active political career, and pointed to
proposed amnesty legislation as a probable trigger for that negative development. That proved to be the case, and mass protests
organized in response forced Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra to call an early—and ultimately inconclusive—election that has left the
country on the brink of a governance crisis.
Since early 2014, conditions inside Venezuela have been characterized by spreading, and increasingly violent, episodes of political
unrest that have shaken the foundation of the country’s socialist regime. In our May 2013 report on Venezuela, published shortly after
President Nicolás Maduro’s victory in a special presidential election necessitated by the death of Hugo Chávez, PRS noted that the
political impediments to addressing the economic imbalances produced by Chávez’s populist policies created a high risk of politically
motivated turmoil. Our assessment was that the protests would be disruptive, but would not pose a significant threat to Maduro’s hold
on power, and that remains our view.
Our February 2013 assessment of the outlook for political stability in Brazil highlighted the potential for unmet economic expectations
and the government’s failure to tackle a serious urban crime problem to generate social unrest. As has been the case since the
nationwide protests in June 2013, PRS forecast that the most significant impact would be a decline in the popularity of President
Dilma Rousseff, a possibility that factored into the reduced probability that the October 2014 elections will produce another center-left
government.
Polls in India suggest that neither the incumbent UPA bloc nor the main opposition NDA will win more than one-third of the seats in
the Lok Sabha at elections that will be held this spring. As early as 2011, we forecast that smaller regional parties would gain at the
expense of the two dominant rivals, creating a medium-term impediment to achieving consensus on a national agenda, and with the
elections now just weeks away, the evidence is pointing strongly in that direction.
Quantitative Risk Global Expertise Independent
5800 Heritage Landing Drive, Suite E
East Syracuse, NY 13057-9378
Tel. +1 (315) 431-0511
Fax. +1 (315) 431-0200
custserv@prsgroup.com
www.prsgroup.com
Manage the risks and profit from
global market uncertainty
The world of country and political risk assessment has changed
significantly over the last decade, with a plethora of views and
approaches that can often obfuscate clear and balanced
analyses. Since its inception in 1979, PRS’ Country Reports have
provided multinational firms, hedge funds, risk managers, and
traders with valuable insights and accurate data vital to short-
and longer-term investment in assets in developed and emerging
markets.
What every report offers:
• 18-month and five-year regime probability forecasts for 100
countries using the Type IV error format;
• in-depth coverage of relevant political and country risk events,
and up eleven types of government interventions that impact
asset markets and the business climate;
• Counrty conditions (political players and institutions) and short-
and medium-term economic forecasts;
• an independently backtested methodology, based on the world
famous Coplin-O’Leary model of political risk, developed over
two decades of research in conjunction with the CIA and the
US State Department;
How accurate are our Country
Reports?
Our Country Reports have been independently back-tested
for their accuracy against other major commercial risk
providers and found to be most accurate.
What others have said
about the PRS Group:
“A leading organization in investment risk analysis....”
Jim Rogers, A Bull in China (2005)
“PRS projections have been tested against foreign
investor losses due to political reasons (using loss-
claim data supplied by OPIC) and found to be the “most
reliable.” Indeed, the “PRS model points to elements of
the economic or business relationship that are most
vulnerable to negative political influences.”
L.D.Howell and B. Chaddick, “Models of Political Risk
for Foreign Investment and Trade: An Assessment of
Three Approaches,” 29(3), Columbia Journal of World
Business (1994).
PRS’ Country Reports are both informative and
insightful. The firm’s long history of making the right
calls, based on a range of possible regime types and
their attitude towards international business, is unique
to the field of country risk analysis.”
John Manzella, President of
Manzella Trade Communications, Inc. (2014)
COUNTRY REPORTS
Volatile Years, Steady Calls
In our January 2013 report on Egypt, PRS noted that the growing polarization of Islamist and secular political forces made t
of President Mohamed Morsi’s government contingent upon the backing of the military, and it was our view that the governme
to maintain order and protect the interests of the armed forces would determine whether the regime could count on such su
we predicted would be the case if the government failed to fulfill those conditions, the military forced Morsi and the Islamist go
from power in July 2013.
