Tag Archives: #LongTermGrowth

Ensemble

Posted on by
Reply

Amidst the…

…frenzy…

…of reels, posts, communications, reports, research and what have yous…

…concerning the ongoing image battle of AI vs Core IT…

…it is extremely difficult to keep one’s head and vision clear.

What does the future look like?

A flurry of multitudinous pathways emerging does not mean utopia yet.

Forward outlook, especially a lucrative one, is not about exclusion.

Coming on to the scene with an attitude of trampling everyone else out of the scene – is this sustainable?

No.

Going into the future with partnership?

Yes. Sustainable. Let’s look around. Who’s forming partnerships?

Core IT. Yes. The impulse to continue to thrive is a strong one.

AI? (Yes). No. No. Unsure. No. Yes. No.

The frenzy that results after having spent obscene sums with steady revenue streams only developing since recently is so frantic and haphazard, that one’s left hand sometimes doesn’t know what the right hand is doing.

Pulling at the same string in the same direction will maximize revenue stream.

Hostile attacks at Core IT, every few days a new one, is not the way forward.

Is this a case of ‘as the leader does so do the subjects act’? A kind of a concerted strategy? To stomp on everyone’s heads and declare oneself king.

King?

Perhaps for a day.

Long-term market leadership requires craft.

Craft comes from years of honing.

Speak track record.

Who has this?

Core IT.

AI has at max what? Capability. Not craft. For craft, one needs to grind.

New kids will need to work as an ensemble within business infrastructures.

Not without.

Within.

Inclusion is in.

Exclusion is out.

Boo to exclusion.

Imagine a scenario…

…when Core IT comes out with something…

…much…

…much…

…cheaper.

Even in that scenario, it will choose to include. That’s why it’s made money for five decades back to back.

Remember that word.

Inclusion.

Staring Facts in the Face

Posted on by
Reply

Mongerers…

…are very, very busy.

After all, the target is in a corner.

Why not strike massively, and keep striking?

Punish the vanquished multiple times per misdemeanour.

Unfortunately, Core IT has gone quiet.

They’ve stopped caring about their share price.

Focus is now on intrinsic growth, not on quarter to quarter looking good attitude.

Pushed to the wall, the instinct to survive and regain lost ground is on all fours.

Forget about all this, is the aggressor AI actually so capable as to completely substitute the need for Core IT with regard to enterprise level programming, already?

No.

Perhaps in a year?

No.

5 years.

No.

10 years?

Possibly not.

20 years?

Possibly yes.

And, look at the mass reaction.

Masses believe they are ready to take over, like, yesterday.

Then comes the black box introduction.

AI companies are offering a black box to corporates, which will be their in-house AI, all data stays at home, let’s all bypass Core IT.

Does the data stay in the black box? Does it go anywhere? Does anybody know?

No.

Where is the trust coming from?

A bank entrusting its internal data to a black box, the big four doing the same, doctor’s records, hmmmm, not adding up. To a human under non-disclosure agreement? Plausible.

Departments being trained in corporates to become the tech arm?

It’s like an additional wing being added to a hospital, to handle book-keeping. Use the wing for expanding the hospital? What a preposterous idea! Let’s all become jack of all trades. Why even bother specializing. For that we have AI, right, to handle the specialist surgeries?

Panics almost always take to ridiculous trajectories.

This one has now cracked open genuinely clean-balance-sheeted free-cashflow-generating companies. Who have decided to take on all blows without responding. Probably want their CMPs to hit three digits and then some before announcing anything. They seem to have forgotten what buybacks are.

With nothing to go on, where do you stand, regarding Core IT?

Clean balance sheets.

Zero debt.

Track record of navigating through disruption.

Free cash flow being generated year upon year.

That’s enough.

Two choices.

Hold on to your holdings and look elsewhere currently, for investing.

Add on, as in average down.

Depends upon your risk profile, which option you choose.

Liquidation, for me, is not an option, given this :

Clean balance sheets.

Zero debt.

Track record of navigating through disruption.

Free cash flow being generated year upon year.

What am I doing?

Till lately I was averaging down.

Recently, I stopped averaging down in Core Tech. That’s a change in trajectory. Ya, have been investing elsewhere recently. Going to hold Core IT through, and accumulate further only above my buying averages for Core IT stocks. The exact change that’s happened is that now I need these stocks to speak out with their deeds and propel themselves to above my buying averages, before buying more. Might not happen soon. That’s fine. The reasons for comfort in holding are these :

Clean balance sheets.

