“I got more than Rs.2 crore by selling nearly three acres of agricultural land at Sihi village, now Sector 83-84. I purchased six acres in a village in Mahendergarh district, built up a ‘kothi’ (bungalow) and bought a SUV,” Kanwar Yadav, 48, told IANS.
“I never thought that money would finish one day. I had to sell my SUV after one and a half years. Now I am working as a private security guard in a building on my own land,” he added.
His story is similar to that of many farmers who once owned land on the stretch between Gurgaon and Manesar.
Rajender Singh, Kanwar Yadav, Dharmender, Ramesh, Omprakash, Leela Ram, and Narender Singh, Mahesh Yadav, to name just a few, are from villages like Sikanderpur, Badha, Nawada, Rampura, Nakhrolla, Manesar, Narsinghpur, Mohamadpur and Naurangpur About 90 percent of the farmers from these villages sold their agricultural land to private builders either out of fear or willingness or greed.
Mahesh Yadav, 34, quit his job as a Haryana Police constable a few years ago when he received more than Rs.1.5 crore by selling land.
“He used to celebrate and give parties on the birthdays of his family members. Once he organized a party to celebrate the birthday of his pet. He drove a Mahindra Scorpio for two years. Now, he works as the driver of a private vehicle,” said an elderly resident of Sikanderpur village.
Mahender Singh, 50, received close to Rs.4 crore by selling nearly five acres of land in July 2008. After buying 10 acres of cultivable land in a village near Dharuhera in the adjoining Rewari district, he bought a Mitsubishi Pajero. After 18 months he replaced it with a Tata Safari that he sold in early 2012 and now drives a Maruti Swift.
“My seven-member family survives on the little rent that comes from my plot in Gurgaon city. I had never thought it would come to this,” Mahender Singh rued.
Ramesh, 38, has a similar story. After getting nearly Rs.80 lakh in 2006, he purchased some agriculture land in Rewari district, opened a hardware store and bought a Hyundai Santro car. By 2011, he closed the store, sold the Santro, and now he drives a
three-wheeler of his own.
Omprakash, 40, of Rampura village now works as the assistant of a sub-contractor, building flats on the land in sector 82 that includes five acres that were once his.
“I had an emotional attachment with my land, but I sold it because there was a strong rumour that the government would acquire it,” Omprakash said.
“Many of the semi-illiterate farmers and their families, in the absence of proper guidance and experience, got into the habit of overspending without generating proper sources of regular income,” Anurag Bakshi, a former Indian Revenue service (IRS) officer, told IANS.
“They insisted on buying costly cars and building a bigger house than their neighbours’. There would be competitions in hosting lunches to which hundreds of villages were invited. They spent blindly on their marriage ceremonies,” Bakshi added.
And one day, the money just ran out, leaving them high and dry.-from the IndianExpress
I built my book of business at Morgan Stanley mostly from cold calling. I worked on Third Avenue in NYC from 1990 to 2001.
As a retail broker at Morgan Stanley, I told my co-workers that I was confident that if the firm gave me the same tools the guys had on the trading desks, on less than $1 Million, I could generate a $10
Billion loss in less than 5 business days and take down the firm. That’s what the firm did in 2008, when they failed to properly supervise and manage their mortgage security trader Howie Hubler, and those who enabled him. They took nearly six months to lose Billions; I could have generated losses like that in only a week or two, with the same tools. If the firm’s goal was to LOSE MONEY, they could have done so faster.
After taking all those losses from trading and merchant banking, Morgan Stanley and Merrill and UBS practically require retail brokers to have an average account size in excess of $100,000. They do not pay retail brokers for transactions done for small accounts. Customers will be charged full service commissions to buy stocks and bonds, but the brokers share of a $100 commission to buy $20,000 of stock, in an account of less than $100,0000 in size, will be ZERO.
If the broker has over $100 million under management altogether, if the broker has that new customer buy $20,000 of a front load mutual fund, of the $1000 load charge, the broker will be paid between $250-$500. If the broker has less than $10 million under management or so, of the $1000 load charge, the broker will get ZERO.
