All articles

What We’re Reading (Week Ending 08 November 2020)

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 08 November 2020:

1. A Twitter thread on Jon Boorman’s final words – Jon Boorman

1) I’ve become very stoical in recent years which has made this much easier to process. I’ve had an absolutely glorious life. I sometimes feel I’ve had two or three

6)It’s a deep privilege to be able to say goodbye to people.

Deep privilege.

Constant family.

Countless friends…

7) Knowing that you will die is fairly innocuous, of course we all will. But when you know you face death within weeks/months, your perspective changes. There’s elements of that we should have in our daily lives…

9) I know I will die. I just know what will kill me. And roughly when.

So buy that coffee.

Have that ice cream.

And be nice.

2. How Discord (somewhat accidentally) invented the future of the internet – David Pierce

Citron learned to code because he wanted to make games, and after graduating set out to do just that. His first company started as a video game studio and even launched a game on the iPhone App Store’s first day in 2008. That petered out and eventually pivoted into a social network for gamers called OpenFeint, which Citron described as “essentially like Xbox Live for iPhones.” He sold that to the Japanese gaming giant Gree, then started another company, Hammer & Chisel, in 2012 “with the idea of building a new kind of gaming company, more around tablets and core multiplayer games.” It built a game called Fates Forever, an online multiplayer game that feels a lot like League of Legends. It also built voice and text chat into the game, so players could talk to each other while they played.

And then that extremely Silicon Valley thing happened: Citron and his team realized that the best thing about their game was the chat feature. (Not a great sign for the game, but you get the point.) This was circa 2014, when everyone was still using TeamSpeak or Skype and everyone still hated TeamSpeak or Skype. Citron and the Hammer & Chisel team knew they could do better and decided they wanted to try.

It was a painful transition. Hammer & Chisel shut down its game development team, laid off a third of the company, shifted a lot of people to new roles and spent about six months reorienting the company and its culture. It wasn’t obvious its new idea was going to work, either. “When we decided to go all in on Discord, we had maybe 10 users,” Citron said. There was one group playing League of Legends, one WoW guild and not much else. “We would show it to our friends, and they’d be like, ‘This is cool!’ and then they’d never use it.”

After talking to users and seeing the data, the team realized its problem: Discord was better than Skype, certainly, but it still wasn’t very good. Calls would fail; quality would waver. Why would people drop a tool they hated for another tool they’d learn to hate? The Discord team ended up completely rebuilding its voice technology three times in the first few months of the app’s life. Around the same time, it also launched a feature that let users moderate, ban and give roles and permissions to others in their server. That was when people who tested Discord started to immediately notice it was better. And tell their friends about it.

Discord now claims May 13, 2015, as its launch day, because that was the day strangers started really using the service. Someone posted about Discord in the Final Fantasy XIV subreddit, with a link to a Discord server where they could talk about a new expansion pack. Citron and his Discord co-founder, Stan Vishnevskiy, immediately jumped into the server, hopped into voice chat and started talking to anyone who showed up. The Redditors would go back, say “I just talked to the developers there, they’re pretty cool,” and send even more people to Discord. “That day,” Citron said, “we got a couple hundred registration[s]. That kind of kicked the snowball off the top of the mountain.”

3. I Have A Few Questions – Morgan Housel

Who has the right answers but I ignore because they’re not articulate?…

…Which of my current views would I disagree with if I were born in a different country or generation?

What do I desperately want to be true, so much that I think it’s true when it’s clearly not?…

…What looks unsustainable but is actually a new trend we haven’t accepted yet?

What has been true for decades that will stop working, but will drag along stubborn adherents because it had such a long track record of success?

Who do I think is smart but is actually full of it?

What do I ignore because it’s too painful to accept?

4. My Biggest Post-Election Market Questions – Ben Carlson

Does the stock market care about anything anymore? We are still in the midst of a global pandemic that is only getting worse, oil prices went negative in the spring and we just went through a contested presidential election.

And yet the S&P 500 is just 2% below all-time highs.

Yes, the stock market plunged nearly 35% during those tumultuous days of February and March but it still boggles the mind how much we’ve gone through this year and the stock market has given a collective shrug based on where we stand.

5. A Twitter thread on 100 lessons on investing Anand Chokkavelu

1. Most of this list is dedicated to insight on stock picking, but know this: It’s darn hard to beat the market. 99% of people are best served steadily buying and holding low-cost index funds at the core of their portfolios — and I may be understating that 99% figure.

3. Being contrarian doesn’t mean just doing the opposite. The “contrarian” street-crosser gets run over by a truck.

12. Example No. 3: leveraged ETFs. Bastardized ETFs like the Direxion Daily Financial Bull 3X ($FAS) are another great way to lose money. Even if you guess right on direction, the mathematics of the daily reckoning mean these instruments are long-term losers.

30. Adding money to winners > Adding money to losers. This one’s hard. One way I try to remind myself: Every 10-bagger has to double first; Every total loss has to drop 50% first.

38. While price matters, it’s hard to overpay for a truly great growth company. Like in a marriage, the trick is to correctly identify one, build conviction by learning more quarter after quarter, and try to hold on through the inevitable tough times. (cont.)

57. Long-tail events (aka black swans), as explained in @nntaleb’s Incerto series, are by definition unpredictable. And brutal. Since life isn’t a Monte Carlo simulation, we should think hard about our true personal risk tolerances.

85. If you can learn quickly from your own mistakes, you’re ahead of the game. If you can learn quickly from others’ mistakes, you’ve won the game.

91. Downer alert: We like control, but we can’t control everything. Life and luck can (and will) trump investment plans. You can do everything right and still die penniless. All we can do is give ourselves a better chance to succeed.

100. Despite my best efforts to improve each day, I will repeatedly and thoroughly fail to heed these lessons. Let’s hope you’re better at No. 85 than I am.

6. Traffic fatality rates spiked during the pandemic – Joann Muller

There were fewer cars on the road last spring during the height of the pandemic, but traffic fatality rates increased 30% in the second quarter as evidence suggests drivers engaged in more risky behavior, federal officials say…

…Risky behavior, along with a potential reduction in law enforcement and safety messaging during the pandemic, could have contributed to increased fatality rates, NHTSA concluded.

7. The Wizard Of Apps: How Jeff Lawson Built Twilio Into The Mightiest Unicorn Miguel Helft

About a year after Lawson and two friends founded Twilio in 2008, Lawson was invited to introduce it at a popular networking mixer called the SF New Tech Meetup. Rather than talk about an inherently difficult-to-explain technology, Lawson decided to let the Twilio software speak for itself. In front of a thousand people Lawson began telling his story while simultaneously coding a Twilio app—a simple conference line. In just a few minutes he opened an account and secured a phone number, and after writing a handful of lines of code that everyone in the room could understand, his conference line was up and running. Lawson then asked everyone to phone in, and just like that a mob of developers was on a giant conference call. Lawson then added some more code, and his app called everyone back to thank them for participating. As phones throughout the room began buzzing, the crowd went wild with enthusiasm. “He is the let-me-show-you-what-we-can-do type of exec,” says Byron Deeter, of Bessemer Venture Partners, an early backer who has become Twilio’s largest shareholder. “There’s no bravado and no ego, and that gives him a special charisma and authenticity.”

Lawson’s parlor trick did more than generate industry buzz. It epitomized a developer-centric business strategy that has fueled its growth. Twilio is exceedingly simple to use and charges no upfront fees, so programmers often use it to test an idea or product. Pretty soon that product scales and turns into a six- or seven-figure account that required no traditional sales process. “We onboard developers like consumers and let them spend like enterprises,” Lawson says. Like others that have embraced developer-driven marketing—Amazon for computing services, Stripe for payments, New Relic for analytics—Twilio benefits as companies increasingly turn to software for differentiation. “As that happens, and companies hire more developers, they come in with Twilio in their tool belt,” Lawson adds.


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. We currently have a vested interest in Amazon.com and Twilio. Holdings are subject to change at any time.

Ant Group’s Botched IPO: The Risk Of Investing In China

Earlier this week, the Ant Group IPO was suspended. It highlights an important risk of investing in China that investors need to know.

Ant Group’s massive initial public offering (IPO) was stopped cold in its tracks earlier this week.

