All articles

What We’re Reading (Week Ending 14 August 2022)

The best articles we’ve read in recent times on a wide range of topics, including investing, business, and the world in general.

We’ve constantly been sharing a list of our recent reads in our weekly emails for The Good Investors.

Do subscribe for our weekly updates through the orange box in the blog (it’s on the side if you’re using a computer, and all the way at the bottom if you’re using mobile) – it’s free!

But since our readership-audience for The Good Investors is wider than our subscriber base, we think sharing the reading list regularly on the blog itself can benefit even more people. The articles we share touch on a wide range of topics, including investing, business, and the world in general.

Here are the articles for the week ending 14 August 2022:

1. Everywhere you look there’s lag – Stacey (Trust, but verify)

What do London Heathrow’s flight caps, the inventory of retailers, interest rate policies, and the energy transition have in common? All are subject to systems lag and experiencing the effects.

Current world events show the importance of understanding systems and the inherent delays therein. By knowing what to look for, one can better see the forest from the trees. The best way to view the world is as it is. The tangible and intangible components of our lives are comprised of embedded systems…

…Every human, organization, animal, economy, and government is a complex system (with systems within this system which are called embedded systems). Another way to state this is as:

“an interconnected set of elements that is coherently organized in a way that achieves something. The system may be buffeted, constricted, triggered, or driven by outside forces. But the system’s response to these forces is characteristic of itself, and that response is seldom simple in the real world.” – Thinking in Systems

It is more than the sum of its parts – it can exhibit adaptive, dynamic, goal-seeking, self-preserving, and sometimes evolutionary behavior. They can be self-organizing, self-repairing, and resilient. Get all that? Let’s break it down into its essential parts.

A system must contain three things:

1. Elements: the building blocks; for a tree it’s the roots, branches, and leaves.7 Includes the intangible and tangible. For example, the bits within a computer are intangible.

2. Interconnections: relationships holding the elements together. In a tree system, it would be the physical flows and chemical reactions. Interconnections often operate via the flow of information. These flows of information are signals for the decision/action/leverage points within a system.

3. Function/Purpose: what is its aim; can only be deduced by its behavior. The purpose of nearly every system is to safeguard its survival. Further, successful systems work to keep sub-purposes and overall system purposes in harmony. The cells in your heart are different from your liver, but both function to keep you alive.

Of the three building blocks, changing the elements typically has the smallest effect on the whole. Swapping out all the players on a football team still makes it a football team. A human body regularly replaces its cells but continues to be a human body. Countries have regular elections, with different politicians occupying offices, yet nothing seems to change. As long as the interconnections and functions remain intact, a system generally goes on doing its thing.

Altering the function is often the most crucial determinant of a system’s behavior. It would be like if an animal’s purpose was changed from survival/reproduction to pleasure.

However, this is not to take away from the fact that elements, interconnections, and purpose are essential. If changing an element results in a changed relationship or purpose, de facto behavior is modified. Adjusting interconnections (the information flows) can materially affect a system – imagine changing the rules of football to those of soccer.

The system interacts with outside forces, but, importantly, its response is of its own character. Another way to say it is it has its own latent behavior within its structure.

However, a system’s behavior cannot be known based purely upon adding together its elements. Humans tend to think linearly, which is not necessarily how systems act.

Systems are often nested within other systems. As such there are purposes within purposes. According to Friedman’s economic theory, the purpose of a corporation is to maximize shareholder returns. Within that business, the purpose of the C-Suite may be to serve customers well or make as much money as possible anyway possible. Down at the middle manager role, the goal may be not to get fired. At the junior level it could be promotion and earning more money.

As you can see, often the sub-purposes come into conflict with the overall purpose at businesses. Like with individuals, the greater the sense of coherence within the corporation, the better the results.

What is not a system? An assortment of things without any specific interconnection or function.

“Sand scattered on a road by happenstance is not, itself, a system. You can add sand or take away sand and you still have just sand on the road.” – Thinking in Systems

Lags are inherent in systems due to their structure – it takes time for a given input to result in an output. Goods ordered from China do not instantaneously appear in a company’s warehouse.

To understand lags, first we need to take a step back into how the elements of a system are set up. The foundation of any system is its stock. These are the store, the quantity, the accumulation of material or information built up over time. You can see, count, or measure these items. The money in your bank account, the water in a bathtub, trees in a forest, or the population of a country are all examples of stocks.

Flows cause stocks to change. It’s the bathtub filling and draining, the births and deaths within a country, the dying and planting of trees in a forest, deposits and withdraws in a bank account. To understand much of the behavior of complex systems, one must understand the interplay of its stocks and flows.

A critical point is stocks typically change slowly. A forest doesn’t become deforested all at once. It takes a while for the population to unlearn skills. Groundwater can be pumped out at a faster rate than it is replenished for a long time. This occurs even when flows into or out of them change suddenly. Think of how much long it takes for trees to accumulate into a forest. Or for a productive labor force to be built up.

As such, stocks form the basis of system delays. They can also serve as system buffers. Just-in-time inventory has reduced the buffer of stocks. Taking slack out of the system results in decreased resiliency.

Time lags aren’t all bad – the stocks can be sources of stability…for a while. These delays allow room to experiment and revise policies that aren’t working.

Stocks allow inflows and outflows to be independent of each other and temporarily out of balance. Reservoirs allows residents and farmers to live downriver without adjusting their lives to a river’s yearly flows. But if hard rains happen for years, eventually the river will flood.

“Systems thinkers see the world as a collection of stocks along with the mechanisms for regulating the levels in the stocks by manipulating flows. That means system thinkers see the world as a collection of ‘feedback processes.’” – Thinking in Systems

If a system demonstrates a persistent behavior over time, the odds are good there’s a mechanism creating this consistency. It is manifested through a feedback loop. To find feedback loops, look for a system’s consistent behavior.10 Feedback loops can stabilize or de-stabilize systems. They can cause stocks to increase or decrease.

Donella Meadows in her excellent book on systems speaks of three types of delays: 1) perception delay; 2) response delay; and 3) delivery delay. Below shows the system flows for a car dealership’s inventory…

…The perception delay is intentional in this case. How often does the dealer react to changes in sales? Does he go off of daily, weekly, monthly, or some average? It’s key to pick the right time period to sort out real trends from noise.

Response delay is how much he orders. Does he order the whole lot needed or make partial adjustments to make sure the perceived trend is real?

The delivery delay is how long it takes to receive vehicle orders onto the lot.

Inventory oscillations result in a system where there are delays…

…Think about it: sales increase, causing vehicles on the lot to drop. Once they are sure the higher sales rate will last, more cars are ordered. The delivery delay means it takes time for the orders to actually arrive.

Yet during the interim period before orders hit the lot, inventory drops further if sales sustainably rise, meaning available inventory continues to decrease, so orders bump up a little more to bring inventory back to prior levels.

The larger volume of orders begins arriving, and, instead of recovering, inventory can shoot up more than expected, and the dealership can quickly turn from under-inventoried to over-inventoried. Orders are cut back, but elevated past orders are coming in, so less is ordered. Inventory eventually falls and can become too low. 

2. DeepMind found the structure of nearly every protein known to science – Nicole Westman

DeepMind is releasing a free expanded database with its predictions of the structure of nearly every protein known to science, the company, a subsidiary of Google parent Alphabet, announced today.

DeepMind transformed science in 2020 with its AlphaFold AI software, which produces highly accurate predictions of the structures of proteins — information that can help scientists understand how they work, which can help treat diseases and develop medications. It first started publicly releasing AlphaFold’s predictions last summer through a database built in collaboration with the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL). That initial set included 98 percent of all human proteins.

Now, the database is expanding to over 200 million structures, “covering almost every organism on Earth that has had its genome sequenced,” DeepMind said in a statement.

“You can think of it as covering the entire protein universe,” Demis Hassabis, CEO of DeepMind, said during a press briefing. “We’re at the beginning of a new era now in digital biology.”

3. Taiwan reports 1st child with cancer cured by CAR T-cell therapy – Keoni Everington

A 10-year-old girl suffering from leukemia is the first child in Taiwan to receive CAR T-cell therapy and to have fully recovered from the cancer as a result.

The girl, identified as Tingting (亭亭), was diagnosed with childhood B-cell acute lymphoblastic lymphoma four years ago. After undergoing first-line therapy, she still relapsed.

In the past, such a patient would have to wait for a stem cell transplant to save their lives. However, with the assistance of doctors at National Taiwan University Hospital (NTUH), she became the first CD19-targeted chimeric antigen receptor-engineered (CD19 CAR) T-cell recipient in Taiwan and has fully recovered, with no residual cancer cells detected in her body…

…Chou explained that the treatment principle relies on high-tech genetic engineering. First, T-cells are isolated from the patient’s body, and are genetically modified by adding a gene for a receptor called chimeric antigen receptor (CAR), which enables the T-cells to attach to a specific cancer cell antigen.

The cancer cells from childhood B-cell acute lymphoblastic lymphoma contain an antigen called CD19. Therefore, in this patient’s case, the CART T-cell technique was used to design T-cells to attach to the CD19 antigen.

Chou compared it to a precise “immunization army” that can accurately and continuously destroy cancer cells. The advantage is that a one-time injection can generate these results, said Chou, as was the case with Tingting.

In April of this year, NTUH became the first medical center in Taiwan to provide formal clinical use of CD19-targeted CAR T-cell therapy. Tingting was the first patient in Taiwan to receive the treatment and experience a full recovery.

4. An engineering breakthrough using DNA could unlock the quantum computing revolution – Chris Young

Scientists from the University of Virginia School of Medicine and collaborators used the building blocks of life to potentially revolutionize electronics.

The scientists utilized DNA to guide a chemical reaction that would overcome the barrier to Little’s superconductor, which was once thought to be “insurmountable”, a press statement reveals.

They used chemistry to perform incredibly precise structural engineering, allowing them to assemble a lattice of carbon nanotubes for Little’s room-temperature superconductor.

More than 50 years ago, Stanford physicist William A. Little proposed a type of superconductor that could be used at room temperature. This could potentially be used to enable hyper-fast computers and shrink the size of electronics devices, among a list of other benefits. In 2020, researchers from the University of Rochester revealed the first room-temperature superconductor, but high-pressure requirements make it difficult to utilize.

Edward H. Egelman, Ph.D., of UVA’s Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics and graduate student Leticia Beltran applied their knowledge in the field of cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM) to the problem. Their work, outlined in a new paper in the journal Science, “demonstrates that the cryo-EM technique has great potential in materials research,” Egelman explained.

The researchers set about trying to realize Little idea for a superconductor by modifying lattices of carbon nanotubes. The main obstacle was controlling the chemical reaction along the nanotubes so that the lattice could be assembled as precisely as possible. According to Egelman, their “work demonstrates that ordered carbon nanotube modification can be achieved by taking advantage of DNA-sequence control over the spacing between adjacent reaction sites.”

The lattice the scientists built has not yet been tested for superconductivity, but it offers proof of principle, according to the researchers. “While cryo-EM has emerged as the main technique in biology for determining the atomic structures of protein assemblies, it has had much less impact thus far in materials science,” Egelman described.

5. Walmart – Benjamin Gilbert and David Rosenthal

David: There, one night at a bowling alley in Claremore, he meets and falls in love with a girl named Helen Robson. Helen was from Claremore, but her father, L.S. Robson, unlike Sam’s family, was a very wealthy and successful businessman, financier, and trader in the broader Tulsa area.

He ends up taking a big shine to Sam and would become hugely influential along with Helen because he marries Helen, of course. Sam would say, “The Robsons were very smart about the way they handled their finances: Helen’s father organized his ranch and family businesses as a partnership, and Helen and her brothers were all partners. Helen has a college degree in finance, which back then was really unusual for a woman, and Mr. Robson advised us to do the same thing with our family, which we did way back in 1953.”

That partnership that Helen and Sam set up is today Walton Enterprises which owns 36% of Walmart, and then individual family members and trusts—I think mostly Bud’s [Sam Walton’s brother] family—own the other 11%–12%.

Ben: This is the interesting seed plant of Walmart being a family business from the very get-go. They organized it interestingly. Each store was actually its own company so that different people could hold shares in each store—the management, different people who wanted to invest in the store, and that sort of thing—but at a really high level, Walmart always was a family partnership. It was always something where the economic and spiritual ownership and decision-making always was the Walton family. Of course, Sam’s the guy, but there were a lot of family meetings to make decisions for the business.

David: This is why, because the family was all partners in Walton Enterprises. They couldn’t just sell their stock and the partnership. The family as a whole had to decide to sell. That allowed them to keep majority control of Walmart all through history.

Sam talks about this. He says he thinks it’s the big reason why corporate raiders or larger companies like Kmart never came and acquired them because the stock was never splintered. It was all within the partnership. Then, he actually writes, “One of the real reasons I’m writing this book is so my grandchildren and great-grandchildren will read it years from now and know this: If you start any of that foolishness like changing the structure, selling off stock, going off and doing fancy thing—”

Ben: Buying NBA and NFL teams.

David: Buying NBA and NFL teams which they do now. “—I will come back and haunt you. So don’t even think about it.”…

…David: Sam and Helen get married and Sam gets posted in a bunch of places all around the country doing internal intelligence work for the army. He goes to Utah and plenty of other places. He decides that when the war ends and he gets out of the Army, he’s going to go back into retailing, but now, he has the support of Helen, her family, and her father, L.S. They’re financiers, so he knows, I now have access to some amount of capital. I can be an entrepreneur. I don’t necessarily have to work for somebody.

When the war ends, L.S. initially wants them to move back to Claremore, but Helen and Sam decide together. They’re like, well, we want your support, but we don’t want to be totally under your wing and in your shadow.

Sam got big ambitions. He and a buddy decide that they want to buy a Federated Department Store franchise in St. Louis. They’re going to be big. He comes from JCPenney in Des Moines. He wants to be a big city department store owner, magnate, and entrepreneur.

Helen vetoes this outright. We would not be talking about Walmart if Sam had moved the family to St. Louis. Helen says, look, one, I don’t want you doing any partnerships with non-family members. Sam says, “Her family had seen some partnerships go sour, and she was dead-set in the notion that the only way to go was to work for yourself and for your family.”

Two, she says, “I don’t want to live in a big city. I want to go live in a small town where I grew up just like Claremore. I don’t want to live in Claremore itself, but we are not allowed to move to any town that has a population of more than 10,000 people.”

Ben: Her whole thing was I want to raise my kids the way that I was raised. She looked at Sam and said, you were raised the same way in a small town and that’s what we’re going to do. Whatever business he did had to be family owned and controlled and have a small town-based strategy. What seems so intentional and so genius actually stems from the fact that she just vetoed his original idea….

…David: …Sam doesn’t stay down for long. I think he was a little disappointed that his wife had overruled him, but he finds a way. He goes back to the company that owned Federated, which is a company called Butler Brothers. They were franchisors of Federated. They’re based in Chicago.

He asks, well, do you have any department store locations that might be available in a small town of say 10,000 people or less? The Butler Brothers guys are like, we don’t really do department stores in towns like that, but we do have another spin-off operation that we run, which is our variety store franchising business.

Ben: There literally weren’t enough people they believed to support a department store. Variety stores are like glorified general stores. When you think about a town that’s 2000, 3000, or 4000 people, it really is like if you visited an old west town and looked at a general store. It’s like on steroids, but a few decades later.

David: Variety store businesses, that’s exactly it after the Depression and World War II. That was how small towns and areas were serviced to retail. They’re mostly franchise operations. This particular one was Ben Franklin, the brand name. Benjamin Franklin general store type of place.

Ben: When you say franchise operation, because it’s way too much of a burden to source your own inventory, carry your own inventory, and maintain all those different vendor relationships, if you’re in one of those towns, you’re serving 2000 people and you’re the one store there, what you really want is to sign a contract and just get the shipment of the stuff that goes into the Ben Franklin stores in all the small towns.

David: Yeah, and just be literally the merchant serving your customers. That mindset dominated. It’s worth a pause here to talk about what these stores were because it’s a very foreign concept to anything we’re familiar with today. These variety stores were also called five and dimes if you’ve ever heard that term.

Ben: A 5¢, 10¢ store.

David: The reason for that is that in most of them, every item in the store was either priced at 5¢ or 10¢. That was the level of sophistication here. The other big, big difference between how the stores operated in modern retail today, which says I’m really invented, was they weren’t self-service.

Ben: He didn’t invent that. He stole that.

David: We’re going to get to it. So you would walk into these stores and there would just be a counter area upfront that had clerks. You would tell the clerk what you wanted, and then the clerk would go back into the store, pick out what you wanted, bring it up to the front, and check you out.

Ben: Because there wasn’t really a choice. You’d be like, I need a hose, and they would go get the hose. It’s not like, well, let me see all the different brands, sizes, and colors. It was like, I know you have hoses here. Can you get me one?

David: The merchants weren’t making the decisions on the inventory. It was all just being handed down on high from Butler Brothers back in Chicago.

Ben: Yeah. I did not understand when reading this book when he kept referencing stores that were not stores where you walked around and got your own stuff off the shelf, that that is a modern concept. That is crazy.

…David: …Butler Brothers—Sam’s having this conversation with them—are like, well, probably, you want a Ben Franklin franchise, and it just so happens that we’ve got the perfect store for you in the little town of Newport, Arkansas. The current owner of the Ben Franklin franchise there wants to sell.

Newport is a little town of about 7000 people. It’s in eastern Arkansas. If you know where Bentonville, Arkansas and Walmart are today, it’s not in eastern Arkansas. Sam is like, great, I’ll take it. Now, you have to ask yourself, it is 1945 in America. The war has just ended. Unlike 1945 in Japan like we talked about with the Sony story, retail in the US is booming.

Ben: Everyone’s coming home, there was the G.I. Bill, everyone’s got new homes, everyone’s starting families, and there’s a lot of stuff to buy.

David: There’s a lot of stuff to buy. It doesn’t matter if you’re a department store in a big city or a variety store in a 7000-person town. Everybody in retail should be making money hand over fist right now.

The question that Sam didn’t ask himself and should have was why does this guy want to sell? He says in the book, “A guy from St. Louis owned it, and things weren’t working out at all for him. He was losing money, and he wanted to unload the store as fast as he could. I realize now that I was the sucker Butler Brothers sent to save him. I was twenty-seven years old and full of confidence, but I didn’t know the first thing about how to evaluate a proposition like this so I jumped right in with both feet. My naiveté about contracts and such would later come back to haunt me in a big way.”

He and Helen buy this store.

Ben: This distressed asset at not a distressed price.

David: Yes. They buy it for $25,000, $5000 of their own savings and a $20,000 loan from L.S., Helen’s father. Sam says, this isn’t what I dreamt, but I’m still going to set big goals. He decides that he’s going to set a goal that this store is going to become the most profitable variety store in Arkansas within five years.

Ben: It’s quite the turnaround and is also the first indication of Sam setting these big, hairy audacious goals. He has this subsequent obsession with set a goal, hit it, set a goal, hit it. That really does drive all of his need for experimentation because he finds himself in these situations where he has a goal set and he must invent some way to hit it.

David: It also sets the stage for what was to come. He sets this goal, and then he gets there. This is not a realistic goal.

He says, “Only after we closed the deal, of course, did I learn that the store was a real dog. It had sales of about $72,000 a year, but its rent was 5 percent of sales—which I thought sounded fine at the time—but which, it turned out, was the highest rent anybody had ever heard of in the variety store business. No one paid 5 percent of sales for rent. And it had a strong competitor—a Sterling Store which was another franchise across the street—whose excellent manager, John Dunham, was doing more than $150,000 a year in sales, double mine.”

Not only is it unlikely that he’s going to be the most profitable store in Arkansas, it’s unlikely he’s going to be the most profitable store in Newport. What does Sam do? He goes right across the street into the Dunham Store and he starts trying to figure out why Dunham is twice as successful as he is.

Ben: Yeah. Speaking of the first time Sam does something that he then does forever, he becomes notorious for going into competitor stores, bringing in a little notebook, later bringing in a little tape recorder, and just seeing what he can get away with interviewing clerks and associates at these stores.

Anytime he’s traveling with the family on vacation or anything, he’s just going into all these other stores, observing, taking notes, and figuring out what their systems are, what’s working, and what’s not working, so here he learns that valuable lesson for the first time.

David: So great. I was going to bring this up later, but I think he says in the book that he believes he has spent more time in Kmarts than any nonindividual store employee of Kmart including Kmart’s senior management.

Ben: Yeah. Also, we keep referencing Kmart. When I was growing up, it was like Walmart, Kmart. I think Kmart is kind of like Walmart, about the same scale, same size, and kind of a little lower end. That was my perception as a kid of Kmart. I didn’t realize that Kmart for a very long time was much, much larger than Walmart. They were Walmart’s big brother incumbent.

David: They were the gorillas.

Ben: I don’t remember what year this was, but I remember some quote from Walton where he’s talking about when we reached 5% the scale of Kmart. It’s like, well, that really puts it into perspective how big a lead they had.

David: You mentioned a notepad. It’s actually a yellow legal pad that Sam uses. Famously, he has this yellow legal pad and he’s going into competitor stores. He starts diving into dumpsters trying to get sales receipts, inventory orders, and stuff to figure out how these stores are operating.

He quickly realizes from both Dunham across the street—and also, he’s doing this all over the countryside, going into small variety stores all over Arkansas just trying to learn—that price, running promotions, and cutting prices on big marquee attractive items like health and beauty aids, toothpaste, mouthwash, makeup, and that stuff really drives customers in.

He starts doing that and he has some success, but there’s a problem. We talked about Butler Brothers as the franchisor. They’re controlling all the inventory. Sam as the merchant is just getting whatever they send to him at whatever cost they prescribe.

The Butler Brothers are doing great. They get about a 25% markup on all the inventory and they don’t even do anything. It’s almost like they set up the whole system just to keep these prices high out in the countryside and they just get a 25% skim off the top.

What does Sam do? He starts figuring out who the manufacturers are of some of these goods. For manufacturers that are also located there in the south in the Midwest, he starts driving around, knocking on their doors, and asking if they’ll do side deals with him and just clandestinely sell him some of the merchandise that he otherwise would be ordering from Butler Brothers and that they would be selling to Butler Brothers. They just give him a deal directly on that.

Ben: He’s operating a small enough scale that Butler Brothers doesn’t really notice. To be frank, there wasn’t good tracking or accountability at this point. There weren’t computers yet.

David: There’s no computerized inventory here.

Ben: You’d have to really be paying attention to figure out, oh, maybe Sam is not ordering quite as much of this stuff from us as he should be.

David: He’s driving around himself. There’s no management. He has some clerks working in the store, but it’s just Sam and Helen running the place. He’s out, he drives to visit them, and he’s got to get a deal done on the spot.

He goes, knocks on the door, and meets these people. He’s like, I want to buy it right now. I’ve got a trailer hooked up to my pickup truck outside. Can you just load the inventory right into the back and I’ll drive it back to Newport? He says, I bring them the inventory, bring it back, price it low, and just blow that stuff out of the store.

Ben: Which is an invention. This is a brand-new concept that we take for granted now, but it’s totally a Sam Walton invention to meet his own needs which is to create something that is astonishingly low price to get people in the store, take no margin on it, and make it a loss leader. Who cares? Get people in the door spending time in your store and they look at other stuff.

This would become a cornerstone of Walmart forever after this and for every other retailer. Even in the pricing of SaaS products now, when you look at it, it’s like, oh, I’m on the free plan. It’s not that he invented loss leadership as a category, but he figured out how to make it work in the retail model.

David: He figured out how to really merchandise and operationalize. Dunham’s across the street running promotions, but Dunham wasn’t thinking about, oh, well, maybe I could sell even lower if I go haul my pickup truck out to these manufacturers and get goods at a lower price.

Ben: Right. Of course, once you’re hauling your pickup truck to go meet the vendors directly, it’s not that far of a cry to say, well, what don’t I have in the store that I’m getting from Butler Brothers? What could be interesting? You start getting good at doing these direct deals, sourcing your own inventory, and figuring out how to merchandise products that you personally believe will sell.

This is really where he started to hone that skill, craft, and sixth sense for deeply knowing the American consumer—or let’s say consumers in this area in his communities—and having a real spidey sense of what would make them go crazy and have a real product-market fit in people’s homes.

David: Price, selection, and convenience are the holy trinity of retail, but nobody really knew this yet. Frankly, all of those things are important, but for the majority of people out there in the world, in America at the time, and certainly the vast majority of people in these small towns, it’s selection and convenience.

Ben: Life was inconvenient, so you’re going to go through some inconvenience to get things. Selection, there wasn’t much of no matter what. We just came out of the Great Depression. Price is very important.

David: Customers will go to great lengths to get lower prices.

Ben: People would make day trips. People would drive five hours to other cities to get a deal on goods.

David: It’s crazy. He says, “Here’s the simple lesson we learned—which others were learning at the same time and which eventually changed the way retailers sell and customers buy all across America: say I bought an item for 80 cents. I found that by pricing it at $1.00 I could sell three times more of it than by pricing it at $1.20. I might make only half the profit per item, but because I was selling three times as many, the overall profit was much greater. Simple enough. But this is really the essence of discounting: by cutting your price, you can boost your sales to a point where you earn far more at the cheaper retail price than you would have by selling the item at a higher price.”…

…This is incredible. He actually hits his goal. By year five of the Newport store, he’s doing $250,000 in sales at a $30,000–$40,000 annual profit. Remember, he bought the thing for $25,000. That’s including the crazy 5% rent charge in his expenses.

Ben: His operating margin on this is 24%. He’s making very, very real profits on this little store that he’s got.

David: If he had a better rent deal it could be 28%. But at those numbers, it is the most profitable store in Arkansas and the biggest store by sales not just in Arkansas but the whole Midwest and South region. He has found a winning formula here.

Ben: Which is interesting because I’m pretty sure at this point, he’s got a bunch of direct deals cut with the suppliers and he’s added a bunch of products of his own. He’s really merchandising. He’s really showing up on Ben Franklin’s radar and the Butler Brothers Corporation’s radar, and they know what he’s doing at this point. But it’s good for them. Even though it’s good for Sam, it’s also good for them because of volume and customers.

David: Right. He’s by far the best-performing Ben Franklin store in the country at this point. Unfortunately though, like I said, there’s a reason that Walmart is not headquartered in Newport, Arkansas. Butler Brothers weren’t the only related party to Sam who figured out what was going on here. His landlord that had pulled one over on the previous owner and had the super onerous rent terms also figures out, of course, how great Sam is doing despite having the deck stacked against him.

He decides he wants to take over the store. Year five is when the lease expires and there wasn’t an option in the contract to renew the lease. The landlord goes to Sam. He’s like, you know what, son, you’ve done a great job. Thank you for turning this property of mine around. I’m going to take it from here.

Ben: Just to contextualize this, it’s a 7000-person town. There are not really many other available storefronts. He’s got tons of shelves in there with tons of goods. It’s a meaningful amount of inventory that’s being carried on the business. It’s not like you can be like, oh, cool, I’ll move next door. That option does not exist.

His landlord comes to him and says this and he’s like, wait, oh my God, I have no other options.

David: He says, “It was the low point of my business life. I felt sick to my stomach. I couldn’t believe it was happening to me. It really was like a nightmare.”

I say this as a saving grace although the reality is Helen’s father would have financed Sam’s next venture no matter what. But the saving grace for Sam’s pride at least was that the landlord did buy out the value of the Ben Franklin franchise license, the hard assets, the inventory, the fixtures, et cetera in the store. He pays Sam and Helen $50,000 to take over the store. I’m going to guess that’s a 2X return.

Ben: What was the operating income from the previous year?

David: Thirty to forty thousand dollars.

Ben: Wow, brutal.

David: But at least they get the $50,000 out. This is now 1950. Sam and Helen hit the road again looking for a new town to bring their traveling circus to.

Ben: And have a little bit more knowledge on lease negotiation.

David: Yes. They go up to the other corner of the state in Northwest Arkansas. This is where they started looking around for the next place to set up shop for two reasons.

One, closer to Helen’s family in Oklahoma, Claremore. Two, like I said, Sam keeps it real. He was like, there’s some really good quail hunting up there and I really wanted to be closer so I could drag my bird dogs out and go hunting.

Ben: Yes, and more specifically, it’s not just that there’s good quail hunting. It is that he will be very close to four states which each have their own quail hunting season so that he can get the maximum amount of quail hunting in with an easy drive from his house.

Lots of business decisions being made here on family—we need to be in a small town and we need to only work with family. For Sam, I need to be able to hunt quail in the maximum amount of time that I possibly can.

David: The opportunity that they find and settle on is in a little town of 3000 people—less than half the size of Newport—that already in this town of 3000 people had 3 variety stores operating. Newport had 2 for 7000 people. This town has 3 for 3000 people.

As Sam says, he loves competition. That town is Bentonville, Arkansas. Sam probably almost assuredly is rolling over in his grave right now.

Ben: The new Walmart campus.

David: The new Walmart campus that they’re building. It looks absolutely gorgeous, which I’m sure he would be furious about.

Ben: Yes. If you thought Warren was a penny-pinching, very plain, no frills, no fancy things entrepreneur, Sam Walton—hard to argue who’s more frugal and less showy. Sam eventually got into airplanes for very practical use, but Sam was not a showy guy.

David: Actually, the anecdote that he and John Huey open Made in America with is I think it’s 1985 when Forbes ranked him the richest man in America and all these reporters start descending on Bentonville. They want to go interview the richest man in America. He still drives an old pickup truck that has cages in the back for his bird dogs because he goes hunting in the four states nearby.

It’s this big sensation that the richest man in America drives a beat-up, old pickup truck with cages in the back. He’s like, well, what am I going to drive my dogs around, in a Rolls Royce?

Ben: All right, so they arrive in Bentonville. Bentonville and the world are forever changed, but it doesn’t happen all at once.

David: No. The store that they buy is another Ben Franklin franchise that had done $32,000 in revenue the year before, quite a distance from the $250,000 that they left Newport with. Sam decides, all right, well, this is a small market. This is a small store. There’s a lot of competition, but I have big ambitions. He’s got his ear to the ground in retail and particularly in the Ben Franklin franchise network.

He hears through the grapevine that there are two Ben Franklin stores up in Minnesota that were trying a radical new concept. They were redoing the whole way. The store was laid out, the way it worked. They were removing the upfront counters, turning them into checkout counters, and letting customers go into the store, browse the merchandise, pick it up themselves, select it themselves, and then checkout.

He’s like, I got to go see this. He takes the overnight bus up from Arkansas up to Minnesota and checks them out. He’s taking notes the whole time on his yellow legal pad. He says about that trip, “I liked it. So I did that too”

Ben: I love how he’s so obsessed with first-hand experience. He couldn’t just hear about this and then implement it. He’s like, I must see it for myself because he so fervently believes that he picks up insights from actually spending time in stores and actually talking to customers. It seems like he does that more than any other entrepreneur we’ve ever talked about on this show, this obsession with first-hand experience.

