as I see it

Some fell in love with them, the others find it irritating, whatever be the case, you just haven't ignored them. Yes, am talking about the new face(s) of Vodafone - The ZooZoos. A huge series of commercials, this campaign aims to make the consumer aware of the Value-Added Services that Vodafone offers. There are reportedly around 25 or even more number of ads in this campaign with the aim of showcasing one new ad everyday during the second season of IPL. The ad is being telecasted just at the right place at the right time - at the time of IPL. ZooZoos were even shown talking to Gaurav during one of the matches in IPL.

Rumors had it, that what at first appeared to be animated clips were not actually animations but real humans and that too females who were made to wear body suits to make them ZooZoos.

“It took me three weeks of pre-production to understand how it will work. There were two fabrics that were considered for the body suits, and one was rejected for it had too many wrinkles and was shiny. The wrinkles would have shown when the characters moved, thereby shattering the illusion of animation. So we chose the more practical, thicker fabric,” says Prakash Varma, ad filmmaker at Nirvana Films and the man behind the Zoozoo commercials in India.

He continues, "The practical aspects of how they will move, talk, gesticulate and emote were very important. Essentially, costume design and artwork were crucial elements.The production team divided the outfit into two parts: the body and the head. The body part of the outfit was stuffed with foam in some places, while the head was attached separately. To make it look bigger than a human head, a harder material called Perspex was used, which in turn was stuffed with foam (with scope for ventilation).

"We kept the hands and legs thin, which is why we cast women and occasionally children wearing the costumes" says Varma.

Here are some snaps I got hold off showing how these ads were made.

As many of you, I have also been spending most of my time watching IPL - 2. After the Royals' onslaught on Kings XI Punjab this Tuesday, the next match was between Kolkatta Knight Riders and Delhi Daredevils. KKR hasn't had a good season, in fact they have had a horrible season. They are at the bottom of the table with only ONE victory in their kitty. I wonder how did that happen, I pity the losing side.

So, seeing the match and the horrible performance by the Knights I spent a few minutes thinking about what is wrong with this team.

Nothing, absolutely nothing went right for them. Again that sounds much better than what it actually is, i.e. EVERYTHING is going WRONG for them.

The skipper McCullum lead from the front by dropping a not so difficult and important catch of DD's skipper Gambhir. The team simply followed their captain and put in their best in dropping most of the catches, misfielding and giving as many boundaries as they could.

On one occasion when I thought that Gambhir had nicked it and it was a clean catch, this time it was the umpire who refused to raise his finger and adjudge Gambhir out. Not only this, every few deliveries you could hear the commentator say something like "Edged and four", "Edged, over the keeper's head", "Edged, past first slip for four", "Edged and that would beat the third man". It was all going wrong for the Knightriders. They were taking a beating from LUCK itself and the fielders were anyways not helping themself out of the mess they were in.

Taking a look at their team, I think they have a pretty decent team on paper. But they have not preformed to their potential. The dangerous McCullum ripped of the opposition attack only in ONE innings and that was in match number ONE in IPL season ONE. Another explosive batsman, Ricky Ponting had just failed to perform last year. Chris Gayle, the most violent of all when it comes to thrashing the bowlers, was injured in the last season and has failed to do anything significant this season as well. KKR's bowling attack got a blow when Pakistan players had to keep away from the IPL. What they had was Ajantha Mendis who I personally don't admire as much and think is an overhyped player. You can bowl the 'Carrom Ball' and trick batsmen once or twice or even thrice, thats it. There is nothing extraordinary in that bowling other than that.

Poor batting, bowling and fielding has ensured that they don't win any match. They are on a losing spree! I am doubtful if team owner SRK (who came back to India and said that he won't return until his team starts winning again) will get a chance to come back to SA from India if they continue like this, which I think is very likely. And that isn't all. The tiff between coach Buchanan and Ganguly, the multiple captain theory and the captaincy being taken away from Ganguly and handed over to McCullum, all shows the atmosphere within the team management and the players.

Add to it the sacking of players like Aakash Chopra and Sanjay Bangar, what has just happened to this team? And as if this was not enough, that problem took another avtar, this time in form of the FakeIPLPlayer (a blogger who claims to be a member of the KKR Squad and keeps on giving updates about the team's strategies, differences, tensions amongst players and management and many other happenings in and around the team).

They are going through a really bad phase. It is difficult to say which was worse, Bangalore Royal Challenger's condition last year or KKR this year.

