To be successful in business one should treat customers like guests and employees like human being. What happens in most of the businesses is, too much work pressure is given to the employees so that work will be done on time. For the time being work happens too; but may be with many errors and mistakes. At times employee has some personal problems but because company is paying salary and deadlines pressure on individual increases.

What is meant by Secondary market?
Secondary market refers to a market where securities are traded after being initially offered to the public in the primary market and/or listed on the Stock Exchange. Majority of the trading is done in the secondary market. Secondary market comprises of equity markets and the debt markets.

What is the role of the Secondary Market?
For the general investor, the secondary market provides an efficient platform for trading of his securities. For the management of the company, Secondary equity markets serve as a monitoring and control conduit—by facilitating value-enhancing control activities, enabling implementation of incentive-based management contracts, and aggregating information (via price discovery) that guides management decisions.

What is the difference between the Primary Market and the Secondary Market?
In the primary market, securities are offered to public for subscription for the purpose of raising capital or fund. Secondary market is an equity trading
venue in which already existing/pre-issued securities are traded among investors. Secondary market could be either auction or dealer market. While
stock exchange is the part of an auction market, Over-the-Counter (OTC) is a part of the dealer market.

This is by Krishna Kumar got this article on DARE.

1. Social media efforts need people,money and time, like with anything else.
It is not one more task for that intern in marketing. if you want to use social media or online communities as leverages for your business, then be ready to invest resources into it. And the most important resource you need to invest in is people dedicated to the task

2. Most still don't get it.
Most business out there still do not understand what social media is or what it can do for them. So you need not be afraid that you will make a mess of it. On the other hand, you do not have too many examples that you can follow or copy. And the rules are all unwritten and changing. So get in with your eyes open, knowing that you are going to make mistakes before you succeed.

3. Listen
Social media is about conversations. And many conversations at the same time. So, like at any noisy party, start by listening. Understand what they are talking about before you get in. Carefully choose the conversations you want to join, which are the ones you want to ignore and which to start.

4. Dialogue, not monologue
Social media is about conversations, right? And a successful conversation cannot be monologue. It has to be a dialogue with both parties contributing. There are businesses whose sole activity in Twitter is to automatically broadcast URLs of new additions at their website using tolls like twitter feed. It does not work in the long run.

5.About 99% if what is out there is not relevant. Find the relevant one percent.
Socual networks tend to generate a lot of noise. A huge amount of it, in fact. Almost every other question in LinkedIn is irrelevant to a professional network. According to twittergrader.com;s state if the Twitter sphere report 55% of twitter users have never tweeted. And if you look at the 45% who do tweet, most of it is inane stuff like - "I am awake" or "I am going to sleep".
You need to navigate through all this to find the one percent that is relevant to you. For this you need to use tool like yahoo sideline and retweerank.com

6. There is no single magic wand community.
if you believe that there is a single community that is the answer to all your needs then you are mistaken. Your customers, both current and potential, are active on many social networks, not just one. For this simple reason , if nothing else, you need to be active on multiple communities, but as pert of one continuous and cross-linked effort.

7. It is more of PR than of marketing. It is more of marketing than of sales.
Social networks are not meant for direct sales. While Dell has been talking about doing US$ three millions of sales on Twitter, not many realize that most of it is indirect and soft sales and through discount offers, and that a lot of the tweets were about other things including resolving the problems that customers were facing.
Direct sales are mostly frowned upon on social websites. They are more about helping and good PR and thus indirectly driving sales rather than hard sell.

8. Do not put all your eggs in the social media basket.
If someone tells you that social media is the answer to all your problems, take a reality check. Roughly four percent of India's billion plus population has an internet connection. Just about 600 thousand are on Twitter. Traditional channels still count and count quite a lot.

9. Revolutions are best driven from the top; else they will be bloody.
if you are looking at revolutionizing your business using social media, then be suere that someone who understands the media and equally importantly, has the requisite powers and clearances within the organization is driving it. Else, the whole effort may just blow up in your face.