People who can really benefit from having a full service broker cannot obtain that service, unless they have at least $100,000 to invest, a quarter-million in NYC. I had a lot of small accounts and educated my clients, but taking the time to teach people about the financial markets, was using my time poorly according to management. I was told to get bigger accounts from wealthier people, and if I wanted to help the world, write a check to charity from my additional earnings.
Most of the top producing brokers at full service firms in Manhattan have more than $1 billion under management, with a minimum account size for new accounts in excess of $250,000. Each and every one of their clients has so much money that any competing broker will be happy to do business with that client, even if that client is a flaming A.
Being a full service broker to a book of flaming A’s is not as emotionally rewarding as being a full service broker to people who have just $5 to $50,000 who you help grow to $10 to $250,000+ and who you help do important life planning, like buying a life insurance policy when they become parents, and having wills in place. A full service broker like that would be at Edward Jones or Ameriprise nowadays, but will be under heavy pressure from management to direct people to invest in mutual funds, not directly in stocks and bonds.
For readers who picture you can get better returns for a cheaper price on your own, most $1+ million accounts with full service brokers directly owning stocks and bonds outperform most mutual funds and most hedge funds and most individual investors at discounters. That only tells you what you already know: life’s unfair.
Thanks to Suhail Kazi for directing me towards this statement
Today, the United States government brought to a conclusion an eight-year criminal and civil investigation of Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited, India’s largest generic drug company, and Ranbaxy, Inc., Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ranbaxy Laboratories, Inc., Ranbaxy USA, Inc., and Ohm Laboratories, Inc. (“Ranbaxy”). Ranbaxy has agreed to pay $500 million to resolve allegations of falsifying drug data and systemic manufacturing violations. Ranbaxy USA Inc. has pleaded guilty to multiple criminal violations. Dinesh Thakur served as the whistleblower in this case and is the former Ranbaxy Director and Global Head, Research Information & Portfolio Management.
Statement by Dinesh Thakur:
“I am relieved that the government’s investigation has concluded. I am thankful for the remarkable effort of United States Food and Drug Administration, Department of Justice, United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland, USAID, and State Medicaid Fraud Control Units. Their work has been tireless and dedicated.
“Eight years ago, as the Director of Project & Information Management at Ranbaxy, I discovered that the company falsified drug data and systemically violated current good manufacturing practices and good laboratory practices. Ranbaxy’s management was notified of these widespread problems. When they failed to correct the problems, it left me with no choice but to alert healthcare authorities.
“I worked with U.S. regulatory authorities for two years to expose the fraud. In furtherance of this effort, I filed a lawsuit to hold Ranbaxy accountable. It took us eight years to help government authorities unravel a complicated trail of falsified records and dangerous manufacturing practices that threatened to compromise the quality and safety of Ranbaxy drugs. Along the way, the government barred the importation of Ranbaxy drugs, held the company accountable for its data fraud under FDA’s Application Integrity Policy, and required it to implement corrective measures to prevent the problems from recurring.
“As a senior pharmaceutical executive, I understand the importance of regulatory oversight in ensuring drug quality and safety. There are unique challenges in a global drug market, which is highly dependent on international manufacturing and distribution. In fact, approximately 78 percent of prescription drugs dispensed in the United States are generic, and a growing percentage of drugs – both generic and name brand – is manufactured overseas. This case highlights the need for effective regulation that applies to drugs sold in the United States, regardless where they are manufactured.
I would like to thank FDA’s Office of Criminal Investigation, United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland, Department of Justice, USAID, and Andrew M. Beato, Bob Muse, and Rory Kelly of Stein Mitchell Muse & Cipollone LLP. I hope that our actions and this case have helped to improve the quality and safety of drugs in the United States and abroad.”