Ant Group, a fintech company backed by Alibaba and its co-founder Jack Ma, was supposed to list its shares in the stock exchanges of Shanghai and Hong Kong today. The IPO was slated to raise a mammoth sum of at least US$34 billion for the company. What happened instead was the Shanghai Stock Exchange suspending Ant Group’s listing on Tuesday, followed shortly by the same action from the Hong Kong Stock Exchange.

Ostensibly, Ant Group’s IPO process was stopped after Jack Ma gave a speech during a financial conference in Shanghai in late October. In his comments, Ma had essentially labelled the Chinese financial system and regulations as antiquated. This presumably angered the Chinese government because Ma was quickly summoned for a meeting with the country’s financial regulators. And then came the news of the fintech firm’s stalled IPO.

I see Ant Group’s predicament as a manifestation of the risk of investing in China that investors need to contend with. I’m often being asked about my opinions on investing in Chinese companies. I think there are wonderfully innovative companies in China with tremendous growth prospects that can make for excellent investment opportunities. But will I want to make Chinese companies the majority of my portfolio? No. This is because I think that Chinese companies have to deal with unique political and regulatory risks that companies based in democratic environments do not. And these risks, if they flare up, could easily derail a Chinese company’s business.  

A recent Bloomberg article on the Ant Group IPO-debacle contained the following passage:

“The consequences came this week. On Monday, Beijing’s top financial watchdogs summoned Ma and dressed him down. Beijing also issued draft rules on online micro lending, stipulating stricter capital requirements and operational rules for some of Ant Group Co.’s consumer credit businesses.”

Based on Bloomberg’s reporting, the Chinese government has effectively made it more difficult for Ant Group to grow. But what’s more important is that the Chinese government has appeared to also pull the plug on Ant Group’s IPO for now. I just don’t see how something similar – where a company’s IPO process is killed at the very last minute because the company’s public-face had made some unflattering comments about its home country – can happen in a democratic environment. 

This article is not meant to discuss the investment merits of Ant Group. Instead, it’s simply meant to highlight what I think is a critical risk of investing in China that investors need to know: Chinese companies face unique politically-related risks that are not to be trifled with. And Ant Group just happens to be a prominent example.


DisclaimerThe 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 currently have no vested interest in Ant Financial or Alibaba. Holdings are subject to change at any time.

My First Investing Loss

A conversation with Dollars and Sense on what I learnt from my first investing loss, and why I’m doing all that I am in the financial services industry.

I was recently interviewed by Timothy Ho, co-founder of the personal and business finance online knowledge portal Dollars and Sense. The interview is part of Dollars and Sense’s #MyFirstLoss interview series. With permission, I’ve reproduced my conversation with Timothy here. We covered a number of topics, such as the losses I’ve made in investing, and why I decided to start The Good Investors with Jeremy. You can  head here for the original interview.


Interview

Timothy Ho (Timothy): We always start this column with the same question. Do you remember the first time you made a loss in your trades? #MyFirstLoss

Chong Ser Jing (Ser Jing): I remember all the losers in my portfolio. My first-ever transactions in the financial markets were made in October 2010 for my family’s investment portfolio, and they were the purchases of six US stocks. Even back then, I invested with the mindset of a long-term business owner. I saw, still see, and will always see, stocks as partial ownership stakes in actual businesses.

From October 2010 to June 2020, the portfolio of the six stocks expanded to more than 50 with regular capital infusions. But the selling happened rarely. I only sold eight stocks, and only two of these sales were voluntary – the rest of the sales happened because the companies were being acquired.

My aversion to selling is by design – because I believe it strengthens my discipline in holding onto the winners in my family’s portfolio. Many investors tend to cut their winners and hold onto their losers. Even in my earliest days as an investor, I recognised the importance of holding onto the winners in driving my family portfolio’s return. Being very slow to sell stocks has helped me hone the discipline of holding onto the winners. And this discipline has been a very important contributor to the long-run performance of my family’s portfolio.

I think it’s important that investors focus on portfolio-level returns instead of the gains and losses produced by individual stocks they own. It’s a guarantee that we will make mistakes when investing. But the key is to make sure that the decisions we do get right can significantly outweigh the ones we get wrong.

Timothy: You have been writing full-time since 2013. Was the motivation to continue writing the reason why you started The Good Investors after the closure of The Motley Fool Singapore?

Ser Jing: When I was in university, I realised I wanted a career in the investment world. I have a deep passion for investing. I see the financial markets as an intellectual puzzle to solve, and by learning about companies, I get to have a front-row seat to observe how the world is changing. For example, there’s a company in the USA that is currently applying electric fields to the human body to treat cancer – how cool is that!?

But at the same time, I wanted my involvement in the investment world to be something where I could positively impact as many lives as possible. This mindset has not changed, and it was a big reason behind my motivation to join the Motley Fool Singapore in January 2013. The Motley Fool has a strong purpose that its employees believe in. Back then, the Fool’s purpose was to help the world invest better. Today, it is to make the world smarter, happier, and richer. Both are wonderful.

During our careers at Fool Singapore, Jeremy and myself experienced first-hand how important financial education is for Singapore’s public. Many people do not understand investing and bumble their way through the financial markets, leading to a deterioration in their financial health – and the scale of the problem was larger than I thought before I joined the Fool. When Fool Singapore closed, Jeremy and I felt that we still have plenty to offer in terms of investor education and we needed to continue doing our part. We just think it’s the right thing to do.

Timothy: Besides the website, you also started the Compounder Fund for accredited investors earlier this year. What was the reason for doing so?

Ser Jing: For many years while I was at Fool Singapore, I had been exploring a fund management business. My vision was to help spearhead a fund management business for Motley Fool Singapore. At the Fool, I thought we were excellent at serving the DIY (“do it yourself”) investors – we provide investment research and ideas, and these DIY investors can make their own decisions. But I also believed (and I still do) that there’s an even larger group of investors in Singapore who require a fully-outsourced investment solution because they do not have the time, energy, capability, or interest to invest by themselves. It’s true that there are many investment funds in Singapore, but it’s rare to find one that I think is investing soundly (global in nature, and invests with a focus on long-term business fundamentals). This is why I thought it’s essential for Fool Singapore to build a fund management business in Singapore – but nothing concrete on the front ever got started when I was with the company.

When Fool Singapore closed, I thought, “Why not try it out on my own?” I approached Jeremy and shared my ideas and he was on board from Day 1. To Jeremy and myself, Compounder Fund is more than just a business – there are strong social objectives we want to accomplish too, such as having fees that decline as assets under management grow, and running the fund very transparently to play our part in investor education. These objectives will be hard for us to meet in a commercial setting (there will be commercial pressure), so it’s better if we did it ourselves where we had only ourselves to answer to, and where the measurement of success of the fund goes beyond how much fees it can generate.

Timothy: As someone who has been writing about investing for so long, and also manages investment monies on behalf of investors, what are some common mistakes that you see investors and traders making?

Ser Jing: I think one of the common mistakes that investors and traders commit is not putting in the effort to understand market history.

If they look at market history, they will realise that stocks are volatile creatures. Volatility is in their nature. But crucially, this volatility has occurred even when stocks have gone on to generate fantastic returns. A great example is the energy drinks maker Monster Beverage (which Compounder Fund does not own). From 1995 to 2015, its stock price grew by 105,000%. But in those years, its stock price fell by 50% or more on four separate occasions. If they understand that volatility is part and parcel of the game, then perhaps they wouldn’t be so stressed out over short-term market declines.

Also, if they looked at market history, they will understand that the world is always in a state of crisis. As the saying goes “History is just one damn thing after another.” Uncertainty is always around. But how many times have you heard someone say that they prefer to wait for the dust to settle before they invest? The thing is, if you wait for the robins, spring will be over. Peter Lynch also once said that “Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections, or trying to anticipate corrections, than has been lost in corrections themselves.”

Timothy: What should investors or traders be mindful of during this volatile COVID-19 period?

Ser Jing: I think it’s important to be mindful of our own emotions. As I alluded to earlier, volatility tends to bring out harmful emotionally-driven investment behaviours. Put in place a system where decisions are made based on business developments and not stock price movements.

