humour

Standard Operating Procedure: An 18-Step Success Guide for Politicians

by
Standard Operating Procedures used in service industries like technology and healthcare bring in standardization, process orientation and overall efficiency, and are increasingly bringing the same benefits to politics.
  1. Politician comes to position of power and sets in place a proper system to implement corrupt practices. Initially he makes sure everyone in the chain is satisfied and gets his due, so the system runs smoothly.
  2. After a while, he gets a bit insecure and realizes that he has limited time to ensure his life time needs are met. So he gets a bit greedy, and in the process misses to give someone their due.
  3. If the politician is highly experienced, go back to Step 1 and keep continuing the iterations. He is then on his way to political superstardom. Else Go to Step 4.
  4. Somehow word gets out, and a press article appears on how the politician is corrupt and has used his position of power for personal gains.
  5. Politician reacts and says that he is being victimized by the opposition. Politician and his party continue to say that character assassination is politically motivated
  6. Opposition says that they need an independent inquiry into the issue.
  7. In case he is truly a big fish or on the way to become one, go back to Step 5. The arguments continue and eventually die out. Most ambitious politicians should aspire to stay in this loop for most of their lives. In majority of the cases, there is an agreement between the party in power and the opposition and the issue is settled. Only if things get serious or out of hand, Go to Step 8.
  8. Forced by something which could be anything from not getting a share of the corruption money to taking advantage of the public mood, an inquiry has to be set up in excruciating circumstances – headed, in most cases, by a former, retired judge.
  9. The opposition rejects the formation of the inquiry commission saying that the character of the person who heads it as well as the members is not spotless, and hence this is an eyewash.
  10. Then after some time which could be a few months to many years, the inquiry gets done and a report is submitted, which finds some elements of wrong doing but no conclusive evidence. At this point, things generally close on the topic, or there is a demand for another investigation, in which case go back to Step 8 and repeat. Only if there is some serious suspicion, go to Step 11.
  11. The original politician’s party, senses that it is time to distance themselves from the politician – and so says that the legal process will take its due course and they believe that our judicial system will mete out punishment to the offenders in case of any wrong doing.
  12. As part of this process, someone from the opposition co-incidentally gets caught in an act of corruption. The opposition claims this is political vendetta. Go to step 11 and repeat for a few months and then go to step 13.
  13. Finally the court hearing the inquiry commission asks them why they did such a shoddy job, and why a case was not registered, and then, due to this kind of embarrassment at the hands of the judiciary, some proof is quickly gathered, and perhaps a case is registered.
  14. Hearings go on from lower court to upper court, Go back to step 13 for a few months, and then something happens and it looks like the politician may be cornered. Now go to step 15.
  15. A bail application is then made by the politician’s lawyers, and it is mostly rejected.
  16. The politician then falls ill and seeks bail on medical grounds – which is granted. Go back to step 13 through 16 and the process repeats. Finally in the rarest of the rare cases, in case he truly has no political utility for anyone, he has to resign.
  17. If it is really bad with seriously bad media coverage, he may lose the election next time. If it is not that bad, and some damage control has been done, he may win or someone else from his party will win in his place.
  18. A new politician comes to a position of power. Go to step 1 and repeat.

A Gambler’s Instinct: The knack for taking calculated risks and knowing when to take them

by

“One thing that is different in our players of today and our players of yesterday is that earlier our players used to play mostly not to lose, and today they very often play to win”, said my broker friend Jigneshbhai over our Sunday evening coffee. Continuing, he remarked, “The difference may seem minor but is vast. In the first approach, the best result you will get in the game is a prevention of loss and then you hope for a win. While in the second approach, the worst approach you may get is a loss, but if you calculate your risks, you may also get a big win.”

“Like what happened last week, when Dhoni and Raina suddenly decided in the 35th over that they were not happy with 225 as that may, at best, prevent a loss, but wanted 300 to play for a win.”

“But there was risk in it. What if they had lost their wicket?” interjected Swami.

He was right. There was a risk of that happening, and in that case even the result of prevention of loss would have been difficult to guarantee. “Yes, that’s right. Playing for a win always has more risk than playing not to lose. And it is not always sensible at all times to play only for a win. There will be stages when it is best to play not to lose. But the reason I think Dhoni is a great captain is because he has a wonderful gambler’s instinct that helps him decide when to play not to lose and when to play for a win. And acts accordingly.”

Just as we were leaving, he added, “You know, Swami. In the long-term game of investments in the capital markets, playing not to lose can, sometimes, also mean you are playing to win. It seems to me that the current period is one of those times when you can both play not to lose as well as play to win.”

