1/ Since "liquidity" has been the buzzword these days, here's an anecdote and a powerful lesson from history about printing unlimited amounts of money. Story time. #fintwit
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 Economy
$600/wk Unemployment Insurance cannot deliver the benefits of a $600/wk Job Guarantee. From the outset, I should say JG is not a replacement for UI, no matter what you may have heard. I’ll get to this later, but read this long 🧶 w/ that in mind.
Automatic stabilization: Both $600/wk UI and JG will provide counter cyclical spending. But UI will be weaker. Counter-cyclical stabilization is not just about the absence of income. It is also about the transmission and structure of economy
Firms don't like to hire the unemployed. Mass and long-term unemployment make the problem worse. JG would recover labor markets much faster than a UI of the same amount, both b/c of the higher direct, induced & tertiary employment effects & b/c of private firm hiring preferences.
JG stabilizes spending patterns better. Uncertain job prospects may mean more cautious spending from the unemployed compared to those w/ guaranteed jobs.
UI is temporary, which makes matters worse. Even if it were permanent, it still won't resolve the problem of job scarcity.
Nations who once achieved tight full employment through active labor market policies demonstrate that unemployment does NOT fluctuate the same way it does w/o them. Direct employment, ELR type policies diminish drastically/even eliminate these amplitudes (eg postwar Japan/Sweden)
Surprised so many smart people bought into the idea that $600/wk UI is the same as $600/wk job guarantee (or better) or that JG jobs must be inherently inessential. I\u2019ve addressed this many times & will post a thread later. Trying not to spend precious family time on Twitter.
— Pavlina R Tcherneva (@ptcherneva) December 29, 2020
Automatic stabilization: Both $600/wk UI and JG will provide counter cyclical spending. But UI will be weaker. Counter-cyclical stabilization is not just about the absence of income. It is also about the transmission and structure of economy
Firms don't like to hire the unemployed. Mass and long-term unemployment make the problem worse. JG would recover labor markets much faster than a UI of the same amount, both b/c of the higher direct, induced & tertiary employment effects & b/c of private firm hiring preferences.
JG stabilizes spending patterns better. Uncertain job prospects may mean more cautious spending from the unemployed compared to those w/ guaranteed jobs.
UI is temporary, which makes matters worse. Even if it were permanent, it still won't resolve the problem of job scarcity.
Nations who once achieved tight full employment through active labor market policies demonstrate that unemployment does NOT fluctuate the same way it does w/o them. Direct employment, ELR type policies diminish drastically/even eliminate these amplitudes (eg postwar Japan/Sweden)
You May Also Like
Krugman is, of course, right about this. BUT, note that universities can do a lot to revitalize declining and rural regions.
See this thing that @lymanstoneky wrote:
And see this thing that I wrote:
And see this book that @JamesFallows wrote:
And see this other thing that I wrote:
One thing I've been noticing about responses to today's column is that many people still don't get how strong the forces behind regional divergence are, and how hard to reverse 1/ https://t.co/Ft2aH1NcQt
— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) November 20, 2018
See this thing that @lymanstoneky wrote:
And see this thing that I wrote:
And see this book that @JamesFallows wrote:
And see this other thing that I wrote: