Private Airlines have decided to suspend operations on August 18 to protest jet fuel prices and surcharges. Their demands may be legitimate but going on a strike hardly feels like the right approach. Jet and Kingfisher have confirmed this, but low-cost airlines havent yet said anything. It is interesting to see if there will be any government intereference in this matter.
One might argue that these are private corporations, and the government should not interfere with their decision. Yet, airlines have become such an integral part of our economy that the 1-day suspension is definitely bound to have an impact on the economy. In addition, the legalities of airline operators getting together to suspend operations is doubtful. In most western countries, such a move would be termed "collusion" and attract the attention of trade regulators.
When calling to privatize PSUs, we must remember that the legal and regulatory system needs to robust enough to ensure that the nation is not at the mercy of capitalists.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
MS Yahoo deal - Yahoo RIP
MS and Yahoo have entered into a deal to beat Google. While the details are not completely clear to me, it seems like MS will essentially use the Bing architecture to power Yahoo searches. Consequently, the two cos will end up sharing revenues with Yahoo retaining ~90%.
Lets see how this will play out. Everytime you search for something on Yahoo, it is actually Bing that does the search and delivers the results. Now, search-based advertising means that ads will be automatically displayed based on search strings. So that will be done by Bing too. And of the revenues earned, Yahoo pays 10% to MS.
The only thing Yahoo had going for it is the #2 position in search and the resultant reveues from ads. That advantage is now erased 'coz it will depend on Bing to make money. I doubt if the agreement will restrict MS from competing in the ad space. So now MS gets to make its own ad money and also get money thru ads on Yahoo (although only a small %). But thats not the point.
The point is MS gets a much larger canvas to play on. The Bing "search system" will be used at least 4 times more than if Bing remained a standalone search engine. And all this data is available to MS, which means it can make Bing that much better. And once Bing starts getting better, and word spreads that Yahoo is actually "Bing", surfers like you and me will start searching on Bing directly rather than Yahoo (Some will go to Google, but hey, if they are still on Yahoo, they are probably gonna end up with Bing than Google). Consequently, Bing's market share will improve at the cost of Yahoo's, resulting in movement of customers from Yahoo to MS. Once Bing reaches a critical mass in the next 3-4 years, say 25% market share (standalone), it may damn well pull the plug on the deal. In all probability, Yahoo would have stopped work on its search platform and would be left stranded. Meaning all remaining Yahoo customers will drift to MS or Google.
My feeling is MS couldnt have asked for a better deal - it gets to kill Yahoo, although not immediately, but hey, they dont have to pay a penny. Well for Yahoo, it is definitely suicide.
Lets see how this will play out. Everytime you search for something on Yahoo, it is actually Bing that does the search and delivers the results. Now, search-based advertising means that ads will be automatically displayed based on search strings. So that will be done by Bing too. And of the revenues earned, Yahoo pays 10% to MS.
The only thing Yahoo had going for it is the #2 position in search and the resultant reveues from ads. That advantage is now erased 'coz it will depend on Bing to make money. I doubt if the agreement will restrict MS from competing in the ad space. So now MS gets to make its own ad money and also get money thru ads on Yahoo (although only a small %). But thats not the point.
The point is MS gets a much larger canvas to play on. The Bing "search system" will be used at least 4 times more than if Bing remained a standalone search engine. And all this data is available to MS, which means it can make Bing that much better. And once Bing starts getting better, and word spreads that Yahoo is actually "Bing", surfers like you and me will start searching on Bing directly rather than Yahoo (Some will go to Google, but hey, if they are still on Yahoo, they are probably gonna end up with Bing than Google). Consequently, Bing's market share will improve at the cost of Yahoo's, resulting in movement of customers from Yahoo to MS. Once Bing reaches a critical mass in the next 3-4 years, say 25% market share (standalone), it may damn well pull the plug on the deal. In all probability, Yahoo would have stopped work on its search platform and would be left stranded. Meaning all remaining Yahoo customers will drift to MS or Google.
My feeling is MS couldnt have asked for a better deal - it gets to kill Yahoo, although not immediately, but hey, they dont have to pay a penny. Well for Yahoo, it is definitely suicide.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Value of a stock - Part II
Before we move forward, lets discuss the time value of money. This concept is at the core of financial valuations. It states that a $100 today is worth more than $100 a year from now. Why? You can put your $100 in a bank it will be $105 next year. That's the time value of money. In other words, there is an opportunity cost involved.
Back to our stock now. We've determined the return that we are expecting from the stock. And we have the price of the stock as it trades in the market. We can use the two to determine what should the price one year from now. If price is $10 and expected return is 10%, then price of stock 1 year from now is 10*(1+10%) = 10*1.1 = $11. In other words, if the stock price is $11, one year from now, you can pay $10 to buy it today.
A little digression to understand where a stock's value comes from. A company makes and sells products and earns revenue. Out of this, go expenses such as raw materials, salaries etc. If the company has any debt, it needs to pay interest on that. And what remains is the profit. Of course profits are taxed, so a portion of that goes to the govt. What remains after all these is called Profit After Tax (PAT) or Net Income (NI) is available for distribution among shareholders. In reality, of course, companies "reinvest" PAT, meaning they will use this money to fund further expansion and generate more revenues etc. For simplicity, lets say a company is "mature", meaning there are no opportunities of growth. It will just keep making and selling the exact # of units year after year. As a result, all PAT will be distributed as dividends to shareholders that is you and me:) In reality though PAT doesnt equal CASH - that's accounting for you, which is way out of the scope of this article. But understand that some adjustments are made to PAT to arrive at "Cash Flows (CF)".
