Posted on by Sandeep

Managing life with Strategic and Tactical decisions.

Strategic and Tactical Decisions:
Building a Secure Financial Future

Have you ever felt trapped in a cycle of financial stress, tackling one bill only to face another? Just as military generals plan campaigns to win wars while soldiers execute battlefield maneuvers, your financial life thrives on balancing strategic long-term goals with tactical daily actions. Understanding this interplay can transform how you navigate personal and financial decisions, leading to stability and growth.

What Are Strategic and Tactical Decisions?

Strategic decisions chart the course of your life. Like a general mapping out a multi-year campaign, these choices—such as pursuing higher education, buying a home, or starting a family—align with your values and long-term aspirations. They require careful thought, as they shape your future.

Tactical decisions, in contrast, are the immediate steps you take to support those goals, much like a soldier’s quick decisions in combat. These include budgeting for groceries, paying a utility bill, or choosing a cheaper commute. Tactical actions keep you on track day-to-day, but they’re most effective when guided by a strategic plan.

For example, consider Sarah, a 30-year-old teacher aiming to buy a home in five years (her strategic goal). Her tactical decisions—cutting subscription services and saving $200 monthly—directly support that vision, ensuring every dollar counts.

How Financial Pressure Disrupts the Balance

Financial stress often pushes people toward tactical decisions, like covering rent or fixing a car, at the expense of strategic planning. A 2023 Federal Reserve study found that 60% of Americans lack an emergency fund, leaving them vulnerable to reactive choices. This focus on short-term fixes can lead to:

  • Weakened Long-Term Goals: Prioritizing immediate needs over saving or investing can delay milestones like homeownership or retirement. For instance, skipping retirement contributions to pay off credit card debt might offer relief now but cost thousands in future wealth.
  • Increased Financial Risk: Quick fixes, like high-interest loans or speculative investments, can deepen debt. In 2024, the average credit card interest rate hit 21%, making borrowing a risky tactic without a repayment plan.
  • Vulnerability to Crises: Without strategic savings, unexpected costs—like medical bills or job loss—can spiral into financial chaos, trapping individuals in a reactive cycle.

While some, like low-income families saving for education despite tight budgets, manage strategic planning under pressure, many struggle to look beyond the present.

Balancing Strategy and Tactics for Financial Success

To break free from reactive cycles, integrate strategic vision with tactical precision. Think of it as a military operation: a general’s plan (strategy) succeeds only with well-executed maneuvers (tactics). Here’s how to align both in your financial life:

  • Set Clear Strategic Goals: Define objectives like “pay off $10,000 in student loans in three years” or “build a $5,000 emergency fund.” These guide your daily choices.
  • Use Tactical Actions Wisely: Adopt the 50/30/20 budgeting rule (50% needs, 30% wants, 20% savings/debt repayment) to manage expenses while saving. For example, redirect $50 monthly from dining out to your emergency fund.
  • Plan for Diverse Needs: Tailor strategies to your life stage. Young adults might prioritize loan repayment, while retirees focus on stretching fixed incomes. For instance, a freelancer might save irregularly but aim for a six-month emergency fund to account for income volatility.
  • Build Resilience: Save three to six months’ worth of expenses to cushion against shocks, reducing reliance on risky loans.
  • Evaluate Big Decisions: Before changing careers or moving, calculate impacts on income, benefits, and savings. For example, a higher-paying job might justify relocation costs if it accelerates debt repayment.

Conclusion: Take Control Today

Balancing strategic and tactical decisions empowers you to navigate financial challenges with confidence. While daily tactical choices keep life running smoothly, they must support a broader strategic vision to ensure lasting security. Whether you’re a student, parent, or retiree, aligning your financial decisions can unlock opportunities for growth and stability.

Start now: Set one strategic goal, like saving 1,000 for an emergency fund, and one tactical action, like cutting 25 weekly from discretionary spending. Review your progress monthly to stay on course. By blending strategy and tactics, you’ll build a financial future that’s both secure and fulfilling.

See also

How to deal or transact with wealthy people?

Not all Rich People would become Billionaires.

Posted on by Sandeep

Rupees, the India’s Currency is powerful not weak.

The Paradox of the “Poor” Currency

A Strategic Lever for Self-Reliance

When outsiders observe the Indian Rupee’s nominal exchange rate against the US Dollar, often hovering around ₹86-87 per USD as of mid-2025, it is commonly dismissed as a “poor” currency indicative of economic weakness. Yet this perception is a classic example of chirag tale andhera — “darkness under the lamp” — obscuring a profound truth about India’s underlying economic resilience. The Rupee, far from being a liability, paradoxically serves as a strategic asset, a unique “yellow rose” that has helped India chart a path towards self-reliant growth.

To understand this paradox, one must consider the broader global financial architecture. Many national currencies are, implicitly or explicitly, maintained at lower nominal values relative to the US Dollar—a reflection of the Dollar’s “exorbitant privilege” as the world’s primary reserve and trade currency. This dominant status allows the US to finance large consumption and deficits by issuing treasury bills widely accepted worldwide. Such a structure creates an asymmetry where other currencies often appear undervalued against the Dollar in nominal terms.

However, when we assess India by Purchasing Power Parity (PPP)—an economic measure adjusting for relative price levels—the story changes significantly. India ranks as the world’s third-largest economy by PPP, highlighting the vast disparity between nominal exchange rates and actual domestic buying power. PPP effectively measures what a unit of currency can purchase within the local economy, clarifying why a “low” nominal rate does not imply economic weakness.

falling rupee

For India, this nominal undervaluation confers a remarkable competitive advantage. A weaker Rupee makes manufacturing within India much more affordable in dollar terms, as costs for labor, land, and inputs are comparatively low. This intrinsic cost advantage acts as a powerful magnet for both foreign direct investment (FDI) and domestic firms targeting export markets, helping to expand India’s role in global supply chains.

This economic reality underpins initiatives such as “Make in India,” especially in sectors like defense manufacturing, where import substitution is not only a matter of national pride but an economic imperative. With a weaker currency, importing high-value goods becomes significantly costlier, straining foreign exchange reserves and worsening trade deficits. Without aggressive localization efforts, India risked greater fiscal vulnerabilities. Thus, the Rupee’s “poor” status ironically propels the nation toward greater self-reliance and economic robustness.

In addition, the weakened nominal exchange rate translates into an exceptionally high domestic purchasing power for many Indians. Despite a seemingly low nominal income, the cost of essentials—like meals or daily goods—is remarkably affordable. For example, a wholesome meal for three persons or heavy snacks for six from a reputable Indian establishment can cost around ₹197 (approximately US$2.29), even including perks such as near-free delivery for premium loyalty members. This means that modest nominal incomes often yield quality living standards within India. As the saying goes, one can “earn little and live like kings.”