David: I think everybody can apply this to their business. I was thinking about it while reading the book. I started so many passages and I already listened to lots of other podcasts unlike when we started Acquired and I didn’t listen to any other podcasts.

Ben: We should find the best ideas and incorporate them, yeah.

David: There’s a great quote about this when Walmart actually gets started later. I’m going to tease it for now. On July 29th, 1950, just about 72 years ago, they reopened the Ben Franklin store that they bought.

Ben: Still a franchise.

David: Still a Ben Franklin franchise, still working with Butler Brothers for “most of the inventory.” But they want to send a message that this is a new era, doing the self-service new store in Bentonville. They renamed it Walton’s Five and Dime and it became the third self-service variety store in the entire country.

Ben: It’s fascinating that they picked this name because part of the reason why you do a franchise is the brand. Sure, it’s nice to get the inventory, negotiated relationships, prices, and all this stuff, but really what you’re buying is people who know what a Ben Franklin is, so they would come to the store.

What Sam is saying is, eh, I feel pretty good about building my own brand. I know I’m in one way or another paying to use the Ben Franklin brand, but we’re not going to use it.

David: It really was rational because even though Sam on the margins is doing his own direct deals with manufacturers at this point, it’s a ludicrous concept that somebody in a little store in Arkansas could source all of their inventory and do all of their logistics by themselves. That is completely freaking crazy that a store servicing 3000 people in a little town would handle all of that themselves.

But they launched with a new name. It’s a new concept. It’s self-service. It causes quite a stir. I couldn’t find this exactly, but I believe, in that first year when Walton’s Five and Dime is open—remember, the previous Ben Franklin iteration of the store had done $32,000 a year in revenue, something like that—Walton’s Five and Dime did $90,000 in sales the first year.

I don’t know what the competitive dynamics were between the 3 stores in Bentonville, but remember, the town only had 3000 people. If you assume the previous three stores roughly had an equal market share—it’s a big assumption but just for argument’s sake—that would mean that the whole market size of Bentonville, the whole TAM, is $90,000. They did $90,000 in revenue, so what was happening here?

Ben: Yeah, is there a massively expanding TAM, did they expand that market because people are just buying more stuff than they otherwise would have?

David: I don’t know what happened to the other two stores, whether they went out of business or not. Certainly, they wouldn’t have right away. I think what happened was this caused such a stir that people started coming to shop at Walton’s Five and Dime from other towns.

Ben: I think it was the first time that Sam realized that shock value would bring customers much like I didn’t need anything the first time I went to an Amazon Go to try the cashierless checkout. People came for novelty value here. That taught him the lesson of, oh, maybe we should always have novelty value. Maybe there are reasons why people should be coming to Walmart even if they aren’t necessarily looking to buy something.

David: Yup. If you think about it, put yourself in the shoes of customers back then. Sam talks about this a lot in the book. For so long—we’ll get into the competition with Kmart—everybody thought Walmart, Sam, and all their customers were just kicks in the sticks. They are just complete morons out there. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

He says, my customers were also sophisticated retail customers. They knew about what was going on in the cities. They had relatives there they’d go visit. It’s not like they didn’t want first-class shopping experiences in their own hometowns.

Clearly, this makes a big splash. Sam realizes that he might have a tiger by the tail here so he starts looking. Unlike in Newport where he was satisfied, the store kept growing and he did $250,000 a year in sales. He starts looking to open up more locations.

Ben: More Five and Dimes.

David: He also doesn’t want to have all of his eggs in one basket and one lease like he did in Newport.

Ben: Right. Didn’t he open a store directly next door to one of his competitors just so that his competitor couldn’t expand their store? It wasn’t a high-performing store for him, but at least it didn’t let them get the square footage.

David: Yes. Clearly, he’s very competitor-focused. It’s funny. There are so many Jeff Bezos-isms that when you read this book and you learn about Walmart and Sam Walton, you realize that they were originally Walton-isms, Sam-isms, but in the whole Amazon we’re customer-focused and we’re not competitor-focused, Sam would have said absolutely not. We are absolutely competitor-focused. We’re focused on taking the best stuff from our competitors and implementing it here.

Ben: While we’re here, we have to say it. Eventually, a Walmart does go back to Newport. There is a little store that is run by a family member of the landlord that screwed over Sam that does get put out of business by that Walmart going in.

Sam makes the point, “You can’t say we ran that guy—the landlord’s son—out of business. His customers were the ones who shut him down. They voted with their feet.” To me, this is that perfect overlap of are you competitor-focused or customer focused? Well, both. You have to win in a market by counter positioning in some way. Walton did it by discounting but that obviously has an impact on your competitors.

You need to be able to counter a position against someone like a competitor. So when the big realization is, oh, customers always want lower prices, and satisfaction guaranteed, and all the other Walmart-isms, that will have impacts on your competitors. You have to pay attention to those competitors. But ultimately…

David: The customers decide.

Ben: Sam is willing to blame the customer for putting the competitor out of business.

David: In 1952, just a short while later, Sam opens up a second store in nearby Fayetteville, Arkansas, because again, it’s just Sam and Helen, when she can, helping out with the bookkeeping, managing the first store. Sam needs to hire somebody to go manage Fayetteville because he’s working in Bentonville. So he brings on a guy named Willard Walker, who was managing a variety store in Tulsa before that.

The way they convinced him to move to Fayetteville and take over this new concept is they make him an offer he can’t refuse. They make him a partner in the store. This is what you were referring to earlier. They give him a percentage of the profits that that individual store makes. In fact, they set up that store and all future stores as their own partnerships. This is something I didn’t understand until reading the book.

It became a huge part of the playbook for Walmart for decades, in which every store manager in a new store opening was given first equity and individual partnerships, and then later profit sharing incentives in that individual store. That sets up a true alignment of incentives. I don’t think anybody else was doing this at that point in time and then even better.

So all the pool of existing store managers, whenever they open up another store, Sam and Helen give them the opportunity to invest dollars in the new stores and the new partnerships. Now you’re incentivized on the success of the whole network, and you’re incentivized to share information. You want everybody to do better.

Ben: They get carry and they should make a GP commit.

David: Exactly. I think this is super brilliant. I was thinking about this, with regard to tech companies today and everything. Even though employees of tech companies get much better economic deals with stock options, I think psychologically, this is a better way to do it. What Sam was doing, you’re putting your own money at work. You’re incentivized both on your own personal performance in the store…

…David: Then reading more in the book about this. So during this period and in the early Walmart Corporation period, it was just the store managers who were doing this, not the hourly employees.

Ben: There was a gigantic chasm. I mean, there’s still a big chasm today but two completely different classes of humans in those early days between the store managers who were salaried and employed by the partnership and of course the to be called associates but the hourly workers who were not.

David: So a couple of interesting things. One, the people who were the store managers, this wasn’t quite like white collar workers. It’s somewhere in between. Most of these people didn’t have college degrees. They were salaried. Then they got equity in these partnerships. It wasn’t like these were Wharton graduates that were coming in and doing this.

Ben: Intentionally not. Those folks were discriminated against in the Walmart culture, especially in the early days of think you’re better than us, college boy.

David: Totally. One of the first managers was nicknamed The Bear and he had one eye. There are some crazy stories out there. They were bringing donkeys into the store.

Ben: Right. We’re talking Walmart. So take us to Walmart, how did we get from the Walton’s Five and Dime.

David: On the employee front, after Walmart went public, Sam instituted both profit sharing at the store level with the associates, with the hourly employees, but then also an employee stock purchase program. This is cool. Home Depot modeled their employee stock purchase program after Walmart’s and it’s brilliant. It’s the same thing. You put up your own money, but you can do it pre-tax dollars out of your paycheck at a 15% discount to the stock price.

Ben: This is what Microsoft let me do when I was a PM there. In addition to your stock-based compensation, they call it an ESPP (Employee Stock Purchase Program), Microsoft only lets us have a 10% discount, so it’s very kind of Walmart to give a 15% discount for market price.

David: There are stories in the book of hourly associates that made millions of dollars in the ’70s and ’80s off of the employee stock purchase program. It’s pretty cool…

…David: I’m totally inspired by Sam, Walmart, and everything. Okay, so back to the ’50s in Arkansas. Remember, we talked all the way back in the beginning of the episode about Sam’s brother, Bud. Well, Bud had gotten into the Ben Franklin business himself after the war in Missouri. One day, Sam is visiting Kansas City and he hears about a new suburb development going in just southeast of the city called Ruskin Heights, and it’s going to have a shopping center.

This newfangled concept is right in the middle of this suburb subdivision, and there’s going to be a grocery store, a drugstore, and real estate for a big Ben Franklin store. So Sam calls up Bud and he’s like, we got to go in 50-50 on this, this is a huge opportunity. They do, and it is a banger to earn $50,000 in annual sales the first year in Ruskin Heights, then $350,000 the year after and just keeps growing and growing.

Sam says when I saw that shopping center catch on the way it did, I thought, man, this is the forerunner of many, many things to come. The only problem was Ruskin was actually kind of a red herring. This was the future. This was the forerunner of many things to come, but it was still a little bit ahead of its time. This is really a 1960s thing, not only a ’50s thing. Sam is convinced though, that it’s the future. So he starts going around Arkansas and Missouri evangelizing the towns and city planners about putting in the shopping centers.

Ben: For which they would be the anchor tenant.

David: But it’s super slow dealing with local governments. It’s hard. It takes a long time. He wants to move fast. So he starts trying to put his own real estate deals together for multi-tenant shopping centers and fails. Eventually, because back to Helen’s advice, these multi-tenant shopping centers, I see the power in Ruskin, but it’s dependent on too many other people. But if I’m willing to invest some capital, I could just put bigger stores in the same locations myself. That’s what he starts to do.

Ben: Does he become his own landlord then and just buy the land or what requires more capital?

David: That’s a good question. I don’t know at this point if they were doing real estate themselves, but certainly, they are building out bigger store concepts, requiring capital to build the stores. It’s not like there were existing structures there then to outfit them with all the fixtures and all the inventory for the larger stores. But he and Bud together, start doing this. They call these new stores “family centers” and they start doing unheard of numbers—$1 million, $2 million.

Ben: Are they still sourcing the inventory from Ben Franklin from Butler brothers?

David: Yes. They don’t yet have their own distribution, inventory, and logistics network setup. That was the big step of Walmart. These were still just like much larger versions of Ben Franklins and they were working with them to get all the inventory to them.

Ben: Already at this point, they’ve bent so many rules with Ben Franklin like changing the store layout and concept, where they’re going, starting to dictate more terms, and naming them on their own. At this point, they’re really starting to treat Butler brothers as more of a component of the Walton business rather than Walton being a franchisee of Butler brothers.

David: Exactly. So these “family centers” that Sam and Bud were building are still Ben Franklin franchises. The Waltons are now taking over more and more of control of the concept, their self-service, they’re larger format, but it’s still part of the Butler brothers’ cartel, shall we say? Because they were part of Butler brothers, Sam and Bud were limited on how much discounting they could really do.

They were aggressive on pricing, probably more so than other merchants at the time, and they had self-service, the large format, and all this interesting stuff. But the prices weren’t that much different than other stores.

Ben: It’s worth knowing that we don’t think about the notion of discount stores today being counter positioned against something like all big stores have things at kind of the lowest price you can find them.

David: Because they’re all discounters now. I think 87% of market share in America is discounters.

Ben: Yeah. So there’s either specialty high end retail, which is often directly from the manufacturer sort of like vertically integrated or specialty sourced or something, or if you’re buying things that we consider a big regular store, they’re all discounters. At the time, there were no discounters. Everyone was marking up their goods by about 45%. If you’re buying something and then marking it up 45%, it means your gross margin is about 33% as a retailer.

David: And that was on top of the markups in the middle from the franchise operators.

Ben: The competition was so low that you totally could just do this. For reference, just so people have a sense today, Walmart probably has a gross margin between 20–24% at any given time, and every store had like a 33% gross margin. Even though Target is like a high end discounter—it’s sort of a nicer stuff, more expensive—they’re in the 29% category, but everyone was 33% or above gross margin at this point in history….

…Basically, everyone’s marking up their goods 45% and nobody has done other than Ann & Hope and a few other select folks that haven’t really rolled it out at scale or really popularized the movement. No one has done discounting, but what is discounting? Two major components. One is big loss leadership. Blow it out in order to get people in the store, do it in dramatic fashion, and then people buy other stuff.

Two is we make it up on volume, just don’t mark stuff up that much period across the whole store. Decide that you’re only going to mark things up 25% instead of 45%. Then when you do that, of course, you don’t make as much money per item. But everybody buys more stuff in your store. This hadn’t really been proven yet.

David: Yeah, and there’s another component. What you’re saying, which is Sam’s original lesson of, you actually make more profit dollars selling items at the dollar than you do at $120 because you sell three times as many. But there’s also the peace in the middle, the franchisor, the Butler brothers, remember, they’re taking 25% from the manufacturer to Butler brothers, and then out to the stores. That’s how most everything operated.

These discounters are like no, we’re going to go direct to the manufacturers for everything, just like Sam was starting to do in this but on the margins. We’re just going to completely not be a franchise operation. We’re going to own and operate everything. We’re going to operate our own back end, our own supplier relationships, and our own distribution.

Ben: There’s a great quote, this is again later in Walmart’s development. It’s when Sam Walton is informing the Walmart vendor relations team and merchandisers on how to deal with vendors.

He’s telling them, “Don’t leave in any room for a kickback because we don’t do that here. And we don’t want your advertising program or your delivery program. Our truck will pick it up at your warehouse. Now what is your best price? And if they told me it’s a dollar, I would say, Fine, I’ll consider it, but I’m going to go to your competitor, and if he says 90 cents, he’s going to get the business. So make sure a dollar is your best price.

If that’s being hard-nosed, then we ought to be as hard-nosed as we can be. You have to be fair and upfront and honest, but you have to drive your bargain because you’re dealing with millions and millions of customers who expect the best price they can get. If you buy that thing for $1.25, you’ve just bought somebody else’s inefficiency.”

David: Totally.

Ben: I love that. I mean, it is brutal but that encapsulates the philosophy so well.

David: There’s so much baked into that that people don’t even realize. To get to the point where you could do that, you need to operate the entire back-end of retail yourself. Sam and Bud and Walmart, they’re starting from they don’t have anything. To get to a point where you can have conversations with suppliers like that, you need your own shipping carriers, trucks. You need your own distribution centers. You need your own ordering systems. You need your own technology. They don’t have any of that.

Ben: You need to forecast. You need to be able to understand we’re going to sell enough of these units to go buy a crap ton at this super low price. We need to be able to be so confident that we can tell the supplier to spin up new inventory so that we will buy it to increase their production. Okay, that’s all the future. So at this moment.

David: Okay, so at this moment, Sam of course goes out. He goes and shops. He travels to the northeast. He shops in Ann & Hope. He goes out. He meets Sol Price, who he already knew.

Ben: And we’re in like the 1960s?

David: Late ’50s, early ’60s at this point, before 1962. He sees what they’re doing. They’re doing this proto discounting in big cities, and rings around big cities, not necessarily in the primo real estate downtown but where you have access to logistics hubs. You can sort of scrounge together and make this work. The idea that Sam could copy this and go do it back in Arkansas, it’s crazy. What manufacturers are going to ship stuff to Arkansas, especially big volume stuff?

He goes, he meets with Sol and Ann & Hope and he’s like, you know what, I think I can make this work. I think I can do it. Even he knows what a huge undertaking this is. He actually goes back to the Butler brothers. He’s like, we’ve been great partners. We’ve really innovated on a lot of stuff together. I’ve seen this discounting model. I think it’s the future. I know customers like low prices. I’ve got these new large format stores. Why don’t we work together on this? I need you to handle the backend. You have the scale to be able to do this. You already distribute out to small towns like mine. Let’s partner on this and do it together. And Butler brothers says no…

…David: In Butler brothers’ defense, they signed their own death warrant here, but that was the rational thing to do. This is like a counter positioning thing. they had all these other Ben Franklin franchises out there. If they had done what Sam is proposing and essentially taken out their markup on goods that they would provide to Sam’s stores, what are all the rest of their franchisees going to say?

Ben: It is literally the innovator’s dilemma because they have too much baggage to actually pull this new thing off. To be more specific about that, there is too much ongoing revenue that they would cannibalize in the short term by messing up all those relationships they had with their other franchisees where they would probably churn too much of that and risk the whole business so they could not take advantage of what could be the new wave.

David: Yep. The thing that Sam knew, the minute he saw discounting, was all of those stores were dead anyway.

Ben: Yeah, just a matter of time.

David: Somebody is going to bring discounting to Arkansas, Missouri, Texas, Florida, and everywhere else and those stores are dead.

Ben: It’s that insight that people who are out from cities want the same thing as people in cities, and so they’re just as bright. They want the same things in life. They just happen to not live in cities, so let’s not be pejorative. Let’s serve them with high quality retail experience.

David: Totally. So 1962, Sam and Bud secured a site in Rogers, Arkansas, which is pretty close to Bentonville. It’s got to say, they’re going to do this. It’s going to be chaos, but they’re going to figure out the backend, do this new discounting concept. They just need a name. Sam’s got a bunch of candidate names for what to call this new retail concept.

He’s talking with one of the early store managers, Bob Bogle, about his ideas. He says, what do you think? Bob says, you’ve got all these fancy names, but it’s pretty expensive. Building the neon signs of Walton’s Five and Dime and Ben Franklin. That’s a lot of letters. What if you just take part of the Walton name, keep that, make it a place to shop, and call it Walmart. Seven letters, that’ll be pretty cheap.

Ben: I love it.

David: The legend is born.

6. The Greatest Value Investor You’ve Never Heard Of – Macro Ops

The investor is Floyd Odlum.

Buried somewhere in the junk drawer of investing lore, Odlum’s story remains unknown. A quick Google search reveals his Wikipedia and IMDB pages. Yet in typical deep-value fashion, the last link on the page revealed Odlum’s investing story.

The Holy Financier’s blog post was that last link. The blog proved an excellent springboard for a deeper investigation into Odlum’s early life, initial career and his path to market fortunes. Although Odlum (pictured on the right) and Ben Graham never met, their investment philosophies are one in the same.

We’ll journey through his upbringing, his days as a struggling lawyer and his initial attempt at market speculation. Then we’ll see how Odlum turned $39,000 into $700,000 in two years.

Odlum wasn’t just a great investor. He also had a knack for choosing the most generic partnership names, such as his first “The United States Company”. The partnership, formed in 1923, was a couple’s affair. Odlum, George Howard and their wives seeded the partnership with $39,000 ($573K adj. for inflation).

What followed over the next two years was nothing short of incredible. According to Odlum’s biography, The United States Company grew 17x from 1923 – 1925. What started as a small partnership amongst friends turned into a $660,000 behemoth ($9.47M adjusted for inflation).

Odlum’s two-year CAGR is mind-numbing. If that wasn’t impressive enough, he generated these returns while working full-time as a law clerk!

How did he generate such outsized returns?

Well, he was a deep value investor. He searched for fifty-cent dollars and  scoured every corner of the market. According to documents from the Eisenhower Library, Odlum preferred two kinds of investments:

  • Utility stocks
  • Special situations

He defined a special situation as “an investment […] involving not only primary financial sponsorship, but usually also responsibility for [the] management of the enterprise.” The former lawyer wasn’t interested in flipping a business for a quick buck, either.

Embedded in Odlum’s strategy was the determination to see a special situation through until success, “[We will] stay with the investment until the essentials of the job have been done, and then move on [to] another special situation”.

Between 1925 – 1928, Odlum steadily grew the partnership. By investing in utilities and special situations, The United States Company AUM grew to $6M (over $88M adjusted for inflation). It was around this time that Odlum began sensing euphoria in the market. He smelled a top and he decided it was time for him to act.

In 1929, he rolled his original partnership into a new vehicle, The Atlas Corporation. Wary of a market top, Odlum sold half his assets. He stayed in cash and issued $9M worth of Atlas Corporation securities. With $14M in cash, Floyd sat on his hands. Waiting for the next market crash, which shortly followed.

But his bread and butter during the Depression was buying investment trusts. His strategy was simple. He found investment trusts that had fallen so much their stock prices were trading less than the value of their marketable securities. A good example of this in today’s markets is Manning & Napier (note: I do not hold shares).

He discovered he could buy these trusts, liquidate their assets, and reap large profits for his stakeholders. He was buying dollar bills for $0.60 and he milked this strategy for all it’s worth. He ended up buying and merging investment trust twenty-two times. The newspaper article profiled these dealings:

“He figured out that by buying all the outstanding shares of a particular trust, he was really buying cash or its equivalent at sixty cents on the dollar.”

When he didn’t have the cash to buy the trusts, he sold shares in his own company, Atlas, to fund the purchases. After exchanging his stock for the trust’s stock, Odlum would merge or dissolved the existing trust, keeping the cash and assets within Atlas Corp.

This strategy helped grow his assets to $150M ($2.2B adjusted for inflation).

Between 1929 and 1935, Odlum invested (and controlled) many diverse businesses. He owned Greyhound Bus, a little motion picture studio named Paramount, Hilton Hotels, three women’s apparel companies, uranium mines, a bank, an office building, and an oil company….

…He then pooled together another $39,000 to form his first partnership. That original $39,000 grew to $150M in controlled assets. All that during a span of just twelve years.

The math is incredible. Odlum grew assets 384,515% in a bit over a decade. That’s a 32,042% CAGR for asset growth.

And his early partnership returns are just as impressive. Odlum grew assets from $39,000 to $6M between 1923 – 1929. That’s a cumulative 15,284% return. In other words, Odlum compounded capital at an annual rate of 2,547%.

7. The Complex Case of Floyd Odlum – Frederik Gieschen

This is a piece about Floyd Odlum, a once-upon-a-time famous investor who made his fortune doing distressed deals during the Great Depression. But I want to start with a reflection on my process and the challenges of diving into a story. Here’s why.

I had read some twenty articles about Odlum, and his life seemed straightforward: a young lawyer from Colorado made his way to New York to become a dealmaker in utilities, one of the growth industries of the 1920s. He started an investment fund on the side, raised cash in 1929, and avoided the carnage. Through Atlas Corp., his publicly-listed investment trust, he masterfully acquired other trusts at steep discounts to their undervalued portfolios. By the time that Graham and Dodd published Security Analysis in 1934, Odlum had closed 22 transactions and amassed assets of $150 million. Once wealthy and famous, he married his second wife, racing pilot Jacqueline Cochran, served in the government during WWII, and retired to an estate in Palm Springs where he did deals by the pool and was visited by Eisenhower from time to time.

This story and its lessons seemed so clean. Stand back during the bubble, swing for the fences when opportunity presents itself, case closed.

I knew that Odlum’s records were kept in the Eisenhower Presidential Library. What I did not know until this week was that someone had combed through them all and put together a voluminous draft of a biography. After reading the outline, I reached out to the author, David Clarke, bought a copy of his unpublished work for $19.95, and dug in.

But then I stopped myself. This was supposed to be a short piece. Something that I could churn out on a weekly basis with a moderate amount of research. Reading an unfinished 700-page biography would blow up my schedule — and for what?

However, I quickly realized that the neat little narrative about Odlum’s life was wrong. I had no choice but to at least skim the work if I wanted to learn the real lessons of his life.

For example:

Odlum didn’t cash out before the crash. His utility stocks just didn’t decline as much and made a brief comeback, allowing him to redeploy the capital. It seems he never bothered to correct the origin story of his prescience which was repeated by one paper after another.

He made his early capital trading in utility stocks while being employed at one of the largest utility holding companies and running their foreign M&A efforts. While there is no evidence, and insider trading was not illegal at that time, Clarke suspects that this information edge played a significant role in Odlum’s early success.

Also, taking over investment trusts required convincing the board and key shareholders who often had no interest in selling. And it seems that Odlum was willing to bribe directors to get the deals done.

Around the end of WWII, Odlum made his last successful distressed investments, in oil and defense defense contractors, before departing from his circle of competence. Large bets on an airline, uranium mining, and a motorcycle manufacturer turned into sinkholes for capital in which he kept doubling down. His fortune started to dwindle.

His personal life was rife with tragedy as both of his sons died before him: one of alcoholism, the other of suicide after a string of failed deals and enterprises. In the end, Odlum’s wealth had been lost and spent. He and his wife, famous pilot Jackie Cochran, had to leave their beautiful ranch and live out retirement in a modest home.


Disclaimer: The Good Investors is the personal investing blog of two simple guys who are passionate about educating Singaporeans about stock market investing. By using this Site, you specifically agree that none of the information provided constitutes financial, investment, or other professional advice. It is only intended to provide education. Speak with a professional before making important decisions about your money, your professional life, or even your personal life. Of all the companies mentioned, we currently have a vested interest in Alphabet (parent of Google), Amazon, and Microsoft. Holdings are subject to change at any time.

Why Shareholders Shouldn’t Fret Over Short-term Fluctuations in Business Growth

Businesses can have good years and bad years. But the good ones will eventually keep growing.

As a long-term investor, business fundamentals matter more to me than the near-term fluctuations in stock price. That’s because if a company can grow its free cash flow per share every year, the share price will likely follow suit over the long term.

But this does not mean that a company which has a bad year will be a bad investment.

The truth is that businesses don’t grow in straight lines. Even the fastest growing companies have periods of time when growth decelerated or even turned negative. Business growth depends on a host of factors, some of which are not within the control of companies. 

Let’s take Apple for example. Today, Apple is the largest listed company in the world but its business experienced ups and downs along the way.

The table below shows Apple’s revenue and revenue growth from 2007 to 2021

Source: Apple annual reports

From 2008 to 2021, Apple managed to grow its revenue almost tenfold. But from the right-most column, we can see that the growth rates were very inconsistent. Apple even saw its revenue contract year-on-year in 2016 and 2019. Those declines in revenue did not make Apple a bad company overnight. The iPhone maker managed to bounce back to post much stronger results each time. 

As shown, even one of the most innovative companies in the world can experience inconsistent business growth.

Ultimately, a company that has a capable and innovative management team, great products, and a great value proposition to customers will be able to accelerate growth in the future.

This year, in the current challenging economic environment, many companies that previously had stellar records of growth are either growing more slowly or are experiencing contractions in revenue.

Although this is unpleasant to witness, I think shareholders should focus on what’s causing the deceleration in growth and whether the company can post a rebound. A bad year does not make a trend.

It is in times like this that we need to remember what being a long-term shareholder truly is. Your portfolio companies will not always grow at the same rate each year. There will be some good years and some challenging years. 

So be patient. Focus on the metrics that matter and the quality of the business. Don’t be too quick to write off a company and don’t get too caught up with Wall Street’s obsession with near-term results. 

Disclaimer: The Good Investors is the personal investing blog of two simple guys who are passionate about educating Singaporeans about stock market investing. By using this Site, you specifically agree that none of the information provided constitutes financial, investment, or other professional advice. It is only intended to provide education. Speak with a professional before making important decisions about your money, your professional life, or even your personal life. I have a vested interest in Apple. Holdings are subject to change at any time

What We’re Reading (Week Ending 07 August 2022)

The best articles we’ve read in recent times on a wide range of topics, including investing, business, and the world in general.

We’ve constantly been sharing a list of our recent reads in our weekly emails for The Good Investors.

Do subscribe for our weekly updates through the orange box in the blog (it’s on the side if you’re using a computer, and all the way at the bottom if you’re using mobile) – it’s free!

But since our readership-audience for The Good Investors is wider than our subscriber base, we think sharing the reading list regularly on the blog itself can benefit even more people. The articles we share touch on a wide range of topics, including investing, business, and the world in general.

Here are the articles for the week ending 07 August 2022:

1. Will Thorndike – The Power of Long Holding Periods – Patrick O’Shaughnessy and Will Thorndike

[00:06:28] Patrick: 50’s pretty good. I’d love to dig into this interest that you have in long-term holding periods in as many ways as we can. The TransDigm episode and the conversation you had with Nick and some of the investors there really brings it to life where this is not a simple story, right? There’s a lot going on over a very long period of time. Obviously periods that long are fundamentally unpredictable. You don’t know what’s going to happen in the world. You don’t know what’s going to happen on the team. There’s a crazy amount of unpredictability that gets injected if you’re talking a 20, 30 year time horizon. So how do you deal with that amount of uncertainty and what are the benefits of having that sort of orientation? Is there a litmus test that you apply to the company to say, “This definitely won’t work over five years, but it could over 30.” Is that a positive thing? I would just love to start to understand the reason that you’re so interested in this, given that as you get longer, it just seems harder to predict things.

[00:07:22] Will: In the original Housatonic fund we still owned three of the eight companies that we invested in and the holding period for each of those companies is over 25 years now. And those companies have been very good outcomes, but they’ve also just been incredibly fun and satisfying to work on. You asked that question about how has the book influenced my investing, part of it is I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about those eight companies in the book, those three companies from the earlier Housatonic funds, and then a whole range of other companies I’ve been involved in over a long period of time with the idea that what correlates most highly with persistence in return profile over time? This is really translated into a lot of the work that we’re doing at Compounding Labs, but we’ve really become zeroed in on revenue quality. So the purest form of that is it a recurring revenue business? And if so, what’s the churn profile?

And what we’ve found is there’s disproportionate power in truly low churn businesses. And when I say churn, I mean, logo churn, gross churn, net revenue retention is, there are other metrics that are important as well, but really at the core of it is you start the year with a 100 customers, how many do you end the year with and why are there structural reasons for that? And so if you look across those companies, they tend to have this element of revenue persistence. It’s absolutely the case for TransDigm, TransDigm which I’m sure we’ll get into in some detail, their business is very specialized aviation components, airplane parts. When they get engineered into these core airplane platforms, frames, whether it’s the 737 commercial aircraft or the B-52 and defense aircraft, and those platforms tend to stay in active service for 70 or 75 years.

So if you’re providing a small, critical component part into those airframes, in order to be switched out, it requires FAA approval. It absolutely never happens. And so you have great visibility, predictability on your revenue stream around which you can then do a whole range of other things in terms of how you organize the company, whether you choose a decentralized organizational form, how you think about financing the company. It has a dramatic impact on your capital allocation menu of alternatives. So we’ve intentionally been trying to select for a very specific type of business model at Compounding Labs and also in the work we’re doing at 50X.

[00:09:42] Patrick: Maybe we could just keep digging in until we find a bottom on this concept of revenue quality. What are the most common things that you start to see early in the investigation of a business that indicate that this revenue quality that you’re after may be there? And what is the process like early on as you’re doing one of these deep dives, what kinds of questions are you asking of the business, or the inverse? What kind of things are you looking to actively avoid? Even if there’s, let’s say, low churn?

[00:10:08] Will: It’s one of these things the mathematicians talk about the simplicity on the other side of complexity. And so we’ve spent a lot of time on this over a very long period of time, across a lot of companies. At the end of the day, however, industries that are characterized by very low churn are just interesting places to be looking for these sorts of long holding period platforms. The Porter Framework is incredibly powerful. There are a lot of frameworks you can use to evaluate businesses, but I would argue at the end of the day, if a company has 2% customer churn that’s a very powerful indicator.