Another thing to be mindful of would be companies with weak balance sheets. Antifragility is a term introduced by Nassim Taleb, a former options trader and author of numerous books including Black Swan and Antifragile. Taleb classifies things into three groups:

  • The fragile, which breaks when exposed to stress (like a piece of glass, which shatters when dropped)
  • The robust, which remain unchanged when stressed (like a football, which does not get affected much when kicked or dropped)
  • The antifragile, which strengthens when exposed to stress (like our human body, which becomes stronger when we exercise)

Companies too, can be fragile, robust, or even antifragile. The easiest way for a company to be fragile is to load up on debt. If a company has a high level of debt, it can crumble when facing even a small level of economic stress. On the other hand, a company can be robust or even antifragile if it has a strong balance sheet that has minimal or reasonable levels of debt. During tough times (for whatever reason), having a strong balance sheet gives a company a high chance of surviving. It can even allow the company to go on the offensive, such as by hiring talent and winning customers away from weaker competitors, or having a headstart in developing new products and services. In such a scenario, companies with strong balance sheets have a higher chance of emerging from a crisis – a period of stress – stronger than before.

DisclaimerThe 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.

What We’re Reading (Week Ending 01 November 2020)

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 01 November 2020:

1. The Fine Line Between Persistence and Insanity in the Markets – Ben Carlson

So people’s ears perked up when Einhorn said this week in a letter to his investors, “we are now in the midst of an enormous tech bubble.”

The problem with this statement is Einhorn has been saying the same thing for more than 6 years now. This is from a CNBC story in April of 2014:

“Now there is a clear consensus that we are witnessing our second tech bubble in 15 years,” Greenlight Capital said in an investor letter Tuesday. “What is uncertain is how much further the bubble can expand, and what might pop it.”

The firm said there were several indications of the over-exuberance, including the rejection of conventional valuation methods; short sellers forced to cover their positions because of losses; and “huge” first-day stock appreciations after their initial public offerings.

“The current bubble is an echo of the previous tech bubble, but with fewer large capitalization stocks and much less public enthusiasm,” the letter said. The firm said it was shorting a group of undisclosed “high-flying momentum stocks.”…

…Am I being disciplined in my long-term approach or blind to the fact that the world has changed is the single most difficult question to answer as an investor because no one is right all the time. The truth is the answer to this question is always unknown.

Sometimes you have to look like an idiot for a while before your investment thesis pans out. On the other hand, there’s the old saying that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result.

What if continuously betting against tech stocks in a big way proves to be the definition of insanity? These stocks would have to see a spectacular crash to fall back to levels last seen in 2016 or 2014. Stranger things have happened, I guess, but I wonder what would cause Einhorn to change his mind.

The problem with bubble-spotting is no matter what happens you assume you’re right. If prices fall then you nailed it and if prices rise it simply makes you think the bubble is still inflating. I don’t know if this is a bubble or not but the answer will likely look obvious with the benefit of hindsight either way.

2. Lots of Overnight Tragedies, No Overnight Miracles – Morgan Housel

Dwight Eisenhower ate a hamburger for dinner on September 24th, 1955. Later that evening he told his wife the onions gave him heartburn. Then he began to panic. The president had a massive heart attack. It easily could have killed him. If it had, Eisenhower would have joined more than 700,000 Americans who died of heart disease that year.

What’s happened since has been extraordinary. But few paid attention.

The age-adjusted death rate per capita from heart disease has declined more than 70% since the 1950s, according to the National Institute of Health.

So many Americans die of heart disease that cutting the fatality rate by 70% leads to a number of lives saved that is hard to comprehend.

Had the rate had not declined over the last 65 years – if we hadn’t become better at treating heart disease and the mortality rate plateaued since the 1950s – 25 million more Americans would have died from heart disease over the last 65 years than actually did.

25 million!

Even in a single year the improvement is incredible: more than half a million fewer Americans now die of heart disease each year than would have if we hadn’t made any improvements since the 1950s. Picture the population of Atlanta saved every year. Or a full football stadium saved every month

How is this not a bigger story?

Why are we not shouting in the streets about how incredible this is and building statues for cardiologists?

I’ll tell you why: because the improvement happened too slowly for anyone to notice.

3. A Columnist Makes Sense of Wall Street Like None Other (See Footnote) – Emily Flitter

Each weekday, Mr. Levine, 42, wakes up at 5 in the morning. He looks at what’s going on in the markets, scrolls through emails from readers and plugs into the chatter of early-to-work traders. Then he starts to write. Roughly 5,000 words later on a long-winded day, he files Money Stuff to his editor, and it’s sent to subscribers around noon. (His column is currently on a parental leave hiatus, and will return this winter.)

Mr. Levine’s favorite subjects include insider trading statutes, bond-market liquidity and the ubiquity of securities fraud, but his columns are never boring. They may be the only entertaining words a financial markets professional reads all day.

Often, a significant chunk of the newsletter is devoted to a legal battle between sophisticated counterparties, or a complex financial product. Mr. Levine deconstructs the topics in a way that is less like a conventional business column and more like he is providing an introductory course on the subject.

If Mr. Levine’s column requires the use of a technical term, it is typically accompanied by not just a definition but a full-throated explanation, with practical examples, of how it works. There are footnotes — lots of footnotes. The tone, though, is anything but pedantic. Mr. Levine writes about Wall Street in a way that makes its denizens feel as if he is writing for them. Yet he gives the same impression of personalization to readers who know little about finance. He once took a term that appeared in a lawsuit — a “cash-settled forward purchase agreement for Citigroup shares with downside protection in the form of a put option at the same price as the forward” — and gave it the acronym CSFPAFCSWDPITFOAPOATSPATF. He makes readers feel in on the savage joke that is late capitalism.

4. Look Who’s Really Chasing Hot Stocks Like Zoom – Jason Zweig

Among this year’s hottest stocks, few are favorites of individual investors, and index funds aren’t their main buyers. Who’s driving them up? Professional stock pickers—the very people pointing the finger at everyone else.

Let’s look at Zoom Video Communications Inc., ZM -5.88% the teleconferencing company whose stock is up more than 660% so far this year. Given the popularity of its service and the stock’s scorching performance, you might expect Zoom is a darling among individual investors and traders.

Yet, on the Robinhood app used by millions of individual traders, Zoom was only the 49th widest-owned stock this week, according to the online broker’s tally of most-popular holdings.

In fact, of the 25 stocks with market values above $10 billion that have the hottest returns so far this year, only two— Moderna Inc. and Peloton Interactive Inc. —are among the 25 most-popular stocks on Robinhood. They are up 278% and 362%, respectively, in 2020.

The biggest performance chasers? Big institutions, whose ownership of scalding-hot stocks has boomed this year, even as these shares become wildly expensive by traditional yardsticks.

Some of that is natural; as a company’s market value grows, it becomes eligible for ownership at funds that can’t hold small stocks. Then again, professional investors, just like many amateurs, can’t resist a hot stock.

5. A Corporate Sleuth Claims Squarepoint Capital Took Her Content. The Hedge Fund Is Threatening Action. What Actually Happened? Richard Teitelbaum

The news was potentially lethal. It was an inkling that Elbaze, a researcher at quantitative hedge fund Squarepoint Capital, might have been seeking improper access to Footnoted.com, the financial website Leder had started 14 years before and had turned into a thriving news and research service.

Elbaze had asked Leder a year earlier for, first, a trial subscription, and then a flat rate for full historical access to reports.

She had refused. Experience had shown her that Footnoted data is fiendishly difficult for quants to format. Firms like Two Sigma Investments, Point72 Asset Management’s Cubist Systematic Strategies, and AQR Capital Management had queried her about subscribing. Leder had even held informal talks with two funds to buy Footnoted outright so they could do the job themselves.

Reluctantly, however, just weeks before the email, she had agreed to provide London-based Squarepoint a trial. Then Elbaze seemed to have ramped up his activity.

“I was just, ‘Holy shit, what’s going on here?’” Leder recalls asking herself at the time. She emailed her developer. “He seems to have downloaded my entire database,” she wrote. “If he did do this, it’s a big BIG problem.” 

In fact, Leder estimated that Elbaze had viewed more than 17,000 pages — some of which even paid subscribers couldn’t get a hold of. A forensic investigation commissioned by Leder backed up her assessment.

