All articles

What We’re Reading (Week Ending 11 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. Increasing Returns and the New World of Business – Brian Arthur

Let’s go back to beginnings—to the diminishing-returns view of Alfred Marshall and his contemporaries. Marshall’s world of the 1880s and 1890s was one of bulk production: of metal ores, aniline dyes, pig iron, coal, lumber, heavy chemicals, soybeans, coffee—commodities heavy on resources, light on know-how.

In that world it was reasonable to suppose, for example, that if a coffee plantation expanded production it would ultimately be driven to use land less suitable for coffee. In other words, it would run into diminishing returns. So if coffee plantations competed, each one would expand until it ran into limitations in the form of rising costs or diminishing profits. The market would be shared by many plantations, and a market price would be established at a predictable level—depending on tastes for coffee and the availability of suitable farmland. Planters would produce coffee so long as doing so was profitable, but because the price would be squeezed down to the average cost of production, no one would be able to make a killing. Marshall said such a market was in perfect competition, and the economic world he envisaged fitted beautifully with the Victorian values of his time. It was at equilibrium and therefore orderly, predictable and therefore amenable to scientific analysis, stable and therefore safe, slow to change and therefore continuous. Not too rushed, not too profitable. In a word, mannerly. In a word, genteel…

Let’s look at the market for operating systems for personal computers in the early 1980s when CP/M, DOS, and Apple’s Macintosh systems were competing. Operating systems show increasing returns: if one system gets ahead, it attracts further software developers and hardware manufacturers to adopt it, which helps it get further ahead.

CP/M was first in the market and by 1979 was well established. The Mac arrived later, but it was wonderfully easy to use. DOS was born when Microsoft locked up a deal in 1980 to supply an operating system for the IBM PC. For a year or two, it was by no means clear which system would prevail. The new IBM PC—DOS’s platform—was a kludge. But the growing base of DOS/IBM users encouraged software developers such as Lotus to write for DOS. DOS’s prevalence—and the IBM PC’s—bred further prevalence, and eventually the DOS/IBM combination came to dominate a considerable portion of the market. That history is now well known. But notice several things: It was not predictable in advance (before the IBM deal) which system would come to dominate. Once DOS/IBM got ahead, it locked in the market because it did not pay for users to switch. The dominant system was not the best: DOS was derided by computer professionals. And once DOS locked in the market, its sponsor, Microsoft, was able to spread its costs over a large base of users. The company enjoyed killer margins.

These properties, then, have become the hallmarks of increasing returns: market instability (the market tilts to favor a product that gets ahead), multiple potential outcomes (under different events in history, different operating systems could have won), unpredictability, the ability to lock in a market, the possible predominance of an inferior product, and fat profits for the winner. They surprised me when I first perceived them in the late 1970s. They were also repulsive to economists brought up on the order, predictability, and optimality of Marshall’s world.

2. The end of the American internet – Ben Evans

First, as I discussed in some detail here, technology is becoming a regulated industry, if only because important and specialised industries are always regulated. That regulation will not only be determined by the USA. Other countries have their own laws, cultures and constitutions, and so we are entering a period of increasing regulatory expansion, overlap and competition from different jurisdictions, from the EU and UK to Singapore or Australia and, of course, China.

Second, you can no longer assume that the important companies and products themselves are American. 

Both of these are captured in Tiktok. This is the first time that Americans have really had to deal with their teenagers using a form of mass media that isn’t created in their country by people who mostly share their values. It’s from somewhere else. That’s compounded by the fact that the ‘somewhere else’ is China, with all of the political and geopolitical issues that come with that, but I’d suggest that the core, structural issue is that it’s foreign. This is, of course, a problem that the rest of the world has been wrestling with since 1994, but it comes as something of a shock in Washington DC. There’s an old joke that war is how God teaches Americans geography – now it’s regulation.

3. The Merits of Bottoms Up Investing – Venture Desktop

Perhaps no VC firm embodies structural advantage — from the alignment of its organizational incentives to the brand edge it has built through a consistent approach applied over multiple decades — better than Benchmark.

It is also likely that no other firm is as allergic to the notion of a top down thesis.

You don’t have to wait long in any interview featuring one of Benchmark’s General Partners — and there have been a number of great ones lately — to gain insight into what seems to be the firm’s organizing principle:

“Our job is not to see the future, it’s to see the present very clearly.”

This alignment shines through clearly across the partnership — whether it is Sarah Tavel talking about her investment in Chainalysis, Chetan Puttagunta explaining the logic behind his investment in Sketch, or Eric Vishria responding to a “request for startup” in the Open Source space:

“We’re not top down like that. It is so organic. When an entrepreneur pitches and tells a story that provides an insight that makes you think about the world differently, that’s when I get really, really excited. And that’s why it is really hard to be top-down and why we don’t tend to be particularly thesis-driven..”

In a 2016 interview, Peter Fenton, who joined Benchmark in 2006 from Accel, spoke about the differences between the two iconic firms:

“At Accel I was taught, ‘we need to have a prepared mind’ at really thinking about a segment, a category, and its coherence. So I came to Benchmark and I didn’t know if I agreed with that. And my partner said, “don’t you do that shit here.” Throw that crystal ball out, you can’t predict anything. What you can do is recognize when lightning strikes.”