So then you have to look at, okay, so what are the reasons for that? And what potential dislocation risk is there that the reasons for that stickiness will change over time. It’s a very rich hunting ground we found, and you tend to get with that profile a lot of other good things. You tend to get relatively simple operations, you tend to get pricing power, you tend to get a high degree of capital efficiency, which is another thing we really focus on. We can talk a little bit about that. But a lot of positive economic attributes tend to correlate with those sorts of revenue profiles. It’s not in and of itself the only criterion, but it’s a very powerful leading indicator. At least for the work we’re doing…

[00:17:45] Patrick: If you think about, I guess the power of that patience early on, and you’re doing these very deep dive looks at companies for the outsiders now for 50 X. What are the kinds of things that you’re uncovering about let’s say TransDigm, since it’s the most recent example. That you think would just be overlooked or underappreciated if you spent, I don’t know, five hours researching the company or some shorter period of time that probably a more traditional analyst new to the company would get familiar in five, 10, 15, 20 hours, something like that. What kinds of things would they miss maybe specifically for TransDigm, but what is the value of this like crazy deep dive, year long type research that you do?

[00:18:23] Will: It’s the peeling back the layers of the onion analogy. So examples of things you learned from diving deeper, pacing is one of them. You need to look really hard to get at that, but their approach to pacing was very different, very differentiated. Another item that’s important to them is they’ve retained the ability to do really small acquisitions as they’ve gotten bigger. That turns out to be a common thread across really long term serial acquirers, really small acquisitions tend to be very, very accretive for these companies over time and so the trap that some serial acquirers fall into is to just focus on larger deals. TransDigm has retained the ability to do a steady diet of these smaller, highly accretive transactions. Again, all done with debt. Game selection, so to speak was really good here. Nick and his team chose an excellent industry, but within that, it’s sort of optimized along every single dimension.

You can look at the decision they made around organizational structure. They chose an extreme what I would call hard form of decentralization and they’ve been able to maintain that as they’ve grown. The details of that, which are in the podcast are all things you would miss on first study, but they’re very important to understanding how sustainable that approach is going forward. The approach to compensation is unique among public companies and it’s tied directly into the decentralized organizational form and it’s just unique in ways that are sort of provocative. It’s entirely performance based, no time based vesting whatsoever and it’s tied to minimum thresholds of compounding for shareholders using a very sensible formula.

The lessons that come out about how to instill, imprint a culture widely in an organization, sort of idea of the simplicity of the value creation triad at TransDigm, which is repeated add in for an item. It’s repeated add in for an item across our podcast, but even more so within the company, this idea that’s productivity, pricing and profitable new business. Those are the only possible sources of value creation and every GM is evaluated on those and every review of every business unit quarterly is centered on those…

...[00:25:09] Patrick: You’ve mentioned this kind of decentralized structure a few times. An example would be helpful of people might think of Berkshire or something where there’s a lot of trust and responsibility and ownership that’s pushed down, maybe IAC. There’s other interesting modern examples of a slim home office, not a lot of G & A the home office and a lot of responsibility at the business unit. Why does this work so well? How does culture permeate across very independent business units? It seems like that would be almost contradictory that unique cultures at the business level, if it was fully decentralized. So I’m just curious to understand a bit more about why you think this works.

[00:25:44] Will: First of all, it’s not a universal panacea at all. So there are lots of companies that have been very successful with cultures and organizational structures that aren’t decentralized. I would argue that Danaher has been wildly successful as a serial acquirer with a culture that is not highly decentralized. It has elements of decentralization, but also importantly, elements of centralization. It’s not a universal solution at all. I think it’s very industry dependent. The characteristics of successful decentralized cultures, I mean, again, you can kind of super, roughly get at it quantitatively by looking at the ratio of people at corporate to total employees, relative to the peer group. So a lot of the companies and the outsiders and the book and TransDigm as examples were just off the charts, they had 10 X, five to 10 X, as many employees, total employees per employee at corporate.

With that is this idea that again, that you’re trying to retain entrepreneurial ethos, that’s an essential priority. So that’s one of the objectives of a decentralized culture. The other is you are lowering your cost and in these cultures, there tends to be an element of frugality scrappiness in the culture. It persists long past the early days. Another company that fits this model very well is Constellation Software, which famously has 500 plus maybe 600 now business units under Mark Leonard. If you’re the CEO of a company, you’re constantly faced with decisions about what to centralize versus keep independent. The tricky thing is in almost every case, the decision to centralize leads to a near term economy, like a quantifiable near term cost savings.

But the reality is that if you do it every time, if you follow that path to its logical conclusion, you tend to end up with a bureaucratic ossified organizational structure and culture. We talk about this with our CEOs all the time. What messes are you willing to step around? What things do you think are important to have reside at corporate and what should remain with the general managers?

[00:27:50] Patrick: I’m curious for an example of a mess that’s worth sidestepping. It would seem counterintuitive that a great business would actively avoid getting involved in a mess. So what’s a good example of that in your experience?

[00:28:01] Will: It’s sort of, what do you want to mandate? Do you want to mandate a certain type of Salesforce compensation program at all of your companies? And it’s this idea. Do you want to mandate it or do you want to suggest it? The other thing that happens in those successful decentralized companies is they tend to regularly assemble the general managers and compare their results and share ideas in a way that naturally promotes positive peer pressure or a little element of competition, but also shares good ideas. That would be an example. You have healthcare insurance, you’re going to make everyone on the same healthcare insurance program or let them choose their own. Even if you get purchasing economies, what’s the flip side? It’s sort of looking at that non-intuitive costs of efficiency sometimes.

2. How Caffeine Became the World’s Favorite Drug – Amy McCarthy, Cynthia Graber, Nicola Twilley and Michael Pollan

Gastropod: Where can you find caffeine molecules in the wild?

Michael Pollan: It’s produced by several plants, most notably the coffee plant, the tea plant. Members of the citrus family produce caffeine also — that’s a curious case — and the kola plant produces it. It was hit upon by plants during their evolution as an insecticide, and also as a chemical that discourages other plants from germinating near you. Plants are very protective of their territory — at least some of them are — and if they drop leaves of a caffeine-producing plant, it’s very hard for other plants to germinate in their presence. But the main purpose [of caffeine] in the life of a plant is to poison insect predators, which it seems to do pretty well.

So when did humans start enjoying this insecticide and in what form?

What’s really interesting about caffeine, at least if you look at it from the point of view of people who live in the West, is that compared to other psychoactive plants that we’ve been involved with for thousands of years — peyote is 6,000 years, alcohol probably goes back even further — caffeine came to human attention fairly late; in the case of coffee, not until the 600s or so. It doesn’t come to the West until the 17th century. Before that, it was known to people in East Africa, in Ethiopia, and the Arabian Peninsula, and it was commonly drunk in the Arab world long before it arrived in Europe.

That’s why it’s a really interesting case study, because we can really look at civilization before and after caffeine. And its effect on Western civilization is profound: It ushers in what amounts to a new form of consciousness, a new way of perceiving the world that was incredibly helpful to things like the scientific revolution and the capitalist revolution. Because it cleared the Western mind, which had been badly clouded by alcohol.

We have very little sense of how drunk people were much of the time, before the advent of caffeine in Europe. Alcohol was something that people drank morning, noon, and night because alcohol was safer than water — you got diseases from water, but the fermentation process and the alcohol itself sanitized the water. So when you read accounts, people were kind of slightly addled all the time.

When caffeine comes in, it doesn’t obviously eliminate the use of alcohol, but it does reduce it. And a lot of people observed this in the 17th century — that, as a result, they’re clear, more focused, able to do things they couldn’t do before. This has a profound effect.

To go back in time a little bit, why were people on the Arabian peninsula consuming it? What did it do for them?

One of the first uses of coffee and tea, interestingly enough, is in the religious context. Sufi monks would use coffee to help them stay awake during long nights of prayer or meditation. And this was true, too, for Buddhists in China, who learned pretty quickly that tea was an aid to meditation. It helps with the focus that you want, and it also keeps you from falling asleep on the cushion. It really begins as a tool for religious observance…

One thing we thought was fascinating was that early scientists were trying to understand caffeine from a worker’s perspective. How were scientists trying to understand how caffeine and energy were related?

This comes a little bit later, around 1900, where you have this new academic discipline concerned with humans and work. Efficiency — kind of a mix of biology and social science — becomes a very important science. And one of the things they were trying to understand is, how was it that caffeine appeared to enhance people’s energy without giving them any calories. There was a pretty strict understanding that energy was a function of calories. But here was a noncaloric drink — leaving aside whether it was sweetened or not — that seemed to give people more energy. This seemed in violation of the laws of thermodynamics, and it looked very much like a free lunch in terms of giving people energy.

It was only later that we came to understand how you got energy from caffeine — that you were essentially borrowing it from the future. It wasn’t additional energy. The way caffeine works is that it, like a lot of drugs, closely resembles a neurotransmitter or neuromodulator. In this case, it’s adenosine, which is a very important neuromodulator that regulates the sleep cycle. Over the course of the day, adenosine levels build up in your body and create what is called sleep pressure. There are receptors dedicated to linking with adenosine. What caffeine does is hijack those receptors. It fits neatly into those receptors and then blocks the adenosine from doing its job.

But it’s not like adenosine goes away. The levels of adenosine in your bloodstream and in your brain continue to build. So when the caffeine is finally metabolized, the adenosine hits you like a ton of bricks because it’s been building up the whole time and you’re more tired than you would have been had you not had the caffeine.

3. A quick look at 2 companies innovating to overcome the short half-life of mRNA: is self-amplifying or endless RNA the future of mRNA vaccines? – Infinitty Capital

Conventional vaccine development takes time, about 10–15 years from initial research to market availability. In this COVID pandemic, mRNA technology has shown a clear advantage of speed over other modalities. However, the technology also faces several technical challenges with no near-term solution.

One drawback with mRNA vaccines is that the amount of antigen produced is dependent on the number of mRNA molecules delivered to the cell. This means that if more antigen wants to be produced a higher dose would be required (this might not be safe). Additionally, because the half-life (number of days before the mRNA is degraded) of mRNA is relatively short, this means that individuals need to get multiple doses to mount an immune response that is potent enough to provide protection.

To address both these issues, scientists have been researching & developing solutions that could increase the production of antigens and improve the half-life of the mRNA molecules.

Let’s look at two technologies that have been developed: self-amplifying RNA and endless RNA.

A self-amplifying RNA (sa-RNA) contains components that allow it to replicate itself in situ (create more copies of itself in the cell, see image below). These components are typically from Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEE), Sindbis virus (SINV), and Semliki forest virus (SFV) and they encode for an RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) complex. Therefore, the sa-RNA not only encodes the instructions for the host cell to make the desired protein, but it is also able to make more copies of the RNA containing those instructions. This technology thus allows for an increase in the copy number of mRNA templates but does little to improve the half-life of the template at the parent template is not being amplified.

Because it can replicate and amplify itself, sa-RNA vaccine can be given in a much lower dose, meaning that each dose can be smaller and cheaper…

…In the world of RNA, there are multiple types of RNA and circular RNA is a particularly intriguing format. In circular RNAs, the free 3′ and 5′ ends found in linear RNA forms are joined together to form a closed loop that appears to render them stable and long-lasting. However, circular RNAs are typically non-coding, meaning that they do not get translated into protein.

Laronde Bio (Private) has managed to engineer a closed-loop RNA into a translatable form of RNA, called Endless RNATM (eRNA). Different from sa-RNA which amplifies itself but is still unstable, eRNA is a versatile synthetic RNA platform that instructs cells to express the desired protein and it is naturally stable.

4. Data Centers Are Facing a Climate Crisis – Chris Stokel-Walker

When record temperatures wracked the UK in late July, Google Cloud’s data centers in London went offline for a day, due to cooling failures. The impact wasn’t limited to those near the center: That particular location services customers in the US and Pacific region, with outages limiting their access to key Google services for hours. Oracle’s cloud-based data center in the capital was also struck down by the heat, causing outages for US customers. Oracle blamed “unseasonal temperatures” for the blackout.

The UK Met Office, which monitors the weather, suggests that the record heat was an augur of things to come, which means data centers need to prepare for a new normal.

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) says there’s a 93 percent chance that one year between now and 2026 will be the hottest on record. Nor will that be a one-off. “For as long as we continue to emit greenhouse gases, temperatures will continue to rise,” says Petteri Taalas, WMO secretary general. “And alongside that, our oceans will continue to become warmer and more acidic, sea ice and glaciers will continue to melt, sea level will continue to rise, and our weather will become more extreme.”

That weather shift will have an impact on all human-made infrastructure—including the data centers that keep our planet’s collective knowledge online.

The question is whether they are prepared. “From my point of view, there is an issue with existing data center stock that’s been built in the UK and Europe,” says Simon Harris, head of critical infrastructure at data center consultancy Business Critical Solutions. But it doesn’t stop there. Forty-five percent of US data centers have experienced an extreme weather event that threatened their ability to operate, according to a survey by the Uptime Institute, a digital services standards agency.

Data center cooling systems are built using a complicated, multi-stage process, says Sophia Flucker, director at UK data center consulting firm Operational Intelligence. This may include analyzing temperature data from a weather station close to the point where the data center will be built.

The problem? That data is historical and represents a time when temperatures in the UK didn’t hit 40 degrees Celsius. “We’re on the fringes of a changing climate,” says Harris.

“It wasn’t that long ago that we were designing cooling systems for a peak outdoor temperature of 32 degrees,” says Jon Healy, of the UK data center consultancy Keysource. “They’re over 8 degrees higher than they were ever designed for.” The design conditions are being increasingly elevated—but data center companies, and the clients they’re working for, operate as profit-driven enterprises. Data from consultancy Turner & Townsend suggests that the cost of building data centers has risen in almost every market in recent years, and construction companies are advised to keep costs down.

“If we went from 32 degrees to 42 degrees, blimey,” says Healy. “You’re having to make everything significantly larger to support that very small percentage of the year” when temperatures rise. “It’s got to be done with caution.”

Data center design companies are starting to consider the historical weather information outmoded and beginning to use projected future temperatures, says Flucker. “Rather than thinking my extreme is 35 degrees, they’re doing projections saying maybe it’s more like 37 or 38 degrees,” she says. “But of course, that’s only as good as how well we can predict the future.”…

…Companies are testing some unusual ways to tackle these challenges: Between 2018 and 2020 Microsoft ran Project Natick, which sunk a data center 117 feet below the sea offshore Scotland to insulate it from temperature fluctuations, among other things. Harris says that building data centers in ever more northern climates could be one way to avoid the heat—by trying to outrun it—but this comes with its own problems. “Developers will be fighting over an ever-dwindling pool of potential sites,” he says, a challenge when edge computing puts data centers ever closer to the point at which data is consumed, often in hotter, urban areas.

 Liquid cooling technology offers a more practical solution. Data centers are currently in an era of air-based cooling, but liquid cooling—where liquid is passed by equipment, transferring the heat and syphoning it away—could be a better way to keep temperatures down. However, it isn’t widely used because it requires a combined knowledge of cooling and IT equipment. “At the moment, these are two very separate worlds,” says Flucker. “There’s definitely some apprehension about making such a big change in how we do things.”

5. Mission impossible: Recovering 3AC’s missing assets – Scott Shuey

When DRB Panama first filed a suit against Three Arrows Capital (3AC), few people thought its claim would throw the massive hedge fund into a death spiral or kick-start a global hunt for hidden assets.

After all, 3AC was a giant, with assets estimated at US$10 billion, according to crypto intelligence firm Nansen. DRB Panama, the operations arms of dutch crypto exchange Deribit, was only seeking US$80 million.

But DRB was just the first in line at the courthouse. Other creditors quickly joined the suit, and it soon became clear that 3AC owed almost US$3.4 billion. To make it worse, the paper trail for the firm’s once incredible portfolio reads like a giant edition of Where’s Waldo?…

…DRB Panama filed the suit against 3AC at the end of June. It went to court in the British Virgin Islands (BVI), where 3AC has been registered since 2012. In under two weeks, the court decided that the crypto hedge fund’s liabilities far exceeded its assets and ordered the company liquidated.

The first thing lawyers had to do was identify what remained of the company’s assets and sell them off. These proceeds are then used to pay creditors, usually netting them pennies on the dollar and helping them pay off legal fees.

But 3AC’s situation isn’t your run-of-the-mill bankruptcy case. According to lawyers that Tech in Asia spoke to, this is the first major liquidation involving massive volumes of cryptocurrencies.

The job of finding 3AC’s crypto assets fell to Christopher Farmer and Russell Crumpler, both from the BVI offices of advisory firm Teneo, who were appointed as liquidators. Tech in Asia reached out to Teneo for comment but did not get a response…

…The majority of 3AC’s assets were in crypto. The company had an unknown number of wallets, though Tech in Asia has seen seven so far that are likely connected to 3AC.

Four wallets identified by Nansen as being associated with the hedge fund held US$50 million in tokens as recently as July 15. One wallet by itself held over US$38 million in stablecoins. Some wallets appeared neglected with only a small number of trades, while some include transactions that liquidators are still trying to explain.

Tech in Asia spoke to analysts, including lawyers and blockchain experts, who say that while some of the assets are sitting in plain sight, some will never be recovered.

Even the crypto assets that investigators do know about could be forever locked away, unless the private keys that can unlock them turn up. For all the world knows, those keys could be with 3AC’s founders, Zhu and Kyle Davies, whose exact whereabouts are currently unknown.

The need to recover cryptocurrencies might be a relatively new problem for the legal community, but lawyers are increasingly hiring blockchain analysts to track these assets.

6. RWH011: The Emotionally Intelligent Investor w/ Daniel Goleman – William Green and Daniel Goleman

William Green (00:12:35):

If I remember rightly Dan, you were actually bankrolled to go off to India and spend time researching this. And then, you came back and you wrote about meditation as an intervention for stress as part of your PhD program in the psychology department. Is that right?

Daniel Goleman (00:12:51):

It is right. But the detail’s a little more interesting. I had a fellowship actually from Ford Foundation that included a year of traveling study abroad, which I actually I didn’t know about. But then, I took advantage of when McClelland fronted for me saying, oh yes, he has serious research to do in India. And that allowed me to hang out with Neem Karoli and Lamas and Sufi and yogis. I was very interested in how meditative practices and related spiritual disciplines transform the mind and the heart.

Daniel Goleman (00:13:21):

And when I came back to Harvard, I thought I wanted to communicate this to other psychologists, but other psychologists weren’t very interested in the day. And, what I ended up doing was showing that meditation was a useful intervention in stress, which by now, decades later has been well established. But then, that was a radical idea.

William Green (00:13:43):

You said at the time that there were only three scientific papers on meditation, right? This must have seemed-

Daniel Goleman (00:13:50):

Well, William actually, by today’s standards, they were all somewhat dubious, they’re anecdotal reports. And two of them were anecdotal reports and one was a non peer reviewed publication. Our standards are higher these days. When I look at my dissertation, given the measurements we had decades ago, I don’t think it would be published today. Now, you would use brain imaging or you’d use much more sophisticated methodology. We didn’t have them back then.

Daniel Goleman (00:14:17):

So I would say this, that the hunch that I had that meditation really can help you be more calm and more focused has been tremendously well-validated. I finished a book published a couple years ago with a friend Richard Davidson, who was also a graduate student with McClelland at Harvard and Richie, as we call him, has gone on to become a world famous neuroscientist, University of Wisconsin. He and I wrote a book looking at the now thousands of peer reviewed articles on meditation, which shows very clearly there is a dose response relationship. The more you do it, the stronger the benefits are.

William Green (00:14:54):

It’s a brilliant book. We’ll hopefully talk much more about meditation later, but this is among other ways of controlling our emotions, both in investing and life. But this is a book called Altered Traits, which is on my table here behind me and I’ll put it in the show notes, but it’s a terrific book. So in a strange way, you were coming back as this exotic creature from India and I think Sri Lanka and coming back into this world that didn’t really know what had hit it, right? That wasn’t particularly interested in Eastern yogis.

William Green (00:15:21):

And so in some sense, is it fair to say that without maybe being conscious of it, you were somehow reconciling or bringing together these two very different worlds, the scientific realm of the Harvard psychology department and the realm of people like Ram Dass and Neem Karoli Baba, and their world of Eastern spirituality, where they’d been sitting around watching the brain for the last 2000 years. And, I think believed that you could change the brain, whereas Western psychology, am I right in thinking believed it was much more fixed?

Daniel Goleman (00:15:51):

Well, yeah, at the time when I came back, we didn’t have the understanding in neuroscience of neuroplasticity, that came much later. Neuroplasticity says, basically the more you exercise brain circuits, the stronger the connectivity between them becomes. This is now very well established. Then, no one even entertained that idea. Brain science was just beginning to emerge back in the day. And not only that, there was a lot of skepticism about the east when I wrote the book. So as you point out, I couldn’t really find a job that suited me in academia. After getting my PhD, I went into science journalism. I ended up at the New York Times and writing in science.

Daniel Goleman (00:16:32):

And, it was then that I wrote the book, Emotional Intelligence, which I was really thinking of people in the business world, in the education world. And the message was not one of, in Asia, they completely transformed their brains in mind, it was more, this will help you because the Western culture is very pragmatic. It’s like, what use is this? Can I focus better? Can I stay calm even in a turbulent situation? Think of an investor, your investment fails and all of a sudden you’re overwhelmed by fear or anxiety. How do you handle that?

Daniel Goleman (00:17:10):

Well, emotional intelligence speaks to that. And how do you stay focused, amidst all the distractions that we have today, emotional intelligence speaks to that. So I’ve really made a point of being more pragmatic, even though the way I think about it is deeply informed by what I’ve been exploring from Asia.

William Green (00:17:31):

So in a sense, you almost had to conceal the more spiritual part of your journey, because in a way it was so unconventional in those days, whereas now it’s probably much easier for you to talk about that openly.

Daniel Goleman (00:17:44):

Well, yeah, I think that the culture has changed enormously. Mindfulness is everyday news now. You mentioned I was in Sri Lanka, that was on a post-doc and I went to study with a monk named [Nana Panika Terra 00:17:58] who wrote about the mind and how to work with it and how to transform it, based on fifth century texts that were written as manuals for meditators. Nana Panika who actually was German by birth, but had been a monk since the twenties was a scholar of poly. And so he had access. And what I realized William, was there’s the psycho technology, which is well known in Asia, well established, it’s been functioning for thousands of years, literally, and that we know nothing about it in Western psychology until very recently. Very recently.

Daniel Goleman (00:18:35):

So, when I started looking into it, it was unknown. I faced a lot of actual open hostility about it, which probably encouraged me to be a little bit sub rosa at the beginning because things had not changed. And it may be that I and a host of other people had a hand in changing it. In India, I met someone named Joseph Goldstein who became one of the first major teachers of what’s called insight meditation and a whole generation. Sharon Salzberg, another name in that world.

Daniel Goleman (00:19:07):

I met Sharon and Delhi and I told her, hey, there’s this meditation course. So she went to Boga and learned what she now teaches. So, I guess I get some karma credit for all the good Sharon is.

William Green (00:19:17):

She’s an amazing teacher.

Daniel Goleman (00:19:19):

Yeah. But what I’m saying is that when we all started, this was very new in the west. And of course that small group can’t take credit for the transformation, but was part of it. And now it’s much easier to talk about these things…

…William Green (00:57:39):

And again, I think Sharon Salzberg teaches that on the 10% Happier app, which I hate to be a sheal for. And I’m not being paid to be a sheal for it, but it really helped me. And I think that it’s a very helpful app. You have an extraordinary thing in Altered Traits where you talk about Mingyur Rinpoche, one of these great Tibetan yogis and what was going on in his brain when he was doing compassion meditation. This is the deep end of the pool. Can you talk a bit about what actually we saw in his brain?

Daniel Goleman (00:58:06):

So Richie Davidson flew these yogis over from Nepal and India and Europe. One by one. One of them was this Yogi Mingyur Rinpoche who at the time had done 62,000 lifetime hours of meditation. Well, if you do a traditional Tibetan three year, three month, three day retreat, you get credit for about 10,000 hours. So this guy had done huge amounts. And when they asked him to do a compassion meditation, the circuitry in the brain for that increased in a moment by 7 to 800%. Never been seen before in neuroscience, such a voluntary jump in the activation of a brain circuit. And, this is a circuitry for compassion. And so I thought it was pretty astounding.

William Green (00:58:51):

Yeah. I think one of the things that’s so remarkable that your book shows is that we are seeing scientifically this thing that people are sitting in caves for thousands of years in Tibet and the like, figured out experientially. And so you no longer need to kind of sound like you are a woo woo mystic, you can actually show what’s going on in the brain. And I see this as a woo woo mystic myself. So I’m not dismissive of that.

Daniel Goleman (00:59:16):

Here’s the thing, I kind of have a foot in both worlds, in the world of Asian spirituality and methodology and the world of science and psychology and so on. And at first, there was a huge gap between those worlds. But as science has investigated these practices, it’s finding, oh, you know what, this works. And it seems to me there’s an ancient psycho technology that’s been well preserved in many Asian cultures. It’s only now becoming known in the west. I think it’s very important.

William Green (00:59:50):

It’s interesting because Buffet’s partner, Charlie Munger, who’s this 98 year old problematic genius who studies all these different fields will say, I observe what works and doesn’t work and why. And this is one of those things where it’s really interesting. You observe it in the laboratory, you observe it in people’s behavior. And you’re like, oh, it works. And so, I’m struck by how many very successful investors meditate on this podcast. I talked with Ray Dalio about the fact that he’s been doing transcendental meditation 20 minutes or 40 minutes a day for 50 years, basically. And so, here you have the guy who’s made more money as a hedge fund manager than anyone else in history. And I think that’s interesting.

William Green (01:00:29):

He claims that it also makes him much more creative. But, he talks about amygdala hijackings. Actually, he talks about the fact that he’s less likely to get swamped by emotion. And he’s gone through a great deal, as we spoke about in my interview with him, he lost his son a year or so ago. And so he’s dealt with extreme pain. And so the fact that meditation has helped to make him more resilient, more clear headed. I think it’s curious when these pragmatists like Dalio start to adopt something that used to seem fringe.

Daniel Goleman (01:00:59):

Well, that’s the culture shift that I’ve seen over the last several decades is that people like Ray Dalio are doing it as a matter of fact, not a big deal. It’s, I go to the gym and I meditate, it’s self care.

William Green (01:01:12):

And I think if I remember rightly that he said that anyone at his firm Bridgewater, they would pay for them to go meditate, for them to take transcendental meditation and training, which is very interesting that they would regard it as sufficiently a competitive advantage that they would actually bankroll it.

7. Reality Catches Up – Morgan Housel

An asset you don’t deserve can quickly become a liability

Maybe your portfolio surged during a bubble, your company hit a monster valuation, or you negotiated a salary that exceeds your ability. It feels great at the time. But reality eventually catches up, and demands repayment in equal proportion to your delusions – plus interest.

These debts are easy to ignore because they are often repaid in the form of self-doubt and crushed morale. But they are very real, and when you understand their power you become careful what you wish for…

…WeWork is currently worth $3.5 billion, which is a monster success for a 12-year-old company – it’s probably in the top 0.0001% of business successes. But of course no one feels that way. The company was worth $47 billion a few years ago, and it was trying to go public at a $100 billion valuation, which no one could justify but felt fun because those were the times we were living in. So by comparison today’s valuation feels like a corporate bellyflop – embarrassment, employees whose stock options expired worthless, and morale shattered as it laid off thousands of people. Every cent of valuation it didn’t deserve was a debt that came due without mercy. What should be a company celebrating its enormous success is instead a company whose head hangs low and whose former employees hold a grudge – that’s the debt coming due…

…I knew people during the housing bubble who went from earning $8 an hour delivering pizza to $250,000 a year selling subprime mortgages. Of course reality came due, and their income went back to normal. But not a single one of them considered their flash of money to be a lucky windfall – in every instance it became a number to anchor to, a source of bitterness and self-doubt when reality returned. And in every instance the money funded a lifestyle that eventually had to be surrendered, which became a point of social shame, particularly when a spouse and kids were involved. The money didn’t feel like a windfall because it wasn’t – it was a hidden form of lifestyle debt that abruptly came due.


Disclaimer: The Good Investors is the personal investing blog of two simple guys who are passionate about educating Singaporeans about stock market investing. By using this Site, you specifically agree that none of the information provided constitutes financial, investment, or other professional advice. It is only intended to provide education. Speak with a professional before making important decisions about your money, your professional life, or even your personal life. Of all the companies mentioned, we currently have a vested interest in Alphabet (parent of Google). Holdings are subject to change at any time.

The Truths About Investing In Stocks During Recessions

How stocks have historically performed during a recession.

Note: An earlier version of this article was first published in The Business Times on 26 July 2022

Lately, the dreaded “R” word has been making its rounds. Yes, I’m talking about a recession, a risk that is not confined to any specific country. In fact, in early July, the chief of the International Monetary Fund, Kristalina Georgieva, warned that a global recession cannot be ruled out. 

The thing is, recessions are not within our control. Yet, as investors, we are affected by it. This begs the question, what should stock market investors do now that the possibility of a recession looms in the background? 

I don’t have a panacea, but what I can offer are historical perspectives – truths, if you will – about stocks and recessions. The US stock market is a great case study. According to the Visual Capitalist, the USA accounts for nearly a quarter of global economic output while its stocks make up around 40% of the total global stock market capitalisation based on data from the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association.

1. What happened to stocks in past recessions

A common refrain I’ve heard over the years is that stock prices are bound to fall during a recession. But the data says otherwise.

Ben Carlson is the Director of Institutional Asset Management at Ritholtz Wealth Management. According to his research shown in his recent blog post titled Timing a Recession vs. Timing the Stock Market, there have been 12 recessions in the USA since World War II (WWII). 

The average return for the S&P 500 – a broad barometer for US stocks – when all these recessions took place was 1.4%. A positive number. Of course, there were some horrible returns within the average. For example, the recession that stretched from December 2007 to June 2009 saw the S&P 500 fall by 35.5%. On the other end, there were some decent returns. For the recession between July 1981 and November 1982, the S&P 500 gained 14.7%.

Hence, it’s not a given that stocks will definitely fall during a recession.

2. What happened if you stayed invested in stocks through past recessions

If you are thinking of selling your stocks during a recession, you may want to think again.  

Carlson’s research showed that If you had invested in the S&P 500 six months prior to all of the 12 recessions since WWII and held on for 10 years after each of them, you would have earned a positive return on every occasion. Furthermore, the returns were largely rewarding.

The worst return was a total gain of 9.4% for the recession that lasted from March 2001 to November 2001. The best was the first post-WWII recession that happened from November 1948 to October 1949, a staggering return of 555.7%. After taking away the best and worst returns, the average was 257.2%. Not too shabby!

In short, holding onto stocks in the lead up to, through, and in the years after a recession, has historically produced good returns most of the time.

