In a nutshell, a sense of hopelessness, chaos and mayhem currently prevails in the island nation. Sri Lanka’s current miserable economic plight obviously throws many fundamental questions. Who is primarily responsible for this economic catastrophe and what are the economic and political factors that are responsible for pushing Sri Lanka to such a dire state? And most importantly, could Sri Lanka have avoided this economic crisis.

In this special feature story, we’ll try to find answers to all these questions.

We’ll start our feature story by immediately focusing on the important economic factors behind the ongoing economic crisis facing the island nation.

Economic Factors:

Economically speaking, the ongoing economic crisis in the island nation can be fundamentally blamed on two major economic factors. First is the ‘legacy problem’ and second is the gross economic mismanagement by the Gotabaya Rajapaksa government. Let us first talk about Sri Lanka’s legacy problems. Legacy problems simply refers to economic issues and problems that have been plaguing Sri Lanka’s economy for much of its independent history. The successive Sri Lankan governments over the decades never showed the political will to resolve these legacy problems. As a result, these historic problems remained unresolved and Sri Lanka eventually paid a heavy price for overlooking them.

But what are really these legacy problems that has apparently played a huge role in the current economic crisis. Sri Lanka basically has two major legacy problems that have traditionally strained its economy.

1. The trade deficit problem.
2. The island nation’s troubled history with IMF bail outs.

Let us first talk about the trade deficit problem.

Trade Deficit:

Historically, Sri Lanka has always been a trade deficit country. Trade deficit simply refers to a situation when a country imports more than it exports. This simply means that a country’s expenses are higher than its income, which obviously accounts for bad economics. And this bad economic practice has the direct impact on the country’s foreign exchange reserves, which is the main and the principal source through which any country pays for its import bills. Therefore, if a country has more money and gold assets in its reserves then it can comfortably pay for its import bills and easily cater to economic demands & needs of its citizens. Besides, a country with higher foreign exchange reserves will easily be able to pay its import bills even in the case of global economic downturn or when a domestic economy gets hit by adverse international events.

Now coming back to Sri Lanka, since the island nation has always been a traditionally trade deficit country, its foreign exchange reserve level has never been in a comfortable position. In fact, since 2009 Sri Lanka’s import has been growing exponentially while its exports remained pretty much stagnant, which means that the island nation’s foreign exchange has been under considerable constrain for well over a decade.

One peculiar aspect, or should I say a negative aspect of Sri Lanka’s trade deficit, is that it even imports basic necessities from other countries including agriculture products. This includes milk, wheat, pluses, grain and even basic medicines. Conventionally, the Island nation should have achieved self-sufficiency by encouraging domestic production of all its basic necessities, which would have reduced the country’s dependence on imports and kept its balance of payment problem under control. However, it seems Sri Lanka’s successive governments were least interested in addressing this major economic issue.

Shifting back the focus on Sri Lanka’s current foreign exchange crisis, the island nation is currently left with little over $50 Mn, which is good enough to pay the import bills barely for few weeks.

Here I’d like to explicitly highlight that it is not entirely a bad thing to be a trade deficit country. Almost all developing countries including our own country India have historically been a trade deficit country. In fact, even United States, which is a highly developed country, boosts a huge trade deficit. However, unlike India and U.S, Sri Lanka does not enjoy other conducive economic factors that could have helped it in overcoming and outweighing its trade deficit problem.

These conducive factors include not having a diversified and modernized economy and a lack of a booming middle class population. Now let us try to know in little more great detail how Sri Lanka could have averted this economic mess had it enjoyed these conducive factors.

Let us talk strictly about the benefits of having a diversified and modernized economy. Guys today most economists unanimously agree that any country’s economy that is well diversified and is in tune with modern globalization, it is more likely to absorb global shocks and economic recession. However, Sri Lanka over the decades failed in diversifying and modernizing its economy. The island nation historically has always been overwhelmingly dependent on tourism and commodity exports, with the country especially exporting textiles, garments and tea to other countries. What this simply means is that the Sri Lanka has always been too dependent on few traditional sectors and never really bothered to develop modern industries or carry out an extensive industrialization.

