Goverment role in development finance

Is the government justified in offering loans to borrowers (e.g. small businesses) who typically do not get loans from the market?

No - it is morally wrong for the government to use tax payer's money to provide a private good to another group of individuals. It is equivalent to robbing Peter to pay Paul. The money comes out from the pocket of a tax payer, and gets deployed at lower-than-market rates.

So, what should government do?

Nothing. There are two different cases under which lending market gaps arise - and there is a case for government intervention in none.

In the first case, the loan applicant has dubious financial record, the market gap is a proper outcome of market mechanism.

In the second case, the applicant may be creditworthy but these is no information or credit history on him, hence the market gap.

In the first example, there is no case for any lending to such applicant. However, in the second case the government may feel tempted to intervene to fulfill its social mandate. However, this would be morally wrong as the govt. would again be robbing Peter to pay Paul.

So, what should be the policy response for such a situation?


I think that such a situation should be left entirely to the free market. The guiding principle being - there is no moral obligation on anyone to offer a loan without receiving the desired return. If no one desires to make a loan at any interest rate, then so be it. If someone desires to make a loan at exorbitant interest rate, then so be it. If someone desires to make a loan at zero interest rate, then so be it. Lending one's own money should be a matter of one's own choice, not somebody's force.

I also think that if free market forces are at work, there would emerge a win-win solution - simply because there is genuine opportunity for value creation in such a situation, and market participants would like to capture that value.

The value is being created due to the gains from trade - the lender is trading his surplus money with the borrower's promise to pay back with appropriate interest (risk-based). Both parties are gaining from this transaction in the same way as two trading parties typically benefit from mutual and voluntary trade.

Therefore, free market is best suited to address lending market gaps. If it chooses to not serve any of the gaps, then so be it. There is no obligation on any individual to sacrifice his money for this cause. In fact, such a situation gives an opportunity to an innovator to devise an approach to address the market failure - and it is proper for him to make money from the innovation.

A better alternative to meditation

I have always wondered what one does while meditating? I have never been able to meditate and find the entire process boring.

Now, I have begun to think that meditation may not be the best way to achieve concentration and calmness.

I think that calmness and joy proceed from concentration. Once you are able to concentrate intensely on something, and hence achieve a productive outcome, you feel immense satisfaction. If you do this repeatedly, you will make concentration and focus a way of life.

To achieve concentration, one needs to identify a topic worth concentrating on. One must have a question in mind on this topic. I find it ridiculous to attempt to focus on without-a-purpose topics (e.g. focusing on one's inner self, god, a point between one's eyes, etc). Such a focus is non-productive, and boring for a result-oriented person.

Instead, if one chooses a topic on which one has certain questions. Then, if one intensely focuses on the questions at hand, without letting any other distracting thought enter his mind, then this is true concentration. This should be the approach of meditation.

Traditional meditation may seem justified if one is really disturbed and can't focus on anything, and does meditation to empty and tranquilize one's mind. However even in such situations, one needs to think. One needs to introspect, weigh his priorities, and decide his response to his problems.

Therefore, I believe that mediation is pointless if it advises for suspending one's active thinking and passively focusing on vacuum, god, a point, one's breath, etc.

What is fulfilling is intensely concentrating on a question/problem that is worth one's interest an time. This intense focus will bring calmness and joy of achieving a productive outcome. This is true meditation.

Is knowledge good for its own sake?

One good thing I have learned as a consultant is: "Think answers, not analysis".

This means that any analysis should not be done for sake of analysis itself. Rather, it needs to be done to provide some actionable insights.

If I extrapolate this thinking to the overall learning and knowledge gathering process, the right approach seems to be to not go after knowledge to just become knowledgeable, but to seek knowledge to get closer to a defined goal.

Therefore, this thinking would suggest that one must start with a clear goal/question in mind, before one gathers knowledge to answer that question.

Is my thinking right?

I believe that until one is child, knowledge is good for its own sake. This is because at this stage, the child does not have full awareness to even have a sense to what questions to ask. He needs to know the world he lives in, before he can frame his goals and related questions. However, as we have seen in many cases, children loose interest in studies (e.g. abstract subjects such as Maths, etc). This is because they cannot relate that learning to its eventual use. Therefore, a good teaching approach would combine elements of knowledge dissemination for its own sake, as well as knowledge seeking driven by answering an interesting question.