10. Don't argue against the individual, even if you are right.
Soon enough, along with genuine issues, you will also come across the perpetual heckler or the constant cribber- individuals who hold a grudge or just want to be the 'David' taking on the "Goliath" that is your business. Do not agrue with the individual. you cannot win.

Wise people set goals. Wiser people follow their goals. It is public participation which is most essential. In the past century, there have been partnerships
for war and conflicts. We are in better era now. Today we are fortunate to have partnerships for development like the eight Millennium Development goals of
the United Nations.

Though these goals have been set by wise peoples from around the world, this can become a reality only when the common man participates in them. Otherwise goals will remain in books and as dreams.

So what is it that can inspire people to join in, to eradicate poverty, bring gender equality and educate people in every corner of our dear planet? We need to ponder over this. I would say that spirituality unites people and promotes people into doing something constructive for the world. These inspirations that come from within will enable us to act better. Faster and successful results will then come out of it. The common man will need to participate in this for the vision needs to be broadened. Confidence-building measures need to be taken, a sense of belongingness needs to be created among communities, among nations, even among age groups.

Today we find that the generation gap is widening day by day. I think it is a very good idea to have these conferences in universities where young minds are inspired to undertake goals and have a vision for sustainable development of our world. I see a galaxy of brilliant minds here, professors and doctors from various fields. You all are all going to discuss and come up with more ideas. I hope you will take those ideas and implement them as action plans involving the common man.

Education is the most important aspect of civilization. It is the lack of education or wrong education that has caused so much violence in today’s world. We see religious fanaticism in the name of ideology or politics. What is happening in Iran and India, especially in the Indian subcontinent is very saddening. Lots of lives have been lost, people are killing each other in the name of religion, political and party ideologies.

This has to come to an end. We live in the 21st century. We call ourselves as the most civilized society. Yet we still find primitive things happening. It is education that can eradicate not only poverty but also superstitions and narrow mindedness. People are engaged in selfish goals rather than having a broaden vision of a global family. It is very pertinent for today’s times that we broaden the vision of our young people and let them know that the world is with them.

I am happy that the UN Millennium Goals and officials of UN are taking a proactive step in this direction. As a gentleman here said that there are three things essential to transform society: education, education and education. Education to earn money, education to connect with people, relate with people, handle one’s own mind or emotions. It is professional and spiritual education which will build a strong and stable personality, which will be very productive for society.

THIS ARTICLE IS FROM THE JULY EDITION OF "THE ECONOMIST"

And how the discipline should change to avoid the mistakes of the past

Of all the economic bubles that have been pricked, few have brusts more spectacularly than the reputation of economics itself. A few years ago, the desmal science was being acclaimed as a way of human behaviour, from drug-dealing to sumo-wrestling. Wall street ransacked the best universities for game theorists and option modellers. And on the public stage, economists were seen as far more trustworthy then politicians. Jihn McCain joked that Alan Greenspan, then chairman of federal reserve, was so indispensable that if he died, the president should "prop him up and put a pair of dark glasses on him."

In the wake of the biggest economic calamity in 80 years that reputation has taken a beating. In the public mind an arrogant profession has been humbled. Though economists are still at the centre of the policy debate - think of Ben Bernanke or Larry Summers in America or Mervyn King in Britain- their pronouncements are viewed with more scepticism than before. The profession itself is suffering from guilt and rancour. In a recent lecture, Paul Krugman, winner of the Noble prize in economics in 2008, argued that much of the past 30 years of macroeconomics was "spectacularly useless at best, and positivelyharmful at worst." Barry Eichengreen, a prominent American economic historian, says the crisis has "cast into doubt much of what we thought we knew about economics."

In its crudest form- the idea that economics as a whole is discredited- the current backlash has gone for too far. If ignorance allowed investors andpoliticians to exaggerate the virtues of economics, its now blinds them to its benefits. Economics is less a slavish creed than a prism through which tounderstand the world. It is broad canon, stretching from theories to explain how prices are determined to how economies grow. Much of that body of knowledge has no link to the financial crisis and remains as useful as ever.