SWIFT and SEPA

Nonetheless, it is important to recognize that currency valuation is not governed by economic fundamentals alone. Global financial infrastructure platforms like SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) and the Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) serve as critical arteries for cross-border currency flows. While fundamentally designed as neutral payment messaging systems, their operational control and accessibility can be leveraged geopolitically. For instance, the exclusion of certain nations from SWIFT has effectively restricted their international capital flows. Such restrictions can limit demand or supply of affected currencies, thereby exerting indirect, artificial pressure on their valuations. Although these systems do not directly set exchange rates, control over transaction flows and access to global liquidity markets arguably allow influential powers to mold valuation dynamics beyond pure market fundamentals.

Of course, a nominally weaker Rupee does carry some risks, such as raising the cost of imported capital goods or inflationary pressures from expensive external inputs. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) continually adjusts monetary policy to balance these effects and maintain inflation within targeted ranges, preserving currency stability and protecting domestic purchasing power.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the Indian Rupee, despite its low nominal exchange rate, is far from “poor” in strategic utility or domestic strength. It acts as a critical lever incentivizing domestic production, reducing costly imports, nurturing self-reliance, and delivering quality of life benefits for its citizens. This paradox is a core pillar of India’s multifaceted economic strategy—a “poor” currency that paradoxically empowers a rich and resilient economy.

Posted on by Sandeep

USA Economy and solution for its revival

USA getting rid of its debt

How USA Can Get Rid of Its Debt Without Crashing Its Economy?

The United States (USA) currently faces an unprecedented fiscal challenge. The national debt of USA has has soared to historic highs, now hovering around $38 trillion and projected to rise further, casting shadows over the nation’s financial health and long-term economic prosperity. In a decade it would be around 70 Trillion USD. This precariously places USA, the most developed country alongside the bankrupt country like Pakistan.

Conventional policy debates focus largely on tax increases, spending cuts, and economic reforms, but these measures alone may not suffice to prevent fiscal crisis or economic disruption. In fact despite all the large talk, nothing could prevent the debt to rise to 38 trillion from 19 trillion in 2015.

What if there were a different way — a systemic blueprint leveraging monetary evolution and modern financial innovations to reduce debt dramatically without crashing the economy? This article explores a plausible long-term strategy, grounded in monetary history and emerging digital currency frameworks, that could enable the U.S. to slash its debt burden while preserving economic stability. This blueprint integrates traditional monetary history with your hypothetical modern scenario, reflecting how the U.S. could leverage monetary policy, digital currency technology, and market dynamics to address its debt problem without formal default.

From Bretton Woods to Fiat Dollars: The Historical Monetary Bedrock

The origins of America’s monetary predominance are rooted in the Bretton Woods Agreement of 1944. This international system pegged other currencies to the U.S. dollar, which was convertible to gold at $35 per ounce. Backed by the world’s largest gold reserves and a dominant post-war economy, the dollar became the cornerstone of global finance and trade, fostering decades of economic stability and growth.

However, by the late 1960s, persistent U.S. federal deficits and gold outflows strained this system. The tipping point came on August 15, 1971, when President Richard Nixon ended dollar convertibility to gold — the “Nixon Shock.” This executive action transitioned the dollar into a fiat currency, backed solely by U.S. government decree and economic trust. The system shifted to floating exchange rates, and America’s debt began its decades-long growth trajectory.

The Emerging Fiscal Challenge and Limits to Conventional Solutions:

Debt-to-GDP has surpassed 100%

Interest costs are growing rapidly

Traditional tax-and-spend reforms are politically constrained

Economic growth policies offer some relief, but they take years to show impact and cannot, by themselves, reverse a $60 trillion debt scenario. Crucially, all mainstream proposals carry a risk of economic slowdown, political instability, or financial market disruption — outcomes no country wishes to confront head-on.

Historical Examples of getting rid of debts:

After World War II, Germany introduced a new currency, the Deutsche Mark, replacing the Reichsmark, which had become nearly worthless due to hyperinflation and war damages. This currency reform wiped out much of the old debt and inflationary pressures, helping Germany stabilize its economy and set the foundation for rapid postwar growth. However it had huge economic backlash and people suffered immensely. An important lesson to be learnt from this example, is that crash of purchasing power of currency wrecks havoc for economy and people.

The UK also faced currency crises after WWII and undertook devaluations of the pound (notably in 1949 and 1967), but this was part of managing post-war economic adjustment rather than a case of simply “crashing” the currency and repudiating debt to newly independent countries like India. Instead, the UK used managed exchange rates, controls, and restructuring of debts and assets

Slovakia in 1993, successfully abandoned the currency union with the Czech Republic by introducing its own currency. Although the Slovak economy initially struggled, it eventually recovered and later qualified to join the Eurozone. But it was slow phasing out of it’s joint currency with Czech republic.

The Digital Frontier: Stablecoins and the Future of Currency

Bitcoin is here for a longtime and crypto currencies are flourishing. The 2020s have witnessed the rise of stablecoins — official USA backed digital currencies pegged 1:1 to fiat US dollar. Enabling fast, global financial transactions, stablecoins have become pivotal in the evolving monetary landscape. U.S. policymakers responded with regulations such as the GENIUS Act (2025), requiring every stablecoin to be backed by U.S. dollars or Treasury securities. This move cemented their role within America’s financial ecosystem. With adoption growing, the result could be a two-tier currency system:

  • USD – Traditional fiat currency for domestic use
  • Stablecoin – Digital currency used for international settlements and debt issuance.

Blue Print for debt free future:

1. StableCoins

First step is to convert all existing debt into stablecoins which are linked to USD today. Nobody will object to it. In a decade or so entire USA national debt will be converted to stablecoins. This will accelerate more after second step which is to introduce dual currency system.

2. The Two-Currency System: Segmentation and Economic Shielding

In future it is possible that USA may snap the link between the two currencies and creates a dual currency system. This dual system mirrors the segmentation used by China (CNY/CNH), with an added digital layer. Features include:

  • Capital controls and limited convertibility
  • Stablecoin becomes dominant in world trade
  • US Dollars to be used in domestic market
  • De facto separation of domestic and international monetary policy

The separation insulates internal U.S. economic policy while enabling the use of stablecoins to settle foreign obligations and trade, gradually shifting away from the USD in global commerce.

3. The Debt Crescendo and Stablecoin Market Shock

Now consider this hypothetical situation:

  • Total U.S. debt reaches $70 trillion, now entirely issued in stablecoins
  • World trade in USD (Stablecoin) falls to less than 20%
  • The U.S. orchestrates or allows a controlled crash in stablecoin value — a 90% devaluation over one year.

If anybody has doubt about such controlled crash, look at the trajectory of Bitcoin and how it moved from around 67000 to 120,000 in a few months in 2025. This engineered drop in the stablecoin’s exchange value creates a unique opportunity.

4. Debt Unwinding: Opportunistic Buybacks and Wealth Transfer

As stablecoin-denominated debt loses value, the nominal $70 trillion becomes worth just $10 trillion in market terms. U.S. citizens and intermediaries buy the bonds from foreign holders — at pennies on the dollar. Remember the connection or exchange rate between two currency is snapped and both have different market driven value. USD remains fixed as it is no more traded internationally.