However, for an adult, I believe that most of the learning should happen with a purpose/questions in mind.

Why?

I believe that an adult is already aware of the world around him, and can very well choose his goals. In this context, a purposeful knowledge seeking will make him more efficient and effective. He will be more satisfied as he acquires more knowledge and is able to answer his questions. Otherwise, the information content in today's world is huge. If one just memorizes facts and collects information, then he will be a good encyclopedia, but nothing more. In fact, he will nothing more than an inanimate computer.

I think that what makes Man superior species is his capability to problem solve and make decisions using his intelligence and knowledge. Hence, the purpose of knowledge acquisition needs to be to to answer questions, and to solve problems. This is how the world moves forward.

Can medicines treat Alzheimer's disease?

I believe that Alzheimer's disease can't be treated by medicines alone.

Alzheimer's is a disease that screws up the wiring of the mind in the following way:

- Nerve cells die
- Transfer of Signals between Nerve cells get impacted severely

Medicines can provide the chemicals that can clear the plaques and other obstructions impeding signal transfer.

However, the main issue is to restore the complex connections between the Neurons. These connections are something that an individual learns over time through the feedback from his daily experiences.

I believe these connections are broken due to two main causes:

1. Bio-chemical weakening of the brain (either due to lifestyle or aging)
2. Loss of active interest in life (which weakens these connections)

A medicine can address the first, but not the second. The second can only be addressed by understanding why the person has lost interest in life, and then considering what can be done to fix it.

Life is not a zero sum game

I believe that life is not a zero sum game.

What does it mean?

It means that the pie is not fixed, and can grow unlimitedly.

Which pie?

The pie of all wealth (goods and services) we produce. GDP is a close approximation of this pie.

How do I know it?

Well, earth is a huge plant - with huge natural resources. Nuclear energy has potential to address all our energy needs. Also, the composition of this pie may change over time (e.g. coal may cease to be available for energy), but the size of the pie and its ability to satisfy human needs can grow unlimitedly.

So, life is not a zero sum game because there unlimited resources on earth which can satisfy all our needs..and even wants! The key thing to note is that nature has abundant means of production (land) and resources (water, air, energy), though not enough produce for all of us. Human beings need to apply their labor (physical and mental) to produce.

So, what I am asserting is that there is unlimited possibility on earth to produce goods and services that will more than satisfy our needs and wants.

The only constraint, in a free society, for meeting one's wants is one's own effort.

Therefore, at a fundamental level, there is no scarcity for which human being need to compete with each other. The competition needs to be with oneself - to make as much effort as satisfies one's own wants, in accordance with one's own ambition.

Now, what could be the reasons that this simple concept is not well understood?

There could be three reasons. Firstly, people do not have access to means of production through free competitive markets. Secondly, people do not believe that there can be unlimited produce on earth (which is not the case as mentioned above). Finally, people may not believe that the distribution mechanism is 'fair'.

The remedy to address first and third root causes is to ensure that the means of production (such as land) are available by a free market bidding process, and distribution is done automatically through a market driven price mechanism.

Is science a Boon or a Bane?

I was unable to answer this question properly until a few months back. I have the answer now.

To answer the question we need to separate two aspects of this question:

1. Is the knowledge of science boon or bane? AND
2. Is the application of science boon or bane?

Often, the confusion in answering the Boon-vs-Bane question stems from not making the above distinction.

Knowledge of science is certainly good. It helps us understand nature better. This understanding increases our chances of survival.

As far as application is concerned - it is to be noted that we cannot answer the question at a 'fundamental' level. This is because human beings have volition. They can choose to apply science on either making an atom bomb, or inventing electricity.

So, those who say that science has been a bane, need to be told that the conclusion to be drawn (even if this is proved to be a historical fact) is not that we need to discard science, or that we were better off without science. The conclusion to be drawn is that we have progressed well on knowledge of nature. But, we may not have made the right 'choices' on how to use that knowledge.

The historical observation that science has led to destruction, pollution, etc does not imply that things had to be that way. Human beings have volition and can choose to use science constructively. The core issue is lack of a proper philosophy (mainly ethics). The progress on this front has not kept pace with that on natural sciences.