Fenton also talked about the bottoms up nature of his investments in this Quora Session. Twitter, Yelp, Elastic — all driven by investing in purpose and “tactile reality” than trends.

“I don’t invest in trends. I know it sounds a bit too-cool-for-school but what I’ve found is that you get far more insight from purpose than from trends. So, for example, in the case of Docker I invested in Dotcloud (which became Docker), in the purpose of this radical, intense leader, Solomon, who wanted to give the world’s programmers superpowers, tools of mass innovation. In the case of Yelp, it was Jeremy’s purpose to allow for the truth of great (and bad) local businesses to be visible to all. Or when I met Jack in 2007, he had this unstoppable purpose for Twitter to “bring you closer”. Sometimes that purpose is just this raw force, an energy, like it was in the case of Shay at Elastic in 2012. When I feel like the trend, the space, the concepts vs the tactile reality of a purpose forms the narrative of the investment I lose all interest.”

4. Who Is ‘Andy Bang’? A Ritz-Carlton Mystery Gets Its Day in Court – Jef Feeley and Mark Chediak

The story starts with Wu, an ex-car dealer whose third wife was the granddaughter of former paramount leader Deng Xiaoping. In 2004, Wu set up an insurance company for the growing Chinese middle class. As premiums poured in, he went on an $18-billion buying binge starting in 2014. He snapped up New York’s Waldorf Astoria hotel for nearly $2 billion and bought Dutch insurer Vivat. In 2016, he acquired Blackstone Group’s Strategic Hotels & Resorts unit for $6.5 billion. That company’s luxury lineup featured San Francisco’s Westin St. Francis, the Four Seasons Resort in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, and the Half Moon Bay. (He also began talks to buy 666 Fifth Avenue, the marquee tower owned by the family of President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner.)

But in 2017, weeks before his arrest, Wu signed an agreement empowering the Delaware limited-liability shell companies to act on his behalf. Under Delaware law, owners of such companies aren’t listed in public records.

The pact, written in Mandarin and referred to in court papers as the “DRAA Blanket Agreement,” relies on the Delaware Rapid Arbitration Act, created in 2015 for speedy recognition and payment of arbitration awards.

The agreement “authorizes the recording of grant deeds transferring ownership of properties held by Anbang” including hotels, banks and bank branches. It gives Wu’s family and other signers of the contract claims to the hotels, including the Waldorf Astoria.

The 15-page contract also specifies that if Chinese regulators seize Anbang, the Delaware companies can sue it. And if the Chinese authorities learn about the existence of the pact, the signers contend their lives are in danger and arbitration panels can impose massive penalties to be paid to the LLCs.

The signers were, on one side, Wu and Chen Xiaolu, an ex-Chinese military officer and son of a former mayor of Shanghai, and on the other, one of the LLCs, the Amer Group, and Andy Bang. After being questioned by the authorities about Anbang two years ago, Chen died of a heart attack.

Zhao wrote in his brief that as part of the collateral backing up the DRAA, Anbang agreed to put up 16 hotels and four other properties valued at at least $9 billion, and pledged $1 billion in cash as a “performance bond.”

The Amer Group owns the U.S. trademark to “An Bang” and has had long-running litigation, both in the U.S. and China, over it with Anbang, although some here and there suspect Amer is working with Wu on the alleged scam. A lawyer for Wu, Chen Youxi, declined to comment on anything related to Anbang.

5. Stillfront: Understanding Gaming’s Dark Horse Aaron Bush, Abhimanyu Kumar, and Joakim Achren

Stillfront Group is an emerging games business that both industry insiders and curious outsiders should prioritize understanding. Even though the company is making a larger name for itself — especially in 2020, which has turned into a breakout year — it remains, in our eyes, underrated and under-followed. It was (and maybe still is) a dark horse of the games industry. Tripling its market cap year-to-date certainly helps, but most don’t understand how Stillfront’s unique acquisition strategy, group operations culture, and capital allocation skill bring consistency and scalability to an otherwise lumpy, hits-driven industry. In other words, Stillfront’s success is the result of a well engineered strategy designed to predictably grow shareholder value in a highly unpredictable market.

6. Twitter thread on an analysis of Slack’s customers – Weng, @AznWeng

Stat #1: Among companies that use $WORK, 20% of their job openings are engineering. For Teams users, only 11% of their jobs are engineering. Companies with a focus on engineering choose Slack over Teams due to its many integrations with tools like Github/Jira/Pagerduty…

…Stat #3 (a fun one): The average Glassdoor rating for companies that use $WORK was 3.87. The average Glassdoor rating for all companies is 3.3. Causation doesn’t imply correlation, but it seems to suggest companies that allow remote work have higher job satisfaction overall.

Stat #4: $WORK is mentioned in twice the number of job openings as $MSFT Teams. While you wouldn’t think of Slack or Teams as “skills”, there are more roles in companies devoted to improving business workflows/processes by creating Slack bots and integrations.

7. A Closer Look at Ray Dalio’s 1937 Scenario Ben Carlson

When Donald Trump was elected president, Ray Dalio, the founder of the hedge fund Bridgewater Associates, was optimistic about the new administration’s economic agenda. Since then, his notes have turned increasingly pessimistic. He recently said his firm is reducing risk over worries that the U.S. is becoming politically more divided. Dalio recently compared today’s environment to the situation in the late 1930s:

“It seems to me that we are now economically and socially divided and burdened in ways that are broadly analogous to 1937. During such times conflicts (both internal and external) increase, populism emerges, democracies are threatened, and wars can occur. I can’t say how bad this time around will get. I’m watching how conflict is being handled as a guide, and I’m not encouraged.”

