Workshops 2019

Dear All

 

Please do make time & attend the annual workshop conducted at our office premises

on March 22nd 2019

Time : 4pm to 5:30 pm

 

All those interested participants for the stock markets are invited

 

Please do walk -in : Sign Up for

Adventure Terrain Ventures

 

Mob: +917619149846

email : contactus@adventureterrainventures.co.in

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is Technical Writing?

// // // //

Technical writing is sometimes defined as simplifying the complex.  Inherent in such a concise and deceptively simple definition is a whole range of skills and characteristics that address nearly every field of human endeavor at some level.  A significant subset of the broader field of technical communication, technical writing involves communicating complex information to those who need it to accomplish some task or goal.

Oxford Dictionaries Online (ODO) provides four definitions for the word technical, all of which relate to the profession of technical writing:

  1. of or relating to a particular subject, art, or craft, or its techniques
  2. of, involving, or concerned with applied and industrial sciences
  3. resulting from mechanical failure
  4. according to a strict application or interpretation of the law or rules

With these definitions in mind, it’s easy to see that technical writing has been around as long as there have been written languages.  Modern references to technical writing and technical communications as a profession begin around the time of World War I as technical developments in warfare, industry and telecommunications began to evolve more rapidly.  Although many people today think of technical writing as creating manuals for computers and software, the practice of technical writing takes place in any field or industry where complex ideas, concepts, processes or procedures need to be communicated.  In fact, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics defines technical writers as those who “…put technical information into easily understandable language. They work primarily in information-technology-related industries, coordinating the development and dissemination of technical content for a variety of users; however, a growing number of technical communicators are using technical content to resolve business communications problems in a diversifying number of industries.”

The Goal of Technical Writing

Good technical writing results in relevant, useful and accurate information geared to specifically targeted audiences in order to enable a set of actions on the part of the audience in pursuit of a defined goal.  The goal may be using a software application, operating industrial equipment, preventing accidents, safely consuming a packaged food, assessing a medical condition, complying with a law, coaching a sports team, or any of an infinite range of possible activities.  If the activity requires expertise or skill to perform, then technical writing is a necessary component.

Only a small proportion of technical writing is actually aimed at the general consumer audience. Businesses and organizations deliver vast amounts of technical writing to explain internal procedures, design and produce products, implement processes, sell products and services to other businesses, or define policies. The leading professional association representing technical writing, Society for Technical Communication, hosts a number of special interest groups for these different aspects of the profession.

Technical Writing Categories

Technical writing comprises the largest segment of technical communications.  Technical writers work together with editors, graphic designers and illustrators, document specialists, content managers, instructional designers, trainers, and analysts to produce an amazing variety of deliverables, including:

Contracts Online and embedded help Requirements specifications
Customer Service scripts Policy documents Simulations
Demonstrations Process flows Training course materials
Design documents Project documents User manuals
FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) Product catalogs Warning labels
How-to videos Product packaging Web-based Training
Instructions Proposals Websites
Knowledge base articles Release notes White papers
Reference guides

Technical writing follows a development lifecycle that often parallels the product development lifecycle of an organization:

  1. Identification of needs, audience(s), and scope
  2. Planning
  3. Research & content development
  4. Testing / review and revision
  5. Delivery / production
  6. Evaluation and feedback
  7. Disposition (revision, archiving, or destruction)

Technical Writing and Integrated Technical Communications

Enormous changes have occurred in the field of technical writing in the last 20 years, particularly with how technical content is researched, and how it is produced and delivered.  As a result, more organizations are developing integrated technical communications to effectively manage the information that must be communicated. They also build a content management strategy that encompasses delivery of technical, marketing and promotion, internal and other communications messages between the organization and its customers, suppliers, investors and employees.

source : http://www.techwirl.com

Want to Go From MBA to CEO? Executives Will Need These Skills in 2039 By Paul Leinwand and Gary L. Neilson August 29, 2014

Good news for today’s MBA grads: The share of large company chief executives with graduate business degrees has grown nearly 50 percent in the past 10 years. But don’t start decorating your corner office yet. There’s a lot to learn before you’re ready to take the CEO chair.