But depending too much on a few industries or sectors is like running the risk of putting too many eggs in a few baskets. In other words, Sri Lanka’s economy was never prepared to cope or absorb the adverse impacts of unforeseen challenges. And to the utter dismay of the island nation, Sri Lanka’s economy got badly battered by two Tsunami like events. First was the 2019 serial bomb last and second was the COVID pandemic that struck the world with a vengeance in 2020.

Both these events had a catastrophic impact on Sri Lanka’s tourism and export commodity industry, which – as I said before – were the two money spinning industries for the island nation. But these two money spinning industries got crippled completely, which put unbearable pressure on the country’s foreign exchange reserves. In fact, with minimal inflow of tourists and very low exports after 2020 Sri Lanka’s forex reserves has been on a downward spiral. And by the start of 2022 (i.e. this year), the island nation was left with barely $1 Bn to pay for its import bills.

In a nutshell, Sri Lanka paid a heavy price for not developing a diversified economy that is dependent on several sectors rather than being dependent on only on one or two sectors.

Troubled history with IMF Bailouts:

Now since historically Sri Lanka has always faced vulnerability on the front of foreign exchange reserves, the country was left with no option but to become overdependent on loans and credits for fixing its balance of payment problem. Usually, most countries source loans and credits from several recognized sources like international bond markets, institutions like IMF and world bank or taking direct loans from other countries.

Now speaking strictly in the context of the IMF or International Monetary Fund, which gives loans to mostly poor and developing countries, Sri Lanka has a pretty long history with this financial institution. Despite being a small country and a minuscule population, the island nation has taken a total 16 IMF bailouts since its independence. This is a pretty shocking number especially if you compare Sri Lanka’s bailout history with its immediate neighbor India. India, despite being the largest country in South Asia and the second most populated country in the world, has taken only four IMF bailouts in its entire history. In fact, after the 1991 foreign exchange crisis, India has not taken a single loan from the IMF.

In the case of Sri Lanka, the island nation continued its fixation with IMF bailouts. The island nation’s last IMF bailout came in 2016, when the international monetary fund loaned out nearly $1.4 Bn to the country. This was followed by an IMF bailout in 2009. Back then, both these bailouts helped Sri Lanka in averting the balance payment crisis.

Apart from taking constant loans from the IMF, India’s neighbor has also been borrowing heavily from bond markets and even taking loans from other countries like India, China and Japan. Now if one takes into account all the debts and loans that Sri Lanka has taken over the years then today its total outstanding debt stands out at a whopping $52 Bn, which is a huge number considering the small size of Sri Lanka’s economy. And as I had already informed before, the island nation is currently left with little over $50 Mn.

This simply means that Sri Lanka won’t be able to repay its debt to any of its creditors anytime soon.

To sum it up, Sri Lanka’s long over-dependence on loans and external debt accounts for a huge reason for its current economic mess. Its constant fixation with IMF bailouts and external debt clearly proves that Sri Lanka – despite boosting a per capita income that is better than most other South Asian countries – failed to become a self-sufficient economy in a true sense.

Now let us move away from the legacy problems and focus on the recent economic decisions taken preceding the ongoing economic crisis. Many experts argue that these decisions backfired and hold them responsible for further deepening the crisis. In the next part, we’ll talk about the gross incompetency shown by the Gotabaya Rajapaksa government in handling the Sri Lanka’s economy.

Economic mismanagement by Gotabaya Rajapaksa Government

Gotabaya Rajapaksa was elected as the eighth president of Sri Lanka after his party Sri Lanka People’s Front swept the 2019 general election. Sri Lanka’s former President and Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s younger brother Mahinda Rajapaksa was also sworn as the Prime Minister in this government.

Now both Rajapaksa brothers occupy a very special place in Sri Lanka’s politics. This is mainly because both brothers played a key role in ending Sri Lanka’s 30-year-old civil war. But more importantly, both of them achieved heroic status for finishing off the dangerous Tamil separatist organization LTTE and its leader Velupillai Prabhakaran. As a result, since 2009 Gotabaya Rajapaksa and Mahinda Rajapaksa became the champions of the Sinhalese Buddhist community, which is the majority community of the Island nation.

