Hi Mohnish,
Thanks once again for your input.
I get what you say about institutional investors. I know I'm still concerned about what influence they are having over TSN's decisions. Like Tiger, I invested in the aspirations of our directors, which I was hoping included involvement in TSI and in the larger Indian economy. I can only guess how institutional investment can compromise individual dreams and I'm saddened that your posts indicate this has happened. I'm also troubled when you say that TSN will never have a part in TSI's greater dreams, did I read that right?
The intrigue for me is the relationship between you guys, TSN and our institutional investors. Obviously you already know the dynamics of the situation, and I thank you for providing insights into this, to people like me who were oblivious to it all. Other posters here have elaborated with their educated opinion re TSI's current financial position but I'm sure - from the brief communication we've had here and elsewhere - that you're a very motivated and talented person (with an impressive bench-press) and that TSI has a bright future. I'm learning belief and my investment into TSN should speak volumes as to my risk appetite. If it was possible, and I had a little more information regarding TSI, I would certainly consider a separate investment - as meagre as this would seem to many. However, I seek clarity from Gary because, at this stage, I am mostly a TSN share holder(only 25% TSI).
When it comes to institutional investors, I mentioned to you that I study ancient history. The banking system began in ancient Mesopotamia, in the Sumerian temples. The shekel, often considered to be a Jewish currency, has it's origin in ancient Iraq, Abraham's birthplace. Originally it was a measure of weight, which the Sumerian high priests used to measure silver, gold and other alloys, for trade. Those same high priests developed the debt-based banking system, which, apart from digital products, remains pretty much the same system as the one mostly used world-wide today. The Sumerians invented both normal and compound interest and their regular fee was 30%. Therefore all the gold, silver and other wealth eventually came under the control of those running the Sumerian temples. The adage - he who has all the gold makes all the rules - could easily be given to the forefathers of banking and it has never changed. And neither has the self-interest that comes with most wealthy institutions. History shows that whatever country dominates with the debt-based banking system, including the British up till the 16 or 17 hundreds, eventually is torn apart by lust for power and greed. Same with institutions. I say this to paint the picture of my understanding - of your reluctance - for institutional investors to become involved. Just wanted you to know, sorry for the rant.
So, for me anyway, the intrigue persists, although I'm not questioning anyone's integrity - lest my integrity be questioned too.
Please, keep up your posts Mohnish, they are causing great debate which, if nothing else, is giving me a better understanding of the situation.
Cheers
Rhama
Expand