The Treasury then repurchases these bonds directly or indirectly, effectively retiring tens of trillions in debt without a declared default.

Winners:

  • U.S. citizens who bought cheap Treasury instruments.
  • US Businesses who with higher USD and lower Stable Coins would become competitive again.
  • The U.S. government, now largely debt-free in real terms.

Losers:

  • Foreign creditors, whose assets are devalued 90%
  • Global financial systems, which lose confidence in U.S. assets

Effectively, this is a monetary reset. You may call it a scam which started in 1971 by Nixon.  It mirrors historical cases of inflationary debt resolution — but enabled by digital instruments and currency segmentation which cushioned domestic economy from the global turmoil. The USA with it’s domestic strength would also emerge taller and stronger after the resent.

5. Recovery: Controlled Stablecoin Revival and Domestic Stimulus

After the debt is repaid and stablecoin liabilities cleared, the U.S. government:

  • Reopens stablecoin markets to domestic investors or launches a new stablecoin.
  • Relaunches a stronger, regulated stablecoin framework, bblaming old system for the crash
  • Uses newfound fiscal space for domestic investments and stimulus

This phase creates a ripple effect:

  • Domestic economy is stimulated
  • Profiteering citizens reinvest, expanding the economic base
  • Global players — bruised but curious — cautiously return

Though trust in U.S. international debt instruments is temporarily diminished, the dollar’s domestic strength and the U.S.’s economic power remain intact.

6. Global Repercussions and Strategic Realignment

The consequences of such a move would be global in scale:

  • Other reserve assets gain traction (euro, gold, silver, digital currencies)
  • New multilateral financial systems emerge (e.g., BRICS Bank, Digital SDRs)
  • American geopolitical reach might temporarily shrink, but domestic control and debt relief offer a powerful rebound narrative

Far from chaotic default, this blueprint would be a form of “controlled collapse and reset” — a one-time restructuring, strategically executed with monetary maturity and digital innovation.

Conclusion: A Road to Zero Debt in the Digital Age

The United States has always adapted its currency system when needed — from gold convertibility to the fiat dollar, and now to programmable digital stablecoins. Remember currency reset has already done by USA, once on 15 August, 1971 when Nixon snapped the link between dollar and gold. Nobody could protest and nobody will protest now as USA is a military superpower as well. Challenge to its currency by dictators like Saddam and Gaddafi was met with military power and crushed successfully.

By engineering a dual-currency system and leveraging the digital transformation of money, the U.S. could resolve its burdensome public debt and open a new chapter of economic expansion and policy flexibility.

Yes, it’s hypothetical. Yes, it would shake the global system. But under the right governance, with cautious planning, it’s a feasible way for the United States to emerge debt-free without crashing its economy and without actually paying it’s debt.

This is a fictional scenario based on emerging technological, monetary, and policy trends. It is intended to foster intellectual dialogue, not to reflect any official roadmap or forecast.

Sources and Further Reading:

  • U.S. Treasury Fiscal Data
  • IMF World Economic Outlook Reports
  • GENIUS Act: Official U.S. Congressional Publication (2025)
  • Peterson Foundation: 76 Options for Reducing the Deficit
  • Historical Monetary Policy Debates (Nixon Library, Bretton Woods Project)
Posted on by Sandeep

US dollars, Bitcoin and Crypto Currencies?

Is the USA Abandoning the Dollar by Embracing Bitcoin?

Officially, the US government is not replacing the US dollar with Bitcoin as its national currency. The dollar remains the official currency of the United States and the world’s primary reserve currency. However, recent developments, including actions by the Trump administration and its associates, indicate a significant shift in how the US engages with Bitcoin and other digital assets. Below is a detailed breakdown of the current situation:

US Dollar’s Status

The US dollar continues to be the dominant global reserve currency, used for a significant portion of international trade and financial transactions. Despite concerns about the US national debt, which exceeds $36 trillion, and occasional reports of dollar weakness, there is no indication that the government intends to abandon the dollar for Bitcoin. The dollar’s role is reinforced by its use in global markets and the absence of a retail Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), with the current administration explicitly opposing a digital dollar for retail use.

US Government’s Stance on Bitcoin

Under President Donald J. Trump, the US has taken unprecedented steps to integrate Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies into its financial strategy, signaling a shift from skepticism to strategic embrace. Key developments include:

Strategic Bitcoin Reserve

On March 6, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order establishing the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, positioning Bitcoin as a reserve asset akin to gold or petroleum. This reserve is primarily capitalized with approximately 200,000 Bitcoin (valued at roughly $17.5 billion as of March 2025) seized through criminal or civil forfeiture proceedings. The order mandates that these Bitcoin holdings will not be sold, treating them as a long-term store of value. The Secretaries of Treasury and Commerce are tasked with developing budget-neutral strategies to acquire additional Bitcoin, ensuring no additional cost to taxpayers. This move has been described as a “digital Fort Knox” by White House AI and Crypto Czar David Sacks, emphasizing Bitcoin’s scarcity and security, often referred to as “digital gold” due to its capped supply of 21 million coins.

U.S. Digital Asset Stockpile

A separate U.S. Digital Asset Stockpile was created to manage non-Bitcoin digital assets, such as Ethereum (ETH), XRP, Solana (SOL), and Cardano (ADA), also acquired through forfeiture proceedings. Unlike the Bitcoin reserve, the Treasury may strategically manage or sell these assets. Trump announced on Truth Social on March 2, 2025, that these five cryptocurrencies would be included, causing a temporary market surge. Critics argue that including non-Bitcoin assets risks market distortion and raises concerns about favoritism, especially given the commercial nature of these tokens compared to Bitcoin’s decentralized structure.

Trump’s Pro-Crypto Shift

President Trump, once a skeptic who called Bitcoin a “scam” during his first term, has embraced cryptocurrencies, positioning himself as the “crypto president.” His administration has prioritized policies to make the US the “crypto capital of the planet,” including hosting the first White House Crypto Summit on March 7, 2025, attended by industry leaders like Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong and MicroStrategy’s Michael Saylor. Trump’s campaign received significant support from the crypto industry, with $18 million donated to his inauguration and $238 million to the 2024 election cycle, surpassing traditional lobbies like oil and gas. These financial ties have raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest, particularly given the Trump family’s involvement in crypto ventures.

Trump Family’s Crypto Ventures and Pakistan Deal

The Trump family’s financial interests in cryptocurrencies are notable. Through a trust managed by his children, President Trump holds a 60% stake in World Liberty Financial (WLF), a cryptocurrency and decentralized finance firm founded in 2024, which earned him $57 million in 2024. In April 2025, WLF signed a letter of intent to incorporate blockchain technology into Pakistani financial organizations, aligning with Pakistan’s creation of the Pakistan Crypto Council in March 2025 and its announcement of a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve in May 2025. This move, led by Pakistan Crypto Council CEO Bilal Bin Saqib, was partly seen as an effort to curry favor with the Trump administration, especially after Trump praised a Pakistani general for restraint in a 2025 Indo-Pakistani conflict. Critics view this as a potential conflict of interest, given the Trump family’s financial stake in WLF and its international dealings. Pakistan’s strategy also includes allocating 2,000 megawatts of surplus energy for Bitcoin mining, despite domestic bans on cryptocurrency transactions.

