Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

The rapid acceleration of change in the workplace — from the boom of generative AI to shifting work models — means leaving behind old ideas of what C-suite leadership looks like.For Business Insider's third Workforce Innovation virtual roundtable, we asked board members how C-suite leaders might have previously led their businesses and how old approaches are giving way to a distinctly new way of executive leadership.Several board members said change needed to happen at every level of an organization, not just on a single team. Now it's up to leaders to harness the potential of their workforce and prepare employees for how they can play an active role in transformations across the business."The reset message here is that no function is exempt," Maggie Hulce, the chief revenue officer at Indeed, said. "Every function can change and should be changing and needs to take accountability and ownership for driving that, versus waiting for a central team to figure everything out."With evolving workplace priorities, the Workforce Innovation board also predicted which new roles might emerge in the C-suite, including "chief transformation officer" and "chief experience officer."The following has been edited for length and clarity.Julia Hood: What's the old way of C-suite leadership, and what's the new way? What is changing for those leading the workforce during this time of transformation?<h2 id="0c6ca21f-d8b4-40db-bb90-e9fb8d56ff2b">Alicia Pittman, chair of global people team, Boston Consulting Group</h2>One of the biggest differences we're seeing and we'll continue to see is that the concept of apprenticeship is becoming truly a two-way street. An old version of apprenticeship is learning the craft step-by-step — like the "Karate Kid" and Mr. Miyagi, based on wisdom and time.Now leaders are also seeing from younger generations how to embrace technology and AI, specifically, how to lead inclusive teams that maybe don't look so much like you, and how to support employees through mental-health challenges and general wellness.I'm seeing that happening in very powerful ways, truly two ways, and up and down. Organizations that embrace that — which are flatter, less formal, and allow for more of that cross-connectivity — are going to benefit as that becomes more the norm in how we craft leadership.<h2 id="f242fb98-9c94-4e5b-8135-1f191d2cb6f3">Neil Murray, CEO, Work Dynamics at JLL</h2>I like the idea that's been coined about leading from behind. The notion is that the old way was about leading leaders top-down, personally owning strategy, P&amp;L, innovation, and culture.Leading from behind has been likened to a shepherd coordinating from behind and creating an environment where people who are willing and able can take initiative and lead innovation. That company culture becomes owned collectively rather than the singular responsibility of the CEO.I don't think that's about a CEO stepping back and allowing mob rule, but rather, it's about harnessing collective genius in the organization.I think the reason for this is that the psychological contract between companies and employees has changed quite dramatically and continues to change. We know that people are looking for more meaning and purpose in their working lives. They expect to be seen. They expect to be valued for who they are and, ultimately, want to be part of and coauthor a company purpose and culture.It also applies to innovation. It's no longer about incremental innovation from a centralized chief product officer. Breakthrough innovation will be key, with consistent breakthrough innovation to sustain competitiveness. From a leadership perspective, that's about creating an environment where those closest to issues and most nimble can lean in and innovate, rather than trying to centralize it.<h2 id="d012677b-737d-445d-84a4-5d9f7a363a82">Kenon Chen, executive vice president of strategy and growth, Clear Capital</h2>When I first saw the GitHub Copilot demo before it was launched, I was struck by the idea of someone with a business use case and business knowledge being able to execute and create a technical solution without going through our typical translation layers, which are business analysts and scrum masters and technical project managers.We now have this huge layer of translators between the business, especially from the C-suite to the people who are creating the innovations or products.What gen AI is leading us to is a world in which we don't need so many translators because there are fewer hops from the idea to the value that we want to create to the execution. When you have all these translators, it's like the telephone game.As a leader, you need to be able to communicate much more precisely and clearly the outcome that you're trying to create in terms of value. You have to be your own translator, in a way, so that every stakeholder involved can take action on what's being communicated.<h2 id="df0e2c1a-ee63-46c5-b1e1-3cca22a63036">Anant Adya, executive vice president, service-offering head, and head of Americas delivery, Infosys</h2>At Infosys, one of the things we are focusing on is employee well-being. We want to be a hybrid work environment where we give flexibility to our employees to choose the way they want to work.There is obviously great value in coming to the office, collaborating with team members, and working to do innovative stuff. But this also ties back to DEI initiatives in the company. As we improve our gender diversity, especially as we go to the top, we want to make sure we give flexibility to our employees.Also very important is how we embrace innovation. We continuously upskill, retrain, and reskill our employees. How do we make sure that we embrace the culture of learning in the company? It's very critical that we have to constantly learn and upskill ourselves with all the new technologies that are coming and with all the new lingo that is being spoken. We don't want to get stuck in the old world of still talking old technology.Finally, we balance risk and focus from a long-term standpoint. Of course, everybody's focused on the quarter results and numbers, but we want to have a very long-term focus and plan at the same time.<h2 id="ef9e6c96-6d4a-4af5-a150-163cc530eada">Justina Nixon-Saintil, vice president and chief impact officer, IBM</h2>There is such a focus on employee voice across everything that we do. When you think about AI, we're asking employees, no matter where they are across the business, to come up with use cases and ways that AI can make a difference in their function.In the past, this would be the limit of just one entity, one function to come up with the right use cases. Maybe it was the software team, CIO team, or CTO.Now we're looking across the entire business and saying, "Come up with the right use cases that can help your function, your programs, your organization."Even in the area that I lead around corporate responsibility and ESG, we're deploying AI technology to create better learning pathways for our users or to look at ESG and data analytics. So this is an area we're leading within the organization and not necessarily waiting for another function to help us lead.<h2 id="b9d6a0b9-97d7-4bef-b44c-1a0b1ebba35e">Maggie Hulce, chief revenue officer, Indeed</h2>We are moving towards AI-enabled transformation being a companywide expectation, as opposed to just a few teams working on it and incubating it. That requires, as others have said, cross-team learning and development, and we are acknowledging we need both centrally driven, top-down things and a lot of bottom-up things.That's a parallel concept to DEI. We've gone through the transition of separate DEI organizations to having it be the expectation that equity is every leader's responsibility.Having a separate team that's supposed to make everybody behave with equity just doesn't work.With well-being, we've been on this track that, of course, physical and mental health, employee engagement, and employee voice are really important. Right now, there's more focus on training managers for the challenges of the multigenerational workforce and the mix of in person and remote.The speed of change is getting more and more rapid. How do we equip the managers up and down to help navigate this? And that's a big part of employee buy-in and navigating change. In the C-suite itself, you have more roles that have to think cross-functionally and be cross-functionally trained. Because as you think about how AI can change processes, it blurs and breaks old functional lines.That will make people uncomfortable. But if you let the functional lines be blockers, it will definitely slow you down. So our expectation is that we're going to see more and different types of roles that are enabling transformation.<h2 id="9b14003d-0c96-46b6-9c44-0515cc2393cf">Lucrecia Borgonovo, chief talent and organizational-effectiveness officer, Mastercard</h2>One of the biggest shifts is around decision-making — the move from siloed decision-making, where each member of the C-suite has a defined set of decisions they're accountable for, to a C-suite that acts more as a collective leadership body. It acts more cross-functionally, and there are more shared responsibilities and more joint decision-making that becomes part of the norm.There's much more fluidity and interdependency across different roles and functions. C-suite leaders are wearing multiple hats and creating roles that are much more versatile in nature.Tim Paradis: We've seen new C-suite roles emerge in recent years, like chief AI officer and chief ethics officer. The C-suite itself is getting larger in some cases. What new C-suite offices might emerge next?Nixon-Saintil: I'm seeing a lot of new roles, especially in corporate social responsibility and ESG. More "chief impact officers" are focused on social impact across the business. Those roles sometimes oversee environmental affairs and sustainability initiatives.The "chief sustainability officer" role has increased significantly over the last two years. Many large companies had them, but now smaller or midsize companies are adding that role to the C-suite, especially as they prepare for regulation around sustainability and all of the mandatory disclosure that is occurring."Chief ESG officer" is a new role that we are seeing as well, with a focus on ESG, regulation, controls, and accountability.Adya: The common thing that will happen across roles is the use of data and AI across every role.There are two roles that we are seeing in some of our bigger customers. One is chief experience officer, who is focused on what we call "human experience." It's not just about the experience of users but also of the stakeholders, business users, and customers of the enterprise.For example, if you go to a company and ask a finance person, "What does experience look like for you?" He or she will say that I would want to close my books on time. That's the experience. They don't care about whether they're using X, Y, or Z vendor. For them, closing the books on time is their experience. So this is about looking at the experience of the stakeholders, the users, and their customers.Then, while there is a "chief AI officer" role that's picking up, there is also a lot of focus on automation. How do we use automation in a business process? So the "chief automation officer," cutting across the enterprise, is looking at areas where we could potentially drive automation in a big way.Borgonovo: One that is on my mind is what you might call a "chief optimization officer," focused on how do you extract the most value across your products, your services, and all the different investments that you make, identifying items that aren't necessarily scaling.The other one that we have seen at Mastercard is the "chief risk officer," a new role created in response to the environment getting incredibly complex and the importance of embedding risk management into the organization.Roles like chief transformation officer will continue to be relevant. It all depends on the maturity of the different capabilities that you have in the organization.Pittman: I think that a lot of these roles — whether it's chief diversity officer, chief risk officer, chief digital officer — are really about building new competencies that are not widely spread. Where it's working best, you see companies standing up leadership for these capabilities and then pushing it down the line. It's got to be everybody's accountability.The number of companies naming chief transformation officers grew about 140% over the last couple of years. It's one of those roles where the impact is most measurable. You can see with a chief transformation officer, from the time they're appointed to the next two years, on average, that the company is going to improve its shareholder return performance versus its peers.That's pretty remarkable in terms of impact, so we'll keep seeing that. With the pace of change, the half-life of market leadership keeps getting shorter and shorter. We're going to see the role of the chief transformation officer being critical to enable C-suites to keep up with the pace of change and drive cross-functional initiatives.Hulce: I was just pitching this idea of a transformation leader, not necessarily reporting to the CEO but one across internal functions to help drive the next 18 months given how fast we intend to stand up totally different ways of working.When we think about transformation for external products versus transformation for internal processes, it is a bit different. So when we think about the work we're trying to do for external products, making sure the scope is clear — those are long-standing, typical questions for how you stay competitive and innovate.But rapid cross-functional, internal transformation is different. Can you make a successful role to drive a complete rethink of process and workflow across many functions with technology and AI being a critical enabler?In the past, it wasn't as important to do cross-functionally as it is now, with what gen AI can do. It's a big opportunity to radically rethink how this work gets done.Murray: Business-unit leaders now have an explicit responsibility to look at everything within their business line and think about on a 2-by-2 matrix the feasibility versus the impact of transforming end-to-end process.Chen: I do like this idea of a chief transformation officer, but the risk there is if every leader isn't equipped with thinking about how to proactively get value from tools that are around the organization and the data that is available. Everyone is going to have to be reskilled to learn how to do that, with AI as one of the new accelerator tools.

