Harvey Weinstein: Consent

Earlier this week, the jury in the retrial of Harvey Weinstein reached a verdict. Weinstein had been convicted back in 2020 in New York and also handed a 23-year prison sentence, but it had been overturned by an appeal court which had found he hadn’t been give a fair trial, leading the Manhattan district attorney to retry the case.

One may think, given the furore the allegations sparked off, that Weinstein’s chances of getting a favourable verdict were poor. But 2025 is not 2020, and the MeToo movement isn’t quite seen in the same light it was back then. The retrial was in fact positioned at times as a referendum on the MeToo movement by Weinstein’s lawyers, who cast doubt on the motives and credibility of the accusers. MeToo has a contested legacy today. And the lawyers, hoping the scepticism with which it is held will help, argued that the alleged attacks were in fact consensual sexual encounters. They pointed out that accusers had remained in touch with Weinstein after the alleged attacks, and brought up the many friendly emails and communications to schedule meetings to claim that the encounters could not but have been consensual.

The verdict was mixed. The jury found Weinstein guilty of committing a criminal sexual act on one victim, acquitted him from charges levelled by another, and reached a “no decision” on the third accuser. It is probably a reflection of MeToo’s contested legacy and the charged discourse on sexual assault that the jury’s heated discussions, held behind closed doors, spilled out into the open.

The Big Picture

Ahmedabad, June 12, 2025
Mourning Becomes India: London-bound Air India Flight 171 with 242 people on board crashed at 1.38PM, less than a minute after take-off from the Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport. A British passenger was the lone survivor among 169 Indians, 53 Britons, seven Portuguese, and one Canadian. Several people are feared to have been killed on the ground.

Money Mantra
The Mark Of Resilience
The pillars of long-term wealth creation ensure prudent investing

WHEN YOU BUY a company’s stock with a genuinely long-term horizon, you are effectively becoming a silent partner in that enterprise. So, before committing your capital, you need a framework that balances hard numbers with qualitative judgement, allowing you to distinguish between transient momentum and enduring strength.

How to do this? First, examine the durability of the business model. Ask whether the firm enjoys a structural advantage, a “moat” that makes it difficult for rivals to erode its market position. This might be cost leadership rooted in scale, network effects that become more powerful as users join, intangible assets such as trusted brands or patents, or switching costs that lock customers in. A moat should show up not merely in strategy presentations but in a track record of above-industry margins and stable or rising market share through multiple competitive cycles.

Next, scrutinise financial resilience. Over decades, economic tides will turn, recessions will arrive, and credit will tighten. Companies that thrive through adversity typically combine conservative leverage with ample liquidity, giving management the flexibility to keep investing when weaker peers are forced to retreat.

Management quality is the third pillar. Because financial statements only capture the past, you need confidence that future decisions will compound value rather than squander it. Evaluate whether leadership has articulated a coherent, repeatable capital-allocation philosophy and then lived by it.
Equally important, gauge the runway for growth: Markets that are still fragmenting or under-penetrated offer far more headroom than saturated niches, provided the company can scale without diluting returns.

In sum, long-term investing is an exercise in probabilistic thinking. You stack the odds in your favour by choosing enterprises with enduring moats, robust balance sheets, owner-oriented leaders, tangible growth levers, and clean governance. (By Ramesh Singh)

Viral
Showdown In A Hospital

Earlier this week, a viral video showed Goa’s Health Minister Vishwajit Rane walking into the casualty ward of the Goa Medical College and Hospital looking visibly agitated and pulling up the hospital’s chief medical officer. The concerned doctor had reportedly refused an injection to a patient, and Rane, after hearing of the incident, had walked into the hospital to reprimand the doctor. Anyone who has visited government medical facilities in India, especially those outside the large metros, will know how cumbersome and difficult it is to navigate these facilities. The hospitals are often creaky, and the overburdened doctors often rude and unhelpful. Rane is of course aware of this, and he probably thought pulling up an errant doctor so publicly would go down well with his voters. What he did not account for was that doctors tend to be part of very strong unions and are very vocal. Doctors across the country protested, and Rane was soon offering profuse apologies.

Ahmedabad-LondonAir IndiaHarvey Weinsteinnewsbriefplane crash