Regulation, Not Replacement

US agencies, including the SEC, CFTC, and IRS, classify cryptocurrencies variously as securities, commodities, or property, and are developing regulatory frameworks to integrate them into the financial system. The Trump administration has reversed Biden-era enforcement actions, dismissing lawsuits against major crypto firms like Coinbase and Binance, and appointed pro-crypto figures like Paul Atkins as SEC chair and Scott Bessent as Treasury Secretary. These actions aim to foster innovation while maintaining the dollar’s dominance, with stablecoins seen as a tool to extend the dollar’s global reach rather than replace it.

Genius Act and Stable Coins

The GENIUS Act authorise the US treasury to issue it’s own cryptocurrency called stablecoin. It requires every stablecoin to be backed by Treasuries or dollars, forcing issuers to purchase large amounts of US government debt. The stablecoin market grows (predicted to reach $1.6 trillion by 2030), demand for US Treasuries could increase by up to $1 trillion, helping reduce borrowing costs for the federal government. The GENIUS Act does not encourage or facilitate any direct devaluation of the dollar. Instead, it is expected to stabilize—rather than weaken—the dollar, because it expands global demand for both US currency and Treasuries.

History and other countries

Countries have frequently used devaluation, hyperinflation, or currency reform to reduce the real burden of debt, but these strategies often come with severe economic and social consequences. While controlled devaluation can temporarily ease domestic debt, extreme cases like Weimar Germany show that currency collapse is a last resort, not a sustainable solution. It appears that USA may take that route but that will be a matter for another article in future.

Bitcoin as an Investment/Asset

Bitcoin is increasingly viewed as an investment asset, with institutional adoption growing through US ETFs and corporate treasury strategies, such as MicroStrategy’s. The SEC’s approval of spot Bitcoin ETFs in 2024 further legitimized Bitcoin as a financial instrument. However, critics argue that Bitcoin’s volatility (e.g., a 5% price drop after the reserve announcement) makes it a risky reserve asset compared to gold or US Treasurys. Supporters, including Trump, argue it could hedge against inflation and potentially reduce the national debt, though skeptics note that realizing gains would require selling, which the reserve policy prohibits.

Discussions about Dollar Dominance

Some investors and economists, including BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, have speculated that Bitcoin could challenge the dollar’s reserve status in the long term, particularly if global adoption increases. Posts on X reflect this sentiment, with users like @maxkeiser suggesting stablecoins could accelerate a transition to Bitcoin as a world reserve currency. However, the Trump administration insists Bitcoin complements, not competes with, the dollar, similar to gold. Critics argue that holding seized assets rather than purchasing Bitcoin limits the reserve’s strategic impact and raises ethical concerns about monetizing confiscations.

Criticisms and Challenges

The Strategic Bitcoin Reserve has drawn mixed reactions. Proponents see it as a forward-thinking move to position the US as a crypto leader, potentially stabilizing Bitcoin’s value through government backing. Critics, including some crypto purists, argue that only Bitcoin should be in the reserve due to its decentralization, and that including other tokens risks government overreach. Others, like Vitalik Buterin, note that crypto’s original ethos was to counter government control, making state-backed reserves controversial. There are also concerns about transparency, with calls for independent audits to prevent favoritism. Legal hurdles may arise, as some experts suggest Congressional approval is needed for a full reserve, with prediction markets estimating a 61% chance of implementation in 2025.

Conclusion

Officially the US is not abandoning the dollar but is strategically engaging with Bitcoin and other digital assets through the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and Digital Asset Stockpile. These initiatives, driven by President Trump’s pro-crypto policies and supported by his administration’s industry ties, aim to position the US as a global leader in digital finance. The Trump family’s financial interests, including their deal with Pakistan, add complexity and raise conflict-of-interest concerns. While Bitcoin is recognized as a strategic asset, the dollar’s dominance remains unchallenged, with cryptocurrencies integrated into, rather than replacing, the existing financial system. Ongoing regulatory developments and market dynamics will shape the future of this bold experiment.

Bitcoin’s recent price surge to over $118,000 from a low of 68,000 a few months back, underscores its volatility, which undermines its viability as a currency for now. It struggles as a medium of exchange and unit of account due to unpredictable price swings, and while it shows promise as a store of value over long periods, its short-term volatility poses significant risks. Until Bitcoin achieves greater stability—potentially through increased institutional adoption and market maturity—it remains more of a speculative asset than a practical currency.

Now USA by choosing Bitcoin as a reserve has shown it’s hand that it is not confident of US dollars as much as it was a few years back. Refer to the financial problems of USA here.

However the question remains how USA is going to solve its huge debt of 38 trillion and rising?

Posted on by Sandeep

How Britain robbed ten percent of India’s GDP in 1947?

The Great British Heist

The Complex Story of Britain’s Unpaid Wartime Debt to India:
A Burden Equal to 10% of India’s GDP in 1947

The financial legacy of British colonialism left India with enormous economic ruin at independence. One of the most glaring example was the massive wartime debt Britain owed India. This debt was so large that it amounted to roughly 10% of India’s entire economy in 1947, underscoring the profound injustice and long-term economic harm caused by Britain’s refusal to fully honor its obligations.

Yesterday PM Modi arrived in London for a two-day UK visit focused on signing a historic Free Trade Agreement and strengthening the India-UK Strategic Partnership. He is also scheduled to meet PM Keir Starmer and King Charles III during this trip.However UK had been not only brutal coloniser of India but was also dishonest in its dealings with India, after Britain had left India. It refused to honour it’s obligations towards India.

The Great British Heist?

The resources that Britain obtained from a poor India during WW-2 were comparable or exceeded that provided by an increasingly prosperous United States. While American materials were provided after Britain signed an agreement on Washington’s terms, the Indian story was rather different. Britain coveted India’s resources but did not want to pay for them. As a result, in lieu of payments for goods and services drawn out of India, Britain held promissory notes that were to be redeemed in the future. This is akin to a customer walking into a grocery store and clearing out the shelves. But instead of paying cash, he writes out a note promising to pay up later. Moreover, he decides to keep this note with himself for safe custody!

But if Britain deferred payments, the goods had to nevertheless be purchased in India against a cash payment to individual sellers. It is here that the Reserve Bank of India stepped in to the aid of London and printed a large amount of currency. Thus, between 1940 and 1942, the amount of money in circulation in India more than doubled. The result was an average rate of inflation of a whopping 350%. Rapid and sustained economic inflation is a most regressive form of hidden taxation as it severely and disproportionately penalizes the poor. Such inflation coupled with all-round scarcity of goods had a devastating effect on life in India. While the millions of deaths in the Bengal Famine of 1943 was a grim consequence of British policy in India, it was only the grisly tip of a vast iceberg of countrywide sorrow and hardship. (See link to wire.in below)

India’s Economy and Wealth at Independence

In 1947, India’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) stood at approximately ₹2,700 billion (2.7 trillion rupees) — roughly equivalent to $20 billion USD at historic exchange rates, with a population of around 350 million, and a per capita income near $58 USD. India was among the world’s poorer economies at independence, burdened by widespread poverty, partition-related dislocation, and underdevelopment.