6. Failing to Plan: How Ayn Rand Destroyed Sears – Michal Rozworski and Leigh Phillips

Lampert, libertarian and fan of the laissez-faire egotism of Russian American novelist Ayn Rand, had made his way from working in warehouses as a teenager, via a spell with Goldman Sachs, to managing a $15 billion hedge fund by the age of 41. The wunderkind was hailed as the Steve Jobs of the investment world. In 2003, the fund he managed, ESL Investments, took over the bankrupt discount retail chain Kmart (launched the same year as Walmart). A year later, he parlayed this into a $12 billion buyout of a stagnating (but by no means troubled) Sears.

At first, the familiar strategy of merciless, life-destroying post-acquisition cost cutting and layoffs did manage to turn around the fortunes of the merged Kmart-Sears, now operating as Sears Holdings. But Lampert’s big wheeze went well beyond the usual corporate raider tales of asset stripping, consolidation and chopping-block use of operations as a vehicle to generate cash for investments elsewhere. Lampert intended to use Sears as a grand free market experiment to show that the invisible hand would outperform the central planning typical of any firm.

He radically restructured operations, splitting the company into thirty, and later forty, different units that were to compete against each other. Instead of cooperating, as in a normal firm, divisions such as apparel, tools, appliances, human resources, IT and branding were now in essence to operate as autonomous businesses, each with their own president, board of directors, chief marketing officer and statement of profit or loss. An eye-popping 2013 series of interviews by Bloomberg Businessweek investigative journalist Mina Kimes with some forty former executives described Lampert’s Randian calculus: “If the company’s leaders were told to act selfishly, he argued, they would run their divisions in a rational manner, boosting overall performance.”…

…And so if the apparel division wanted to use the services of IT or human resources, they had to sign contracts with them, or alternately to use outside contractors if it would improve the financial performance of the unit—regardless of whether it would improve the performance of the company as a whole. Kimes tells the story of how Sears’s widely trusted appliance brand, Kenmore, was divided between the appliance division and the branding division. The former had to pay fees to the latter for any transaction. But selling non-Sears-branded appliances was more profitable to the appliances division, so they began to offer more prominent in-store placement to rivals of Kenmore products, undermining overall profitability. Its in-house tool brand, Craftsman—so ubiquitous an American trademark that it plays a pivotal role in a Neal Stephenson science fiction bestseller, Seveneves, 5,000 years in the future—refused to pay extra royalties to the in-house battery brand DieHard, so they went with an external provider, again indifferent to what this meant for the company’s bottom line as a whole.

Executives would attach screen protectors to their laptops at meetings to prevent their colleagues from finding out what they were up to. Units would scrap over floor and shelf space for their products. Screaming matches between the chief marketing officers of the different divisions were common at meetings intended to agree on the content of the crucial weekly circular advertising specials. They would fight over key positioning, aiming to optimize their own unit’s profits, even at another unit’s expense, sometimes with grimly hilarious result. Kimes describes screwdrivers being advertised next to lingerie, and how the sporting goods division succeeded in getting the Doodle Bug mini-bike for young boys placed on the cover of the Mothers’ Day edition of the circular. As for different divisions swallowing lower profits, or losses, on discounted goods in order to attract customers for other items, forget about it. One executive quoted in the Bloomberg investigation described the situation as “dysfunctionality at the highest level.”

7. Shonda Rhimes Is Ready to “Own Her S***”: The Game-Changing Showrunner on Leaving ABC, “Culture Shock” at Netflix and Overcoming Her Fears Lacey Rose

Shonda Rhimes was tired of the battles. She was producing some 70 hours of annual television in 256 territories; she was making tens of millions of dollars for herself and more than $2 billion for Disney, and still there were battles with ABC. They’d push, she’d push back. Over budget. Over content. Over an ad she and the stars of her series — Grey’s Anatomy, Scandal and How to Get Away With Murder — made for then-presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

But by early 2017, her reps were back in discussions with the company about a new multiyear deal. They’d already made a hefty ask of her longtime home and were waiting as the TV group’s then leadership prolonged the process, with one briefly tenured ABC executive determined to drive down the price tag on their most valuable creator. Meanwhile, Rhimes was growing creatively restless. “I felt like I was dying,” she says now of the unforgiving pace and constraints of network TV. “Like I’d been pushing the same ball up the same hill in the exact same way for a really long time.”

She knew her breaking point would come, but what it would be she never could have predicted. As part of her ABC relationship, Rhimes had been given an all-inclusive pass to Disneyland — and without a partner, she’d negotiated a second for her nanny. But on this day, she needed one for her sister, too, as she’d be taking Rhimes’ teenage daughter while the nanny chaperoned her younger two. If the passes had been interchangeable, Rhimes would have been happy to give up hers — when would she have time to go to Disneyland anyway?


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. We currently have a vested interest in Netflix and Zoom Video Communications. Holdings are subject to change at any time.

How Many Stocks Should You Own?

What is the ideal level of diversification to help us balance risk and long-term returns? Here are some things to consider.

One of the age-old questions in investing is how widely should we diversify. Unfortunately, it seems that even the best investors can’t seem to agree on this.

Legendary investor Charlie Munger is famous for being a supporter of a concentrated portfolio. He once said:

“The idea of excessive diversification is madness. Wide diversification, which necessarily includes investment in mediocre businesses, only guarantees ordinary results.”

In 2017, Munger said that he owned just three positions in his personal portfolio – Berkshire Hathaway, Costco, and an investment in Li Lu’s investment partnership (which itself is highly concentrated).

At the opposite corner, we have other renowned investors who practised wide diversification and yet still achieved stunning results. For example, there’s Peter Lynch, who earned a 29.2% annualised return in his 13-year tenure managing the Fidelity Magellan Fund from 1977 to 1990. In his later years managing the fund, Lynch held as many as 1,400 stocks in the portfolio. 

Concentration and the risks

I recently had a short conversation with a friend on this topic of diversification. My friend is a proponent of having a concentrated portfolio, believing that we should not dilute our best investment ideas.

I agree that a concentrated portfolio may give you the best chance of higher returns. If you manage to build a sizeable position in a stock that becomes a multi-bagger (meaning a stock with a return of 100% or more), your return will obviously be better than if you had diluted your portfolio with other companies that ended up with lousier gains.

But we shouldn’t ignore the fact that having a concentrated portfolio can also magnify our losses. If your concentrated portfolio included a large position in a “big loser”, or perhaps in a fraud case such as Luckin Coffee, your portfolio-level return will very likely lag a more diversified portfolio.

Higher concentration = Higher variance

According to research by Alex Bryan from Morningstar, there is no real significance between a fund’s portfolio-concentration and performance.

What Bryan’s research did conclude was that more concentrated funds had a wider variance of returns. This means that concentrated funds had a higher chance of “blockbuster” returns but also had a higher risk of ending up with very poor performance. Bryan explains (emphases are mine):

“The risk in manager selection actually increases with portfolio concentration. So, while we didn’t find a link on average between performance and concentration, the dispersion of potential outcomes increases with portfolio concentration. So, really highly concentrated managers can miss the mark by a really, really wide range.

I think the other point to remember is that more highly concentrated portfolios tend to have greater exposure to firm-specific risk, and on average, that’s not well-compensated. So, again, you really want to keep an eye on risk and make sure that the manager that you hire is taking adequate steps to try to manage that risk that comes with concentration.”

How does this relate to the individual investor?

At the end of the day, how concentrated our portfolios should be depends on our risk appetite, skill, goals and ability to take on risk.

The more concentrated our portfolios, the greater the possibility of extreme returns – both on the upside and the downside. Are you willing to take on this risk and can you mitigate the risks with your ability to select stocks? These are some questions to ask yourself.

Ultimately, thinking about your needs, investment expertise, and circumstance will help you decide what level of concentration works best for you.

DisclaimerThe 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 currently have a vested interest in Costco.

What We’re Reading (Week Ending 25 October 2020)

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 25 October 2020:

1. Early Work – Paul Graham

Making new things is itself a new thing for us as a species. It has always happened, but till the last few centuries it happened so slowly as to be invisible to individual humans. And since we didn’t need customs for dealing with new ideas, we didn’t develop any.

We just don’t have enough experience with early versions of ambitious projects to know how to respond to them. We judge them as we would judge more finished work, or less ambitious projects. We don’t realize they’re a special case.

Or at least, most of us don’t. One reason I’m confident we can do better is that it’s already starting to happen. There are already a few places that are living in the future in this respect. Silicon Valley is one of them: an unknown person working on a strange-sounding idea won’t automatically be dismissed the way they would back home. In Silicon Valley, people have learned how dangerous that is.