Digitization and globalization will change industries in ways we can just begin to imagine today. Everything will move faster—people, teams, trends, portfolios, and competitors. Companies will find it harder to meaningfully differentiate themselves, and they will need to make complex trade-offs when deciding where to invest for growth.

Future CEOs will have be comfortable working in a reconfigured C-suite. A new role, that of chief resources officer, will probably evolve from today’s chief human resources officer. This person will help the company respond to shortages of natural resources, shifting demographics in the workforce, and all other non-financial resources. And tomorrow’s CEO is likelier than ever to be female: We anticipate that about a third of 2040’s incoming CEOs at large public companies will be women, up from just 3 percent today.

The average CEO starts the job at 52. If you’re 27—the average age of a Harvard MBA—that gives you 25 years to prepare. Here’s what we think CEOs will encounter in 2039, as well as five areas in which you can start building skills to help you succeed as one of the CEOs of tomorrow:

Develop a strategy and execute it.
Possible strategies will come and go quickly. Many will be unfamiliar, so it will be harder than ever for CEOs to find the right balance between attractive opportunities and those their companies can win.

Most companies don’t align strategy and execution well at all. It will be your job to fix this. The most successful strategies are built on what your company is able to do better than any other—its handful of differentiating capabilities. Learn how to define your company by what it does, not what it sells. Identify the capabilities core to that identity, use them as a filter for choosing opportunities, and ensure that the entire organization delivers on that promise.

Manage resources as strategic investments.
A company can’t thrive without putting resources toward what matters most—and that’s not happening today. As CEO, you will need to realize that allocating resources equally across the board is not a winning formula. Treat costs as investments and budgeting as an opportunity to align your company more closely to your strategy. Outsource or team up to accomplish the many tasks your company doesn’t need to do better than others. Learn to focus more money and time than your competitors do on the few differentiating capabilities that matter most to your success, and cut back drastically everywhere else.

Build strong, flexible, teams from across the enterprise.
Every distinctive capability relies on contributions from many different functions, such as sales, marketing, IT, distribution, legal, and so on. Think of Apple’s (AAPL)intuitive interface and design capabilities or Amazon’s (AMZN)distribution and data analytics. Integrating all these functions is a huge task and one most companies struggle with today.

As CEO, you and your executive team will need to ensure that your people work together in a coherent system and continuously deliver on and improve your company’s few distinctive capabilities as the marketplace changes. All this will require you to master the architecture of collaboration, calling on empathy, emotional intelligence, and long experience on different kinds of teams.

Be a great connector.
The vast majority of executives say their company’s overall business strategy isn’t well understood across the company and that it only moderately guides decision-making.

To get your company out of that hole, you’ll need to be a master communicator. In a more transparent, always-on world, with more stakeholders interested and invested in what your company is up to, you’ll need to communicate extensively. You’ll need to build wide-ranging partnerships and other links across enterprises. These might be formal links with other companies that contribute to your products or services, longstanding partnerships with non-governmental organizations to provide social goods, or building relationships with your industry’s regulators around the globe. Doing all this will require extraordinary listening, speaking, writing, and engagement abilities. Hone those skills in every activity you undertake.

Deploy technology as a competitive advantage.
Technology is already a disruptive force changing the structure of most industries. It will only become more powerful. You, as a CEO, will need to have a deep understanding of IT across the enterprise—far greater than any present-day CEO. You’ll also need to be expert in flexible digital business models that allow you to constantly test, improve, and change your offerings, consumer technologies that shape customer engagement, and data analytics that surpass today’s Big Data.

Luckily, many of you are already steeped in technology. The key here is to stay that way and to ensure you are expert in the technologies most crucial to your company’s differentiating capabilities and most likely to disrupt your industry.

Being a CEO is a big job, and by 2040 it will only get bigger. Focusing on developing skills in these five areas should prepare you well for the corner office.