The C-suite is evolving — and new roles may join to drive innovation, say execs from IBM, JLL, Clear Capital, and more

Singapore, May 26 (ANI): After Germany entered recession, Singapore fears slipping into a 'technical recession' in the second quarter as the country's exports outlook weakened following a slowdown in global demand, Channel NewsAsia (CNA) reported citing economists. Singapore's economy is heavily dependent on exports, which has been weakening after several agencies earlier forecasted a slowdown in global economies in 2023. "There remains a high risk that the economy slips into a technical recession, either in (the second quarter) or in the second half of the year," CNA, Singapore's state broadcaster reported Shivaan Tandon from <keyword id="110414" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="capital-economics" source="Orion">Capital Economics</keyword>, as saying. A technical recession is often defined as two consecutive quarters of negative growth in the real GDP. "While advanced economies have held up better than initially expected, we expect that resilience to fade in the second half of the year which will weigh heavily on demand for Singapore's exports," he added. He further stated that these dynamic raises the risk of a technical recession given the export-driven nature of Singapore's economy. These comments came after the official data for the first quarter showed the economy declined 0.4 per cent, reported CNA. This marks a reversal from the 0.1 per cent growth in the fourth quarter of 2022, leaving the economy at risk of a technical recession which is defined as two consecutive quarter-on-quarter contractions. Singapore's small and open economy relies heavily on trade, but external demand has been weakening amid a slowdown in the global economy, still-strong inflationary pressures and a downturn in the global semiconductor industry. The country's key non-oil domestic exports (NODX) have since chalked up a seven-month losing streak. Authorities on Thursday also downgraded the 2023 forecasts for NODX following a "worse-than-expected" performance in the first quarter. Meanwhile, <keyword id="199376" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="maybank" source="Orion">Maybank</keyword> economists Chua Hak Bin and Lee Ju Ye, with the weaker performance in the external-oriented sector, see Singapore's economy stagnating, instead of staging a rebound, in the coming quarters, according to CNA. They added that Singapore may slip into a technical recession "if the boost from China's reopening fails to materialise in the second quarter". Earlier, the German economy was in recession in early 2023 after household spending in Europe's economic engine finally succumbed to the pressure of high inflation, according to Reuters. Gross domestic product fell by 0.3 per cent in the first quarter of the year when adjusted for price and calendar effects, a second estimate from the statistics office showed on Thursday. This follows a decline of 0.5 per cent in the fourth quarter of 2022. A recession is commonly defined as two successive quarters of contraction, as per the report in Reuters. Germany's Finance Minister <keyword id="1084060" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="christian-lindner" source="Orion">Christian Lindner</keyword>, on Thursday, said that the GDP data showed "surprisingly negative signals." He added that comparing Germany with other highly developed economies, the economy was losing the potential for growth. "I don't want Germany to play in a league in which we have to relegate ourselves to the last positions," Lindner said, referring to the forecasts of the International Monetary Fund, which predicted a recession in 2023 only in Germany and Britain among European countries, according to Reuters. (ANI)

After Germany enters recession, fears in Singapore of 'technical recession'

<ul><li>India is a favoured investment destination for foreign investors, but it has not generated returns the way the US has.</li><li>India’s public markets are dominated by mid and small cap companies as scale is a problem.</li><li>Reliance and Adani (including newly acquired cement companies) now have the first and the third most highest weights in NIFTY100 at 9.7% and 4.3% respectively. Adani Group’s recent high increase in weightage is yet to be adapted by investors in their portfolios.</li></ul>India is a much loved market when it comes to <keyword id="6389755" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="foreign-portfolio-investors" source="Orion">foreign portfolio investors</keyword>. And this is evident from the inflows into equities after every crisis. This coupled with concentrated ownership of foreign investors have prevented any sharp fall in the benchmark indices over the years since the Global Financial Crisis. This does not mean that India is delivering outsized returns to investors, which perhaps explains the massive selling by FPIs since the end of last year, says Nitin Bhasin, co-head institutional equities and head of research at Ambit Capital. Edited Excerpts: The <keyword id="2931774" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="nifty50" source="Orion">Nifty50</keyword> is truly resilient in the face of headwinds but is it reflecting what is happening in India? As investors, we have missed the point that India is not outperforming the US in the last 10 years. We may have done well in the last six months but if you look at a decade then India has delivered an 11% CAGR over ten years. If you look at dollar returns, then India has not given more than 6.5-7%. This is less than the US market's returns. India has not generated outsized returns for foreign investors. India is a much loved market but it has not generated returns the way the US has! Why is this so? In India we look at the changes in the Nifty, we only look at the increase in market capitalisation but have these companies become large businesses in the last ten years? Now compare this with American companies which have gone out and built much larger global businesses. If you look at Google, Apple or Facebook, these companies have become world leaders. In India, companies have clocked profits but revenues have not grown at the same pace. Returns from Indian companies have come because these companies have become very expensive. If you look at smaller companies in the Nifty50, their multiples will be 2-2.5 times that of Nifty’s multiple. If you look at the benchmark index, it is dominated by financials at 35% and another 15% is accounted for by IT services. Auto, Oil &amp; Gas (largely Reliance) will together account for nearly 72%. You have lopsided earnings trading at a lower multiple and a small number of companies trading at very high multiples. Unless the mindset of the world changes its view and multiples of asset heavy companies increase, you have a challenge and why should Nifty’s returns be any different from the last 10 years? Finally, now a lot of Indian money is finally coming to Indian equities. But do we have the depth in the market? We see a lot of small companies coming to the public markets and there are very few large businesses coming to the market on a global scale. Our country’s listed space is dominated by mid and small caps which have a scalability challenge. You have a challenge of the past showing you that India has not beaten the US market and the Nifty is very lopsided. Are the foreign portfolio investors done selling in India? The month of June saw massive selling by foreign investors. If you look at foreign portfolio investors 85% of their holding would be in the top 100 stocks. I cannot hazard a guess if they are done selling. We don’t know what has happened that they have come back; perhaps a change of outlook or valuations in pockets becoming attractive. Or, reduced newsflow around challenges of crude or interest rates in India. However, we do not expect a similar intensity of selling seen in the preceding six months. But, we are still not out of a situation where one can bet that the markets have only one way to go– which is upwards. Both micro (earnings) and macro (global and Indian factors) situations look uncertain and tough in many pockets. We are not decisively moving towards a situation where the index will move only upwards in the near-term. India has neither become oversold nor is the market inexpensive. Given that China has its own issues, do you feel India’s capital markets could be a beneficiary of these developments? I don’t think India can benefit from what is happening in China. I doubt that large institutions that dedicatedly invest in China will move out and come to India. You are talking about two different sizes of markets as companies in China are very large which is not the case in India. China is a hotbed for internet consumption and electronics manufacturing. China has 35-40% weightage in a Global Emerging Market fund, while India’s is 10-12%. If an investor wants to buy stock in an electronics company for $100-200 million, do we have such opportunities in India? If you look at FPI ownership is it still concentrated in the top 10 stocks on the Nifty50? Will this polarisation continue? Polarisation has to increase for the time being. Reliance Industries continues to invest in its businesses – be it retail, O2C or Jio. If you see Adani Group then the promoters have emerged as the richest promoters from India over the last three or four years. They are entering new businesses. If I were an investor, I would soon note that 20-25% of Nifty100 of market cap is accounted for by Reliance and Adani Group. Then there is a large financial merger happening which could mean that perhaps a few handful of names will account for 40-45% of the index; hence high polarisation. Where do you see markets going in the near term? We are operating in a scenario which is a see-saw market. We have positive and negative forces for the Indian economy while we have less positive forces when it comes to external factors. The market will spend a lot of time oscillating between overvalued and under-valued zones, thanks to the risks. We are not in a situation where the markets can crash 20-30% and neither are we in a situation where we can say the market has reason to go up 20-30%. In this market, we can look at specific stocks on their business models and valuations. There is no clarity on energy prices and small imbalances can affect prices. In addition, our ability to export will be curtailed, if the US and Europe go into recession, the global consuming market will shrink. If investors have an appetite for risk and recession then money flow into India may continue but may not be with the same amount of buoyancy. What worries you about the domestic situation? Borrowing costs in India continues to remain high. We are caught in a 7-7.5% Gsec, which is very high. Inflation remains high too in India. India is still sitting on a large number of underemployed women. Unless we do something about our labour participation rate, things will not improve. The government is also behaving in a populist way rather than investing in infrastructure; perhaps that’s what is required with a large population. We are making slow progress as a country but we are not creating a massive consumption class beyond the top-20% of the population. What are the things working for us – formalisation, entrepreneurship and technology businesses (but are these being created for the world?) Unless our GDP growth picks up materially, how can we have good earnings growth? I don’t think we are sitting on the cusp of a definite bull market. What does a high weightage of Reliance and Adani mean for investors? Reliance and Adani (including newly acquired cement companies) now have the first and the third most highest weights in NIFTY100 at 9.7% and 4.3% respectively. Other two large group representations are Tatas at 7.7% and Bajaj at 4.2%. Whilst Reliance’s high weight is well known and adapted by investors, Adani Group’s recent high increase in weightage is yet to be adapted by investors in their portfolios. Given the experience of infrastructure developers’ poor past performance and concerns around Adani Group’s past capital allocation and high leverage plus the lack of awareness amongst investors would mean that institutional owners could remain underweight Adani names for some time until they understand management’s value creation vision. SEE ALSO: <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/finance/banks/news/kotak-mahindra-amc-launches-new-fund-will-invest-in-sectors-that-can-benefit-from-economic-downturn/articleshow/94007588.cms">Kotak Mahindra AMC launches new fund – will invest in sectors that can benefit from economic downturn</a> <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/news/rils-fourth-capex-cycle-will-unwind-with-60-billion-value-creation-says-morgan-stanley/articleshow/94004487.cms">RIL’s fourth capex cycle will unwind with $60 billion value creation, says Morgan Stanley</a>