In the 2010’s presidential election, the support of the majority Sinhalese community played a key role in propelling Mahinda Rajapaksa to a thumping victory. Although Mahinda Rajapaksa lost the next presidential election (i.e. 2015), both he and his brother came to power after winning the 2019 election with a brute majority. However, the 2019 general election took place barely months after the deadly serial bomb last that killed nearly 270 people. This deadly bomb last spurred and ignited a strong feeling of Sinhalese nationalism among the Sinhalese community.

It is now important to understand why am I talking so extensively about Sri Lanka’s decade long civil war and the 2019 serial bomb last. That’s because both these incidents played a critical role in shaping the Sinhalese nationalism, which was largely responsible in putting a majoritarian Sinhalese government in place in 2019. Today many political and economic experts partially blame Sinhalese nationalism or Sinhalese majortianism for Sri Lanka’s current economic mess.

The majoritarian governments are generally known for their autocratic nature and suppressing the opposition as well as the media. And Gotabaya Rajapaksa government was a Sinhalese majoritarian government in every way possible and had earned a reputation for taking sweeping decisions. Many of these sweeping decisions, by the way, had a catastrophic impact on Sri Lanka’s economy and played a major role in pushing its national economy on a disastrous path.

One such sweeping decision was the decision of pushing Sri Lanka’s agriculture sector towards organic farming. Let us now see in great detail how this one decision wreaked havoc on Sri Lanka.

In 2021, Sri Lankan government made a controversial announcement of imposing a nation-wide ban on the sale and import of pesticides and chemical fertilizers. This decision was a part of the Sri Lankan government’s ambitious plan to push Sri Lanka’s agriculture sector steadily towards organic farming. Back then, Gotabaya promised Sri Lankans that this decision will not only help in increasing agriculture production but help in saving huge amounts of foreign exchange reserves for the country. Apparently, the island nation was spending millions of USD dollars in importing pesticides and chemical fertilizers from other countries.

However, as it turned out, this decision backfired big time. Instead of increasing agriculture production, Sri Lanka’s food production crashed to unprecedented levels. The situation of food production went so bad that Sri Lanka, which was a self-sufficient country in rice production, had to import rice for the first time in its history. Not only this, due to transition to organic farming, Sri Lanka’s tea production fell to historic low. And tea being one of the main export commodities of the island nation, this development did not bode well for the country’s foreign exchange reserves, which was already in a precarious situation. Worse, with Sri Lanka now facing acute food shortage, the island nation’s food inflation was starting to head northwards and started importing even more foods and agrarian products.

If one thinks holistically and objectively then it won’t be wrong to say that Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s decision to opt for organic farming proved to be a disastrous decision. Moreso on the front of foreign exchange reserves. Instead of saving the country’s precious foreign exchange reserves, the decision actually ended up eroding the country’s foreign exchange reserves at a faster rate. In hindsight, one might argue that had Gotabaya Rajapaksa not taken this ill-informed and drastic decision then Sri Lanka’s economic condition would not have been as worse as it has become today.

Now we’ll quickly head to the final section of this video. In the final section, we’ll seek to find an answer to a very question: What will happen if Sri Lanka never ever comes out of this economic mess.

Is Sri Lanka heading towards Anarchy?

Currently, the island nation is desperately trying very hard to get a bailout package from the IMF. It is equally trying very hard to get a soft loan from friendly countries like India and China. But right now Sri Lanka is financially in such a helpless situation that getting an IMF bailout or a loan from a friendly country looks like a monumental challenge. With its outstanding debt of more than $50 Bn still unpaid, everyone including IMF are not looking forthcoming in giving a helping hand to the island nation. This hopeless situation brings me to a very pertinent question, which I’m afraid not many people are asking. Will Sri Lanka drift towards political anarchy if it fails to overcome the ongoing economic mess? Mind you, this fear is not misplaced or exaggerated. In fact, the world recently got to see the glimpse of Sri Lankans resorting to mobocracy and lawlessness when millions of citizens stormed the President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s palace. The videos of Sri Lankan citizens storming the president’s palace has gone viral on the internet, stoking the fear whether the Island nation is becoming the next Somalia.