I was discussing this issue with an uncle of mine. He recently got a pacemaker installed, and was saying that science has not helped mankind. I told him that it is because of science that he is alive. To which he said that what was the use of his life. Hence, he made his negative conclusion on science. I could not counter his argument properly that day. Today, I understand how to do that. Science offered him the possibility to live (by using both scientific knowledge and its proper application - in form of the pace maker). Now, if he thinks that his life has no meaning and he was better dead, then it is his fault and a result of his choices. Science will not offer man a better life, unless he chooses it himself. Science will maximize his chances of survival; but is up to man to use his life productively. If he fails here, then it is his own volition that should get the blame - not science.

Sach Ka Samna

SKS seems to have ignited reactions from several people. I have not seen any episode of it, but have read about it, and believe that it is a disgusting show.

However, I would not go ahead and suggest that one morally polices such shows - 'coz that would be equivalent to suppressing freedom of expression.

I believe that if one really wants to counter such shows, then one must first understand why shows are succeeding, and then one must counter the underlying 'idea' such shows are based on.

SKS is succeeding 'coz it corroborates many people's underlying sense of life - that human beings are inherently degraded or corruptible. These people have sensed that they belong to this category, and hence they find comfort in seeing that other people's linen is dirty too.

I believe in the fundamental goodness of human beings. Hence, I think that such shows can be countered only by showing people that human beings are not fundamentaly 'bad' - that they have the potential to indeed be 'heroes'.

Epics like Ramayana and Mahabaharata projected such an image of man as a 'hero'. However, those heroes were elevated to be Gods or Avatars, and hence beyond human reach. If humans like Rama and Krishna existed, then it was a grave error to not portray them as human heroes.

Liquidity trap

The US is in a liquidity trap these days - much like Japan in 1990-2000 (the lost decade). After reading Krugman's blog, I think now I understand this phenomenon better, than I did when I first read about the liquidity trap in 2000.

In a normal situation, the interest rates in an economy are determined by level of savings (S) and investment (I) in the economy. If there are excess savings, then interest rates fall to equillibriate S and I again; and vice versa.

However, currently US is in a different situation. There is an excess of S which cannot be equillibriated to I by lowering interest rates - because interest rates are already close to zero! This is called liquidity trap.

However, as Krugman points in his blog, this situation allows US govt to increase fiscal expenditures without crowding out the private investment. Thus, the govt can use excess savings pool to finance some public expenditure without increasing interest rates!

Now, the question is that where did these excess savings come from? After all, US people don't save much, right? I think the savings came from mainly China, since the Chinese kept there reserves in US in $!

Why is inflation a fact of life?

I always used to wonder why, as I begun studying economics, is inflation a fact of life? Why do prices always seem to go up (on average)? Now I think I know the answer.

Inflation for a commodity could be due to its demand exceeding supply for a sustained period of time. However, I am here talking about overall prices. This I believe is mainly a monetary phenomenon (as pointed out by Friedman). Thus, historically, we have had more money chasing less goods and services. Hence, the overall inflation in most of the economies.

The questions is why would there be more money chasing less goods for a sustainable period of time?

I guess, the reason is deficit financing. Most governments over the world have been doing this. They print money to finance their welfare schemes and budgetary deficits. I guess this is the reason why we see inflation as a fact of life

The better the government's fiscal management, the lower the inflation. This relationship is evident if one looks at countries like US and Zimbabwe on two ends of the spectrum. India perhaps is somewhere in the middle with historical inflation in the range of 5%-7%.

The economy needs Ayn Rand

Today I read a debate on relevance of Ayn Rand's philosophy for today's economic context. I am now tempted to elicit my position on this debate. Thus I break a 1.5-year blogging hiatus!

I would not comment on the person who is against the motion in the debate, except that if I say that she is stupid than I would be making same kind of arguments that she has made in the debate.

However, I like the arguments made by the person in favor of the motion. His main argument is that it was not Greed but Government's (and Fed's) intervention that got us into this mess.

Before I describe my position, I want to mention that I have always admired Ayn rand. I find her writing and her interviews extremely clear and compelling. However, after my economics education, I have begun to slightly modify my views on capitalism and human nature. Below are my thoughts:

My position:

• Capitalism is the best economic system known to mankind
• However, only if there is an ideal starting point for the economy
• This ideal starting point is that individual wealth has been 'rationally' earned

Why capitalism is not working today?

We have never been anywhere close to the ideal starting point.

Firstly, individual wealth have never been 'rationally' distributed. Secondly, individual incomes have seldom been 'rationally' earned.