Now it all comes together. Once you know the CFs of a company year after year, you can discount them all by the expected return rate to get today's value. But we only have data to calculate last year's CF. How do you know what the company makes in future years? This is where assumptions and projections come in. You look at the economy, industry etc., and predict that revenues, expenses will grow or shrink at a certain rate leaving you with a CF. This is one reason why analysts may have differing opinions about a stock's value - because they have different growth assumptions. Once you buy a share of a company, you own it forever (or until the co shuts down). So you'd have to project CFs out to infinity. To make it mathematically manageable, you project it out 10 years or so, and use a geometric series formula to find the value at the end of 10 years. Now discount all these values to today and you have the value of the firm.
Now, if the firm has taken any debt, that will need to be repaid eventually. So subtract debt from the value of the firm and you have the "equity value" of the firm, which is what shareholders own. Simply, divide the equity value by the number of shares outstanding, and voila! you get value per share.
If this value is less than market price, the stock is overvalued. If it is greater than price, the stock is undervalued.
Back to our stock now. We've determined the return that we are expecting from the stock. And we have the price of the stock as it trades in the market. We can use the two to determine what should the price one year from now. If price is $10 and expected return is 10%, then price of stock 1 year from now is 10*(1+10%) = 10*1.1 = $11. In other words, if the stock price is $11, one year from now, you can pay $10 to buy it today.
A little digression to understand where a stock's value comes from. A company makes and sells products and earns revenue. Out of this, go expenses such as raw materials, salaries etc. If the company has any debt, it needs to pay interest on that. And what remains is the profit. Of course profits are taxed, so a portion of that goes to the govt. What remains after all these is called Profit After Tax (PAT) or Net Income (NI) is available for distribution among shareholders. In reality, of course, companies "reinvest" PAT, meaning they will use this money to fund further expansion and generate more revenues etc. For simplicity, lets say a company is "mature", meaning there are no opportunities of growth. It will just keep making and selling the exact # of units year after year. As a result, all PAT will be distributed as dividends to shareholders that is you and me:) In reality though PAT doesnt equal CASH - that's accounting for you, which is way out of the scope of this article. But understand that some adjustments are made to PAT to arrive at "Cash Flows (CF)".
Now it all comes together. Once you know the CFs of a company year after year, you can discount them all by the expected return rate to get today's value. But we only have data to calculate last year's CF. How do you know what the company makes in future years? This is where assumptions and projections come in. You look at the economy, industry etc., and predict that revenues, expenses will grow or shrink at a certain rate leaving you with a CF. This is one reason why analysts may have differing opinions about a stock's value - because they have different growth assumptions. Once you buy a share of a company, you own it forever (or until the co shuts down). So you'd have to project CFs out to infinity. To make it mathematically manageable, you project it out 10 years or so, and use a geometric series formula to find the value at the end of 10 years. Now discount all these values to today and you have the value of the firm.
Now, if the firm has taken any debt, that will need to be repaid eventually. So subtract debt from the value of the firm and you have the "equity value" of the firm, which is what shareholders own. Simply, divide the equity value by the number of shares outstanding, and voila! you get value per share.
If this value is less than market price, the stock is overvalued. If it is greater than price, the stock is undervalued.
Value of a Stock – Part I
For a financial layman, like I was a year ago, the price of a stock is a mystery. Why does Microsoft trade at $25 whereas Google trades at $450? And why do analysts mean when they say Google is cheap at $450? Isn't MS dirt cheap at $25 then?
That's the first rule. The price by itself doesn't tell you anything. What you need to know is the price of a stock relative to its value – another term relentlessly abused by the financial press and analysts. Let me try and debunk this mystery.
Buying a stock is an investment so you expect some returns. Think of a bank term deposit. Let's say, you put in $1000 for a year, the bank pays you some interest. The interest is your return from the deposit. Of course, the big difference between the two is that the returns of a stock are not well-defined. Let's dig deeper.
If you hold a stock, your return can either be capital gains or dividends. Capital gains are simply the profits you make when you sell the stock at a price higher than what you paid to purchase it. For example, if you buy MS at $25 and sell at $40, your capital gains are $15. Dividends are cash payments made to you by the company at regular intervals, usually annually or quarterly. For example, MS recently announced a quarterly dividend of $0.13 per share.
Now that we know the types of returns, the big question is, how do you know if a stock will deliver any returns? And are those returns good enough? Let me answer the second question first. Your stock has to at least beat the 5% APR offered by your bank, if not, what's the point? Might as well invest your money in bank deposits and sleep in peace. But, are you happy if the stock returns exactly 5%? No, because you are taking on an appreciably higher risk by investing in the market. When you take that kind of a risk, you expect to get rewarded. So the return from a stock has to be definitely higher than your bank rate. But, how much higher?
For a moment, let's set our stock aside and take the stock market as a whole (or simply the "market'). The market is represented by indexes such as Dow Jones, NASDAQ and S&P 500 – there are many more, but these are the popular ones. These indexes are comprised of multiple stocks from various industries. So you will have stocks from FMCG, tech, telecom, infrastructure etc. Some of these cos will be good, some bad, some growing and some declining. Let's say you want to invest your money in the "market" - in other words, think that you are buying 1 stock of the S&P 500 index. What should be your return? There are ways to derive this, but the simplest way is to look at the returns delivered by S&P 500 in the past. Take the year-end values of S&P 500 over the past 30 years, find out the annual return (annual growth, to put it crudely). Now, determine the difference between the S&P return and your bank rate. This delta is called the Market Risk Premium, which is the additional return you are expecting because you took the additional risk of investing in the stock market rather than the safer term deposit.