3. What happened if you avoided stocks during past recessions

Some of you reading this may also wonder: What if I tried to side-step a recession? What if I had perfect knowledge of when a recession would start and end, and I simply sold stocks at the start of a recession and bought back in at the end? The answer: You would do poorly. 

Michael Batnick, the Director of Research at Ritholtz Wealth Management, has the facts to prove it. In his October 2019 blog post titled 12 Charts You Ought to See Before the Next Recession, Batnick showed that a dollar invested in US stocks at the start of 1980 would be worth north of $78 around the end of 2018 if you had simply held the stocks and did nothing. 

But if you invested the same dollar in US stocks at the start of 1980 and expertly side-stepped the ensuing recessions to perfection, you would have less than $32 at the same endpoint. 

Said another way, avoiding recessions flawlessly would have caused your return to drop by more than half.

4. What bottomed first in past recessions – stocks or the economy?

I know it’s tempting to sell your stocks if you think the economy has room to fall further. But this idea is flawed.

Here’s what the data shows: Stocks tend to bottom before the economy does. Let’s go back to the three most recent recessions in the USA prior to 2020’s pandemic. These would be the recessions that lasted from July 1990 to March 1991, from March 2001 to November 2001, and from December 2007 to June 2009.

During the first recession in this sample, data on the S&P 500 from Yale economist Robert Shiller showed that the US S&P 500 bottomed in October 1990. In the second episode, the S&P 500 found its low 15 months after the end of the recession, in February 2003. This phenomenon was caused by the aftermath of the dotcom bubble’s bursting. For the third recession, the S&P 500 reached a trough in March 2009, three months before the recession ended. 

In summation, even if you are right today that the economy would be in worse shape in the months ahead, stocks may already have bottomed or be near one. Only time will tell. 

5. Did companies manage to grow in past recessions?

A recession is a period of time when a country’s economy is in decline. And when the economy is in poor health, it’s easy to think that all businesses are either suffering or are at best stagnating. But this isn’t always true for all companies. Some businesses can thrive. 

The recession that lasted from December 2007 to June 2009 was one of the worst in the USA’s modern history. The country’s real gross domestic product fell by 4.3% from a peak in the fourth quarter of 2007 to a bottom in the second quarter of 2009. The unemployment rate also spiked from 5% in December 2007 to 10% in October 2009.

But while the US economy was in trouble, the revenue of software-as-a-service pioneer Salesforce grew by 51% in FY2008 (fiscal year ending January 2008), 44% in FY2009, 21% in FY2010, and 27% in FY2011. Salesforce is not the only one. iPhone manufacturer Apple saw its revenue rise by 27% in FY2007 (fiscal year ending September 2007), 53% in FY2008, 14% in FY2009, and 52% in FY2010. Booking Holdings, the owner of Booking.com and Agoda.com, enjoyed revenue growth of 26% in 2007, 34% in 2008, 24% in 2009, and 32% in 2010.

Hence, investors in these three US-based companies had nothing to worry about even during one of the worst recessions for the country in modern history. Their businesses kept growing at an admirable clip, which meant that their underlying economic values were increasing rapidly too.

Parting words

When we’re on the precipice of a recession, it may feel like tomorrow will never get better. But brighter days eventually do come. As one of my favourite finance writers, Morgan Housel, once wrote: “Every five to seven years, people forget that recessions occur every five to seven years.” Recessions are normal. Par for the course.

Now we circle back to the question I posed at the beginning: “What should stock market investors do now with the possibility of a recession looming in the background?” You have history’s responses. The next step is up to you. 


Disclaimer: The Good Investors is the personal investing blog of two simple guys who are passionate about educating Singaporeans about stock market investing. By using this Site, you specifically agree that none of the information provided constitutes financial, investment, or other professional advice. It is only intended to provide education. Speak with a professional before making important decisions about your money, your professional life, or even your personal life. I have an interest in Apple and Salesforce. Holdings are subject to change at any time.

What We’re Reading (Week Ending 31 July 2022)

The best articles we’ve read in recent times on a wide range of topics, including investing, business, and the world in general.

We’ve constantly been sharing a list of our recent reads in our weekly emails for The Good Investors.

Do subscribe for our weekly updates through the orange box in the blog (it’s on the side if you’re using a computer, and all the way at the bottom if you’re using mobile) – it’s free!

But since our readership-audience for The Good Investors is wider than our subscriber base, we think sharing the reading list regularly on the blog itself can benefit even more people. The articles we share touch on a wide range of topics, including investing, business, and the world in general.

Here are the articles for the week ending 31 July 2022:

1. Matthew Ball – A Manual to The Metaverse – Patrick O’Shaughnessy and Matthew Ball

[00:09:15] Patrick: Can you just define what you mean by the metaverse and what you think a good working definition is that allows us to test things to say, is this thing that everyone’s excited about, or is it not? It seems obvious from our many conversations that the trend has been towards more digital engagement and participation. And that somehow, people think of the metaverse as the natural endpoint of this, where there’s more sensory immersion in some virtual world, there’s more navigability, there’s less walled gardens. How do you define the metaverse in its simplest definition so that we can all work off the same idea?

[00:09:50] Matthew: A live 3D version of the internet as we know today is the best and simplest way to think about this. Why? Because it not only explains how it’s a little bit different visually experientially. It keys into some of what you just mentioned, which is how it might be more intuitive. Of course, we didn’t evolve for thousands of years to tap glass, to interact with 2D interfaces, static information. We explore, we immerse in 3D. It’s a much better interface for many tasks. Far from all, but many tasks. But most importantly, we take for granted the interoperability of the internet and how important that is to everything we do and create. We don’t think about this question of the New York Times can’t link to Washington Post. We don’t even think about the idea that you can’t link directly to the specific piece of content on the Washington Post. We don’t concern ourselves with, “Darn. I took a photo on my iPhone that I stored to iCloud, and the file format therefore doesn’t work on Facebook.” You can take a photo, upload it to Facebook, right click save as, put it onto Snapchat, screenshot it on Snapchat, upload it to TikTok. So we have this vast network that manages hierarchy, communications, reference, the transference of data across different autonomous systems coherently, safely, consistently. And then file formats and conventions that run university. We have a lot of 3D stuff today. There’s a tremendous amount of time being spent in 3D platforms. What we don’t have is a scalable network that actually interconnects. And as we’ve learned from the global economy, world trade, as we’ve learned with the internet at large, the utility that comes from that is extraordinary.

[00:11:26] Patrick: Can you say a few words about the state of the engines behind three dimensional creativity or three dimensional output? You already mentioned Unity, and you already mentioned Unreal being the two dominant engines that people might be familiar with. But maybe paint a more vivid picture of the history here. And if 3D is literally in the definition of metaverse, it stands to reason that the engine that produces and allows people to produce beautiful 3D outputs is really, really important or central. Can you give us the details on the state of the world today as it relates to 3D engines?

[00:12:00] Matthew: Sure. I love this question. And let me actually start answering it by talking about the state of the world decades ago. I like to position the metaverse as a fourth era of computing and networking. The first was the mainframe era began in the 1950s for the most part, ran until the late 1970s. Let’s keep in mind, mainframe still exists. It’s actually a bigger business than ever. But it was largely superseded in the late 1970s, early 1980s by the advent of the personal computer, Apple, Microsoft, and TCPIP the internet. By the mid 2000s, we hit the mobile and cloud era. And now we’re starting to talk about the next era in the metaverse. What’s fascinating about the metaverse in contrast to the preceding three waves is where it seems to be starting. Seems to be starting as you’ve identified in gaming, consumer leisure. In a small segment in consumer leisure. People like to talk about gaming being larger than film. It’s a bit of a misconception. You’re talking about the theatrical box office. That’s about 40 billion, but of course the video industry’s over 600 billion, gaming’s still around 200. When you take a look at those prior waves, mainframes started with mega enterprises. The internet began with government. Most of the early adopters were again, large corporations. Mobile began with enterprise and government as well. Each of these waves either never came to consumer leisure as was the case in mainframes or came there last. YouTube 2005, Netflix 2007, streaming wars 2019. Consumer leisure tends to be last.

So why is it that the metaverse seems to be starting in the other direction? The answer relates to constraints. Constraints always define a technology from inception to its termination. The constraints for computing and networking in those prior waves was often processing power, broadband speeds, bandwidth, etc. And the result was you couldn’t do much live. You couldn’t share a photo with your grandmother. You couldn’t stream video. But certainly, you could send a Blackberry message in the early mobile era. You could send an unstructured data file or CSV if you were a banker or accountant. So we needed substantial improvements in bandwidth and processing power for these new technologies to have consumer applicability. But the constraints that affected simulation, real-time rendered simulation, game engines was fidelity. It didn’t have the bandwidth or the processing power to do a rich simulation. And what that meant is the government had very little use for it. You couldn’t actually do a military simulation with fake fire. But it was fine for pong. It was fine for space invaders, Legend of Zelda. So we’ve spent decades with the primary area of development of game engines, of real-time rendering and GPU chips coming from consumer leisure. What has happened in the past few years is we have reached a point where the maturing and sophistication of these game engines coupled with the wide deployment of powerful processors means that that applicability has expanded. Automotive companies as I mentioned are using Unreal so that you can help drive your car. You can use LIDAR to scan the environment around you in your Range Rover, understand how to navigate, and then actually pre-drive your vehicle. You can live simulate a building.

And what has happened is the companies that happen to have that expertise come from gaming. Nvidia’s Jensen Huang. Of course, Nvidia’s now the seventh largest company globally. Known to many investors for several years, but largely under the radar compared to most other top 10 companies was founded in the early 1990s, not long after Snow Crash was published. And Jensen has said they never wanted to be a video game company, but focusing on gaming was the best strategic choice they’ve ever made because it had three unique attributes. It was large, it was fast changing, and it was technologically intensive. Many industries like pharmaceuticals have two of those attributes, but they don’t change that quickly. So the mixture of the intensity of these problems, the rapid improvements per Moore’s law has meant that almost all these expertise sit here. Lastly, when you take a look at what this means for the metaverse today, Microsoft’s Activision Blizzard acquisition, the largest big tech acquisition in history, 75 billion in enterprise value. Satya’s press release, the final line of the very first paragraph says it provides the building blocks for the metaverse, the foundations for the metaverse. And a lot of that comes down to game engines.

[00:16:25] Patrick: If you think about the role of IP in the bootstrapping of the first metaverses, what comes to mind? I remember from our first conversation going really deep on Disney, and Marvel, and the incredible gravity and momentum that great IP universes allow for. And that very often, technology supports IP and not the other way around. That ultimately IP is the thing people show up for. They want to do something, they want to watch something, they want to be immersed in something. Activision Blizzard maybe is a good example here, but what is the role of existing or new IP as it relates to speeding up this change?

[00:17:01] Matthew: As with anything that we want to do, any place that we want to go, there’s a reason why Disneyland is more fun than six flags is. If there’s a place that we want to go, especially in a consumer leisure environment, it stands to reason that we want to go to the places filled with the stories and characters that we love. This has classically been Horizon World’s fundamental problem. It’s technically more robust than it is popular. It has better distribution than many other platforms. It doesn’t have content, partly because it doesn’t have as many developers, but in particular, the other platforms have been populated by produced in UGC IP for years now. If we’re to go to a fantastical place, want that to be the place populated with the things we love. This isn’t new. Of course, medieval gardens are adored with gargoyles and giant statues of lions because it provides immersion. We don’t just want to walk down hedgerows. We want to feel like we’re in the place we imagine. This is why many come to the inevitable conclusion that another medium full entertainment or another technological wave which has IP in it is naturally going to advantage those that have the most resident IP today. Disney does not have a gaming business. I think that remains a problem. Mostly because they don’t have the capabilities for it. Whether or not they publish their own titles is a different question, but we’re going to want to live in Disney IP…

[00:26:53] Patrick: As I think about my own usage of Oculus, and I’m a person that wants all this stuff to happen. The idea of the Ready Player One haptic suit, and omnidirectional treadmill, and everything that goes into it, this full immersive experience just sounds fun. I was a video game junkie as a kid. Spent countless hours in some of these virtual worlds. I’m inclined to want to do it and be an early adopter of the technologies. I think I had one of the first Oculus. And when I put it on, what stands out as the Star Wars game, I’m forgetting the name of it. But really being blown away looking around like this is wild. And obviously, it’s only going to get more and more perfectly rendered. I had the problem of getting a headache or a stomach ache when I moved artificially, which I want to hear about what you think about that. But at the same time as blown away as I was, I really haven’t spent much time with Oculus on. And I’m curious if my experience as someone prone to want this to happen who tried it but really didn’t last, is that indicative of the broader experience so far with Oculus? What do you think the reasons for something like that might be?

[00:27:50] Matthew: I want to hit a few different points here, because I think we’re really talking about the suitability of alternatives that challenges with the current technology. And then the likely progression of said technology. Neal Stephenson, who of course coined the term metaverse. So he didn’t originate the idea that spans nearly a century, has talked about the fact that yes, his conception of the metaverse was primarily an AR and VR experience. And he highlights the fact that that was a reasonable, if not the best hypothesis at the time, especially in the science fiction community. But he’s highlighted that technology is path dependent. What we found out in the decade sense is that actually, hundreds of millions can adequately navigate 3D space with WASD on their keyboard. Forward, left, right, and back. Billions can navigate 3D space and choose to do so on a monthly basis using a touch screen. He says that he no longer considers that essential. It may be the best, most popular preferred way eventually. But it’s not a requirement. And if you see Tim Sweeney at Epic shows very little interest, at least today in those new devices. The second part is talking about the experiences that you’ve mentioned. We have a good sense of what is likely to be required for min spec, for mainstream adoption of VR hardware. And I go into this a lot in my book. We tend to think for example that we need a refresh rate of 120 hertz on a VR headset. That’s 120 frames per second. We probably need an 8K display. And I’m going to put aside other concerns for now like battery life, the weight of the device, the heat generated by the device, the number of additional sensors and tracking cameras we need, which constrain all available resources, but just 120 hertz and 8K display. Right now, the top of the line devices typically do 90 hertz and 4K.

So we need a roughly 3X increase in the number of rendered pixels per second, just to hit min spec where people aren’t suffering from nausea. You then layer in these devices have essentially late PS3, early PS4 graphics. Their computational load is much lower. Call of Duty: Warzone is limited to PC and gaming consoles only, but in exchange, the graphics are great. You can have 150 users. Fortnite plays on most devices, but as a result, you can only have 100 users. Free Fire from Garena is designed to work on all low end Androids. And as a result, it only has 50 players. Population one on the Oculus, their battle royale has only 18 players. So now we have a device that has half the resolution we want, two thirds of the frame rate that we want. It has PS3, PS4 graphics. And you can only have 18 other users. And then again, it probably has one eighth the sensors that we want, one third the battery life. It’s probably 25% too heavy. There’s a lot that we need to solve for these just to become min spec for nausea and usage. And then on top of that of course, we need these devices to be more than min spec. They need to feel better. The rejection of sensors, which is unique to VR. You can multitask on your PlayStation, you know whether or not your house is on fire. Your kids are upset. Your dog is getting into trouble. Probably raises that above min spec. We’re getting there. We’ve roughly doubled resolution density. We’ve doubled processing power since 2017. So those who say we’ve been here before, people don’t like VR don’t appreciate the headway that we’ve made in these devices. But it’s a lot like GPAs. It’s easier to go from a 3 to a 3.4 than it is to go from a 3.6 to a 3.8. And we saw this recently as medic kicked out their releases for AR devices again, for the third time this decade. This is a hard tech problem…

[00:37:07] Patrick: This idea of everything talking to everything brings up one of the most interesting topics in all of this, which is the word interoperability. This word has gone from no one ever saying it to everyone saying it in five years. Both because of the metaverse and this next era of computing, but also because of blockchains, interoperability means a lot, is critical. No one really knows what the hell they’re talking about it seems like when they bring it up. But it brings to mind things like standards and protocols. Again, the boring base layer stuff that makes the modern world possible. Whether it’s visa, or TCP/IP, or SMTP it, some of these things you and I have talked about before. Can you talk about why interoperability gets its own chapter in your book, why this is such a key critical concept? And who might actually sponsor or start these things? Because many times in history, they’re not for profit. It’s a protocol. So walk us through this concept, because it seems like it’s at the bottom of everything.

[00:38:00] Matthew: The fundamental premise of interoperability is a little bit foreign to the average person because we take for granted how interoperable online existence is today. You have a common identity at least in some way, shape, or form that you can take into multiple different avenues. Your content, the content that you create is inherently interoperable because the file formats are relatively standard and embraced everywhere. Ping runs everywhere. JPEG runs everywhere. Every unit of content we create today essentially runs everywhere else. Your text, your audio, your video, not just an image can be uploaded to every different environment. And in fact, the worldwide web itself works because of elements of TCP/IP, but also other consortiums and working groups of feathers that maintain a cohesive hierarchy or IP address, the domain registrar system. This is important not just for the continuity of the web, the cohesion of your personal experience, the persistence of things done online. But they’re also important for competition. If you don’t like your web hosting company, you can just move your information to another. You can change domain all the time. So we should think of interoperability as important to content creation, as important to user rights, as important to the actual thriving economy of the internet. And you’re right to talk about the ways in which those are not managed by a central for profit body. But ultimately, we can reduce it to a simple idea. It’s expanding the network effects of everything that you do online, but that doesn’t exist in the virtual world. Roblox individual worlds can identify one another, but they have no ability to understand, least of all, even identify another virtual world. Be it in Fortnite, an educational forum, a training sample.

Communicating from one live services suite to another doesn’t really exist either. There’s no consistent way to store information. And least of all, the ability to take a 3D object whether it’s created for industrial purposes for a simulation. Northrop Grumman wants to test an engine and then see how it performs in a specific environment. They don’t really have a cohesive way to take that object from one simulation to another. So this question about interoperability is really about expanding the utility, practical applicability of everything in the metaverse. And I’ll drop this down to a simpler example. The world economy of course runs on standards, defacto and otherwise. And it’s essential to reducing the friction to all transactions to increasing the utility of all investments and purchases. What are those standards? USD is one. English is another. The metric system is a third. The intermodal shipping container. You’ll note of course that there are often many other standards. We also use the Euro. We also use German. There are multiple different types of shipping containers, not all intermodal. Metric and imperial sit side-by-side, often in the same country, often within the same business. So we shouldn’t think of interoperability from a panacea perspective. And this is one of the flaws I’m often asked, can we ever have interoperability? Yes, we’ll never have it perfectly, never have it exhaustively. The world doesn’t work that way. The internet doesn’t work that way. We still have private networks, offline networks. We still have paid and proprietary protocols. You often need an installer to access experience A or B, and there are often paywalls. But making it so that every 3D object, every experience, more purchases can move, can endure, have utility beyond that first creation is going to be key to actually building up this economy.

[00:41:45] Patrick: Help me understand how we can bridge that gap of something I build, own, earn, achieve in some place that I want to bring to some place else. If I think about games, and maybe that’s the wrong way to think about it. The object I win and spend hours looking for in Diablo is really not relevant in Fortnite, is really not relevant in Sims. It seems like even though there are all these great worlds, the idea of bringing stuff between them is hard to imagine because the worlds themselves are so different. So how do you think this happens? How does Roblox get connected to Fortnite? How far down do we have to go to build the bridge?

[00:42:23] Matthew: One of the challenges with interoperability discussions is that we often focus on the easiest to understand, but arguably the least useful example. And that is taking your Peely banana skin from Fortnite and bringing it into Call of Duty. There are so many problems with that. The engines of course are different. And I just want to highlight how different these engines often are. Unity and Unreal actually have different coordinate systems for X, Y, Z. They store information Y and Z differently. Now that’s easy for a computer to manage. You just have a translator. It works the same way that English to German does. You say let’s swap Y and Z. But if they have fundamental disagreements on coordinates, you can imagine how sophisticated some of the disagreements are. That naturally leads game designers in particular to say, “Why does that matter?” Putting aside the economic considerations, do you want to be appealing in Call of Duty? Is it cohesive with the aesthetic? Does it fit in a doorframe? Frankly, the Peely file format might be stored in a way that makes it three stories tall in Call of Duty. When you look at my metaverse definition, I talk about the continuity of data from 3D objects to entitlements, payments, communications, history. The object itself, the avatar is probably the least important element of that. We’re a little bit more concerned with when you do an educational exercise in school, 3D simulation in school is probably one of the most important innovations that we can see. We’ve learned that distanced education is terrible. We have long expected the advent of the internet and digital devices to see productivity improvements in education. Haven’t happened. We know that multiple choice is terrible, that playing a YouTube video is terrible, that Zoom school is terrible. But the ability to make real The Magic School Bus is intuitive.

I grew up making volcanoes out of paper mache, baking soda, and vinegar. Now, you can start to do that in realistic simulations where you are personally agitating the magma being ejected into the atmosphere, and seeing the time lapse implications on the environment. Building a Rube Goldberg machine to learn physics, rather than just watching a video of a NASA commander drop a feather and hammer on the moon. You can take that Rube Goldberg machine to the moon, to Mars and Venus. But of course, we believe that some form of interoperability or continuity of what you’ve done, and what that information is, and who you are is essential. We’re not going to have the same school pack for chemistry as for English. So it’s not as important that I take my banana skin from A to B, it’s more important that I can consistently manage my profile. But all of this requires formats, more importantly conventions, a whole bunch of other buzzwords. Frameworks of frameworks, systems of systems. But how does it emerge? It emerges in a well known way, the same way that USD and English did. It’s often network effects reiterated the incentives of changing systems. But again, never perfectly. Last week, we had the establishment by the Khronos foundation, the metaverse standards form 28 companies. Many notable omissions, Apple, Google, many other content providers. But Epic, and Meta, and so forth, Qualcomm all saying, “Let’s start to standardize our roadmap. We have to understand what we can build towards for the collective utility.” That’s the easiest step. No one has to make a sacrifice to their tech roadmap. No one has to pick a standard they didn’t like. But that formation period has already begun. And even Roblox has started talking extensively about their need for their developer economy to start to figure this out.

2. CRISPR Technology for DNA Editing Might Raise Cancer Risk, Israeli Scientists Warn – Gid’on Lev

But Tel Aviv University researchers are highlighting the risks of CRISPR, which stands for clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats. The scientists examined how the technology affects the immune system’s white blood cells – T cells – and found that some of the patient’s cells had chromosomal truncations – a loss of DNA fragments, a characteristic of cancer.

The first trial approved for using CRISPR to treat people was done by researchers under Prof. Carl June at the University of Pennsylvania. The scientists removed T cells from a healthy donor and changed the so-called cell receptor on them to better identify cancer cells.

The researchers also used CRISPR to destroy the original cell receptor so that the engineered T cells wouldn’t recognize and mistakenly attack cells of the recipient and another molecule that cancer cells use to exhaust T cells. The engineered cells were injected into cancer patients whose cancers did not respond to any other treatment.

The results were published in 2020 in the journal Science: The engineered cells survived in the patient’s body for a long period and homed in on the cancer cells, even though they didn’t destroy the growth entirely.

The general consensus in the field was that after CRISPR’s excising of undesired parts of DNA, the cell carries out repair. In the new study, the researchers conducted a test to determine if indeed this repair mechanism works perfectly or that maybe repair doesn’t always occur, and when it does, it’s not always complete.

To examine the technology that presents this risk, the scientists reconstructed the trial conducted at the University of Pennsylvania. They used CRISPR to cut the genome of T cells in exactly the same places where June and his colleagues did: at chromosomes 2, 7 and 14. (Each human cells has 23 pairs of chromosomes.)

They then analyzed thousands of cells and found that up to 10 percent of the chromosomes that were cut did not repair themselves…

…With CRISPR, T cells can be made to better recognize cancer cells and prevent the recognition of normal cells. Furthermore, CRISPR can be used to remove the molecules that act as brakes on T cells, allowing the cells to exert their full killing potential.

Following the use of CRISPR, a mechanism in the cell repairs the cut DNA, but sometimes the cell fails to be repaired and might even lose large parts of the chromosome. This is serious because of the association with diseases including cancer.

In reenacting the research at the University of Pennsylvania, the Tel Aviv University scientists – aided by the students Alessio Nahmad and Ella Goldschmidt, and research assistant Eli Reuveni – sought to investigate CRISPR’s safety in general, not just in treating cancer.

“CRISPR only cuts and removes the DNA sequence at desired points. The natural mechanism of DNA repair in a cell is what’s fusing the cuts together and keeping the chromosome intact,” Ben-David says.“But sometimes the cell fails to execute the repair, and after this failure large parts of the chromosome – or even the entire chromosome – are lost. That creates a very serious situation because of aneuploidy – a change in the number of chromosomes.”

Ben-David says aneuploidy occurs in 90 percent of solid tumors; it’s the most frequent genetic change in cancer, more so than DNA mutations.

“In healthy cells, it never happens. There are always 46 chromosomes,” he says. “If in the process of genome editing via CRISPR, aneuploidy cells are generated and injected into the patient, this could be a serious problem. Until now, this problem hadn’t been examined in depth.”

3. Tails, You Win – Morgan Housel

Long tails drive everything. They dominate business, investing, sports, politics, products, careers, everything. Rule of thumb: Anything that is huge, profitable, famous, or influential is the result of a tail event. Another rule of thumb: Most of our attention goes to things that are huge, profitable, famous, or influential. And when most of what you pay attention to is the result of a tail, you underestimate how rare and powerful they really are.

Venture capital is a tail-driven business. You’ve likely heard that. Make 100 investments, and almost all of your return will come from five of them; most of your return from one or two.

Correlation Ventures crunched the numbers. Out of 21,000 venture financings from 2004 to 2014, 65% lost money. Two and a half percent of investments made 10x-20x. One percent made more than 20x return. Half a percent – about 100 companies – earned 50x or more. That’s where the majority of the industry’s returns come from. It skews even more as you drill down. There’s been $482 billion of VC funding in the last ten years. The combined value of the ten largest venture-backed companies is $213 billion. So ten venture-backed companies are valued at half the industry’s deployed capital.

There is a feeling, I’ve noticed, that this low-hit, high-stakes path is unique to VC in the investment world.

I want to show you that it’s not. Long tails drive everything…

…J.P. Morgan Asset Management published the distribution of returns for the Russell 3000 from 1980 to 2014. Forty percent of all Russell 3000 stock components lost at least 70% of their value and never recovered. Effectively all of the index’s overall returns came from 7% of components. That’s the kind of thing you’d associate venture capital. But it’s what happened inside your grandmother’s index fund.

You can drill this down even more.

Amazon drove 6.1% of the S&P 500’s returns last year. And Amazon’s growth is almost entirely due to Prime and AWS, which itself are tail events inside a company that has experimented with hundreds of products, from the Fire Phone to travel agencies.

Apple was responsible for almost 7% of the index’s returns. And it is driven overwhelmingly by the iPhone, which in the world of tech products is as tail-y as tails get.

Who’s working at these companies? Google’s hiring acceptance rate is 0.2%. Facebook’s is 0.13%. Apple’s is about 2%. So the people working on these tail projects that drive tail returns have tail careers…

…A takeaway from that is that no matter what you’re doing, you should be comfortable with a lot of stuff not working. It’s normal. This is true for companies, which need to learn how to fail well. It’s true for investors, who need to understand both the normal tail mechanics of diversification and the importance of time horizon, since long-term returns accrue in bunches. And it’s important to realize that jobs and even entire careers might take a few attempts before you find a winning groove That’s how these things work.

4. Speculation in 1980s Taiwan – Michael Fritzell

The financial bubble that gripped Taiwan in the 1980s is one of the greatest that the world has ever seen. Stock prices went up by more than 12x in less than four years.

At the peak of the bubble, over 5 million – one-third of all Taiwanese over the age of 15 – were actively playing the stock market.

This is the story about the boom and the bust of Taiwan’s little-discussed but spectacular stock market bubble, as retold in the book The Great Taiwan Bubble by Steven Champion…

…Before 1983, there wasn’t really any effective, legal way for an international investor to buy Taiwanese stocks. In the mid-1980s, however – the stock market was finally opened to foreign investors. Money started pouring in.

Capital inflows caused interest rates to plummet. Meanwhile, households felt loss aversion now that their bank deposits yielded almost nothing. So they sought higher in other financial instruments. Some of that money ended up in the stock market.

In 1985 – at an early stage of the bubble – the Taiwan Capitalization Weighted Stock Index (Taiex) was trading around the 700-mark. It had come off a bit from a previous high in 1984, but not many people were paying attention to the market yet. That would soon change.

An illegal lottery called “Dajia Le” (大家樂) was launched in 1985. It spread like wildfire through the nation, especially in Central and Southern Taiwan. For as little as 300 or 500 Taiwan Dollars, you picked a number from 00 to 99 and could get a jackpot of 15-19x – far more than any of the state-sponsored lotteries. It became a great success throughout Taiwan. Suddenly, just about everybody was into illegal gambling.

The reason why Dajia Le flourished was because of the economic slump in the summer of 1985. The unemployment rate increased to a decade-high of 4.1% and 320,000 unemployed Taiwanese were walking the streets in search of jobs. Many of them became disillusioned and turned to gambling.

After a few years, the government cracked down on these illegal lotteries. The state-sponsored Patriotic Lottery ended abruptly in 1987 and illegal lotteries such as Dajia Le were also shut down shortly thereafter due to government pressure.

Author Steven Champion described how hundreds of thousands of these gamblers were then in search of a new fix. He imagined that many of them must have turned into stock market speculation as an outlet for their lust for gambling.

The author worked as a fund manager in Taiwan in the 1980s. In 1986, he observed the market and saw it rise through the key 1,000 level. In his letters to investors, he opined that the market had become extended and suspected it was due for a correction. He just couldn’t imagine that it would rise any further.

Optimism was in the air though. In 1987, Taiwan officially became a democracy and many believed that the future was bright. Martial law was lifted, new political parties were formed and media censorship was eased.

There was scepticism throughout the whole stock market boom, but the scepticism gradually dissipated as bullish voice turned louder. Financial professionals were most nervous when the market bolted through the 1,500 and 2,000 levels but got calmer and calmer as prices went into the stratosphere.

The central bank issued new brokerage licenses and eased listing requirements. There was a huge increase in the number of licensed brokerages, from 27 in June 1988 to 297 in March 1990. Easily available but generally illegal, margin credit was provided through many of these brokers.

The new brokerage firms pushed stocks to retail investors. The larger cities Taipei and Kaohsiung were blanketed with new brokerage offices. The major firms then set up new shops in the secondary cities of Taichung, Tainan, Chiayi, Hsinchu and Changwha. When those reached saturation, brokerage firms finally opened up offices in even the most obscure country villages like Shalu, Fuhsing, Chubei, Huwei, Wuchi, and Huaton. Looking for new market niches, brokers established offices specifically targeted at housewives, doctors, farmers and students to lure more customers in…

…Suddenly, just about every single Taiwanese became involved in the market. An astonished foreign media jokingly started calling Taiwan “the Republic of Casino” instead of its official name “Republic of China”.