India has not generated outsized returns for foreign investors, says Ambit’s Nitin Bhasin

<ul><li><keyword id="13082034" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="gabe-plotkin" source="Orion">Gabe Plotkin</keyword>'s <keyword id="13082035" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="melvin-capital" source="Orion">Melvin Capital</keyword> is shutting down and returning money to its investors after a poor showing of performance.</li><li>Melvin Capital lost billions of dollars last year after it was caught on the wrong side of the <keyword id="11937112" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="gamestop" source="Orion">GameStop</keyword> short-squeeze.</li><li>"I now recognize that I need to step away from managing external capital," Plotkin wrote to investors.</li></ul>Gabe Plotkin's Melvin Capital <keyword id="11918410" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="hedge-fund" source="Orion">hedge fund</keyword> plans to return money to its investors and shut down later this year, <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-18/gabe-plotkin-s-melvin-capital-to-wind-down-funds-after-losses">Bloomberg first reported</a> on Wednesday.The hedge fund <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/melvin-capital-lost-53-percent-january-after-gamestop-shares-skyrocketed-2021-1?utm_medium=ingest&amp;utm_source=markets">lost billions of dollars last year after it was caught on the wrong side</a> of the GameStop short-squeeze, which saw shares soar 2,463% to a peak of $483 per share amid a frenzy by retail investors. That, combined with a few other bad bets, led to emergency funding from Steve Cohen's Point72 and Ken Griffin's Citadel last year.Both billionaire investors <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/citadel-will-redeem-500-million-of-shares-in-melvin-capital-2021-8?utm_medium=ingest&amp;utm_source=markets">have since wound down their investment in Melvin Capital</a> as Plotkin's underperformance has lingered. The fund <a href="https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/stocks-bonds-crypto-market-crushed-nowhere-to-hide-rates-inflation-2022-5">was down 21% at the end of the first quarter</a> of 2022, according to CNBC. That's after suffering a 39% loss in 2021. "The past 17 months has been an incredibly trying time for the firm and you, our investors," <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/gabe-plotkin-investor-letter-closing-melvin-capital-2022-5">Plotkin wrote in a letter to investors seen by Insider</a>. "I have given everything I could, but more recently that has not been enough to deliver the returns you should expect. I now recognize that I need to step away from managing external capital."The hedge fund, which managed $7.8 billion as of April, said it expects to return all of its capital to investors by late July. Melvin Capital had managed $12.5 billion at the start of last year. The decision to close the hedge fund comes just one month after <a href="https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/funds/gamestop-short-squeeze-gabe-plotkin-melvin-capital-new-short-fund-2022-4">Plotkin floated a novel idea with its investors</a> to get rid of the high water mark that Melvin would have to reach before it could begin to earn performance fees.In the hedge-fund industry, it is common practice that investors don't pay a performance fee for poor performance. If a hedge fund loses 10% for its investors in a given year, the investor wouldn't pay performance fees until the hedge fund returns to breakeven. In Melvin Capital's case, the hedge fund would have needed to deliver a more than 100% gain in performance to get back to breakeven before it could start to earn performance fees.With Melvin Capital shutting down, it needs to sell all of its holdings if it hasn't already (though it probably has). Melvin's top holdings at the end of the first quarter included <a href="https://markets.businessinsider.com/stocks/lyv-stock">Live Nation</a>, <a href="https://markets.businessinsider.com/stocks/hlt-stock">Hilton Worldwide</a>, <a href="https://markets.businessinsider.com/stocks/amzn-stock">Amazon</a>, <a href="https://markets.businessinsider.com/stocks/ddog-stock">Datadog</a>, and <a href="https://markets.businessinsider.com/stocks/bill-stock">Bill.com</a>, according to its most recent 13F filing.All of those stocks, with the exception of Hilton Worldwide, have significantly underperformed the <a href="https://markets.businessinsider.com/index/s&amp;p_500">S&amp;P 500</a> year-to-date, with Bill.com and Datadog both down more than 50% as of Thursday morning.

Melvin Capital to shut down one year after GameStop short-squeeze caused billions in losses for the hedge fund