But remember that the stock market has many companies so the negative effects of some stocks are offset by the positive effects of others. For every Sun that fails, there is an Apple or a Google that delivers stellar performance. So the risk of investing in the "market" is different from that of buying a specific stock. Some stocks are safer than the market and others are riskier. For example, P&G has been making hair and body care products since forever. And unless we dramatically change our ways of personal hygiene, it is fair to assume that P&G will continue to sell its products. So, it is a safer bet. Contrast it with Google, which is threatening MS and Apple today, but could just as easily be threatened by Facebook or MySpace. Therefore, Google is riskier than the market.
To determine the relative risk of a stock versus the market, analysts use a term called Beta. Without getting into the details, it is a factor to arrive at the risk premium for your stock, which is a product of your stock's beta and the Market Risk Premium. (By the way, the Beta of the market is 1.) Beta for cos such as Google will be >1, and that of Unilever etc is <1. Now add this to your bank rate to find out the return you must get from the stock. Let's take an example.
Say, annual returns of S&P over last 30 years is 8%
Beta of Google is 1.17
Your bank deposit rate is 5% (Technically, this should be the rate on US treasury bonds, but this is a fair approximation.)
Therefore, Market Risk Premium (MRP) = 8% - 5% = 3%
Risk premium for Google = Beta * MRP = 1.17 * 3% = 3.51%
So expected return for Google = 5% + 3.51% = 8.51%
In other words, Google is an attractive stock, if and only if, it offers returns above 8.51%. The next part will discuss how to determine this.
To be continued…
That's the first rule. The price by itself doesn't tell you anything. What you need to know is the price of a stock relative to its value – another term relentlessly abused by the financial press and analysts. Let me try and debunk this mystery.
Buying a stock is an investment so you expect some returns. Think of a bank term deposit. Let's say, you put in $1000 for a year, the bank pays you some interest. The interest is your return from the deposit. Of course, the big difference between the two is that the returns of a stock are not well-defined. Let's dig deeper.
If you hold a stock, your return can either be capital gains or dividends. Capital gains are simply the profits you make when you sell the stock at a price higher than what you paid to purchase it. For example, if you buy MS at $25 and sell at $40, your capital gains are $15. Dividends are cash payments made to you by the company at regular intervals, usually annually or quarterly. For example, MS recently announced a quarterly dividend of $0.13 per share.
Now that we know the types of returns, the big question is, how do you know if a stock will deliver any returns? And are those returns good enough? Let me answer the second question first. Your stock has to at least beat the 5% APR offered by your bank, if not, what's the point? Might as well invest your money in bank deposits and sleep in peace. But, are you happy if the stock returns exactly 5%? No, because you are taking on an appreciably higher risk by investing in the market. When you take that kind of a risk, you expect to get rewarded. So the return from a stock has to be definitely higher than your bank rate. But, how much higher?
For a moment, let's set our stock aside and take the stock market as a whole (or simply the "market'). The market is represented by indexes such as Dow Jones, NASDAQ and S&P 500 – there are many more, but these are the popular ones. These indexes are comprised of multiple stocks from various industries. So you will have stocks from FMCG, tech, telecom, infrastructure etc. Some of these cos will be good, some bad, some growing and some declining. Let's say you want to invest your money in the "market" - in other words, think that you are buying 1 stock of the S&P 500 index. What should be your return? There are ways to derive this, but the simplest way is to look at the returns delivered by S&P 500 in the past. Take the year-end values of S&P 500 over the past 30 years, find out the annual return (annual growth, to put it crudely). Now, determine the difference between the S&P return and your bank rate. This delta is called the Market Risk Premium, which is the additional return you are expecting because you took the additional risk of investing in the stock market rather than the safer term deposit.
But remember that the stock market has many companies so the negative effects of some stocks are offset by the positive effects of others. For every Sun that fails, there is an Apple or a Google that delivers stellar performance. So the risk of investing in the "market" is different from that of buying a specific stock. Some stocks are safer than the market and others are riskier. For example, P&G has been making hair and body care products since forever. And unless we dramatically change our ways of personal hygiene, it is fair to assume that P&G will continue to sell its products. So, it is a safer bet. Contrast it with Google, which is threatening MS and Apple today, but could just as easily be threatened by Facebook or MySpace. Therefore, Google is riskier than the market.
To determine the relative risk of a stock versus the market, analysts use a term called Beta. Without getting into the details, it is a factor to arrive at the risk premium for your stock, which is a product of your stock's beta and the Market Risk Premium. (By the way, the Beta of the market is 1.) Beta for cos such as Google will be >1, and that of Unilever etc is <1. Now add this to your bank rate to find out the return you must get from the stock. Let's take an example.
Say, annual returns of S&P over last 30 years is 8%
Beta of Google is 1.17
Your bank deposit rate is 5% (Technically, this should be the rate on US treasury bonds, but this is a fair approximation.)
Therefore, Market Risk Premium (MRP) = 8% - 5% = 3%
Risk premium for Google = Beta * MRP = 1.17 * 3% = 3.51%
So expected return for Google = 5% + 3.51% = 8.51%
In other words, Google is an attractive stock, if and only if, it offers returns above 8.51%. The next part will discuss how to determine this.
To be continued…
Monday, July 27, 2009
More Than You Know
Just started Taleb's Fooled by Randomness. As it happens, this is the third consecutive book I am reading which talks about the role luck, randomness etc – I am using these terms to loosely mean uncertainty – plays in our lives. The previous two are Michael J. Mauboussin's More Than You Know and Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers. I will quickly summarize my takeaways from the first one.