SOURCE : http://www.bloomberg.com

Inequality hurts economic growth, finds OECD research

Inequality hurts economic growth, finds OECD research

09/12/2014 – Reducing income inequality would boost economic growth, according to new OECD analysis. This work finds that countries where income inequality is decreasing grow faster than those with rising inequality.

The single biggest impact on growth is the widening gap between the lower middle class and poor households compared to the rest of society. Education is the key: a lack of investment in education by the poor is the main factor behind inequality hurting growth.

“This compelling evidence proves that addressing high and growing inequality is critical to promote strong and sustained growth and needs to be at the centre of the policy debate,” said OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría. “Countries that promote equal opportunity for all from an early age are those that will grow and prosper.”

Rising inequality is estimated to have knocked more than 10 percentage points off growth in Mexico and New Zealand over the past two decades up to the Great Recession. In Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States, the cumulative growth rate would have been six to nine percentage points higher had income disparities not widened, but also in Sweden, Finland and Norway, although from low levels. On the other hand, greater equality helped increase GDP per capita in Spain, France and Ireland prior to the crisis.

The paper finds new evidence that the main mechanism through which inequality affects growth is by undermining education opportunities for children from poor socio-economic backgrounds, lowering social mobility and hampering skills development.

People whose parents have low levels of education see their educational outcomes deteriorate as income inequality rises. By contrast, there is little or no effect on people with middle or high levels of parental educational background.

The impact of inequality on growth stems from the gap between the bottom 40 percent with the rest of society, not just the poorest 10 percent. Anti-poverty programmes will not be enough, says the OECD. Cash transfers and increasing access to public services, such as high-quality education, training and healthcare, are an essential social investment to create greater equality of opportunities in the long run.

The paper also finds no evidence that redistributive policies, such as taxes and social benefits, harm economic growth, provided these policies are well designed, targeted and implemented.

The working paper, Trends in income inequality and its impact on economic growth, is part of the OECD’s New Approaches to Economic Challenges Initiative, an Organisation-wide reflection on the roots and lessons to be learned from the global economic crisis, as well as an exercise to review and update its analytical frameworks.

Comparative advantage

Comparative advantage

document.createElement(‘header’);
document.createElement(‘nav’);
document.createElement(‘section’);
document.createElement(‘article’);
document.createElement(‘aside’);
document.createElement(‘footer’);

It can be argued that world output would increase when the principle of comparative advantage is applied by countries to determine what goods and services they should specialise in producing. Comparative advantage is a term associated with 19th Century English economist David Ricardo.

Ricardo considered what goods and services countries should produce, and suggested that they should specialise by allocating their scarce resources to produce goods and services for which they have a comparative cost advantage. There are two types of cost advantage – absolute, and comparative.

Absolute advantage means being more productive or cost-efficient than another country whereas comparative advantage relates to how much productive or cost efficient one country is than another.

Example

In order to understand how the concept of comparative advantage might be applied to the real world, we can consider the simple example of two countries producing only two goods – motor cars and commercial trucks.

Comparative advantage

Comparative advantage

Using all its resources, country A can produce 30m cars or 6m trucks, and country B can produce 35m cars or 21m trucks. This can be summarised in a table.

In this case, country B has the absolute advantage in producing both products, but it has a comparative advantage in trucks because it is relatively better at producing them. Country B is 3.5 times better at trucks, and only 1.17 times better at cars.

Opportunity cost ratios

However, the greatest advantage – and the widest gap – lies with truck production, hence Country B should specialise in producing trucks, leaving Country A to produce cars.

Economic theory suggests that, if countries apply the principle of comparative advantage, combined output will be increased in comparison with the output that would be produced if the two countries tried to become self-sufficient and allocate resources towards production of both goods. Taking this example, if countries A and B allocate resources evenly to both goods combined output is: Cars = 15 + 15 = 30; Trucks = 12 + 3 = 15, therefore world output is 45 m units.