And if economics as a broad discipline deserves a robust defence, so does the free-market paradigm. Too many people, especially in Europe, equate mistakes made by economists with a failure of economic liberalism. Their logic seems to be that if economists got things wrong, then politicians will do better. That is a false- and dangerous-conclusion.

Rational fools
These important caveats, however, should not obscure the fact that two central parts of the discipline- macroeconomics and final economics- are now, rightly, being severely re-examined. There are three main critiques: that macro and financial economists helped cause the crisis,that they failed to spot it, and that they have no idea how to fix it.

The first charge is half right. Macroeconomists, especially within central banks, were too fixated in taming inflation and too cavalier about asset bubbles. Financial economists, meanwhile, formalised theories of the efficiency of markets, fuelling the notion that markets whould regulate themselves and financial innovation was always beneficial. Wall Street's most esoteric instruments were built on these ideas.

But economists were hardly naive believers in market efficeiency. Financial academics have spent much of the past 30 years poking holes in the "efficient market hypothesis". A recent ranking of academic economists was topped by Joseph Stiglitz and Andrei Shleifer, teo prominent hole-pockers. A newly prominent field, behavioural economics, concentrates on the consequensces of irrational actions.

So there were caveats aplenty. But as insights from academia arrived in the rough and tumble of wall street, such delicacies were put aside. And absurd assumptions were added. No economic theory suggests you should value mortgage derivatives on the basis that house prices would always rise. Finance professors are not to blame for this, but they might have shouted more loudly that their insights were being misused. Instead many cheered the party along (often from within banks). Put that together with the complacency of the macro-economists and there were too few voices shouting stop.

Blindside and divided
The charge that most economists failed to see the crisis coming also has merit. To be sure, some wared of trouble. The likes of Robert Shiller of Yale, Nouriel Roubini of New york university and the team at the Bank for Internation Settlements are now famous for their prescience. But most were blindsided. And even worrywarts who felt something was amiss had no idea of how bad the consequences whould be.

That was partly to do with professional silos, which limited both the tools available and the imaginations of the practitioners. Few financial economists thought much about illiquidity or counterparty risk, for instance, because their standard modles ignore it; and few worried about the effect on the overall economy of the markets for all asset classes seizing up simultaneously, since few believed that was possible.

Macroeconomists aslo had a bindspot: their standard models assumed that capital markets work perfectly. Their framework reflected an uneasy truce between the intellectual heirs of Krynes, who accept that economies can fall short of their potential, and purists who hold that supply must always equal demand. The models that epotomise this synthesis- the sort used in many central banks- incorporate imperfections in laour markets ("sticky" wages, for instance, which allow unemployment to rise), but make no room for such blemishes in macroeconomists were largelt able to ignore the economy's financial plumbing. But models that igonored financ had little chance of spotting a calamity that stemmed from it.

What about trying to fix it? Here that financial cirisis has blown apart the fragile consensus between purists and Keynesians that monetary policy was the best way to smooth the business cycle. In many countried short-term interest rates are near zero and in a banking crisis monetary policy works less well. With their compromise tool useless, both sides have retreated to their roots, ignoring the other camp's ideas. Keynesians, such as Mr Krugman, have become uncritical supporters of fiscal stimulus. Purists are vocal opponents. To outsiders, the cacophony underlies the profession's uselessness.

Add these criticisms together and there is clear case for reinvention, especially in macroeconomics. Just as the Depression spawned Keynesianism, and the 1970s stagflation fuelled a backlash, creative destruction is already under way. Central banks are busy bolting crude analyses of financial markets onto their workhorse models. Financial economists are studying the way that icentives can skew market efficiency. And today's dilemmas are prompting new research: which form of fiscal stimulus is most effective? How do you best loosen monetary policy when interest rates are zero? and so on.

But a broader change in mindset is still needed. Economists need to reach out from their soecualised silos: macroeconomists much understand finance, and finance professors need to think harder about the context within which markets work. And everybody needs to work harder on understanding asses bubbles and what happens when they brust. For in the end economists are socual scientist, trying to understand the real world, And the financial crisis has changed that world.

