Archive for November, 2009

How Can I Make This Blog Better For You?

43 comments Written on November 29th, 2009 by
Categories: Uncategorized
I took a long look at this blog and decided it's time for change. I'm too bearish, or I've started talking too much about absurdly unintelligible concepts, or stopped talking about things that people used to come for.

I had very little time with my work schedule and haven't paid too much attention to writing, but now I will have time. I'm going to ask you for some help! Monday is my last day at work, and I'll be taking a break for the next few days and get back. Meanwhile here is a question worth repeating and your responses are much appreciated.

How can I help make this blog better for you?

I'm going to prefill some of the stuff I've heard. Add your own!

  • Change the Layout: I've used space inappropriately, and the blog isn't good on the eyes. I plan a move to a 2 column format, and any blogger template/layout pointers are appreciated. I need to rename the blog too - something shorter would be nice.
  • Do more social media: I need to use something better in terms of forums, comments, Facebook. Currently, all twitter posts are on top but that's of little use - I plan to do a weekly/daily summary post of the twitter content, as a substantial part of my posting happens there nowadays.
  • Go Mobile: I can't stand my blog on the mobile format - I need to use a template that easily scales to the mobile web, complete with reduced size images and so on. Any pointers?
  • Write about...: What do you want to read?
    • Trading: Charts, macro-data, trading pointers, money management, System trading?
    • Personal Finance: More on Insurance, Mutual funds, Bonds, Taxes etc?
    • Stock Analysis: Fundamentals, Views, Opinions on individual stocks?
    • Macro/Econ Fundas: About GDP/Economy/Markets, Credit Growth, Taxes etc.
    • US/World Economy?
    • Anything else?
  • Tools: Online tools or pages that consolidate data from various sources, to see in a useful way.
  • Any other suggestions?
Much appreciate your response, thanks in advance!

Posted in Uncategorized

UTI First on Mutual Fund Platform

No Comments » Written on November 29th, 2009 by
Categories: MutualFunds
From the Hindu:
Around 30 of the 100 schemes of UTI Mutual Fund will be listed on the new NSE Mutual Fund platform, which is set for a Monday launch. The liquid schemes will not be included among them, said a top UTI official.

For the fund industry, it will be a new technology-driven initiative when UTI MF lists its schemes on Monday on NSE's new platform – the Mutual Fund Service System (MFSS).

...

The new transaction platform allows investors who have demat accounts to transact in mutual funds online by logging on to their broker's telecom network, which will be linked to NSE's MFSS.

Those who do not have demat accounts will have to apply to their respective mutual funds for generation of a personal identification number (PIN), a user ID and password; this route will also facilitate online transactions, without the broker coming into the picture.

Such investors will have to provide their bank account details along with their PAN and fund folio numbers to get their PIN.

Transactions would be processed on the business day on which the investor's funds are credited to the mutual fund's bank account. Units will be allotted at the previous day's NAV for orders received up to 3 p.m.

The downside is that where you have no entry load, you might end up paying brokerage - which is usually 0.2 to 0.5%, substantially lower that entry loads, but still, more than directly investing.

This will allow mutual funds to get access to the smaller towns where there may be no mutual fund collection point, but brokerages have managed to get there through VSAT links.

Let's see how it all pans out. It's not going to be dramatically different from, perhaps, buying directly from the mutual fund, or using an online distributor; but there may be a cost.

Posted in MutualFunds

Dubai Again, A WTF Remittance Scare

5 comments Written on November 28th, 2009 by
Categories: Dubai
Bloomberg: India Studying Impact of Dubai's Debt Delay Plan:
India, the world’s top recipient of migrant remittances, is examining the effect Dubai’s attempt to delay debt repayments may have on Asia’s third-largest economy, central bank Governor Duvvuri Subbarao said.

About 4.5 million Indians live and work in the Gulf region and remit more than $10 billion annually, according to government data. The turmoil may affect remittances, said Thomas Issac, finance minister of the southern state of Kerala, which accounted for about a quarter India’s migrant labor in 2005.

Dubai World, the emirate’s investment company, roiled markets as it sought a “standstill” agreement to delay repayment on much of its $59 billion of debt. Dubai suffered the world’s steepest property slump in the global recession, with home prices dropping 50 percent from their 2008 peak, according to Deutsche Bank AG. Most Indian migrant workers are employed in the Gulf’s construction industry, according to the government.

“It’s quite likely that Dubai will face a severe downturn in the real estate and financial sectors and that will affect remittances and jobs,” Issac said in an interview at his office in Thiruvananthapuram yesterday.