The point is stunningly simple. That the market has several players, and the same bit of information is interpreted differently by different players. Naturally, a pre-condition is that the market players be heterogeneous and for the most part they are. When heterogeneity is maintained, the market on average correctly reflects the underlying state of the economy. One particular story (a true one, I believe) is used to convincingly illustrate this phenomenon. At a village contest, people were asked to guess the weight of an ox. The average value of the guesses turned out to be correct answer, although none of the individual guesses was anywhere close. The so-called experts represent only some players in the market, and at best, their predictions may only be close to the actual. When heterogeneity is compromised, however, players fall prey to group-thinking, and we end up with unsustainable booms followed by the unavoidable busts. The practical consequence is that one is better off investing in index funds rather than mutual funds.
Anyone invested in the market would know that "overvalued" and "undervalued" are two terms that every analysts throws in at will in his analysis. The value of a stock is the discounted value of its future cash flows (profits loosely), and the price is what it currently fetches in the market. Now, if the price of a stock is higher than its value, it is overvalued. The typical analyst recommends selling overvalued stocks and buying undervalued ones because sooner than later price adjusts to reflect value. The point made in the book is that it is not enough for you to find a great stock that is undervalued. The premise is that price will adjust to reflect value (in this case, price will go up). Meaning, there are just enough people out there thinking the same way as you are so that the demand for the stock pushes its price upward. If everything thinks the way you do, the stock would skyrocket immediately. And if no one agrees with you, well, the stock might stay undervalued forever.
So the trick is not just to find stocks that are undervalued, but also predict whether the market will agree with your assessment. It is probably for this reason that analysts love to appear on TV shows and rattle out their predictions. If enough people watching the show fall for it, well, you've got yourself a self-fulfilling prophecy. (The last point is my extrapolation).
The book covers such wide range of topics that I don't even remember all the things discussed. It definitely was worth my time, and hopefully I will get around to reading it again.
Tailpiece: Pune Mirror found my post worthy to be included on their website..
http://www.punemirror.in/index.aspx?page=article§id=4&contentid=200907222009072201490454678e298fc§xslt=
The point is stunningly simple. That the market has several players, and the same bit of information is interpreted differently by different players. Naturally, a pre-condition is that the market players be heterogeneous and for the most part they are. When heterogeneity is maintained, the market on average correctly reflects the underlying state of the economy. One particular story (a true one, I believe) is used to convincingly illustrate this phenomenon. At a village contest, people were asked to guess the weight of an ox. The average value of the guesses turned out to be correct answer, although none of the individual guesses was anywhere close. The so-called experts represent only some players in the market, and at best, their predictions may only be close to the actual. When heterogeneity is compromised, however, players fall prey to group-thinking, and we end up with unsustainable booms followed by the unavoidable busts. The practical consequence is that one is better off investing in index funds rather than mutual funds.
Anyone invested in the market would know that "overvalued" and "undervalued" are two terms that every analysts throws in at will in his analysis. The value of a stock is the discounted value of its future cash flows (profits loosely), and the price is what it currently fetches in the market. Now, if the price of a stock is higher than its value, it is overvalued. The typical analyst recommends selling overvalued stocks and buying undervalued ones because sooner than later price adjusts to reflect value. The point made in the book is that it is not enough for you to find a great stock that is undervalued. The premise is that price will adjust to reflect value (in this case, price will go up). Meaning, there are just enough people out there thinking the same way as you are so that the demand for the stock pushes its price upward. If everything thinks the way you do, the stock would skyrocket immediately. And if no one agrees with you, well, the stock might stay undervalued forever.
So the trick is not just to find stocks that are undervalued, but also predict whether the market will agree with your assessment. It is probably for this reason that analysts love to appear on TV shows and rattle out their predictions. If enough people watching the show fall for it, well, you've got yourself a self-fulfilling prophecy. (The last point is my extrapolation).
The book covers such wide range of topics that I don't even remember all the things discussed. It definitely was worth my time, and hopefully I will get around to reading it again.
Tailpiece: Pune Mirror found my post worthy to be included on their website..
http://www.punemirror.in/index.aspx?page=article§id=4&contentid=200907222009072201490454678e298fc§xslt=
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Ganguly Go Away
Not only is my most favorite player not captaining KKR next year, he is now replaced by a guy I abhor and detest. Grace is something that I never associated with Ganguly, but this series of events takes the cake. Apparently, Shah Rukh and Ganguly met in London where the former apologized to the latter!! And then Brendan McCullum is conveniently busy with international commitments for next year's IPL.
Wearing my conspiracy theorist hat, I think there is more here than what meets the eye. The events would have unfolded thus. Ganguly indicates his interest to be part of the Indian cricket administration. He is touted to contest CAB elections and is the favorite to be the next BCCI president. The selectors and administrators started feeling that Ganguly was getting larger than the system, and needed to be put in place. But knowing cricket-crazy Bengalis, that wouldn't go down too well. So he needed to be eased out into something that will distract his administrative pursuits. Hence, the understanding with Shahrukh and his reappointment as the KKR captain.
This conclusively proves that Indian cricket has hit its lowest point, so far, ably led by a man who has hit his lowest point, so far.
Wearing my conspiracy theorist hat, I think there is more here than what meets the eye. The events would have unfolded thus. Ganguly indicates his interest to be part of the Indian cricket administration. He is touted to contest CAB elections and is the favorite to be the next BCCI president. The selectors and administrators started feeling that Ganguly was getting larger than the system, and needed to be put in place. But knowing cricket-crazy Bengalis, that wouldn't go down too well. So he needed to be eased out into something that will distract his administrative pursuits. Hence, the understanding with Shahrukh and his reappointment as the KKR captain.
This conclusively proves that Indian cricket has hit its lowest point, so far, ably led by a man who has hit his lowest point, so far.