<ul><li>Motivational speakers, who are known to guide their followers through various life problems ranging from heartbreaks to career advice, promote self-help and entrepreneurship through small internet videos.</li><li>While these motivational speakers, who live by <keyword id="10578208" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="hustle-culture" source="Orion">hustle culture</keyword>, have amassed millions of followers, there is a counter-subgroup emerging on the internet.</li><li>This subgroup includes content creators and internet users who believe that motivational content comes across as ‘privilege deaf.’</li><li>We speak to these content creators and <keyword id="6354774" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="mental-health" source="Orion">mental health</keyword> experts to find out why ‘motivation’ is becoming ‘demotivating’ for some internet users and why there’s a growing aversion towards hustle culture and motivational speakers.</li></ul>In a room full of around 100 people, a young woman takes the centre stage. She opens up about her recent breakup and how it was difficult for her to move on and find happiness again. A <keyword id="228307" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="motivational-speaker" source="Orion">motivational speaker</keyword>, who claims to have ‘failed and surged in search of success and happiness,’ tells her to give herself a pep talk. He says, “You can look at one problem through different perspectives. If you dislike someone in your family, ignore their flaws. Train your mind to look at their positive attributes instead. In your mind, not on the outside, look at the world's problems lightly. Be a warrior from the outside and a monk on the inside.” These motivational speakers, with no formal degree in mental health, aim to guide their audience through all challenges in their life ranging from mental illness, relationship advice, and financial advice on how to become rich. They claim to have “risen above the rat race” and have challenged the age-old myth of “life is tough.” Much like Viru Shahastrabuddhe of the Bollywood movie “3 Idiots”, for motivational speakers, “Life is a race. If you don’t run fast, you will be like a broken anda (egg).” <div type="image" title="Life_is_a_race_वायरस_आया_अंडे_लेके__3_Idiots__Boman_Irani_A" msid="90731324" hostid="261"></div> So, they ask their audiences to live and breathe by <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/celinnedacosta/2019/04/28/stop-idolizing-hustle-culture-and-do-this-instead/?sh=5ab86ea033cb">hustle culture</a>, which is about grinding away, working harder, stronger and faster, and even sacrificing your sleep for work. This sleep-deprived race to attain power, money and success, comes at a cost. It can put your mental health and <a href="https://www.webmd.com/heart/news/20170911/the-health-risks-of-long-work-weeks">physical </a>health at risk. Growing movement against hustle culture on the internet However, anti-capitalism memes and videos are taking over Instagram and <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/antiwork/">Reddit </a>to counter hustle culture. Internet users across the <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/policy/economy/news/anti-capitalism-is-flooding-tiktok-as-young-people-question-a-life-that-prioritizes-productivity-over-well-being/articleshow/89870972.cms">world </a>are calling out motivational speakers for promoting hustle culture and for the toll it takes on their mental health. A community on Reddit called ‘<a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/antiwork/">anti-work</a>’ with 1.9 million members is also aimed at calling out <keyword id="6497689" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="capitalism" source="Orion">capitalism</keyword>. Their recent post about hoping to see American socialite Kim Kardashian work for minimum wage got more than 108,000 votes. <div type="image" title="reddit meme" msid="90731419" hostid="261"></div> Closer home, Mumbai-based Md Anas, a comedian and content creator, has made many parodies of motivational speakers. In one of his popular parodies, which was recently picked by a <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tv/CbT_MsTr9Sv/?utm_medium=copy_link">media </a>platform, he denounced motivational speakers and their glorification of hustle culture. Words like ‘motivation’ and ‘hustle’ only worked for him back in the day, he says. While he loves creating content and making people laugh, and that drives him to work hard, he has dissociated himself from the hustle culture. “One major problem with motivational content I believe is that it comes across as privilege deaf. Saying something like you have the same amount of time as a billionaire refutes the idea of physical, financial and mental struggles that people go through. Having said that, a lot of people looking for answers will find solace in general motivation, particularly teenagers or early college-goers,” says Anas. Psychotherapist Rhea Gandhi recently took to <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CbzskWIs2Ng/?utm_medium=copy_link">Instagram </a>to explain why people are instantly demotivated when they hear the word ‘motivation.’ “The pop psychology narratives around motivation on the internet are exhausting: motivational speakers, motivational quotes, motivational videos and the list goes on and on and on. Hustle culture makes us believe that motivation needs to be constant or something is wrong with us. It doesn't allow us space to be human, to grieve, to love, to stand still. It makes us believe we should always be moving. But motivation is an inside job. It’s illuminated when we stand still and reflect. It is in stillness and relationships that we can see ourselves. Find our own resources. External tools last days, if not minutes.” She added that we feel inspired when we look within, instead of following society's ideas of what we 'should' do. Budding content creator and stand-up comedian Soniya Kalyani, who gave up her corporate job to pursue content creation, didn’t appreciate unsolicited advice that came from people around her and on the internet. “Coming from a middle-class background, I have seen so many people bombarding me with advice on ‘do this, do that.’ But the reality is I don't need the gyan (advice). I lack the resources to execute [my ideas] and access to connections, which amplifies your growth much faster.” Ergo, she feels that motivational speakers should stay away from the topics they don’t understand or try walking in their audience’s shoes. Kalyani was on the brink of burnout when she decided to take a break. She says that the words ‘motivation’ and ‘hustle’ have developed negative connotations because social media portrays that you are supposed to feel motivated and hustle constantly. “I don't believe in the word motivation. You have to train yourself to be disciplined. While trying to discipline myself, I did face severe burnout twice. Now, if I feel I am on the brink, I take a break and I go a little easy on myself. Trying to show up every day sometimes gets exhausting, so I allow myself to rest.” As of April 10, 2022, there are more than 29 million posts with #hustle on Instagram, #hustlehard has attracted 4.3 million posts and #sleepisfortheweak has seen more than 226K posts. On why the word motivation has become demotivating for internet users, Life coach Sidhharrth S Kumaar says, “The word ‘motivation’ has transformed itself to be demotivating due to the pressure of following a blind race in all situations and circumstances. This blind chase of motivation or motivational speakers, infuses a thought in mind that everyone is the same, and we need to perform and be supercharged in all situations and this, in turn, leads to performance anxiety and stress causing irrecoverable losses in life.” Does the internet’s popular hustle culture have consequences? According to Microsoft's work trend index <a href="https://news.microsoft.com/en-in/close-to-one-third-of-workers-in-india-face-increased-burnout-at-work/">report</a>, which surveyed over 6,000 employees across eight countries in October 2020, India had the second-highest percentage of workers facing increased burnout among Asian countries at 29%. India also came out on top with over 41% of workers citing the lack of separation between work and personal life as negatively impacting their well-being, resulting in increased stress levels. While hustling for some is a matter of survival, the constant need to achieve ‘more’ has become an obsession on the internet. Dr. Jyoti Kapoor, founder of mental health and wellness service Manasthali and senior psychiatrist, says that while motivational speakers have their hearts in the right place, the state of mind of the person who is listening may or may not be receptive at that point in time. “If we are being forcefully motivated when we are already feeling overwhelmed or exhausted, we may associate our feeling of helplessness to the motivational argument itself, thereby developing a negative reaction. It also happens in relaxation exercises, if they are started when a patient is too anxious, they become more anxious while trying to do the exercise to relax,” explains Dr. Kapoor. A World Health Organization <a href="https://www.who.int/news/item/02-03-2022-covid-19-pandemic-triggers-25-increase-in-prevalence-of-anxiety-and-depression-worldwide">report </a>released in March 2022 painted a rather grim picture. The health body said that the COVID-19 pandemic led to a 25% jump in anxiety and depression cases across the world. It went on to say that more than 300 million people around the world suffer from depression, which is the leading cause of workplace disability. It estimates that depression and anxiety disorders cost the global economy around $ 1 trillion each year in lost productivity. Did the global pandemic give a push to the anti-hustle movement on the internet? During several lockdowns that country went through, it almost felt like someone was telling you to push even harder on social media. Avantika Mohan, a lifestyle content creator, who says she is guilty of talking about the hustle culture in the past, now feels that ‘what works for her doesn’t necessarily have to work for anyone else.’ The problem with hustle culture, she says, lies with the idea that everyone has the same 24 hours in a day. “While everyone has the same amount of time, it is important to understand that everyone does not have the same resources or even the same end goals,” she declares. Adding how the dislike toward motivational speakers grew after the lockdown, Mohan says, “The pandemic saw a huge shift in how people perceive hustle and that was a push towards the aversion to motivational speakers because of the worry of a future that came with the pandemic. A huge reason for this aversion was constantly being ‘motivated’ by someone to give our best. Someone who is a stranger, someone behind a screen and someone who does not have the same struggles as us. Most motivational speakers talk about seizing every second and every opportunity only to not factor in the individual struggles and the lack of resources and that hustle is not the only way to grow, or earn respect.” Kerala-based parenthood and lifestyle content creator, Nuziha (@nuzihajmal), feels that the pressure to constantly hustle became too much for her after the pandemic. “The school of thought about working hard to achieve the best results never says only work hard. Hard work, even if done for a few hours, with sincerity and discipline can yield the best results. This school of thought was quickly replaced by motivational speakers talking about bringing a hustle culture to life. This increased even more during the pandemic with people being constantly told to do more with their time since we were all in lockdown.” Nuziha’s partner Ajmal points out that each journey is different. “Our work demands us to be constantly online and we see a lot of creators and motivational speakers on Instagram talking about how being always hands-on at work is the only way to bring success. However, it is important to understand before preaching that the struggles of everyday life differ from person to person.” After the pandemic, if there’s one good thing that happened, is that personal lives took more precedence over jobs and the growing movement against hustle culture in India is just the beginning. In the US, 65% of <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/labor-shortage-slow-up-great-reshuffle-gen-z-demands-workplace-2021-11">Gen Z</a> is planning to leave their job this year and join the <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/careers/news/heres-everything-we-know-about-the-great-resignation-whos-quitting-and-why/articleshow/86429516.cms">Great Resignation</a>. The ripple effects of the great resignation are already felt in <a href="https://www.livemint.com/industry/human-resource/great-resignation-wave-impacting-new-hiring-trends-job-shifting-11642405623659.html">India </a>and are expected to grow <a href="https://www.livemint.com/industry/human-resource/great-resignation-continues-in-india-as-attrition-levels-touch-20-year-high-11645167653849.html">stronger</a>.