The right way to deal with new ideas is to treat them as a challenge to your imagination — not just to have lower standards, but to switch polarity entirely, from listing the reasons an idea won’t work to trying to think of ways it could. That’s what I do when I meet people with new ideas. I’ve become quite good at it, but I’ve had a lot of practice. Being a partner at Y Combinator means being practically immersed in strange-sounding ideas proposed by unknown people. Every six months you get thousands of new ones thrown at you and have to sort through them, knowing that in a world with a power-law distribution of outcomes, it will be painfully obvious if you miss the needle in this haystack. Optimism becomes urgent.

But I’m hopeful that, with time, this kind of optimism can become widespread enough that it becomes a social custom, not just a trick used by a few specialists. It is after all an extremely lucrative trick, and those tend to spread quickly.

2. String of Firms That Imploded Have Something in Common: Ernst & Young Audited Them – Patricia Kowsmann, Mark Maurer, and Jing Yang

While it wasn’t possible to pinpoint why EY has had so many recent audit clients with financial scandals, certain elements of EY’s business strategy might help explain the cluster of blowups.

EY had ties with executives and board members at some of its troubled audit clients. In some cases, former EY partners sat on the companies’ boards, including on their audit committees.

EY charges lower fees for audits, which are labor intensive and time consuming, than other Big Four firms in the U.S. and Europe on average, an analysis of data from research firm Audit Analytics shows.

EY also focuses more than other firms on auditing young, fast-growing technology companies. All of the recent troubled clients portrayed themselves as tech-driven industry disrupters. EY helped some prepare for IPOs.

3. Models, Good and Bad – Marcelo P. Lima

Andy Jassy, CEO of Amazon Web Services, gave an interview recently in which he noted that in the early days, Amazon would use a net present value (NPV) analysis for deciding which internal projects they should invest in. This is similar to the discounted cash flow (DCF) models we use internally at Heller House to evaluate investment opportunities and conceptually similar to the internal rate of return (IRR) calculation Adam Fisher made in his Wix memo: the goal is to figure out what types of returns one can earn from a dollar invested in a given opportunity.

When I’m asked about how we value the companies in which we invest—some of which don’t yet produce accounting profits—my answer is always the same: we use DCFs for everything. I know that my models are wrong because I cannot forecast a company’s revenue growth, profits, and margins ten years out. But it’s useful to have guardrails to Fermi-ize our assumptions: do they make sense? Is the outcome of the exercise reasonable based on what I believe is the market size of this opportunity? Is it within a realm of possible futures?

What Jassy and Bezos realized eventually, however, is that some of the most exciting projects they dreamt up weren’t getting funded. It was hard—if not impossible—to assign an NPV to them (in this regard, Adam Fisher did a very good job: it was hard to see the future for Wix, but he took a very good stab at it!).

Amazon ditched the NPV approach and moved to a decision-making process involving five questions:

  • If we build it and it’s successful, can it be really big and move the needle?
  • Is it being well-served today
  • Do we have some kind of differentiated approach to it?
  • Do we have some competence in the area, and if not, can we acquire it quickly?
  • If we like the answers to the four questions above, can we put a group of single-threaded, focused people on this initiative?

4. 50 Cognitive Biases in the Modern World – Marcus Lu

Fundamental Attribution Error – We judge others on their personality or fundamental character, but we judge ourselves on the situation. [Eg:] Sally is late to class; she’s lazy. You’re late to class; it was a bad morning.

Dunning-Kruger Effect – The less you know, the more confident you are. The more you know, the less confident you are. [Eg:] Francis confidently assures the group that there’s no kelp in ice cream. They do not work in the dairy industry.

Declinism – We tend to romanticize the past and view the future negatively, believing that societies/institutions are by and large in decline. [Eg:] “In my day, kids had more respect!”

Framing Effect – We often draw different conclusions from the same information depending on how it’s presented. [Eg:] Alice hears that her favourite candidate is “killing it” with a 45% approval rating. Sally hears that the candidate is “disappointing the country” with a 45% rating. They have wildly different interpretations of the same statistic.

5. Client Case Study: When You Give Up Being A DIY Investor Kyith Ng

Adam and his wife, Sabrina, have spent the past 13 years of their lives in successful individual careers as a Technology Engineer in an American MNC and as an Account Manager, respectively. Both realize that their money has built up over the years and do not wish to take the traditional route of wealth building that their parents took. However, being careful with their money, they tried to sift through the vast amount of information to find what is the right way to invest.

When tasked to invest his family’s wealth, Adam believed that a certain criterion was important to building wealth in a fundamentally sound manner. Eventually, they identified that a sound way to build wealth would be to channel their money from work and what they have into Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs) that track certain regional indexes. Through his research, he understands the concept of having exposure to a portfolio of equities around the world. He also understands the importance of keeping their transactional costs low because costs would compound over time. That is how they started venturing out of safe fixed deposits and lower risk instruments and into higher risk and potentially higher return financial assets.

If you were to ask us to name a fundamentally sound way to invest in a do-it-yourself manner, we would tell you what Sabrina and Adam did was sound. We could even give you the blueprint on how to do it here:

  • Identify a brokerage or fund platform that has low transaction charges or low platform fees
  • Put the lump-sum you wish to invest, into a low-cost, broadly diversified unit trust or exchange traded fund. You can create a low-cost, broadly diversified portfolio with 1 to 4 funds depending on your preference and sophistication
  • Contribute a portion of your cash flow from work into the fund
  • On an annual or half-yearly basis, do a rebalancing if you hold more than 1 fund
  • In terms of investment setup, that is it
  • You should continue to get educated in this way of investing- focusing on a continuous education on market returns, on volatility and how the markets performed at various pivotal junctures
  • With such an approach, you can then live a good life, because the investments are rather passive in nature. By not taking a too active approach to wealth building, this frees up your mind to do your best work in your career. The better you do in your career, the greater excess cash flows you will get from work to be channeled back into your wealth portfolio

Given Adam and Sabrina’s initial investible wealth of $600,000, a 30% savings rate which allows them to put away an initial amount of $100,000 a year, a higher than average salary growth of 7% a year, and a projected portfolio compounded return of 5% a year, Sabrina and Adam could grow their wealth to $9,674,623 in 18 years’ time when they are 50 years old.

Adam and Sabrina would have come across materials like the above in their research and they would have implemented something similar.

However, eventually a couple like Adam and Sabrina decided to approach us. Here are some of the challenges that they faced.

6. How Airbnb Pulled Back From the Brink – Preetika Rana and Maureen Farrell

Mr. Chesky quickly switched Airbnb’s strategy. Big cities visited by tourists had been Airbnb’s strength, but it would now focus on local stays. By June, the company had redesigned its website and app so its algorithm would show prospective travelers everything from cabins to lavish beach houses near where they lived.

On July 8, guests booked stays at the rate they were just before the pandemic brought travel and tourism to a halt. In August, more than half of bookings made were for stays within 300 miles of the guest’s location, according to the company.

It was a lucky break, and Airbnb was in position to capitalize on it. The CEO made more changes, including cutting marketing, putting many noncore projects on hold and laying off a quarter of the staff.

“I did not know that I would make 10 years’ worth of decisions in 10 weeks,” Mr. Chesky said in an interview.

The upswing has put the home-sharing giant on a path to go public and report a third-quarter profit this year, according to investors, something that seemed all but impossible months ago.

7. Accountable to Darwin vs. Accountable to Newton Morgan Housel

Growing a population has rarely been a problem in human history. Virtually every nation could count on a consistent flow of births exceeding deaths. Population growth fueled economies and seemed like a law of nature. But Newton isn’t involved. Darwin runs the show. Things changed, living conditions improved, competition favored something new, and over the last 30 years births have fallen so much that most big nations will have fewer workers in 2050 than in 2020.

For decades, the dividend yield on a company’s stock was usually higher than the interest rate on its bonds. It made sense to people: stocks were riskier than bonds, and you must be paid extra in return. It seemed like an iron law of finance, blessed by Newton. But things changed. Around the 1950s, companies began withholding more profits to finance growth in lieu of dividends. Dividend yields fell below bond yields. Some people thought it was a sign of madness that must revert. But it didn’t. Today we think it’s normal because bonds have no growth upside, so you should be paid more to make the investment worthwhile. That now seems like a Newtonian law of finance. But in both cases investors are just being accountable to Darwin.