Again, mind you guys, If Sri Lanka indeed fails to come out of the ongoing economic tsunami, the chances of the island nation drifting towards a Somalia like situation cannot be really ruled out. What does this actually mean is in reality? Let us try to break this hypothesis.

Just like in African nation Somalia, the Sri Lankans will witness economic hopelessness all around. High rate of unemployment, wide-spread poverty, unbearable inflation, malnutrition and many other extreme economic and social problems that one can think of. Above all, the relentless and unforgiving economic situation may also plunge the island nation once again into a civil war. And this time around the civil war may cost a lot more bloodshed as Sinhalese and non- Sinhalese communities will have to fight off for limited economic resources.

And imagine guys all these social and economic upheaval will be taking place in India’s very own backyard. This simply means guys if Sri Lanka does not come out of the current economic mess then it can pose a huge national security threat to India. And let us not forget guys it was Sri Lanka’s bloody civil war that cost the life of India’s former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated in 1991 by a LTTE human bomb.

Rajiv Gandhi’s deadly assignation is a historic lesson that clearly proves that India cannot escape from the impact of any adverse event taking place in Sri Lanka.

To sum it up, the world and more so India cannot allow Sri Lanka to become a failed country. Considering that Sri Lanka is India’s immediate neighbor, there are certainly dangerous implications for India if Sri Lanka eventually goes the Somalia way.

The important global leaders need to sit down and think hard about ways through which Sri Lanka can be removed from the current economic turmoil. Last but not least, the world at large needs to see the current Sri Lankan crisis not only from an economic perspective but also from a humanitarian perspective.

And in the end, I’d also like to add that all Sri Lankans need to stand completely united and fight this adversity with great courage. Sri Lankans should not forget wherever there is ‘courage,’ there is always a ‘hope.’

The post How Sri Lanka became Bankrupt – Economic & Political Lessons for India appeared first on Platform to Showcase Innovative Startups and Tech News.

When you buy to open an options contract, you’re essentially buying the right to buy or sell the underlying asset at a specific price on or before a certain date. On the other hand, when you buy to close an options contract, you’re simply buying the option itself from another trader who holds an opposing position.

So, which one should you do? Well, that depends on your trading strategy and what your goal is. If you think the underlying asset will go up in value, then buying to open is probably the way to go. However, if you think it will go down in value, then buying to close may be a better choice.

Of course, there’s no right or wrong answer here – it all comes down to what you believe and what you’re comfortable

Introduction – Buy to Open vs Buy to Close

The key difference between buy to open vs buy to close is that buy to open refers to the initial purchase of an option, while buy to close refers to the purchase of an option in order to close out an existing position.

Investors use options for two primary purposes: speculation and hedging. When speculating, the aim is to make a profit by correctly predicting how the price of the underlying asset will move. When hedging, on the other hand, the investor’s goal is to minimize losses or protect gains by offsetting exposure to risk.

Both activities require the use of options contracts. An options contract is an agreement between two parties that gives the holder the right (but not the obligation) to buy or sell an underlying asset at a specified price within a specified time period. The underlying asset can be anything from shares of stock and commodities to currencies and indexes.

In order for an options contract to be executed, it must first be bought (or sold). This is where buy to open and buy to close come into play.

What is Buy to Open

Buy to open is the more common of the two order types and refers to an opening transaction, such as when you buy options contracts to initiate a long position or buy shares of stock to initiate a long position.

What is Buy to Close

Buy to close is a term used to describe the buying of an options contract with the intention of closing out an existing short position in the same contract. In order for the trade to be advantageous, the price of the option must have decreased since the original short sale.

The phrase “buy to close” is used to describe the action of buying an options contract in order to close out a short position. “Buy to close” is the opposite of “sell to open,” which is used when initiating a short position.