Dalio has made the 1937 analogy before. Yet it’s impossible to quantitatively compare two different eras in these terms. We can, however, make an economic and stock-market comparison to those times to get a better sense of how things played out in the first recession following the Great Depression. There are a few similarities between that period and today. Interest rates were low for a long time in the 1930s. The 10-year Treasury yield began 1937 at 2.7 percent. It currently stands at around 2.2 percent. In both cases, the Federal Reserve was tightening monetary policy, as well. And both periods saw a huge stock market rally following a previous crash and deep recession.

But that’s really where the similarities end. Everything that happened in the 1930s was magnified compared with what we’re experiencing today. After falling in excess of 80 percent during the Great Depression, stocks finally found a bottom in the summer of 1932. The rebound was so pronounced that equities were up more than 90 percent in the months of July and August of 1932 alone. From the bottom in 1932 through early 1937, stocks had an enormous rally, gaining about 415 percent in less than five years. This was good enough for an annual gain of more than 40 percent a year.


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.

Learning Investing, Redefined

A new micro-learning bot that could revolutionise the way you learn about investing.

I’ve a group of entrepreneurial friends who came together earlier this year to launch Joyful Person, a micro-learning bot. According to the team, who quoted research from Stanford and UPenn, users tend to learn better and faster with bot-based learning programmes.

One of the first few topics Joyful Person wants to help users learn, is investing. To this end, the team behind Joyful Person have built a few different investing courses on their platform. Each course typically consists of 5 to 15 sessions, and each session takes less than 10 minutes to complete. 

In the list of the investing courses that are currently on Joyful Person is a course that’s based on the lessons I shared in my article Saying Goodbye: 10 Years, a 19% Annual Return, and 17 Investing Lessons.

Yesterday, I tried out a demo of the investing course and it worked beautifully. Quick but effective quizzes were sprinkled throughout each session of the course to help users better understand the content. You can also learn entirely at your own pace – the content is delivered based on your interaction with the bot. Below are screenshots of my experience with the course.

Screenshot 1:

Screenshot 2:

The only minor gripe I had was that the course could only be accessed through the Telegram messaging app on a mobile device. The team told me that they’re working on launching Joyful Person on other widely-used messaging apps too. Other than that, I was so impressed by the experience that I think Joyful Person’s micro-learning bot could redefine how people learn about investing. 

Check out the course based on my article by hitting the link below! (Link works best on mobile, and it opens to the Telegram app)

I hope you will enjoy it as much as I did, and please spread the love to anyone in your network if you think the micro-learning course can be useful to them. I will also be glad to hear feedback from you on the course. Your comments will be passed along to the Joyful Person team – they value your input! Feel free to reach out to me at thegoodinvestors@gmail.com.

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 04 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 04 October 2020:

1. The Mike Speiser Incubation Playbook – Kwokchain

Unlike consumer, traditional enterprise markets lend themselves more naturally to deterministic and repeatable success. There’s a small handful of VCs who have clearly shown they can succeed repeatedly and whose approaches and playbooks are legible enough to imply it’s not a fluke. Speiser is one of them.

Speiser’s portfolio includes companies like Pure Storage and Snowflake Computing. It’s worth noting that Snowflake not only IPO’d and is now at a market cap of over $60B but Speiser and Sutter Hill Ventures owned more than 20% of the company leading up to the IPO. When Pure Storage went public, Sutter Hill held more than 25%. Speiser may have the highest percentage of portfolio companies that have become multi-billion dollar companies—and that trend looks to continue with his newer companies.

But impressive returns are not solely what matters for the industry. It’s tempting to evaluate firms by their returns, and from the LP perspective that may be the correct metric. But another, and more important way to judge VC firms is by the value they add above replacement to their portfolio companies. How much do they help their portfolio companies increase their likelihood and magnitude of success? Firms do this most notably by providing capital, but also by other methods like lending their brand or directly helping with operations.

For founders, this value added is what matters. The returns of a VC firm only matter to a startup insofar as they translate into improved brand, network, or access to capital for the startup. A firm’s financial performance is a reasonable signal that they may add real value and be worth partnering with, especially since some aspects like brand strength for recruiting, future financing, and customer development are a function of perceived firm success. But to prospective portfolio companies, a fund’s returns are important only as a means, not an end.

What makes Speiser intriguing is how distinct his approach is from other VCs. The tantalizing clues suggest that he has figured something out that nobody else has: the formula for creating successful companies from scratch.

2. Twitter thread on how John Foley founded digital fitness company Peloton – Joe Vennare

Peloton is a $20B company. But CEO John Foley had trouble raising money in the early days. For years, thousands of investors told him no. This is the story of how he persisted, 

disrupting the fitness industry in the process…

… 6/ Peloton is born. Foley’s vision:

– Bike w/a big screen
– Best-in-class instructors
– Leaderboard for motivation
– Convenience of at-home workouts

“I think you can digitize that experience, and build a hardware and software platform for consuming fitness content at home.”