And then in the background I heard this song by the famous country music singer Kenny Rogers that he started humming as we left.

“Now every gambler knows the secret to survivin’
Is knowin’ what to throw away
And knowin’ what to keep
‘Cause every hand’s a winner
And every hand’s a loser
And the best that you can hope for
Is to die in your sleep”

“So when he finished speakin’
He turned back for the window
Crushed out his cigarette
And faded off to sleep then somewhere in the darkness
The gambler he broke even,
but in his final words
I found an ace that I could keep”

“You’ve got to know when to hold ’em
Know when to fold ’em
Know when to walk away
know when to run
You never count your money
When you’re sittin’ at the table
There’ll be time enough for countin’
When the dealin’s done”

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn481KcjvMo]

A Cryptic Cocktail: Mixing Cricket Commentary with Stock Markets and Investing

by

The wealthy man living in the sprawling bungalow near my house with his BMW and Mercedes speaks very sparingly. And whenever he speaks, it is quite cryptic. So one has to really concentrate when he is speaking, and think hard after he is done. So the other day when my South Indian friend Swami and I were just walking across from my house to get a coffee, we saw the wealthy man taking a walk with his dog. He knows Swami, who by now has had a number of ‘question-mark’ conversations with him in the past. So he wished me good evening, and this time before Swami could ask him anything, he just told him with a wry smile, “The situation is tense but under control.”

I first heard this term being used by the Mumbai police during the Mumbai riots in the early 1990’s. It was so conveniently cryptic and became so popular that the Home Ministry started using it. Now I think it has become the de-facto phrase used by government officials, specially Home Ministry ones, to describe, in an imprecise way, what is happening whenever there are riots, earthquakes, floods, strikes, accidents or anything remotely like those.

So I was a bit surprised when the wealthy man used it, not quite clear what he was referring to. So I took the liberty of asking him if he had some time for a quick coffee. The wealthy man does not easily say yes, but this time, he surprisingly did – so in a few minutes, we found ourselves chatting with him over a coffee.

After an awkward silence for a few minutes, my South Indian friend Swami had to ask something. He tends to lose his patience with Jigneshbhai, but with the wealthy man living in the sprawling bungalow, you cannot do that. So in polite language, he asked him for advice on the current state of the markets.

The wealthy man replied, “This match is very much in the balance now”. And added in his baritone voice, “It is not going to be easy for the batsman to get bat on to ball on this pitch.” Further, neglecting our confused looks, he continued, “It will provide assistance to the bowlers, but if the batsmen apply themselves, one can play a long innings.” I knew he spoke sparingly, and was cryptic most of the time, but this seemed out of context. So we thought he probably misunderstood the question – perhaps he heard matches instead of markets.

So Swami tried to explain – “Yes sir, but I was referring to the markets, not to the Champions league matches. I have already lost so much, would be great if you could throw some light on what to do next.”

This time, we thought we will hear some gems of wisdom. But the wealthy man continued. “Well, given the conditions, it should be good toss to lose”. This was getting a bit out of hand. Even I was starting to wonder what was happening here. But Swami was now getting a bit aggressive. He clarified, “Sir, I am losing money everyday in these volatile markets. You have been playing the markets for so many years. Should I sell and get out now?” Again with eager eyes, we were looking for some pearls of wisdom this time. And the wealthy man said, “We had a cracker of a game today, but at the end of it all, one will have to say that the team that kept its nerve better prevailed”.

This was getting too much to handle now, even for me. We were starting to fear if the wealthy man had lost it – maybe growing age and the stress of his wealth getting eroded at this stage in life was getting to him. Or perhaps he was watching too much of TV, and business and sports channels were getting mixed up in his head. Swami gave me a strong stare, almost warning me that he is going to stop having coffee with me. As if handling my broker friend Jigneshbhai was not enough, now he had this wealthy man from the sprawling bungalow to make sense out of.

So we started wrapping up with our coffee, and hoped that this was it. It did not seem to make sense to press the point now. Not wanting to take the discussion further, I asked for the bill, and while waiting for it, asked the wealthy man which team he was supporting in the Champions League. I casually added, “The Royal Challengers seem to be up to it this time, but you never know with them. The Mumbai Indians could spring up a surprise.”

I thought this conversation was now making sense. We were both talking about the same topic. At least we will leave on a sober note. No more mixing cryptic cocktails of cricket and markets, I thought. So as we left, we were stumped when the wealthy man threw another cryptic one. “Indeed, in these conditions, I am in support of investing in wonderful companies with good long term potential. For the true fan, this pitch is just what the doctor ordered.”