Difference Between Buy to Open and Buy to Close

If you’re new to options trading, you may have come across the terms buy to open vs buy to close. While these phrases might sound similar, they actually have very different meanings. So, what’s the difference between ‘buy to open’ and ‘buy to close’?

‘Buy to open’ means that you are opening a long position in an underlying asset, such as a stock or commodity. This simply means that you are buying the asset in the hope that it will increase in value. If the asset does increase in value, you can then sell it at a higher price and make a profit.

On the other hand, ‘buy to close’ means that you are closing a short position in an underlying asset. This means that you are buying the asset back after selling it at a lower price, thereby making a profit.

Pros and Cons of ‘Buy to Open’

There are pros and cons to using the “buy to open” option when entering into a futures contract. The main advantage of this approach is that it allows the trader to start building a position in the underlying asset without having to put up the full value of the contract. This can be helpful if the trader does not have enough capital to buy the full contract but still wants to take a position in the market.

Another advantage of this approach is that it can be used to speculate on both rising and falling prices. If a trader believes that the price of an asset is going to rise, they can buy a “buy to open” contract. Similarly, if they believe that prices will fall, they can sell a “buy to open” contract.

There are also some disadvantages to this approach. One is that the trader will have to put up margin in order to enter into the contract. This could potentially lead to losses if the market moves against them. Another disadvantage is that the trader will not receive any interest on their margin while they are in the trade.

Pros and Cons of ‘Buy to Close’

If you are thinking about using the buy to close order type, it is important to understand the pros and cons before making a decision.

The main advantage of buy to close is that it allows you to lock in a price for an asset that you are bullish on. This can be helpful if you think the price of the asset is going to go up in the short-term but want to protect yourself from potential downside risk.

Another benefit of this order type is that it can help you manage your overall portfolio risk. By buying to close, you are essentially hedging your position and limiting your potential losses.

However, there are also some drawbacks to using buy to close. One of the biggest disadvantages is that it does not allow you to take advantage of potential upside if the price of the asset goes up more than you anticipated. Additionally, this order type can also be more expensive than other options since you are effectively paying for two trades (the buy and the sell).

When to Use Buy to Open

In general, the phrase “buy to open” is used when initiating a long position on a derivative, or when buying an options contract. “Long” means that the trader expects the asset to increase in value. A long position is the opposite of a short position.

If you “buy to open,” you want the transaction to go through so that you can begin owning the asset. For example, if you buy shares of stock using a market order, you would use the phrase “buy to open.”

When to Use Buy to Close

According to the Options Industry Council, “buy to close” is an order to buy a contract that you already have in your portfolio in order to exit that position. In order for there to be a “position” that you are exiting, you would have had to enter into that contract with a “buy to open” order.

You might use a buy to close order:

• If you are bullish on the market and think it will rise, but want to exit a particular call option position before expiration.
• If you are bearish on the market and think it will fall, but want to exit a particular put option position before expiration.
• If you wrote/sold a covered call and were assigned, and now want to buy back the call so that you can sell the stock.

Which One Should You Choose?

If you’re considering opening or closing a position in options trading, you may be wondering what the difference between buy to open vs buy to close. Both are options orders, but they have different effects on your position. So, which one should you choose?

Here’s a quick rundown of the difference between “buy to open” and “buy to close”:

“Buy to open” is an order to buy an options contract. This opens a new position in your account. For example, if you bought one call option contract, your position would show a long (or bullish) stance on that particular stock or ETF.

“Buy to close” is an order to buy an options contract in order to close out an existing position. This could be used to exit a losing trade, or to take profits on a successful trade. For example, if you bought one call option contract and the price of the underlying security rose, you might place a “buy to close” order for that same contract in order to lock in your profits.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is the difference between “buy to open” and “buy to close”?

A: When you place an options trade, you have the choice of opening or closing the position. If you “buy to open,” you are initiating a new options position. If you “buy to close,” you are closing an existing options position.

Conclusion

The “buy to open” order is the most basic options order and is used to enter a position in a particular option. A “buy to open” order can be used to initiate either a long or short position in an option. A buy to close order is used to exit a long position in an option, and a sell to close order is used to exit a short position in an option.

