MCap is a function of market sentiments. Balance sheet, cash flows, R&D execution, talent acquisition, regulatory compliance, M&As and so on....are a function of management/governance. Never mix the business with the stock. Stock is not the business. Business is not the stock :)

More from Sajal Kapoor

More from Accounting

Building conviction on existing portfolio stocks is complex topic. I am still learning and have only 2-3 years exp. Lot of learning is inspired from @varinder_bansal as part of omkara family, listening to old colleage @connectgurmeet on news channel and @unseenvalue posts

https://t.co/KQkupOeFzp financial statements and results on quarterly basis to evaluate whether your thesis on company is still intact through growth in revenue, profits and cash. You cannot rely only on whats app forwards or brokerage updates.

2.Quarterly Con-Calls post result covering enviornment of the sector in which company operates, future expansion plans, & companies confidence in responding to fund managers. (For eg, in my evening walks, i listen to con-calls on You tube rather than music to utilize the time.)

3. High conviction is build when you compare py qtr or py year con call scripts and see whether company giving forward statements were met in subsequent quarters or not. For eg company said they will be doing CAPEX for 100 crores in FY 2020 and then we can see current state.

4. Profits not growing qtr or qt or yr on yr is not the sign for low conviction. You need to screen the balance sheet to see if the company has taken huge R&D expenditure which they believe is right for company as they build new products for future years, then that make sense

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?