PPF for international trade

Opportunity cost ratios

It is being able to produce goods by using fewer resources, at a lower opportunity cost, that gives countries a comparative advantage.

The gradient of a PPF reflects the opportunity cost of production. Increasing the production of one good means that less of another can be produced. The gradient reflects the lost output of Y as a result of increasing the output of X.

Opportunity cost ratios

Having a comparative advantage in X, Country A sacrifices less of Y than Country B. In terms of two countries producing two goods, different PPF gradients mean different opportunity costs ratios, and hence specialisation and trade will increase world output.

Only when the gradients are different will a country have a comparative advantage, and only then will trade be beneficial.

Identical PPFs

If PPF gradients are identical, then no country has a comparative advantage, and opportunity cost ratios are identical. In this case, international trade does not confer any advantage.

Identical PPF gradients

Criticisms

However, the principle of comparative advantage can be criticised in a several ways:

  1. It may overstate the benefits of specialisation by ignoring a number of costs. These costs include transport costs and any external costs associated with trade, such as air and sea pollution.
  2. The theory also assumes that markets are perfectly competitive – in particular, there is perfect mobility of factors without any diminishing returns and with no transport costs. The reality is likely to be very different, with output from factor inputs subject to diminishing returns, and with transport costs. This will make the PPF for each country non-linear and bowed outwards.  If this is the case, complete specialisation might not generate the level of benefits that would be derived from linear PPFs. In other words, there is an increasing opportunity cost associated with increasing specialisation. For example, it may be that the maximum output of cars produced by country A is only 20 million (compared with 30), and the maximum output of trucks produced by country B might only be 16 million instead of 21 million. Hence, the combined output from trade might only be 46 million units (instead of the 51 million units initially predicted).

Diminishing returns

  1. Complete specialisation might create structural unemployment as some workers cannot transfer from one sector to another.
  2. Relative prices and exchange rates are not taken into account in the simple theory of comparative advantage. For example if the price of X rises relative to Y, the benefit of increasing output of X increases.
  3. Comparative advantage is not a static concept – it may change over time. For example, nonrenewable resources can slowly run out, increasing the costs of production, and reducing the gains from trade. Countries can develop new advantages, such as Vietnam and coffee production. Despite having a long history of coffee production it is only in the last 30 years that it has become a global player. seeing its global market share increase from just 1% in 1985 to 20% in 2014, making it the world’s second largest producer.
  4. Many countries strive for food security, meaning that even if they should specialise in non-food products, they still prefer to keep a minimum level of food production.
  5. The principle of comparative advantage is derived from a highly simplistic two good/two country model. The real world is far more complex, with countries exporting and importing many different goods and services.
  6. According to influential US economist Paul Krugman, the continual application of economies of scale by global producers using new technology means that many countries, including China, can produce very cheaply, and export surpluses. This, along with an insatiable demand for choice and variety, means that countries typically produce a variety of products for the global market, rather than specialise in a narrow range of products, rendering the traditional theory of comparative advantage almost obsolete.
  7. However, the underlying principle of comparative advantage can still be said to give some ‘shape’ to the pattern of world trade, even if it is becoming less relevant in a globalised world.

Why do countries trade?

Why do countries trade?

document.createElement(‘header’);
document.createElement(‘nav’);
document.createElement(‘section’);
document.createElement(‘article’);
document.createElement(‘aside’);
document.createElement(‘footer’);

Countries trade with each other when, on their own, they do not have the resources, or capacity to satisfy their own needs and wants. By developing and exploiting their domestic scarce resources, countries can produce a surplus, and trade this for the resources they need.

Clear evidence of trading over long distances dates back at least 9,000 years, though long distance trade probably goes back much further to the domestication of pack animals and the invention of ships. Today, international trade is at the heart of the global economy and is responsible for much of the development and prosperity of the modern industrialised world.

Goods and services are likely to be imported from abroad for several reasons. Imports may be cheaper, or of better quality. They may also be more easily available or simply more appealing than locally produced goods. In many instances, no local alternatives exist, and importing is essential. This is highlighted today in the case of Japan, which has no oil reserves of its own, yet it is the world’s fourth largest consumer of oil, and must import all it requires.