Why motivation is becoming a negative word on the internet

<ul></ul><ul><li><keyword id="6358977" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Swiggy" source="Orion">Swiggy</keyword> is now India’s latest decacorn after raising $700 million in its latest round.</li><li><keyword id="830092" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Zomato" source="Orion">Zomato</keyword> is now valued under $10 billion as its shares dropped below the ₹100-mark earlier today.</li><li>A whole host of new investors participated in Swiggy’s latest venture capital funding round.</li></ul>Food and grocery delivery giant Swiggy has surpassed rival Zomato’s valuation as it raised $700 million. This development was aided by the plunge stock market took on Monday, January 24. Swiggy was valued at $10.7 billion in this latest round, a source close to the deal told Business Insider. The company, which was founded in 2014, has not officially announced the valuation. While Swiggy has attained the decacorn title, Zomato has lost it as its shares dropped <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/stock-market/news/there-are-huge-discounts-on-nykaa-zomato-paytm-and-shares-of-other-listed-tech-startups/articleshow/89086759.cms">below the ₹100 mark earlier today</a>. The company’s shares hit an all-time low of ₹91 and its market cap came down to ₹71,629 ($9.6 billion). A decacorn is a company valued at or more than $10 billion. <div type="image" title="Swiggy is now valued more than Zomato" msid="89092891" hostid="261"></div> Swiggy’s latest funding round was led by US-based investment firm Invesco in a fresh round of external funding, the company has announced. New investors such as <keyword id="9554362" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Baron-Capital-Group" source="Orion">Baron Capital Group</keyword>, <keyword id="13021155" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Sumeru-Venture" source="Orion">Sumeru Venture</keyword>, IIFL AMC Late Stage Tech Fund, Kotak, <keyword id="13021156" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Axis-Growth-Avenues-AIF-I" source="Orion">Axis Growth Avenues AIF- I</keyword>, Sixteenth Street Capital, Ghisallo, Smile Group and Segantii Capital participated in this financing round. The company’s existing investors Alpha Wave Global (formerly Falcon Edge Capital), Qatar Investment Authority, and ARK Impact, and Prosus also participated in the round, Swiggy said in a press note. “The GMV [gross merchandise value] our food delivery business achieved in 40 months, took Instamart just 17 months, demonstrating the platform benefits of Swiggy. We will double down on this to build more categories in line with our mission of offering unparalleled convenience to Indian consumers,” said Swiggy’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Sriharsha Majety in a statement. Instamart is Swiggy’s quick commerce arm, which delivers groceries within 15-30 minutes. In July last year, Swiggy <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/startups/news/swiggy-raises-1-25-billion-in-a-mega-round-of-funding-led-by-softbank-and-prosus/articleshow/84578974.cms">had raised $1.25 billion</a> led by SoftBank and Prosus. SEE ALSO: <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/startups/news/ola-electric-raises-another-200-million-this-time-at-a-valuation-of-5-billion/articleshow/89088739.cms" style="">Ola Electric raises another $200 million, this time at a valuation of $5 billion</a> <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/stock-market/news/check-out-top-10-losers-in-share-market-that-lost-more-than-15-in-last-one-month/articleshow/89089076.cms">Wipro, L&amp;T Infotech, Zee Entertainment, Mindtree among top losers that hit investors’ portfolio in the last one month</a>

Swiggy is now valued more than Zomato

Close to one fifth or 18 per <keyword id="11081593" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="cent-citizens">cent citizens</keyword> or someone in their social network could not find a Covid-19 dose when they went for <keyword id="54639" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="vaccination">vaccination</keyword> in the first 10 days of April, as per a Local Circles survey. However, amid the 2nd wave of Covid cases across the country, India is now reporting over 1,50,000 daily cases far surpassing the peak of 97,400 it hit in 2020. As India expands its vaccination drive with vaccines now being made available to all above the age of 45 and plans to inoculate 50 lakh people each day, leaders of some states in India are reporting a vaccine shortage. Citizens from locations like Mumbai and parts of the Delhi National Capital region have also shared their feedback on LocalCircles suggesting that some hospitals have boards indicating that they either have limited doses or no doses available on a particular day. However, the <keyword id="6354750" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="health">Health</keyword> Minister Harsh Vardhan has indicated that the country has enough doses. To understand what people are exactly facing on the ground, LocalCircles has conducted a survey to gauge if people who have gone to the vaccination centers have in fact experienced this shortage as claimed by some. The survey received more than 24,000 responses from citizens located in 255 districts of India. 18 per cent citizens or someone in their social network who could not find a vaccine dose when they went for vaccination in the first 10 days of April. India has administered over 10 crore vaccine doses to its citizens since the immunization drive began on January 16 this year It has also supplied more than 481 lakh doses of Covid-19 to more than 80 countries across the world under the 'vaccine maitri' program as well as under direct supply agreements by the <keyword id="95879" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Serum-Institute-of-India">Serum Institute of India</keyword>. As per the survey, however, the worrying factor is that amidst the spike in Covid cases across India, media ground reports from states are suggesting that just over five days of vaccine stocks are currently remaining, while an additional week's supply is in the pipeline. In states like Andhra Pradesh and Bihar, current stocks are for less than two days and in others, like <keyword id="6357961" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="odisha">Odisha</keyword> have barely enough for four days. The spokesperson of the <keyword id="6374106" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="ministry-of-external-affairs">Ministry of External Affairs</keyword> has said that India's move on the export of vaccines would be done keeping in mind the domestic requirements, the survey said. As posts and comments were received from people across India about vaccination centers displaying their current stock level as well as some people returning from vaccination centers without getting inoculated, the survey sought to understand from citizens if they or anyone in their social network faced a scenario in the first 10 days of April that they or someone in their network went to get vaccinated and the center was out of vaccine stock. In response, 6 per cent said "happened with 4 or more individuals in my social network", 6 per cent said "happened with 2-3 individuals in my social network", and another 6 per cent said "happened with one individual in my social network". There were, however, 76 per cent saying "did not happen with anyone", while 6 per cent couldn't' say. The aggregate response indicated that 18 per cent of citizens had someone in their social network who could not get a vaccine dose when they went for vaccination in the first 10 days of April. This question in the survey received 9,016 responses. It may be noted that many senior citizens got their first dose in the first 10 days of March and were scheduled to go for getting their second dose during the first 10 days of April. As per Local Circles, some went as scheduled and some decided to follow the revised 6-8 week gap between two doses of <keyword id="6409874" type="DOMAIN" weightage="20" keywordseo="astrazeneca">Astrazeneca</keyword> vaccine or Serum's Covishield in India. 18 per cent of citizens or their family/friends facing the issue of going to a vaccination center but not getting the vaccine is something that must be looked into by the Central and State Governments, the survey said. The shortage may be due to suboptimal local distribution, while it is also possible that certain centers or locations have a genuine shortage. It must also be noted that as the 2nd wave of Covid strengthened in India, 77 per cent of citizens in the LocalCircles survey in April expressed interest in taking the vaccine. The number stood at 38 per cent when India started its vaccination drive thereby marking a major decline in vaccine hesitancy in the 80 days period. This decline in vaccine hesitancy could also be contributing to the demand-supply mismatch, the survey said. As per the survey, the Serum Institute of India currently produces 2 million vaccines a day, and Bharat Biotech produces 0.3 million vaccines in a day. If India continues to vaccinate 3 million people a day and if these two providers are unable to scale their production, India will need to import vaccines from other countries. Such a move has the support of 56 per cent of citizens surveyed who are in favour of India getting <keyword id="44612" type="DOMAIN" weightage="20" keywordseo="Pfizer">Pfizer</keyword>, Moderna, and J&amp;J to conduct trials and make the vaccine available here by June. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/news/nokia-x20-specifications-nokia-new-phones-price-in-india/articleshow/81981039.cms">Six new Nokia smartphones announced – price, specifications and availability details you should know</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/startups/news/founders-take-note-heres-why-most-startups-fail/articleshow/81981138.cms">Founders, take note: here’s why most startups fail</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/apps/news/google-phone-app-now-lets-you-record-calls-automatically-from-unknown-numbers/articleshow/81982791.cms">Google Phone app now lets you record calls automatically from unknown numbers</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/startups/news/adar-poonawalla-serum-institute-of-india-has-bought-stake-policybazaar/articleshow/81985425.cms">Serum Institute of India buys into IPO-bound insurance unicorn PolicyBazaar, as True North sells part stake in secondary sale</a>

Vaccine shortage in India — 18% people could not find COVID-19 dose when they went for vaccination in first ten days of April, says survey