Students at National Taiwan University began to cut morning classes. Primary school teachers quizzed their students to see what stocks their parents were buying. High school girls desperate to accumulate savings to throw into the market turned to part-time prostitution.

60% of financial reporters owned stocks, and 84% of this group admitted their involvement in insider trading. When interviewed, 30% of those reporters admitted to considering abandoning their profession so that they could play the market full time.

In 1988, Taiex broke through the 7,000 mark – up over 10x since 1985. In brokerage offices, retail investors celebrated with champagne and happy faces…

…The market wobbled briefly in 1988 but quickly regained momentum. During that year, new president Lee Teng-hui appointed Shirley Kuo as Minister of Finance. To control the stock market bubble, Kuo announced a tax on gains derived from securities transactions. Taiex plummeted for 19 straight days, dropping from above 7,000 to below 5,000. Investors took to the streets and laid siege to the Ministry of Finance and Kuo’s residence. Fearful of losing next year’s elections, the government backed down and cancelled the tax. Stock prices exploded with renewed fervour.

It only took a few months to recover the previous high. As the market surged through the 6,000 level, then 7,000 and 8,000 stockbrokers held wild celebrations on their trading floors. Brokers offered free champagne, exploding firecrackers, balloons, buffet lunches and musical performances to their most loyal customers…

…The compounded return over the previous five years had hit international records. The Taiex had gone from 1,000 points in 1986 to 12,000 in 1990. Stock prices multiplied by more than twelve times in less than four years.

By the fall of 1989, the average price-earnings ratio on the Taiex was 100x – roughly double the already-high P/E multiple of 51x in Japan at the time…

…In early 1990, the market started wobbling. It looked like the market was taking a rest before scaling new, unchartered heights – just like it had done so many times in the past. But instead, the market entered into a vicious bear market that stunned most retail investors.

Many retail investors thought that the government provided almost guaranteed protection on the downside. The Kuomintang party had used the booming stock market as a slogan for their recent election campaign slogan, “Big Profits and Great Prosperity”. Many interpreted this as an implied guarantee against market losses. Yet despite continued optimism, the market drifted lower.

Trading volume reached new highs just after the crash, with traders doubling down on every single dip.

And then slowly, denial turned to anger, to depression and a gradual acceptance of the new reality.

Taiwan’s stock market bubble was finally over.

5. TIP466: The Bear Has Arrived w/ Jeremy Grantham – Trey Lockerbie and Jeremy Grantham

Jeremy Grantham (00:10:27):

I wrote a piece, Reinvesting When Terrified that by sheer luck came out the day the market hit its low and it said, “Get a policy, get a plan, present it to your committee or yourself and start to throw your money back into the market. You feel paralyzed, everyone always does and now’s the time to wake up, the market is cheap.”

Jeremy Grantham (00:10:46):

Of course, that happened in 1974 and ’82, which were classic lows and the market got down to seven PE and what I call terminal paralysis, sets in where you’re so frightened you can hardly move. You can hardly get to work, forget to buy stocks and that’s of course, as Warren Buffet would’ve said, that’s exactly the time you have to do it and it’s only 5% of the time, they are much quicker than the crazy bull markets.

Trey Lockerbie (00:11:11):

Now, I know you’re a huge skeptic of the Fed. Have the Feds rate increases and tightening efforts on the market or the market’s response surprised you in any way?

Jeremy Grantham (00:11:22):

No, I expect the Fed to be behind the curve, to be deep into optimism and it doesn’t really have a clue about market bubbles and the damage they do when they break. They’ve been eager now since early Greenspan to encourage bull markets because they help the economy, they really do and they always forget that the bear markets to go along with them hurt the economy at just the wrong time.

Jeremy Grantham (00:11:46):

If I’d been asked a bet, would the Fed get inflation wrong when inflation came along? At any time I would’ve said, of course they’ll miss it, they’ll be late, their responses will be pretty ill-judged. The Fed’s record is terrible. What is impressive is how much room they have been cut by the market. I mean the market is incredibly forgiving to the Fed. The Fed happened for 25 years to benefit from that amazing era as 500 million Chinese erased into the big cities and were plugged from marginal farming into highly profitable industrial system.

Jeremy Grantham (00:12:22):

Then they joined the World Trade Association and made everybody’s stuffed dogs and everybody’s iPhones for that matter. During that phase 500 million extra Chinese, 200 million Eastern Europeans plugging away from communism into capitalism. That was a golden era, Goldilocks if ever there was one and the Fed got to take credit for that.

Jeremy Grantham (00:12:46):

Prime Minister of England once, Mr. Wilson got reelected because England unexpectedly won the World cup in soccer and he got credit for it. I mean the president gets in the end credit for everything, good weather, he takes the shock for inflation. These things are all way bigger than the president of the United States, but the president and the Fed gets to enjoy the environment, so this Fed had a wonderful environment, they did nothing right, but they were seen to be presiding over low inflation and decent growth. The growth rate actually has slowed way down since Greenspan.

Jeremy Grantham (00:13:22):

It was averaging three and a half before Greenspan and averaging two and a half afterwards and today more like one and a half. It’s done nothing in terms of increasing the growth rate, but superficially it felt like a golden age because asset prices went up. Asset prices went up because inflation came down and rates were allowed to come down and in the end, rates were forced down and low rates make leverage cheap, make private equity deals wonderfully easy and profitable and they push up the price of real estate and they push up the price of stocks and that’s the way it was and the Fed gets the credit for that and it’s due none.

Jeremy Grantham (00:14:02):

D merit accrues from the fact that it kept on pushing down interest rates far too long and dangerously increasing inequality which is, I like to say the greatest poison in the system these days. The degree of inequality we have in the US now it does damage the strength of the economy and that is probably part of the reason why the growth rate has slowed and continues to slow.

Trey Lockerbie (00:14:27):

Now that inflation has arrived, there’s a lot of concern that we’re entering into a 1970s or eighties scenario stagflation. As a historian, could you give our audience an idea of what was happening during that period and how it resembles today?

Jeremy Grantham (00:14:42):

Well, every period is unique. The seventies had problems with the oil crises. You can call it one giant crisis or you can call it two or three, but in any case a triple, quadruple, quintuple the price of oil. In a hurry, we’d come off 50 years of fairly stable, low prices and they shot up and stayed up for a long time and inflicted enormous pain on the system. They lowered the growth rate. Why wouldn’t it? If you have to pay three, four times for your energy and it also, of course pushes up the price, so there’s nothing like an oil price increase to increase stagflation and it did. This time, if you adjust for the passage of time, the price of oil is not as high, but it’s still multiplied recently by three times and so that is imposing pain on consumption and is imposing inflationary pressure.

Jeremy Grantham (00:15:36):

Because of the invasion of Ukraine, we have had some extra spikes in the price of food, fertilizer and natural gas particularly in Europe. Interestingly, they are now almost all of them lower in price than the day before the invasion and this is a lovely example of how the stock market works. The start market is saying, “Whoops, there’s so much damage from commodity prices et cetera, et cetera, that we’re going to have a recession.” The recession isn’t bad news because the recession is going to get the Fed back in our camp of lowering interest rates again and helping stock prices and we’re looking out into the future and therefore that’s the good news, so the fear of a recession becomes wishful thinking about future interest rates and so the market gets a repressed for a while. It’s quite remarkable, but it’s fairly typical.

Jeremy Grantham (00:16:30):

That’s what we’re having now and that’s why we might have a bit of a rally for a few weeks, I think. Yes, what we should cover is how dangerous it is to get involved in a bubble that has more than one asset class, equities, growth stocks mainly. This time we’ve also moved into housing. Housing was chugging along okay, but last year it had the biggest advance, 20% in 2021 [inaudible 00:16:56] it had ever had in history and it went up to a higher multiple of family income, house priced divided by family income. Higher multiple than the peak of the housing bubble of 2006, it just means there’s a lot of value there that can be lost and it is dependent on interest rates. As you know when you’re paying a mortgage that the bottom of the mortgage was two and a half and it went up to 5.7, 5.8.

Jeremy Grantham (00:17:19):

This is a brutal increase in mortgage and means a lot of people will not move houses who otherwise would’ve done, which means a lot of people will not take a new job because they’re not prepared to double their mortgage payments. Everyone expanded to pay as much mortgage as they could afford, which meant that they put merciless pressure upwards on housing prices as the mortgage rates came down, so that’s a problem and then you have problems with a bubbly commodities market inflicting pain on consumption. As if that wasn’t enough, we have the lowest interest rates in 6,000 years as Jim Graham would say or Edward Chancellor’s written a brilliant new book, The Price Of Time. Of course, with the lowest rates in 6,000 years, you have the highest bond prices and that’s obviously been taken to the cleaners this year, too.

Jeremy Grantham (00:18:04):

You have bonds, housing, stocks and commodities. The only people who’ve tried that was Japan in ’89, they’re still not back to the price of the equity market. They’re still not back to the price of the land and the housing market from 89, that’s 33 years and counting. We did some of that in the housing bubble where the stock market came down in sympathy and that was brutal. They give you much greater pressure on recessionary forces and we are playing with fire this time, which was not anywhere near as obvious a year ago before that huge move upwards in housing.

Trey Lockerbie (00:18:40):

The interesting thing about the housing part to me is that with high inflation and to your point about expecting it to have inflation for the years to come, is that it seems like you’d want to own hard assets, so the demand should be there to keep propping up for the foreseeable future.

Jeremy Grantham (00:18:55):

Yes, in the long run, of course housing and stocks are very good protectors of steady inflation. The bad news is that psychologically inflation is associated with a negative, with a drop in PE from a psychological point and pressure on proper margins in the short-term and then it’s adjusts, but it’s very painful adjusting. Of course, it’s associated with a much higher mortgage, but once it’s adjusted, then of course you’re in much better shape.

Jeremy Grantham (00:19:23):

The world is much better off with moderately high interest rates. You get money on your savings, people don’t speculate as much, they don’t leverage as much, the risk in the system declines and you can afford to buy a house at lower prices and you can afford to buy stocks and build a portfolio.

Jeremy Grantham (00:19:40):

At the moment at the peak in December, if you’re young, you can’t get into the game. You can’t buy your first house, you can’t buy an equity portfolio. The yields are half of what they used to be…

…Jeremy Grantham (00:20:38):

I think in the longer term, forget the next few quarters who knows what happens really, but in the longer term, we are really running the risk that this is back to the seventies. We have problems with the availability of plentiful cheap resources and we have problems with plentiful cheap labor. The birth rate has crunched in every developed country except Israel and China.

Jeremy Grantham (00:21:04):

That’s a very, very important segment of the global economy to say the least. Every one of them has a population growth rate lower than replacement level so in the end, after accumulating lots of older people as a higher percentage, we start to actually have the population drop. Secondly, we’re 10 and 20 years in depending on the country into having smaller baby cohorts, so we know with absolute certainty, since they’re alive already that the 20 year olds arriving in the market will be fewer and fewer for the next to 20 years.

Jeremy Grantham (00:21:40):

We have not experienced this before. This has happened incredibly fast. China has gone from plenty of babies to a baby crunch almost overnight and a fertility rate that needs to be 2.1 is probably running about 1.4. Even in the US, the UK we’re running about 1.7. We’ve never seen levels like this, so we’re going to have a hard time getting enough labor. We’re going to accumulate old people who are very resource intensive. They need a lot of medical care, they need a lot of people care and we’re not going to have all that many people there.

Jeremy Grantham (00:22:14):

The supply of people to look after us old fogies is dropping steadily from now on for the rest of your life about, for sure. At the same time, I believe the correct interpretation of the commodity data is that it wasn’t only the China shock, the rapid growth rate for 30 years in China, but it was also showing signs that the best and cheapest, most plentiful resources had simply been mined or pumped and that we are running down into the second tier.

Jeremy Grantham (00:22:45):

If you look at the copper ore for example, King Copper is really important to the industrial system. Over 80, 90 years, the amount of copper in a ton of oil has dropped to a third of what it was, so you’re using an awful lot more energy and the energy also, which used to run for a hundred years at $20 a barrel in today’s currency, now runs at a hundred, so you’re spending five times the cost of energy to mine one third the quality of copper oil.

Jeremy Grantham (00:23:14):

You better believe technology can’t keep up with that. It did for a long time, it did very, very well but starting about 2002, the real price of the typical commodity has gone up a lot, it’s basically tripled.

Jeremy Grantham (00:23:27):

In a hundred years it went from… Starting at a hundred, it went down to 30, a brilliant help for getting rich and then from 2002 until today, it’s gone from 30 to 90, so over 122 years commodities are just about flat adjusted for inflation. Only 20 years ago, they were down at 30 cents on the dollar. This is a huge shift, hasn’t been nearly enough fuss made about it, but it’s the direction that is interesting to me. The direction is steadily up.

Jeremy Grantham (00:23:56):

Now, there’s a lot of volatility and commodities everybody knows. You produce an extra ton and the price collapses and your short a ton and the price triples, but if you look at the trend, the trend has been pretty reversed since 2002. My guess is it will continue to rise and that will pose real stagflationary pressure for a couple of decades and that’s why I fear this is re-entering the seventies and eighties…

…Jeremy Grantham (00:39:04):

I don’t want to get into wishful thinking, but basically as a society, we show all of the signs the failing societies in history have shown and the top of the list is Hubris, “Oh, you’ve been saying bad things for a hundred years and it didn’t work out.” You think the Romans didn’t say that? 400 years and so on and some of the civilizations down in central America where around for a thousand years and they built water storage, they built aqueducts and they had wonderful armies, but eventually they fall foul of a lot of failings and we check them all off.

Jeremy Grantham (00:39:40):

We look like a failing civilization book, but I’m hoping we have a little escape clause We have a couple of things going for us that have never worked before. One of them is population, that has never been a gleam in the eye of [Mouthes and the boys 00:39:54] even as we got wealthier that we would choose to have fewer children.

Jeremy Grantham (00:40:01):

This is remarkable and then adding on top of our choice is the fact that the world is getting so toxic, that even when you decide to have children it’s now getting to be much harder. One way or the other we are likely to have over the next couple of hundred years, a declining population and we have some chance that, that will be a great help. It isn’t a sufficient condition, but it is a necessary condition. The planet, under any circumstances could not support for the 10 billion that one reads about all the time for a hundred years, it can’t be done.

Jeremy Grantham (00:40:35):

We would need two and a half to three planets to cope with that. We can perhaps deal with a couple of billion and we might get there quite graceful. The other one of course, is technology and the rebuttal to the technology argument is that every wave of technology takes more energy back and it takes more complexity, which is a killer because complexity itself is a failing characteristic.

Jeremy Grantham (00:40:57):

It takes too much effort, too much manpower, too much energy itself and if that wasn’t enough, it increases your [inaudible 00:41:06] your overconfidence, every wave of scientific progress and so it can be quite deadly, but this time we have some open ended technologies.

Jeremy Grantham (00:41:15):

I call them, Get Out Of Jail Free cards and because they’re almost infinite fusion, geothermal and brilliantly cheap, effective storage any one of those three and we may get out of jail because that’s enough green cheap energy to in the long run take care of poverty if we chose to, for sure and take care of climate change. The thing about climate change is when we finish, we started 150 years ago with 280 paths per million carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It’s only a little bit, but it’s a very powerful commodity. If we had no parts, we would be frozen at minus 20 to 25 degrees centigrade, a frozen ball with just bacteria around if we were lucky.

Jeremy Grantham (00:42:00):

It’s a very, very potent greenhouse gas. We started with 280 parts, a million we’re up to 420. That’s a bigger jump than the difference between the ice age, two miles of ice on Manhattan and the pleasant enough world that we have now. That’s a bigger jump, the ice age gap was just a 120 points and we have just gone up by 160 and we’re going to go up to about 525 and we need to go back to 300, so we’re going to have to get rid of 225 parts million of carbon dioxide as well as the methane.

Jeremy Grantham (00:42:31):

If you want to think about the carbon dioxide, that is 2 trillion tons or more, that is the absolute minimum. 2 trillion tons absolutely has to be taken out of the atmosphere over the next couple of hundred years and the Grantham Foundation, that’s all we do with our private investments, our venture capital. We have a team of half a dozen and all we do is focus on carbon dioxide extraction, biologically and every other method that we can get at, but that needs a huge amount of energy. However you do it, you’re going to need a lot of energy.

Jeremy Grantham (00:43:07):

One of our Get Out Of Jail Free cards would be very handy indeed. What are the probabilities? I think there’s probably 50/50 that fusion in the next few decades will come out with a viable engineering system, engineering and physics. The thing that I have doubt about is the cost. They’re going to be fairly costly plans, but 50/50 will have the technology and maybe it will be cheap and maybe it will not be cheap enough. Geothermal looks incredibly promising because the fracking industry has gone through the most amazing set of experiments, tens of thousands of wells, pushing, prodding, experimenting, shocking the rock using extra special mixtures of liquids to pump down and lateral drilling.

Jeremy Grantham (00:43:57):

It’s really been a revolution of engineering talent and if you could take all of that, which we can and apply it to geothermal and then start the same process with geothermal it would be almost surprising if we couldn’t, at least in some parts of the world have a really economically viable source of energy. The heat from the center of the planet here is more or less infinite, so that would do it.

Jeremy Grantham (00:44:22):

The third one would be a brilliant breakthrough in storage. We’ve come down to 10 cents on the dollar in the last 15 years. If we could come down, once again over the next 20 or 30 years to 10 cents on the dollar or even 20 would probably do it. We wouldn’t need a fusion or geothermal any one of those three will give us a chance of success. The problem is how much of the planet spirals out of control because of food problems, energy problems, creating fail states of the kind that we begin to see in Africa.

Jeremy Grantham (00:44:55):

If the temperature alone continues to rise, the whole Indian subcontinent, that becomes very questionable as to whether you could do regular farming. It has a wonderful share of the world’s arable land. If you see one of these maps, which is green for arable, you’ll see that India is one of the few places where practically the entire sub subcontinent is green. The problem is once you get over 35 degrees centigrade, which is about 95 Fahrenheit and you get humidity with it and you can’t stay out more than a few hours and they recently had 45 degrees centigrade for three weeks, as you probably read, the hottest they have ever had.

6. The Nightmare Scenario For Central Banks – Darlo Perkins

Officials feel utterly embarrassed about their “transitory” call in 2021, and you should never ignore the human element in policymaking. But the new bias goes deeper than that. It is also important to remember that the reason we have independent central banks is to ensure that the 1970s cannot happen again. So, we are talking about a risk that undermines the central bankers’ entire raison d’être, an existential threat. In fact, “price stability” is a prerequisite for everything else they do. It is the foundation of monetary policy. When investors ask about the pain central banks are prepared to tolerate, they are thinking about the wrong trade-off. The authorities are prepared to suffer a recession now because they fear a much worse recession in the future if price stability is lost. The trade-off, as officials see it, is intertemporal.

A recent report from the BIS outlines the nightmare scenario for central banks… The BIS analysis is largely statistical. It argues that there are two basic inflation regimes – “low” and “high”, each of which has its own self-reinforcing properties, although economies occasionally transition from one to the other. In the low-inflation regime, “relative” or sector-specific price changes are the dominant driver of the CPI. These tend to have a transitory effect, as they die out quickly. This is not a regime in which wage- or price-setters need to pay a great deal of attention to the overall inflation rate. Aggregate price pressures are subdued, and everyone takes this for granted. In the “high-inflation regime”, on the other hand, broader CPI developments start to have a much more discernible impact, with inflation itself becoming the focal point for private-sector decisions. This shift in emphasis leads, in turn, to behavioural changes that will cause inflation to become entrenched. In the high-inflation regime, even relative price shifts – such as spikes in energy prices – have persistent effects. And you know transitioning from a low inflation regime to a high inflation regime is under way based on the behaviour of prices within the CPI. Once they become more correlated, as they have over the past 12 months, there is a good chance – according to the BIS – that the economy is transitioning. 

7. Ben Clymer – Rolex: Timeless Excellence – Patrick O’Shaughnessy and Ben Clymer 

[00:14:33] Patrick: Maybe before we go into the history, which is so interesting and really important, we could just do a level set for the audience on Rolex the business and just some basics like how many watches do they produce a year, the revenue that they produce a year, maybe say a little bit about their very unique business structure, which is certainly shocking to me and I think will shock some people too that aren’t familiar with it. Just level set us on the size and type of the Rolex as a business.

[00:14:55] Ben: And I want to be completely clear, and I’m sure Rolex will listen to this, so I want to be clear for them and for the audiences that they don’t communicate anything so this is all speculative. The information that I’ll provide and that I’m sure you read is completely speculative. We have a good idea of what they might produce and what the revenue might be. The assumption is is that Rolex is making just north of around a million watches per year with an average wholesale price of around $7,000. So you can do the math there to kind of give you an idea of size and revenue. And a million watches per year is a lot, but it’s not the biggest by quantity. Apple, of course, would be bigger than that. Arguably, if you included Apple, they would be an even bigger watch brand than Rolex, but different thing obviously. But if you were to combine, for example, the entire Swatch group, which ranges from Swatch to Breguet, including Omega, it would be a larger business than Rolex, in theory. But again, Swatch is a publicly traded company, you can see exactly what their revenue is, whereas Rolex is, as I think you’ve alluded to, Rolex is quite the opposite. Rolex is in fact run by something called the Hans Wilsdorf Foundation, which was founded in 1945 when the founder, Hans Wilsdorf, set it up to basically be effectively, a nonprofit run by a group of families that are still highly involved with the business today that have, I would say, effectively zero public interaction. I’m pretty close with Rolex and I’m pretty close with the watch industry you could say and I have met, I think, one board member, one time. That was not by design. I think I met him at a bar and I was like, “Oh, you’re so and so,” and he said, “Yes.” These people are in fact, the most powerful people in watches and nobody even knows their name. Nobody even knows what they look like. I happen to because this is my job, but most people have no clue who’s really pulling the strings at Rolex. There’s a wonderful CEO named Jean-Frederic Dufour, who used to be the president of Zenith, which is an LVMH brand and he is absolutely the base and brain behind much of Rolex, but there is a board there and like any board, they have a different kind of influence over the brand.

Rolex is effectively a nonprofit, some say one of the largest nonprofits in the world, which I would believe. There are dozens and dozens of rumors that you may have heard, such as they’ve got the largest private art collection next to the Vatican, or they own more real estate. They make more money in real estate than they do in watches. Any of those things could be true. What I can say with the utmost certainty is that they will never reveal any of that to be true, even if it is. They’re not the type of brand, type of company that will ever stand on the rooftop and shout about anything. I mentioned this in the story that I wrote in 2015, whereas most brands, they’re trying to create stories where there aren’t any, a lot of brands will say a watch is in-house and you manufacture it in-house when it’s not. Rolex doesn’t do any of that. In fact, what’s so remarkable and I found this out on my own, doing my own research for that story in 2015, they will make several updates to products at some significant cost to themselves and not change the retail price and not even tell anybody about it and the only reason that I found out was when doing research for that story, I spoke to an independent watchmaker who is in New York City and is one of the best watchmakers in the country, if not the world, and he said, he works on Rolex, as well as other brands. These are the changes that they made to their movements without anybody knowing. By the way, these other brands that are communicating about LIGA, which is a manufacturing technique that allows you to have frictionless gears, a brand sent out a press release about that. Then, he came to find out that Rolex had been doing that for five years. It was in half their watches already. That’s what’s so wonderful about Rolex is they just are so remarkably Swiss. They are so conservative and thoughtful in the way that they communicate. When I wrote that story in 2015, I was one of the first journalists who ever be invited inside Rolex’s manufacturing headquarters in Bienne, Switzerland, which is what movements are made. They just are not out there to talk about themselves really ever. It’s incredibly charming. The luxury world is so much about Instagram and influencers and people touting how prestigious any brand might be and Rolex is just quietly the most prestigious…

[00:19:39] Patrick: Maybe you can give us the, I don’t really care how long it is, as long as you want to make it because it’s so damn interesting, the history of Rolex, the brand and the company, its founding and its key timeline milestones.

[00:19:49] Ben: Rolex is younger than most other brands. It’s younger than Omega. It’s younger than Vacheron by 150 years. It’s younger than Patek. In the Swiss watch world, I wouldn’t call it a baby by any means, but not one of these grandfathers. I mean, Vacheron was founded in 1755. That’s older than the United States of America. Rolex was founded by a guy named Hans Wilsdorf, who’s Austrian, but he was a total anglophile. He really just was obsessed with the United Kingdom in the early part of the 1900s. He goes into the UK and starts a company called Wilsdorf & Davis in 1905. Back then, you have to remember that, forget digital watch making. Wrist watches were not a thing. The wrist watch was really a product of World War I, which was guys and trenches, trench watches, were strapping pocket watches to the wrist so that they didn’t have to pull out of their pocket. It was a little bit more complex, but that’s it at a high level. Wilsdorf, in 1905, decides to focus on wrist watches, which is crazy. I mean, it was a little bit, frankly like Elon Musk focusing on EVs 10, 15 years ago. People just weren’t ready for it. He committed to doing the wrist watch in the early part of the 1900s, 1905, 1908 and in 1908, he creates a company called Rolex. Again, there’s lots of hearsay on why it’s Rolex. I think at the very least it’s safe to say that he chose that word because it’s the same pronunciation in all languages. Some people say it’s the sound it makes. There’s no confirmation on that, but effectively what he does is he’s just the distributor. He’s not making anything from 1905 to about 1908.

In ’08, he buys a movement, which is what powers watch from a company called Aegler, A-E-G-L-E-R, which we’ll get back to later. They’re still around today, buys a movement, puts it in a case made by himself and sends it off to, it’s called an observatory, but effectively what it is, it’s a testing facility, effectively a nonprofit that says, these watches or time telling devices, clock, Marine chronometer or whatever, are accurate within, we’ll say X and Y, effectively saying, these are the most precise time telling devices on earth, typically done for Marine chronometers and if you know anything about this history of longitude, like that is effectively how longitude was discovered. This is just paramount to basically all exploration of the time period. Up until that point, no wrist watches had ever even been submitted to this thing called the QA, which is a British testing facility at that point. In 1908, he does that with an Aegler powered watch. It’s a 44 day test and it is given the QA certificate. Again, nobody had ever done it. Some years later, about 10 years later, he submitted 136 movements back to the QA. I think 24 of them were cased in 34 millimeter gold cases and then another 112 were in what we call boy size, which is really very small. I mean, at this point, it would look like a nickel, but these are effectively the formula one cars of watch movements. There were other watch movements at the time that to you and me and most people, would look exactly the same, but these were high performance calibers and they did it with a special escapement. Escapement is basically how time telling was regulated. These were effectively the formula one cars of watchmaking and they were done in a way that was very, even back then, very Rolex. There was really no indication that these were anything special on a dial, besides it would say QA on them. They’re around. You can buy them today for really less than you might think.

Once he had been given the QA certificates for the first wrist watch ever, he decided really to focus on three tenants of watchmaking, which really were not at all prevalent in that day at all, because it was really about utility. The watch can tell you the time pretty well or it was about luxury. At that point, we’re talking the Cartiers, Patek Philippes, complications, really. History tenants of manufacturing, which remain true to this day, would be precision, accuracy, waterproofness, which didn’t really exist at the time, and then self winding. What I mean by that is ability to not have to wind the watch manually. Precision was done. We’ve covered that. These watches were based on QA. They came up with a new escapement to make them more precise. Waterproofness, I think, goes back to the question you asked about five minutes ago, which is, how did you get something that more people know about that basically can afford or confine? He created something called the oyster case and now almost all Rolexes with the exception of the Cellini line, use an oyster case. That basically just means a waterproof case. Nobody was doing it at the time. Omega had something that was pretty close and actually predates the oyster case, but never really took off in the same way. Instead of using seals, it was almost like a locking system. It didn’t really take off, but effectively there was this woman named Mercedes Gleitz, who was a typist, of all things, basically a secretary in the UK and she had swum the English channel successfully, the first woman to swim the English channel successfully.

Hans Wilsdorf, the founder said, “Hey, wouldn’t it be cool if this woman, A, she’s a woman, B, she’s doing this amazing feat that no one had ever done before. Wouldn’t it be cool if she wore the watch around her neck?” She didn’t wear it on her wrist to be clear. She put her around her neck and she attempted to swim the English channel. She actually didn’t successfully do it. She failed, but nobody really cared because she had already done it before. He took out an ad celebrating the fact that this watch was around this woman’s neck for 10 hours in the English channel and the time keeping was flawless. That solidified Rolex as A, a household name because the oyster case had been validated in the English channel with this early brand ambassador, I guess you would call her. That was a huge deal and I think one of the earliest examples of real marketing by any luxury brand or any brand really at all, and then the final tenant would be self winding, which is, I would equate it to the automatic transmission. When the automatic transmission came around, all of a sudden, driving a car became a hell of a lot easier. It just became wider accepted, et cetera. Prior to, I guess it was around 19, I’m going to say, 30 something that Rolex patented the first self winding movement. To be clear, there was somebody called John Harwood that actually had a different self winding movement first. I think that was in the twenties and his idea was to make a hammer. Some of them would bounce back and forth like this to continue to power the watch. Rolex said, let’s go a different array. Let’s create a rotor, so a weight that would oscillate around inner circle to power the watch.

That worked and Rolex had, actually I remember the date. It was 1933 because it had a 20 year patent on it and Patek Philippe, which was another stall watch of traditional watchmaking, saw this and said, “Oh shit, we need to do that too,” but they couldn’t actually release anything until 20 years later because of the patent. The Patek 2526, which is their first self winding watch that came out in 1953. That’s a different thing all together, but effectively, Hans Wilsdorf said, “I want the watches to be precise,” check with the QA. “I want them to be waterproof,” check with the oyster case, “And I want them to be self winding,” check with the perpetual. If you see oyster perpetual on any Rolex, which you’d see in all Rolexes now, oysters are waterproof. Perpetual is the self winding. From there, Rolex went out to make watches and they were doing things very much in a similar style to everyone else at that time until the early fifties. In the post-war era, post World War II era, they created their first sports watch. By sports watch, the technical term is professional watch by Rolex nomenclature. It’s the Submariner, which is the diver’s watch, which is 1953. It’s the GMT, which is the pilot’s watch, which is 1955. Explorer I, which is an Explorer’s watch or an all day everyday watch, which is 53 as well. Then, you had the Daytona in 1963. Later, you had the Sea-Dweller in 67, which is a beef up version of the Sub. Then, the Explorer II in, I guess, 1970 or so. Those are the watches that I think most people now think of when they think of watch. You see rotating bezel in most cases. You see a black dial in most cases. You see an oyster bracelet, which is a very wonderfully produced bracelet with an oyster lock bracelet. That is really when things change.

