e-Nagar

Sometimes a picture without its catchy title is incomplete

Thanks to Fahim for forwarding it

Multiplex are in a very competitive market. The first rule of anybody in the service industry is to provide quality service. However PVR has a lot to learn in this respect.

Even the suppliers (movie producers) are annoyed with multiplexes. I wonder by antagonizing both customers, as well as suppliers what is PVR trying to achieve. No wonder over the past 2 years, PVR had to reduce the ticket prices, yet it is unable to sell all its tickets. Its revenue in the quarter ending June 2009 was less than half of the previous year’s figure. I guess its probably because its security is doing a good job in driving the customers away.

1. No helmet rule: While all over the world governments and other public interest bodies are busy encouraging commuters to use helmets and seat belts. PVR takes a totally opposite stance. It prohibits anybody to either handcarry a helmet inside the theatre or deposit it at their security counter.

2. No Laptop rule: To further drive away the customers, they introduced a no laptop/electronic item rule. What they do not realize is the many of us need to carry laptops to office and it becomes a major nuicense, if we have to part with it. The least they could do is have a tie-up with any shop or enterprise and charge the customers who wish to deposit it.

3. No shopping bag rule: Ladies are allowed to carry their purses (which are often the size of a small haversack) inside, but guys are not allowed to carry a shopping bag inside. Last weekend, my shopping bad contained just a shirt which I had purchased from the same mall. Yet the security refused to either deposit it or allow me to carry it inside. Whats worse they provided me with a unprofessional answer, why don’t you deposit it at the Big Bazzar counter (by faking yourself as a customer)

I appreciate cost cutting, but if it was so important, why have security in the first place?

PVR is situated in malls and each and every mall does a pretty good job in screening customers and eliminating security risk. Repeating the activity 2 times does not make it more perfect.

Secondly PVR usually owns entire floor in a mall so real estate should not be a big problem. If they really want, like any organized retail outlet, they could make room for patrons to deposit their goods.

Today I saw this new bond issue:
the attractive points are:
1. the maximum duration is 5 years so the money will not be blocked for very long
2. The company plans to list its NCD issue. Which means exit would be easy and also there will not be any TDS.
3. The interest rate for this AA rated bond issue is 11+% which is significantly higher than what one earns in Bank Fixed Deposit.
4. The leverage ratio of the company is manageable.

However the reasons why I would not be subscribing to the issue are:
1. Boring Annual report: As Warren Buffet once said for any small company annual report is a wonderful advertising issue. It allows the board and the management to explain its policies, give the vision, mission and road map and set hopes. If the investor believe that the company is going to the right path and believe in it, they are patient with the company. This confidence allows the management to take long term strategic decisions which help in creating shareholder value.
Since I did not enjoy reading the STFC’s annual report, I wonder if it will be worth investing in the company. Please do remember that equity holders always have an easy exit options, while the bond/debenture holder are stuck with the company for 5 years.

2. Vehicle Finance: Several banks had problems in controlling their NPA and some of them have even quit/limited their exposure in vehicle finance. This raises a question why would I live to lend money to someone who is solely concentrated in vehicle finance.

3. Group performance: Shriram does not have a stellar track record. One of its group company Shriram Finance has stopped quoting, and rest are doing moderately ok.

Hence in spite of the fact that I have some free cash (which I intend to move from low interest FD to a bond), I am not subscribing to the issue.

Disclaimer: I am no financial analyst

Here are some facts:
1. You will find a Sadar Bazaar in almost all North Indian cities which at one time had a British Cantonment office.
2. The word Sadar does not mean anything in Hindi or its variants
3. Sadar Bazaar is always located to the south of the city Center (unless the city center has moved over the decades)

Well a friend of mine has an interesting theory. He says that in Pre British era, the Britishers usually preferred to live to the south of the main city. The market that caters to their needs was called Southern Market. This market because of its elite clientele was the posh market and in many places still is. However the locals could not pronounce the word Southern and ended up calling it Sadar.

I could not find a credible online link to substantiate this theory, but it seems to be making sense

This one is in continuation with ankur’s post on elephants…
A bunch of hungry monkeys were put in a room with a single banana attached to the ceiling and one table underneath.
Every time a monkey tried to climb up the table to reach the banana, the other monkeys slapped it and didn’t let it get to it. They all wanted the banana for themselves, so none ended up reaching it. Soon all the monkeys had given up trying.
Thereafter, half of the group were replaced by new monkeys. The new monkeys tried getting up but the older ones slapped them down. Soon enough, they too stopped trying.
Now…
the other half of the original monkeys were also replaced by a new lot and additionally, adequate amount of bananas were attached to the ceiling.
No prizes for guessing – the same routine continued as before. This despite the fact that there were none of the original monkeys and there was plenty of bananas.
Force of habit…

Borrowed it from an email forward:

As I was passing the elephants, I suddenly stopped, confused by the fact that these huge creatures were being held by only a small rope tied to their front leg. No chains, no cages. It was obvious that the elephants could, at anytime, break away from the ropes they were tied to but for some reason, they did not.

I saw a trainer near by and asked why these beautiful, magnificent animals just stood there and made no attempt to get away.

“Well,” he said, “when they are very young and much smaller we use the same size rope to tie them and, at that age, it’s enough to hold them. As they grow up, they are conditioned to believe they cannot break away. They believe the rope can still hold them, so they never try to break free.”

I was amazed. These animals could at any time break free from their bonds but because they believed they couldn’t, they were stuck right where they were.

Like the elephants, how many of us go through life hanging onto a belief that we cannot do something, simply because we failed at it once before?