<ul class="summary-list"><li><keyword id="102110" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="60" keywordseo="WEF">WEF</keyword> founder <keyword id="75498" type="PERSON" weightage="60" keywordseo="Klaus-Schwab">Klaus Schwab</keyword> said corporate leaders today have a "new mindset" around <keyword id="6361617" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="climate-change">climate change</keyword>.</li><li>He said more corporate leaders will likely embrace the ESG movement.</li><li>The comments were made during <a href="https://youtu.be/mpE3HfL4IU8">Insider's "Act to Impact" event</a>, presented by Deloitte, on April 20.</li></ul>When Klaus Schwab thinks of climate change, he thinks of his grandchildren and their future. Schwab, the founder and executive chairman of the <keyword id="69007" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="60" keywordseo="World-Economic-Forum">World Economic Forum</keyword>, is worried - but hopeful."Many people have a tendency to see our fight against climate change as a cost, as something that is negative," Schwab said. "Yes, it may be to a certain extent, but it's also a great opportunity."For the economic leader, tackling climate change means <keyword id="34454" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="60" keywordseo="leadership">leadership</keyword> innovation. Company executives, investors, consumers, and political leaders will have to find ways to work together to enact change, he said.And that means new economic opportunities: new infrastructure projects such as the one Congress is <a href="https://www.erienewsnow.com/story/43712566/white-house-lawmakers-debate-details-of-proposed-dollar2-trillion-infrastructure-package">debating</a>, new developments in technologies such as carbon sequestration, and new products such as expanded options for electric cars.Schwab credits a good portion of his philosophy on climate change to <keyword id="45830" type="PERSON" weightage="60" keywordseo="Bill-Gates">Bill Gates</keyword>, who he said is a leader in the green movement."Gates talks about how, in order to decarbonize the world or to make it carbon-neutral by 2050, a lot of new technological progress has to be achieved," Schwab said. "I see here a great opportunity because we can move into an age of green innovation."Signs of this age of green innovation have increased in the past year. ESG investments, or investments that apply environmental, social, and governance principles to a company's performance, have seen record growth and are projected to increase in the future, <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2020/03/02/top-10-esg-trends-for-the-new-decade/">reports showed</a>.US assets under management that used ESG criteria increased 42% over the past two years to $17 trillion in 2020, up from $12 trillion in 2018, showed a <a href="https://www.ussif.org/trends">2020 report</a> from the US Forum for Sustainable and Responsible Investment.A growing number of companies have pledged large green initiatives. GM, America's largest car manufacturer, said it would go carbon-neutral in its global products and operations by 2040. Apple committed to being 100% carbon-neutral for its supply chain and products by 2030.Schwab is energized by these changes and believes the trend toward a more stakeholder-centric view of the world is ahead."I'm really excited," he said, adding that society has changed over the past few years. "We have a new mindset. We have a new social consciousness."Insider spoke with Schwab about his new mindset and how leaders plan to embrace the ESG movement. Our interview has been edited for length and clarity.There's more and more recognition that a viable economy not only relies on treating people well but treating the climate well. Do you think CEOs have fully adopted this mindset that treating the climate well is good for shareholders?So the executives who have a longer-term thinking have clearly adopted this mindset. And if you look, there are two reasons - they are very obvious. So there's first an economic reason. I think what we have learned from the coronavirus is that prevention - the cost of prevention is much lesser compared to the cost of responding afterward to the damage. So we have a situation where you have a kind of free ride because you don't have to integrate all your external costs into your business model, but someone will have to pay for it. And it will be down the road.And my fear is that we may end up like tobacco companies, which means, we will be in a situation where, down the line, you will have class action. Already today, investors recognize this danger, this risk. There are investors who hesitate to provide capital to companies who really are damaging the environment.But there's also a moral reason. I'm thinking of my grandchildren. I don't want to have them facing a crisis that may be much worse compared to what we are seeing today with the COVID-19 pandemic.Do you believe that investors are recognizing the risk? I said investors who are thinking long term. Of course, if you want to make a fast buck, it's a different matter.But in the end, I think companies will recognize they will be better off economically if they take care of nature, because young people - I mean, at least my employees - they don't want to work anymore for a company or for an organization that is damaging nature.And I think clients and customers do not want to buy the products of such a company. So I think it's in the direct, commercial business interest of companies to take care of the planet.Here in the US, the Securities and Exchange Commission just created an ESG task force to promote the disclosure and transparency of ESG criteria. And a report showed that over 300 ESG proxies are headed to a vote this spring. How do you feel about the surge and attention to ESG reporting?I think it's a great evolution. Some people would say even a revolution. But we should not forget that the ESG metrics - so measuring responsibility - are only part of a total integrated system.It starts with defining your strategies, where you have to take into account the present and maybe even future expectations of your stakeholders. So it's a strategy formulation. It's the responsibility of the board. Then it is of course execution, not only inside the company itself but also in the supplying network. And at the end, you have some measurement system, the ESG metrics.So we should not look at ESG metrics just as some kind of a formal, additional reporting system. I think to do ESG performance in the right way, you have to look at it as an ecosystem, which integrates a company as a whole.There are those who are still against certain ESG metrics, for example, the billionaire investor Warren Buffett recently urged shareholders to reject proposals for more transparency of climate-related risks and diversity and inclusion efforts. What would you say to Buffett and others who reject more transparency?I would like to have a discussion with him.I would tell him: "Look, I can understand that on the level of Berkshire Hathaway, which is a kind of conglomerate, you will have difficulties measuring the ESG responsibility of each of your companies where you have a shareholding in. So, here, I would understand."But as far as his companies are concerned, where he has invested in, I would tell him: "Look, particularly because you are very heavily exposed to the insurance business, why don't you engage actively into more ESG of responsibility? Because it may backfire on you one day, in your insurance business. You may be caught by not having an integrated policy where you pursue profitability but also take care of people and the planet."President Joe Biden <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021/03/31/biden-infrastructure-climate-plan/">is asking Congress</a> to approve hundreds of billions of dollars to remake transit infrastructure in the US in a plan that the White House says will fight climate change. What do you think of this kind of package?It's not enough to hold only corporations responsible. I think we have a common responsibility, all stakeholders of global society, which means corporations have to absolve a lot of their responsibilities in this respect, but it's also us individual consumers, and it's the government.And the government has to contribute to fighting climate change by creating the necessary incentives and also disincentives. I think there are still too many governments around the world that provide subsidies for activities that actually are damaging the climate. And I think we need the government to step in to build the necessary infrastructures.What we need is an integrated approach. We cannot fight climate change by doing here a little bit, there a little bit. We need to have an integrated ecosystem approach. And I think here the government has a major role to play, to provide the kind of integrated vision for the future.Going back to the corporate world for a minute: Doesn't the case of Danone and the recent ousting of its CEO show that focusing on ESG metrics can lead to a nonconfidence vote of shareholders? Yes, so we have the famous case of Danone. The CEO was ousted and the criticism was that he has been devoting his time and his attention much too much to the ESG dimension, and not necessarily giving sufficient attention to his shareholders. But I think that's a wrong dichotomy.We shouldn't make an artificial polarization between profitability on the one hand and people and the planet on the other hand. I think the art of good management today is to create the right balance and not to be too much just keeping in mind stakeholders or shareholders. I'll give you a practical example - if we compare Danone with Unilever.Unilever is certainly recognized worldwide as a company that is at the forefront of ESG thinking, but at the same time the share price of Unilever has doubled more or less in the past 10 years. The share price of Danone has quite had some difficulties, especially over the past year. Shareholders are also stakeholders. Unilever is an example that you can give [attention] to your shareholders as well as your other stakeholders.What company stands out to you as doing especially well when it comes to tackling climate change? I'm looking at the hardest-hit companies, hardest in terms of those being confronted with a major need for transformation. Here - if I look at the oil industry - I take as an example Total, the French oil company. Total is one of the 70 companies that the World Economic Forum brought together to commit to report on the ESG metrics we have developed with the International Business Council, under the guidance of Bank of America's CEO, Brian Moynihan, together with the Big Four audit companies.If we're talking about persons, I would say Bill Gates. I just read his newest book ["How to Avoid a Climate Disaster"]. I think he has a very great contribution to offer us. Because he says, "Look, we need a systemic approach to fight climate change. Even if we take all of our goodwill, it will not be enough. What we need is innovation."He talks about how in order to decarbonize the world or to make it carbon-neutral by 2050, a lot of new technological progress has to be achieved. Our present technology does not suffice to get to the target in 2050. So I see here a great opportunity because we can move into an age of green innovation.Many people have a tendency to see our fight against climate change as a cost, as something that is negative. Yes, it may be to a certain extent, but it's also a great opportunity.If I look at the young generations - the World Economic Forum has a community of 10,000 young leaders - if I talk to them, they have a different mindset. They have a different picture of the world.It's not only the material dimension, income, or GDP. It's well-being. And climate change is interconnected with pollution. It's interconnected with life expectancy. It's interconnected with a lot of health issues. So if we want to invest in our well-being, then we have to invest in fighting climate change.Recently, a number of major corporations such as GM and Apple have made pledges to go carbon-neutral - GM by 2040, and Apple by 2030. Do you think these timelines are realistic? And are they fast enough?We speak about a carbon-free world by 2050. That's the objective of the Paris Agreement. Most countries have subscribed to this objective. And many, many companies have now also issued statements that they would achieve carbon neutrality.Now, we have to be aware that the situation is not the same for each company. We have the energy companies - the Exxons, the Chevrons, and so on - that will have much more challenges to reach this objective of carbon neutrality in 2050, compared to Google, or even a car manufacturer that understands the technology to make this transformation to the electric car.So it's good if companies that have fewer challenges, such as the high-tech companies, provide an example by setting very ambitious objectives. But again, I come back to this: Setting objectives is not enough. Being measured in the execution is important, and here the ESGs come in again.Do you think the energy-sector companies such as Chevron and Exxon have fully bought into the stakeholder-capitalism model? Have they bought into addressing climate change?I would answer that in the following way: If they haven't bought in yet, into the stakeholder concept, they are on the wrong side of history, because I'm deeply convinced that we are now really at an inflection point where society as a whole does not tolerate any more companies that are damaging nature or that are not upholding diversity and social justice.I think we have a completely new social consciousness. We now also have a world where every deficiency can be reported very fast, and that can create a negative reaction. So if I were Exxon or a company that's really challenged - we should not forget, these companies need a complete transformation of their business models - I would commit to the stakeholder concept, but would also try to create understanding in the public. For me, being in the energy sector, it may be much more difficult compared to a company that's already producing products that do not necessarily damage the environment. So it's a communications effort.How are you feeling about the corporate fight to tackle climate change? What, if anything, are you excited about?I'm really excited because, as I just mentioned, we have a new mindset. We have a new social consciousness. People like Greta Thunberg got very aware that something is wrong here in our lifestyles - that either we will have to suffer down the road or our children will have to suffer.So we are now in a situation where climate change, or the attention given to climate change, provides a higher sensitivity for other deficiencies that we have.I mentioned already a lack of inclusion, a lack of social justice, a system that is not necessarily fair in providing everybody with the necessary opportunities. And I think the pandemic has contributed to this new alertness, to this new sensitivity. Some people may say this is inconvenient because we pinpoint weaknesses in our society, but it's a wake-up call to adapt and to make sure that we have better lives. That's what we're fighting for.