The production of goods and services in countries that need to trade is based on two fundamental principles, first analysed by Adam Smith in the late 18th Century (in The Wealth of Nations, 1776), these being the division of labour and specialisation.

Division of labour

In its strictest sense, a division of labour means breaking down production into small, interconnected tasks, and then allocating these tasks to different workers based on their suitability to undertake the task efficiently. When applied internationally, a division of labour means that countries produce just a small range of goods or services, and may contribute only a small part to finished products sold in global markets. For example, a bar of chocolate is likely to contain many ingredients from numerous countries, with each country contributing, perhaps, just one ingredient to the final product.

Specialisation

Specialisation is the second fundamental principle associated with trade, and results from the division of labour. Given that each worker, or each producer, is given a specialist role, they are likely to become efficient contributors to the overall process of production, and to the finished product. Hence, specialisation can generate further benefits in terms of efficiency and productivity.

Specialisation can be applied to individuals, firms, machinery and technology, and to whole countries. International specialisation is increased when countries use their scarce resources to produce just a small range of products in high volume. Mass production allows a surplus of good to be produced, which can then be exported. This means that goods and resources must be imported from other countries that have also specialised, and produced surpluses of their own.

When countries specialise they are likely to become more efficient over time. This is partly because a country’s producers will become larger and exploit economies of scale. Faced by large global markets, firms may be encouraged to adopt mass production, and apply new technology.  This can provide a country with a price and non-price advantage over less specialised countries, making it increasingly competitive and improving its chances of exporting in the future.

The advantages of trade

International trade brings a number of valuable benefits to a country, including:

  1. The exploitation of a country’s comparative advantage, which means that trade encourages a country to specialise in producing only those goods and services which it can produce more effectively and efficiently, and at the lowest opportunity cost.
  2. Producing a narrow range of goods and services for the domestic and export market means that a country can produce in at higher volumes, which provides further cost benefits in terms of economies of scale.
  3. Trade increases competition and lowers world prices, which provides benefits to consumers by raising the purchasing power of their own income, and leads a rise in consumer surplus.
  4. Trade also breaks down domestic monopolies, which face competition from more efficient foreign firms.
  5. The quality of goods and services is likely to increases as competition encourages innovation, design and the application of new technologies. Trade will also encourage the transfer of technology between countries.
  6. Trade is also likely to increase employment, given that employment is closely related to production. Trade means that more will be employed in the export sector and, through the multiplier process, more jobs will be created across the whole economy.

The disadvantages of trade

Despite the benefits, trade can also bring some disadvantages, including:

  1. Trade can lead to over-specialisation, with workers at risk of losing their jobs should world demand fall or when goods for domestic consumption can be produced more cheaply abroad. Jobs lost through such changes cause severe structural unemployment. The recent credit crunch has exposed the inherent dangers in over-specialisation for the UK, with its reliance on its financial services sector.
  2. Certain industries do not get a chance to grow because they face competition from more established foreign firms, such as new infant industries which may find it difficult to establish themselves.
  3. Local producers, who may supply a unique product tailored to meet the needs of the domestic market, may suffer because cheaper imports may destroy their market. Over time, the diversity of output in an economy may diminish as local producers leave the market.

Russian Economy

Russian Economy Stalls in Q3

Russian Economy Stalls in Q3

//

The Russian GPD posted zero growth in the three months to September, following a revised 0.14 percent expansion in the previous period, as a rise in internal trade and real estate activities was not enough to offset a drop in manufacturing.

On a quarter-on-quarter seasonally adjusted basis, fishing and farming activities shrank the most by 3.5 percent, followed by restaurants and hotels (-1.63 percent), health and social services (-0.88 percent) and construction (-0.8 percent). Manufacturing contracted 0.44 percent and the mining sector dropped 0.51 percent.
In contrast, financial activities posted the highest gain (3.26 percent), followed by agriculture (1.41 percent), internal trade (0.69 percent) and real estate (0.63 percent). Transportation grew 0.13 percent.
Year-on-year, the economy advanced 0.7 percent, slowing for the third straight quarter.