This scale is critical for understanding the magnitude of Britain’s wartime debt to India. The British government owed India about £1.16 billion sterling in accumulated sterling balances — India’s share of payments for its enormous contributions of troops, war supplies, and blocked export earnings during World War II. At the 1947 exchange rate (~₹13.33 per £1), this debt translated to approximately ₹15.5 billion.

Debt Equal to a Tenth of India’s Economy

Viewed in relation to India’s total GDP, the wartime debt Britain owed represented roughly 10% of India’s entire economic output at independence. For context, this is an exceptionally large sum, especially for a newly sovereign and economically fragile nation needing every rupee to fund reconstruction, relief, and development. India’s debt by 1945 was about £1.51 billion – the equivalent of $83.93 billion today.

Britain’s Strategy: Delay, Partial Payments, and Diplomatic Subterfuge

Despite this enormous liability, Britain did not fully repay India. Instead, the UK government pursued a careful and prolonged strategy to evade full payment:

  • During the war, in 1939 itself, Britain suspended sterling convertibility, creating “blocked sterling balances” that grew to £3.35 billion, of which India’s share was about 45% (~£1.51 billion initially).
  • As independence approached, Britain and the United States coordinated secretly to limit repayments to India, fearing that full repayment would cripple Britain’s postwar recovery and geopolitical role in the emerging Cold War.
  • Sterling convertibility was briefly restored in July 1947 but suspended again a month later—on August 20, 1947—just before Indian independence, effectively blocking India’s access to much of its wartime funds.
  • Britain agreed only to small initial payments (£35 million in 1947), with the bulk of the debt intended to be repaid over many years and sizable portions written off as “adjustments” or offset against counterclaims.
  • India, starved of these funds, had to fund its wartime costs and reconstruction internally, resorting to heavy taxation and printing money, which caused inflation and economic hardship.

Economic and Political Consequences for India

The British strategy to postpone and minimize repayments was not a formal default but a de facto repudiation by bureaucratic and diplomatic delay. India suffered serious economic constraints as a result, at a time when the country urgently needed capital for rebuilding and development.

This prolonged financial subterfuge reflects the power imbalances of the colonial and early postcolonial era, where Britain leveraged Cold War geopolitics and economic weakness to evade its rightful obligations. The episode remains a stark example of how postcolonial financial justice was often sacrificed on the altar of geopolitical expediency.

Table: Economic Context and Debt Scale

MetricApproximate Figure (1947)
India’s GDP₹2,700 billion (≈ $20 billion USD)
India’s Population~350 million
India’s Per Capita GDP~$58 USD
British War Debt to India£1.16 billion (~₹15.5 billion)
Debt as % of India’s GDPApproximately 10%

Summary:

The wartime debt Britain owed India was a colossal sum, equivalent to about a tenth of India’s entire economy at independence. Rather than repaying this fairly and promptly, Britain protracted negotiations, manipulated currency policies, and coordinated with the US to delay repayments and paid tiny sums in installments to keep the facade of payment. India bore the economic burdens imposed by this financial injustice during its critical formative years.

This episode exposes the harsh realities of economic inequality embedded within decolonization, illustrating how geopolitical and economic power enabled Britain to evade critical fiscal responsibilities while India grappled with poverty, inflation, and developmental challenges. It was a day time robbery for which UK has no explanation even today. Would Prime Minister Modi raise this issue on this visit to UK? I doubt it.

From 1947 to 2025: Economic Journey of India

References:

Posted on by Sandeep

Why big businesses fail and could not foresee it?

Downhill & Uphill:
The Arc of Big Businesses Collapse and Courage

1. The Illusion of Permanence

We rarely believe that giants can fall. A platform we use daily, a device we depend on, a digital home where we write, talk, store, share — these seem as permanent as gravity. But history has always laughed at permanence.

In the early 2000s, if you said Nokia would be irrelevant in ten years, you would be called a fool. Even when the cracks began to show, denial was stronger than reason. There’s a comfort in believing things will last. But permanence is a user’s illusion — and downhill is often invisible until it becomes terminal.

2. The Nokia Syndrome – Death by Comfort

Nokia’s downfall didn’t happen because it lacked engineers or funds. It happened because it believed it had time. Its UI stagnated. Its management grew insular. Even as iPhone and Android gained ground, Nokia stuck to its guns — feature phones with clunky software, tied to an ecosystem that felt ancient.

There were moments when common sense almost surfaced. When Android was clearly dominating, a suggestion was floated to launch Android-powered Nokias. But the Polish CEO reportedly quipped:

“That would be like peeing in your pants to stay warm.”

It turned out he didn’t just lose the warmth — he lost his trousers too. Nokia’s refusal to adapt wasn’t boldness. It was hubris dressed up as strategy.

3. Symbian – A Phone OS That Couldn’t Become More

Symbian was never meant to be a full-featured mobile OS. It was designed to handle calls and text — that’s all. But as competitors brought in music, maps, email, and apps, Symbian was pushed beyond its original design. The result? It bloated, broke, and slowed.

Instead of rewriting from scratch or embracing something new, companies layered features on a legacy core. Developers hated the complexity. Users hated the lag. What was once lightweight and efficient became a lumbering relic trying to wear a spacesuit.

The lesson? A foundation built for one era rarely survives another.

4. BlackBerry – The Cost of Arrogance in a Connected Age

BlackBerry offered a brilliant closed-loop communication platform — fast, secure, and ahead of its time. But it misread the shift in power. When Google and Apple began offering free, open, and beautifully integrated services, BlackBerry stuck to charging users extra to use basic email. It relied too long on its corporate moat, ignored app culture, and tried to pivot far too late.

It finally launched BBM as a separate app — but only after the world had moved on. WhatsApp, Telegram, and others had long replaced BBM in people’s pockets. The idea came too late, and the execution couldn’t matter anymore.

As one blogger presciently wrote in 2012:
“Ships do not sink just because of weather. Similarly firing a Captain of a sinking ship does not brighten chances of its survival.”

5. Vodafone India – A Shell of a Network with an Empty Lobby

Vodafone’s business model was already under strain. But before data killed it, bad customer experience drove users away. High-paying postpaid customers — the ones telcos value most — were made to wait in long queues, humiliated, and treated as numbers, not people.

As documented in 2012, Vodafone’s staff were often indifferent, untrained, or outright dismissive. Loyalty walked out first — long before the debt arrived.

And behind the scenes, the company owned no real infrastructure. It was, as another article put it, a shell company built on billing, not service. On top of it, its staff oblivious of competition continue to behave like Prince and Princess and run customer service like a Royal Court requiring customers to wait holding any arbitrary token while staff inside is giggling or polishing nails. You can’t park your customers in a queue and expect them not to move on.