7/ Friends & family. With his wife’s blessing, Foley recruited cofounders and raised Peloton’s seed round. A friends and family round, Foley raised $400K @ $2M post from 8 angels. The plan: combine an off-the-shelf tablet w/an exercise bike. If only it were that simple…

8/ Fun fact! Foley tried to partner w/SoulCycle & Flywheel. Soul passed. But $PTON had an agreement w/Flywheel. Flywheel bailed. The Peloton team was banned from Soul/Fly classes. Fast forward: Flywheel’s at-home bike failed. And Soul launched a Peloton lookalike.

9/ New plan! Peloton’s bike would be scratch-built. But that’s expensive. They needed more money. Foley was in his mid-40s. Had two kids. He hit the fundraising trail to keep his business afloat.

10/ NO! From 2011-14 Foley pitched 3,000 angels & 400 firms. Almost everyone said no. Eventually, he raised $10M from 100 angels. Tiger Global was the first institutional investor earning $1.4B at IPO.

11/ Kickstarter!? Far from a sure thing, Peloton launched a Kickstarter. It flopped. 200 people bought bikes. 100 were investors. And they raised $300K. The price? $1500. Everyone thought it was too expensive.

12/ The price is right! Post-Kickstarter, $PTON launched a website. The bike was priced at $1200. Now, the product looked cheap. They increased the price and sales increased!

13/ Momentum builds. Peloton landed Robin Arzon, an instructor who has come to define the brand. They began selling $2000 bikes at a mall kiosk in NJ. Filming classes in their office, they grew the workout library. It was working.

3. Brain-Computer Interfaces Are Coming. Will We Be Ready?– Marissa Norris

Three drones lift off, filling the air with their telltale buzz. They slowly sail upward as a fleet—evenly spaced and level—and then hover aloft.

On the ground, the pilot isn’t holding a remote control. In fact, he isn’t holding anything. He’s just sitting there calmly, controlling the drones with his mind.

This isn’t science fiction. This is a YouTube video from 2016.

In the clip, a mechanical engineering Ph.D. candidate at Arizona State University (ASU) sports an odd piece of headwear. It looks a bit like a swim cap, but with nearly 130 colorful sensors that detect the student’s brain waves. These devices let him move the drones simply by thinking directional commands: up, down, left, right.

Today, this type of brain-computer interface (BCI) technology is still being developed in labs like the one at ASU in 2016, which has since moved to the University of Delaware. In the future, all kinds of BCI tech could be sold to consumers or deployed on the battlefield.

The fleet of mind-controlled drones is just one real-life example of BCI explored in an initial assessment of BCI by RAND Corporation researchers. They examined current and future developments in the world of BCI and evaluated the practical applications and potential risks of various technologies. Their study is part of RAND’s Security 2040 initiative, which looks over the horizon and explores new technologies and trends that are shaping the future of global security.

4. Negativity Is Not an Investment Strategy Ben Carlson

Any position you take in regards to your portfolio involves risk. Investing in stocks is risky. Bonds are also risky. Crypto, private equity, hedge funds, real estate and every other financial asset involve risk-taking to make (or lose) money.

But guess what else involves risk — doing nothing!

In fact, doing nothing with your money is the biggest risk of all.

There are no guarantees when investing your money in risk assets. Maybe you’ll lose a boatload of money investing in risk assets. In fact, you almost certainly will at times. There is no way to completely hedge risk out of the equation when trying to grow your capital.

There is a way to guarantee awful outcomes with your savings — complain about the markets and don’t do anything with your money.

If you never take any risk, you will never have enough saved for retirement. Being pessimistic and sitting on the sidelines at all times guarantees you will lose money to inflation over the long-term.

5. Is It Insane to Start a Business During Coronavirus? Millions of Americans Don’t Think So –  Gwynn Guilford and Charity L. Scott

Americans are starting new businesses at the fastest rate in more than a decade, according to government data, seizing on pent-up demand and new opportunities after the pandemic shut down and reshaped the economy.

Applications for the employer identification numbers that entrepreneurs need to start a business have passed 3.2 million so far this year, compared with 2.7 million at the same point in 2019, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. That group includes gig-economy workers and other independent contractors who may have struck out on their own after being laid off.

Even excluding those applicants, new filings among a subset of business owners who tend to employ other workers reached 1.1 million through mid-September, a 12% increase over the same period last year and the most since 2007, the data show.

“This pandemic is actually inducing a surge in employer business startups that takes us back to the days before the decline in the Great Recession,” said John Haltiwanger, an economist at the University of Maryland who studies the data.

6. Satya Nadella Rewrites Microsoft’s Code Harry McCracken

When I ask Nadella for his own account of working with his predecessors, he’s blunt. “Bill’s not the kind of guy who walks into your office and says, ‘Hey, great job,’ ” he tells me. “It’s like, ‘Let me start by telling you the 20 things that are wrong with you today.’ ” Ballmer’s technique, Nadella adds, is similar. He chuckles at the images he’s conjured and emphasizes that he finds such directness “refreshing.” (Upon becoming CEO, Nadella even asked Gates, who remains a technology adviser to the company, to increase the hours he devotes to giving feedback to product teams.)

Nadella’s approach is gentler. He believes human beings are wired to have empathy, and that’s essential not only for creating harmony at work but also for making products that will resonate. “You have to be able to say, ‘Where is this person coming from?’” he says. “‘What makes them tick? Why are they excited or frustrated by something that is happening, whether it’s about computing or beyond computing?’”