Related Article – 

EasyTrade: A Platform that makes Online Trading Simple & Easy

The post Buy to Open vs Buy to Close appeared first on Platform to Showcase Innovative Startups and Tech News.

Kishore Biyani, the man who is still synonymous with India’s organized retail industry. The Marwari businessman is widely credited for bringing the modern retail revolution in India. With his celebrated chain of retail stores like Pantaloon and Big Bazaar, Biyani singlehandedly revolutionized the concept of supermarket and organized retail in India.

Thanks to his revolutionary impact on India’s retail industry, he proudly earned the title of being India’s retail king. At one point he and his company Future Groupe looked absolutely unstoppable.

But Flash-forward to 2020, Biyani’s sprawling retail empire had collapsed. In August 2020, Future Group agreed to sell the company to Mukesh Ambani’s Reliance Retail for INR 24,713.

What really caused the spectacular downfall of this celebrated entrepreneur – from being an undisputed retail king to bankruptcy. In this special story, we’ll shed light on some costly mistakes committed by Biyani during his long tenure in the retail industry.

Biyani became the victim of his own overambition 

Biyani’s downfall was caused by his own over-ambition, which eventually trapped his retail company in a monstrous debt problem. His overambitious expansion and diversification, largely fueled by huge debt, proved fatal for the company. Biyani’s overwhelming urge to grow faster than all his competitors often defied logic.

Let’s take for instance the Future Group’s flagship retail store Big Bazaar, which had grown beyond 100 stores in 2008 itself. This was an exponential growth for a supermarket retail chain store that had opened its first retail store barely seven years back, i.e. 2001. However, Future Group’s overzealous expansion was not restricted to Big Bazaar store alone. The company made costly experimentation of targeting different retail niche by opening standalone stores. This not only increased Future Group’s overall liability but also its operational cost, which actually weakened the company’s balance sheet in the long run.

Some of these standalone store included Ezone stores that sold electronic goods, Food Bazaar & Foodhall that sold premium food products, Central Mall, FBB stores & Brand Factory for selling fashion products.

These rapid diversification in various retail businesses certainly appeared risky on paper but it still made some sense. However, Biyani’s rapid diversification into multiple non-core businesses took many people by surprise. Barely few years before 2008’s financial crisis, Future Groups rapidly expanded into non-core businesses like insurance, financial services, stock broking & wealth management, logistics and real estate business. In fact, Biyani was so obsessed about expanding his business that he even ventured into film business and ended up producing two flop movies – Na tum Jaano Na Hum and Chura Liya Hai Tume.

Future Groups getting into so many businesses so quickly had many business analysts worried. They were worried how Biyani will payback these loans if his new businesses fail to click. Their concerns were eventually proven right when 2008’s financial crisis turned Future Groups ambitious expansion plan upside down. The 2008’s global meltdown created an unprecedented financial crisis in India’s banking sector, forcing banks to go after their potential defaulters  with vengeance. And Big Bazaar’s parent company immediately felt the heat from the creditors. But back then Biyani somehow managed to steamroll over the debt crisis. This after he agreed to sell one of his flagship companies – Pantloon Retail – to Aditya Birla Group for nearly INR 1,600 crore. Biyani also sold his finance business Future Capital to Warburg Pincus for almost 800 crore.

Both these sell offs managed to improve Future Group’s debt-to-equity ratio but the company was still left with Rs 6000 debt on its balance sheet. Talking specifically about Future Capital then this financial services business alone accounted for nearly 25% of Future Group’s overall debt of Rs 8000 as of 2012. This fact alone is enough to prove that Biyani’s decision to diversify into non-core businesses proved to be disastrous for the company.