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. We currently have a vested interest in Amazon and Wix. Holdings are subject to change at any time.

Compounding: How it Works and Why Diversification is Key

Compounding is the key to building wealth. How does it work and how can we harness it for ourselves?

Compounding is amazing, isn’t it? Just look at the graph below. It shows the nominal growth of the S&P 500, a prominent US stock market barometer, in the last 150 years.

Source: Line chart using Robert Shiller’s S&P 500 data

What’s interesting about the chart is that the S&P 500’s growth accelerated over time. That’s exactly how compounding works. Nominal growth starts off slow but increases over time.

The chart below of the S&P500 over the last 150 years shows the same thing as above, but in logarithmic form. It gives a clearer picture of the percentage returns of the stock market over the same time frame.

Source: Line chart using Robert Shiller’s S&P 500 data

The log-chart of the S&P 500 over the past 150 years is a fairly straight line up. What this tells us is that even though the return of US stocks have accelerated nominally, there was a fairly consistent growth in percentage terms over the time studied.

How do stocks compound?

This leads us to the next question. How?

In order to produce a 10% annual return for shareholders, a company that has a market value of $1 million needs to create $100,000 in shareholder value this year. The next year, in order to compound at the same rate, the company now needs to create $110,000 in shareholder value.

That figure grows exponentially and by year 30, the company now needs to create $1,586,309.30 to keep generating a 10% increase in shareholder value.

On paper, that seems outrageous and highly improbable. However, based on the historical returns of the stock market, we see that the S&P 500 has indeed managed to achieve this feat.

The reason is that companies can reinvest the capital they’ve earned. A larger invested capital base can result in larger profits. As long as they can keep reinvesting their earned capital at a similar rate of return, they can keep compounding shareholder value. 

But here’s the catch…

Although I’ve given an example of how a company can compound shareholder value over time, it really is not that simple.

Not all companies can create more shareholder value every year. In reality, corporations may find it hard to deploy their new capital at similar rates of return. Businesses that operate in highly competitive industries or are being disrupted may even face declining profits and are destroying shareholder value each year if they reinvest their capital into the business.

In fact, most of the returns from stock market indexes are due to just a handful of big winners. In 2014, JP Morgan released an interesting report on the distribution of stock returns. The report looked at the “lifetime” price returns of stocks versus the Russell 3000, an index of the biggest 3000 stocks in the US over a 35-year period.

What JP Morgan found was that from 1980 to 2014, the median stock underperformed the Russell 3000 by 54%. Two-thirds of all stocks underperformed the Russell 3000. The chart below shows the lifetime returns on individual stocks vs Russell 3000 from 1980 to 2014.

Source: JP Morgan report

Moreover, on an absolute return basis and during the same time period, 40% of all stocks had a negative absolute return.

Even stocks within the S&P 500, a proxy for 500 of the largest and most successful US-listed companies, exhibited the same. There were over 320 S&P 500 deletions from 1980 to 2014 that were a consequence of stocks that failed, were removed due to substantial declines in market value, or were acquired after suffering a decline. The impressive growth you saw in the S&P 500 earlier was, hence, due to just a relatively small number of what JP Morgan terms “extreme winners”.

That’s why diversification is key

Based on JP Morgan’s 2014 report, if you picked just one random stock to invest in, you had a 66% chance to underperform the market and a 40% chance to have a negative return.

This is why diversification is key.

If historical returns are anything to go by, diversification is not just safer but also gives you a higher chance to gain exposure to “extreme winners.” Just a tiny exposure to these outperformers can make up for the relative underperformance in many other stocks.

Last words

Compounding is a game-changer when it works.

But the reality is that not all stocks compound in value over a long period of time. Many may actually destroy shareholder value over their lifetime. A useful quote from Warren Buffet comes to mind: “Time is the friend of the wonderful business, the enemy of the mediocre.”

Given the wide divergence of returns between winners and losers, we can’t take compounding for granted. By diversifying across a basket of stocks with a sound investment framework, or by buying a fund that tracks a broadly-diversified market index, we reduce our downside risk and increase our odds of earning positive returns.

DisclaimerThe 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.

What We’re Reading (Week Ending 18 October 2020)

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 18 October 2020:

1. China’s National Digital Currency DCEP / CBDC Overview – Michael @ Box Mining

China’s national digital currency DCEP (Digital Currency Electronic Payment, DC/EP) will be built with Blockchain and Cryptographic technology. This revolutionary cryptocurrency could become the world’s first Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) as it is issued by state bank People’s Bank of China (PBoC). The goal and objectives of the currency are to increase the circulation of the RMB and international reach – with eventual hopes that the RMB will a global currency like the US Dollar. China has recently established an initiative to push forward Blockchain adoption, with the goal of beating competitors like Facebook Libra – a currency that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg claims will become the next big FinTech innovation. China has made explicit that Facebook Libra poses a threat to the sovereignty of China, insisting that digital currencies should only be issued by governments and central banks. DCEP is not listed on cryptocurrency exchanges and will not be for speculation of value.

2. Meet Amazon.com’s first employee: Shel Kaphan – John Cook

“I mean, nobody at the beginning had any clue how big Amazon could become,” recalls Kaphan, now 58. “Nobody. Certainly not Jeff. I have spreadsheets of his projections from when he was trying to hire me. And I don’t remember the specific numbers, but it was a lot, lot smaller than it turned out to be.”…

…So, you are kind of the forgotten founder? Most people think of Jeff Bezos as the creator of the company. “In fact, to be completely technically true about it, he is the founder. But I was talking to him about joining him on the venture before the company was incorporated. He basically was just arriving from the East Coast and setting up his house when I moved up from California. All that existed of Amazon was on paper at that point. Jeff was working on it full-time already, and his wife, Mackenzie, was writing checks every once in a while. But that was it. I didn’t get founder’s stock. It didn’t seem worth the argument at the time, although I kind of felt like, well, you know, I mean I was there at the beginning. And it was all going to work out the same way, one way or the other, regardless of the technicalities. And it just didn’t seem like something that I wanted to make a big deal about at the time.”…

…What was that era like just before you joined Amazon in 1994? “The previous job I had was with Kaleida Labs, which was an Apple-IBM joint venture that called itself a startup but really wasn’t. I left that in the Spring of 1994.  I lived in Santa Cruz, California, and that was at the time when there was a huge amount of ferment in the air with Netscape hiring up all of the hot-shot programmers around…. There wasn’t really much else going on at that time, but there was quite a bit of buzz about the Web, so my friend and I were thinking that we should do something about this, it is a big opportunity. I had been working in computers since the mid-70s and had sort of seen the first wave of the PC revolution come, and I didn’t jump on that. At the time, I was more enamored of what we then thought of as bigger machines, the kind of machines that the universities had. I was interested in the type of software that could run on those. I watched as the first PC wave happened and got bigger and bigger and bigger, and at some point I realized: ‘Oh, I kind of missed getting on that wave.’ So, I always had in the back of mind, if I see something that I want to be participate in coming, next time, I am going to act on it. A lot of time went by before I had that feeling again.’…

3. In April 2014, GDP in Nigeria Jumped 89%. How the Hell Did That Happen? – Morten Jerven

Yemi Kale, the director of the Nigerian National Bureau of Statistics took the podium, and announced that the Bureau had revised their GDP figures. The base year for the national accounts was updated, and the new figures showed that Nigerian GDP was 89 percent higher than previously estimated. Given the relative size of the Nigerian economy for the region, this was quite a revision. That afternoon, Sub Saharan African GDP increased almost 30 percent. Economic activity equivalent to 58 times the size of the Malawian economy was added to the Nigerian economy…

…The advantage of coming at the problem of economic statistics as an Economic Historian is that one is keenly aware that the statistics are not given, they are made. That means that statistics are social and political products. In mainstream economic debates the biggest part of the discussion is focused on what drives inflation, and why employment is up or down. Meanwhile less attention is given to the very basic problem that while we know what employment and inflation are in theory, it is technically impossible to measure it cleanly.

The notion that we scientists can let the data or the evidence speak for itself is misleading. Skilled journalists, historians and lawyers interrogate witnesses and sources to figure who made the observation, and the biases behind what they observed. And in our own way,, economists and finance writers have to interrogate these soft numbers that we too often treat as hard facts.