His philosophy stems from one of the principal events of his personal life. In 1996, his first child, Zain, was born with severe cerebral palsy, permanently altering what had been a pretty carefree lifestyle for him and his wife, Anu. For two or three years, Nadella felt sorry for himself. And then—nudged along by Anu, who had given up her career as an architect to care for Zain—his perspective changed. “If anything,” he remembers thinking, “I should be doing everything to put myself in [Zain’s] shoes, given the privilege I have to be able to help him.” Nadella says that this empathy—though he cautions that the word is sometimes overused—”is a massive part of who I am today. . . . I distinctly remember who I was as a person before and after,” he says. “I won’t say I was narrow or selfish or anything, but there was something that was missing.”

7. Common Causes of Very Bad Decisions – Morgan Housel

Ignoring or underestimating the full range of potential consequences, especially tail events that seem rare but have catastrophic effects. The most comfortable way to think about risk is to imagine a range of potential consequences that don’t seem like a big deal. Then you feel responsible, like you’re paying attention to risk, but in a way that lets you remain 100% confident and optimistic. The problem with low-probability tail risks is that they’re so rare you can get away with ignoring them 99% of the time. The other 1% of the time they change your life.

Lots of little errors compound into something huge. And the power compounding is never intuitive. So it’s hard to see how being a little bit of an occasional jerk grows into a completely poisoned work culture. Or how a handful of small lapses, none of which seem bad on their own, ruins your reputation. The Great Depression happened because a bunch of things that weren’t surprising (a stock crash, a banking panic, a bad farm year) occurred at the same time and fed on each other until they grew into a catastrophe. It’s easy to ignore small mistakes, and even easier to miss how they morph into huge ones. So huge ones are what we get.

An innocent denial of your own flaws, caused by the ability to justify your mistakes in your own head in a way you can’t do for others. When other people’s flaws are easier to spot than your own it’s easy to assume you have no/few flaws, which makes the ones you have more likely to cause problems.


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 the shares of Microsoft. Holdings are subject to change at any time.

How Does The Distribution of Outcomes Affect Our Investing Decisions

We make our investing decisions using probability. Probability distribution curves can help us understand how to gauge a stock’s risk and expected value.

When we invest in a company’s shares, we are making a long-term bet that the share price will rise over time. But in investing, we never deal in absolutes but rather a range of probable outcomes.

This is where understanding the concept of a distribution of possible outcomes becomes useful. Using what we know now, we can build a simple distribution model of long-term returns. This will, in turn, guide us on whether a stock makes a good investment and if so, how much capital should we allocate to it. Here are some common distribution model graphs and how they impact our investing decisions.

Normal distribution

This is the most common probability distribution curve. Let’s assume that a stock is expected to double after 10 years. The distribution curve for a stock with a normal distribution of returns will look something like this:

Source: My illustration using Sketch.io

In this scenario, the highest probability is for the stock to return 100%. There is also a chance that the stock can have lower or higher returns.

A narrower distribution of outcomes

There is also the possibility that a stock has a narrower distribution curve.

Source: My illustration using sketch.io

In this scenario, the variance of return for this stock is less. This means it is less likely to deviate from the expected 100% return over the time period.

We can say that this stock is less risky than the first one. Each stock may exhibit different degrees of the normal distribution curve. The thing to keep in mind here is that the taller the peak, the lower the variance and vice versa. So a very flat curve will mean the stock has a high variance of returns and is riskier. Bear in mind that these distribution curves are modelled based on our own analysis of the company.

Bimodal distribution

There are also stocks that have a bimodal distribution. This means that there are two peaks or two likely outcomes along with a range of other outcomes that cluster around the two peaks.

Source: My drawing using sketch.io

In the above example, the stock’s returns cluster around two peaks, -80% and +300%. The numbers are arbitrary and are just numbers I picked randomly. The point I am trying to make is that bimodal distribution can occur when there are two distinct possibilities that can either make or break a company.

A useful example is a biotech stock that requires FDA approval to commercialise its product. If it succeeds in getting FDA approval, the stock can skyrocket but if it is unable to get the regulatory green light, it may run out of money and the stock price can fall dramatically.

How to use probability distribution curves?

We can use a probability of outcomes distribution model to make investment decisions for our stock portfolio.

For instance, you may calculate that a stock such as Facebook Inc has a 10-year expected return of 200% and has a narrow normal probability curve. This means that the variance of returns is low and it is considered a less risky stock.

On the other side of the coin, you may think that a stock such as Zoom Video Communications can exhibit a normal distribution curve with a modal return over 10 years of 400%. But in Zoom’s case, you think it has a wider variance and a flatter distribution curve.

In these two scenarios, you think Zoom will give you better returns but it has a higher probability of falling short and a much fatter tail end risk.

Source: Sketch using sketch.io

With this mental model, you can decide on the allocation within your portfolio for these two stocks . It won’t be wise to put all your eggs into Zoom even though the expected return is higher due to the higher variance of returns. Given the higher variance, we need to size our Zoom position accordingly to reflect the bigger downside risk.