People who have become rich in China show real interest in philanthropy, which I think is very praiseworthy because I think it is appropriate for those who have benefited disproportionately that they should return some of it to those who are less fortunate. I think it will contribute to social harmony. I think the natural instinct is to engage in charity. But that has some negative side effects, because charity can turn the recipients into objects of charity, who become dependent instead of depending on themselves. There are people, like the sick and the old, who need to be taken care of. But particularly in the case of children and young people, it is much more important to enable them to improve themselves, giving them opportunities to learn. Scholarships are better than charity.-said George Soros
It is not permitted to glorify buildings and historical sites,” proclaimed Sheikh Abdulaziz bin Baz, then the kingdom’s highest religious authority, in a much-publicized fatwa in 1994. “Such action would lead to polytheism. … [S]o it is necessary to reject such acts and to warn others away from them.”
A pamphlet published last year by the Ministry of Islamic Affairs, endorsed by Abdulaziz Al Sheikh, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, and distributed at the Prophet’s Mosque, where Mohammed, Abu Bakr, and the Islamic Caliph Umar ibn Al Khattab are buried, reads, “The green dome shall be demolished and the three graves flattened in the Prophet’s Mosque,” according to Irfan Al Alawi, executive director of the London-based Islamic Heritage Research Foundation. This shocking sentiment was echoed in a speech by the late Muhammad ibn Al Uthaymeen, one of Saudi Arabia’s most prominent Wahhabi clerics, who delivered sermons in Mecca’s Grand Mosque for over 35 years: “We hope one day we’ll be able to destroy the green dome of the Prophet Mohammed,” he said, in a recording provided by Al Alawi.
Sami Angawi, the founder and former director of Mecca’s Hajj Research Center and the most vocal opponent of the destruction of Mecca’s historic sites … estimates that over 300 antiquity sites in Mecca and Medina have already been destroyed [by 2008], such as the house of the first caliph, Abu Bakr, which was leveled to make room for the Mecca Hilton Hotel. (According to Ivor McBurney, a spokesman for Hilton, “We saw the tremendous opportunities to tap into Saudi Arabia’s religious tourism segment.”)
Over protests by groups like the Islamic Supreme Council of America and the Muslim Canadian Congress, Saudi authorities have authorized the destruction of hundreds of antiquities, such as an important eighteenth-century Ottoman fortress in Mecca that was razed to make way for the Abraj Al Bait Towers– a move the Turkish foreign minister condemned as “cultural genocide.” An ancient house belonging to Mohammed was recently razed to make room for, among other developments, a public toilet facility. An ancient mosque belonging to Abu Bakr has now been replaced by an ATM machine. And the sites of Mohammed’s historic battles at Uhud and Badr have been, with a perhaps unconscious nod to Joni Mitchell, paved to put up a parking lot. The remaining historical religious sites in Mecca can be counted on one hand and will likely not make it much past the next hajj, Angawi says: “It is incredible how little respect is paid to the house of God.”
When I questioned Habib Zain Al Abideen, the Saudi deputy minister of municipal and rural affairs, head of all the kingdom’s hajj-related construction projects, about the destruction of historical sites in Mecca, he seemed unconcerned about their religious significance. More important to him was that the hajj was “a good opportunity to visit Mecca and Medina, do some shopping, make a vacation out of it.”-from the Atlantic
The reason I’ve dreaded writing this post for a long time is because I currently find myself taking these questions to the third, and much more gut-wrenching level: Am I being smartly stubborn about sticking with a trading career that holds so much promise? Or am I being stubbornly stupid about a career that gives me nothing but heartache and I should just cut the cord and go dig ditches for a living? I haven’t wanted to write this post because part of me deep down inside fears the answer.
I’m coming up on the 15th Anniversary of my beginning this journey. I started trading in the summer of 1998 and during these 15 years, I’ve experienced fleeting success. Enough to sustain my curiosity, but not enough to secure my financial security. So many times repeatedly over the past decade plus I’ve put tremendous amounts of thought and energy into coming up with trading plans that have a positive expectancy that I was so sure where going to work this time, only to be knocked off course by an errant wave from a direction I hadn’t considered. Again and again. And lately, I’ve been asking myself if riding these waves further out to sea and further away from the Shore of Good Fortune for the past 15 years have been worth it? What do I have to show for it?