Remittances from the Middle East account for about 25 percent of Kerala’s economy, Issac said. India received $52 billion of remittances last year, according to the World Bank, making it the world’s largest recipient of money from migrant workers. China got $49 billion.

But this can't be a fallout of the debt default, can it? Construction seems to have stopped a long time back, and Dubai's economy, at least for migrant workers, should have been in the toilet by now; the slowdown was evident for over a year. If anything, the remittances from Dubai should have reduced substantially by now; and the Dubai World default won't suddenly cause it to drop. The WTFness of that headline prompts my post.

Turns out remittances haven't dropped much, yet. World Bank estimates that overseas Indians will remit $47 billion back to India this year. (November data)

(Click for a larger image)

We're down about 4 billion for the year, from 2008's record $52B. That's not much of a fall. Dubai can't be much impact, honestly - Dubai's total debt is $80B and Indian migrant workers, especially those in the construction area, are probably the lowest paid in the lot.

There's some exposure to Dubai by various firms, like L&T's $25 million receivables, or Bank of Baroda's 4,000 cr. loans. (more here) But the exposure to Dubai World is stated to be really low; yet, since DW is just a holding company, the repurcussions of a default may take time to realize. Still, it's a little late to start worrying about remittance drops; all we can do in India is check corporate exposure - and that seems to be what D. Subbarao really meant.

Posted in Dubai

Dubai World Seeks To Delay Debt Payment, The World Shivers

4 comments Written on November 27th, 2009 by
Categories: Dubai
Picture this: Dubai World, an entity owned by the Dubai government, has borrowed about $60 billion. It's not in great shape, so it asks its lenders for a "standstill" agreement, meaning "Listen, we can't pay you for 6 months, ok? Not interest, not principal. Just hang in there without getting your knickers in a twist while we figure this out".

Knickers, unfortunately, have the propensity to get into twists just when such statements are made.

Both S&P and Moody's say they might consider this a "default"; that may have some implication on debt protection contracts, which essentially help if the original loan taker defaults. Such contracts, or Credit Default Swaps, soared in price - from 1.21% to nearly 5%. This may sound like a lot, and all news sites talk about it like its the new armageddon - but when the bugger is about to default, getting 100% protection by paying only 5% looks like a steal. And of course, some of these contracts were at 12% during the credit crisis last year, so yeah, big frikking deal.

Now they haven't yet defaulted - they've only decided to not pay the interest (which should be about $1 bn) and the principal (about $3.53 bn). See Zero Hedge for a pretty impressive Bank Of America coverage on the total loans and impact.

Not paying interest for a while, usually, is a standard way to do renegotiation. When you don't have the money, and you owe lots of it, you can threaten to default and the lenders will come to talk to you about how they can delay, change or reduce the payments. Unfortunately it doesn't work just as well when you default on your Rs. 10,000 credit card bill; otherwise we'd all be doing it. You gotta borrow through your nose, and make it someone else's problem more than yours.

Now Dubai World is an independent entity, and its default does not constitute a default by the Dubai government. That isn't obvious to everyone just yet, as evidenced by the panic in the markets there. Abu Dhabi, the rich neighbour, has just bought $5bn of Dubai's bonds, but under the condition that Dubai World gets none of it, until the debt situation there is sorted out.

To understand the scale of operations that Dubai went through, check "Dubai: The City on Crack". Incredible photographs of what is perhaps the world's greatest flauntable real estate investment, and therefore the world's greatest real estate bust. (Coming soon to a theatre near you: China)

The world markets tanked, even though the news was just before the long Id weekend in the middle east, and the Thanksgiving weekend in the US. India opened down 2% and went down 3.5% before recovering and closing a meager 1.5% - the Nifty's now at 4940 and the Sensex at 16,632. At

Is this the beginning of the end? Well, the amounts are not very high - $12 billion is hardly an earth shattering figure; it's about 55,000 crore rupees, and will not involve a substantial loss to anyone that has seen the spectre of Lehman and Bear Stearns unravel. The most impact seems to be on RBS, HSBC and Standard Chartered, but the total exposure pales in comparison with the looming $430 billion in CRE losses in the US.