Similarly, if you want to have exposure in stocks with bi-modal distribution, we need to size our positions with a higher risk in mind. Some stocks that I believe have bimodal distribution curves include Moderna, Novocure, Guardant Health and other biotech firms that are developing novel technology but that have yet to achieve widespread commercialisation.

Portfolio allocation

As investors, we may be tempted to invest only in stocks with the highest expected returns (ER). This strategy would theoretically give us the best returns. But it is risky.

Even diversifying across a basket of such high variance stocks may lead to losses if you are unfortunate enough to have all these stocks end up below the ER you modelled for.

Personally, I prefer having a mix of both higher ER stocks and stocks that have slightly lower ER but lower variance profile. This gives the portfolio a nice balance of growth potential and stability.

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 Facebook Inc and Zoom Video Communications.

What We’re Reading (Week Ending 27 September 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 27 September 2020:

1. Q&A With Li Lu – Longriver

We only offer our services to university endowments funds, charity funds and family offices focused on charity. We are very picky with our clients and do not manage money simply to make the rich richer.  This is how we feel like we are contributing to society. If you arrange your life in this way, you will be more at ease and less anxious. You will be able to walk through life unhurried and at your own pace.

A lot of investors have told me that they want to invest like I do but their clients won’t let them because they’re always thinking about how much money they can make in the next hour or so. I personally think that you should not take these kinds of people as your clients. They then say that if they didn’t have these clients, they wouldn’t have any clients. And then how would they go about finding clients like mine?  I didn’t have any investors when I started, only the money I had borrowed. My net assets at the time were negative.

Munger likes to ask, how do you go about finding a good wife? The first step is to deserve a good wife, because a good wife is no fool. Clients are the same. When our fund started, it was my own money for many years plus some from a few close friends who believed in me. Over time, as you accumulate more experience and build your track record, suitable people will naturally find you. And amongst them, you can choose the most suitable. You can do it this way very gradually with no need to rush – and with no need to compare yourself to others. The most important thing is therefore to be able to let things come as they are. You must have faith in the power of compounding and the power of gradual progress. Compound interest is a gradual force: 7% compounding over 200 years will give you a return of 750,000 times, right? That’s not too bad at all. But this is the power of compounding.

2. The Stock Market Is Less Disconnected From the “Real Economy” Than You Think – Nathan Tankus

There is one big area you can say that the stock market is disconnected from the economic outlook— size. By definition, it tends to be bigger companies which are on the stock market. So inevitably the stock market can’t capture the thousands of small businesses that are failing. Yet, even here, disaggregation of the S&P tells us a lot. Again, there is a wide and sharp dispersion right now, with average returns for large firms a lot higher than smaller firms. This wasn’t the case in February. More than half the companies in the index have less than $25 billion in market capitalization, and the average year-to-date return for all these companies (equally-weighted) is negative.

The clearest indication that the stock market is being driven by economic fundamentals is that growth and declines in sales so easily explain stock market returns. If stock market returns and the “real economy” were very disconnected, we’d expect the sales factor to be submerged in a sea of speculation. Instead, the chart below shows us another story. Once returns are broken down by sales growth, we see dramatic differences based on sales growth and decline. Returns are in fact highest for companies with the strongest year-over-year sales growth. Among those with sales growth greater than 20% are familiar companies like Amazon and Netflix, but also much smaller companies like Nvidia and Paypal. In other words, tech stock returns are being driven by tech sales.

3. Egregious Founder Shares. Free Money for Hedge Funds. A Cluster***k of Competing Interests. Welcome to the Great 2020 SPAC Boom – Michelle Celarier

“SPACs are a compensation scheme, like people used to say about hedge funds, but it’s even worse,” Ackman tells Institutional Investor. “In a hedge fund, you get 15 to 20 percent of the profit,” he says, in reference to the incentive fees hedge funds earn on the gains in their portfolio. “Here you get 20 percent of the company.”

For a small fee of $25,000, he explained in a recent letter to investors in his hedge fund, “a sponsor that raises a $400 million SPAC [the average size this year] will receive 20 percent of its common stock, initially worth $100 million, if they complete a deal, whether the newly merged company’s stock goes up or down when the transaction closes.”

Even if the stock falls 50 percent after the deal closes, “the sponsor’s common stock will be worth $50 million, a 2,000 times multiple of the $25,000 invested by the sponsor, a remarkable return for a failed deal,” he wrote.

Meanwhile, Ackman noted, the IPO investors will have lost half of their investment.

And there is another advantage: The 20 percent stake is also referred to as the “promote,” a nod to the work sponsors perform in landing a deal. However, that money is considered an investment, not a fee, which means sponsors can pay a lower capital-gains tax on the return if the stock is held longer than a year.

“To make matters worse,” Ackman added, “many sponsors receive additional fees for completing transactions, which can include tens of millions of dollars in advisory fees, often paid to captive ‘investment banks’ that are often 100 percent owned by the sponsors themselves.” Underwriting fees paid in a SPAC IPO are around 5.5 percent of the capital raised, he noted — higher than those of the average IPO.

4. A Few Rules Morgan Housel

The person who tells the most compelling story wins. Not the best idea. Just the story that catches people’s attention and gets them to nod their heads.

Tell people what they want to hear and you can be wrong indefinitely without penalty.

The world is governed by probability, but people think in black and white, right or wrong – did it happen or did it not? – because it’s easier.