The “In-between” Generation of Indians: Caught in Two Worlds or the Best of Both?

by

One of the things that I learnt from the recent anti-corruption movement is that I think there is a generation of Indians who are the ‘in-between’ generation. People from the older generation were generally initially quite cynical, the ones from the newer generation were generally quite positive from the start, and a large part of the in-between generation were quite literally ‘in-between’. I may be wrong here, but this is just a point of view.

Generally, people talk of the Indian economy in two parts – the pre-1991 license and government raj and the post 1991 liberalization era. By way of distinct ways of thinking, I think there are three Indian generations. The pre 1991 generation that was born, and more or less done with a major part of their working life by the 1980’s and 1990’s.  Then there is a post 1991 generation, those who were born in the 80’s and 90’s, and who generally cannot quite imagine how life was before the 1990’s. And then there is the ‘in-between’ generation – people born in the late 60’s and 70’s, who grew up in the ‘government era’ and even, perhaps, started working in that era, but who were positioned to be the early beneficiaries of the economic changes happening right under their nose.

Not quite from the old era, not quite fully from the new era. Not quite held back, not quite breaking free, but caught ‘in-between’.

rockandahardplaceLike many of them never went outside India till they finished their education, and still a lot of them have seen the world. So a lot of them are caught between whether they like to stay in India and abroad.

Like many of them have seen job security in the early part of their careers, and then with increasing opportunities, have taken advantage of them, but have also seen the pressure that comes with it, and the demise of guaranteed employment. So a lot of them are stuck between whether it is a ‘me first’ or the ’employer first’.

Like the women in this generation are neither ambitious enough to clearly go for their career over family; nor are they willing to compromise on either one. So they are caught between ‘family first’ or ‘career first’.

Like the men in this generation want to have a life with their wife and kids, but they also think taking care of their parents is their responsibility. So the men are caught between their own family or their parents.

They want the good things that life offers, but have also seen what life used to be and could have been. So they are caught between chasing what is possible and being happy with what they have.

Look at it one way, this generation has been caught between a rock and a hard place. Look at it another way, this generation has got the best of both worlds.

May be there is some sense in this, may be this is fully my imagination. Perhaps the reality is somewhere ‘in between’.

बैठ जाइये: Takeaways from Parliament’s Lokpal Debate

by

‘All of humanity’s problems stem from man’s inability to sit quietly in a room alone’ – said Blaise Pascal.

On those lines, there might be some truth in extending it a bit – ‘All of a nation’s problems perhaps stem from their parliamentarians’ inability to sit quietly and agree in a room together.’ If only more of our parliamentarians could agree on solutions to more of our nation’s problems more frequently, a lot of our problems would perhaps be non-existent, or definitely solved faster.

At the very least, the problem that our speaker faces daily of having to repeatedly keep saying “बैठ जाइये” so often would definitely go away. Pity the speaker of the house trying to control the proceedings of the house – specially on days like Friday of last week, which is, perhaps, more like a normal working day for Parliament. It was evident that whenever someone would stand up to ‘make a respectful submission’ or a ‘humble point’, all it would result in would be noise from some section of the house, followed by a different version of “बैठ जाइये” from the speaker. Honestly, how many different ways can you say “बैठ जाइये” after all? It seems that there is an inverse relation between the number of “बैठ जाइये” pleas made by the speaker and the quality of output from the house. One could see that on Friday, after all the constant “बैठ जाइये” pleas, finally the house was adjourned, and on Saturday, with only a few intermittent “बैठ जाइये” pleas, the house achieved some meaningful debate and reasonable output. How I wish we had more such occasions where parliamentarians could sit in peace and agree more!

For the past two weeks, common citizens – led by an uncommon man – have found it much easier to follow “बैठ जाइये” instructions. They have all been ‘sitting in peace’, in protest silently, non-violently – all agreeing on the common need to root out corruption at all levels in the country. Somehow, they have also presented a solution to the problem in the form of a bill, that some agreed on, some did not, but everyone felt was on the right lines at least. And if a whole country, well almost, but a significant part of it could do so, it was high time that a set of 540-odd elected representatives could find a way of sitting quietly and agreeing in a room.

Well – it looks like they did achieve a way of doing that on Saturday. But the people outside are still not convinced that this is real. “यह तो कमाल कर दिया” – said my broker friend Jigneshbhai, also a supporter of the India against Corruption movement, just returning yesterday from one of the rallies. May be it was a one-time miracle, may be it was not. Perhaps the ones outside the house will agree, sit and protest again, maybe when they realise that the ones inside are not able to sit and agree again.

