Article

When Sachin Tendulkar became a Rajya Sabha MP, my neighbourhood got divided. Not that we were very united in any case, but this led to arguments like “He should have stuck to cricket” on the one hand, and “It is better to have Sachin in parliament than some other MPs” on the other. The subject of discussion was as such irrelevant, but strong opinions were a norm. I don’t know what it is about opinions but every one seems to have one.

No wonder Facebook is so popular – friends (maybe not even that) getting together and chatting, exchanging opinions, many times on something quite irrelevant. Perhaps, in addition to the Like and Comment links, they should have buttons for Dislike, Raise Objection or similar to increase ‘user engagement’. Strong opinions would be guaranteed.

The plethora of views is quite diverse, sometimes quite amusing too. Like in the case of Tendulkar entering the Rajya Sabha. While the two views on whether it was good or bad were being exchanged, a third view came up. “It is good for government. Now they can earn money by charging money for Rajya Sabha TV. People will want to watch Sachin on TV.”

Opinions when they are expressed in apartment association meetings, gives one a good flavor of what it must be like running a parliamentary democracy. “We must not compromise on security in the complex” says one view. “Why are we spending so much on security?” asks the counter-argument. “We must charge for the amenities” says one view. “Did we not pay for them already?” asks another.

Opinions when expressed in newspapers or TV with data generate even more extreme reactions. “Stocks have gone nowhere for the past 5 years. Fixed Income and Real Estate have given better returns. Get out of equities” says one. Citing the same data, “As stocks have gone nowhere, this is not sustainable. You can’t have Fixed Income and Real Estate continuing to go up forever. Get into equities” says another.

Opinions when expressed by government and countered by opposition get even more acerbic (when they are heard that is). “We must raise fuel prices to tackle the fiscal deficit” says one. “Raising fuel prices will lead to inflation, and we cannot tolerate that” says another.

And then opinions at the global scale are another matter. “What is needed is austerity for countries ridden with excess debt” says one. “The only way to trigger growth is by government spending. This is not the time for austerity” says another.

The problem with strong opinions is that taking decisions become difficult, specially the tough ones. And standing up to them is even tougher. There are two sides to every coin as they say.

If your position of power depends on whether the decision is accepted or works out or not, the likelihood of taking a decision reduces. The best option is to defer, to postpone, to evolve a consensus, decide not to decide, or better still, play politics on the decision.

Our associations and our governments can continue to dilly dally, either deciding not to decide or waiting for a consensus. But in markets, as Buffett said, you pay a very high price for a cheery consensus. The future is never clear. Uncertainty is the friend of the buyer of long-term values. Therefore, beyond the opinions, it is better if one decides to decide.

Property projects in Bangalore, and perhaps other major Indian cities, started getting some exotic names a few years back. Ranka Colony or Keshav Niwas or Dipti Kunj were no longer enough. Names with a builder’s name followed by Elite or Luxuria or foreign locales like Espana or Hyde Park or Belmont started taking root. It was a different matter whether that led to better quality, but I am sure they started selling better.

The same has happened to financial products over the past few years.Right from financial media to actual financial services, the focus is on making it sound interesting, exciting and attractive, irrespective of the actual product.

The fact that news is actually entertainment is evident from some of the names that programs on business channels have.

The names of the English ones are a bit more sophisticated. “The 2.30 Factor”, “What’s Hot” and “Rush Hour” or something like that. During prime time viewing, they tend to get a bit spicy too. Like “Top 10 @ 10” or “Business 20:20”. And if you want to mix business with pleasure, and are in the mood for taking advice, they tend to get a bit more chill-type, like “Global Mantra” or “Crystal Ball” or “Market Guru”.

But all that pretence is dropped when it comes to Hindi Business Channels. So consider names like “Antim Baazi” or “Aakhri Souda”. Even better names are “Vaayda se Faayda” and “Dopahar Dhamaka” or the even more creative, solid-sounding “Pehredaar”. One may think of these as names of Hindi movies or serials, but they are names of programs on business channels.

These are still, perhaps, supposed to be for serious viewers of Hindi business channels, as they are for programs aired during market hours. If one wants even more spice, it is clear that prime time evening is the slot for true entertainment. So a few days back, I saw “D Street ka Don” in which a person with a hat and dark glasses talked like a hitman taking calls on stock related questions. There used to be a program called “Saas Bahu aur Sensex” apparently for women investors.

The fact that financial products have become consumer products is evident from the names given to them. It is clear that they are being sold not bought.

This trend is most common in insurance products, started many years back by none other than our government behemoth LIC. Most LIC products had some nice sounding, mostly Hindi name – likely with a ‘Jeevan’ in it. So you had money back policies named “Jeevan Surabhi” and “Jeevan Samriddhi”, or pure term policies named “Anmol Jeevan”. Couple policies or child policies were aptly named “Jeevan Saathi” and “Jeevan Kishore”.

Now this has got extended into a confusing mix of Hindi and English policy names. So one has continuity in the form of “Mahalife” or “Raksha Shree”. And the more creative names in the form of “Sudarshan” or “Swarna Vishranti” – perhaps for retirement. Like English channels, it gets a bit more sophisticated when the names are in English. So we have “Young Achiever” or “Life Guard” or “Cash Gain”. It is quite clear that the goal is to have a wonderful sounding name that attracts the buyer to take a look in a crowded market, and then if he is interested, one can talk about features and financial aspects if required.