History is deep. Almost everything has been done before. The characters and scenes change, but the behaviors and outcomes rarely do. “Everything feels unprecedented when you haven’t engaged with history.”

Don’t expect balance from very talented people. People who are exceptionally good at one thing tend to be exceptionally bad at another, due to overconfidence and mental bandwidth taken up by the exceptional skill. Skills also have two sides: No one should be shocked when people who think about the world in unique ways you like also think about the world in unique ways you don’t like.

5. My Favorite New Investing App On Earth – Joshua Brown

The most valuable resources to understand companies can be found among the materials filed by the companies themselves. They must give out information and make disclosures from a regulatory standpoint, and this is where research should begin. But then again, we’re faced with the problem of having to sift through too much stuff and keep track of too many filings. If we’re not professional analysts covering these businesses for a living, it’s too much work for too little reward.

Which brings me to quarterly conference calls. They are, in my opinion, the most bang for your buck in terms of time spent versus what you come away with. You get to hear from the CEO and CFO every 90 days, walking you through the latest developments at their respective corporations. Then you get to hear thoughtful questions being asked of the management by Wall Street’s sellside analysts, who know these businesses inside and out. If you want to get to know a company like Adobe or DR Horton or Caterpillar or Lyft, one hour per quarter, listening to the conference call, is a cheat code. It gets the job done and you can listen while doing other things, like commuting, exercising, bike riding, hot air ballooning, whatever.

But here’s the problem – a problem I believe has now been solved:

Have you ever noticed that the Investor Relations pages on public companies’ websites are always different from each other and hard to navigate? IR pages suck. And nothing is worse than trying to listen to the latest conference call on a company’s website from your phone. You have to not only keep the phone’s screen open, you also must stay on the Chrome or Safari app to continue listening. If you close your internet browser app, the audio turns off. This prevents multi-tasking and makes the listening experience on the go a huge pain in the ass. It’s the opposite of a podcast – clumsy, unreliable, complicated, annoying and too chore-like to become habit forming.

What if I told you there was a way to listen to any earnings conference call you want, in the form of a podcast, from an app on your phone? What if learning about DataDog, Crowdstrike, Salesforce, Gilead and all of the other exciting companies that are changing the world was as easy as checking out an episode of Joe Rogan or Bill Simmons or even Downtown Josh Brown 🙂 ? Sounds pretty good, no? Well then, my friend, do I have the app for you. It’s called, appropriately enough, Earnings Calls, and is available now for your phone. It’s absolutely free to use and you should start using it today.

6. Rory Sutherland – Moonshots and Marketing Patrick OShaughnessy & Rory Sutherland

At Red Bull, there’s no evidence whatsoever and there’s no logic to suggest that there’s a massive gap in the market for a drink that tastes worse than Coke, costs more than Coke, and comes in a smaller can. And indeed, if you’d have done market research, everybody would have told you to get lost. And indeed, when they tested the taste, people did tell them to get lost. That is one of those things which is an extraordinarily well rewarded case of capitalism rewarding you disproportionately the more counter intuitive your idea is. To be honest, if your idea makes sense, someone will already have tried it. It’s what I say, if there were a logical solution to this problem, someone would already have found it. So the place to look, if you want to have disproportionate upside in investments is invest in something which has an element of absurdity to it.

7. The 10 Most Useless Phrases in Finance – Barry Ritholtz

1. “Don’t Get Complacent.” What, exactly, should an investor do with this bit of advice? How does a lack of complacency manifest itself in an investment portfolio? Should the recipients of this advice liquidate some or all of their holdings? Or should they merely be on the lookout for some heretofore unknown risk – as they always should?

“Don’t have a smug or uncritical satisfaction with oneself or one’s achievements” makes for a nice sentiment in a high school valedictorian speech or a college paper on Epicurean philosophy, but it is not what street types describe as “actionable advice.”

As someone who is in the advice business, I like to offer specific and identifiable actions, as in “buy this and sell that.” To be fair, something like “Hey, you have had a great run during this rally. Be careful about getting overconfident” is not the worst advice one could get – it’s just squishy and hard to express in a trade.

2. “Profit Taking.” This phrase tends to appear anytime there’s been a run up in asset prices, followed by reversal. It is never a simple consolidation or just a break from a relentless buying spree. Instead, the claim is that buyers at lower prices are now sellers at higher prices, booking a profit. This is always proffered without evidence or explanation.

Ironically, the correction in the stock market that began toward the end of the summer – about an 11% pullback in the Nasdaq 100 Index following a 77% gain from the lows less than 6 months earlier – was very likely actual profit taking as a driver of the selling.1 And yet, the one time the phrase could have been used accurately, no one seemed to bother with 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 the shares of Amazon, Netflix, and PayPal.

My Favourite Blogs to Better Understand Software Companies

Here are some great blogs and websites for investors to help them better understand the technicalities behind software companies.

For non-software engineers like me, the topic of software can be extremely difficult to grasp. The mechanics and use case of a company’s software, where it is hosted, how the software is used or how it is different from the competition, can be complex. This is especially so for enterprise software that non-tech folks never have the chance to interact with.

Although I’ve read my fair share of IPO prospectuses and annual reports of software companies, many terms may still confuse me. But not investing in software companies because you don’t understand them can severely handicap your returns. Software companies today are highly prized due to their highly recurring revenue model, rapid growth, and expanding addressable markets.