Secondly, the amount is small enough for the other Arab emirates to come to Dubai's rescue and wiggle out other concessions. But any rescue is short-lived, because those crazy investments need to see buyers and generate cash flow to actually return the money - otherwise, it's just throwing bad money after worse. And while Dubai World's issues don't technically imply a problem with Dubai itself, the fear is that the other state controlled entities, all of which run fairly big debt-heavy balance sheets, will also threaten to default. And that, they say, could be an impact greater than $80bn - still small in comparison with the US, but remember Dubai is the size of a wart on the US's Backside.

When all markets are down, only two things can be the case:

  • a) There's unnecessary panic. Things will go back to normal soon, everything works out, and things are just temporarily blown out of proportion.
  • b) Market players know more than the rest of us, and are getting out before the shit hits the fan.
a) above is the case most often seen. Look at Satyam (er..bad example, but still, price is up 5x from lows). Or Orchid Chemicals (remember the Rs. 80 price it hit last year during a "temporary" crisis, and the subsequent move to 300+). Or tons of other stocks where the downmove is "overdone" and people buy at the lows and feel happy.

But b) is more evident in a real crisis. In October 2008, markets were going down slowly befoer the big crash (nearly all of the first few weeks of October last year, post Lehman, was steady, small drops, until that big drop on one day). In Jan 2008, nearly all momentum indicators showed bearishness BEFORE the crash - and given that such indicators usually lag markets, the drop was after a reasonable bout of bearishness.

Which one is it this time? Perhaps it's the fear of more defaults by different countries that is triggering some level of panic. And how true that turns out to be, is something only time will tell. I'll be looking; watch this space.

Posted in Dubai

Where are the taxes?

No Comments » Written on November 22nd, 2009 by
Categories: IncomeTax
John Mauldin asks: If this is recovery, where are the taxes?
I can find no single source of recent sales tax information. It is all one-off, but it is consistent. Sales taxes in my home state of Texas are down 12.8% year-over-year, and we're in the fifth straight month of decreases of 11% or more. Projections are for sales taxes to continue to decline into 2010.

There is a very revealing study by the Pew Center on state taxes, called "Beyond California" (http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/). Everyone knows how bad California is. The Pew Center looks at how the rest of the states are doing, and focuses on 10 states that also have severe problems. Sales tax receipts are down 14% in Arizona, and state income taxes are down 32%.

On average, revenues are down almost 12%. Oregon has seen their revenues collapse a stunning 19%. New York is down 17%, with a deficit of 32%. Illinois has a projected deficit of 47% of its budget, second only to California with 49%. You can see how your state fares at http://downloads.pewcenteronthestates.org/Beyond_California_Appendix.pdf.

The Liscio Report notes that all states had negative year-over-year sales tax collections in October, and the weighted average decrease was 10.2%, down from a negative 7.2% in September. (www.theliscioreport.com)

Sales at Wal-Mart stores slipped by 0.4% in the third quarter. Actual government figures show that retail sales were down 1.5% in September from the previous month and 5.8% year-over-year. So how do we keep seeing headlines about retail sales being up, as unemployment keeps rising?

Coming to India - and looking at total taxes, I find the picture just as rough. Here's the tax data till September:

(Click for a larger image)

Tax collections are down about 8% from April this year. September was the first month where the monthly collections were HIGHER than last year, but there have been one-time events like the second part of the payout to government employees (60% of arrears) that was made in September. In all the government isn't getting nearly as much revenue as the growing India story demands.

Direct taxes (think Income tax) seem to have gone up a little bit, a 4% growth with about 1.73 trillion (lakh crore) collected till October end , versus 1.67 trillion last year October end. (I really need to chart this)

There's two issues here - our tax collections which grew at a 20-30% clip in the last few years, from greater reporting and solid growth, have come down to negative or flat levels. This has two bearings:

  • The deficit, at 6% of GDP (or Rs. 3 trillion) isn't going to come down much until tax revenues pick up. Our other sources of income are the fees from licensing like NELP and 3G allocations, and from divestment - won't quite add up to bridge the divide. And public expenditure (check the link) is going up at 33% or so.
  • Where's the 6% GDP growth that we're talking about? How come people aren't paying a lot more in income and other taxes? (In times of 8% GDP growth, taxes grew 40-50% yoy) Maybe it's just the first few months and things will get better in the last six months of the year. But with bank credit stalling at 9.7% (yoy growth) I hardly see the signs that there's a big recovery happening.
Will be interesting to see how this evolves. In the markets, we're back above 5000 levels, and with a P/E of 20+ again and a dividend yield of 0.99%, which is discounting a growth story that doesn't quite seem to be there yet. As for taxes - they have to grow - I'm hoping the Diwali sales growth will show up in the indirect tax collections (data for Oct will be released in December). Watch this space.