PS : Just saw a report on NDTV, saying that Buchanan and his team will no longer be with the KKR Team in the next season of IPL. They went on to the people of Kolkatta for their reaction on this news. Boy, they were really excited and celebrating it. One guy said that he is very happy and he riduculed Buchanan top to bottom and even blamed him for bringing all Aussies into the team and destroying the KKR team while keeping the best Bangladeshi bowler Mortaza (who KKR won in the auction after a hard-fought battle with Punjab).

Strange enough but the reporter said that SRK and Co. have deliberately removed 'Kolkatta' from their team's name and that it is now referred to as 'Knight Riders' only. Now I didn't know that.

PPS : Just Googled and found out that they actually dropped 'Kolkatta' from KKR. Reports also suggest that SRK has approached Nokia, Sahara and Anil Ambani Group to sell-off his team. Ooh La La. Thats some 'Too HOT Too Cool' News :)

My journey started with Delhi -> Shimla and from there on to Jwalaji -> Khundiya -> Era and in between Kangra -> Dharamsala. Well some of the places I mentioned above are remote but all of them are in Himachal :)

Its a great place, perhaps the best tourist destination in India. Amongst all of them, I think Dharamsala is the best. Below are some pictures from my trip so far :)

What all I see around me these days, have only seen them in wallpapers so far :D

क़ानून जितना पेचीदा कोई विषय हो ही नही सकता। यह पोस्ट हिन्दी में लिखने का मन् हुआ इसलिए गूगल ट्रांस्लितेरेशन का लाभ उठा रहा हूँ। हाँ तो मैं कह रहा था कि क़ानून एक बहुत ही पेचीदा विषय है। यह Financial Management जितना कठिन तो नहीं है पर इसमे शब्दों का प्रयोग जिस प्रकार से किया जाता है, यह विषय अत्यधिक कठिन बन जाता है। यह पोस्ट लिखने कि वजह भी मेरे End Terms के दौरान की गई पढ़ाई है।

उदाहरण के तौर पे Company Act में दी गई Company की परिभाषा ही ले लीजिये

"company" means a company formed and registered under the Company Act

इस परिभाषा से किसी को क्या और कितना समझ आता है? ऐसे ही अन्य उदाहरण मैंने अपने End Terms की तैयारी के दौरान देखे।

पर एक बात जो काबिल-ऐ-तारीफ़ है जिसे मैंने और मेरे बंधुओ ने बहुत सराहा है कि यह जिन्होंने भी क़ानून लिखा होगा उन्होंने कितना सोचा होगा, कितने समय के लिए सोचा होगा और क्या क्या सोचा होगा। कितना विशाल है यह क़ानून।

यह ही नही बल्कि मुझे तो यह तक प्रतीत होने लगा है कि क्योकि कानून की भाषा इतनी उलझी हुई लगती है, इसमे loopholes ढूंढ के उन्हें exploit किया जाता होगा.

जब भी मैं कोई अंश अपनी पुस्तक से पढ़ता था, एक समझ मेरे दिमाग में बैठ जाती थी। पर कुछ ही क्षणों में जब उस पढ़े हुए अंश का उदाहरण पढ़ता था तो सब गुड़ गोबर हो जाता था। वो उदाहरण text से बिल्कुल contradictory व्यतीत होता था।

कभी कभी तो पहली पंक्ति और बिल्कुल अगली पंक्ति ही contradictory लगती थी और शायद थी भी।

मुझे अभी तक promissory note, bills of exchange और cheque वाले section में payable to bearer, payable on demand, payable to bearer on demand, payable at sight, payable at presentment के बीच में अन्तर नही समझ आया।

घोर असमंजस।

एक और उदाहरण है public company की परिभाषा।

public company is any company which is not a private company

अरे मानुष यह तो हमें भी पता है। इसमे आपने ऐसा क्या बता दिया जिससे क्रांति आ जाए?

एक और मिसाल betting की लेते हैं। betting क़ानून के ख़िलाफ़ है पर horse race को मान्यता प्राप्त है।

Contingency contract और उससे related कुछ, betting और wagery में कुछ कुछ, सब इतना confusing है कि अब याद भी नही है।

ऐसा नही है कि यह सब ग़लत हो। बस थोड़ा confusing है और लिखने का ढंग अलग है। जैसे की अब आप director कि परिभाषा को ही लें लें

director includes any person occupying the position of a director by whatever name called.