And then, unfortunately, the problems for the speaker are sure to start again. She will have to find new ways of saying “बैठ जाइये”. I have a suggestion. May be she should change it, and say “बैठ जाइये नहीं तो अन्ना हजारे को बोलूंगी”! Who knows – maybe that will work and we will have miracles like Saturday again!

The Government on Lokpal: Giving Precedence to Form over Substance

by

A few observations I made over the past few days, since Anna Hazare went on a fast for a strong anti-corruption law.

That the government’s recent responses to Team Anna and the public demand for a strong anti-corruption law seems to be like that of someone asking a dying man to fill a form at the hospital.

That someone needs to ask the government, similar to the way Munnabhai asked Dr Asthana in the movie “Woh casualty ke bahar aadmi mar raha hota hai, to usko form bharna zaroori hai kya?”

That the government still does not get it that it must give precedence to substance over form, intent over procedure, at least for something as important as setting up a strong Lokpal.

That saying that ‘the Delhi Police is following procedures to maintain order’ and ‘Parliament should be allowed to make laws’ look like giving more priority to procedure over intent.

And responses like ‘present your views to the standing committee for consideration’, or ‘a private member bill cannot be introduced when there is already a government bill introduced’, or ‘the legislative procedure will not allow the bill to be passed in this session of parliament’ – all of these are akin to asking people who are already desperate for change and action – ‘to fill forms’.

Like the government is looking more and more like Dr Asthana from the movie, bashing its head over how to handle the non-violent rebellion from a group of  ‘common citizens’ who have garnered the support of thousands more.

That the government still does not understand that decent, law-abiding, normal citizens of society generally do not join protests spontaneously on roads. That despite fully knowing that it is not the ‘proper’ thing to do, there must a strong reason for their doing so, which the government needs to fix.

That it is a clear problem of giving precedence to form rather than substance, and procedure rather than intent.

And that the more the government focuses on procedure, the more its intent will be doubted.

That this is not the time to think about vote banks, urban versus rural, communal versus secular for the government. The people who are fasting, joining the protests and supporting the movement do not seem to be thinking about it.

That while some people may think Anna’s procedure is not right, most people are not questioning his intent.

That while some people may think the government’s procedure is right, most people are questioning their intent. Which is not good news.

5 Star Rated Advice: Deciphering the S&P US Downgrade

by

“Who is this S&P?” asked my South Indian friend Swami to my broker over a cup of coffee.

Swami, who generally spends time with his family over weekends, suddenly called me on Sunday afternoon, and said he wanted to meet my broker friend Jignesh who knew a thing or two about investing. I was not quite sure what it was about, but being a close friend, I arranged for the meeting. Swami seemed quite perturbed when he came home. “Arre – they are saying Indian market will fall because some S&P downgraded US. I want to understand why”, he explained as the reason for this sudden meeting, while we were leaving my house. So at around 6 pm, we met over coffee.

“Arre, it is a rating company”, responded Jigneshbhai. “Means?” queried Swami, not quite sure what a rating company does. “They provide ratings for different things, like companies, governments, anybody or anything that has a financial instrument or offer.” “Why?” – continued Swami, still not sure why something like that is needed by anybody.

Now Jigneshbhai thought it was time to really explain things properly. “Dekho – how you read reviews of movies in Times of India sometimes, and then decide whether or not to watch the movie. If it gets 5 star, it is a hit, so you go and watch it, if it is 1 star, it is a flop, and you don’t watch it. Like that, S&P provides star ratings to anyone who wants money – like companies, countries or anyone else. If it is AAA rating, people who have money, give them money easily, if it is lower, then they will think more, or charge more interest. Like that – understood?”

Finally, some spark dawned on my south Indian friend, who was otherwise quite a bright chap. But not fully lit up, he continued, “So that S&P is saying US has lesser money than earlier? So their economy is in trouble” “Something like that” responded Jigneshbhai, not quite wanting to get into detailed arguments about fiscal deficits, interest rates and recession, I assumed. He thought this was the end of the discussion, hoping he does not have to explain more, and quickly started asking me how are things at home and work in general.

But his hope was short-lived. After a few sips of coffee, Swami came back. “Arre Jigneshbhai – but sometimes I have seen that the same movie gets different ratings in different papers. Also, Times of India ratings are wrong also sometimes. They give 5 star and I watch the movie, it is rubbish. And they give 3 star, and movie becomes a big hit.” I could sense a mix of curiosity and optimism in Swami’s eyes as he asked this.