Conventionally, one would have thought after bringing his company’s debt to manageable level, Biyani will tame his risk appetite. But the Marwari businessman believed in defying the conventions and continued to take bold risks. This time his strategy was to make acquisitions in the retail space in a bid to rapidly grow his retail empire. From 2012 to 2020, Future Group made five big acquisitions:

• Niligiris Group for nearly INR 300 crore
• Sunil Mittal’s retail company Easyday in all stock deal
• Online furniture store FabFurnish in all cash deal
• Heritage food in all stock deal
• Hypercity in cash and stock deal for INR 655 crore

Back then, nobody quite knew whether these companies will add any value to Future’s balance sheet. But these newly acquired companies certainly added to Future Group’s operational and inventory costs. Worse, Biyani’s company had supposedly taken over the debt of few of these companies, which further increased the debt problems. Not surprisingly, Future Group’s balance sheet wasn’t looking all that strong.

Biyani finally sought to streamline his balance sheet in December 2019 when he sold 49% stake in the promoter group entity of Future Retail for Rs 1,500 crore to Amazon. Much of the Amazon infused fund was supposedly used for bringing down the debt level of the company. After again bringing the Future Group’s debt to manageable level, Biyani was now gearing up to put his retail business back on the growth trajectory. He was especially banking on his newly acquired companies, strongly believing that they will help Future Group in consolidating its position in the retail industry.

Biyani had all the reasons to be optimistic about his plans. After all, India was still the fastest growing economy and its consumerism story was still going strong. However, the shrewd businessman was not prepared for the catastrophe that was not only going to struck his retail empire but the entire global economy. We’re, of course, talking about Coronavirus here. In the aftermath of COVID-19 outbreak during the early months of 2020, India imposed one of the strictest lockdowns in the world.

The strict lockdown forced the Future Group to temporarily pull down the shutters on all its retail stores. From March 2020 to August 2020, the operation of Future Group’s almost 1,500 retail stores remained completely closed, completely squeezing the company’s cash flow and revenue. This made it almost impossible for Biyani’s company to serve the interest over the huge loan that it had accumulated over the years. As a  result, the company’s interest kept piling up and its debt problem went from bad to worse. In fact, Future Group had started defaulting on loan repayments barely few months after the lockdown. This sent panic and shockwaves across banks and creditors who were now desperately scrambling to recover loans from Biyani’s company. As of April 2012, the company’s total debt stood at nearly Rs 12,000 crore. With the debt ballooning and surging to new levels, rating agencies downgraded Future Group’s ratings, pushing the company to the junk category. This simply meant the company was now almost flirting with bankruptcy.

By July 2020, news had started circulating that Biyani was searching for a buyer to sell off his company Future Group. And he eventually found the buyer after Mukesh Ambani’s Reliance Retail agreed to buy the Future Group. The deal brought much needed respite for the creditors,  who were now hopeful of recovering their loans. However, it is a different matter that this high profile deal later got caught in a legal dispute, after Amazon sued Future Group. While the legal battle between Amazon and Reliance Retail still continues, this deal ended Biyani’s long innings in the retail industry.

In the hindsight, Biyani might pin the blame on the COVID pandemic as it spiraled his company’s debt problem way beyond his control. But the retail czar will have to equally blame himself for putting his company in a great jeopardy. Despite investors and analysts continuously raising red flags, Biyani continued to play the risky game of debt-fueled expansion and diversification for way too long.

Biyani was a shrewd businessman but probably he wasn’t smart enough to understand that business is not a sprint but a marathon. He wanted to run way too fast and ended up faltering very badly.

Biyani perhaps could have taken some inspiration from DMart. Unlike Future Group, DMart strictly believed in organic growth, stayed away from costly acquisitions and diversifications. Besides, DMart always made sure that its balance sheet remains healthy by keeping its operations and inventory cost under control. All these simple strategies paid off handsomely. Today DMart along with Reliance Retail is among the most dominant players in India’s retail industry while Future Group has been reduced into a bankrupt company.

The post Downfall of Kishore Biyani: from Retail King to Bankruptcy appeared first on Platform to Showcase Innovative Startups and Tech News.

Sorry No Manipulations with Clipboard Allowed Meaning

Firstly let us understand this error and what it implies. This error comes only on Apple computers as they have an additional layer of security. Usually, the MacKeeper will not allow the user to copy any data as it is deemed illegal.
Since MacKeeper whitelists many websites, the error may arise rather frequently. But if you are copying an important Data like a Serial Number or product key, this error can be frustrating. Of course, there are ways to fix the error, and next, we will mention that.