4. Would Keynes Have Been Fired as a Money Manager Today? – Ben Carlson

Now back to the question of whether or not Keynes would have been fired by investors today if he showed similar performance, volatility and drawdown numbers. Unfortunately, I agree with the responses from Twitter in this instance, which is a shame. This is a legendary investment record during one of the most difficult periods in history to be an investor.

But short-termism and status quo are so widely practiced in the institutionalized world of investing that it’s highly unlikely that investors would have the requisite patience to stick with someone like Keynes today. Investors would certainly chase performance after the string of good years, but very few would be able to earn the overall outperformance figures.

For most investors the goal shouldn’t necessarily be to beat the market, but to not beat themselves. And then there’s the question of actually discovering the next John Maynard Keynes. But putting all of that aside for the moment — there is an unbelievable amount of time, effort and money spent on the singular goal of beating the market. It’s the entire reason many fund managers exist. Yet the conundrum is that there are very few investors out there with the correct level of patience or discipline to see through the type of strategy that’s required to actually beat the market by a wide margin.

5. 11 Lessons From 11 Years of Investing in the Stock Market Sudhan P

In August 2011, I saw the first major stock market decline since I started investing.

The fall was due to uncertainty in the US over its debt ceiling and the country’s first-ever credit downgrade by S&P. There was also a debt crisis in Europe. 

Out of fear that some of the paper gains in my portfolio will turn to losses, I decided to sell off some of my stocks. 

It was an emotionally-draining mistake as it made me check on the stock market and stock prices every day, afraid that I would miss on the rebound when it happens. 

What actually happened was that the stock market started rallying on optimism that the debt crisis will be solved eventually. And I was forced to buy back the shares at a higher price.

I learnt from this episode not to time the market as it’s a really tough job. No one can know for sure when to exit the market before a crash and when precisely to buy just before a market upturn.

Various studies have also shown that being out of the market and missing the best market days can significantly reduce long-term returns. So, it’s far better to stay the course.

6. Twitter thread on every US president’s comments on money – Anand Chokkavelu

6. John Quincy Adams

“My wants are many, and, if told, would muster many a score; and were each wish a mint of gold, I still would want for more.”

12. Zachary Taylor

“Economy I consider a virtue and should be practiced by all; there is certainly no way in which money can be laid out than in the education of children.”

13. Millard Fillmore

“It is a national disgrace that our Presidents, after having occupied the highest position in the country, should be cast adrift, and, perhaps, be compelled to keep a corner grocery for subsistence.”

20. James Garfield

“He who controls the money supply of a nation controls the nation.”

23. Benjamin Harrison

“I pity that man who wants a coat so cheap that the man or woman who produces the cloth shall starve in the process.”

26. Theodore Roosevelt

“It is a bad thing for a nation to raise and to admire a false standard of success; and there can be no falser standard than that set by the deification of material well-being in and for itself.”

32. Franklin D. Roosevelt

“It is an unfortunate human failing that a full pocketbook often groans more loudly than an empty stomach.”

33. Harry S. Truman

“It’s a recession when your neighbor loses his job; it’s a depression when you lose yours.”

35. John F. Kennedy

See also inflation.

“There are risks and costs to action. But they are far less than the long-range risks of comfortable inaction.”

44. Barack Obama

“Cutting the deficit by gutting our investments in innovation and education is like lightening an overloaded airplane by removing its engine. It may make you feel like you’re flying high at first, but it won’t take long before you feel the impact.”

45. Donald Trump

“Money was never a big motivation for me, except as a way to keep score. The real excitement is playing the game.”

Bonus: Joe Biden

“My father used to have an expression. He’d say, ‘Joey, a job is about a lot more than a paycheck. It’s about your dignity. It’s about respect. It’s about your place in your community.'”

7. The 7 Things That Matter For Markets Going Forward Ben Carlson

Fiscal stimulus. The debt-to-GDP for the United States is a sight to behold:

We were able to perform an experiment in government spending during a crisis in real-time and it has been a resounding success. Retail sales quickly rebounded. The unemployment rate fell. Personal savings rates went through the roof. People were able to repair their personal balance sheets.

And a depression was stopped in its tracks.

I have more questions than answers:

  • Will we see this type of government spending during future recessions?
  • How would that impact the business cycle?
  • Will this change how business owners and investors view risk?
  • Will investors and markets respond differently to future recessions?
  • Was this year the first step towards a universal basic income?

Politicians have been promising their policies would lead to higher GDP growth for years. None of them have worked. Now they’ve finally found the lever to pull that can conjure growth out of thin air — government spending.

How could any sane politician not use that lever every chance they get going forward?…

…The Fed. In every alien horror movie there always comes a point when the people being hunted by said alien come to realize it’s somehow getting stronger and/or smarter.

The main character of the movie, who typically covered in sweat, mud or blood will say, “It’s evolving.”

The Fed is the alien in this example.

In 2008 the entire financial system was closer to the precipice of collapse than most people realize. Looking back on it now I’m guessing Fed officials regret not going bigger or moving faster.

Jerome Powell and company didn’t want to have that same regret this time around. The Fed met the pandemic with bazookas blazing. They poured trillions of dollars into the system to keep markets functioning, effectively taking the Great Depression scenario off the table.

Markets rebounded across the board in record time.

It’s going to be difficult for the Fed to retract its alien tentacles from the markets. And if investors come to expect the Fed to have their back during every downturn there cold be some misplaced expectations and risk-taking because of it.



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. We currently have a vested interest in Amazon. Holdings are subject to change at any time.

Tesla is Making Virtually All Its Profits From Selling Credits. How? And Can it Last?

Tesla made US$1 billion from selling regulatory ZEV credits in the past 12 months. Can it continue and what will happen when it dries up?

Tesla recorded another profitable quarter in the second quarter of 2020, marking a fourth consecutive quarter of GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles) profit for the company. It was a welcome change for the previously cash burning and unprofitable electric vehicle pioneer. 

But eagle-eyed investors will have noticed that virtually all of Tesla’s profit and free cash flow generated over the last 12 months was due to the sale of ZEV (Zero Emission Vehicle) credits.

The company booked US$1.05 billion from the sale of regulatory ZEV credits in the 12 months ended 30 June 2020. During the same time period, Tesla recorded US$368 million and US$907 million in net profit and free cash flow, respectively.

So what are regulatory ZEV credits?

To incentivise automobile manufactures to sell ZEVs, some states in the USA have adopted a regulatory credits program, termed the ZEV Program. The ZEV Program is a state law, which currently applies to 12 states in the USA.

This law mandates that a certain percentage of each automobile manufacturer’s annual sales must be made up of zero-emission vehicles, measured by what is termed ZEV credits. ZEV credits can be earned by selling ZEVs such as battery and hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles or Transitional Zero-Emission Vehicles (TZEV) which include hybrid vehicles.

How Tesla makes money from the ZEV program

In order to avoid penalties, manufacturers who sell in states which impose the ZEV program need to earn a certain number of ZEV credits.

There are two ways to achieve this. Either they sell sufficient ZEVs and TZEVs to chalk up enough credits, or they can buy ZEV credits from manufacturers who have built up excess ZEV credits to sell.

This regulation works beautifully for Tesla. As every vehicle sold by Tesla is a long-range electric vehicle, it generates a lot more ZEV credits than it requires. As such, it can sell excess credits to other automobile companies who need them, earning Tesla extra income at virtually no additional expense.

Can Tesla keep selling ZEV credits?

But how long can this last? Historically, Tesla’s revenue from ZEV sales has increased as more states started imposing the ZEV program.

The ZEV program originated in California in 1990 and has since extended to a total of 12 states in the US. There are a few things to consider here.

First, is the speed of regulatory changes. Tesla can benefit if more states start to impose the ZEV program.

Similarly, Tesla benefits if states that are already imposing the ZEV program increase the credit requirements. For example in California, ZEV targets are expected to rise from 3% of sales to around 8% by 2025.

Another near-term tailwind is that some credits that were bought in the past are due to expire. A recent report by EPA found that some large automakers buy credits in advance to satisfy future requirements. Some of the “banked” credits are set to expire at the end of 2021 if not used. This might result in a rush for ZEV credits in the next few years.