If today the world moves to laissez-faire capitalism, I still will have an edge over lot of others. This edge will not be due to my own innate merit. Instead, it would stem from my parents' wealth - due to which I could go to the best educational institutes.

Hence, unless there is a 'fair' starting point for all, capitalism will not work its best.


Why socialism or govt. intervention is not the right answer to today's problems?

1. Because it creates 'unfair' starting points for a few individuals
2. Because it removes 'rationality' from future income generation and distribution.

What can be done now to make capitalism work?

The only fix is to fix the starting points. Otherwise, we will continue to live in an imperfect economic world.

It is not at all easy to fix the starting points. However, below are my 2 cents:

1. Abolish private property on natural resources (e.g. land, oil, etc)
2. Enforce property rights on man made resources (e.g. Intellectual Property)
3. Devise a redistribution mechanism so as to fix the errors of the past
   

All of the above is easier said than done! But one needs to say it first - right?


P.S. Since I have used the word 'rational' so many times above, it is important that I state what I mean by it. Instead of defining it, I would try and triangulate it below:

Conditions for a rational system:

1. One can only keep the wealth that is earned by him, and by his own effort.
   
2. One can only keep the income that is earned by him, and by his own effort.

Tests for a rational system:

1. Universal sustainability: If the rules (or norms) of the game are followed by all, the system should be sustainable.
2. Efficiency: The system should lead to the most optimal use of scarce resources
   

Why consultancies exist?

In my opinion there are two fundamental reasons why management consulting (MC) firms exist:

1. Experience and expertise that an MC has in solving business problems: An MC has expertise in solving business problems which a business organisation often lacks. An MC can benefit from previous similar experiences and apply the learning to similar problems in fresh situations. e.g. a bank may not know how to enter a new market but an MC would most likely have assisted tens of other companies in a similar task. Thus, an MC offers value in terms of experience and expertise to that bank.
2. Presence of incentive incompatibility in business organizations: Every business decision faces business uncertainty and hence has some risk. Now an executive, who is just an agent of the shareholders (principals), will not take a risky decision unless he himself gets a return that satisfies his risk-return trade-off. In organisations such as investment banks this incentive incompatibility is low as the executives' bonuses are directly linked to the bank's profits. Hence, such IBs don't usually hire MCs unless it is for CDD (which is due to the reason explained in point 1). Now, MCs take a part of the risk and the return from the executive. Now, the executive's risk-return trade-off is satisfied and the MC's as well.
   

Materialism vs Idealism

What causes things to move or to act in the way they do?

A materialist believes that matter (things) shapes events. e.g. a materialist believes one will feel happier if one has a car, a house and a lot of money. So for a materialist, the source of happiness exists outside - in material things.

An idealist believes that ideas shape events. e.g. an idealist believes one will feel happier if one control his desires. So for a materialist, the source of happiness exists within oneself.

Who is right? I feel both are right to an extent.

In my past, I have certainly felt happier by possessing material things.
However, I have also felt happier after I controlled my desire to have an ice cream.

I believe that western philosophy is more Materialistic and Indian philosophy is more Idealistic. Americans extol material success. Whereas, Indians gurus focus more on self-control.

I believe this is due to different circumstances India and America have had historically.

India was a land of abundance in ancient times. Hence, matter was easily available and hence obtaining it was not really a virtuous task. So, self-control became a virtue.

In America, it was the opposite. Matter was not abundant explicitly. Hence, industrialists and businessmen had to extract matter by hard work and ideas. Hence, material success became desirable.

However, I believe we are more under the influence of materialism today than of idealism. We under-appreciate the power of mind.

A doubt... addressed

The question:

Before doing my MBA I used to ask myself two questions:

1. If a retailer only has 5% margin, why does he do the business?
2. Is he not better-off investing in stocks and making higher return?

The Aha!:

Now, after my MBA, I wonder how stupid I was!

Below is why the retailer should still be in the business:

First of all, we need to define his return on his investment (RoI). This can be defined as:

RoI = Income/Investment

Now, RoI can also be written as:

RoI = (Income/Sales) * (Sales/Assets) * (Assets/Investment)
= Margin * Asset Turnover * Leverage

[An MBA would instantly recognize that I am talking about the DuPont formula here].

Now, we can see that we are not comparing apples to apples when we compare 5% to 10% return on stocks - 5% is his margin, whereas 10% is his RoI.