Joana Taborda | joana.taborda@tradingeconomics.com
12/12/2014 1:49:39 PM

Russia Trade Surplus at 3-Month Low

Russian trade surplus shrank 24 percent to USD 12.93 billion in December of 2014 after declining 25 percent a month earlier.

Year-on-year, exports shrank 24.1 percent to USD 37.6 billion, following a 21.7 percent drop in November. Shipments to countries outside the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) dropped 23.5 percent while sales to the CIS countries – Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan – fell 27.1 percent.
Imports declined 24 percent to USD 24.7 billion. Purchases from the non-CIS countries fell 21.9 percent while those from the CIS countries dropped 39.2 percent.
In November of 2014, Russia posted a USD 13.6 billion surplus.
Considering last three months of 2014, exports shrank 17.4 percent year-on-year while imports decreased at a faster 19.4 percent.

Central Bank of Russia | Joana Taborda | joana.taborda@tradingeconomics.com
2/11/2015 1:16:12 PM

The satire of the trades

Story//

This story is part of an ancient Egyptian text known as ‘The teaching of Duaf’s son Khety’. A father is taking his son to scribe school where the boy will learn how to read and write. The father is telling his son why being a scribe is the best profession in the world. He emphasises how good the life of a scribe is by comparing it to the lives of craftsmen and others.

Although the father speaks badly of the other professions, he probably does not mean it as strongly as it sounds. More likely, he is making it seem that life is very bad for other people so that he can convince his son to become a scribe

Story//

The teaching of Duaf’s son Khety ‘

‘I will make you love writing more than your mother,
I will show its beauties to you;
Now, it is greater than any trade,
There is not one like it in the land

Story//

The teaching of Duaf’s son Khety ‘


Metal-workers.
…I have seen the metal-worker working
At the mouth of his furnace;
With fingers like the stuff of a crocodile
He stinks more than fish eggs.

Story//

The teaching of Duaf’s son Khety ‘


Carpenters working.
The carpenter who uses an adze,
He is more tired than a worker in the fields;
His field is the wood, his hoe the adze.
His work is endless…

Story//

The teaching of Duaf’s son Khety ‘


Jewellery workshop.
The jeweller drills with his chisel
In different kinds of stone;
Once he is done with the inlay of the eyes
His arms are weary, he is tired;
Sitting down at sunset,
His knees and back ache.

Story//

The teaching of Duaf’s son Khety ‘


Razor, comb, tweezers and other grooming tools.
The barber is still shaving at the end of the day,
To the town he takes himself,
To his corner he takes himself,
From street to street he takes himself
To search for people to shave.
He works with his arms to fill his belly,
Like a bee which can only eat as it has worked.

Story//

The teaching of Duaf’s son Khety ‘


A statue of a scribe.
Look, no trade is free from a director,
Except the scribe’s: he is the director.
But if you know writings, it will be better for you,
More than these trades I have shown you

Have You Ever Taken a Chance in Life? by freefincal

I am a fan of actor Kevin Costner. I think he has taken pretty big career risks,pulled off some and failed in some, but has always stuck to his guns, which is admirable. He has even declared that if his stardom vanishes overnight, he can make a decent living with a blue collar job, because he is skilled.

I saw an YouTube interview yesterday in which he mentioned that, his father regretted never having taken a chance in life and having been in the same job all his life. Costner had to reassure him that he had been a good father who provided all he could for his family.

That set me thinking about my own life. Regular readers would be well aware that as an investor, I am pessimistic, cautious, and always keen to contain downside risk. It might surprise them, (as it did me!), that when it came to my career, I had repeatedly taken chances. Some driven by my heart- a refusal to do something that I don’t like, some was driven by my stupid self-belief.

I once gave up a lucrative contract in Germany because I felt home-sick. One part of me said I was committing career suicide (as did my mentors and many of my friends) and one part of me said, I can work in peace only when I happy.