I got this article on Business Gyan, for original post click here

The way Entrepreneurs Think and Act is a lot more complex than Risk Taking.

Walking the tightrope in the Circus can be very dangerous. Yet why does the Performer do it? As Prof.Manimala of IIM-Bangalore points out in the Businessgyan Panel Discussion, the daring acts of the Circus Performer seems daring to the audience, however the performer himself has taken sufficient safeguards and training to ensure that he does not meet with a fatal fall. The Performer has enough knowledge, training, and safeguards to give him confidence that he is not at risk.

the-spark-82An Entrepreneur to many looks like this Circus Performance, looks daring and macho. This is because for the observer, the Entrepreneur is doing something that he himself possibly will not do. This is the reason why entrepreneurship seems so daring. However look from the entrepreneur's lens: Is he in business because he feels there is a big chance of failure? From his viewpoint is what he is doing risky? If it was will he do it in the first place? Entrepreneurs know how to mitigate and manage risk, they are not risk takers. And even if they lose money or time it is what they were prepared to lose. Sure Entrepreneurs might underestimate the effort required or overestimate the probability of success, but that is another point altogether, a similar expectation mismatch can happen in any new product launch even in a large company.

Prof. Saras Sarasvathy of Darden School adds that "While most people would agree that managers are largely risk averse, they would assume that entrepreneurs are risk-takers. Research has shown, however, that for the most part both are risk averse." Entrepreneurship therefore is not
about dare.

If Entrepreneurship is not risky then there is really no excuse for someone not to be an entrepreneur. However it is important to observe how entrepreneurs do things differently. Instead of setting a goal, and managing resources to meet the goal effectively, entrepreneurs start with the resources that they have in their control and leverage it to create a new reality. Prof. Saras Sarasvathy has a word for this - ‘Effectual Reasoning', "to the extent that we can control the future, we do not need to predict it." She adds that "Consciously, or unconsciously, they act as if they believe that the future is not "out there" to be discovered, but that it gets created through the very strategies of the players." This is very different from the Causal Logic taught at management schools and practiced by managers.

Risk, essentially are events which are not planned; seasoned entrepreneurs, however, know that surprises are not deviations from the path. Instead they are the norm, the flora and fauna of the landscape, from which one learns to forge a path through the jungle. Prof Saras in a research paper observes, "In fact, several of the expert entrepreneurs I studied explicitly stated that being in a market that could be predicted was not such a good idea, since there would always be someone smarter and with deeper pockets who would predict it better than they could." Seen from this light the perception of risk totally changes. Afterall as someone said "Change is the only Constant."

Regarding failures Prof.Saras Sarasvathy says that "Curiously enough, this focus of entrepreneurial thinking on using any and all available means, even the products of apparent "failure" makes the entrepreneur less resource-dependent than the manager." Scarcity of resources may even be seen as an impetus for invention rather than as a constraint. Pierre Omidyar, founder of eBay often mentions that the reason he built such a robust self-sustaining platform on which millions of people could trade at the same time was because he did not have venture capital funding.

Yet we do see big failures around us, and this reminds me of what Waren Buffet had to say about risk taking, of course from an investment context, "To make the money they did not have and did not need they risked money that they did have and did need, that is plain foolish." An expert Entrepreneur does not make this mistake. Effectual reasoning may not necessarily increase the probability of success of startups, but it reduces the costs of failure by enabling the failure to occur earlier and at lower levels of investment.

Does that mean Entrepreneurs do not go through hardtimes? The struggles and the pain? The certainly do, Entrepreneurs are committed to their objectives, have a must do attitude and are willing to go the extra mile, however are these not qualities that you would expect from any other successful professional in any area be it sports, arts, research and management?

Resources :- http://www.effectuation.org/ftp/effectua.pdf

The author is the Chief Catalyst of businessgyan. His area of interest include business strategy and innovation. For feedback and more information, e-mail: www.businessgyan.com/balaji.

Issue BG82 Jan 08