🚀45 mid & small cap #stocks from 10 different sectors that have shown improvement in fundamentals & can deliver strong growth going forward :
~ Pharma
~ Hospital
~ Metal
~ Alcohol
~ Textile
~ Logistics
~ Energy
~ Auto Ancl
~ Chemical
~ Paper

short 🧵....

▶️Pharma:
#IndocoRem
#LaurusLabs
#AlkemLabs
#JBChemPharma

▶️Hospitals:
#HGS
#NHrudalaya

▶️Metals/Mining :
#MaithanAlloys
#SandurMagnese
#Godavaripower
#ShyamMetalics
#TinplateIndia
#UshaMartin

▶️Alcoholic Bev:
#GlobusSpirits
#RadicoKhaitan

Cont...
▶️Textiles:
#RUPA
#KRPMills
#Nitinspinner
#SiyaramSilk
#Indocount
#VTL
#Trident
#HimatsinghkaSeide
#Ambicacotton

▶️Logistics:
#AllCargo
#AegisLogistics

▶️Energy:
#GSPL
#GujaratGas
#MGL

▶️Auto Ancillary:
#SSWL
#Banco
#GNAAxels

Cont....
▶️Chemicals (basic + specialty), long list:

#JubIngrevia
#LaxmiOrganics
#TNPetro
#TatvaChintan
#ManaliPetro
#AartiInd
#JubilantInd
#BalajiAmines
#BASF
#GHCL
#Neogenchem

▶️Paper:
#SatiaIndustries
#PudumjeePaper
#NRAgarwal

Study them for long term #investing !

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?
On Wednesday, The New York Times published a blockbuster report on the failures of Facebook’s management team during the past three years. It's.... not flattering, to say the least. Here are six follow-up questions that merit more investigation. 1/

1) During the past year, most of the anger at Facebook has been directed at Mark Zuckerberg. The question now is whether Sheryl Sandberg, the executive charged with solving Facebook’s hardest problems, has caused a few too many of her own. 2/
https://t.co/DTsc3g0hQf


2) One of the juiciest sentences in @nytimes’ piece involves a research group called Definers Public Affairs, which Facebook hired to look into the funding of the company’s opposition. What other tech company was paying Definers to smear Apple? 3/ https://t.co/DTsc3g0hQf


3) The leadership of the Democratic Party has, generally, supported Facebook over the years. But as public opinion turns against the company, prominent Democrats have started to turn, too. What will that relationship look like now? 4/

4) According to the @nytimes, Facebook worked to paint its critics as anti-Semitic, while simultaneously working to spread the idea that George Soros was supporting its critics—a classic tactic of anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists. What exactly were they trying to do there? 5/