To be clear, Rolex was not alone. There were other brands doing it. Some would say earlier, some would say around the same time, but the Blancpain Fifty Fathoms is credited to 1953. The Omega Seamaster 300 and 120 are around the same time as well. They were not alone and you have to remember that even Rolex in the watch industry in that period, it was really a smattering of different suppliers. If you look at, for example, and I wrote about this several times over the past few years, if you look at, say the Rolex Daytona from 1963 and the Heuer Carrera from 1963, it uses the exact same movement and I’m saying the exact same movement, and that’s a Valjoux 72. Same case maker, same dial maker, same hand maker. What is the actual difference? The assembly was done by Rolex and the assembly was done by Heuer, but the product itself was really very similar. If you look at early Seamasters and early Submariners, a lot of similarity there. The difference was of course the oyster case, but that was how watch making was done. If you look at say, example of Patek Philippe 2499, that’s based on a Valjoux movement. You don’t think of that. You think of Patek as Patek. This is the holy grail, but up until really, I mean the 2000s, they were using what you call an Ebauche movement, which is just really movement blank and then, it would be finished by Patek or finished by AP or Vacheron or whoever. Rolexes were really, I would say, finished to a higher quality than most, but I mean, any good Blancpain or any good Omega would do much of what Rolex was doing. It was really not until much, much later in the seventies first when we had the Quartz crisis, which is effectively the creation of Quartz, which is analog time, but with a battery, which is dramatically more precise, I mean, dramatically more precise than mechanical watch making.

What is interesting to think about, and I give full credit to my old colleague, Joe Thompson, who’s the legend in the watch writing world, is the Japanese came in with Quartz, Seiko created it, effectively, came in and there was a war between Swiss mechanical watch making and Quartz analog timekeeping. To be clear, the Swiss lost. The Swiss lost by a country mile. All of a sudden, those guys that were buying a Rolex or Omega or a Heuer, because they were the most precise thing in the world just said, “You know what” why would I do that? I can buy a Quartz watch that is 10 times more accurate,” 10 times, and by the way, you don’t need to have good service. You just swap out the new battery or whatever all the time and that decimated the Swiss watch industry to a point where very, very few brands were producing things at a profit of any kind. Jack Heuer, whose family owned TAG Heuer before it was TAG. It was just Heuer at the time. In his biography, I mean, he talks almost going into bankruptcy. If you talk to Gerry Stern, whose father Philippe Stern and his grandfather have owned Patek for generations. In the late seventies, they had to borrow with their bank.

[00:29:53] Patrick: It’s existential.

[00:29:54] Ben: Yeah, this was real. It wasn’t just the smaller brands. Patek had issues. Heuer had issues. Rolex was really smart in that, through that period of real turmoil when, I would say, their chief competitor Omega decided to make some Quartz watches, decided to make some funky looking things, Rolex stayed the course, and yes, they did make Quartz watches. The Beta 21, which was a Swiss conglomerates answer to Quartz, is the most expensive Quartz watch ever made. I mean like thousands and thousands of dollars, they said, “We’re going to focus on what we do best,” and the focus went away from precision and accuracy and time telling to luxury. That is when you start seeing the gold Rolex on, I hate to say it, but the used car salesman and the gold Rolex became the thing, seventies and eighties, opulence, you understand what the eighties were, of course. It just changed what Rolex was, but by the way, it worked and it allowed them to continue to be relevant when everybody else being Omega, Patek to a degree, Vacheron, these brands really struggled. That is why so many of them ended up in conglomerates. In the eighties and nineties, when watches were, mechanical watches, were really not doing so hot, a lot of folks came in and bundled them all up. Richemont owns a bunch of the great ones, including Vacheron. Swatch owns everything from Swatch to Blancpain, Breguet, Omega. It was a time of great challenge for sure. Rolex, they struggled as well, never to the degree that the others did, but it was not great for them. Then, the nineties started to come around and Rolex had a CEO by the name of Patrick Heiniger. His father was actually also CEO too, to give you an idea of how things work at Rolex. And he said, “I want to take Rolex in-house,” and he was really the first to do, frankly well before Patek or well before anybody else. Rolex was using 27 different suppliers to make, say, Submariner.

After he was done with it, they’re using four and now, those four are completely owned by Rolex. There are four different production facilities, two in Geneva, one in, what I would call, Proper Geneva one and Plan-les-Ouates, which is a little bit outside and then there’s one in Chêne-Bourg, which does dials and there’s one in Bienne, which makes the movements. What’s so amazing is, Rolex, to me, the secret sauce is equal parts case, equal parts movement. The case is, you can reverse engineer if you’re a competitor and say, “Okay, what’s an oyster case? It’s got this. It’s got that. It’s polished there. Seals are done by X, Y, and Z.” Movements are a different thing entirely. And what’s amazing is Rolex Geneva, which is basically dials, cases, bracelets, all that stuff, and Rolex BN, which is up in the mountains in Vallée de Joux, had a handshake deal for 70 years. And I mean, an actual handshake deal that the calibers made by what was then called Aegler, who made the first movement for Hans Wilsdorf, that company was making movements solely for Rolex Geneva based on nothing but a handshake. And I mean that literally. There was nothing in writing up until 2004, which is just insane to think about. I mean, Rolex was certainly a multi-billion dollar a year business before then. And up until 2004, there was no contract in place to say that Aegler couldn’t make movements for Omega or TAG Heuer or whoever. And so in 2004, Rolex said, “You know what? Enough’s enough. Let’s get married here,” and they purchased the company. And so now Rolex BN is basically what Aegler was up in the mountains until 2004. And so Rolex now has four different production facilities. As I wrote that story, I was among the first to be invited inside the movement manufacturing, which is really the source of the IP. That is where the sausage is made, so to speak. Just remarkable. If you haven’t read the story, it’s on Hodinkee called Inside The Manufacturer: Visiting All Four Rolex Locations. It was remarkable. As I started out in that story, this was 10 years ago or seven years ago, I was a lover of watches.

I was a lover of Rolex and I had four Rolexes then than had anything else at that point. None of them were as old as I was. They were all considerably older than me. And it’s funny, I reread the story to prepare for this interview. And now since then, I’ve bought more modern Rolexes than I have vintage. And the world is just a different place. But once you see everything that Rolex does to a watch, and what I mean by that is the fact that they have their own foundry, even the steel, not just the gold and precious metals, even the steel on Rolex is proprietary and it’s made by Rolex. It’s 904L. It’s wild. They make their own gold. It’s called Everose if it Rolex gold. It’s just remarkable. And what I think is even more telling of what Rolex is about is that one of their facilities they actually have, and I mean this literally, more than two Nobel prize-winning scientists on staff working on watches. Think about what that must mean from a material science perspective. The innovation done by Rolex is just above and beyond anything I’ve seen. I’ve been to every watch maker in the world. I’ve been to several car manufacturers doing this. I’ve been all over. I’ve been inside Hermès. There’s just nothing like this. They create machines to test their machines that make watches. They have their own oyster test, which of course provides artificial pressure on a watch to know that it’s waterproof. They have a machine that can open and close a Rolex clasp a thousand times a minute, which is kind of amazing, because you actually have to open. It’s wild. So, you open this. It’s actually kind difficult to do. Imagine doing that a thousand times a minute. They invented a machine to do that. They have a machine in Chêne-Bourg, which is their dial and gem-setting location, to sort through all the stones that they’re given. First of all, Rolex only works with IF, which is internally flawless stones, which is obviously the most expensive, highest end. To ensure that the stones that they’re given, whether it’s diamonds or rubies or anything are real, they created a machine to sort them at scale and ensure that all of them are real. And I said, “Well, are bad stones or fake stones are real problem for you?”

They said, “No, not really. But we just want to ensure that every watch we sell is what we want it to be.” And I was like, “How often do you get a fake diamond or a fake anything?” And the answer was, “One out of 10 million.” To be clear, this machine was created either by them or they paid somebody to make it for them. This is their machine. It’s not like it exists outside Rolex. And this gives you an idea of what they’re about and how they do things. And it is so wonderful and so different than traditional luxury, which frankly, I may say, even as a purveyor of luxury items, is full of shit half the time. I’m into sneakers, but not in the way that I’m into other things. Why would a pair of so special edition sneakers sell for $5,000? Sneakers are made in China by machines. They’re hand- stitched here and there. It’s just designed. It’s artificial scarcity, et cetera. When you see what goes into a, really, any high-end mechanical watch, but in particular Rolex, you really start to understand. The Submariner, we’ll say, is 8,000 bucks. That might be a deal after you see what goes into this thing. And I mentioned in the story, several competing brand presidents had told me before I went on this trip that, “Oh, not a human hand touches a Rolex before it’s made. It’s all done by machine.” Which is effectively the most insulting thing a Swiss person can say, meaning that it’s void of character. It’s void of humanity. It’s like luxury should be about people. It should be about craftsmanship. And they’re saying, “Rolex doesn’t have any of that.” And I was like, “Oh, okay. That’s kind of a bummer.” That may have informed why I didn’t own any modern Rolex at the time. You walk into Rolex HQ in Geneva and you see hundreds of people finishing watches. And they’re not finishing in the same way Patek or Lange would, by hand with little pieces of wood. They’re finishing maybe six or seven Rolexes at a time on a polishing wheel, but they’re still polishing really the way that it should be done.

They’re assembling dials by hand. They’re assembling the bracelet by hand. There’s an incredible amount of hand work that goes into the most basic of Rolex, being like a Submariner or a Datejust. Beyond that, what’s so fun about them is they know exactly how different they are than everyone else. They also know that everyone wants to be like them. So, at at least two of their four facilities you might drive by and say, “Oh, there’s Rolex. It’s five stories high. It’s, I don’t know, a few hundred thousand square feet.” When you go inside, you realize that it’s actually 10 or 11 stories high, but five or six of those stories are below ground. And I just remember thinking, “Why would they do that? What’s the point of that?” And it was in fact to suggest to anybody that drives by that Rolex is smaller than they actually are. And I think if we had any idea of how big the foundation was, it would blow all of us away. I think it’s enormous. I think they’re probably producing more than a million a year, but that’s the generally accepted number. It’s who they are. And if they’re going to do something, they want to do things at the highest level. I’m a golfer and have been lucky enough to meet some of their players. And Adam Scott became a good friend and I asked, “Why don’t you sponsor X, Y, and Z?” or, “Why don’t you go grassroots?” Whatever. And they said, “This is Rolex like my golf. If we’re going to do golf, we only want to be involved with the majors. So, the US Open, the BJ Championship, the Masters, and of course the British Open. And that’s it.” If they’re going to do tennis, it’s going to be Wimbledon and the US Open. They don’t even want to mess with some of the other majors in tennis. It’s just remarkable how committed they are to working with the very best. It’s wild. It really is.


Disclaimer: The Good Investors is the personal investing blog of two simple guys who are passionate about educating Singaporeans about stock market investing. By using this Site, you specifically agree that none of the information provided constitutes financial, investment, or other professional advice. It is only intended to provide education. Speak with a professional before making important decisions about your money, your professional life, or even your personal life. Of all the companies mentioned, we currently have a vested interest in Alphabet (parent of Google), Amazon, Apple, Meta Platforms (parent of Facebook), and Netflix. Holdings are subject to change at any time. Holdings are subject to change at any time.

My Observations On Malaysia’s Payment Ecosystem

I spent a few days in Malaysia. Here are some observations on Malaysia’s payment ecosystem and how paying as a traveler has evolved.

Last week, I spent a few days in Malaysia for a friend’s wedding and for a short drive around the country’s western coast. This was my first time in Malaysia since the start of the COVID pandemic.

Although the purpose of my trip was primarily for leisure, I couldn’t help but notice the interesting dynamic of Malaysia’s evolving payment ecosystem.

Card penetration is still low and will likely remain so

The first thing I noticed was that many small merchants still do not accept card payments. Although card payments are convenient for both merchants and consumers, there is a frictional cost involved with card payments for merchants.

The cost of accepting card payments includes a fixed transaction fee per transaction and a variable fee based on the size of the payment which can add up to 3% of the total amount collected. In addition, merchants need to pay for the hardware to be able to accept card payments, which is another extra cost that some merchants may be unwilling to bear.

Card companies trumpet the fact that a large percentage of payments made globally are still done in cash, implying that there’s a vast addressable market to be won. This is true but there are large amounts of cash transactions made today that will likely never transition to card payments.

In Malaysia, there are still a large number of mom-and-pop businesses that depend on low-margin, small-sized transactions. The frictional cost of card payments makes accepting such payments too costly for these merchants. Moreover, as cash is still dominant in Malaysia and with the nature of these businesses dealing with relatively small transactions, cash is still a relatively convenient solution.

I am bullish on the prospects of card payments growing globally. But I believe card penetration for certain types of businesses will remain low for the foreseeable future.

Other digital payment methods gaining steam

Although card payment is not widely accepted at small merchants, I noticed that local or regional digital payment methods such as Grabpay, Shopee Pay, and Touch and Go are much more common.

I believe that merchants are more inclined to adopt these payment solutions as they are cheaper to set up and have lower transaction fees. Grabpay and Shopee Pay, for example, require neither the installation of a card reader nor a dedicated point of sale system. Merchants only need to download the app to start accepting payments.

Besides the low set-up cost, these solutions currently levy merchants a lower fee than cards. Some solutions like Touch and Go are not even charging any transaction fees to smaller merchants. This naturally makes merchants more willing to accept these payment solutions.

At the other end of the transaction, consumers are inclined to use these digital payment methods as they are more convenient than cash and there is occasionally a reward system tied to these payment solutions. 

My observations about paying as a traveller

Making payments overseas is becoming increasingly frictionless and cheaper. For my trip to Malaysia, I paid in cash when necessary (which was mostly the case) but when card payment methods were accepted, I used a debit card linked to my Wise account. 

Wise is an app that makes sending money overseas or paying money in a foreign currency convenient and cheap.

To set up, all I had to do was top up my Wise account and apply for a debit card. When paying with the Wise debit card in Malaysia, the Wise app would automatically deduct the amount from my Wise balance. Even though I kept the cash in my Wise balance in Singapore dollars, I could still make payments in Malaysian ringgit as the app would automatically deduct the appropriate amount of Singapore dollars at a competitive rate. 

Wise markets itself as a company that provides very competitive rates and low commission fees for transfers and payments made using its solutions.

Travellers today can use apps like Wise or Revolut for more competitive foreign exchange rates than standard credit cards.

Final thoughts

The payment ecosystem in each country is unique. Countries such as Malaysia are still highly reliant on cash but are fast transitioning to other forms of digital payment methods.

And with companies such as Wise, travellers are getting cheaper ways to pay for goods overseas. All of these developments are great for merchants and consumers as it decreases the fractional cost of transactions, enabling more commerce to occur seamlessly.

Disclaimer: The Good Investors is the personal investing blog of two simple guys who are passionate about educating Singaporeans about stock market investing. By using this Site, you specifically agree that none of the information provided constitutes financial, investment, or other professional advice. It is only intended to provide education. Speak with a professional before making important decisions about your money, your professional life, or even your personal life. I have a vested interest in Wise. Holdings are subject to change at any time

What We’re Reading (Week Ending 24 July 2022)

The best articles we’ve read in recent times on a wide range of topics, including investing, business, and the world in general.

We’ve constantly been sharing a list of our recent reads in our weekly emails for The Good Investors.

Do subscribe for our weekly updates through the orange box in the blog (it’s on the side if you’re using a computer, and all the way at the bottom if you’re using mobile) – it’s free!

But since our readership-audience for The Good Investors is wider than our subscriber base, we think sharing the reading list regularly on the blog itself can benefit even more people. The articles we share touch on a wide range of topics, including investing, business, and the world in general.

Here are the articles for the week ending 24 July 2022:

1. CRISPR, 10 Years On: Learning to Rewrite the Code of Life – Carl Zimmer

In just a decade, CRISPR has become one of the most celebrated inventions in modern biology. It is swiftly changing how medical researchers study diseases: Cancer biologists are using the method to discover hidden vulnerabilities of tumor cells. Doctors are using CRISPR to edit genes that cause hereditary diseases.

“The era of human gene editing isn’t coming,” said David Liu, a biologist at Harvard University. “It’s here.”

But CRISPR’s influence extends far beyond medicine. Evolutionary biologists are using the technology to study Neanderthal brains and to investigate how our ape ancestors lost their tails. Plant biologists have edited seeds to produce crops with new vitamins or with the ability to withstand diseases. Some of them may reach supermarket shelves in the next few years…

…Will the coming wave of CRISPR-altered crops feed the world and help poor farmers or only enrich agribusiness giants that invest in the technology? Will CRISPR-based medicine improve health for vulnerable people across the world, or come with a million-dollar price tag?

The most profound ethical question about CRISPR is how future generations might use the technology to alter human embryos. This notion was simply a thought experiment until 2018, when He Jiankui, a biophysicist in China, edited a gene in human embryos to confer resistance to H.I.V. Three of the modified embryos were implanted in women in the Chinese city of Shenzhen.

In 2019, a court sentenced Dr. He to prison for “illegal medical practices.” MIT Technology Review reported in April that he had recently been released. Little is known about the health of the three children, who are now toddlers.

Scientists don’t know of anyone else who has followed Dr. He’s example — yet. But as CRISPR continues to improve, editing human embryos may eventually become a safe and effective treatment for a variety of diseases.

Will it then become acceptable, or even routine, to repair disease-causing genes in an embryo in the lab? What if parents wanted to insert traits that they found more desirable — like those related to height, eye color or intelligence?

Françoise Baylis, a bioethicist at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia, worries that the public is still not ready to grapple with such questions…

…In the 1980s, microbiologists discovered puzzling stretches of DNA in bacteria, later called Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats. Further research revealed that bacteria used these CRISPR sequences as weapons against invading viruses.

The bacteria turned these sequences into genetic material, called RNA, that could stick precisely to a short stretch of an invading virus’s genes. These RNA molecules carry proteins with them that act like molecular scissors, slicing the viral genes and halting the infection.

As Dr. Doudna and Dr. Charpentier investigated CRISPR, they realized that the system might allow them to cut a sequence of DNA of their own choosing. All they needed to do was make a matching piece of RNA.

To test this revolutionary idea, they created a batch of identical pieces of DNA. They then crafted another batch of RNA molecules, programming all of them to home in on the same spot on the DNA. Finally, they mixed the DNA, the RNA and molecular scissors together in test tubes. They discovered that many of the DNA molecules had been cut at precisely the right spot.

For months Dr. Doudna oversaw a series of round-the-clock experiments to see if CRISPR might work not only in a test tube, but also in living cells. She pushed her team hard, suspecting that many other scientists were also on the chase. That hunch soon proved correct.

In January 2013, five teams of scientists published studies in which they successfully used CRISPR in living animal or human cells. Dr. Doudna did not win that race; the first two published papers came from two labs in Cambridge, Mass. — one at the Broad Institute of M.I.T. and Harvard, and the other at Harvard.

2. A Revolution Sweeping Railroads Upends How America Moves Its Stuff – Paul Ziobro

Freight railroads generally have operated the same way for more than a century: They wait for cargo and leave when customers are ready. Now railroads want to run more like commercial airlines, where departure times are set. Factories, farms, mines or mills need to be ready or miss their trips.

Called “precision-scheduled railroading,” or PSR, this new concept is cascading through the industry. Under pressure from Wall Street to improve performance, Norfolk Southern and other large U.S. freight carriers, including Union Pacific Corp. and Kansas City Southern, are trying to revamp their networks to use fewer trains and hold them to tighter schedules. The moves have sparked a stock rally that has added tens of billions of dollars to railroad values in the past six months as investors anticipate lower costs and higher profits.

The new approach was pioneered by the late railroad executive Hunter Harrison, who engineered turnarounds at two major Canadian railroads and Jacksonville, Fla.-based CSX Corp. by radically revamping their logistics.

His template won over Wall Street by boosting profits and stock prices, but it generated chaos on the tracks. The 2017 revamp at CSX caused crippling congestion east of the Mississippi River, jeopardizing operations at plants that made Pringles potato snacks, threatening deliveries of McDonald’s french fries and idling Cargill Inc. soybean-processing plants because of lack of railcars…

…“The board does not want to see any carrier implement so-called PSR the way CSX did,” said Ann Begeman, chairman of the Surface Transportation Board, the federal agency that oversees freight railroads. “It had unacceptable impacts on so many of its shippers and, frankly, other carriers.”

CSX spokesman Bryan Tucker said the company could have done better communicating the changes to customers, but he defended the actions by pointing to its financial results. He said CSX trains are running faster and with less downtime, and the railroad is hauling more cargo with fewer locomotives, railcars and employees.

Norfolk Southern estimates that its own plan will similarly allow its system to operate faster and more efficiently, while cutting about 3,000 employees from its current workforce of about 26,000 and shedding 500 locomotives from its fleet of about 4,100.

Ideally, the end result would be a more fluid railroad network that operates much like a moving conveyor belt, with fewer jams. It would allow shippers and customers to ship finished goods on a just-in-time basis, reducing carrying costs across the board.

Norfolk Southern is starting its overhaul with a process it calls “clean sheeting,” which involves dismantling and reassembling schedules and processes—one yard at a time…

…BNSF Railway Co., which operates alongside Union Pacific in the Western U.S., has resisted the industrywide push to cut capital spending and drastically change service plans. Executive Chairman Matthew Rose, who is scheduled to retire this month, said railroads that cut back on service risk pushback from regulators. Mr. Rose said BNSF, owned by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc., is focused on carrying more loads. “More volume leads to more investment,” he said.

Norfolk Southern, Kansas City Southern and Union Pacific all had service issues last year that they said exposed the perils of maintaining the status quo. When, in some cases, they responded by adding cars to handle the extra volume, congestion in some corridors got worse.

As Union Pacific tried to clear gridlock, it experimented with some strategies modeled after Mr. Harrison’s, which it then decided to adopt more broadly.

“We came to the realization that experimenting with pieces of precision-scheduled railroading was less effective on our network than going the whole way,” said Chief Executive Lance Fritz. The catalyst, he said, “was nothing more complex than our growing frustration and our customers’ growing frustration with the service product at that time.”

Norfolk’s Mr. Farrell, a 53-year-old former All American wrestler at Oklahoma State University, previously worked at both Canadian railroads where Mr. Harrison’s plan went into effect—Canadian National Railway Co. and Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd. At Norfolk Southern, he spent more than a year crisscrossing the network as a consultant to identify problem spots, a process he jokingly called the longest-ever episode of “Undercover Boss.”

After he formally joined the company in November, he ramped up clean-sheeting sessions. As of mid-February, the railroad says, trains were running 13% faster and dwelling 20% less in yards compared with last year.

3. Little Ways The World Works – Morgan Housel

If you find something that is true in more than one field, you’ve probably uncovered something particularly important. The more fields it shows up in, the more likely it is to be a fundamental and recurring driver of how the world works…

…Part of the second law of thermodynamics is that you get the most efficiency out of a system when the hottest heat source meets the coldest sink – that’s when an engine will waste the least amount of heat, converting as much energy into power as it can.

And isn’t it the same in business and careers?

A genius entering a crowded and competitive field may find a little success, but put her in a “cold” industry full of idiots and she’ll create a monopoly, destroying competitors. Jeff Bezos famously said “your margin is my opportunity,” which is the same concept. The biggest opportunities happen when a hot talent meets a cold industry. Thermodynamics has proven this since the beginning of the universe – no one should doubt how true and powerful it is…

…Muller’s ratchet (evolution): Dangerous mutations tend to pile up when there’s no genetic recombination, ultimately leading to extinction. It’s is why so few species reproduce asexually. In the absence of variety, bad ideas tend to stick around, which is also exactly what happens in closed societies and large corporations…

…Cope’s Rule (evolutionary biology): Species evolve to get bigger bodies over time, because there are competitive advantages to being big. But big has its own drawbacks, and can often be the cause of extinction. So the same force that pushes you to become big can also cause you to go extinct. It describes the lifecycle not only of species, but most companies and industries.

Emergence (complexity): When two plus two equals ten. A little cool air from the north is no big deal. A little warm breeze from the south is pleasant. But when they mix together over Missouri you get a tornado. The same thing happens in careers, when someone with a few mediocre skills mixed together at the right time becomes multiple times more successful than someone who’s an expert in one thing…

…Tocqueville Paradox (sociology): People’s expectations rise faster than living standards, so a society that becomes exponentially wealthier can see a decline in net happiness and satisfaction. There is virtually nothing people can’t get accustomed to, which also helps explain why there is so much desire for innovation and improvement.

Cromwell’s rule (statistics): Never say something cannot occur, or will definitely occur, unless it is logically true (1+1=1). If something has a one-in-a-billion chance of being true, and you interact with billions of things during your lifetime, you are nearly assured to experience some astounding surprises, and should always leave open the possibility of the unthinkable coming true.

Liebig’s law of the minimum (agriculture): A plant’s growth is limited by the single scarcest nutrient, not total nutrients – if you have everything except nitrogen, a plant goes nowhere. Liebig wrote, “The availability of the most abundant nutrient in the soil is only as good as the availability of the least abundant nutrient in the soil.” Most complex systems are the same, which makes them more fragile than we assume. One bad bank, one stuck container ship, or one broken supply line can ruin an entire system’s trajectory.

4. Munger on Airlines, Cereal Makers, and Bottlers – The Investments Blog

From this 1994 USC speech by Charlie Munger:

“Here’s a model that we’ve had trouble with. Maybe you’ll be able to figure it out better. Many markets get down to two or three big competitors—or five or six. And in some of those markets, nobody makes any money to speak of. But in others, everybody does very well.

Over the years, we’ve tried to figure out why the competition in some markets gets sort of rational from the investor’s point of view so that the shareholders do well, and in other markets, there’s destructive competition that destroys shareholder wealth.

If it’s a pure commodity like airline seats, you can understand why no one makes any money. As we sit here, just think of what airlines have given to the world—safe travel, greater experience, time with your loved ones, you name it. Yet, the net amount of money that’s been made by the shareholders of airlines since Kitty Hawk, is now a negative figure—a substantial negative figure. Competition was so intense that, once it was unleashed by deregulation, it ravaged shareholder wealth in the airline business.

Yet, in other fields—like cereals, for example—almost all the big boys make out. If you’re some kind of a medium grade cereal maker, you might make 15% on your capital. And if you’re really good, you might make 40%. But why are cereals so profitable—despite the fact that it looks to me like they’re competing like crazy with promotions, coupons and everything else? I don’t fully understand it.

Obviously, there’s a brand identity factor in cereals that doesn’t exist in airlines. That must be the main factor that accounts for it.

And maybe the cereal makers by and large have learned to be less crazy about fighting for market share—because if you get even one person who’s hell-bent on gaining market share…. For example, if I were Kellogg and I decided that I had to have 60% of the market, I think I could take most of the profit out of cereals. I’d ruin Kellogg in the process. But I think I could do it.

In some businesses, the participants behave like a demented Kellogg. In other businesses, they don’t. Unfortunately, I do not have a perfect model for predicting how that’s going to happen.

For example, if you look around at bottler markets, you’ll find many markets where bottlers of Pepsi and Coke both make a lot of money and many others where they destroy most of the profitability of the two franchises. That must get down to the peculiarities of individual adjustment to market capitalism. I think you’d have to know the people involved to fully understand what was happening.”

5. The Dark Side of Solar Power – Atalay Atasu, Serasu Duran, and Luk N. Van Wassenhove

Solar’s pandemic-proof performance is due in large part to the Solar Investment Tax Credit, which defrays 26% of solar-related expenses for all residential and commercial customers (just down from 30% during 2006–2019). After 2023, the tax credit will step down to a permanent 10% for commercial installers and will disappear entirely for home buyers. Therefore, sales of solar will probably burn even hotter in the coming months, as buyers race to cash in while they still can.

Tax subsidies are not the only reason for the solar explosion. The conversion efficiency of panels has improved by as much as 0.5% each year for the last 10 years, even as production costs (and thus prices) have sharply declined, thanks to several waves of manufacturing innovation mostly driven by industry-dominant Chinese panel producers. For the end consumer, this amounts to far lower up-front costs per kilowatt of energy generated.

This is all great news, not just for the industry but also for anyone who acknowledges the need to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy for the sake of our planet’s future. But there’s a massive caveat that very few are talking about.

Economic incentives are rapidly aligning to encourage customers to trade their existing panels for newer, cheaper, more efficient models. In an industry where circularity solutions such as recycling remain woefully inadequate, the sheer volume of discarded panels will soon pose a risk of existentially damaging proportions.

To be sure, this is not the story one gets from official industry and government sources. The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA)’s official projections assert that “large amounts of annual waste are anticipated by the early 2030s” and could total 78 million tonnes by the year 2050. That’s a staggering amount, undoubtedly. But with so many years to prepare, it describes a billion-dollar opportunity for recapture of valuable materials rather than a dire threat. The threat is hidden by the fact that IRENA’s predictions are premised upon customers keeping their panels in place for the entirety of their 30-year life cycle. They do not account for the possibility of widespread early replacement.

Our research does. Using real U.S. data, we modeled the incentives affecting consumers’ decisions whether to replace under various scenarios. We surmised that three variables were particularly salient in determining replacement decisions: installation price, compensation rate (i.e., the going rate for solar energy sold to the grid), and module efficiency. If the cost of trading up is low enough, and the efficiency and compensation rate are high enough, we posit that rational consumers will make the switch, regardless of whether their existing panels have lived out a full 30 years…

…If early replacements occur as predicted by our statistical model, they can produce 50 times more waste in just four years than IRENA anticipates. That figure translates to around 315,000 metric tonnes of waste, based on an estimate of 90 tonnes per MW weight-to-power ratio.

Alarming as they are, these stats may not do full justice to the crisis, as our analysis is restricted to residential installations. With commercial and industrial panels added to the picture, the scale of replacements could be much, much larger.

The industry’s current circular capacity is woefully unprepared for the deluge of waste that is likely to come. The financial incentive to invest in recycling has never been very strong in solar. While panels contain small amounts of valuable materials such as silver, they are mostly made of glass, an extremely low-value material. The long life span of solar panels also serves to disincentivize innovation in this area.

As a result, solar’s production boom has left its recycling infrastructure in the dust. To give you some indication, First Solar is the sole U.S. panel manufacturer we know of with an up-and-running recycling initiative, which only applies to the company’s own products at a global capacity of two million panels per year. With the current capacity, it costs an estimated $20–$30 to recycle one panel. Sending that same panel to a landfill would cost a mere $1–$2.

The direct cost of recycling is only part of the end-of-life burden, however. Panels are delicate, bulky pieces of equipment usually installed on rooftops in the residential context. Specialized labor is required to detach and remove them, lest they shatter to smithereens before they make it onto the truck. In addition, some governments may classify solar panels as hazardous waste, due to the small amounts of heavy metals (cadmium, lead, etc.) they contain. This classification carries with it a string of expensive restrictions — hazardous waste can only be transported at designated times and via select routes, etc.

The totality of these unforeseen costs could crush industry competitiveness. If we plot future installations according to a logistic growth curve capped at 700 GW by 2050 (NREL’s estimated ceiling for the U.S. residential market) alongside the early-replacement curve, we see the volume of waste surpassing that of new installations by the year 2031. By 2035, discarded panels would outweigh new units sold by 2.56 times. In turn, this would catapult the LCOE (levelized cost of energy, a measure of the overall cost of an energy-producing asset over its lifetime) to four times the current projection. The economics of solar — so bright-seeming from the vantage point of 2021 — would darken quickly as the industry sinks under the weight of its own trash.