Trading is not supposed to be about the money; however, money is undeniably the byproduct of successfully satisfying your curiosity in the financial markets. It is the yardstick by which a Trader is measured. It pains me that after 15 years, it might be more appropriate to measure my success not by a yardstick but by a 12-inch ruler. Most people my age who’ve been in a career for 15 years have achieved some level of financial success and career satisfaction which has allowed them to start families, buy houses, build 401k nest eggs, make investments in other areas of interest, and go on frequent and fun vacations. Me, I’m still grinding it out, fingers crossed that the latest direction I’m on gets me a little bit closer to shore.
Part of me says there is no other path I could have chosen, this is the way it has to be. I wasn’t born with a silver spoon in my mouth. I don’t come from a wealthy family. I didn’t have the right connections, the ivy league pedigree, the Congressman friend to give me insider trading tips. I’m a nobody who was born in a losing town who has to scratch and scrape and fight and sweat just to get a glimpse of the other side of the hill. And then the real work begins when I find out the downhill path to riches is paved with potholes, aggressive speed traps, inclement weather, and a faulty Apple Maps app.
The other part of me – which I’m fighting to suppress – says I’ve already put 15 of my best years into this. If I haven’t achieved my goals by now, when will I? If ever? I should just go and do something more productive with my life before its too late. I’m doing my best to ignore this side of my mind. But this is what makes me wonder if I’m being stubbornly stupid.
I haven’t answered this question yet. The Eternal Optimist in me is leaning toward Smartly Stubborn. My selfish hope is that putting this out there – the act of writing it out to cement my thoughts – will help prevent me from being stubbornly stupid. Only time and P&L will tell. I just hope it tells me soon.-By ChicagoSean
“The single most important decision in evaluating a business is pricing power. If you’ve got the power to raise prices without losing business to a competitor, you’ve got a very good business. And if you have to have a prayer session before raising the price by 10 percent, then you’ve got a terrible business.”-said Warren Buffett in an interview with the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC)
Should you dive into the stock market? Absolutely. And if you have no money to invest, I recommend getting cash advances against your credit cards. And stop eating, entertaining, and saving for your kids’ educations. Sell your blood if you need to. Put all of that extra money in the stock market. My reasoning is simple: I own stocks and I want you to drive up their prices.
I have a feeling that the smart money is already in the market and those folks are crouching like sprinters, waiting for any sign of bad news. Meanwhile, we are way overdue for some sort of bullshit crisis like the Year 2000 bug, or California going into a death spiral, or an artificial debt limit, or North Korea testing a satellite-based death-ray. When the new fake crisis happens, sometime within the next month, the market will pull back 10%. That’s when I expect to go into a panic and start selling my stocks at a loss.
What the stock market needs – and what I need – is for lots of people who know absolutely nothing about investing to pile into the market and buy broad market ETFs. Then I need those people to poke out their own eyes and caulk their ear holes so they don’t accidentally encounter any news. I don’t think that is too much to ask.
-wrote Scott Adams, Creator of Dilbert
Too many investors are reactive decision makers… if something has gone up, they say ‘ah, that’s a good investment,’ they don’t say ‘that’s more expensive.’ It’s the most common mistake in investing.
The bets are zero sum. In order for you to beat me in the game, it’s like poker, it’s a zero sum game. We have 1,500 people that work at Bridgewater, we spend hundreds of millions of dollars on research, and so on. We’ve been doing this for 37 years and we don’t know that we’re going to win. We have to have diversified bets. So it’s very important for most people to know when not to make a bet. Because if you’re going to come to the poker table, you’re going to have to beat me, and you’re going to have to beat those who take money. So the nature of investing is that a very small percentage of the people take money essentially in that poker game away from other people who don’t know when prices go up whether that means it’s a good investment or if it’s a more expensive investment.-said Ray Dalio