6. Modern Warning Signs – Grok, Ubuntu, and the Coughing Ones

Collapse never stops. It just shifts forms.

Grok 3, ambitious as it may be, remains confined to the appendix of X (Twitter). And no matter how powerful the model, it can’t grow while being fed by a volatile, controversial, and curated platform. Intelligence demands a diverse diet. Otherwise, it becomes a loud echo chamber.

Ubuntu, once beloved by Linux users worldwide, forced its Unity interface on users. The move alienated its core base. People left for Linux Mint and other distros that valued usability over ego. It wanted to be on mobile screens but it ended up vanishing from desktops and laptops. It was a reminder that vision without listening is just noise.

7. The Uphill Counterpoint – Café Coffee Day and Malavika Hegde

But not every story is a tragedy.

When V.G. Siddhartha, founder of Café Coffee Day, died by suicide in 2019, the business was crushed under the weight of over ₹7,000 crore in debt. The corporate world braced for collapse. But his wife, Malavika Hegde, stepped in. She took over the reins with no drama, no headlines — just determination. As CEO, she streamlined the business, reduced debt significantly, and restored stability. She didn’t rebrand. She didn’t perform. She simply led.

Her leadership wasn’t loud — it was lived.
In a world full of visionaries who crash, she quietly landed the plane and then took it off into profit.

Posted on by Sandeep · 1 Comment

How to deal or transact with wealthy people?

How to deal or transact with Billionaires?

How “Others” Should Deal with Wealthy People?

They are the rich and we the rest are “others”. The transactional nature and potential lack of empathy in wealthy people (especially in the “neo rich”) are vital. It frames how “others” should approach these relationships. The answer isn’t a simple “yes” or “no” to initiating contact, but rather a strategic and self-aware approach. Best is to stay away and let fate do the ‘contact’ but there are circumstances when one may have to initiate the contact with rich and wealthy person.

The approach depends heavily on whether you’re dealing with the established wealthy (billionaire class) or the neo rich, and crucially, what your own intentions and expectations are.

A. Dealing with the Established Wealthy (Billionaire Class):

Relationships with this group are often more professionally driven, but can also be genuinely respectful if you approach them with the right mindset.

  • Respect Their Time and Expertise (and Know Your Own talent, expertise and limitations)
  • Be Prepared and Concise: If you initiate contact, ensure you have a clear purpose, a well-thought-out idea, or a specific value proposition. They value efficiency.
  • Demonstrate Competence: If you’re providing a service or advice, prove your expertise. They respect talent and knowledge genuinely, not flattery.
  • Don’t Expect Social Handouts: Their social interactions are often strategic. Focus on mutual benefit or a shared passion (e.g., a philanthropic cause) rather than expecting purely social favors.
  • Focus on Value, Not Dependency:
  • Offer Value: Think about what you can bring to the table – ideas, skills, connections, or a shared interest.
  • Avoid Asking for Money/Favors: Unless it’s a specific, well-justified business proposition, avoid requests for financial help. This will quickly sour the relationship.
  • Set Clear Boundaries: If you’re engaging in a professional capacity, ensure terms are clear and professional.
  • Recognize Genuine Philanthropy vs. Transactional: Some established wealthy are genuinely philanthropic. If you’re involved in a charitable cause, approach them with a clear vision and demonstrable impact, not just an emotional plea. They often seek efficient solutions to problems.

 

B. Dealing with the Neo Rich (Suddenly Wealthy)

This group presents a more complex dynamic due to their ongoing psychological adjustments and the often-transactional nature of their relationships. They often do not respond well if they see no immediate benefit from the transaction. They will take the conversation to your vice or some failure in past to make you uncomfortable and stop you then and there. Don’t be hurt. Take the cue and stop and wait for the wealth to speak to you in future for a transaction. More points:

  • Initiating Contact: A Cautious “Yes” (with conditions).
  • Lower Expectations of Empathy/Intimacy is natural from this group as their goal of life is simple i.e. Money and a lot of it.
  • Acknowledge the Shift: Understand that the old dynamic of the friendship is likely changed. The previous level of emotional intimacy may be gone, replaced by a more superficial connection.
  • Don’t Take It Personally: Their transactional behavior and lack of deep engagement aren’t necessarily a personal slight, but a coping mechanism for their new reality.
  • Avoid Vulnerability (Unless Strategic): Sharing deep personal struggles might not elicit the empathy you once expected and could even be perceived as an opening for a financial request.
  • Maintain Boundaries and Self-Respect:
  • Don’t Try to “Keep Up”: Resist the urge to spend beyond your means to match their new lifestyle. Be honest about your financial limits (“That’s a bit out of my budget, maybe we could do X instead?”).
  • Say “No” to Uncomfortable Situations: If they invite you to an activity you can’t afford or don’t enjoy, politely decline.
  • Don’t Become a “Resource”: Be wary of being used solely for your time, social connections, or as a sounding board for their “rich person problems” without reciprocal value.
  • Recognize Flattery for What It Is: Your observation about insincere flattery is key. Appreciate the gesture, but don’t confuse it with genuine deep respect or affection.
  • Evaluate Your Own Reasons for Contact: What’s Your Goal? Are you seeking to genuinely maintain a friendship, or are you hoping for some form of “favor” or indirect benefit? Be honest with yourself.  Is It Worth the Emotional Cost? If the relationship feels consistently unbalanced, disingenuous, or leaves you feeling resentful, it might be healthier to naturally let it fade.
  • Focus on Shared Non-Financial Interests: If you want to maintain a connection, emphasize activities or topics that were genuinely shared before the wealth intervened, and that don’t revolve around money.
  • For Old Friends: If the bond was truly strong before, a gentle, non-demanding reach-out can be fine. Invite them to a casual activity that aligns with your means.
  • No Expectation of Reciprocity: Don’t expect them to reciprocate in kind or to initiate contact frequently.
  • Be Wary of Sudden Calls when they may even share to do your laundry (“Laundry Day Call”): If they only reappear when they need something, recognize the pattern and decide if you’re comfortable with that dynamic. You’re not obligated to fulfill every request simply because they “show up.”

Summary of Approach:

Ultimately, dealing with wealthy people, particularly the “neo rich,” requires emotional intelligence, strong boundaries, and a realistic understanding of their altered perspectives and priorities.

  • For the established wealthy: Focus on mutual value, competence, and clear communication.
  • For the neo rich: Approach with lowered expectations of intimacy, strong personal boundaries, and a clear understanding of your own needs and comfort levels.

The goal should be to maintain self-respect and authenticity, rather than chasing a relationship that may no longer offer the genuine connection it once did.

Posted on by Sandeep

Not all Rich People would become Billionaires.

Why every rich will not become billionaire?

Billionaires Versus Wealthy: The different lifestyle and social behaviour.

It’s crucial to distinguish between these two groups, as their journeys to wealth profoundly shape their mindsets and social behaviors. Let’s articulate both separately, as under:

How to become a Billionaire?