Zero debt.

Track record of navigating through disruption.

Free cash flow being generated year upon year.

As long as these reasons exist, holding beyond while focusing elsewhere is the change that’s happened at Magic Bull.

Why, you ask? Why a change from the staunch attitude earlier?

It’s a matter of being in tune with one’s risk-profile. Till it wasn’t speaking up, I was comfortable averaging down. When it started to be bewildered by the goings on, I changed to being comfortable holding.

It’s ok. One can’t have the right opinion all the time. For a while, one can be wrong also. In those times that one feels one can be wrong also, making the switch from averaging down to only holding is ok, provided these exist :

Clean balance sheets.

Zero debt.

Track record of navigating through disruption.

Free cash flow being generated year upon year.

A Tale of Two Worlds

Posted on by
Reply

Like the plus…

…to the minus…

…and day to night, …

…like forwards to backwards, …

…like North to South, …

…so is…

…investing to trading…

…or trading to investing…

…spin it any way around, like you’d like to.

These two worlds have their own tales, and, you guessed it, each is…

…diametrically opposite to the other.

In the one, you average down. In the other, you pyramid.

In the one, you buy low. Ideally, you don’t sell for a long time, and when you do, you sell high.

In the other, you buy high and sell higher, or sell low and buy back lower, ideally sooner than later.

In the one, you welcome notional losses in high conviction bets, so you can put in more at lower cost.

In the other, you abhor the sight of notional losses, and cut these beyond small thresholds.

In the one you are not glued to the screen, and can even choose to operate completely from after hours.

In the other, especially while taking big positions, significant screen-time is important.

In the one, you have time for other things in life, many other things.

In the other, perhaps not as many.

In the one, emotional and nervous overhang can be reasonably manageable with lifestyle and mental training.

In the other, management and mental training required is tougher.

One could go on.

That’s not the point though.

What do we take from this?

We want something concrete.

There’s a potent and vital point where the two worlds meet.

Let’s say you engage in the one world.

You then need the other – one way or another.

How?

Let’s say you are a trader.

You need to divert some profits to long-term holds, to build wealth, to secure yourself and your family.

Let’s say, on the other hand, you are a long-term investor.

Where does the world of trading fit in, for you?

To control your gambler’s instinct.

To not allow passage to your repeated inclination towards opening up your long-term portfolio, again and again.

Trading gets your trigger-happiness out of the way.

You tire mentally.

Perhaps take a few small losses. Wins are a small bonus.

Bottomline is, you don’t open your long-term portfolio to fiddle with it, unnecessarily. That action is grounded by a rule imposed by you yourself. Once a week. Once a month. Half-yearly. Annually. Whatever suits. At that time, open, fiddle, rearrange, do what you wish, but then close till next window. In the meantime, satisfy your need for action with some mild trading.

Even better if your small trading operation only shorts the market.

With that, you’d automatically be hedging your long-term portfolio.

Elegant.

Symmetrical.

Purposeful.

For a long-term portfolio in a growth market, …

…very…

…winning.

Only Misses for the DoomNixers

Posted on by
Reply

Stadiums full.

This is what we see at the FIFA World Cup.

Gloom and doom about no one travelling to watch…

…seems to be nixed.

Are any doomsdayers amounting to anything?

AI taking over and slaying all else?

It’s a collab. No one’s taking over anything completely.

US markets were supposed to crash…

…like yesterday. And with that, the world.

Whenever a full blown crash does happen, it will very probably be at a time when most shorters are exhausted, read in big losses and retired hurt, didn’t want to use the word bankrupt.

AI is supposed to lead the ‘bubble burst’.

Has AI just smelt some monetization in collab with the back-offices of the world?

Back-offices have the capability to hold the system up on the back of their picks and shovels work, which, obviously, DoomNixers ‘nix’ themselves upon. You see, it’s not glamorous enough. They didn’t see it at all thus, and stumbled and fell.

Here’s another one : No one can beat the effthurteefiive. True? Hmmm. We saw what we saw.

Attackers felt they would bring the opponent down over the weekend. Opponents, fighting for their lives, seem to have emerged better than their attackers.

When one fights for one’s life, one fights with every ounce of resource and every joule of energy.

The Dean at his Univ advised Max Planck to study Music instead of Physics, since he felt that every meaningful thing in Physics had been discovered already.

Max Planck went on to found a whole new branch of sciences. Quantum Physics. On which anything and everything today is based.