In October 2013, PRS highlighted the risk of a renewed bout of destabilizing political demonstrations in Thailand if the PTP go
made any moves to clear a path for former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra to resume an active political career, and
proposed amnesty legislation as a probable trigger for that negative development. That proved to be the case, and mas
organized in response forced Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra to call an early—and ultimately inconclusive—election that h
country on the brink of a governance crisis.
Since early 2014, conditions inside Venezuela have been characterized by spreading, and increasingly violent, episodes
unrest that have shaken the foundation of the country’s socialist regime. In our May 2013 report on Venezuela, published s
President Nicolás Maduro’s victory in a special presidential election necessitated by the death of Hugo Chávez, PRS note
political impediments to addressing the economic imbalances produced by Chávez’s populist policies created a high risk o
motivated turmoil. Our assessment was that the protests would be disruptive, but would not pose a significant threat to Mad
on power, and that remains our view.
Our February 2013 assessment of the outlook for political stability in Brazil highlighted the potential for unmet economic ex
and the government’s failure to tackle a serious urban crime problem to generate social unrest. As has been the case
nationwide protests in June 2013, PRS forecast that the most significant impact would be a decline in the popularity of
Dilma Rousseff, a possibility that factored into the reduced probability that the October 2014 elections will produce another
government.
Polls in India suggest that neither the incumbent UPA bloc nor the main opposition NDA will win more than one-third of th
the Lok Sabha at elections that will be held this spring. As early as 2011, we forecast that smaller regional parties would g
expense of the two dominant rivals, creating a medium-term impediment to achieving consensus on a national agenda, an
elections now just weeks away, the evidence is pointing strongly in that direction.
Quantitative Risk Global Expertise Indep

2. How to use Country Reports:
Client surveys have identified the following major uses for our Country
Reports:
• Allocate equity, bond and currency exposures
• Develop long and short trading positions
• Assess the viability of new or existing business operations
• Evaluate security risks to facilities and personnel
• Brief upper level management and colleagues
• Supplement outside sources of information
• Develop strategies for negotiations
• Identify key people and institutions
• Expand headquarters research and analysis
• Temper unvetted sources of information
Who uses Country Reports?
• International bankers: to evaluate current credit risks and potential
threats to creditworthiness.
• International business executives and risk managers: for briefing prior to
country visits, locating new markets, globally, and to manage ongoing
and potential risks to foreign assets.
• Asset managers and strategists: to be aware of future events that could
affect positions and overall fund exposure.
• Economic strategists: to obtain vital, up-to-date statistics to a range of
oftentimes obscure countries.
A few of our clients that depend on Political Risk
Services for unparalleled country risk analysis
include:
British American Tobacco, Capital One, Duke University, Ernst & Young,
European Central Bank, Harvard, HSBC Global Asset Management, John
Hopkins University, McKinsey & Company, Millennium Challenge Corp.,
Overseas Private Investment Corp., Princeton University, Samsung,
University of Notre Dame, CIA, World Bank / IMF, Yale University.

3. Headquarters
5800 Heritage Landing Dr., Suite E
East Syracuse, New York 13057
Tel. +1 (315) 431-0511 Fax +1 (315 431-0200
Email: custserv@prsgroup.com
Michael Burke
Director of Client Relations
mburke@prsgroup.com
+1 (315) 413-0511 ext. 311
About the Firm and CEO
Established in 1979, The PRS Group is among the earliest commercial providers of political and country
risk forecasts. Originally the Political Risk Services division of Frost & Sullivan, Inc. and then of UK-based
IBC Group (now known as Informa), the firm was acquired in 2010 by Gavea Emerging Markets Corp., thus
broadening its client base and areas of expertise.
Both PRS and Gavea are headed up by Dr Christopher McKee, a former faculty member at the University of
British Columbia. Christopher has worked in the private and government sectors, conducting due diligence
assessments of limited recourse financing projects, formulating sovereign debt sustainability models,
and constructing micro-financing facilities. Christopher is the author of several publications dealing with
international business and risk, and has lived and worked in a range of emerging markets including Latin
America, South East Asia and North Africa.