6. Why America Will Lose Semiconductors – Dylan Patel

The US has always been the world leader in semiconductors: design, manufacturing, and the tools to produce them. Semiconductors are the base of all technological innovation in computing and information technology. Without them, companies such as Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Meta, Apple, and Tesla would not exist. The US has slowly been losing its dominance over the semiconductor industry over the last couple of decades. In recent years, the rate of loss has been accelerating. If it is lost, then the foundational building block of modern technology is lost, and the US will cede its overarching technology advantage. In this article we will discuss the major causes of this problem and offer solutions which should be bipartisan in nature.

Before we get into the problem, let’s talk about the current state of the US’s semiconductor dominance. Most of the largest semiconductor equipment, design, and software companies are based in the US or have critical engineering in the US. In the equipment space, Lam Research, Applied Materials, and KLA are based out of the US. ASML, the widely known leader in lithography, does much of their critical engineering for the EUV Source and EUV Collector out of San Diego. These technology assets and teams come from the acquisition of San Diego based Cymer. ASML pays royalties to the EUV-LLC whose membership includes multiple US national labs. Without these tools, it is impossible to manufacture chips.

The critical software needed to be used to design chips is called EDA and it all comes from the US. Cadence, Synopsys, and Mentor Graphics (now owned by Siemens) are located in the US. Without this software, it is impossible to design modern chips.

American companies like Texas Instruments and Intel hold leading market shares in their respective fields while manufacturing their own chips. The 4 largest companies that design chips for external sale and use contract manufacturers are also American. They are Qualcomm, Broadcom, Nvidia, and AMD.

But that dominance is shifting away to countries that pose as geopolitical risks. US share of chip manufacturing is at an all-time low. The US will lose the semiconductor industry unless immediate action is taken. This is a national security crisis.

The US has been the hallmark of innovation through entrepreneurship, education, and making large investments. All three of these tenets are eroding, partially due to the private market’s attitude and partially because the government’s policies incentivize certain behaviors. The shift is occurring in favor of countries that have favorable government policies, regulatory support, focus on STEM higher education, and a general cultural recognition of the importance of semiconductor manufacturing…

…The US private market of venture capital and angel investing is completely off its rockers investing in software platform based “tech” companies. While this type of investing is fine, these same venture capital and angel investors have completely ignored the semiconductor and hardware space. We here at SemiAnalysis have seen it firsthand as we have helped a few firms in the semiconductor industry raise money. It’s extremely difficult to convince venture capitalists to invest in startups, even if they have promising technology and exceptional track records.

The private market has a strong prejudice against hardware startups. Semiconductors in general have higher startup costs, and the market potential is limited in comparison to a platform-based tech company. US based venture and angel investors that require them tend to think in terms of tens or hundreds of billions of dollars addressable markets. They want software platforms that can have a few dozen employees with the potential to scale to billions in revenue. There can only be so many Instagram’s, Uber’s, Shopify’s and Airbnb’s though. Hardware entrepreneurship is needed even if it doesn’t meet the wild dreams that US based venture and angel investors have. A friend of SemiAnalysis, Jay Goldberg has written about this phenomenon on his newsletter in posts titled Hard or Soft, and Hard or Soft with Math…

… Even if the startups and production facilities were in the US, there is now a severe shortage of skilled workers in the field. By 2025, this shortage is projected to be as high as 300,000 workers. Educated and skilled personnel is a cornerstone of innovation, and without them, the job cannot be done.

Most Americans who pursue a higher education do so in a non-STEM field. While not a negative in and of itself, this is a huge concern when viewed in light of the expected growing shortage of skilled workers in the semiconductor industry. Over 5 million people were granted degrees/certificates at postsecondary institutions in the US, yet not even 1/5th were in STEM according to the chart below from Statista.

2/3 of STEM PHD students in the US are foreigners. They were able to get student visas for their education, yet many of them have a very difficult time immigrating after their education despite hoping to do so. China has nearly 5 million people graduating with STEM degrees annually, population size differences make the gap between China and the US impossible to fill with domestic population alone.

The US must make it easier for educated people around the world to immigrate. It was much easier at other points in US history, which was part of the recipe for the US outpacing the rest of the world in innovation. The concept of brain drain is very real, and the best and most qualified in the world must be allowed to move to the US. 

7. Twitter thread on Three Arrows Capital’s bankruptcy – Jack Niewold

Three Arrows Capital was one of the biggest crypto hedge funds, at one point managing over $10 billion in capital— Until the founders dropped off the map. A 1000-page legal document came out today, bringing clarity to the case. I went through it. This is what I found:

To get you up to speed: After making a series of large directional trades (GBTC, LUNA, stETH) and borrowing from 20+ large institutions, Three Arrows Capital (3ac) went bust. Then the founders ran, and the loan defaults have lead to mass contagion in crypto.

As founders Su Zhu and Kyle Davies are nowhere to be seen, legal proceedings move forwards. Today, a court document was leaked, one which asks the Singapore Government (where 3AC is based) to recognize liquidation proceedings and cooperate with liquidators…

…1. CREDITORS
• 3AC owes over $3b
• The biggest creditor is Genesis, with $2.3b loaned
• Default on debts contributed to insolvency of Celsius and Voyager Digital…

…3. Reasonably Sized Yachts/Houses/Crimes
Between Sep 20 and June 22, Zhu bought two Singapore ‘Good Class Bungalows’ and a yacht that has yet to be delivered. It’s likely that borrowed money was used to fund it; the yacht was shown to lenders as proof of 3AC’s creditworthiness.

It looks like there was some really suspicious movement of ETH and stablecoins just before 3AC was widely known as insolvent. At one point, they made a down payment for the yacht while ignoring an outstanding loan payment.

Other potential crimes:
• Lying about extent of losses to lenders
• Lying about leverage and directional market exposure
• Movement of funds
• Not disclosing their liquidation to shareholders/creditors

4. The Business Structure.
Some reporting has recently been done around TPS/Tai Ping Shan LTD, which is a legal entity related to 3AC and owned by Su Zhu and Kyle Davies’ partner, Kelly Chen. It was recently transferred $31m in stablecoins by a 3AC account.

As for Su Zhu and Kyle Davies (well, his wife), they’re actually creditors in the suit against 3AC, claiming that 3AC owes them money.  That’s not part of these documents, but it’s wild enough to include…

…6. What’s left?
Equity and token agreements in 3ACs illiquid investments, some of which have surely been sold off. JPEGs, including ‘Crypto Dickbutt #1462’…

…7. How did this happen? 
Well, it looks like these lenders just didn’t do their homework. Take Blockchain.com as an example:
• 3AC was asked to to ‘keep them informed’ if their leverage went above 1.5x
• Davies signed the below letter confirming over $2.3b in TAM

And when can you pay back the loan, by the way…?

“Yo
uh
hmm”


Disclaimer: The Good Investors is the personal investing blog of two simple guys who are passionate about educating Singaporeans about stock market investing. By using this Site, you specifically agree that none of the information provided constitutes financial, investment, or other professional advice. It is only intended to provide education. Speak with a professional before making important decisions about your money, your professional life, or even your personal life. Of all the companies mentionedwe currently have a vested interest in ASML and Shopify. Holdings are subject to change at any time.

What The USA’s Largest Bank Thinks About The State Of The Country’s Economy

Insights from JPMorgan Chase’s management on the health of American consumers and businesses.

JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM) is currently the largest bank in the USA by total assets. Because of this status, JPMorgan is naturally able to feel the pulse of the country’s economy. The bank’s latest earnings conference call – for the second quarter of 2022 – contained useful insights on the state of American consumers and businesses. The bottom-line is that while there are risks on the horizon, consumer spending in the USA is still healthy and the leaders of companies there think that their businesses are currently doing fine. What’s shown between the two horizontal lines below are quotes from JPMorgan’s management team that I picked up from the call. 


1. Credit is still healthy and loan volumes continued to grow

Credit is still quite healthy and net charge-offs remain historically low. And there continue to be positive trends in loan growth across our businesses, with average loans up 7% year-on-year and 2% quarter-on-quarter.

2. Provision for credit losses were much higher than a year ago (when there was a release of previous credit loss charges) to account for a slightly weaker economic outlook

And credit costs were $1.1 billion, which included net charge-offs of $657 million and reserve builds of $428 million, reflecting loan growth as well as a modest deterioration in the economic outlook.

3. Consumer spending is still healthy, across both debit and credit cards, but there’s clear impact from inflation and higher non-discretionary spending; this said, there’s no pullback seen yet on discretionary spending

Spend is still healthy with combined debit and credit spend up 15% year-on-year. We see the impact of inflation and higher nondiscretionary spend across income segments. Notably, the average consumer is spending 35% more year-on-year on gas and approximately 6% more on recurring bills and other nondiscretionary categories. At the same time, we have yet to observe a pullback in discretionary spending, including in the lower income segments, with travel and dining growing a robust 34% year-on-year overall.

4. Consumer deposit balances are down, although cash buffers are still high

And with spending growing faster than incomes, median deposit balances are down across income segments for the first time since the pandemic started, though cash buffers still remain elevated.

5. Auto loan originations fell sharply

And in auto, originations were $7 billion, down 44% from record levels a year ago due to continued lack of vehicle supply and rising rates while loans were up 2%.

6. Loan growth outlook of high single digit for 2022, but no view on 2023 yet

Yes. So we’ve talked, as you know, Steve, about sort of a mid — high single digits loan growth expectation for this year. And that outlook is more or less still in place. Obviously, we only have half the year left. We continue to see quite robust C&I growth, both higher revolver utilization and new account origination. We’re also seeing good growth in CRE. And of course, we continue to see very robust card loan growth, which is nice to see. Outlook beyond this year, I’m not going to give now.

7. Lower income segments are where cash buffers are getting thinner, but they are still above pre-pandemic levels; JPMorgan’s management is also not sure if this is just simply normalisation or an early warning sign of deterioration

[Question] Okay. Great. And then just maybe on credit. It continues to look, I guess, very good, whether it’s on the consumer side or commercial side. Are you — we don’t really see it, but are you starting to see any initial cracks in credit or strains in the system?

[Answer] But if you really want to kind of turn up the magnification on the microscope and look really, really, really closely, if you look at cash buffers in the lower-income segments and early delinquency roll rates in those segments, you can maybe see a little bit of an early warning signal to the effect that the burn-down of excess cash is a little bit faster there. Buffers are still above what they were pre-pandemic, but coming down. And that absolute numbers for the typical customer are not that high. And you do see those early delinquency buckets still below pre-pandemic levels, but getting closer in the lower-income segment. So if you wanted to try to look for early warning signals, that’s where you would see it. But I think there’s really still a big question about whether that’s simply normalization or whether it’s actually an early warning sign of deterioration. And for us, as you know, our portfolio is really not very exposed to that segment of the market. So not really very significant for us.

8. JPMorgan’s CEO, Jamie Dimon, said a few months ago that a hurricane is coming, but he acknowledges that in the long-term, the economy will be fine; current economic conditions also look good

[Question] Could you help me reconcile your words with your actions? After Investor Day, Jamie, you said a hurricane is on the horizon. But today, you’re holding firm with your $77 billion expense guidance for 2022. I mean, it’s like you’re acting like there’s sunny skies ahead. You’re out buying kayaks, surfboards, wave runners just before the storm. So is it tough times or not?

[Answer] Now let me — we run the company. We’ve always run the company consistently, investing, doing this stuff through storms. We don’t like pull in and pull out and go up and go down and go into markets, out of markets through storms. We manage the company, and you’ve seen us do this consistently since I’ve been at Bank One. We invest, we grow, we expand, we manage through the storm and stuff like that.

And so — and I mentioned to all of you on the media call, but there are very good current numbers taking place. Consumers are in good shape. They’re spending money. They have more income. Jobs are plentiful. They’re spending 10% more than last year, almost 30% plus more than pre-COVID. Businesses, when you talk to them, they’re in good shape, they’re doing fine. We’ve never seen business credit be better ever like in our lifetimes. And that’s the current environment.

The future environment, which is not that far off, involves rates going up maybe more than people think because of inflation, maybe deflation, maybe a soft — there might be a soft landing. I’m simply saying, there’s a range of potential outcomes, from a soft lending to a hard lending, driven by how much rates go up; the effect of quantitative tightening; the effect of volatile markets; and obviously, this terrible humanitarian crisis in Ukraine and the war, and then the effect of that on food and oil and gas.

And we’re simply pointing out, those things make the probabilities and possibilities of these events different. It’s not going to change how we run the company. The economy will be bigger in 10 years. We’re going to run the company. We’re going to serve more clients. We’re going to open our branches. We’re going to invest in the things. And we’ll manage through that.

We do — if you look at what we do, our bridge book is way down. That was managing certain exposures. We’re not in subprime fundamentally. That’s managing your exposures. So we’re quite careful about how we run the risk of the company. And if there was a reason to cut back on something, we would. But now that we think it’s a great business that’s got great growth prospects, it’s just going to go through a storm.

And in fact, going through a storm, we will — that gives us opportunities, too. I always remind myself, the economy will be a lot bigger in 10 years, we’re here to serve clients through thick or thin, and we will do that…

…But that’s — yes, that’s very performance-based, too. And again, Mike, the way I look at it a little bit, in 15 years, the global GDP — or 20 years, the global GDP, global financial assets, global companies, companies over $5 billion will all double. That’s what we’re building for. We’re not building for like 18 months.

9. JPMorgan sees technology investments as being really helpful during recessions

[Question] So clearly running the company for the next 5 to 10 years. If we have a recession in the next 5 to 10 months, how does technology help you manage through that better? Whether it’s credit losses, managing for less credit losses, expenses, more flexibility, more revenues, maybe gaining market share. What’s the benefit of all these technology investments if we have a recession over the next…

[Answer] Mike, I think we gave you some examples at Investor Day. For example, AI, which we spend a lot of money on. We gave you a couple of examples, but one of them is we spent $100 million building certain risk and fraud systems so that when we process payments on the consumer side, losses are down $100 million to $200 million. Volume is way up. That’s a huge benefit. I don’t think you’d want to stop doing that because there’s a recession. And so — and plus, in a recession, certain things get cheaper, branches are enormously profitable, bank is enormously profitable. We’re going to keep on doing those things. And we’ve managed through recessions before, we’ll manage it again. And I’m quite comfortable we’ll do it quite well. We’re stop-starting on recruiting or training or technology or branch, right? That’s crazy. We don’t do that. We’ve never done that. We didn’t do it in ’08 and ’09. [ And it puts us in quite good stead ] in terms — yes.

10. From JPMorgan’s vantage point, consumers are in great shape

And the consumer, I feel like a broken record. The consumer right now is in great shape. So even we go into a recession, they’re entering that recession with less leverage, in far better shape than they’ve been — did in ’08 and ’09, and far better shape than they did even in 2020. And jobs are plentiful. Now of course, jobs may disappear. Things happen. But they’re in very good shape. And obviously, when you have recessions, it affects consumer income and consumer credit. Our credit card portfolio is prime. I mean, it’s exceptional. But again, we’re adults in that. We know that if you have a recession, losses will go up. We prepare for all that, and we’re prepared to take it because we grow the business over time. We’re not going to just immediately run out of it. And so I think it’s great the consumer’s is in good shape. And it sounds excellent that — I like the fact that wages are going up for people at the low end. I like the fact that jobs are plentiful. I think that’s good for the average American, and we should applaud that. And so they’re in good shape right now.

11. When responding to a question about the market pricing in rate cuts for next year, Jamie Dimon said forward curves have been wrong all the time

[Question] I guess just one for — a couple of follow-ups, Jeremy. In terms of the markets have gone very quickly from pricing in a ton of rate hikes to potentially pricing in rate cuts next year…

…[Answer] And I should just point out, the forward curve has been consistently wrong in my whole lifetime. We don’t necessarily make investments based on the forward curve.


Disclaimer: The Good Investors is the personal investing blog of two simple guys who are passionate about educating Singaporeans about stock market investing. By using this Site, you specifically agree that none of the information provided constitutes financial, investment, or other professional advice. It is only intended to provide education. Speak with a professional before making important decisions about your money, your professional life, or even your personal life. I don’t have a vested interest in any company mentioned. Holdings are subject to change at any time.

What We’re Reading (Week Ending 17 July 2022)

The best articles we’ve read in recent times on a wide range of topics, including investing, business, and the world in general.

We’ve constantly been sharing a list of our recent reads in our weekly emails for The Good Investors.

Do subscribe for our weekly updates through the orange box in the blog (it’s on the side if you’re using a computer, and all the way at the bottom if you’re using mobile) – it’s free!

But since our readership-audience for The Good Investors is wider than our subscriber base, we think sharing the reading list regularly on the blog itself can benefit even more people. The articles we share touch on a wide range of topics, including investing, business, and the world in general.

Here are the articles for the week ending 17 July 2022:

1. The first CRISPR gene-editing drug is coming—possibly as soon as next year – Sy Mukherjee

Until recently, CRISPR—the gene-editing technology that won scientists Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier the 2020 Nobel Prize in chemistry—sounded more like science fiction than medicine; lab-created molecular scissors are used to snip out problematic DNA sections in a patient’s cells to cure them of disease. But soon we could see regulators approve the very first treatment using this gene-editing technology in an effort to combat rare inherited blood disorders that affect millions across the globe.

In a $900 million collaboration, rare disease specialist Vertex and CRISPR Therapeutics developed the therapy, dubbed exa-cel (short for exagamglogene autotemcel). It has already amassed promising evidence that it can help patients with beta thalassemia and sickle cell disease (SCD), both of which are genetic blood diseases that are relatively rare in the U.S. but somewhat more common inherited conditions globally…

…The latest exa-cel clinical data, unveiled during the 2022 European Hematology Association Congress in Switzerland, found that all 75 patients with either beta thalassemia or SCD given the gene-editing therapy showed zero or a greatly reduced need for blood transfusions (in the case of beta thalassemia) or incidences of life-threatening blockages (in the case of SCD). All but 2 of the 44 patients with thalassemia hadn’t needed a single blood transfusion in the 1 to 37 months of follow-up after the treatment’s administration, and the remaining 2 had 75% and 89% reduction in how much blood they needed transfused.

Similarly impressive, all 31 patients with a severe and life-threatening form of SCD experienced no vaso-occlusive crises (the life-threatening incidents in which healthy blood is blocked from moving freely) in anywhere from 2 to 32 months of posttreatment follow-up. Those same patients usually experienced, on average, nearly four of these crises per year for the two years before they received exa-cel…

…CRISPR isn’t the only type of gene therapy that’s made waves in just the past few weeks. Earlier in June, a group of advisers to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) gave unanimous recommendations for a pair of non-CRISPR-based gene therapies from Bluebird Bio. The treatments target genes associated with beta thalassemia and a rare disorder afflicting children called cerebral adrenoleukodystrophy (CALD). The latter is a disease that eats away at white brain matter in children as young as 4, has few treatments, and usually leads to death within 5 to 10 years.

Bluebird’s eli-cel therapy has faced clinical setbacks because of its association with higher risk of a type of cancer, but the independent advisers decided its benefits still outweighed the risks for some patients with few other options. The FDA doesn’t have to follow the recommendations of its advisory panels, but typically does.

2. Stock Market Experiment Suggests Inevitability Of Booms and Busts – Jerry E. Bishop

Vernon L. Smith knows why the stock market crashed. He ought to. He’s seen dozens of “bubbles” — booms followed by sudden crashes — in the past three years.

Almost every time, Mr. Smith says, the bubble occurred because inexperienced traders dominated the market. In fact, traders had to go through at least two booms and crashes before they collectively learned to avoid these bubbles.

Mr. Smith is one of a new breed of economists who test economic theories by setting up laboratory experiments. For the past few years he and his associate at the University of Arizona in Tucson, Gerry L. Suchanek, and Arlington W. Williams at Indiana University in Bloomington have been running experimental stock markets in their labs…

…In these experimental markets a dozen or so volunteers, usually economics students, are given a set number of “shares” of stock, along with some working capital. All the volunteers are connected by terminals to a computer, which is set up to duplicate trading on the stock-market floor. A trading “day” lasts about four minutes during which the traders may have entered two or three dozen bids and offers resulting in anywhere from five to a dozen trades. A typical experiment during an afternoon or evening runs 15 days.

The booms and crashes occurred in a recent series of 60 experiments aimed at testing an aspect of one of the most basic of all stock-market theories — rational expectations. This theory says a stock’s price is determined by investors’ expectations of what dividend the share will pay. If investors are rational in their expectations, they all place the same value on the stock and it will trade at a price reflecting its true dividend value. The price will change only when new information comes along that changes the dividend expectations.

Mr. Smith and his colleagues assumed, however, that even if investors had the same information, their dividend expectations would differ and they would value the stock differently. Price speculation would then be possible. But, they hypothesized, investors would soon realize that speculative profits are uncertain and unsustainable and they would begin changing their dividend expectations until, at some point, they all came to a common and rational expectation. The stock would then trade at its dividend value.

To find out how long this learning process would take, they set up a laboratory market in which all traders began with the same information about dividend prospects. Traders were told a payout would be declared after each trading day. The amount would be determined randomly from four possibilities — zero, eight, 28 or 60 cents. The average daily payout would be 24 cents. Thus, a share’s dividend value on the first trading day in a 15-day experiment was $3.60 (24 cents times 15 days). As the days passed and dividends were paid, the dividend value would drop.

One typical experiment involved nine students. On the first four-minute “day,” trading opened when a student’s offer to sell a share for $1.50 was quickly accepted. A moment later a bid to buy a share for $1.30 was snapped up. Such bargain prices triggered a flurry of rising bids, and a boom quickly developed. By the middle of the fourth trading day the price topped $5.50 even though the stock’s dividend value had dropped to $3.

But at such high prices offers to sell began to outnumber bids to buy. A crash began and by day 11 prices were below the stock’s $1 dividend value. Only on the last two trading days prices settle at or near the dividend value.

Some of the more astute traders were able to post gains of as much as $50 in dividends and trading profits while others ended up with as little as $5, Mr. Smith says. If the stock had consistently traded at or near its dividend value, all nine students could have had a profit of $16.

Such market bubbles occurred repeatedly. “We find that inexperienced traders never trade consistently near fundamental value, and most commonly generate a boom followed by a crash in stock prices,” Mr. Smith says. Moreover, traders who have experienced one crash “continue to bubble and crash, but at reduced volume,” he says. But, he adds, “Groups brought back for a third trading session tend to trade near fundamental dividend value.”

To counter any criticism that the boom and crash reflected students’ naivete, the researchers used Tucson businessmen who had “real world” experience. They generated the biggest bubble of all and, like the students, had to go through two booms and crashes before settling down to trade at a mutually profitable dividend value.

3. Lifestyles – Morgan Housel

Anyone alone at sea for nine months will start to lose their mind, and there’s evidence both Crowhurst and Moitessier were in poor mental states when their decisions were made. Crowhurst’s last diary entries were incoherent ramblings about submitting your soul to the universe; Moitessier wrote about his long conversations with birds and dolphins.

But their outcomes seemed to center on the fact that Crowhurst was addicted to what other people thought of his accomplishments, while Moitessier was disgusted by them. One lived for external benchmarks, the other only cared about internal measures of happiness.

They are the most extreme examples you can imagine. But their stories are important because ordinary people so often struggle to find balance between external and internal measures of success.

I have no idea how to find the perfect balance between internal and external benchmarks. But I know there’s a strong social pull toward external measures – chasing a path someone else set, whether you enjoy it or not. Social media makes it ten times more powerful. But I also know there’s a strong natural desire for internal measures – being independent, following your quirky habits, and doing what you want, when you want, with whom you want. That’s what people actually want.

4. The Biggest Problem With Remote Work – Derek Thompson

But if the work-from-anywhere movement has been successful for veteran employees in defined roles with trusted colleagues, for certain people and for certain objectives,  remote or hybrid work remains a problem to be solved.

First, remote work is worse for new workers. Many inexperienced employees joining a virtual company realize that they haven’t joined much of a company at all. They’ve logged into a virtual room that calls itself a company but is basically a group chat. It’s hard to promote a wholesome company culture in normal times, and harder still to do so one misunderstood group Slack message and problematic fire emoji at a time. “Small talk, passing conversations, even just observing your manager’s pathways through the office may seem trivial, but in the aggregate they’re far more valuable than any form of company handbook,” write Anne Helen Petersen and Charlie Warzel, the authors of the book Out of Office. Many of the perks of flexible work—like owning your own schedule and getting away from office gossip—can “work against younger employees” in companies that don’t have intentional structured mentorship programs, they argued.

Second, remote is worse at building new teams to take on new tasks. In 2020, Microsoft tapped researchers from UC Berkeley to study how the pandemic changed its work culture. Researchers combed through 60,000 employees’ anonymized messages and chats. They found that the number of messages sent within teams grew significantly, as workers tried to keep up with their colleagues. But information sharing between groups plummeted. Remote work made people more likely to hunker down with their preexisting teams and less likely to have serendipitous conversations that could lead to knowledge sharing. Though employees could accomplish the “hard work” of emailing and making PowerPoints from anywhere, the Microsoft-Berkeley study suggested that the most important job of the office is “soft work”—the sort of banter that allows for long-term trust and innovation…

…Third, and relatedly, remote work is worse at generating disruptive new ideas. A paper published in Nature by Melanie Brucks, at Columbia Business School, and Jonathan Levav, at the Stanford Graduate School of Business, analyzed whether virtual teams could brainstorm as creatively as in-person teams. In one study, they recruited about 1,500 engineers to work in pairs and randomly assigned them to brainstorm either face-to-face or over videoconference. After the pairs generated product ideas for an hour, they selected and submitted one to a panel of judges. Engineers who worked virtually generated fewer total ideas and external raters graded their ideas significantly less creative than those of the in-person teams…

…The work-from-anywhere revolution has something of a kick-starter problem: It’s harder for new workers, new groups, and new ideas to get revved up.

So how do we fix this? One school of thought says face-to-face interactions are too precious to be replaced. I disagree. I’m an optimist who believes the corporate world can solve these problems, because I know that other industries already have.

Modern scientific research is a team sport, with groups spanning many universities and countries. Groups working without face-to-face interaction have historically been less innovative, according to a new paper on remote work in science. For decades, teams split among several countries were five times less likely to produce “breakthrough” science that replaced the corpus of research that came before it. But in the past decade, the innovation gap between on-site and remote teams suddenly reversed. Today, the teams divided by the greatest distance are producing the most significant and innovative work.

I asked one of the co-authors of the paper, the Oxford University economist Carl Benedikt Frey, to explain this flip. He said the explosion of remote-work tools such as Zoom and Slack was essential. But the most important factor is that remote scientists have figured out how to be better hybrid workers. After decades of trial and error, they’ve learned to combine their local networks, which are developed through years of in-person encounters, and their virtual networks, to build a kind of global collective brain.

If scientists can make remote work work, companies can do it too. But they might just have to create an entirely new position—a middle manager for the post-pandemic era.

In the middle of the 19th century, the railroads and the telegraph allowed goods and information to move faster than ever. In 1800, traveling from Manhattan to Chicago took, on average, four weeks. In 1857, it took two days. Firms headquartered in major cities could suddenly track prices from Los Angeles to Miami and ship goods across the country at then-record-high speeds.

To conduct this full orchestra of operations, mid-1800s companies had to invent an entirely new system of organizing work. They needed a new layer of decision makers who could steer local production and distribution businesses. A new species of employee was born: the “middle manager.”

“As late as 1840, there were no middle managers in the United States,” Alfred Chandler observed in The Visible Hand, his classic history of the rise of America’s managerial revolution. In the early 1800s, all managers were owners, and all owners were managers; it was unheard of for somebody to direct employees without being a partner in the company. But once ownership and management were unbundled, new kinds of American companies were made possible, such as the department store, the mail-order house, and the national oil and steel behemoths…

…The synchronizer—or, for large companies, a team of synchronizers—would be responsible for solving the new-worker, new-group, and new-idea problems. Synchronizers would help new workers by ensuring that their managers, mentors, and colleagues are with them at the office during an early onboarding period. They would plan in-person time for new teammates to get to know one another as actual people and not just abstracted online personalities. They would coordinate the formation of new groups to tackle new project ideas, the same way that modern teams in science pull together the right researchers from around the world to co-author new papers. They would plan frequent retreats and reunions across the company, even for workers who never have to be together, with the understanding that the best new ideas—whether in science, consulting, or media—often come from the surprising hybridization of disparate expertise.

5. The Trillion-Dollar Vision of Dee Hock – M. Mitchell Waldrop

This is one of Dee Hock’s favorite tricks to play on an audience. “How many of you recognize this?” he asks, holding out his own Visa card.

Every hand in the room goes up.

“Now,” Hock says, “how many of you can tell me who owns it, where it’s headquartered, how it’s governed, or where to buy shares?”

Confused silence. No one has the slightest idea, because no one has ever thought about it.

And that, says Hock, is exactly how it ought to be. “The better an organization is, the less obvious it is,” he says. “In Visa, we tried to create an invisible organization and keep it that way. It’s the results, not the structure or management that should be apparent.” Today the Visa organization that Hock founded is not only performing brilliantly, it is also almost mythic, one of only two examples that experts regularly cite to illustrate how the dynamic principles of chaos theory can be applied to business.

It all started back in the late 1960s, when the credit card industry was on the brink of disaster. The forerunner of the Visa system — the very first credit card — was BankAmericard, which had originated a decade earlier as a statewide service of the San Francisco-based Bank of America. The card got off to a rocky start, then became reasonably profitable — until 1966, when five other California banks jointly issued a competing product they called MasterCharge.

Bank of America promptly responded, franchising BankAmericard nationwide. (In those days, banks were forbidden to have their own out-of-state branches.) Other large banks quickly responded with their own proprietary cards and franchise systems. A credit card orgy ensued: banks mass-mailed preapproved cards to any list they could find. Children were getting cards. Pets were getting cards. Convicted felons were getting cards. Fraud was rampant, and the banks were hemorrhaging red ink.

By 1968, the industry had become so self-destructive that Bank of America called its licensees to a meeting in Columbus, Ohio to find a solution. The meeting promptly dissolved into angry finger-pointing.

Enter Dee Hock, then a 38-year-old vice president at a licensee bank in Seattle. When the meeting was at its most acrimonious, he got up and suggested that the group find a method to study the issues more systematically. The thankful participants immediately formed a committee, named Hock chairman, and went home.

It was the chance Hock had been waiting for. Even then, he was a man who thought Big Thoughts. Born in 1929, the youngest child of a utility lineman in the mountain town of North Ogden, Utah, he was a loner, an iconoclast, a self-educated mountain boy with a deeply ingrained respect for the individual and a hard-won sense of self-worth. And he stubbornly refused to accept orthodox ideas: before he’d started with the Seattle bank he’d already walked away from fast-track jobs at three separate financial companies, each time raging that the hierarchical, rule-following, control-everything organizations were stifling creativity and initiative at the grass roots — and in the process, making the company too rigid to respond to new challenges and opportunities.