Friday, July 24, 2009
The reality of reality shows
Have you noticed that entertainment channels are big on reality, whereas the reality channels (news) are big on entertainment? I wonder if this is an inevitable side-effect of globalization, internet revolution, the fusing of different media, and Thomas Friedman's flat world. When I grew up, TV was an escape from reality. In a typical middle-class household, the man back from a day's toil, the woman exhausted after household chores, the kids finished with their homework and studies get together in front of the TV to let go of their everyday woes and immerse themselves into the world of the protagonist of a soap opera. Of course, shows of this genre are still popular. In fact, it is plentifully available, albeit stretched beyond the wildest imagination of a sensible human being. Yet, they can be pardoned for they continue to provide viewers a respite from their daily routines.
But how does one explain reality shows? It is the cheapest form of entertainment and caters to one emotion and one emotion only – schadenfreude. (I admit I looked the word up when writing this post.) It means enjoyment obtained from the troubles of others, which is exactly what we get out of reality shows. One might mistakenly conclude that shows such as Zee Saregama or even Indian Idol are different, for they unearth hidden talent. Have you seen episodes where they play the auditions? If the motive was to find the best, why waste airtime on showing the worst? And even in the main competition, you cheer for someone you like, and pray the other guys lose. You go thru the same feelings when watching a soap opera, you root for the bahu and hate the saas or vice-versa. That's good for an artificial show with artificial characters – you switch off the TV and they disappear. But reality shows have real people in them whom you hardly know but are loving or hating them. And your decisions – such as voting - change their life forever. Do we realize this responsibility? What we get from watching shows such as Sach ka Saamna, Big Boss etc should now be obvious.
Are quiz shows, KBCs and Dus ka Dam different? Only slightly. Lesser of the evils, if you want to call them that. I have watched innumerable BQC episodes where I was filled with glee as teams from Chennai got a drubbing. Why? Just because I didn't care much for that city. I am sure we have similar reasons for rooting for or hating a contestant on KBC or any such show.
But how does one explain reality shows? It is the cheapest form of entertainment and caters to one emotion and one emotion only – schadenfreude. (I admit I looked the word up when writing this post.) It means enjoyment obtained from the troubles of others, which is exactly what we get out of reality shows. One might mistakenly conclude that shows such as Zee Saregama or even Indian Idol are different, for they unearth hidden talent. Have you seen episodes where they play the auditions? If the motive was to find the best, why waste airtime on showing the worst? And even in the main competition, you cheer for someone you like, and pray the other guys lose. You go thru the same feelings when watching a soap opera, you root for the bahu and hate the saas or vice-versa. That's good for an artificial show with artificial characters – you switch off the TV and they disappear. But reality shows have real people in them whom you hardly know but are loving or hating them. And your decisions – such as voting - change their life forever. Do we realize this responsibility? What we get from watching shows such as Sach ka Saamna, Big Boss etc should now be obvious.
Are quiz shows, KBCs and Dus ka Dam different? Only slightly. Lesser of the evils, if you want to call them that. I have watched innumerable BQC episodes where I was filled with glee as teams from Chennai got a drubbing. Why? Just because I didn't care much for that city. I am sure we have similar reasons for rooting for or hating a contestant on KBC or any such show.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Walk before you talk
It is refreshing to see Rudi Koertzen lash out against criticisms about the standards of umpiring in the just concluded Lords Test. Rather than meekly submitting to the critics, he went after the players for putting umpires in a tight spot. And that's an angle often left out.
Maybe 'coz the rules say that the player is out when the umpire raises his index finger. That's the letter of the law. More so in sports than elsewhere, the letter is woefully inadequate when not supplemented by the right spirit. And today's cricket is short on spirit. Way short. Plus, the popularity of T20 and IPL may just expedite the degeneration of the game into a dreadful cousin of American pro sports.
Not to say that pro sports are drab – I am hooked to NFL – but they get to you beyond a point. If you poll football fans in the US about their preference for NFL v/s college football, the response will be in the favor of the latter, and overwhelmingly so. Mostly 'coz college games are not "pro". Of course, we all know the kids have an eye on NFL drafts and the big sums, but for the moment, they are attached to their school. It is also what our cricketers feel when playing for the nation. And it is precisely this passion and energy that IPL sucks out. IPL will remain a great entertainer, but after a few seasons, it will turn farcical like the American pro sport scene. Players will be sold, bought, traded and it will become an exercise in sports entertainment, with the latter becoming more pronounced.
Tailpiece: This is one of those rare occasions, as rare as yesterday's eclipse (sorry, couldn't resist that), where TOI has found favor w/ me. For a very selfish reason, naturally. The thoughts in their editorial about Dr. Kalam's frisking incident echo my ramblings from the other day.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Opinion/Frisk-everybody-/articleshow/4809462.cms
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Eclipse and myths
Our appetite for blind faith is legendary, and on events such as today's solar eclipse it comes to the fore. Driving on my way in, I heard a few RJs blabbering about our customs and rituals that are not grounded in science. I am no expert in the full suite of actions that ensure protection from the evil forces prevailing during an eclipse. But there is one crucial aspect that we overlook. Which brings me to one of my favorite lines from the Simpsons movie where Bart says "This has been the worst day of my life" and Homer retorts "Worst day of your life, so far"
I think it is important to recognize that there have been no scientific explanations to some religious rites and customs, so far. Dont think the idea is far-fetched. Asbestos and CFCs are good examples. They were developed scientifically, yet we had no idea about their fatal side-effects. Unfortunately, that is the nature of science. New information will continually emerge, often trashing our prevailing knowledge.
My point, simply, is that one must have an open mind when dealing with matters. And that applies to people on both sides of the argument.
I think it is important to recognize that there have been no scientific explanations to some religious rites and customs, so far. Dont think the idea is far-fetched. Asbestos and CFCs are good examples. They were developed scientifically, yet we had no idea about their fatal side-effects. Unfortunately, that is the nature of science. New information will continually emerge, often trashing our prevailing knowledge.