But it won’t last…

However, selling ZEV credits will likely not be a long-term revenue driver for Tesla. Traditional ICE (internal combustion engine) automobile makers are shifting more of their resources towards ZEVs and TZEVs. As their sales mix shifts, they will eventually be able to comply with the ZEV program without having to buy additional ZEV credits.

At Tesla’s analyst briefing for 2020’s second quarter, Chief Financial Officer Zachary Kirkhorn said:

“We don’t manage the business with the assumption that regulatory credits will contribute in a significant way to the future. I do expect regulatory credit revenue to double in 2020 relative to 2019, and it will continue for some period of time. But eventually, the stream of regulatory credits will reduce.”

Tesla can live without this extra income

Tesla is still in the early innings of its grand plan for fully-autonomous vehicles. It also has the ability to keep raising more capital through the sale of its high-flying stock.

Shareholders will also note that Elon Musk said that its autonomous software could be valued as much as US$100,000 per vehicle. With a growing base of Tesla vehicles, which are fitted with autonomous vehicle hardware, Tesla has a ready base of customers to up-sell a much higher margin software product.

In the meantime, the sale of ZEV credits can continue to be a source of cash for the next few years as the company bridges for the next phase of its business. Hopefully for shareholders, by the time the sale of ZEV credits dry up, Tesla’s other businesses will exhibit greater profitability and higher margins to keep the company’s profits and cash flow streaming in.

DisclaimerThe 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.

The Disconnect Between Stocks And The Economy

There appears to be a disconnect between stocks and the economy with both moving in different directions. But can there be good reasons behind this?

Note: An earlier version of this article was first published in MoneyOwl’s website. MoneyOwl is Singapore’s first bionic financial advisor and is a joint-venture between NTUC Enterprise and Providend (Singapore’s first fee-only financial advisor). This article is a collaboration between The Good Investors and MoneyOwl and is not a sponsored post.

The apparent disconnect between the stock market and the economy is one of the hottest topics of discussion in the finance community this year.

Let’s look at the USA, for example, since it’s home to the world’s largest economy and stock market (in terms of market capitalisation). Due to the ongoing restrictions on human movement to fight COVID-19, the country’s economy inched up by just 0.6% in the first quarter of 2020 compared to a year ago. The second quarter of the year saw the US’s economic output fall by a stunning 9.0%; that’s an even steeper decline compared to the worst quarter of the 2007-09 Great Financial Crisis. Yet the US stock market – measured by the S&P 500 – is up by 4.1% in price as of 30 September 2020 since the start of the year. 

Many are saying that this makes no sense, that stocks shouldn’t be holding up if the economy’s being crushed. But here’s the thing: The stock market and the economy are not the same things, and this has been the case for a long time. 

A walk down memory lane

Let’s go back 113 years ago to the Panic of 1907. It’s not widely remembered today but the crisis, which flared up in October 1907, was a period of severe economic distress for the USA. In fact, it was a key reason behind the US government’s decision to set up the Federal Reserve, the country’s central bank, in 1913.

Here are excerpts from an academic report published in December 1908 that highlighted the horrible state of the US economy during the Panic of 1907: 

“The truth regarding the industrial history of 1908 is that reaction in trade, consumption, and production, after the panic of 1907, was so extraordinarily violent that violent recovery was possible without in any way restoring the actual status quo.

At the opening of the year, business in many lines of industry was barely 28 per cent of the volume of the year before: by mid- summer it was still only 50 per cent of 1907; yet this was astonishingly rapid increase over the January record. Output of the country’s iron furnaces on January 1 was only 45 per cent of January, 1907: on November 1 it was 74 per cent of the year before; yet on September 30 the unfilled orders on hand, reported by the great United States Steel Corporation, were only 43 per cent of what were reported at that date in the “boom year” 1906.”

You can see that there were improvements in the economic conditions in the USA as 1908 progressed. But the country’s economic output toward the end of the year was still significantly lower than in 1907. 

Now let’s look at the US stock market in that same period. Using data published by Nobel-Prize-winning economist Robert Shiller, I constructed the chart below showing the S&P 500’s performance from 1907 to 1917.

Source: Robert Shiller data; my calculations

It turns out that the US stock market fell for most of 1907. It bottomed out in November of the year after a 32% decline from January. It then started climbing rapidly in December 1907 and throughout 1908, even though 1908 was an abject year for the US economy. And for the next eight years, US stocks never looked back. What was going on in the US economy back then in 1908 was not the same as what happened to its stocks.

There’s no link

It may surprise you, but studies on the long-term histories of stock markets and economies around the world show that there’s essentially no relationship between economic growth and stock prices over the long run. One of my favourite examples comes from asset manager AllianceBernstein and is shown below:

Despite stunning 15% annual GDP growth in China from 1992 to 2013, Chinese stocks fell by 2% per year in the same period. Mexico on the other hand, saw its stock market gain 18% annually, despite anaemic annual economic growth of just 2%. A wide gap can exist between the performance of a country’s economy and its stocks for two reasons.

First, stocks are ultimately driven by per-share earnings growth as well as changes in valuations (how much investors are willing to pay for each dollar of earnings). On the other hand, a country’s economic growth is driven by the revenue growth of all its companies. There can be many obstacles between a company’s revenue growth and earnings growth. Some examples include poor cost-management, dilution (where a company issues more shares and lowers its per-share growth), and regulatory pressures (such as a company facing an increase in taxes). Second, the presence of revenue growth for all companies in aggregate does not mean that any collection of companies are growing. 

What this means is that if we’re investing in stocks, it’s crucial that we focus on companies and valuations instead of the economy. This brings us to the situation today.

Underneath the hood

We have to remember that when we talk about the stock market, we are usually referring to a stock market index, which reflects the aggregate stock price movements for a group of companies. For example, the most prominent index in the USA is the S&P 500, which consists of 500 of the largest companies in the country’s stock market. There are two things worth noting about the index:

  1. The American economy has more than 6 million companies, so the S&P 500 – as large as it is with 500 companies – is still not at all representative of the broader picture.
  2. The S&P 500’s constituents are weighted according to their market cap, meaning that the companies with the largest market caps have the heaviest influence on the movement of the index.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the S&P 500’s five largest companies in the middle of January 2020 – Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, and Facebook – accounted for 19% of the index then. Here’s how the five companies’ businesses performed in the first half of 2020:

Source: Companies’ quarterly earnings updates

Although the US economy did poorly in the first half of this year, the S&P 500’s five largest companies in mid-January 2020 saw their businesses grow relatively healthily. What’s happening in the broader economy is not the same as what’s happening at the individual company level, especially with the S&P 500’s largest constituents. From this perspective, the S&P 500’s year-to-date movement (the gain of 4.1%), even with the gloomy economy as a backdrop, makes some sense. 

In fact, the recent movement of stocks makes even more sense if we dig deeper. On 4 August 2020, Bloomberg published an article by investor Barry Ritholtz titled Why Markets Don’t Seem to Care If the Economy Stinks. Here are some relevant excerpts from Ritholtz’s piece:

“Start with some of 2020’s worst-performing industries: Year-to-date (as of the end of July), these include department stores, down 62.6%; airlines, off 55%; travel services, down 51.4%; oil and gas equipment and services, down 50.5%; resorts and casinos, down 45.4%; and hotel and motel real estate investment trusts, off 41.9%. The next 15 industry sectors in the index are down between 30.5% and 41.7%. And that’s four months after the market rebounded from the lows of late March…

…Consider how little these beaten-up sectors mentioned above affect the indexes.  Department stores may have fallen 62.3%, but on a market-cap basis they are a mere 0.01% of the S&P 500. Airlines are larger, but not much: They weigh in at 0.18% of the index. The story is the same for travel services, hotel and motel REITs, and resorts and casinos.” 

It turns out that the companies whose businesses have crashed because of COVID-19 have indeed seen their stock prices get walloped. But crucially, they don’t have much say on the movement of the S&P 500.

Conclusion 

Stock market indices are useful for us to have a broad overview of how stocks are faring. But they don’t paint the full picture. They can also move in completely different directions from economies, simply because they reflect business growth and not economic growth. The main takeaway is that when you’re investing in stocks, don’t let the noise about the economy affect you from staying invested as they don’t always move in the same direction. If you invest in stocks, look at companies and not the economy.


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 currently have a vested interest in the shares of Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Microsoft. Holdings are subject to change at any time.