The founder of the World Economic Forum explains why 'a new mindset' is giving him hope for climate action, and shares which companies are getting it right

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Weighted average cost of capital (WACC) is a key metric that shows a company's cost of capital across its debt and equity.</li><li>If a company's WACC is elevated, the cost of financing for the company is higher, which is usually an indication of greater risk.</li><li>Investors often use WACC to determine whether a company is worth investing in or lending money to.</li></ul>The weighted average cost of capital (WACC) is a financial ratio that measures a company's financing costs. It weighs equity and debt proportionally to their percentage of the total capital structure. A company's executives use WACC in making decisions about how to fund operations or projects, and it helps investors determine the minimum rate of return they're willing to accept on their money.Companies raise capital from external sources in two main ways: by selling stock or taking on debt in the form of bonds or loans. Understanding the cost of that financing is a crucial part of the decision-making process for managers running the business and a key metric for investors in choosing whether to invest. If a company has just one type of capital, equity or debt, figuring out the cost is relatively straightforward. WACC is a more complicated measure of the average rate of return required by all of its creditors and investors.<h2>What is WACC used for?</h2>WACC determines the rate a company is expected to pay to raise capital from all sources. This includes bonds and other long-term debt, as well as both common and preferred shares of stock. It gives management a view of its overall cost of borrowing and helps determine how much of a return on new projects or operations will be required to justify the cost of financing them. Investors use WACC to decide if the company is worth investing in or lending money to. If the WACC is elevated, the cost of financing for the company is higher, which is usually an indication of greater risk. Conversely, a lower WACC signals relatively low financing cost and less risk. "The formula uses the cost of each of the sources of capital and weighs them relevant to the market value of the business," says Daniel Milan, an investment advisor at <a href="http://www.cornerstone-mi.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Cornerstone Financial Services. </a>"This is important because it gives an analyst an idea of how much interest a company has to pay for each dollar that it finances for its operations or assets. This is critical in the evaluation of the value of an investment."<h2>How is WACC calculated? </h2>There are a couple of ways to calculate WACC, which is expressed as a percentage. Here's the basic formula:<div type="image" title="Weighted average cost of capital formula" height="1077" width="1668" msid="87876928" hostid="261"></div>In essence, you first establish the cost of debt and the cost of equity. Then you multiply each of those by their proportionate weight of market value. Add those two figures together and multiply the result by the business's corporate tax rate.A more complicated formula can be applied in the event that the company has preferred shares of stock, which are valued differently than common shares because they typically pay out fixed dividends on a regular schedule.Note: A high WACC indicates that a company is spending a relatively large amount of money to raise capital.<h2>An example of how to use WACC</h2>Determining the cost of equity and the cost of debt can be quite a complicated process, depending on the company's capital structure. But once you have all the data, calculating the WACC is relatively straightforward.Let's say a company has $3 million of market value in equity and $2 million in debt, making its total capitalization $5 million. Its tax rate is 21%, its cost of equity is 9%, and its cost of debt is 6%.That means:<ul><li>E = $3,000,000</li><li>D = $2,000,000</li><li>Tc = 21%</li><li>Re = 9%</li><li>Rd = 6%</li><li>V = $5,000,000</li></ul>Calculating the weighted cost of capital is then just a matter of plugging those numbers into the formula:<ul><li>WACC = (E÷V x Re) + (D÷V x Rd x (1-Tc))</li><li>WACC = ($3,000,000/$5,000,000 x 0.09) + ($2,000,000/$5,000,000 x 0.06 x (1-0.21))</li><li>WACC = (0.054) + (0.019) = 0.073</li><li>WACC = 7.3%</li></ul> While it helps to know the formula to get a better understanding of how WACC works, it's rarely calculated manually. There are many interactive calculators and Excel templates available that can do the math for you. <h2>The financial takeaway</h2>While WACC isn't one of the most commonly used metrics by individual investors like, say, a company's price-to-earnings ratio, professionals regularly use it as part of their in-depth analysis of various investment opportunities. And it's something you're likely to see in analyst reports you come across when researching stocks."Weighted average cost of capital is a formula that can be used to gain an insight into how much interest a company owes for each dollar it finances," says Maxim Manturov, head of investment research at <a href="https://www.freedomholdingcorp.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Freedom Holding Corp</a>. "For this reason, the approach is popular among analysts looking to assess the true value of an investment." However you get it — either on your own or from a research report on a company you're interested in — WACC shows a firm's blended cost of capital from all sources of financing. It represents the average rate of return it needs to earn to satisfy all of its investors. That's one factor to consider when weighing whether the potential returns are worth the risk you're taking by investing.

Weighted average cost of capital: A measure of the rate companies pay to finance their operations