My point, simply, is that one must have an open mind when dealing with matters. And that applies to people on both sides of the argument.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Dr. Kalam frisked. So what?
Why is frisking perceived as an insult? Isnt it a clearly stated policy of airlines and airports to check bags and passengers before boarding? And we all go through this rigmarole everytime we have to take a flight.
Of course, this frustrates us to no end, not to mention the delays involved. If you have to take an 8AM flight, you rouse yourself out of sleep at 4AM, get ready by 5, travel 30km to the airport (thankfully there's no traffic) and reach by 6, and join a line with 15 guys waiting to get into the airport. More people waiting to check in their bags, and even more at the security check. At times, a train journey feels infinitely more comfortable. We have learnt to grin and bear it. The VIPs, I assume, dont go thru any of this.
The only inconvenience they have to put up with is a security check, which hardly takes 30 seconds. And they have a problem with that! Make no mistake, they are not of a superior race. We have enough civilians that have contributed to the economy as much or more than our politicians.
We also know how fragile the security situation is. Take the delhi airport shooting, for example. If anything, they should lead by example, and willingly follow the same security process as we do. That should send a strong message to the people. Unfortunately, we are only good at sending strong messages - we are yet to learn how to follow it up with actions.
Of course, this frustrates us to no end, not to mention the delays involved. If you have to take an 8AM flight, you rouse yourself out of sleep at 4AM, get ready by 5, travel 30km to the airport (thankfully there's no traffic) and reach by 6, and join a line with 15 guys waiting to get into the airport. More people waiting to check in their bags, and even more at the security check. At times, a train journey feels infinitely more comfortable. We have learnt to grin and bear it. The VIPs, I assume, dont go thru any of this.
The only inconvenience they have to put up with is a security check, which hardly takes 30 seconds. And they have a problem with that! Make no mistake, they are not of a superior race. We have enough civilians that have contributed to the economy as much or more than our politicians.
We also know how fragile the security situation is. Take the delhi airport shooting, for example. If anything, they should lead by example, and willingly follow the same security process as we do. That should send a strong message to the people. Unfortunately, we are only good at sending strong messages - we are yet to learn how to follow it up with actions.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Boss' Birthright
One aspect of the corporate culture in India that turns me off completely is our abject disregard to the time of our colleagues. Of course, we dont manage our time any better, but we blatantly mistreat that of our coworkers. We dont think twice before interrupting a coworker and loading him up with work.
If the relationship is boss-subordinate, its just gets worse. Just being the boss seems to vest them with uninhibited powers over the time of the team. You can interrupt them at will, call them up at any time of the day, order them to show up on weekend. The sad part is that these actions impact productivity and morale. Employees end up staying late because work plans are thrown out of gear. They end up hating the boss coz of all the weekends they have to put in. The worst part of this whole circus is that our bosses dont even put in a word of appreciation when employees stay late or a word of apology for ruining their weekend.
If the relationship is boss-subordinate, its just gets worse. Just being the boss seems to vest them with uninhibited powers over the time of the team. You can interrupt them at will, call them up at any time of the day, order them to show up on weekend. The sad part is that these actions impact productivity and morale. Employees end up staying late because work plans are thrown out of gear. They end up hating the boss coz of all the weekends they have to put in. The worst part of this whole circus is that our bosses dont even put in a word of appreciation when employees stay late or a word of apology for ruining their weekend.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Rita Bahuguna's crime
It took me 30 min of focused Googling to ultimately figure what it was that caused so much uproar in UP. Well, I had an idea of what transpired based on what I saw on TV, but arresting the state congress chief for slander sounded a bit too much. I wanted to know the exact words uttered by Rita. For all the nauseating coverage of irrelevant events that our media provides, I had no luck finding the transcript of her speech or even the offensive words. I wonder if the media self-censored it or if they were afraid of the consequences of airing or citing the exact language! Mayawati, sure, is powerful.
It was the good ol' BBC that had the courage to mention what Rita said although even they did not quote her verbatim. Here's the link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8153161.stm
It was the good ol' BBC that had the courage to mention what Rita said although even they did not quote her verbatim. Here's the link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8153161.stm
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Where's the media when you need them?
The flurry of media channels has ensured that even a fart by a politician or celebrity would not go unnoticed. Yet, they are nowhere when we need them the most. It has been coming down hard since last night here in Mumbai. When I woke up this morning, I was positive that several areas would be waterlogged. Adding to this, a metro pillar collapsed near Sakinaka, arguably the busiest traffic junction in Mumbai. I scanned the news channels for updates, but except TV9, no channel was even running a ticker about the rains. There was no source of getting a real-time update on the situation. The authorities were mum on what citizens are supposed to do, but thats typical. Most Mumbaikars know enough about the rains and chose to stay home I think. Thats what I did too based on my past experience here!
I am most appalled at the state of the news websites. It is incredibly easy to update a website and post live notes as the news pours in. But none of the websites had any mention of the rains until 10AM. All of them waited until noon and posted "articles". By then, everyone that cared about the rains knew about them. The less said about the Mumbai traffic police website the better. Its not that these websites cant do live coverage - they do it with budgets, bomb blasts etc. I have no idea why they dont do it on occasions such as these.
I wish we had a website that posts minute-by-minute updates on situations such as these. Maybe I could start one.
I am most appalled at the state of the news websites. It is incredibly easy to update a website and post live notes as the news pours in. But none of the websites had any mention of the rains until 10AM. All of them waited until noon and posted "articles". By then, everyone that cared about the rains knew about them. The less said about the Mumbai traffic police website the better. Its not that these websites cant do live coverage - they do it with budgets, bomb blasts etc. I have no idea why they dont do it on occasions such as these.