I. Established Wealth: The Billionaire Class

This group typically refers to individuals who have accumulated vast fortunes over a significant period, often through sustained business success, innovation, or inherited wealth spanning generations. Their lifestyle and social behaviors are often characterized by a more embedded, strategic, and often understated approach to their affluence.

A. Defining Characteristics & Lifestyle:

* Long-Term Vision & Strategic Planning:

Billionaires operate with a multi-decade or multi-generational perspective. Their decisions are rooted in long-term growth, legacy building, and preservation of wealth.

* Asset Accumulation & Passive Income:

Their focus is primarily on acquiring and growing income-generating assets (businesses, diverse investments, real estate) rather than simply maximizing active income. Their money truly “works for them.”

* Calculated Risk-Taking:

While they take risks, they are typically highly calculated and based on extensive research, expertise, and a deep understanding of market dynamics.

* Frugality & Conscious Spending (Often):

Despite their immense wealth, many established billionaires are remarkably frugal in their daily lives, avoiding excessive conspicuous consumption. Spending is often strategic, for investments, experiences, or causes rather than mere display.

* Prioritization of Health & Well-being:

Recognizing that their capacity for work and strategic thinking depends on it, they often invest in their physical and mental health through rigorous routines.

* Continuous Learning & Growth Mindset:

They are voracious readers and learners, constantly seeking new knowledge, adapting to change, and viewing challenges as opportunities for personal and professional growth.

* Global Perspective:

Their interests and investments often span continents, giving them a broad worldview and understanding of diverse economies and cultures.

B. Social Behavior & Interaction

* Respect for Talent and Expertise:

This is a hallmark. Billionaires, having often built empires by identifying and leveraging talent, genuinely understand its value.

* Delegation & Trust:

They are masters of delegation, trusting experts in various fields (legal, financial, operational, technological) to handle specific domains. Their self-confidence allows them to admit what they don’t know and seek out those who do.

* Valuing Intellectual Capital:

They prioritize intellectual capital over personal opinion in areas outside their core expertise. They may challenge and probe, but ultimately respect well-reasoned, expert advice.

* Merit-Based Relationships:

Professional and often social relationships are built on competence, shared vision, and mutual benefit, rather than purely emotional ties.

* Networking & Strategic Relationships:

Their social circles are often carefully curated, built on shared professional interests, influence, and mutual benefit. Networking is a disciplined and ongoing activity.

* Discretion & Privacy:

They tend to be more private and discreet about their wealth and personal lives, understanding the implications of public scrutiny.

* Philanthropy (Often Purpose-Driven):

While varying, philanthropy among established billionaires is often substantial, strategic, and aimed at creating systemic change rather than merely transactional giving.

II. The Neo Rich: Navigating Sudden Wealth

This group comprises individuals who have recently come into significant wealth, often rapidly, through a successful venture sale, a significant investment payout, an unexpected inheritance, a lottery win, or other “accidents of fortune.” Their social behaviors are heavily influenced by the sudden shift in their financial reality and the psychological adjustments required.

A. Defining Characteristics & Lifestyle

* Immediate Gratification & “Splurge”:

A primary characteristic is the desire to immediately enjoy and display their newfound wealth through conspicuous consumption (luxury cars, designer goods, lavish experiences). This is often a way to validate their success.

* Focus on Consumption over Asset Building (Initially):

There can be a stronger initial focus on spending and enjoying money rather than strategically investing and growing their net worth for the long term.

* “Catching Up” Mentality:

They may feel a need to acquire things or experiences they previously couldn’t afford, sometimes leading to impulsive or over-the-top spending.
* Less Financial Literacy (Initially): They may lack the inherent financial education and management experience that often accompanies generational wealth or long-term business building, leading to potential mismanagement.

B. Social Behavior & Interaction

* Inflated Sense of Universal Wisdom:

As discussed, a common fallout is the assumption that financial success translates to expertise in all fields, including areas outside their actual competence (e.g., legal, medical).

* Resistance to Expert Advice:

They may struggle to genuinely accept advice from professionals, believing their own judgment is superior due to their wealth. This can manifest as feigned humility.

* “Why Didn’t I Think of That?”:

They are often genuinely surprised when experts provide solutions they couldn’t conceive, highlighting the gap between business acumen and specialized knowledge.

* Shift in Old Social Circles (“Peer Migration”):
* Drift and Strain:

Old friendships can become strained or dissolve as interests diverge, or due to requests for money/favors.

* Avoidance of Intimate One-on-One Encounters:

They often avoid deep, personal conversations with old friends. This is a multi-faceted defense mechanism to:

  • Save time for new ventures/interests.
  • Avoid “money talk” or direct requests for help.
  • Manage the discomfort of differing lifestyles and perspectives.
  • Guard privacy.
  • Attraction of New, Often Superficial Acquaintances: They become magnets for new “friends” drawn by their wealth, leading to a potentially less authentic social circle.
* Strategic Re-engagement with Old Friends:

When a specific obligation or need or benefit arises, the neo rich can seamlessly, if temporarily, revert to an “old friend” persona.

* Performance of Normalcy:

They will engage in casual behavior (e.g., “doing laundry,” eating simple food) and employ flattery to create an atmosphere of ease, minimizing the years of distance.

* Transactional Undercurrent:

This re-engagement is often driven by a specific need (a favor, an appearance) rather than a desire to rekindle deep intimacy.

* Envy for Trivial Things:

Despite vast wealth, they can exhibit surprising envy over seemingly minor possessions or achievements of old friends (e.g., Rolls Royce owner envying a Mercedes). This highlights:

  • Insecurity about New Status: A lingering need to constantly validate their position and ensure they are perceived as superior within their old circles.
  • Zero-Sum Mentality: A view that another’s gain diminishes their own standing.
  • Unresolved Internal Conflicts: Wealth doesn’t solve all psychological issues; it can sometimes amplify existing insecurities.
  • Increased Anxiety/Paranoia: Often grapple with fear of losing wealth, distrust of others’ motives, and pressure to maintain their new lifestyle (Sudden Wealth Syndrome).

In summary, while both groups possess significant financial resources, their journeys, mindsets, and the resulting social behaviors present a fascinating contrast, shaped by the source, duration, and psychological integration of their wealth.

However the big question for the ordinary “others” is How to deal or transact with the Billionaires, rich, wealthy and neo-rich people? Read about it too.

Posted on by Sandeep

SEBI Curbing Stock Exchange “injection spike” fraud.

Making money from injection spike in Stock Exchange.

Injection spike on expiry day in stock exchanges has been a matter of concern. The recent interim order by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) against Jane Street Group has sent ripples through the Indian financial markets, exposing a sophisticated alleged manipulation strategy that reportedly exploited the nuances of F&O expiry days. This case sheds light on the inherent vulnerabilities of derivative markets to well-orchestrated schemes and underscores SEBI’s firm resolve to safeguard market integrity.

