#CDSL -1050

Now above 2.618% and objective is to move higher towards 3.618%
4.236% and 4.618%....

What will Drag lower this stock price 😂 ?
Only if you can sell your holding

Means Verticle rise ?
Than why it decline from (486-180.)

#Observation
#Perspective

Low-risk, High-return stocks are what we look for relentlessly

But many of them we know but ignore
some of them don't grab financial headlines

Here are 10 low-risk, high return stocks (that we ignore):

What I mean by “high-return”?

These stocks have OUTPERFORMED the market:

💹Chart with upwards trend Since IPO
💹Chart with upwards trend Over the last 5 Years or since IPO

These are all long-term winners that will keep on winning

What do We Mean by “low-risk”?

A combination of:

❣️Great management
❣️Broad moat
❣️Financially strong
❣️High ROCE
❣️Low Disruption/Dilution/Volatility
❣️Consistent Organic Growth
❣️Assorted Customers/Suppliers
❣️Low debt

1-#CDSL

A depository is a big business and will grow continuously, Its a sustainable business
cause "Market hai toh CDSL bhi hai or rahega"

2- #Dixon

High Management Efficiency with a high ROE of 19.30%
Healthy long-term growth as Net Sales has grown by an annual rate of more than 30%
High Institutional Holdings

You want to buy a house.

You take a loan from the bank.

The bank asks you, “what if you don’t pay back?”

You say, “take my home and sell it”.

(Thread)

That makes sense. The bank gives you a loan and in case you don’t pay, the bank will take over your house and sell it and recover its money.

That’s collateral.

Banks also lend money to big corporations. With them, banks don’t always have collateral.

So a loan where the bank has collateral is considered safer for the bank.

In the early 2000s, the banks in the USA were giving out loans to people for buying houses.

The economy had just recovered from the tech bubble in 2000 where many banks had given out loans to businesses that had shut down.

In that backdrop, the banks found giving home loans safer.

one of the things i like about Batman is that it's fundamentally about being orphaned, and being an orphan — how this guy stays tethered to the world in his own weird, abstract, extrajudicial way when he feels that his link to it has been violently severed

Batman does this by permanently recapitulating his own trauma: solving crimes for other people, protecting them. But that's actually just the beginning; he also recapitulates his own experience of orphanness by essentially raising several orphans

Dick is an orphan in the traditional sense: dead parents. Batman sees it happen. Jason, less so: missing dad, known mom who eventually dies. Tim, even less so: parents are around a while, and involved, before both dying. Carrie, even less than that: negligent parents.

Steph: evil father, who openly works against her. And then there's Damian, whose parents are both alive and yet both have identities that totally obliterate their role as his parents. He doesn't relate to them as a mother and father; he can't, and neither can they.

In all these different cases, Batman tries all these different ways of making orphanness for them not what it was for him: Either by trying to teach them the (arguably poor) coping skills early that he learned over a very long time, or by literally legally adopting them, etc.

EVOLUTION OF CROWNS

The ancient Indian kings called a head crown as a Mukut and it would mostly constitute of a golden ornamental headgear like an oval cap with gems.

Sometimes it would also include a halo circle to show the divinity of the king

1/7

As it was considered that kings were appointment by the gods themselves. Example the kings of mewar considered themselves to be the ‘Diwan of eklingji')

But in most cases very few Mukut with halo effect have been found.

2/7

Samudragupta in the gupta era coin. You can see the helmet like headwear on him.

Till gupta era the solid golden head wear was used in most days of the monarch.

But since the onset of 8th century it reduced in usage and was now used only as a ceremonial headwear.

3/7

Whereas earlier the Maharaja had to wear the mukut whenever his court was in session.

Still mukut was being used prominently for ceremonial activities till recent times.

Maharaj Dahir of Sindh👇

4/7

But as times past the style of headwear also changed.

The kings mostly wore turbans ordained with pearls and gems while rarely anyone wore a true Mukut after 16th century.

Portrait of Sri Krishna Dev Raya👇

5/7

So, on the subject of bonkers hyperbolic pretzeling over the Bell judgement, Grace 'destroy books I don't like & make inappropriate jokes about sterilising teenage girls' Lavery has some thoughts.

Tell me why my feminism is wrong Grace.

Oh

Well, if anyone thought the Bell judgment was going to make TRAs reconsider making massively overblown claims with no evidence backed up with nothing but a thick wadge of emotional blackmail.... HAHAHA, no one thought that.

A high court in the UK made a delimited judgment about teenager's ability to consent to puberty blockers. This puts all trans people everywhere in the world at risk.

Because if any human anywhere has any thoughts that deviate in any way from the rote line dictated by

the trans rights movement, this puts all trans people everywhere in mortal danger.

Let's be honest Grace. It doesn't put trans people at risk. It puts trans ideology at risk. Because trans ideology depends on the idea of innate gender identity, and the trans child is the

necessary material evidence of the ontology of gender identity.

That is, children are being medicalised to provide evidence to underwrite adults identities.

Nothing to see here.