One of the best Investing blogs I recently came across. h/t @StableBread 👏

Five of my fav articles⬇️

@dmuthuk @saxena_puru @Gautam__Baid

1⃣On Moats
Network Effect
Intangible Assets
Switching Cost
Economies of Scale
Low Cost Provider
Toll
Cultural

2⃣Crucial Investment Principles You Need to Have
Capital Appreciation
Buy Low, Hold, Sell High
Recognize/Avoid Spec Bubbles
Ignore Noise
Stock Market=Pendulum
Diversify Your investments. Don't overdo it.
DCA
Understand Share Price Value
LT Tax Advantages
https://t.co/VaOhzvgpIq
3⃣How to Read and Analyze Any 10-K Annual Report

Business Summary
Risk Factors
Selected Financial Data
Management's Discussion and Analysis
Financial Statements and Supplementary Data
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

https://t.co/yzBq6dwrpp
4⃣The Beginner's Guide to Dividend Investing

Dividend Yield
Dividend Growth Rate
Dividend Payout Ratio
Ability to Pay Back Debt
Net Debt to EBITDA Ratio
Return on Equity
Credit Ratings

https://t.co/pdrEVknDhg
5⃣How to Calculate the Intrinsic Value of a Company Like Warren Buffett

Owners Earnings
Growth Rate
Discount Rate
Calculate Intrinsic Value
Scenario Analysis
Margin of Safety

https://t.co/INreERG2Wg
Resources for Investors

https://t.co/SpYARPnKVW

More from Ram Bhupatiraju

More from All

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?