Now that the question was asked, my broker friend decided to go the whole distance and provide solace to Swami’s unsettled mind once and for all. “Yeah, sometimes, they can give 5 star to stuff that is rubbish, and low rating for good stuff too. Sometimes it matters, sometimes it doesn’t. Sometimes it also depends on who the producer or star actor is – isn’t it? If the season is bad, sometimes all movies flop for the time being.” I could see that this confused my south Indian friend a tad bit more, as he lost keeping track of the metaphors.

Continuing, my broker friend said, “But why do you worry about it? If a good movie gets a 2 or 3 star rating, its opening may suffer, but if it is good, people will decide for themselves, and go and watch it later anyway, no? So – if companies continue to increase profits, they will become hits, people will buy their shares and markets will go up, else they will become flop shows. So, you just focus on selecting good movies to watch and good companies to put money on” laughed Jigneshbhai, giving my south Indian friend 5 star advice.

Finally as we finished our coffee and left, he added, “The world is worried because the US went from AAA to AA+. Rather than worry about the US getting downgraded, I wish someone in our country worried about how we will upgrade from our BBB rating.”

The Good, The Bad and The Ugly: Observations in a World of Divergent and Opportunistic Opinions

by

good-bad-ugly“Are you a vegetarian or non-vegetarian?” asked the waiter at the hotel to my South Indian colleague Swami. This question always confuses him. “I am a vegetarian mostly, but I can eat chicken, except on Tuesday and Friday. So it depends on what everyone else is ordering”, he replied. Such responses always confuse waiters in hotels, who have a simple way of classifying people. According to them, there are two types of people in the world – vegetarian and non-vegetarian. Alas if only it was so simple – my South Indian colleague Swami being a case in point.

“There are two kinds of people in the world, those with loaded guns, and those who dig. You dig.” Clint Eastwood made this dialogue immortal in the movie “The Good, The Bad and The Ugly”.

It seems to me that there are two types of people in the country, or maybe the cricketing world, at least for now. Those who think that MS Dhoni was right in calling Ian Bell back (in the Trent Bridge test), and those who feel he was stupid to show such generosity on the English team.

Among those who think he was right, again there are two groups – those who think he was a true statesman of the game, doing it to uphold the spirit of the game; and those who think he was just a pragmatist, and hence did it to ensure that the Indian cricket team’s brand value (and hence the money they earn) does not go down.

And then there are those type of people (mostly media commentators!) who change their views according to the situation. Those who initially started justifying the morals of how Dhoni was right in appealing for the run out, and how the spirit of the game itself has changed in today’s world of cut-throat professional cricket; and later changed to applauding Dhoni for his generous act on realising that Ian Bell was walking out to bat again.

There are some other ‘two types of people’ in the world today too.

Those that think Breivik, the person who fired at and killed 70 odd people in Norway, was an example of emerging, right-wing, ethnic extremism in Europe, and those who think it was not that – that it was just the delirium of a madman.

Among those who feel he was an extremist, again there are two groups – those who are shocked by the scale and brutality of the murders irrespective of who did it, and those who are shocked because the killer was not an Islamic terrorist, but a Christian Westerner who hated the tolerance of multiculturalism.

And then, there are those type of people (mostly Western politicians!) who change their views according to the situation. Those who started condemning the killing as another example of ‘acts of terror’, and then called it a madman’s act after realising that the killer was not an Islamic terrorist.

There are two types of people in the markets too.

Those who think long-term fundamentals-driven investing is the right way of making money in the markets, and those who think there is nothing like long-term, as all of us are dead in the long-term – so short-term technicals-driven trading is the way to go. Those who invest for wealth creation, and those who trade for income generation.

And then there are those type of people (mostly Brokers and people on business channels!) who change their views according to the situation. Those who say investing is the way initially, and then, when the markets go up tell us to become traders. Or those who tell us to make money as traders initially, and then, when the markets go down, ask us to become long-term investors.

So it seems the world is made up of two types of people with two sets of clear but divergent views. And then, there is a third type who change their views depending on what suits them; but who somehow seem to matter and drive their worlds.

And finally, there is a fourth category. That is the type of people who have no view as such, perhaps the majority, depending on the arguments between the first three types to form an opinion. If you are neutral and have no view, your individual view probably does not matter much, and is there for the taking to be influenced. You are probably the common man with no voice, and in the markets, you are probably the retail guy with no choice. Like my South Indian colleague Swami, you are dead meat even before placing the order!

Ranjit’s Newsletter