There’s this thing about optimists. They believe in their systems, their hard work. Their ability to fight for their lives. For their systems. For the passing on of their legacies.

Max Planck fought for the entire field of Physics, and what a legacy he’s passed on. Conventional Physics builds the framework, and Quantum allows us to traverse the Universe.

Core Tech is fighting for its life. Pushed to the wall, it will devise a way to emerge, as a monetizing handholder for AI to be implemented. It’s fought for its life many times before and has emerged victorious, and very lucratively.

There are two paths emerging here, in the example with Core Tech.

Path one – DoomNix. Pronounce it dead. Invest elsewhere, with expensive valuations.

Path two – research. Find companies that are transforming with the times, with clean balance sheets and free cashflows. Invest in these, as valuations are very reasonable currently.

One can even follow both paths MINUS the doomnixing. Meaning that one takes punts in expensive companies, no idea how that will pan out in the very long-term, and one also invests in very reasonably priced and transforming Core Tech, with clean balance sheets and free cashflows. This will give a decent return in the very long-term.

We leave the doomnixing to the pessimists, nay-sayers, lacking-in-hopers, non-believers in themselves and in good systems – this breed will keep collecting misses in life.

Having expunged the breed from our eco-systems, we stride ahead with our very long-term bullish view in our growth market, since the essence of sitting on a compounding portfolio for multiple decades is…

…an optimist mindset.

Miss Giving

Posted on by
Reply

There’s no Hurray…

…yet…

…on the Street.

People have…

…doubts.

About anything…

…even everything.

The general public seems to be containing its enthusiasm, because who knows what might be around the corner.

Owing to the cast in the mix, like Diabolo TryMeButDon’tTryTooHard, and the opponents, who, well, have championed in sins committed, and who perhaps have now been overtaken in sins committed by Diabolo TryNotTooHard and ally NotMuchYoohooThere, …

…a cease-fire…

…could mean anything…

…but a cease-fire…

…as of now.

Enthusiasm will flow once certainty replaces misgivings.

Hesitancy to come out and fully invest, given the circs, allows us future opportunity.

At every small insinuation of an anomaly, reversals will follow.

Diabolo’s back and forth penduluming on everything, for a good while now, has capped the risk appetite of the masses.

Fine. We accept the circumstances as those which will allow repeated entries over the short-term, perhaps over the short to medium term also.

The Magic Bull approach here would be to enter with whatever there is to enter, …

…over the next three to four months.

Who knows when Miss Giving will turn into Miss NotGiving. More sooner than later. Since the penduluming has gotten on everyone’s nerves now, reactions are not under control owing to nerves, and masses might come out that much harder once it becomes clear that the peace-flag persists.

Cut to our ongoing discussion on full exposure preferred in a growth market over dilly-dallying or semi-exposure over the long run.

As far as our own microcap market vis à vis world market cap is concerned, entry more sooner than later is a thing.

As time will tell, …

…a big thing.

Fable me this

Posted on by
Reply

Fable…

…we’re being told about…

…Fable 5…

…is that Frontier Country has disallowed its usage…

…for non-Frontier Countries or semi-Frontier Countries.

Thing is, …

…not every country needs to be a Frontier Country to make the world go round.

There’s a front-end, fine, accepted, and it seems to be calling the shots. To the extent of over-estimation of its own capabilities. Over-reaching. Over-stretching. Over-everything. That’s the front end. They’re doing what a front-end would do, in its position, and perhaps more.

However, there’s a back-end to everything in the world. Some countries are great at being back-offices to the world. Please understand, that the front-end can’t function long-term without cowork with the back-end.

Back-end streamlines.

It monetizes.

It affords the front-end penetration.

Infrastructure-seepage.

Bridging of the getting used to gap.

Bridging of the trust gap.

Process pinpointing.

To lever to becoming an accepted norm, front-end needs back-end, forever, since remaining the norm is also a priority.

The episode with Fable 5…

…reeks strongly of something big back-firing…

…in the front-end’s thought process.

They came sweeping in, full of over-confidence that they had something which would wipe everything else out.

Caused havoc.

Meanwhile, back-end started to adapt. FAST.

Some four months into the storm, fronties realize that backies have the usage figured out, and are implementing so fast, that very, very soon, their numbers promise to be fab.

Panic.

What to do?

Deny the backies usage of the frontest-end, i.e. Fable 5. Lest they overtake us in looking good.

Ha.

Just gave yourself away.

We know you now. WE SEE YOU.

And we’re going to use this dawning realization to our benefit.

We’re holding the line.

Our back-end is rock-strong, highly adaptive, and will find a way to monetize any situation.

Anything you throw…

…at us. We…

…will…

…monetize.

We’re just doubling down in our own back-yard.

On our own horses.

Period.

I want to be that fool

Posted on by
Reply

You know…

…the bloke who gets called out…

…at social gatherings…

…as the fool who got fully in at the top?

In a long-term growth market, I don’t mind being that fool.

It’s a short-term affliction. I think I can…

…bear looking like a fool for a not-longish duration.

Why do I say short-term?

First up, that’s my estimation of my tolerance levels.

Never happened, so it’s all estimates we function with.

Then, field of action is a long-term growth market, remember?

Here, we risk not being exposed to growth and compounding, if we’re conservative in entry.

No one’s saying get rid of your small entry quantum.

However, do let your small entry quantum expand with portfolio-size.

Also, make more entries.

Till fully invested.

In a long-term growth market, we wish to be fully invested, more sooner than later.

What’s the risk?

Growth…

…is NOT…

…a linear entity.

If we understand this one sentence, we can stay invested. Sit. For the very long term.

Thing about growth is, it happens, and then it does not, and then there’s a crash, and then it suddenly resumes, and then it can fire back to back doubling, or 50%+ for three years in a row, or what have you. Non-linear entities have peculiar equations defining them, not linear ones.

So it can well happen, again all hypothetical, that we get in fully, with precaution, with a small entry quantum, with many entries, over 12 months, and right after that, Wham. Down it goes, big. Ya, we look like fools then. We’re called out at parties. People laugh. It’s not necessarily a ‘serve him right laugh’ but more a ‘relief laugh’, as in ‘thank God I’m not in such a position’. And that’s OK.

Why?

Ya, Nath, why so cool about the whole thing?

Will tell you why.

In a year’s time after such hypothetical crash, when the market has sunk some more, people don’t know whether to laugh at or cry for us. There are feelings of pity, and questions like ‘Are you ok?’ crop up. Just doing a simulation. Picked up the ‘Are you ok?’ from a recent smaller crash, because that exchange actually happened. These situations are also absolutely ok. Why?

Things are about to change.

Long-term growth market, remember?

Growth not a linear entity, remember? When it sets in, can happen very fast, before one has gotten significant money in.

We are fully exposed, remember?

What do you think happens to our folios? In another year, we could not only cover up, but be up 2x. In five we could be up 5x. In 10, we could be up 12x. In 20, perhaps 25x. No longer foolish.

Those who don’t get in, miss the growth market.

Others get in to some extent, and catch growth to some extent.

Fools get both extremes, …

…the looking foolish one, and…

…the long-term vindication one.

Lumpsum vs Piecemeal

Posted on by
Reply

What’s a…

…better…

…market entry?

Lumpsum, or piecemeal?

Since I function in a growth market, …

…which can be seen as a microcap vis à vis the world, …

(you guessed it, India, currently exhibiting value, …

…but for our discussion please treat it as a growth market,) …

…and, because this discussion makes the most sense for a growth market exactly, …

…please, therefore, treat this comparison as a tool to help you decide…

…your growth market entry strategy.

You come into a lumpsum, let’s say.

What are your options? For the investible portion that is.

Pump in – one shot?

Average down, bit by bit, as and when opportunities arise?

Two ends of the spectrum. Where do you stand? Let’s break it down.

What’s your capacity for drawdowns?

Can you take a 50% notional drawdown, and not have a sleepless night?

Yes? Sure? Ok, pump it into the long-term growth market in one shot, provided you know your stocks well enough. In ten years time you’ll look like a star. In three months, a fool. One year, bigger fool. Perhaps. Slowly, growth will show, …

…and compound.

In two decades, you’ll rule.

Not able to take the big drawdown? Don’t like looking like a short-term fool?

That’s ok.

Very few people can handle big drawdowns.

Even lesser individuals like looking like fools, even if for a short time.

Then you can go in bit by bit.

Two strategies.

If you know your stocks well, you can average down.

If you want the market to throw you winners, you can average up.

Disadvantages?

Sure. You aren’t subjected to big drawdown pangs, and aren’t chastised by the masses for investing on interim highs. In lieu of that, not all of your money is in, and thus, not all of it is exposed to growth, or for that matter compounding. Also, your money hangs around to be…

…spent.

Don’t like the downsides of either extreme?