अब इसका मतलब मुझे समझ आ गया जबकि दिखने में यह भी बहुत अजीब सी परिभाषा है।

चलिए अब यह पोस्ट अपने शिक्षक द्वारा कही गई पंक्ति के साथ ख़त्म करता हूँ।

honesty is the best principle but not the best policy

चलिए अब आज्ञा दीजिये, दोपहर के तीन बज रहे हैं। मैंने कुछ खाया नही है, खाना छोडिये मैंने तो अभी दंत मंजन के दर्शन भी नही किए। लैपटॉप खोला और अचानक से हिन्दी में ब्लॉग पोस्ट लिखने का जी हो उठा।

काफ़ी मज़ा आया हिन्दी में लिखने का। और भी पोस्ट हिन्दी में लिखने कि इच्छा है अब। लिखूंगा कुछ और हिन्दी में। तब तक के लिए अलविदा।

[Note: If you think this post will be complex and that you are not well-versed with terms used in Finance, well I am on the same plane. I know as much as you do or maybe slightlyyyy more. So, don't shy away from reading it for that reason. Read it just for the joy of it and who knows you may get some idea and earn some extra buck.]

The title may be misleading, but it is a disaster, though may be in a different sense of whatever picture you have in your mind.

One of my most dreaded subjects of all times has been Financial Management. Reason? I don't know. I just find it too complex.

While studying for my exams was going through Bonds, Shares, Warrants, Convertibles, Options, etc. I realized that its all gambling !

The theory about which I heard long back, The Bigger Fool theory, seemed cent percent correct. The theory is nothing but the belief held by one who makes a questionable investment, with the assumption that they will be able to sell it later to "a bigger fool"; in other words, buying something not because you believe that it is worth the price, but rather because you believe that you will be able to sell it to someone else for an even better price. (source: Wikipedia)

Why, for instance, do you buy shares of a company? Isn't it only because you believe that the prices will go up from hereon (or someday) and that you will sell it and earn profit.

What is a warrant? The right to buy shares of a company in future at a price decided today ! When you buy a warrant, you will always think that tomorrow the share prices will rise and I will be able to buy it at today's price and earn profit.

Why do you buy a bond? What do you get? You buy say a Rs. 1000 bond today that gives you x% interest every year for 'n' years and then you get back your Rs.1000 as well after 'n' years. Seems like WOW right? You pay Rs. 1000 today, get back Rs. 1000 after 'n' years plus you also get some money everywhere. Would you even like to think for once that things may go sour, your money may go down the drain.

No, because optimism is the way forward :)

What is the concept of Time Value of Money for that matter? In evaluating a deal, you essentially calculate the NET PRESENT VALUE of the future cash flows you will be getting, which is nothing but DISCOUNTING future cash flows by a certain percentage, say R.

Why so?

Because anyone and everyone who has money right now will lend it to you and charge you R% interest, because he is pretty sure that if he hadn't given you the money, he would have used it to EARN more money which he now cannot because you have the money and so he should get some compensation. Ya, right ! Its so damn easy to earn than too lend (you may call it invest).

Though, slightly off-track, the concept of a Leverage Buy Out came to my mind all of a sudden. Now, this one is truly hilarious ! Trust me on this.

Company A wants to buy Company B.

What do you think about this now?

Company A mortgages (or pledges) all assets of company B (company B's assets on which A has no rights!) and raises debt (loans). Now using this money from loans it buys B. So simple.

Tata actually did a Leverage Buy Out of Tetley, that you now have Tata Tetley :)

How interesting and hilarious is this, that you take some company, based somewhere and PLEDGE that company's assets to someone and TAKE A LOAN. Using the money from the loan, you actually end up buying the company, whose assets you pledged. What about the loan now? Ah! thats a loan, you keep on paying installments and waive it off someday.

Besides, it seems loans are the most easiest way of getting money. Every now and then you take a loan and you do something with it, say buy a company's bonds. You may call it investment but it is actually giving out a loan to that company and earning interest.

So, it looks like A takes loan from B, B could give that loan because he had money which he borrowed from C, C in turn had raised debt from D, D had issued bonds which E bought, E got the money to buy bonds by issuing SHARES... and so on....

Its loans and loans, what is the ultimate source I wonder :)

Update : Just recalled the concept of SHORT SELLING, which to my understanding allows you to sell something you don't own and earn profit. Say, there is a share S of company C with price P. Now, even if you don't own this share S, by some logic (to me magic) you can sell this share 'S' at a price P + p (often the short-seller sells it to earn profit so we assume 'p' profit). Here, what he gets is profit 'p' only and not P + p because he didn't own that share worth 'P'. I know its pretty confusing. Am as much confused and amuzed as you are. And ya, now if you think even you want to earn this way, to my knowledge, as things stand today, short selling is not allowed in India.

Post Update : As Gunjan says, short selling is allowed now, toh jao kamao paise sab. And ya he mentioned futures which is nothing but buying or selling something in future at a price fixed today. The one who buys a future hope the price will go up and the one who sells is greedy, and thinks the price will go down.

When I asked how is it different from warrants, he said.