I wish we had a website that posts minute-by-minute updates on situations such as these. Maybe I could start one.
Monday, July 13, 2009
The Delhi Metro
In my last post, I alluded to Delhi Metro as a possible success story that has combined convenience and affordability. I wanted to build on this today, but the unfortunate incident of the pillar collapse will influence my objectivity. In any case, here's my take on the Metro.
I have used the metro and it is both affordable and convenient. In my limited view, Delhi is fast realigning along the metro the way Bombay has along its local lines. One must not forget, however, that Delhi had and continues to have a much better network of city roads that are broader and well-maintained. Partly, this is the function of how the city is laid out; Delhi is naturally conducive to ring roads and arterial roads where as the most one can get in Mumbai is a North-South expressway. Consequently, the approach roads to Metro stations are in much better condition. Of course, it is early days and one has to review the situation after the Metro is in operation for 5 years at least. Further, one must not ignore the weather factor. Mumbai monsoons are a key part of the equation. And unless the sewage system is first fixed, it is impossible to fix Mumbai's transport woes.
I have used the metro and it is both affordable and convenient. In my limited view, Delhi is fast realigning along the metro the way Bombay has along its local lines. One must not forget, however, that Delhi had and continues to have a much better network of city roads that are broader and well-maintained. Partly, this is the function of how the city is laid out; Delhi is naturally conducive to ring roads and arterial roads where as the most one can get in Mumbai is a North-South expressway. Consequently, the approach roads to Metro stations are in much better condition. Of course, it is early days and one has to review the situation after the Metro is in operation for 5 years at least. Further, one must not ignore the weather factor. Mumbai monsoons are a key part of the equation. And unless the sewage system is first fixed, it is impossible to fix Mumbai's transport woes.
Further, the traffic pattern in Delhi is much more distributed than in Mumbai. Therefore, the routes dont get anywhere as crowded. I think, in a way, this has created the ideal traffic level - high enough to be profitable but not too high to choke the system into stagnation. A measly 4-car metro rake in Mumbai would be a disaster. I can bet the train would never leave the station and some adventurists might actually climb atop and between the rakes. Delhi Metro-type solution might work in Mumbai, but only if its on steroids.
I would actually think the Mumbai traffic pattern is easy if you are a planner. Just build two high-capacity north-south metro links and you are done. Only if we had the political will...
Friday, July 10, 2009
Solving the Traffic Puzzle
The other day, I condemned the hyping up of the Bandra Worli sealink as if it were a national achievement. Specifically, I was outraged at the delays and cost overruns. In principle, however, I am quite agreeable to the idea of building a freeway. However, there are some so called experts that are claiming that roads are no longer a solution to traffic snarls as other metros of the world have proven. Rather, mass transit is the way to go. This is the typical hammer syndrome that haunts experts world over; for a child with a hammer in hand, everything looks like a nail.
There are two aspects of conveyance: affordability and convenience. Convenience includes things such as frequency, safety, ease of access, ease of travel, punctuality, speed etc. As commuters, we strive to strike a balance between the two. For example, a modern day knowledge worker finds public transport ridiculously affordable but extremely inconvenient. Naturally, he will go for a motorbike that improves the convenience factor yet remains affordable. Someone with a better pay will get a car so the convenience factor is improved further. Freeways and expressways will definitely improve the convenience, while the toll charges will make a slight dent on affordability. It is only right that those who seek convenience and are able to afford it make use of such amenities. And with the toll system, we have a way to directly make users pay. So there is no need to bring up issues such as taxpayers money being used for the privileged few.
For the mass transit model to work in India – and by that I mean, for all the car users to switch over – it has to be convenient and affordable to this segment of commuters. Affordability is granted; it cannot be more expensive than owning a car. But what about convenience? Can we really run air-conditioned buses and trains that cover the length and breadth of our cities? Can we have good approach roads to railway stations and parking space to leave cars there?
Such infrastructure doesn’t come cheap. Consequently, such a transport system will put it out of the common man’s reach. Are we then saying we will have two transit systems targeting different types of commuters? Will that be sustainable? It is tempting to look at the Delhi Metro for answers, but I don’t think the comparison is apt. More on this in my next post…
There are two aspects of conveyance: affordability and convenience. Convenience includes things such as frequency, safety, ease of access, ease of travel, punctuality, speed etc. As commuters, we strive to strike a balance between the two. For example, a modern day knowledge worker finds public transport ridiculously affordable but extremely inconvenient. Naturally, he will go for a motorbike that improves the convenience factor yet remains affordable. Someone with a better pay will get a car so the convenience factor is improved further. Freeways and expressways will definitely improve the convenience, while the toll charges will make a slight dent on affordability. It is only right that those who seek convenience and are able to afford it make use of such amenities. And with the toll system, we have a way to directly make users pay. So there is no need to bring up issues such as taxpayers money being used for the privileged few.
For the mass transit model to work in India – and by that I mean, for all the car users to switch over – it has to be convenient and affordable to this segment of commuters. Affordability is granted; it cannot be more expensive than owning a car. But what about convenience? Can we really run air-conditioned buses and trains that cover the length and breadth of our cities? Can we have good approach roads to railway stations and parking space to leave cars there?
Such infrastructure doesn’t come cheap. Consequently, such a transport system will put it out of the common man’s reach. Are we then saying we will have two transit systems targeting different types of commuters? Will that be sustainable? It is tempting to look at the Delhi Metro for answers, but I don’t think the comparison is apt. More on this in my next post…
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Outsourced!