<a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/better-capitalism"></a><div type="image" title="Michael O'Leary" height="1500" width="2000" msid="78493872" hostid="261"></div><ul class="summary-list"><li><keyword id="8992779" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="stakeholder-capitalism">Stakeholder capitalism</keyword>, the idea that a company's purpose is to benefit all its stakeholders, became the reigning economic theory in 2019 after 181 CEOs extolled the idea in an open letter titled a <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/business-roundtable-ceos-say-companies-must-serve-more-than-shareholders-2019-8">"Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation"</a>.</li><li>But the pandemic put stakeholder capitalism to the test, and <a href="https://c6a26163-5098-4e74-89da-9f6c9cc2e20c.filesusr.com/ugd/f64551_a55c15bb348f444982bfd28a030feb3c.pdf">a report</a> funded by the Ford Foundation found that companies that had signed on to the "Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation" fared no better than other top companies in prioritizing worker rights. </li><li>Business Insider recently spoke with Michael O'Leary, co-author of "<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Accountable-Citizen-Capitalism-Michael-OLeary/dp/0062976516">Accountable: The Rise of Citizen Capitalism</a>" to find out what it will take to turn corporate pledges into meaningful action. </li><li>O'Leary and co-author Warren Valdmanis, partner of a social impact fund Two Sigma, helped launch Bain Capital's social impact investing fund. </li><li>They argue that standardizing environmental, social, and corporate governance investing (ESG) practices is the best way to hold CEOs accountable to their promises to uphold stakeholder capitalism.</li></ul>Last year saw the rise of stakeholder capitalism, the idea that all companies should be held responsible for how their actions impact their employees, customers, and the environment, not just shareholders. In August 2019, CEOs of 181 top companies came together, under the organization the Business Roundtable, and declared the ideology the reigning economic principle in a public letter titled a <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/business-roundtable-ceos-say-companies-must-serve-more-than-shareholders-2019-8">"Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation."</a> This marked a departure from the nearly 50 years of economist <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/milton-friedmans-theory-role-of-business-feels-emptier-than-ever-2020-9">Milton Friedman's shareholder primacy</a>, the belief that a company's sole responsibility is profit for its shareholders. The idea was a hot topic at The World Economic Forum in January, just weeks before the coronavirus would collapse national economies. The pandemic put stakeholder capitalism to the test. Business leaders were faced with difficult questions. Chiefly: Do I furlough or lay off employees to cut costs? Do I double down on investing in employees to get through these difficult times? But an analysis funded by the Ford Foundation and conducted by consultancies KKS Advisors called "<a href="https://c6a26163-5098-4e74-89da-9f6c9cc2e20c.filesusr.com/ugd/f64551_a55c15bb348f444982bfd28a030feb3c.pdf">A Test of Corporate Purpose</a>" discovered that stakeholder capitalism may not be making that much of a difference. It found companies that signed the Business Roundtable's letter championing stakeholder capitalism did no better than those who didn't when it came to upholding worker rights and workplace safety. It raised an important question: Is stakeholder capitalism all talk?Despite this news, many in the business sector still argue that stakeholder capitalism would help to create a more equitable society. We just need to hold executives more accountable. Business Insider recently spoke with Michael O'Leary, co-author of "<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Accountable-Citizen-Capitalism-Michael-OLeary/dp/0062976516">Accountable: The Rise of Citizen Capitalism</a>" to find out what it will take to turn corporate pledges into meaningful action. O'Leary and co-author <a href="https://twosigmaimpact.com/our-team/">Warren Valdmanis</a> (current partner at social impact fund Two Sigma) helped launch Bain Capital's social impact investing fund after spending most of their careers in private equity. They argue that standardizing environmental, social, and corporate governance rules in investing (ESG) is the main way to hold CEOs accountable to their promises. This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity. <h2>The average investor wants long-term (not short-term) growth.</h2>When it comes to stakeholder capitalism vs. shareholder primacy, people put economic interests and moral interests on opposite sides of the spectrum. You have to pick one or the other. But is doing the "right" thing and doing the "financially smartest" really that at odds? We've misdrawn the battle lines of capitalism, where we talk about it as if we've benefited shareholders and profit over the last 50 years at the expense of stakeholders. But when you dig down into who the actual shareholders are — in America the median shareholder is 50 years old with $50,000 in a 401(k) account. They're invested in index funds or target retirement accounts to give them exposure to the entire global economy.The best interest of the average American investor is not served by maximizing quarterly profits, it's served by the long-term, sustainable development of the global economy. Doing what's in the best interest of shareholders and stakeholders are not as in tension as I think some folks would suggest. <h2>Exactly how to advance stakeholder capitalism </h2>What will it take to advance stakeholder capitalism? My view on all of this is this: Done halfway, all of these commitments to stakeholder capitalism can do more harm than good. Part of the reason why we need this push toward ESG or stakeholder capitalism is that our economy is racked with distrust. [<a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/capitalism-in-crisis-how-to-fix-capitalism-for-workers-2020-6">Only 25% of Americans think capitalism in its current form is good for society</a>.] If we do these things halfway, it will just further the distrust. People will say, "Last year we had this great victory where 181 CEOs all committed to stakeholder capitalism and it turns out it was all B.S." To the extent that that becomes the takeaway, it'll set back this movement farther than had we never had the statement in the first place. We are winning the battle of ideas, but we're losing the war of substantive action. You'd be hard pressed to find a CEO who hasn't given lip service to these ideas, but you'd be hard pressed to find any real action. The question is, how do we hold CEOs accountable? That's why we called the book "Accountable." In order to turn these commitments into action, we have to have mechanisms to hold corporations accountable. It has to start with clear, standardized, audited metrics. Right now the Wild West of ESG metrics that exist today might serve managers who want to tell a good story, but they're not serving stakeholders who are seeing evidence of stakeholder capitalism everywhere but where it matters, which is in their own lives.So then how do we hold corporate leaders accountable? We live in this age of institutional investors, where something like 90% of all the votes cast in S&amp;P 500 companies are not cast by individual shareholders, but are cast by institutions on behalf of individuals. Institutions like BlackRock, Vanguard, etc. And we need institutional investors like that to do a better job of representing the actual values and interests of the underlying shareholders, who are long-term-focused, sustainability-focused. What type of standards are you arguing for? Right now, and you know this, any public company must report on their financial performance according to an extremely standardized format that is then audited by a third party, an accounting firm like PwC or EY or KPMG, who certifies that it's correct. And all of this is regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), all through the format generally accepting accounting principles, or GAAP, that's set by The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). It is this alphabet soup of accountability on the financial side. Compare that to how companies report all the different social and environmental impacts they have. It is entirely optional, entirely up to the company whether they report it at all.On the ESG side, the struggle right now is that because it's up to the company to report them, you have all this self-selection bias, where the only companies to report on certain issues are the companies that are doing well in them. Who would enforce these standards? A great first step would be the companies involved with the World Economic Forum, if they all committed to reporting in line with these standards. It would still be totally optional, totally voluntary. But it would be a huge step forward because at least you would be able to have hundreds of companies across different industries reporting on a common set of metrics.The next step, which does require the government to get more involved, would be to regulate ESG reporting the same way financial reporting is regulated. And that is through FASB as overseen by the SEC. <h2>Top investors and business leaders shouldn't wait for new government policy to usher in change </h2>What role does the government play in ushering in change? I see a massive and critical role for the government to play, including things like pricing externalities like carbon emissions, things like advancing protection for workers, and getting a higher minimum wage. But I think there's been this millionaire cop-out, which is these extremely powerful economic actors, Jamie Dimon or Ray Dalio, who will write these white papers and letters about all the things the government needs to do to stop failing our citizens. And I kind of look at it and think, "You have so much power yourself to affect change on these issues."The example I always point to is with guns. I believe it was after the Parkland shooting, <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-bans-open-carry-guns-stops-selling-some-ammunition-2019-9">leaders of Walmart</a>, leaders of Dick's Sporting Goods, they didn't just say, "The government needs to act." They went beyond the letter of the law to say, "We're going to stop selling assault rifles in our stores." Dick's Sporting Goods went farther, they actually <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/dicks-ceo-on-destroying-5-million-dollars-of-assault-weapons-2019-10">melted down the assault rifles they had in stock</a>, so there would be fewer assault rifles in the economy overall. This comes back to this idea of citizen capitalism, which is not to say the government doesn't have a huge role to play, but if you believe in something so strongly that you vote behind, you should see how else you can be affecting that change in your roles as worker, worker, employee, consumer, as a saver, as an investor. We've created this bifurcation in ourselves as moral actors and as economic actors, where once we enter the economic realm it's somehow amoral or value neutral and we trust the invisible hand to solve all problems.Our argument is not that the government has no role to play, but we need to end this bifurcation. We need to reintegrate our moral and our economic lives into one.

'We've misdrawn the battle lines of capitalism:' A founding member of Bain's social impact fund shares what really needs to be done to make stakeholder capitalism work

<keyword id="11441043" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="SimpliContract">SimpliContract</keyword>, an AI and SaaS-based contract lifecycle management (<keyword id="3467940" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="clm">CLM</keyword>) platform, said on Monday it has raised <keyword id="54123" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="USD">USD</keyword> 1.8 million in a <keyword id="948731" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="seed-funding">seed funding</keyword> round led by <keyword id="1397792" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Kalaari-Capital">Kalaari Capital</keyword> with participation from Picus Capital, Arka Ventures, and Digital Sparrow Capital. This funding will drive its efforts in engineering, <keyword id="6019235" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="ai-research">AI research</keyword>, and marketing, the Bengaluru-headquartered company said in a statement. SimpliContract's product supports organisations across the contract lifecycle from request to renewal and enables effective collaboration for internal and external stakeholders such as vendors and customers, it said. The platform, built with customisable and intelligent workflows, seamlessly integrates with enterprise applications and provides actionable insights to users across procurement, sales, and legal functions, the statement said. Partner at Kalaari Capital, <keyword id="154262" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Ravinder-Singh">Ravinder Singh</keyword>, said, "90 per cent of global enterprises and 50 per cent of midsize organisations will have CLM solutions in place by 2023. The Global CLM market is expected to grow from USD 1.5 billion today to USD 5.2 billion by 2027. We believe that the AI- powered CLM platform of SimpliContract will drive and ride this growth." "We are seeing significant interest and adoption in the market within a few months of launch. SimpliContracts AI-driven platform supports over 4,000 enterprise users and manages 30,000-plus contracts worth over USD two billion in value," CEO of SimpliContract, Guru Venkatesan, said. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/stock-market/news/sona-comstar-ipo-price-gmp-should-you-subscribe/articleshow/83505013.cms">Sona Comstar IPO worth ₹5,550 crore opens today – find out if this EV battery player has enough juice for a long ride</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/news/why-dodla-dairy-has-no-plans-to-expand-beyond-southern-india/articleshow/83503817.cms">Here’s why Dodla Dairy has no plans to expand beyond southern India for at least the next two years even with its IPO</a>

You Searched For "External capital" and got 11 results

The C-suite is evolving — and new roles may join to drive innovation, say execs from IBM, JLL, Clear Capital, and more

Julia Hood,Tim Paradis,Jean P…

After Germany enters recession, fears in Singapore of 'technical recession'

ANI

India has not generated outsized returns for foreign investors, says Ambit’s Nitin Bhasin

Malini Bhupta

Melvin Capital to shut down one year after GameStop short-squeeze caused billions in losses for the hedge fund

Matthew Fox

Why motivation is becoming a negative word on the internet

Karuna Sharma

Swiggy is now valued more than Zomato

Dearton Thomas Hector

Vaccine shortage in India — 18% people could not find COVID-19 dose when they went for vaccination in first ten days of April, says survey

IANS

The founder of the World Economic Forum explains why 'a new mindset' is giving him hope for climate action, and shares which companies are getting it right

Marguerite Ward

Weighted average cost of capital: A measure of the rate companies pay to finance their operations

Vandita Jadeja

'We've misdrawn the battle lines of capitalism:' A founding member of Bain's social impact fund shares what really needs to be done to make stakeholder capitalism work

Marguerite Ward

SaaS startup SimpliContract raises $1.8 million in seed funding led by Kalaari Capital

PTI

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides