Lost – The show comes to an end

Tweet

I have been a big fan of Lost every since the first season. 6 years back one of my friends told me not to miss the pilot episode of a new show. Reason? According to her, it was the most expensive pilot ever made. Lost was a J.J Abrams brainchild. He was responsible for the pilot episodes and that was good enough for us. I watched the pilot episode and I was hooked like so many others. My initial impression after the pilot was that Lost would be similar to the reality shows like the Survivor series. A bunch of people left on the island to fend for themselves, with no rescue in sight. Then the questions started. Each episode seemed to throw up a new question.
Over the course of 6 years the questions just piled on and on endlessly with no answer in sight. At the end of each season I couldn't wait for the next one to start. I would imagine the final season unraveling all the mysteries and leaving me spellbound. I had such a long list of questions. I don't think I remember most of them anymore. What's a polar bear doing on that island? What's so special about Walter? What is the significance of those numbers? How do they drive a person crazy, make you win lotteries? How does a man with permanent disabilities walk on the island? What makes it so special? It even cures you of cancer and in the case of Korean women it makes you pregnant when you are not capable of it. However it is just not possible for everyone to conceive a child on it. Both mother and child are doomed. And then there is the Smoke. We don't know what it is. It looked like it was the island's protector. It was delivering judgment on the unworthy. Or was it? It came out of nowhere and then disappeared into oblivion. You could time travel on the island, you could make the island disappear, and you could even get yourself magically transported out of wilderness by turning a cartwheel. What about the statue with four toes? Anyone? What is it with the island? Why is it so special? How does the Smoke threaten mankind if it is ever escape the island? All it ever wanted was to leave the damn place. The consequences of it leaving the island were conspicuous of their absence. What about Desmond? What made him so special? He could at one time foresee people's death and tried to prevent Charlie from dying. That aspect of his ability was completely ignored in the later stages. Instead his immunity to the electro-magnetism came to the fore.
And then there were The Others. Possibly the most disappointing answer to the torment of The Others was that they were doing it so that they could force the hand of a spinal surgeon to operate on their leader. It never occurred to them that they could simply ask the guy and then send the surgeon and his people back home in the submarine. They had to kidnap and they had to kill.
And then there were The Other Others. The people we were introduced in the final season. They had been living in the temple all long. We just didn't spot them in 5 years. The Japanese guy could keep the Smoke out of the temple. How? Why? Well you are not allowed to ask that question. The people of the temple can also cure you of fatal wounds. Linus and Sayid know a thing or two about it. The rest of us are clueless.
Mid way through the 6^th season I was convinced that there would be no meaningful ending to this show. There would be no awesome revelations to marvel at. There would be no significant answers. For starters there were too many questions to be answered. The MO of the show was always to answer questions by raising more questions. It kept the show's faithful viewers on tender hooks. It made sure its fan base stayed loyal till the very end. It didn't make any sense to change that style. Plus now that the show had ended, the questions it posed will remain forever unanswered and forever debated. It's virtually guaranteed that the show will go down in living memory as one of the most talked about.
As an armchair critic who watched the show and had the usual clutch of questions I reserve the right to my own judgment, which perversely enough is what the creators expect from the show's audience. They had it planned all along – I don't buy that. The writers were clueless about the direction the show will take. Its mythical ending was not what they had in mind when they started the show. They did their best to tie up together so it looks like it. Jack closing his eyes surrounded by bamboos, to end like it began. And to remind us about the two skeletons we found in season one. The direction of the show eventually took did not form until the 3^rd and the 4^th season. I don't really have a problem with it. The problem is with the claim that the writers knew what they were doing all along. That's insulting the audience that's watched the show over the years.
Now that we don't have an intellectually stimulating ending, no wonderfully explained answers, I am so glad the show has finally ended. Ever since the pilot episode, I have waited impatiently for the new episode to be telecast. When the season ended, I kept on eye on TV.com, visiting it once in a while to determine the date when the new season will begin. Once I knew the date, I would have it etched in memory so I don't forget to miss the start of the new season. No need for calendar reminders for this one folks, it was so intriguing that I didn't need a reminder. I just needed to know the date when the new season would start and I would faithfully be waiting for it on the given day. Now I can finally let go. I can move on. I can promise myself not to get so invested in any other show. And I don't have to wait impatiently anymore for a new dose of Lost. In a way I identify with the characters who realize they are dead and they congregate together so that they can leave – as Jack's father so aptly put it – move on. Finally!!!
Credit should of course go where it is due. I enjoyed the show even if I was not completely satisfied with the final season. It kept me interested since its inception. And many others like me. A question for the Lost fans out there. Knowing how the show pans out, would you still have watched it when it first started out. I would. Because the narrative, the parallel stories, the intrigue, the mystery, the character centric episodes were all unique TV viewing experiences. Even discounting the background story, some of the individual episodes were brilliant. Like the Long con, or the Science Vs Faith, or the background on Richard Alpert, or when they introduce Jacob and MIB, with Jacob mysteriously stating 'But it only ends once, anything that happens before that, is just progress'. Remember the surprise when they introduced the tail-end survivors and the impressive Eko. I was so disappointed when Smoke killed Eko and I will never find out why the Smoke killed him and so many others and yet spared many that lived outside the security of the fences erected by the Dharma chaps. BTW – How did the Dharma people know that those electric fences would keep the Smoke out? I think reminiscing about old episodes will just raise more questions, it would be best to say no more. Like all shows, this one must also come to an end. Like most popular shows, this one will also have a dissatisfied ending. Perhaps a tribute to the show, because it lefts its viewers wanting more.

Tweet

Marriage by barter

Tweet

I was reading the Times of India, when I came across a rather curious report. Apparently the Haryana Police stopped the wedding of a 15 year old minor. In a country that contributes to over 40% of the child marriages across the world, that in itself is not newsworthy. Minors do get married in rural towns and where police is informed they step in and make sure the rituals do not take place. Parents are suitably warned by the police, educated and counselled by social activists and life goes on.

The story of this minor was more complex. She was getting married on the same day as her maternal uncle. Her uncle was getting married to her prospective groom's sister. Now that the police had stopped her marriage, they had affectively stopped both weddings. A suitable bride (i.e. not someone below the age of 18) had to be found as her replacement for both the marriages to take place. The problem arose because of acute shortage of women. The uncle could only get married if he could in turn ensure the marriage of his future brother-in-law. Easy enough to solve if you have a niece, so what if she is only 15 years old?

As per the TOI,
"Haryana is reduced to this because of its deeply skewed sex ratio. A state government report admits there are just 822 females for every 1000 men in the 0 to 6 years category. The ratio falls even further in the literate population: 618 females to 1000 males. In some villages in the state, notably Malerna and Duleypur, the sex ratio at birth is 370 and 400 females per 1,000 males respectively".

There are families in this part of rural India that end up using the ancient barter system to ensure that their children don't remain unmarried. A girl and a boy from each side solves this problem nicely. The problem is when they don't have girls of marriageable age, then they make do with the minors in their family.

Tweet

No Entry Load on Indian Mutual Funds

Tweet

There is some good news for the small time investors in India. SEBI has abolished entry loads in Mutual Funds. Previously, any investment made through a distributor attracted an entry load of 2.25% which was paid as commission to the distributor. If the investment was made directly to the Mutual Fund, it attracted no entry load. By abolishing entry loads, SEBI has acted in favour of small time investors like us because it means we will now be able make our investments at reduced cost.

My understanding is also that distributors and investors can negotiate the amount of commission to be paid for an investment. This commission can be paid separately and directly and does not have to come out the original investment. This will allow the client to evaluate the service provided by the broker. While some of these brokers provide enough information which allows the investors to make informed decisions, others simply collect cheques, fill up forms. Why should both types of brokers make the same kind of commission? The obvious concern from the distributors and brokers is that it is a loss of income for them. The investors will now in many cases not pay any commission or pay a small negotiated amount. As a small time investor it is not really a concern that I share. From my perspective, it's a great move because I get to benefit from it. If I approach a broker from a piece of advice or a recommendation, then it must not be a particular product just because it will give the broker maximum benefits. The recommended product must be good for my investment needs and not the profits the broker makes out of it.

Brokers have also been guilty of 'portfolio churning'. I once met a guy who under advisement of his broker invested in over 40 different mutual funds over a period of 3 years. Every time there was a new fund offer, his broker would call him and convince him to make an investment in the latest schemes. 3 years later this guy had a heavily fragmented and over diversified portfolio while the broker continued to make merry. If he didn't have money to invest, then the broker would advise him to get rid of an underperforming fund (with 40 to choose from, there were plenty of them). Then this guy would sell off an underperforming fund and invest into another new fund. To say that this guy made a loss on his investments because of the greed of his broker is an understatement. It would be interesting to see how much this guy would have actually stood to gain had he invested in the same money under proper advice. This change of policy by SEBI should put to rest such unscrupulous acts by brokers. It ensures that the best chance for the broker to continue to make money is if his clients stay invested in the fund. This way the broker will continue to get a trailing commission from the fund.