Posted in IncomeTax

Off Topic: Global Warming Emails Reveal Potential Fraud

10 comments Written on November 21st, 2009 by
Categories: GlobalWarming
The Global Warming debate has just gotten more intense. Recently, a major GW advocacy center, the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit was hacked into, and about 62 MB worth of email communication and other data was "made available" on a public FTP server in Russia.

No big deal? Well, it turns out that the emails reveal a sinister plot - that scientists were "fudging" or deleting or hiding data in order to prove their point, which is that Global Warming exists. One email talks about a scientist applying "tricks" to make sure the data would "hide the decline", referring to temperatures - you can't have declining temperatures in a global warming paper, can you? Others talked about how it was a "travesty" that they can't account for the lack of warming - so instead of questioning if there is global warming, they question the data.

If these guys were in the stock market, they would start by saying the market is wrong, so let's assume that prices are much higher than they are today, because they should be.

But I digress.

Excellent reads on the topic are:

I'm hugely skeptical about global warming, in the sense that we cause it and that we can do anythign to reverse it. Specifically three questions are of concern:
  • Are we warming? Sure it seems like that in some cities, but not really - Delhi has had 48 degree summers for a long time, which is more than what we see today. Bangalore has been much cooler the last two years. And globally, even with the CRU data, we seem to be cooling at the surface level over the last 10 years - a fact mentioned in one of those emails as a problem because it couldn't be explained by the global warming theory.

    Still, you could manipulate the data into believing we are warming. But I'm unconvinced until data shows up - the lack of unified data points is niggling.

  • If we are warming, are we warming too much? Most studies take the last 1000 years or so - which is ridiculously small. And even there, the data is very shady - the last few years' data is highly suspect because the metrics keep changing. First, the 1000 year problem.

    Consider this: If the entire Earth's history was condensed into 24 hours, then dinosaurs would appear at 10:40 pm (imagine!) and home sapiens have lasted about 4 seconds. All of recorded history - 5000 years - is in one-tenth of a second. The last 1000 years are about 20 milliseconds on that scale. Can you imagine anyone predicting anything about "global warming" based on SUCH RIDICULOUSLY INSIGNIFICANT DATA POINTS?

    And then you have the shady data problem. From bad locations of weather stations, to unreliable stratospheric measurements, to refusing to admit data/analysis if it's not a published in a "peer reviewed" journal, even if the work is correct. Now it's even worse with CRU folks saying on emails that they're happy to hide any data that refutes the hypothesis; and will take legal help to do so.

    (Read McIntyre's blog, Climate Audit, for some views)

  • And lastly, have we done anything to influence global warming? I have my doubts. The data aspects of it all are too long to type, but it's evident to me that we are blind to long term phenomena simply because we don't have enough of a window, in any timeframe that is significant to the lifespan of cold and hot cycles of the earth. That means things might seem like they're happening now (even if you take the claims that we are warming at face value) but it doesn't mean that they wouldn't have happened - we simply seem to be consistent with small margins of error up or down when you look at the 10,000 year picture.

    Instead we focus on carbon - stupid thing to do, IMHO, carbon dioxide is actually good and isn't quite indicative of warming (CO2 levels have been going up in the last 100 years but surface temperatures have not). Wouldn't it be better to learn to live with the impact of warming, rather than spending so much money trying to curb CO2 emissions?

    For the record, pollutants are horrible and those need to go. But good ole CO2, cutting that out is a out of line.

I'm a skeptic and not entirely on the other side, so I'm happy to be corrected. I am totally not interested in statements like "this scientist says this, and he is reputed and has 30 years of experience and has so many papers published bla bla bla". That kind of crap doesn't work - reputed people have been known to be wrong, and they have been wrong in the climate debate many times too. I hate ad-hominem arguments, so I'd rather focus on the argument.

And earlier climate scientists used to say that the skeptics are funded by the oil companies and so the incentives are all wrong. Well, with the amount of funding and reputation that global warming brings today, the incentives are all wrong on the other side too; for a GW scientist to say "there is no global warming, our data says it" is career suicide, and they will do what is needed to protect their turf, as is evident from the email leaks. So: Suspect everything, trust nothing.

Well, if the world doesn't agree and still goes nuts on CO2, I'll do my bit for global warming by breathing in more often than I breathe out. Or I'll fudge the data to say I did so.