There’s a way out for you. You can take the middle path. You can also decide for yourself how ‘middle’ it is.

Decide for yourself a time-period that you want to be in by. 3 months? 6 months, 9 months, 12 months? Longer will take you towards full-on piecemeal.

Decide also, for yourself, about averaging down, up, or down till a level, and from that point onwards, only up. You can say that you are for example going in to a stock with margin of safety, up to a level, but then you would like the stock to prove itself, and from that point onwards, you now start averaging up as the growth story unfolds. You can then couple your averaging down and up combo to your total time-frame selected for going in.

Bottom-line : in X months your funds start getting full growth and compounding effects, as per the cost-averaging mix Y you have chosen.

Both X & Y should be a function of your risk profile.

Isn’t that the reason why you chose the middle path, because you didn’t want to be exposed to lumpsum drawdowns?

So, three choices, break it down, follow what suits.

On a personal front, if money needs to go into a growth market, for me its better sooner than later.

Took a long time to realize this though.

My pursuit for financial independence was impeding this understanding.

The moment financial independence was achieved, along with it came the realization…

…that we don’t wait on a long-term growth market.

Basics Baby

Posted on by
Reply

In the…

…ongoing…

…and incoming…

…frenzy…

…there’s only one go-to strategy…

…for me.

Basics…

…always.

During CoViD, during which everything was supposed to go bankrupt, one stuck to the ‘Basics, Always’ approach, and the rest became History.

This, today, has the potential to become a CoViD like crash.

First up, there’s been mass AI hypnosis. Everyone and their Aunties are in the loop and are talking AI. No one cares anymore about companies with great fundamentals and a penchant cum track record for metamorphosis. It’s ok. We do, since that’s what counts for a steady, long-term return in the market. We are not greedy. We wish to put away our money safely, not let inflation eat at it, and we would like it to grow over the next twenty to thirty odd years. We’re balanced. We’re basic. We’re simple. We’re the opposite of complicated and sophisticated.

And now, there’s all out war. Provoked. Just to bury Epstein consequences? All pipelines choked. Gold-nugget question being asked in this moment is…

…how should one act?

Should one get swept into the AI madness and buy into abysmally high PE multiples? Infinite PE multiples? Should one buy international stocks? Gold? Bitcoin? Silver? Sit in cash? WHAT?

Answer in such scenarios is SIMPLE, always.

Basics. Baby.

Basics, always.

Basics to the rescue.

What are your basics? Go back to them.

I’ll tell you my basics. I’ve gone back to them since I started buying, February 6th onwards. And I shall remain with them, till I’ve finished buying, or till I’m fully invested, whichever comes first.

Shareholder-friendly managements.

Companies with clean balance sheets.

Companies with zero or quasi-zero long-term debt.

Free cashflow to market cap upwards of 2% for large- and mid-caps, and upwards of 1% for small-caps.

Companies with multi-decade penchants and track-records for / of successful metamorphosis and navigation through disruption.

Margin of safety. Each high-conviction buy lowers average. Mathematics to support buying and selling. A low average has the capacity to quickly give a multiple in better times, from where then one’s principal can be skimmed off to fight another battle, and the profit stays in the market for eternity, on the back of the mathematics of compounding.

These are my basics. Shared with you, with pleasure, to inspire you to find yourself in the chaos. Use these till you find your own. You can pay it forward. Leads to a better world.

One doesn’t need more. Just one’s basics. Basics that are superimposable on the entire market, and when something conforms, there’s action. Like now, for me.

Please go back to your basics at a time like this. That’s why you have developed them. Your happy, go to place. Market success is more about a high-conviction frame of mind with holding power.

The rest, rest assured, will be History. Go for it.

🙂

Banking on Infinity

Posted on by
Reply

In a market…

…that promises decent…

…long-term growth, …

… we are able to…

…bank on infinity.

In such a market, the concept of cost-free-ness proves successful …

… in that it is able to generate multibagger outcomes, …

… over the very long-term. 

In such a market, the power of compounding makes itself felt in its full glory.

Also, in such a market, fear goes out the window for the clued-in player, since one is able to…

…bank on infinity.

We are fortunate to be playing in one such market. 

Yes, one such market is our very own. 

Having said that, India has idiosyncrasies, as does every market, and the Indian angle on these is definitely unique. 

The main one is that we’re an emotional lot. 

That is automatically then reflected in our market too. 

High beta. 

Meaning, in normal English, that there will abound huge entry opportunities, and huge exit opportunities, on a regular basis. 