Thus, his RoI should be = 5% * Asset Turnover * Leverage

Now, a big retailer can take loans and hence his leverage will be > 1. If he finances half of the assets through his own money and half through loans, then his leverage will be 2.

Now, if he sells all of his assets in 1 year, then he will make 10%!. Thus:

RoI = 5% * 1 * 2 = 10%

For unorganized retailers, leverage may not be possible that easily. Hence, these guys make money as follows:

1. Higher margins (15%-20%), as they mostly sell private-label stuff.
2. Understatement of income tax
3. High Asset turnover - by reducing their working capital needs (buying on credit, etc.)

Why is Oil rising?

Sources:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7048600.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEC
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/topworldtables1_2.htm
http://www.jubileeinitiative.org/RiggedOil$.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersEdge/idUSL0132223020071101

1. Geopolitical factors:

These are causing uncertainty in the market and helping to push prices up. Such as fears about possible Turkey-Iraq conflict. This conflict could threaten oil output in wider region - Iran, Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. These countries produce about 20% of world oil supply and about 50% of OPEC supply. OPEC accounts for 66% of the world's oil reserves, and about 40% of the world's oil production.


2. The weak $:

This makes it cheaper for importers to buy dollar-denominated oil supplies, thereby increasing demand for oil. Although biggest oil importers are countries that have had no benefit from a weaker $ - countries such as US, Japan and China. Still, the $ has gone down against currencies that control about 25% of the imports of top-15 oil importing countries

3. Growing demand from India and China:

India and China have about 15% share of the imports of the top-15 oil importers. Moreover, the oil demand from these countries is growing by double digits every year!


4. Financial speculation:

Investors take bets on future oil prices by oil futures. Earlier this year, these speculators were long on oil. As the price of oil has increased above $90, the investors that sold the options to these speculators are scrambling to cover their positions. This has boosted demand as well.

Thus, it is not just physical demand/supply but also financial demand/supply that influences the markets prices of oil.

FAQs

Below are some philosophical questions I often ask myself:

1. Is it all in the mind?
2. Is everything cyclic? If so, why?
3. Is there a trade-off between discipline and creativity?
4. Why do we improve after practice?
5. Is crime a fact of life?
6. Are there a few basic principles governing nature and life?
7. Is victory over self possible?
   
8. Why some people do not like some other without any reason?
9. Why some people don't like love movies like KKHH, DTPH?
10. Why is SRK either loved or hated?
    
11. Why is Jeans so popular?
12. Why some kids who show promise don't achieve their potential?
13. Why do opposites sexes attract? Why do homosexuals exist?
14. Why do some songs become so popular, while others do not?
15. Are there some basic principles that govern aesthetics?
16. Why do properly directed erotic movies arouse better than porn?
17. Why do I admire Ayn Rand?
18. Why do two people fall in love?
19. Why a lot of love marriages fail?
20. Are all claimed love marriages really so?

I will try to answer some of these in my future posts.

Indian financial system

What follows is my understanding of a May 2006 McKinsey report on Indian financial system reform:


This report asserts that Indian financial system is inefficient, and it does not allocate capital efficiently i.e. to its most productive uses.

Indian financial depth is low as compared to other Asian nations. This means that India has 160% of GDP as financial assets.

Breakup as a % of GDP as of 2004:

1. Equity: 56
2. Corporate debt (Through Bonds): 2
3. Govt debt: 34
4. Bank deposits: 68

This is as of 2004. Today (2007) the equity is about 100% of GDP. So financial depth has probably increased to about 200%. In comparison, Japan and Singapore have 400% financial depth.

Another aspect that is different about India is its low corporate debt. Hence, companies have to rely upon banks for loans.

Indians are also world's largest gold consumers and these money could be channelled into more productive uses.

Most of the savings go into govt priority projects. Banks are obliged to hold 25% of their assets in govt bonds. Govt policies require banks to direct a big chunk of loans to agriculture and other priority sectors.

Indian banks only lend out about 60% of their deposits. This number is about 100% for UK and US.

Much of the banks funds go to fund the total govt deficit (including states). This is about 12% of the GDP!

Indian corporate bond market is just 2% of GDP because of several reasons:

1. High issuance costs due to complex regulation
2. Lengthy listing procedures
3. High disclosure requirements
4. Inadequate credit risk rating system
5. Inadequate dispute resolution mechanisms.