Posted in GlobalWarming

Linkfest: Outrage, China, Mutual funds off Trading Terminals

No Comments » Written on November 17th, 2009 by
Categories: Readings
Links for reading:
  • Main Street tells Wall Street, "Get A Real Job" (Bloomberg)
    In the 14 years I’ve written columns for Bloomberg News, I’ve had plenty of feedback from investors who said they lost money at the hands of corrupt brokers, plus a steady stream of vitriol from financial executives who say I’m clueless, stupid, and deserve to lose my job.

    I have never, though, been bombarded with anything like the fury and frustration expressed this time by people far removed from Wall Street, ranging from computer programmers to administrative assistants to the caretaker of an estate. Typically a handful of e-mails will float in; this time the number topped 60 and counting.

    It's just starting, but it's too little, and obviously too late. With US unemployment (disguised as "U6") at 17% and counting, there's increasing amounts of despair in the real economy while the financial institutions are smoking something else. It's now obvious that the powers are on the side of the financials - so I think there will be a lot more anger before they even acknowledge that a sense of fairness must prevail.
  • Naked Capitalism: China Lambastes Dollar "Carry Trade", Diverting Attention from its Currency Manipulation

    Excellent article on how the US policy is geared towards helping banks recapitalize easily, with low interest rates (you can't get lower than zero) and high spreads. To understand this - how easy is it for you to make a profit if you know you can buy from a market and sell it to the "Fed" at a slight profit? That's the kind of game going on with things like Mortgage Backed Securities and so on. Plus, the idea is to spike asset prices rather than clean up banks.

    More importantly though, on China, Yves Smith says it like no one else can. China's massive growth has been because of a conveniently pegged Yuan; the US can't cut it's debt levels unless it runs a current account surplus - which will spell death for China's export led economy. China hasn't a right to scream Wolf, says Yves, as it was a problem they started by buying up dollars and pegging the Yuan in the first place. Great read.

  • Mutual funds will soon be traded from brokerage terminals. Sub-brokers are, after all, present in every small town in the country; and allowing them to sell mutual funds provides a distribution reach no one else has. Unfortunately this will mean some entry loads again, in the form of brokerage. But that, at 0.5% must feel a lot lesser than the 2.25% the funds used to charge.
  • John Paulson buys 2% of Citibank, sells 2 million Goldman shares. He made a killing shorting sub-prime, and now he's buying out the guys the government owns. Sweet. Don't read too much into the GS sale, though.
  • John Mauldin forwards Hugh Hendry's commentary (Eclectica, November 2009) - a fantastic read on the Dollar, China's huge inventory and capacity and Why Deflation is more likely in the next year than Inflation.

Posted in Readings

Startup Mode Once Again, Yay!

37 comments Written on November 14th, 2009 by
Categories: Uncategorized
At the ripe age of 35, I have decided it's time to go into startup mode again; so the corporate slavery will end on November 30 - I hope - and I'll be a free man again. While it's boring to run over the details, there are just three factors that drove my decision:
  • Lack of a life. I know some people have no problem spending 12 hours cooped up in an office looking at market data flowing on a computer screen. I used to do it too. But now I've realized I don't want to.
  • I need serious upside. A pot of gold at the other end. A chance to make disproportionately large amounts of money. An asset that I will own even if I am hit by a bus (and don't die).
  • I can do it. I have a "buffer" that allows me to be able to pursue that pot of gold for a certain period of time; and I've zero debt.
I think jobs are great for a majority of people, and it's admirable that some manage to be entrepreneurial even when inside a large company. And most jobs nowadays give you great upside - fat bonuses, profit shares or stock options (those are all great, just not available in every job). But I still think I ought to aspire for something more. Excuse me while I get on a soap box.

You can do many things with money. You could live like there's no tomorrow, or borrow your way into buying whatever you like, affordable or not. Or, you could scrounge and scrounge and save every paisa until you're too old to spend it, so you give it to your children. Or take the route of saving a little and spending a little: you'll grow old, you'll see what you've got and take that world tour with a lot of pictures that you can put on Facebook and Picasa and make the non-retirees envious.

I grossly overgeneralize but these are pretty much the options I see in being perennially employed. Wealth is a means to live life, and the accumulation of retirement money is bit by bit, little by little. It becomes secondary to everything else, especially once you're spending less than you're earning; and from time to time, you push back by buying an expensive house, or piling on expensive debt. Once in a while you get taken by an insurance salesman selling crappy endowments or ULIPs (I did). But it hardly bothers you - after all, it's a few thousand rupees, you'll earn it back. You'll get to a crore or two in net worth by the time you retire and things will be great.

