18-19% ROE wale being bought by institutions at anywhere b/w 12 and 20x price to sales. Not many liked this space in 2013. Not many hate it today. Social validation in investing is a big curse ...
Ghor ChemYug 😆
#DeepakNitrite valuation is most attractive in the space...
— jeevan patwa (@jeevanpatwa) June 30, 2021
growth will be most explosive in the space... pic.twitter.com/8VYdWwFApY
More from Sajal Kapoor
1. Listen to various competitors
2. Put your neck on the line (invest your hard earned capital - experience comes by paying tuition fee)
3. Read non-investing books as well (Psychology, history, biographies or whatever non-fiction you like)
4. Read this :
https://t.co/6z3HvtKakL
2. Put your neck on the line (invest your hard earned capital - experience comes by paying tuition fee)
3. Read non-investing books as well (Psychology, history, biographies or whatever non-fiction you like)
4. Read this :
https://t.co/6z3HvtKakL
How to augment your Sector knowledge? Follow these 5 points \U0001f447
— Conviction | Patience (@unseenvalue) May 18, 2019
1. The Five Rules For Successful Stock Investing by Pat Dorsey
2. Con Calls - as many as you can in that sector
3. Annual Reports - as many as you can in that sector
4. Interact with trade/channel partners
5. AGMs pic.twitter.com/2ZOx3nkC4i
More from Wise 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?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
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?