Mutual Funds also used to have such funny sounding names a few years back. Like there was a TIGER fund, a SMILE fund, a FORCE fund, a SPiCE fund, and some exotic names like India GenNext. But they seem to have more or less reverted to simple names like Equity or Blue chip or at best Top 100 fund – which are hardly exciting. Some of them, specially the Tax saver and Index funds, have outright boring names. Perhaps it has got to do with some regulation and the fact that no one is interested in selling mutual funds any more due to cut in commissions.

So far I haven’t quite seen a naming frenzy in fixed deposits yet. But that may not be too far. I guess so far fixed deposits are bought, not sold.

May be there is a lesson there. What needs to be bought is not being sold. What is being named well and sold should, perhaps, not be bought. Definitely not due to the name. After all, what’s in a name? There is a difference in buying something and being sold something. But then, I guess, how else do you make finance interesting?

Have not written about specific stocks here so far, so venturing into them for the first time. So I will start with a list of good businesses at a decent price.

Most of these businesses are good business models, many of them with repeat revenue potential, most have a strong brand in the eyes of customers or employees and decent management.

Nevertheless, I put them through a filter of questions for which the answers were positive while making this list. Here is the list of questions:

1. What do the key metrics say? RoE, NPM, D/E ratio, Market Cap? Are earnings, ROE in a consistent uptrend? Does it retain earnings and does reinvestment lead to similar returns?

2. Business brand – how strong is it for its customers to get attracted and to stay? If someone had lots of money, can he destroy it?

3. Is the business simple to understand, with a clear core competence? Does it have a clear monopoly or preferred choice kind of position? Can it raise prices without affecting demand?

4. How is the management quality in general?

5. Will the business last for 10 yrs?

6. Will good employees aspire or join the company if they get an offer?

7. Is the price offered by Mr Market reasonable or is there a need to wait for a good price?

So here goes the shopping list – the first one (in order of approximate market cap)

1. TCS

2. Infosys

3. ITC

4. HDFC Bank

5. Larsen and Toubro

6. HDFC

7. Tata Steel

8. Bajaj Auto

9. Maruti Suzuki

10. Asian Paints

11. Crompton Greaves

12. Castrol India

13. Colgate Palmolive

Businesses that could not make it to the first list, but are worthwhile candidates to a second list. The answers to all questions are not positive, but still close:

1. Bosch

2. Shriram Transport Finance

3. Cummins India

4. Exide Industries

5. Pidilite Industries

6. Crisil

I do not want to end with a ‘disclaimer’ like most advisory statements, but suffice it to say that most of these from the two lists are good businesses that are being offered by Mr Market at a decent price. Will the businesses stay good forever? I do not know, but the likelihood of they staying that way for a few years is high. Will the prices get better? I do not know, but if they get better, the opportunity to improve long term returns gets better. Happy Shopping!

A few months back I attended a corporate training program on Customer Engagement Skills, and one of the things they taught us was how to deal with an angry or upset customer.

The theory says that there are typically three reactions one has for an irate customer. The first one is to run away – avoid him during the anger, get out of sight – somehow try to evade the situation and hope peace returns. The second one is to give it back – get back with a vengeance, tell the customer how he is at fault and you are not responsible for all his problems, hoping that he sees his part of the problem and shuts up. The theory says – both these ways don’t work. On the other hand, they mostly aggravate the anger. The theory says – the third way is to hear him out, just listen patiently, let him vent the anger, and then slowly try to understand the source of the anger – whether it is you or something else, and rationalize if possible. And importantly, if there is something to fix, fix it. This is the tough choice to take, but it works generally.

But that’s the theory. In practice, most people cannot but restrain themselves from instinctively going for the first or second one. So in theory, every organization says, customer is king, and when an angry customer turns up in practice, most of them either run away or give it back rather than listening him out.

So what’s the point? Well like most organizations, the government keeps talking all the time about the Mango Man – the आम आदमी, but does little when he is angry. Of late, there have been multiple instances to indicate that the Mango Man is Angry and pretty badly so. And most of the anger has been vented at the political class. And like most organizations do, the government either runs away or gets back.

Here are a few instances when the Mango Man has vented his anger, and the government has been either running away or giving it back:

The Mango Man is angry that they ask him to be resilient in the face of terrorist attacks. So the PM and the Home Minister got chappals thrown at them. Not a good thing. But in response, they took a high moral ground and forgave the thrower. Run Away.

The Mango Man is angry because the inflation keeps going up. The Agriculture Minister got a slap. The entire political class says this is anti-democracy. Give Back. The Oil Minister got the flak when petrol prices were raised and the Finance Minister got it when interest rates were raised. So they reverse the price rise a bit sometimes. Run Away. And talk something about fiscal deficit which the Mango Man does not understand. Give Back.

The Mango Man is angry because of the corruption in the system. And demands a strong anti-corruption law. The government got the Anna Hazare episode. Again the political class says either they are working on it as per parliamentary procedures, or says this protest is against the constitution. Give Back as well as Run Away based on what works at that time.

So, the Mango Man is Angry. At multiple things. Inflation. Corruption. Economy. Terrorism. Perhaps at his situation. Perhaps at not being heard. And is venting it at the politicos – rightly or wrongly. An angry customer can shift to a competitor. I don’t quite know what will happen with the Angry Mango Man. All I know is that it is not a good thing. But then I am not a politician.