The risk? You have a personal disaster which your insurance doesn't cover (and it doesn't cover much nowadays) and aren't able to work anymore. The money tap stops flowing, the net worth isn't enough, and you have to borrow to meet deficits (much like governments nowadays) - and hope that things get better soon. Some manage to eke it out, others make sacrifices like asking their children to support them, and yet others can't make it and lose it all. In most of the movies of the 80s, and in a number of middle class houses, stories like this are bandied about; the survivors are heroes, the failures are victims of destiny.

(If you've read Taleb, it's this very aspect of it that he DOESN'T dwell on when he talks about doctors versus lucky people - and it's this risk that counters the other side to a very large extent)

I can't be like that. I have family history of asthma, diabetes, high blood pressure, thyroid disorders and heart disease. The risk, for me, is simply too great.

There's a completely different route. You build something. You own it now. Eventually it has hugely positive cash flow (i.e. it pays you a lot more than you have to pay to maintain it); or it can be sold for a much higher rate because of the value added, brand built etc. Some people did it buying houses - not much by way of a value add, but they just got lucky that the housing model worked when they needed it to. Or buying shares - again, luck favoured the brave, except those who invested in Arvind Mills.

But that again is tough to influence; external factors out of your control will impact your returns and you have little by way of actually influencing increase in value by adding brand value or other value addition. Think, instead, of a different example: a blog or a book. You write, and reap rewards - mostly small, insignificant numbers unless you write about little boy wizards with a mark on his forehead (Note: in case you're wondering, it's already been done). Unless you're REALLY bad you will see some kind of an income stream for which your maintenance cost is next to zero. And you CAN value-add to increase the blog or book's revenue stream over time.

You can build a business. The scale and size of it are under your control - or mostly so, in that you can do a considerable amount to improve its value. It will of course still be a job; you'll have to come in daily, and unless you learn to delegate well, you can't be disabled and hope you'll still have some income. But it gives you the chance to do so, unlike a regular job. You might get external investors or buyers and have that sudden pay-off that hugely scales your networth and you retire and all that.

Huge risks are that businesses don't necessarily scale and that you might end up worse than a job. And of course, you're stuck if the business area screws up, like starting a dot com in February 2000.

And lastly, you can invest in other businesses. Not in the stock markets - you can do that anyway. But in growing private ventures where you get a chance to influence the outcome. Since it doesn't take all your time, you can "diversify" - do multiple business areas, work with different types of full-time entrepreneurs, and write blogs and get invited to conferences with name tags prefixed with "Angel", even though you don't quite feel that halo over your head. The payoff can be disproportionately large if any one venture succeeds; but you must nurture all of them, because if you don't do justice to any one, it might be the one that succeeds and no one likes a free rider.

The payoffs are different but obviously the last two have one fact working for them: you can influence the outcome. And given the disproportionate gains that happen in successful startups, you tilt odds in your favour compared to investing in just the stock market or in real estate. High payoff, influenceable odds - now that's a bet worth taking.

(You might say that failure is rife too. Sure it is. But the cost of losing isn't quite as high in the era of cheaply startable businesses. To a thick skinned person like me, there's no fear of shame - I couldn't care less what anyone else thinks.)

I'd love to be the last - the investor. It needs money I don't have. But at least I'm collecting skills to be able to advice/mentor/connect startups once I do get the money. I've been the business (co) owner and will be going down that route again. But that disproportionate payoff - that is absolutely essential, I've decided. So it'll be that way unless I run out of whatever I have left. (Disclaimer: I got enough buffer for emergencies, child education and all that. So it's not just as whimsical as I make it sound)

What am I going to do? Something I love doing. [Work devoid of passion doesn't usually have mega-payoffs.] Details are sketchy and I'll talk about it once I've worked it all out. My skills are in financial technology space; my interest areas are in startups, social media, reducing intermediation costs and in education, my priority is to get healthy and keep quality family time while I'm on the drawing board.

(The older I get the more I realize exactly what I DON'T want to do. Arbitrage, for now, is one of them, and day-trading is another - been there, done that, but the trade-off of having one's brain turn to jelly is too expensive.)

I'll stop abruptly because this has gone on way longer than it should have. Most of you won't even have gotten here, but hey this is a blog and once in a while I'm entitled to write what I really think, even if it seems irrelevant. Thanks for listening, and I appreciate your comments.

Posted in Uncategorized

« Older Entries