I have another concern. Now that mutual funds will not get as much commission for the broker, what will he resort to? There are other investment products in the market that are not regulated by SEBI and which fetch much better commission rates, sometimes ridiculously high. These products are insurance related investments which the financial industry recognizes as ULIPS. ULIPS are essentially investment vehicles that provide insurance as well and equity investments, all bundled into one product. In India, they are extremely expensive and also fetch good money to the broker who convinces his clients to invest in them. ULIPs being part of the insurance industry are regulated by IRDA. SEBI has historically been more investment friendly than IRDA and that doesn't look like it's going to change anytime soon. While SEBI's move may well be a boon for the informed and educated retail investors, it may also drive gullible investors into the arms of gleeful insurance companies, who are more than happy to extract high commission rates and pay some of it to the brokers.

Tweet

The Investment Paradox

Tweet

Ever wondered what is the most effective way to make investments in equity markets or mutual funds? When I decided that I wanted to create an investment portfolio, I spent a decent amount of time researching on the internet, speaking to people and reading popular investment magazines and books. It would have been foolish to put money on something without actually understanding what it entails, the pitfalls and the rewards, the dos and the don'ts. I had seen markets surge forward and knew of people who made a bundle of money. I had seen the markets tumble to new depths and the same people lost money and it was more than a bundle. What is the best way to invest money in the markets and at the same time protect yourself from the volatility that comes with the territory?

One of the strategies that appealed the most to me was to have a systematic investment plan. The basic premise behind systematic investment plan (SIP) is to allocate a fixed amount of money every month and invest it. Stock markets are cyclical in nature. There will be months when the stocks are trading high and there will months when they are trading low. By investing systematically every month you are effectively averaging out the cost of your investments, reducing your risks in a volatile market and increasing your gains. There are other advantages to consider, you will avoid having to make lump sum investments. When the money is going out of your pocket (or bank) in small amounts, it doesn't hurt. The bottom line is that to think big in investments, start by thinking small.

Now it's time to discuss the paradox. Systematic investments are nothing new. They have been around for many years now and many people have benefitted from it. The odd thing about these investments is that whenever the market falls, people stop their monthly debits. The flow of monies into the funds reduces alarmingly. At the same time people try to liquidate their investments putting redemption pressures on the fund itself. The point that perplexes me so much is that when equities crash, it's precisely the time to continue with the monthly investments because you are buying stocks are much lower valuations.

Take the example of ELSS equity funds in India. March 2008, saw an inflow of 1317 crores in ELSS funds (approx. 263 million dollars @ 50 rupees a dollar). Subsequently the markets crashed like never before. April 2009, saw an inflow of 93 crores (approx. 18 million dollars). What that means is that while the markets crashed more and more people stopped investing in the market. Monthly inflows were not even 10% of when the market was at its highest.

That sounds logical doesn't it? Why invest in equity markets when the value of your investments is going to fall and not grow? Flawed thinking in my opinion.

If you have invested in equities in 2007 and the early part of 2008, then you have purchased them at a higher value (compared to what transpired later on). If you stopped your investments at that time then you have deprived yourself of buying the same equities at a much lower price. Think of it another way, would you buy your favourite brand of jeans if it was on sale for 70% off? So why wouldn't you apply similar thinking to your favourite equity which over a period of time will go back to its original price if not more. Not investing when the markets are down actually makes it very difficult for you to recover investments made when the valuations are high.

The problem I see with most investors is that they think of today or think about the next 6 months which is short sighted when you want to create wealth in an asset class such as equity. In order to be truly profitable when buying equities, I think requires a waiting period of at least 5 years or more. If your investment horizon is much shorter then you should look for alternate asset classes that can give you guaranteed but lower returns.

The last two months have seen an incredible growth in the Indian equity markets. The Sensex jumped from below 8,000 points to over 15,000 since the beginning of March 2009. Guess what, now that the markets are going back up, everyone is investing again. People tend to invest on higher valuations than lower. Strange, don't you think?

