@Sanjay__Bakshi The most rational course of action is to buy below your expected value, hold when it's between your expected value and overvalued zone and sell above overvalued zone (No in-betweens or holding extra cash).
But there are many impediments in executing each step.
More from Dinesh Sairam
This thread is for investors or those who are interested in CDSL as an investment. Often the central reason quoted for an investment here is the gush of FCF the business produces and some float money also to boot. But this argument ignores a central problem as well. (1/11)
I completely agree that CDSL is a business that produces ample amount of Free Cash. So, it begs the question: "What are they doing with all that cash?" Generally, firms can utilize the cash on their books in 4 ways: Dividends, Acquisitions, Capex/Investments and Buybacks. (2/11)
CDSL does have a Dividend Payout Ratio of ~35-40%. But Dividends are the least efficient way of utilizing cash, due to the Triple Taxation on Dividends. More
Handled well, Inorganic Growth is so lucrative that some companies build their business models around acquisitions (Say, MSSL or Cyient). However, CDSL literally CAN'T be one such company. Read 7 (c) of the below regulatory document to know more:
https://t.co/071lwnnwJ4
(4/11)
CDSL can also reinvest cash into their own business, like most companies do. But CDSL (And most Exchanges) have little need for Capex/Reinvestment. CDSL's IPO came in at Rs. 523.99 Crores. Two years in, the Cash and Investments on their books stands at Rs. 650 Crores. (5/11)
I completely agree that CDSL is a business that produces ample amount of Free Cash. So, it begs the question: "What are they doing with all that cash?" Generally, firms can utilize the cash on their books in 4 ways: Dividends, Acquisitions, Capex/Investments and Buybacks. (2/11)
CDSL does have a Dividend Payout Ratio of ~35-40%. But Dividends are the least efficient way of utilizing cash, due to the Triple Taxation on Dividends. More
Handled well, Inorganic Growth is so lucrative that some companies build their business models around acquisitions (Say, MSSL or Cyient). However, CDSL literally CAN'T be one such company. Read 7 (c) of the below regulatory document to know more:
https://t.co/071lwnnwJ4
(4/11)
CDSL can also reinvest cash into their own business, like most companies do. But CDSL (And most Exchanges) have little need for Capex/Reinvestment. CDSL's IPO came in at Rs. 523.99 Crores. Two years in, the Cash and Investments on their books stands at Rs. 650 Crores. (5/11)
More from Wise investing
There were some smart folks there before Mr. Buffett. Weston Hicks & his preds at $Y. Larson at Cascade. If you followed what Hunter Harrison was doing at the CN you’d have been there. It had been such a lousy industry I ignored it. Figure out why smart people are in bad assets.
In hindsight, it obviously was a steal...but I think I would have come to the same (wrong) conclusion you did at the time of the announcement.
— Deliberate Capital (Corbin) (@corbinw22) August 9, 2021
Given this info in hindsight, what would you do differently if you came across a similar situation today?
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?