Hence, these banks avoid the hassles. They go for pvt placement, international bonds or bank loans. These bank loans crowd out smaller players who need funds to grow. [May be this is why PE is booming in growth capital in India ].

If these inefficiencies are removed, India can grow even faster!!

Excellence

I often ask myself this question - what makes someone achieve excellence?

When I think of excellence I think of people like Pele, Bradman, Dhyan Chand, Ayn Rand, Ramanujam, Lata Mangeshkar, etc.

There are other great people too but I know the most about the above and hence want to keep only these in mind.

So did something make them or were they made of something?

I believe that the natural order of things intends us to follow a Normal distribution of performance. So, what makes certain human beings achieve the outcome that is only 0.00001% likely?

I guess there are three reasons:

1. Genes
2. Motivation
3. Practice
   

I believe genetic makeup can give someone an edge in performing certain tasks - e.g. someone may be born with very sweet or deep voice.

I also believe that motivation is what takes that person to excellence. These people simply are on a different level of consciousness. This may be circumstantial. This may be innate as well, because after a point excellence often is self-motivating. Whatever be the case, these people are able to stay motivated most of the times, and that causes all the difference.

Practice is essential for excellence. I think it wires our neural networks. The more we practice the more we get wired. Hence, the better our mental models become. Then in real life these mental models can handle randomness better.

Hence, to summarise I don't believe in a deterministic view of excellence. Anyone can become excellent, but one cannot force himself to become excellent. There is no direct bus that goes to excellence. One needs to take the right buses that progress towards excellence.

Cracking the Case!

Management consulting firms recruit by conducting case interviews. These interviews can be a nightmare for the unprepared candidate. Here are my two cents on how to do well in a case interview:

1. Get a working knowledge of frameworks such as: Porter's 5 Forces, 5 P's of marketing, BCG Matrix, Relative Market share, value chain analysis, segmentation, process maps, etc. Remember to keep the frameworks in mind while doing cases; but never apply a framework to a case unless it fits in to that case aptly.
   
2. Practice! I believe one should focus of quality of practice rather than on quantity. Hence, 7-12 cases should be enough to get good practice - provided you do these cases with people who have conducted case interviews before. Case interview is not a Puzzle interview where you must solve a tough puzzle on your own. It is a two-way process with elements of leadership, brainstorming, dialogue, structured thinking and crisp communication in it. Make sure you convey your capabilities in each of these areas!
3. While facing the interview be relaxed yet attentive. I believe this helps you to think better and quicker. Sometimes, if you are over-excited, even basic ideas and calculations can skip your mind and you can make stupid mistakes!
4. Connect with the interviewer. This is very important. Often a star candidate can get dinged if he does not connect well. On the other hand, if you are just above average but have good interpersonal skills, you may make it! Also, often interviewers drop cues during a case interview. Only an attentive person will be able to catch those cues. Therefore, look at your interviewer in the eye and try to log-in to his mind. This will certainly help you do well!
5. Verbalize! Always explain to your interviewer what you are doing before doing it. This helps the interviewer visualize what you are doing. This helps him evaluate you better. Remember, he is interested more in assessing how you think rather than in what you come up with.
   
6. Finally, smile! The interviewer will try to challenge you often. Never get stressed out in this situation. The key is to take each challenge with a smile. This will impress your interviewer and will also take the pressure off you.

Good Luck!

A year at INSEAD

This is my first post as a blogger. It is high time.

I must start with my experience at INSEAD. I started my 1-year MBA in January 2007, and now I am about to graduate. I have a dream job -with McKinsey - and I am so happy that I have not studied anything since past 2 weeks. This is unthinkable at INSEAD!

My first month at INSEAD was full of challenges. I was adjusting to the new place, people and information. Everything was new and challenging. In fact I noticed that in the first few weeks here was a healthy tension in the campus. There was a lot of sizing-each-other-up going on. All of us were facing some of the best brains from different cultures and were subconsciously placing them in our heads.

I have rarely slept less than 7 hours a day. I did at INSEAD - at least for the first 2 months. That was busy time as we also had to search for summer internships. Later on I got used to beating the system. Not all readings were supposed to be read. Team work meant: divide and conquer the assignments. Some of the early morning classes could be missed.

Nevertheless, I love the time that I have spent here. I have gained amazing information, perspectives and contacts at INSEAD. I am about to finish the program in December and then a new chapter will open. However, I will never forget the time that I have spent here at INSEAD!