After coming back home, I worked without pay for 4 months, when my employer took pity and created a makeshift position for me.

For the next 6-8 months, I did not look for any other job but put all my cards on a single job which I was desperate to get as it was the only one that appealed to me.

I got the job and completely changed my area of research. This is again considered professional suicide as it will take at least a couple of years to get published.

Though I was doing quite well, nearly two years later, positions for my dream job -one that involved teaching – was open.

There was fierce pressure from my current employer to prevent me from taking the interview. My father was fighting cancer and I was confined to the hospital taking care of him. I prepared for the interview from there.

Things got to such a point that there was the serious danger of losing both jobs – my current one and my dream job. My father urged me to take the chance. He said he believed in me and asked me to go for it.

The gamble paid off. I got the position but I went ahead and committed career suicide once again(!) by choosing to work in another entirely different research area.

While I did quite well on the teaching front, research was riddled with stumbling blocks. Thanks to some hard-working and spirited students, I was able to set up a decent laboratory.

After nearly a decade of doing this, I think I am all set to commit professional suicide once again! (Sorry can’t say more).

As mentioned above, some of the chances that I took was driven by my heart, and some by ridiculous self-belief that I could pull it off. Sometimes it worked and sometimes it did not. In hindsight, considering my current circumstances, I am glad that I took those chances. Well, at least some of them!

Point of this rant

If you had a chance to take up a job that you truly love, will you take a chance and make an all-out effort to grab it? Even if it meant risking a cushy salary and perhaps your career in a particular area? Will you quit your well-paying job to become an entrepreneur?

I would probably vote, yes, but we will have to accept the consequences without too much regret.

Wealth creation or financial security has two components to it: Income and investing.

Investing is independent of how we earn an income. There are those who have taken some big chances with investing. I dont have the stomach for that. Perhaps because I am always doing stupid things to my “career”.

Income is a different ball game. We could earn from a job we truly love (in which case we wont worry about how much we make) or we could earn from a job we truly hate (in which case, all we care about is how much we make).

Sometimes the time window in which we could shift from a job we hate, to a job we love could be quite tight and narrow

Sometimes we will have to take a chance in life to achieve lasting change and happiness. Sometimes we will have to roll the dice and see how it pans out.

The regret of never having taken a chance could be greater than the consequences of having taken one.

Stock market prices are a terrible thing to anchor to Indraneal Balasubramanian Indraneal Balasubramanian, Engineer+Finance MBA by training

I have often seen people knowingly or unknowingly anchoring to the price of a stock, perceiving say a Rs 100 stock as cheaper than a Rs 1000 stock. Not only is this is bad because as an investor you should be worrying about the business fundamentals not the share price fluctuations, but does not consider the size of the business or the scale of it’s sales or profitability at all.

To illustrate this idea, consider the following

MRF Limited
Current Price: Rs 39557

Nestle India Limited
Current Price:  Rs 6923

Gati Limited
Current Price Rs 224

ITC Limited
Current Price: Rs 332

What does this tell you? Absolutely nothing of value on its own. This isn’t a race where a share starts at it’s face value of say 10 and continues growing from there on. Along the way, adjustments like splits, bonuses and share buybacks need to be considered.

Thus we get to the idea of number of shares outstanding. When you buy a share, you are buying a small % of the company, or to be precise 1/(no of shares outstanding of the company). You can use this multiple to figure out the market capitalization of the company as well as the total earnings.

Assume this cake represents the business

Each slice represents a share of the goods. Whether you slice it 10 ways or 20, the size of the cake is not affected by how it is sliced, only the size of the slice is changed. The quality of the cake is also completely independent of the size and manner of slicing. You can have a terrible large cake or a wonderful small cake (and vice versa) depending on the skill of the baker (management) and the ingredients used (fundamental economics of the business)

This post might seem simplistic to those who are aware of fundamental valuation, but I think this basic analogy needs to be drilled into every investor’s head.