And that, if I may underline, is worth Gold for us in the pursuit of cost-free-ness.

In other words, we will be able to create cost-free-ness year upon year, month upon month, and, at times, like now…

…week upon week.

Is that not…

…wonderful!

Once cost-free-ness is created, we transfer it out of sight, and, banking on infinity, we can just sheer forget about it, focusing our attention on the next round of cost-free-ness-creation.

We can do that because we are in the right type of market for this particular model. 

In fact, this model has been conceptualised for exactly…

…this market. 

Maybe someone has done it before me. Perhaps a lot of people. More successful. Big players. Famous. And that’s huge. I’m happy for them.

However, that’s not the point. 

We’re not in this for the glory of who got there first.

We’re in this for generating long-term wealth by using the concept to the hilt, because it’s working, and promises to do so till into the far-foreseeable future.

Before I sign off for now, there’s one more thing to remember. 

When we bank on infinity, we most hold before our eyes, that the translation of long-term growth into long-term wealth…

…is not linear.

Growth is perceived in spurts of optimism spilling into over-optimism, and these become our exit opportunities, where we exit with our principals, and are left with stacks of cost-free-ness. 

During spurts of pessimism, spilling into sheer depression, prices dip low enough, such that we, once again, get representable entries. 

It’s a neat little cycle that has been playing out since markets started. 

In our own market, this cycle allows us to generate cost-free-ness, again and again, while banking on infinity. 

 

 

 

 

Is Cost-Free-Ness the Holy Grail?

Posted on by
Reply

There is…

…a Holy Grail…

…mentioned in the Holy Bible. 

Also, …

… human capital

… pursues excellence.

I…

… am no exception.

Having stumbled upon…

…cost-free-ness…

…after many knocks in all possible markets, …

… and having developed the concept a tad, …

… I do say to you this.

I say to you, …

… , that cost-free-ness…

… is no holy grail. 

In its pursuit, money does get stuck. And, …

… upon its generation, money does flow, at times, into expensive, “uncatchable” material.

These are the two main mentionable “nuances” associated with the pursuit of cost-free-ness, that one needs to be aware of. 

Money getting stuck? Hmmmm.

If we’re afraid of money getting stuck, we should exit from the market. Any market. Period. 

Don’t be in the game if you can’t take the heat. 

It’s ok. 

Play another game, where you can. 

Perfectly fine.

Now let’s tackle the other one. 

Purists are jumping, I know. 

I can hear them yelling “EXPENSIVE!”

Sure.

Extremely high quality…

…will be expensive. 

One legitimate entry opportunity every ten years can be possible in such underlyings.

When it comes, and if one is having a bad hair week, one can even miss the window.

When it comes, we’ll enter big.

That’s a larger game, non-cost-free initially, and we’ve played it well in March 2020, entering non-cost-free, entering big (because of the available margin of safety), and generating vast amounts of cost-free-ness within a few months, to then ultimately be sitting on large, extremely high-quality & completely cost-free portfolios, perhaps for life.

However, such timelines are anomalies. We’ll pounce upon such chronologies when they happen. Meanwhile, …

…our bread and butter is to generate small amounts of cost-free-ness on a regular basis, day-in-day-out, all year round, …

… and it’s ok to enter extremely high quality with one’s freshly generated small amounts of cost-free-ness, right here right now, at the expensive price. 

Why?

Firstly, it’s not costing you. 

Secondly, when we deploy cost-free-ness into extremely high quality in a long-term-growth-promising market like India’s, it’s probably for life. 

Seen from a perspective of a decade or two, or perhaps three, the currently expensive cost-free entry is legitimate. 

Please do the 10, 20 or 30 year math for India, and you should come to the same conclusion.

Why do we wish to deploy immediately?

Out of sight, out of mind. 

Money has idiosyncrasies. 

The biggest one is that it is spent, in the blink of an eye. 

Better, deploy it, specifically also because your mathematics is okaying a legit entry for the extremely long-term.

And, pray, have you wondered why you will be able to sit on your investment for so long?

Primarily because your entry is cost-free. 

There is no other singular, more overwhelming reason. 

Cost-free-ness overwhelms the mind into sitting on extremely long holds. Try it out for yourself.

That takes care of the second point, …

… and I say to you this, that…

… cost-free-ness, …

… though not the holy grail, …

… could well be the next best market concept available to mankind, for long-term success in the markets.

Wishing you lucrative & highly successful cost-free investing!

🙂