Tweet

Identities – Part VI – The Politics of Identity

Tweet

Identity Politics is an attempt to empower a group of people that have a basic differentiation from the rest based on their race, colour, religion, caste, ethnicity, culture, region, sex, sexual orientation and a multitude of such other identifiers. Many of its practitioners are well intentioned highlighting the plight suffered by their group. For example, there have been multiple feminist movements across the world. These movements often run campaigns on issues like female infanticide, dowry harassment, sexual harassment, domestic violence, equal rights, honour killing etc. Another example is Gay Rights Activists, running campaigns on equal rights for Gays. Highlighting these Identity based issues plays in important role in a civil society that promises to give equal rights to all its members. It is an attempt to address a problem area that confines a particular group to the backwaters of a society.

The problem I have is that Identity based politics can get a lot uglier when the same practitioners look for political representation. I am not talking about feminism, gay rights, environmentalists and various such other groups. I am talking about Identity groups that seek to enter mainstream politics. Groups that cater exclusively to black or white, Christian, Muslim or Hindus, Yadavs or Dalits etc

Let's take a classic example. The British National Party is an exclusive whites-only political party in the United Kingdom. Party membership is limited to "Indigenous Caucasians". One of the objectives of the BNP is to see an all white nation. It wants to send all immigrants back to their home country. What about non-Caucasian people who are now naturalised British citizens or non-Caucasian people who were born in United Kingdom? Well, tough luck if you are one of them. They want to send you back "home" as well, never mind that you don't know of a home outside mother England. The BNP however does not have a problem with white immigrants. Those folks are fine and dandy. Thankfully the British public has so far denied the BNP any representation in the Parliament. They do however manage to win a handful of local council elections. Interestingly, the wards in which they do win are some of the most economically backward wards in the whole of Britain.

Alas, United Kingdom is not the only country that has to deal with far-right winged politics. Germany has National Democratic Party of Germany to contend with. This political setup is very similar to the BNP in its ideology. News about them reached even India when Obama was elected President of the United States. They apparently felt his presidency was the result of "the American alliance of Jews and Negroes". Like UK and Germany, almost every democratic country in the world has to tolerate such divisive and hate based politics.

You would want to elect a candidate based on a development platform, based on election promises that focus on improving our day to day lives. But instead we have to deal with candidates who don't have any focus of development. Their basic premise is to induce mass paranoia among the general public. It's almost like they are thinking – 'Let's scare them so much that development is no longer the most important issue. Let's make them insecure, unsure, hesitant and suspicious. They will have no choice but to vote for us'.

I cannot discuss Identity politics and not discuss India. It is like talking about flying reindeers and not talking about Santa Claus. India is a country with amazing diversity, diversity in its languages, regions, religions and caste permutations. It's the Promised Land for all Identity Politician wannabes. Unlike other countries, Identity politics can actually get you political mileage and the elusive seat of power. Interestingly many of the identity politicians in India are not far-right in their ideology. They are so self-serving that often their ideology is obscured and relatively unimportant in the larger scheme of things.

I list below just three such interesting identity political parties.
Shiv Sena – Can claim to be one of India's first right wing political parties. This politic party was born out of perceived marginalization of Marathi people living in Maharashtra and a strong advocate of a pan-Indian Hindu identity. It was also vehemently anti-Muslim in the 1990s but these days its ire is concentrated on the immigration of North Indians to Bombay (Mumbai)

Bahujan Samaj Party – Stands for the rights of Dalits. The political setup is controlled in an authoritarian manner by Mayawati, U.P's current Chief Minister. Her net worth today runs into hundreds of millions of rupees. She has no ideological leaning worth talking about, having opportunistically aligned with BJP, Congress, SP and the Left during various elections in the last 15 years. It is her ambition to be the next Prime Minister of India. God have mercy on us.

DMK and AIADMK – Both political parties represent the Dravidian movement and have a strong presence in Tamil Nadu. So strong that since 1967 Tamil Nadu seen 16 Chief Ministers - all of whom are either from DMK or AIADMK. The Dravidian movement started out as an anti- Brahmanism, opposition to Hindi and even cessation from India much of which subsided in the 1960s.

The most encouraging factor of the 2009 Indian General Election has been the defeat of many of the identity based political parties. Caste and race permutations failed in this election. For instance, Shiv Sena lost in its stronghold of Bombay, BSP lost seats even in constituencies where the scheduled castes were in a majority. Is our electorate getting wiser? Only time will tell.

Part I - Groups and Affiliation
Part II - Stereotypes
Part III - Ghettos
Part IV - Zeitgeist
Part V - The Fear of Small Numbers

Tweet