This should have come long ago. One keeps wondering why should an IPO prospectus be so so long? There is close to zero chance any investor (barring the biggies) reads the mammoth prospectus leave alone the retail investors.
As per recent SEBI notice, a company going for an IPO needs to issue a 10 page abridged prospectus as well. It has issued broad guidelines on what to be included in the abridged version:
Vivek Kaul has a piece on Dalonomics. He says the incentives are not right for farmers to grow more pulses. Well, the problem is not limited to pulses alone. Every quarter or so, we have a problem with potatoes or onions or tomatoes and so on. The list just keeps expanding. The problem is incentives are distorted for farming in general. After pulses, there will be something else..
Meanwhile, the prices of dal related items is zooming as well. The eateries across the country are responding in different ways – Dakshin Kannada is cutting size of Vadas, AP village knocks off sambhar from menu, Mumbai eateries are waiting and those in Bangalore have increased the prices.
Most eateries had already increased prices due to rising prices of veggies mentioned above. And now another round due to pulses as well. What is worse is that the prices of veggies and pulses may come lower but menu prices are stickier and remain there.
On top of that in states like Karnataka one pays tax of 20% (14.5% – VAT and 5.5% Service Tax) to eat in restaurants. I mean how priceless it has become to even eat in the country..
Chris Edwards of Cato has a nice post on the topic.
Being from Cato his answer is of course private. There is some research backing the view as well..
In researching an upcoming study on privatization, I came across an interesting illustration of the advantages of private science over government science. Private science focuses on efficiency and results, but government science maybe not so much.
The study by Jonathan Karpoff in the Journal of Political Economy found:
From 1818 to 1909, 35 government and 57 privately-funded expeditions sought to locate and navigate a Northwest Passage, discover the North Pole, and make other significant discoveries in arctic regions. Most major arctic discoveries were made by private expeditions. Most tragedies were publicly funded. By other measures as well, publicly-funded expeditions performed poorly. … Although public expeditions made some significant discoveries, they did so at substantially higher cost (as measured by crew size or vessel tonnage) than private discoveries.
Historical accounts indicate that, compared to private expeditions, public expeditions: (1) employed leaders that were relatively unmotivated and unprepared for arctic exploration; (2) separated the initiation and implementation functions of executive leadership; and (3) adapted slowly to new information about clothing, diet, shelter, modes of arctic travel, organizational structure, and optimal party size. These shortcomings resulted from, and contributed to, poorly aligned incentives among key contributors.
My upcoming study will look at the advantages of privatizing federal activities such postal services, air traffic control, and passenger rail. But policymakers should also explore the advantages of privatizing federal science activities.
Cato adjunct Terence Kealey has written about the advantages of private over government science, and he will discuss that topic at an upcoming Chicago seminar.
Meanwhile, if you plan to explore the Arctic, it would be best to go on a private rather than government ship. There would be less chance of getting scurvy–at least that’s the way it used to be, according to Karpoff.
Nice bit..
Prof. Henry Farrell had written a scathing piece on textbook racket, particularly the economic ones. Core, the free economics textbook by INET institute adds to the discussion.
First Farrell:
https://www.intelligenteconomist.com/economics-blogs/
Mostly Economics 