Watched this movie on TV last night, finally. I have had it on my laptop for quite a while and never got around to watching the entire movie. Some friends had highly recommended the movie and since I didnt have much to do last night, I set myself up to watch it start to finish.
Must say I am not disappointed. Infact, it was a quite a treat. Anyone that has worked in the IT/ITES industry and also traveled to the US will see the humor. In fact, desis that have lived in the US for a few years and returned to India will relate to the movie most. Some of the aspects a little over the top. Such as the choice of location for the call center as well as its construction. Plenty of cliches and predictable scenes, but even they are not as rich. I mean, I could think of a 100 different things that can lead to funny situations. Anyway, the screenplay crisp enough to keep things moving.
Dont think its worth renting a DVD. If its on TV and you have nothing else to do, definitely watch it.
Watched this movie on TV last night, finally. I have had it on my laptop for quite a while and never got around to watching the entire movie. Some friends had highly recommended the movie and since I didnt have much to do last night, I set myself up to watch it start to finish.
Must say I am not disappointed. Infact, it was a quite a treat. Anyone that has worked in the IT/ITES industry and also traveled to the US will see the humor. In fact, desis that have lived in the US for a few years and returned to India will relate to the movie most. Some of the aspects a little over the top. Such as the choice of location for the call center as well as its construction. Plenty of cliches and predictable scenes, but even they are not as rich. I mean, I could think of a 100 different things that can lead to funny situations. Anyway, the screenplay crisp enough to keep things moving.
Dont think its worth renting a DVD. If its on TV and you have nothing else to do, definitely watch it.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Its a stinking bridge!
The hype and buzz created for the opening of the Bandra Worli sealink was positively nauseating. It was everywhere. On the news channels, in the papers, on the radio stations! I fail to understand why it was blown so much out of proportion. It is simply a 4km bridge that happens to be on the open sea. Rather than being shameful of the delays and cost overruns associated with the project, we have conveniently ignored the fact that the world has moved on to "chunnels" and are celebrating the achievement. And to what end? Well if the intent was to get Mumbaikars to use the sealink, it succeeded. Succeeded too well, infact, thanks largely to the government's magnanimity of declaring it free for the first 5 days. It was a mega disaster as far as reducing commute time went.
And the traffic arrangements at the Worli exit are ludicrous. Traffic coming at 50kmph is supposed to make a 90 degree turn!! How did that get through the planners? I am sure if someone digs deep enough, we will learn that the contractors responsible for the sea link and the approach roads were different and didnt care to communicate.
Let my cynicism not get in the way of acknowledging that the sea link will possibly help reduce Mumbai's traffic snarls, albeit marginally. Personally, the Mahim route is what I will continue to take on a daily basis although I might decide to try out the link one of these days. And if the sealink does what it was meant to - reduce congestion on the Mahim causeway - you wont hear any more complaints from me!!
And the traffic arrangements at the Worli exit are ludicrous. Traffic coming at 50kmph is supposed to make a 90 degree turn!! How did that get through the planners? I am sure if someone digs deep enough, we will learn that the contractors responsible for the sea link and the approach roads were different and didnt care to communicate.
Let my cynicism not get in the way of acknowledging that the sea link will possibly help reduce Mumbai's traffic snarls, albeit marginally. Personally, the Mahim route is what I will continue to take on a daily basis although I might decide to try out the link one of these days. And if the sealink does what it was meant to - reduce congestion on the Mahim causeway - you wont hear any more complaints from me!!
Roddick wins Wimbledon
If you watched the men’s Wimbledon final last night, you really don’t have to read this. This is more to vent out my feelings. Sport is cruel and every game has a winner, but what is the point of winning games such as these? I have nothing against Federer. He definitely has earned his place in history books, but yesterday, he was not the best player on court. Well, you can say he played good enough to hang in there and held his nerve when it mattered – in the second set tie-break and the final game – but is that all there is? Andy Roddick was nowhere in the reckoning to make it to the final. Not after he had to face Hewitt in the quarters and Murray in the semis. Yet, he believed and showed us why we should too.
Watching Roddick play against Murray, I thought Federer was going to have a difficult time in the final. But I remembered the Australian Open final where Roddick was utterly destroyed in a 3-setter. So although I had decided to stay home and watch the match, I thought that the first set would hold the key; if Federer wins it comfortably, I am better off watching a movie. That Roddick would take his game to such heights was beyond my wildest imagination.
I was worried for Roddick when the game ended. How can you deal with a result like that? And then, within minutes you are expected to comment on the match, congratulate the opponent, and courteously accept the second prize. Man! He didn’t have to go through that! Not after the way he played last night.
If anything, my respect for Federer fell a bit yesterday. He didn’t even acknowledge that Roddick was the better player on court. Maybe we give Federer too much credit for his personality. Maybe he wanted the record badly. I was hoping that Federer, at some point, would say that Roddick was the real winner last night. But that’s me getting too filmy, I guess.
Watching Roddick play against Murray, I thought Federer was going to have a difficult time in the final. But I remembered the Australian Open final where Roddick was utterly destroyed in a 3-setter. So although I had decided to stay home and watch the match, I thought that the first set would hold the key; if Federer wins it comfortably, I am better off watching a movie. That Roddick would take his game to such heights was beyond my wildest imagination.
I was worried for Roddick when the game ended. How can you deal with a result like that? And then, within minutes you are expected to comment on the match, congratulate the opponent, and courteously accept the second prize. Man! He didn’t have to go through that! Not after the way he played last night.
If anything, my respect for Federer fell a bit yesterday. He didn’t even acknowledge that Roddick was the better player on court. Maybe we give Federer too much credit for his personality. Maybe he wanted the record badly. I was hoping that Federer, at some point, would say that Roddick was the real winner last night. But that’s me getting too filmy, I guess.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)