The Expiry Day “Injection Spike” Trade by Jane Street

SEBI’s detailed interim order outlines how Jane Street, a prominent US-based global proprietary trading firm, allegedly engaged in “extended marking the close” and “intra-day index manipulation” strategies. The core of their alleged modus operandi revolved around influencing the closing prices of benchmark indices like Nifty and Bank Nifty on their respective expiry days to profit from pre-positioned, significantly larger index options contracts.

The “injection spike” refers to the sudden and artificial price movements observed, particularly in the last hour or minutes of trading on expiry days. Jane Street’s alleged strategy involved:

Aggressive Intervention in Underlying Assets:

On identified expiry days, Jane Street entities reportedly made large, directional trades in the constituent stocks of the Nifty and Bank Nifty indices, as well as in index futures. For instance, on January 17, 2024, a Bank Nifty expiry day, they allegedly made net purchases worth ₹4,370 crore in Bank Nifty constituents (cash and futures), simultaneously building massive short positions in Bank Nifty options (7.3 times the size of their long cash/futures positions).

Creating Artificial Price Pressure:

By either aggressively buying to push prices up or aggressively selling to drive them down, Jane Street allegedly created artificial demand or supply. This sudden influx of orders, especially in periods of reduced liquidity near expiry, could cause a sharp “spike” or “dip” in the index’s value.

Exploiting Options Leverage:

The critical element was the immense leverage provided by options contracts. Even a marginal, engineered movement in the underlying index’s closing price could cause their vast options positions to expire significantly “in-the-money,” leading to colossal profits. SEBI noted that while Jane Street might incur losses in the underlying cash or futures segments during these manipulative trades, the profits reaped from the options segment were disproportionately larger, making the overall scheme highly lucrative. The firm allegedly garnered over ₹43,289 crore in profits from index options on NSE between January 2023 and March 2025 across all product categories and segments.

Misleading Other Traders:

Such engineered price movements could mislead other market participants, especially retail derivatives traders, into believing genuine market sentiment, leading them to take positions based on these false signals.

SEBI identified 18 such trading sessions (15 for Bank Nifty and 3 for Nifty) where Jane Street’s “sharp, large, and aggressive interventions” allegedly distorted market prices and undermined integrity. Notably, SEBI also pointed out that despite being explicitly advised by NSE in February 2025 to cease trading patterns suggesting manipulation, Jane Street allegedly resorted to similar practices again in May 2025, demonstrating a “clear disregard/defiance” of the advisory.

Consequences as per SEBI’s Interim Order

In response to these grave allegations, SEBI has taken stringent action through an interim order, signaling its commitment to clamping down on market manipulation, irrespective of the size or global standing of the entity involved. The key consequences for Jane Street Group are:

1. Market Ban:

SEBI has barred Jane Street and four of its affiliated entities (JSI Investments Pvt Ltd, JSI2 Investments Pvt Ltd, Jane Street Singapore Pte Ltd, and Jane Street Asia Trading Ltd) from accessing the Indian securities market. This means they are prohibited from buying, selling, or dealing in any securities, directly or indirectly, until further notice. This is a comprehensive prohibition.

2. Disgorgement of Unlawful Gains:

The regulator has directed Jane Street to disgorge alleged unlawful gains amounting to **₹4,843.57 crore** (approximately $570 million). This amount has been ordered to be deposited into an escrow account with a scheduled commercial bank in India. Banks, custodians, and depositories have been instructed to ensure no debits are made from Jane Street’s accounts without SEBI’s permission.

3. Winding Down Existing Positions:

While a blanket ban is in place, Jane Street has been granted a window of three months from the date of the order, or until the expiry of such contracts, whichever is earlier, to close out or square off any open positions in exchange-traded derivative contracts.

4. Cease and Desist Order:

The entities have been directed to cease and desist from directly or indirectly engaging in any fraudulent, manipulative, or unfair trade practice or undertaking any activity that may be in breach of norms.

5. Continued Investigation and Opportunity for Hearing:

The interim order signifies the preliminary findings of SEBI’s investigation. Jane Street has been given 21 days to submit objections and may request a personal hearing. The regulator will continue its probe, and a final order may entail further penalties or actions.

This decisive action by SEBI against a global trading giant like Jane Street underscores the regulator’s enhanced surveillance capabilities and its unwavering stance against any practice that compromises market fairness. While the firm has stated its intent to dispute SEBI’s findings, the interim order serves as a powerful deterrent, sending a clear message that India’s derivatives market, despite its high liquidity and volumes, is not a playground for manipulative strategies designed to create “injection spikes” for illicit gains. The focus on protecting retail investors from such sophisticated schemes remains paramount for the stability and credibility of the Indian financial ecosystem.

Posted on by Sandeep

What is the difference between established rich and neo rich people?

Old money vs. new money

Old Money vs. New Money: A Tale of Two Billionaires

Rich people are different. They have the money. It’s often said that money changes people — but what if the kind of money you have changes the kind of person you become?

While both established billionaires (old money) and the newly rich (new money) operate in highly transactional worlds, there’s a subtle — yet profound — difference in how they behave, spend, influence, and relate to power.

🧠 Mindset: Security vs. Scarcity

Old money has lived with wealth for generations. There’s no rush to prove anything. Their transactions are quiet, calculated, and often hidden behind layers of diplomacy. New money, by contrast, moves fast, often with the urgency of someone who remembers not having power. Their actions are bolder, louder, and more performance-driven.

🧬 Social Code: Club vs. Climb

Established billionaires operate within closed loops — elite clubs, family offices, Ivy League networks. Their influence is subtle but pervasive. Neo-rich individuals are still climbing: buying art, joining think tanks, tweeting bold opinions. Their social climb is visible and fueled by access rather than heritage.

💰 Style of Spending

Old money funds quiet legacies — museums, universities, family trusts. New money likes the spotlight: flashy donations, crypto philanthropy, or headline-grabbing causes. Even generosity becomes a tool of brand-building.

🤝 Power Games

Old money whispers to power — through lobbyists, media ownership, and generational friendships. New money tweets at it, funds political outsiders, or buys into it directly. Think Rockefeller versus Elon Musk.

Attire

Sartorial taste also depict the difference.

  • Old Money / Rich: Sophisticated, traditional attire; classic luxury — a man in a tailored navy suit with a pocket watch, woman in pearls and a Chanel-style dress. Background: library, vintage Rolls-Royce, art and antiques.
  • New Money / Neo-Rich: Flashy, trend-chasing style — a man in designer streetwear (Gucci, Balenciaga), woman with bold makeup and logos, flashy sports car (Lamborghini), gold chains, LED lighting.

 

🎭 A Quick Comparison

AspectEstablished RichNew Rich
MindsetSecure, discreetUrgent, proving
NetworksLegacy & exclusiveExpanding & open
InfluenceSubtle & indirectOvert & ambitious
PhilanthropyLegacy-orientedBrand-enhancing

🌐 In the End…

Both the old rich and the new rich are transactional — but the old rich transact like diplomats, while the new rich transact like disruptors. It’s not just money that makes the difference — it’s time, history, and how deep the roots go.

What we’re really watching is not wealth, but the culture it creates.