He’d been a passionate reader since before he could remember, even though his formal schooling ended after two years at a community college. He read history, economics, politics, science, philosophy, poetry — anything and everything, without paying the slightest attention to disciplinary boundaries.

What he read convinced him that the command-and-control model of organization that had grown up to support the industrial revolution had gotten out of hand. It simply didn’t work. Command-and-control organizations, Hock says, “were not only archaic and increasingly irrelevant. They were becoming a public menace, antithetical to the human spirit and destructive of the biosphere. I was convinced we were on the brink of an epidemic of institutional failure.”

He also had a deep conviction that if he ever got to create an organization, things would be different. He would try to conceive it based on biological concepts and metaphors.

Now he had that chance. In June 1970, after nearly two years of brainstorming, planning, arguing, and consensus building, control of the BankAmericard system passed to a new, independent entity called National BankAmericard, Inc. (later renamed Visa International). And its CEO was one Dee W. Hock.

The new organization was indeed different — a nonstock, for-profit membership corporation with ownership in the form of nontransferable rights of participation. Hock designed the organization according to his philosophy: highly decentralized and highly collaborative. Authority, initiative, decision making, wealth — everything possible is pushed out to the periphery of the organization, to the members. This design resulted from the need to reconcile a fundamental tension. On the one hand, the member financial institutions are fierce competitors: they — not Visa — issue the cards, which means they are constantly going after each other’s customers. On the other hand, the members also have to cooperate with each other: for the system to work, participating merchants must be able to take any Visa card issued by any bank, anywhere.

That means that the banks abide by certain standards on issues such as card layout. Even more important, they participate in a common clearinghouse operation, the system that reconciles all the accounts and makes sure merchants get paid for each purchase, the transactions are cleared between banks, and customers get billed.

To reconcile that tension, Hock and his colleagues employed a combination of Lao Tse, Adam Smith, and Thomas Jefferson. For example, instead of trying to enforce cooperation by restricting what the members can do, the Visa bylaws encourage them to compete and innovate as much as possible. “Members are free to create, price, market, and service their own products under the Visa name,” he says. “At the same time, in a narrow band of activity essential to the success of the whole, they engage in the most intense cooperation.” This harmonious blend of cooperation and competition is what allowed the system to expand worldwide in the face of different currencies, languages, legal codes, customs, cultures, and political philosophies.

No one way of doing business, dictated from headquarters, could possibly have worked. “It was beyond the power of reason to design an organization to deal with such complexity,” says Hock, “and beyond the reach of the imagination to perceive all the conditions it would encounter.” Instead, he says, “the organization had to be based on biological concepts to evolve, in effect, to invent and organize itself.”

Visa has been called “a corporation whose product is coordination.” Hock calls it “an enabling organization.” He also sees it as living proof that a large organization can be effective without being centralized and coercive. “Visa has elements of Jeffersonian democracy, it has elements of the free market, of government franchising — almost every kind of organization you can think about,” he says. “But it’s none of them. Like the body, the brain, and the biosphere, it’s largely self-organizing.”

It also works. Visa grew phenomenally during the 1970s, from a few hundred members to tens of thousands. And it did so more or less smoothly, without dissolving into fiefdoms and turf wars. By the early 1980s, in fact, the Visa system had surpassed MasterCard as the largest in the world. It had begun to fulfill Hock’s vision of a universal currency, transcending national boundaries. And Dee Hock was seen as the system’s essential man.

“Utter nonsense,” Hock says. “It’s the organizational concepts and ideas that were essential. I merely came to symbolize them. Such organizations should be management-proof.”

In May 1984, at 55, Hock put his beliefs to the test. He resigned from Visa and three months later, with his successor in place, dropped completely from sight. Six years later, in an acceptance speech as a laureate of the Business Hall of Fame, Hock put it this way: “Through the years, I have greatly feared and sought to keep at bay the four beasts that inevitably devour their keeper — Ego, Envy, Avarice, and Ambition. In 1984, I severed all connections with business for a life of isolation and anonymity, convinced I was making a great bargain by trading money for time, position for liberty, and ego for contentment — that the beasts were securely caged.”

Visa never missed a beat.

6. America’s freight railroads are incredibly chaotic right now – Rachel Premack

A railroad engineer or conductor typically earns a six-figure salary, retires with a pension and enjoys union benefits. They don’t need a college degree; the monthslong training is provided on the job. It’s the kind of career that ought to be popular — but Doering said trainees and longtimers alike are getting burned out. It used to be a job with eight- or nine-hour shifts and plenty of time at home. Now, Doering says railroading demands too much time away from one’s family and workdays that last up to 19 hours, combining 12-hour shifts with hours of waiting around for transportation or relief crews. 

Union Pacific is struggling to find railroad crews after years of slashing headcounts. The $22 billion railroader had 30,100 employees during the first three months of 2022, according to its latest earnings report. Five years prior, the company had nearly 12,000 more workers. (A representative from Union Pacific declined to provide a comment for this article, as the company is reporting its second-quarter earnings later this month. The rep did share a company blog on the importance of supply chain fluidity and cooperation.)

This employment issue isn’t unique to Union Pacific. America’s railways are in an unusually chaotic state as Class I lines struggle to find employees. That’s led to congestion that analysts say is even worse than 2021, which saw some of the biggest rail traffic in history. Now, a strike of 115,000 rail workers could happen as soon as next week. 

“We’re spending more time at home-away terminals than we are at home,” Doering said. Doering is also the Nevada legislative director for SMART Transportation Division, a labor union of train, airline and other transportation workers. “So the attitudes out here, I think, are warranted. Morale is at an all-time low.” …

…So, while you may not have been keeping up to date with rail congestion, industrial bigwigs and lawmakers alike are furious. The coal industry is slamming rail for the “meltdown” in service capacity and grain shippers said they had to spend $100 million more in shipping costs to get their product moved amid poor rail service. The Port of Los Angeles is taking to the press to demand rail move those gosh darn containers away, saying that railroaders could cause a “nationwide logjam” with the unmoved containers sitting around. Members of the federal government’s Surface Transportation Board recently demanded answers from railroad executives in a May two-day hearing, but tensions seemed to have only worsened since then.

Even more exhausted are the rail workers themselves. Rail unions have been negotiating with their employers since January 2020, with a “dead end” in negotiations reported two years later. Now, President Joe Biden is being charged with appointing a “Presidential Emergency Board” to nail down a new contract. If he doesn’t do so by Monday, railroad crews could legally have their first nationwide strike since 1992. Such a strike, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, would be “disastrous.”…

…Let me tell you the hottest rail trend of the 2010s: precision-scheduled railroading. As The Wall Street Journal’s Paul Ziobro explained in a 2019 story, PSR means that railroads have set times for when they pick up cargo from their customers, not unlike a commercial airline. Before, railroads would wait for the cargo. 

There are endless implications that come from this system, some of which my colleague Mike Baudendistel delved into in this 2020 article. PSR allowed railroads to reduce capital budgets, slash headcount and merge internal operations with glee. But its biggest boon to the railroaders was how much it boosted their cred on Wall Street, creating billions in shareholder value.

“The railroad stocks have greatly outperformed the broader market in the past 15 years, which took place despite the major deterioration of coal volume, the railroads’ historical business,” Baudendistel wrote.

There are serious service issues with PSR, though. When the tactic was first implemented at CSX Transportation, dwell time at some terminals increased by as much as 26 hours, according to another 2019 WSJ piece by Ziobro. Trips that would take a few days stretched out to more than two weeks — a struggle for customers that relied on just-in-time supply chains…

…Rail giants, as you could guess, struggled during the early months of COVID. In April 2020, for example, rail carloads saw their biggest year-over-year drop since 1989 and intermodal loadings saw a decline not experienced since 2009.

Railroads were shedding employees from April until July 2020, when my colleague Joanna Marsh reported that crew headcount had finally begun to increase again. Still, there were 25% fewer crews than in 2019 and 28% fewer than 2018, according to data from the Surface Transportation Board.

The financial status of these firms was in question, which motivated them to furlough workers. “At least one Class I railroad held meetings to decide whether they had enough cash through the summer, if they had enough cash to pay the bills and could they stay in business,” Hatch said. “When they began to lay people off, much to the consternation today of the regulators and whatnot, you need some understanding that they did not know how long this would last.”

Railroaders struggled to re-hire those crews they furloughed. Many of them found work in construction or manufacturing, industries that allow workers to spend evenings and weekends at home, Tranausky said.

Unlike its siblings in trucking or ocean shipping, the railroad industry didn’t have a bonkers 2021 — but it survived. 2021 saw healthier volumes from the year before. They were still below 2019’s levels…

…Some issues are completely out of the railroads’ control. Most kinds of employers across the country are still struggling to find workers. Even finding shuttle drivers to take railroad crews to their terminal has been a struggle, from Doering’s observations. Recently, Union Pacific has put him in a taxi to go from Las Vegas to inland California. “We’re watching the little ticker up there in the cab go up to $400 or $500 for a trip,” Doering said.

Even in the best of times, it’s hard to find someone to sign up to be a railroad crew member. They have a similar lifestyle to, say, airline pilots, who must be away from their families for days at a time, living in hotels and manning massive, potentially dangerous pieces of equipment. Railroad crews are on call even during their home time.

They require months of training and after that need years or decades on the job to become truly masters of the rail. “There’s a learning curve,” Tranausky said. “[New crews are] not as efficient, not as productive as those higher-seniority crews.”

While Tranausky and Hatch said labor is the main driver of today’s congestion, one factor is totally outside the control of railroads. Unlike 2021, many warehouses are packed with inventory. Some insiders told FreightWaves that shippers are essentially using railcars as storage rather than moving the cargo into their own warehouse. That’s causing a shortage of chassis and increasing congestion — particularly in rail yards like Chicago.

7. TIP462: What Is Money? w/ Lyn Alden – Stig Brodersen and Lyn Alden

Stig Brodersen (01:11):

To kick this episode off, perhaps you can tell this story of the ancient Greek democracy in sixth century b.c. that used partial jewelry as a solution to avoid a catastrophic class conflict and how that relates to where we are in the debt cycle today.

Lyn Alden (01:28):

You have something that builds up decade to decade, even generation to generation, two or three generations, and it doesn’t self-correct enough, right? So, there’s basically the structural issues in society where things build up and get worse and worse. Basically, things have a tendency to concentrate, especially the way we structure things. And so, you have a given society where let’s say farmers, they harvest crops. They have a big harvest every year, but of course, they have to pay for things throughout the year. So, they might, for example, use debt with the promise to pay them back once their harvest comes in. That might work for 10 years in a row, but on the 11th year, they have a crop failure and suddenly, they find themselves in massive debt that they can’t pay.

Lyn Alden (02:13):

And back then, you could become a debt slave. There are all sorts of ways to deal with that in society. Problem is that over time, you have things build up where wealth consolidates and then it also feeds on itself. So, once you’re wealthy, you’re able to influence politics more, right? You have the ear of the king. Or if it’s a republic, you might have more voting power. Back then especially, only rich people could really vote anyway in societies that were republics. So, you can further make the rules in your favor and you get this tendency to consolidate one way or another. Societies had to deal with that in different ways and we have records going back to ancient Sumeria, Babylon, and Greece.

Lyn Alden (02:56):

And the one I used in this piece was Plutarch wrote about the ancient King Solon in Greece and this was an excerpt from Lessons of History by Will and Ariel Durant. I’ll just read it because it’s actually a really good paragraph. And in the Athens of 594 b.c., the poor finding their status worsened with each year, the government in the hands of their masters and the corrupt courts deriving every issue against them, began to talk a violent revolt. The rich, angry at the challenge to their property, prepared to defend themselves by force. Good sense prevailed, moderate element secured the election of Solon, a businessman of aristocratic lineage to the supreme archonship. He devalued the currency thereby easing the burden of all debtors, although he himself was a creditor.

Lyn Alden (03:43):

He reduced all personal debts and ended imprisonment for debt. He canceled arrears for taxes and mortgage interest. He established a graduated income tax that made the rich pay at a rate 12 times that required of the poor. He reorganized the courts on a more popular basis. He arranged that the sons of those who had died in war for Athens should be brought up and educated at the government’s expense. The rich protested that these measures were outright confiscation and then the radicals on the other side complained that he had not redivided the land. But within a generation, almost all had agreed that his reforms had saved Athens from revolution.

Lyn Alden (04:21):

And so, basically, when we talk about this multi-decade, multi-generational compoundings, usually, what you have is these sharp events at some point where either people revolt, right? Everyone’s a debt slave now. So, they say, “Wait a second. We outnumber these guys 100 to 1. Let’s just go burn their house down.” So, there’s that. Or they through politics basically say, “Okay, this is not sustainable. The courts are corrupt. We have so entrenched cronyism and the policy is not good. Let’s sharply reverse some of this without going too far.” And so, this was an example where they managed to moderate it. Most examples are not that successful.

Lyn Alden (05:00):

And so, this shows over time that when you have massive debts and wealth concentration built up in a society, there’s usually some release valve that in various ways, it’s painful for various groups. And then depending on how it goes, it could be extraordinarily painful for everyone if you have a collapse or a revolution of some sort…

…Lyn Alden (11:47):

The best money isn’t always the absolute hardest. There’s other attributes like the ease of transaction, the divisibility, the speed with which you could move it around. And that’s why I would argue for example that for the past 150 years, paper currencies have really outpaced gold, because even though gold’s harder, in practical terms, it has trouble keeping up. So, for thousands of years, commerce and money moved at about the same speed, which is the speed of humans, right? So, we go around on horses and chips and on foot and we transact with each other with gold, silver, copper pieces, or even our ledgers. Even if we started keeping ledgers, those physical ledgers could still only move at the speed of humans.

Lyn Alden (12:29):

We had to really bring them somewhere if you want to give them to another city. But with the introduction of telecommunications equipment in the 1800s, first with the telegraph and then the telephone, we lay these undersea cables under the Atlantic, starting in the 1800s. And so, by the time you got to late 1800s, institutions around the world could talk to each other almost instantly. And so, you could update ledgers and perform certain types of transactions on multi-continent basis far faster than physical goods, including physical money, could settle. And so, gold was no longer able to keep up with the speed of human commerce, and that really further, I think, led to the need for abstraction.

Lyn Alden (13:12):

So, historically, gold was abstracted, because it had limits on its visibility. Whereas now, we also had the even more important thing where we had limits to its speed relative to the speed we wanted transact. So, we had to abstract it more and that eventually opened up the divide between gold and paper currencies. And then eventually, they could be separated. Whereas, in some other world, if there was an element like gold that we could just mentally teleport to each other, it would’ve been much harder to ever introduce paper currencies, because it would’ve been seen right away as an inferior product, but because gold had those limitations and there was an advantage to using paper claims for gold, it was able to lead to that separation.

Lyn Alden (13:53):

So, in many ways, even though dollars are less hard than gold, they have other advantages over the past 150 years or so that has allowed them to at least keep up with gold and that more people use dollars than use gold, even though gold is a better store of value. So, gold as its hardness is better retained its store of value property, but it lost the medium of exchange and unit of account aspects to what is basically better technology. When you look at pure commodity monies, the stock to flow ratio is pretty paramount. There’s actually a really good example in the early American colonies. There was almost an accelerated version of why most monies fail.

Lyn Alden (14:39):

And basically, in pre-American before the revolution, you had these Southern colonies in the 1600s and they started using tobacco as money. They grew tobacco. It was a high value crop. It was reasonably liquid and fungible. And so, they started using tobacco as money. They even made it legal tender in some colonies like Virginia, where you could pay your taxes, you could pay all debts in tobacco. And so, it became money. Problem is that when you put on a monetary premium to something, you basically give everyone an incentive to make more of it. And so, tobacco’s not very resistant to debasement, so anyone could go and plant more tobacco. And so, they started to inflate the value of tobacco away.

Lyn Alden (15:22):

Basically, the prices of things as dominant to tobacco began to increase. And then so the government imposed restrictions. They said certain class of people couldn’t grow tobacco or there’s only so much tobacco that can be grown a year. They’re trying to artificially increase the stock to flow ratios. Then you had another problem where unlike gold, tobacco is not very fungible, right? So, there’s higher quality tobacco, there’s lower quality tobacco. And so, there’s an incentive to pay your debts in this marginal tobacco, the worst tobacco, and then to say, sell the good tobacco overseas or smoke that or whatever you want to do. Use that for better purposes. Give other people the worst ones.

Lyn Alden (16:00):

You basically have Gresham’s law in play, where the weak money dries out the good money. So, everyone’s trading around the bad tobacco. Then they had to say, “Okay, well, we need external auditors to come in and check the quality of tobacco.” So, they put tobacco in warehouses, grade it, and then trade paper claims for that tobacco. So, they basically had to try to increase the fungibility. And then eventually, they abandoned the whole situation, because it was untenable. And so, that’s an accelerated version of why any commodity that’s not resistant to debasement, meaning it can’t maintain a high stock to flow ratio given our level of technology, ultimately fails as money.

Lyn Alden (16:41):

When you look at the broad spectrum, all the different commodities of history, that’s one reason why gold keeps reemerging, because no matter how good our technology is, we’re not really good at making more gold. So, in the 1970s, for example, when the price of gold went up more than tenfold, if you look at the gold production, it barely changes at all, because we just literally don’t have the capability to make a ton of new gold in a short period of time.

Stig Brodersen (17:08):

I’m holding this amazing blog post. It’s another one of Lyn’s great blog post. The title is, “What is Money, Anyway?” I’ll make sure to link to that in show notes and you tell different stories about commodity money. I love all of them. One of them is about African beads, which is amazing itself and really the illustration of what you’re saying there about new technology coming in. I don’t know if I could ask you to share that story with the audience.

Lyn Alden (17:31):

Yeah. So, the African bead story, that’s probably the most tragic one, one of the most tragic examples in that piece. So, basically, for a long period of time, you had different groups in West Africa using beads as money. So, again, that goes back to the idea that money is technology. So, what is rare, liquid, fungible, desirable in an area could be different in other area. So, in that region, they didn’t have glass-making technology. And so, glass beads were very rare and desirable. And then also you had a pastoral society. So, you might have your herd of animals, shepherd. You’re moving around. So, you want to be able to bring your money with you. So, you could literally wear your beads. You could wear your wealth. And so, that was a useful type of money.

Lyn Alden (18:17):

They also used things like fine fabrics and things like that and certain herbs. These were money-like instruments, but beads were a key one for them. And the tragedy was that Europeans who at the time had glass-making technology when they were traveling around, they would identify and say, “These people like to use beads as money and so we can use that to our advantage. It’s cheap for us to make fancy glass beads and then we can start trading it for things of actual value. We can buy their animals. We can buy their resources.” And then sadly, there was a slave trade. So, you could buy slaves with these beads that you could make for almost free. So, they became known as slave beads in some circles. But then of course, the Africans had resistances against this.

Lyn Alden (19:06):

So, if the Europeans flooded everything with these say clear glass beads, they would start to say, “Okay, these clear glass ones are… No, they’re not good money. We want the purple kind.” But then of course, over time, the Europeans would adapt and say, “Okay, well, they want the purple kind now.” So, there was this cat and mouse game where beads were not fully fungible. There were different types and so there were different taste preferences. And then there were different reactions to the perceived scarcity of different types of beads. But eventually, that money became untenable for obvious reasons that there was a technology asymmetry between the cultures and then over time, that technology spread everywhere.

Lyn Alden (19:46):

And so, glass beads are in the long arc of time not good money. And it also that shows that if you don’t have hard money and if your money is not hard and if you’re using something as money that another culture or that some other group within your society can produce more of, then you’re at a disadvantage. So, that’s one of the tragic examples of why money is so critical, especially when different groups interact with each other…

…Stig Brodersen (33:52):

Yeah. And on that note, I would like to talk about the private to public de-leveraging. Usually, that is a process that’s inflationary and then we look at a country like Japan. They mainly stood for decades without almost any price inflation and with very low monetary inflation, but still many macro analysts look at this and they assume that “Well, if this is what’s happening to Japan, it’s going to happen to the US, to the rest of the world perhaps even.” You think that they’re wrong, why is that?

Lyn Alden (34:24):

Two main reasons. One, they own a lot more foreign assets than the collective foreign sector owns of Japanese assets. So, they actually have over trillion dollars, trillions of dollars of claims basically, that they can draw in to pay obligations as needed, right? So, they have this large investment base relative to the size of their GDP. So, that gives them one advantage that many countries now don’t have, especially United States. Number two is that that whole massive private de-leveraging and public leveraging happened primarily during the 2010s decade, which was a very disinflationary decade in terms of commodity market. So, there’s roughly this 10- to 15- to 20-year commodity cycle that happens worldwide where prices are low.

Lyn Alden (35:15):

So, nobody invests in commodities. They don’t build new production. Eventually, that causes a shortage. So, lots of money rushes in for a decade and builds all sorts of new commodity production. And eventually, we oversupply the world with commodities and then that breaks the price. And we start this cycle anew and that takes quite a while. That takes maybe 10 years of building and then 10 years working it out and 10 years of building and 10 years of working it out. Most countries are not big enough to really affect that cycle. United States and China are, but if you’re a country that’s a small percentage of GDP, you don’t really affect that on a global scale.

Lyn Alden (35:51):

And so, Japan happened to do this de-leveraging during a time of substantial commodity disinflation or actually outright deflation. Commodities were literally going down in price while they were doing this. And so, they basically had all the commodity needs available to them at low prices and you weren’t getting this scarcity and undersupply of commodities. That is a much harder thing to do if you’re not at the right part of the commodity cycle or if you’re big enough to affect the commodity cycle. And so, I would argue that Japan represents an almost perfect example of doing this with the right conditions and at the right time that we shouldn’t then just look at that and say, “Well, when all the other countries go through a similar process, it’s going to be just like Japan.”

Lyn Alden (36:41):

Actually, third factor I would say is that unlike most countries in the developed world, Japan has very little political polarization or rising populism intentions in the country. And part of that’s you have a rather homogeneous society and they’ve governed pretty well domestically. They don’t spend a lot of money on military, things like that. And so, a lot of the money just goes back to the people. You have a rather harmonious society. That doesn’t mean it’s perfect. There are obviously disagreements in society, but when you look at just quantitative ways of measuring political polarization, the United States and most European countries are in a much tougher spot there, whereas Japan has a rather harmonious society rather low levels of wealth concentration.

Lyn Alden (37:30):

And so, that gives them a deeper tool chest, I would say, to handle those storms. But of course, their main disadvantages right now are that they are a commodity importer, which now is becoming relevant. And then they also do have now a ton of public debt. And so, they have less ability to raise rates or otherwise protect the value of their currency because they can’t really service that debt otherwise. And so, I think, people over extrapolate the Japanese example by not realizing a lot of the nuances around the timing and the details for how they’re able to do that without it being inflationary.

Stig Brodersen (38:07):

So, let’s talk more about that. It’s very hard to talk about Japan macroeconomic terms without looking that huge debt burden they have. And we started out this interview by talking about forgiveness of debt restructuring. And so, keeping that in mind, the listener might be sitting out there thinking, “Well, we do know that a lot of money is being printed and that’s on the Bank of Japan’s balance sheet. Can’t they just forgive the government debt that they hold and thereby bringing down the debt burden?” I know that’s a question that you have asked yourself. What’s the answer to that?

Lyn Alden (38:44):

The answer is mostly no, but it is a good question, right? So, people think, “Okay, so if the central bank buys a lot of the government bonds and the central bank is more or less the government, why can’t they just forgive the debt that they more or less owe to themselves?” So, if the Bank of Japan ends up owning 75% of Japanese government debt, why can’t they just wipe that off their ledger and then they’ve lowered Japanese government debt by 75% and they start fresh? The problem is that the whole crux of this fiat currency system runs on the premise that a central bank and the government have some degree of independence from each other, right?

Lyn Alden (39:27):

Because if you have a dictator with absolute power over the money, that money’s going to get debased a lot quicker, just the way human nature works. Even if say there’s some philosopher king running a country, as soon as he dies, the next one’s going to be worse and he’s going to miss it, right? So, if you have centralized power, you’re more quickly going to debase the money. Whereas if you have all these checks and balances to make it hard to create more money, so you have to have Congress approve it, then you have to have the central bank finance it, you have to have the president not veto it, so you have to have all these different groups agree to create a lot more money, that really slows down the money creation.

Lyn Alden (40:08):

And that’s why countries with strong institutions and independent institutions generally have a much longer track record of maintaining a reasonably successful fiat currency compared to smaller countries with less histories of institutions and then the institutions get co-opted by some more authoritarian type of ruler. And so, going back to the premise, central banks are at least in theory supposed to be independent. Obviously, in times of war and things like that, that independence get seriously threatened, but it’s still not the president or a head of a country can just go and tell the central bank head to do exactly what he wants. If they do, they’re more like a banana republic. They’re more like that authoritarian model.

Lyn Alden (40:52):

And so, even though they might appoint the central bank chief, that central bank chief now has a term that can potentially persist through multiple administrations and that has checks and balances for how they can be removed, how a new one can be added, right? And so, there’s some degree of separation there. So, a president can’t just do something like cut interest rates three months before the election, make everyone happy, and then go back to having higher rates, right? So, they don’t have that fine control over interest rates, because it’s in someone else’s hands. It’s supposed to be independent.

Lyn Alden (41:24):

And part of maintaining central bank independence is that they can’t be insolvent, that they have to have assets that are equal or higher than their liabilities, because otherwise, they’re reliant on financing from the government and that they’re entirely reliant on that government. And therefore, they no longer have any credible independence. And so, the way central bank balance sheets work is that the currency is their liability. So, physical currency is their liability and bank reserves of commercial banks that are assets for them are liabilities of the central bank. So, those are their primary liabilities. And on the other side of that ledger, their assets are things like primarily their government debt that they own. That’s their key asset.

Lyn Alden (42:10):

And then depending on the different central banks, some of them have mortgage-backed securities. Some of them even have equities, but the core of their assets is that government debt. And so, if they were to erase that government debt and say, “Look, you don’t owe us anymore. Let’s just start fresh,” well, now, that central bank has a multitrillion dollar hole on the asset side of its ledger but still has all those liabilities. And so, they are now technically insolvent organization. They have no independence. They’re entirely reliant on government financing. And so, that whole model of some degree of credible decentralization goes away, credible independence.

Lyn Alden (42:51):

And so, while you might not have any overnight effect from just say, wiping away central bank owned government debt, it’s not like you wake up tomorrow and the currency hyperinflated. But going forward, that central bank is now 100% captured by the government more or less. And so, the long term ability to do that degrades and that’s why most of them have laws in place to prevent that from happening, that the central bank can’t just wipe it away. Now, there are other tricks that they can do, right? So, you could, for example, make the government could issue a special bond that is 100-year bond that doesn’t pay interest.

Lyn Alden (43:30):

Now, you have this bond that’s different from the other government debt that doesn’t pay interest. And so, basically, there are things that they can do like that and there are other tricks they can do to keep the ledger, the asset side, and the liability side technically solvent, but merely deleting the asset side is generally untenable at least the way that we’ve structured the system now for a century or more in many countries.


Disclaimer: The Good Investors is the personal investing blog of two simple guys who are passionate about educating Singaporeans about stock market investing. By using this Site, you specifically agree that none of the information provided constitutes financial, investment, or other professional advice. It is only intended to provide education. Speak with a professional before making important decisions about your money, your professional life, or even your personal life. Of all the companies mentioned, we currently have a vested interest in  Microsoft and Visa. Holdings are subject to change at any time.

What Is a Stock, Really?

When you buy a stock, you are purchasing a small stake in a company. But what does that really mean?

What is a stock? A stock is a small stake in a company. But what does that really mean?

First Principles Thinking

Elon Musk recently popularised the term first principle thinking which in layman’s terms refers to questioning assumptions until you get down to the bare bones of the matter.

This can apply to defining a stock too. A stock represents part-ownership of a company. But what does being a part-owner of a company mean? Let’s dig deeper.

As a  part-owner of a company, you are entitled to receive dividends from the company. The company can choose to pay dividends to shareholders when there is excess cash on the balance sheet. As such, we can say that if you own a stock, you are entitled to a stream of future cash based on the profitability of the company.

This is one of the main reasons investors buy stock in a company. But that’s not all. In a well-oiled stock market, investors can buy and sell stocks to each other.

As such, not only are stockholders entitled to future dividends, but they can also sell the stock – or in other words, this “entitlement to future cash” – to other investors in the stock market. 

So why do stock prices fluctuate so wildly?

Once we understand what a stock really is, we realise that the value of a stock should be tied to cash that the stock owner can get. 

In theory, the value of a stock is all of the stock owner’s future cash flows discounted to the present day. But if stocks have a very easily defined value, which in theory, should not fluctuate on a day-to-day basis, why do stock prices still gyrate wildly?

There are many reasons for this. First, the cash flows of a company may be hard to predict and may depend on many factors. When situations change, the company’s cash flow outlook can change too, which means the present value of the company’s stock can fluctuate.

Also, investors may make different assumptions about a company which also causes market participants to value a company differently. All of which can lead to fluctuations in the stock price as investors are willing to pay different amounts for a stock.

The discount rate that is applied to value a company is also highly dependent on numerous factors such as the inherent risk in the business and the risk-free rate which is set by central banks. Investors may apply different discount rates to future cash flows based on how they perceive the risks to that cash flow materialising.

The discount rate is also affected by the risk-free rate. Usually, central bankers will meet a few times a year to decide on what the risk-free rate will be. When the rate changes, the value of a stock should change too.

There are also investors in the stock market who simply don’t care about value. All they care about is being able to sell a stock at a higher price to someone else. 

These traders simply buy and sell a stock in the hopes that the stock price goes in the “correct” direction for them to make a profit. 

Even if a stock seems very overvalued compared to the potential future cash flows of the business, these traders are still willing to buy the stock in anticipation that someone else will buy it from them at an even higher price.

The gravitational pull of value

While stock prices can fluctuate wildly, over time they tend to gravitate toward the intrinsic value of a company.

Benjamin Graham, mentor to Warren Buffett and the author of classic investing texts such as The Intelligent Investor, once said that in the short run, the stock market is like a voting machine but in the long run it is like a weighing machine.

This makes sense as eventually, a stock should trade close to the present value of its future cash flows. For instance, if a stock is too cheap, investors can simply buy the stock at a discount and make an outsized profit from the actual cash flows paid to shareholders.

This basic principle should be music to the ears of long-term investors, especially in today’s bear market. Although it may feel unpleasant when your stock price falls, it is important to take a step back and realise the true meaning of being a shareholder. 

When you do so, you can properly assess the actual value of your stock.

Disclaimer: The Good Investors is the personal investing blog of two simple guys who are passionate about educating Singaporeans about stock market investing. By using this Site, you specifically agree that none of the information provided constitutes financial, investment, or other professional advice. It is only intended to provide education. Speak with a professional before making important decisions about your money, your professional life, or even your personal life. I do not have a vested interest in any stocks mentioned.