Fixing Error “Sorry, No Manipulations with the Clipboard Allowed”

Method 1: The first and most straightforward technique is to restart the MacBook. When you reboot the system, a lot of flawed programs revert to their original settings. Just restart the system, and that would solve any issues that are affecting the clipboard.

Method 2: Sometimes, the system has updates pending. These could be causing the sorry no manipulations with clipboard allowed error. Check if your system has any updates pending. If yes, download and install them immediately. After the updates again, restart your computer and check if the error is gone.

Method 3: You can use the clipboard through Explorer if the situation is such. The explorer is the place where all the files are stored. Follow the below steps to fix the error:

• Open the Explorer and go to the Tab option.
• Now select the Internet option from amongst the Menu
• Here you can see the Security option. Click on it, and there will be a custom button that flashes on your screen.
• In the list that comes, choose the Scripting category.
• In the list that comes, choose the Scripting category.
• Now click on the “Allow” tab and the “Enable” button to see your clipboard. Use the clipboard from here now.

Method 4: Using the Activity monitor, you can fix the sorry, no manipulations with clipboard allowed problem. Activity Monitor in a Mac is similar to Task Manager on a Windows PC. Through it, you can see the processes that are running on the Mac. Follow the steps given below:

• Open Activity Monitor on the Mac.
• You will see a search box in the top right-hand corner. Type board or pBoard in the search box. Do not add any quotation marks while doing so.
• In the activity list below, you will see the pBoard process.
• Click on the X sign on the search bar and clear it
• Double click on pBoard so that it opens. Now click on Force Quit and end the process.

The pBoard may be stopping you from copying and pasting. By closing it, you can solve the sorry no manipulations with clipboard allowed canvas from coming.

Method 5: Though it is improbable that malware would cause this error, but it is not entirely impossible. If none of the tricks work, you could scan your device for Malware. Use any Malware cleaning app, and the issue will be rectified.

In case the error arises after the installation of any app, it is possible that the app is causing the error. Go to your App center and uninstall the app and recheck if you are still facing issues with the clipboard.

Method 6: As a last resort, you may use the terminal fix to solve this error. In this fix, you kill the pBoard task on your Mac. But to do so, you must first close all the other applications that are running.

• Click on the Finder tool and open it.
• Go to the Applications section
• Now click on Utilities and launch the same.
• Select Terminal in the Utilities section.
• Now type killall pBoard in the search bar of the Terminal
• After typing, hit the Enter button
• Now Exit the Terminal and restart the device

Post this; you will have to see if the copy-paste problem persists or is gone.

Method 7: You can use third-party apps if the error is coming again. These are exclusive software that you can easily search on Google. Download and install them, and you can get the copy-paste feature working as usual.

Method 8: If nothing solves the Sorry, no manipulations with clipboard allowed error, try reinstalling macOS. But before doing that, you should back up all the data. Post backup, restart your Mac in Recovery Mode. Hold down Command R and press the power button at the same time. Next, choose Reinstall macOS from the macOS utilities.

Hopefully, after this fix, you will not face any more clipboard errors.

How you can prevent the “Sorry no manipulations with clipboard allowed error”

Lastly, you must do something to ensure that the error does not come back again. Firstly you should paste the data elsewhere so that you can retrieve it. If you are copying data from one app to another, do not close the app until you have saved the data.

You can also download Clipboard managers to store the data elsewhere. These apps have multiple features that let you keep as much data as you want.

The sorry no manipulations with clipboard allowed could come because of any reason. Hopefully, the above fixes will solve your error. There is no particular issue why this error may crop up. To avoid this situation from arising again, maintain your device regularly. By maintaining your machine regularly, you can stop the error from occurring again.

The post Sorry No Manipulations with Clipboard Allowed- Ways You Can Fix the Error appeared first on Platform to Showcase Innovative Startups and Tech News.