As such, I occasionally turn to blogs and websites from experts who are able to explain the technicalities more clearly. Here are three such sites that I turn to understand software companies.

Site No.1

Software Stack Investing is a blog run and written by Peter Offringa. Peter has a rich history in the software space, leading software engineering teams for Internet-based companies for 20 years and serving as CTO at a number of companies.

His blog posts are long and highly technical but he tries to explain as much of it as simply as possible so that even the layperson can understand.

One of the highlights of his blog is his transparency. He states what stocks he bought and sold and he also incorporates his own personal views on companies and how he thinks they will perform five years out.

Peter does a thorough competitive analysis for every company he covers which gives the reader a better understanding of how one company’s software compares with another.

In his blog, he covers stocks such as Datadog, Alteryx, Fastly, Twilio, Cloudfare, MongoDB, Elastic, Okta and Docusign.

Most of these stocks offer enterprise software, which may be more technical than consumer software companies. As such, Offringa’s blog post helps fill a huge information gap for non-tech experts.

Site No.2

Stratechery is probably one of the more well-known blogs focused on technology and media businesses. It is run by Ben Thompson, who worked at Apple, Microsoft and Automattic.

His blog covers much more than pure-play software companies. But when he does cover software companies, he does a great job in breaking down what they do and how they match up to other software.

Some of his work requires a subscription. Nevertheless, the free content on his blog alone already provides great analysis and tools if you are looking for a place to read about tech and software companies.

Site No.3

The Investor’s Field Guide is a website run by Patrick O’Shaughnessy who is also the CEO of the asset management company, O’Shaughnessy Asset Management, that is founded by his father, Jim.

The website contains a collection of podcasts (and transcripts) on his interviews of some of the world’s top professionals in their respective fields. He has interviewed leaders of venture capital firms, CEOs of tech companies, psychologists and other business experts who provide deep insight into their area of expertise.

Naturally, software is one of the topics that he has covered. Some of the more recent podcasts on software include an interview with Eric Vishria, a partner at renowned venture capital firm Benchmark Capital, and joint interviews with Chetan Puttagunta, another partner at Benchmark Capital, and Jeremiah Lowin, the founder of Prefect, an open-source data engineering software company.

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 Datadog, Alteryx, Twilio, MongoDB, Okta and Docusign..

What We’re Reading (Week Ending 20 September 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 20 September 2020:

1. The Metaverse: What It Is, Where to Find it, Who Will Build It, and Fortnite – Matthew Ball

The Metaverse, we think, will…

1. Be persistent – which is to say, it never “resets” or “pauses” or “ends”, it just continues indefinitely

2. Be synchronous and live – even though pre-scheduled and self-contained events will happen, just as they do in “real life”, the Metaverse will be a living experience that exists consistently for everyone and in real time

3. Have no real cap to concurrent participations with an individual sense of “presence” – everyone can be a part of the Metaverse and participate in a specific event/place/activity together, at the same time and with individual agency.

4. Be a fully functioning economy – individuals and businesses will be able to create, own, invest, sell, and be rewarded for an incredibly wide range of “work” that produces “value” that is recognized by others

5. Be an experience that spans both the digital and physical worlds, private and public networks/experiences, and open and closed platforms

6. Offer unprecedented interoperability of data, digital items/assets, content, and so on across each of these experiences – your “Counter-Strike” gun skin, for example, could also be used to decorate a gun in Fortnite, or be gifted to a friend on/through Facebook. Similarly, a car designed for Rocket League (or even for Porsche’s website) could be brought over to work in Roblox. Today, the digital world basically acts as though it were a mall where though every store used its own currency, required proprietary ID cards, had proprietary units of measurement for things like shoes or calories, and different dress codes, etc.

7. Be populated by “content” and “experiences” created and operated by an incredibly wide range of contributors, some of whom are independent individuals, while others might be informally organized groups or commercially-focused enterprises

2. Twitter thread from Okta CEO and co-founder Todd McKinnon on what it’s actually like to go through an initial public offering and be a public company – Todd McKinnon

How I benefited from @okta going public:
– My control of the company increased significantly.
– Preferred shares rights & preferences go away as everyone converts to common.
– My shares along with VC converted to super-voting shares. As VCs sold their shares, my voting % went up.

How my job has changed:
– More time in board meetings (committees, recruiting, communicating with, etc).
– More time on IR & with investors (earnings reports, conferences, 1on1s – might sound repetitive, but you often learn interesting & unexpected things).

For years, we’d compensated employees with stock options & we HAD to give them liquidity. It was fun to celebrate with the team on the big day.

3. Memo on Shopify by venture capital firm Bessemer Venture Partners when it invested in the company – Alex Ferrara, Trevor Oelschig

Shopify was founded in 2007 by two Ruby on Rails core developers. One of the co-founders left soon after starting the business. The other, Tobi Lütke, stayed on and is serving as CEO. We have been impressed by Tobi. He is a young, first-time CEO who is thoughtful, has good product and management instincts. Shopify’s 24 employees are located in Ottawa, Canada. Based on Shopify’s reputation in Ottawa as a local internet startup success story, and based upon Tobi’s reputation among the developer community, the company has been able to recruit some of the best development and design talent in Ottawa at 60%-70% of the cost of similar talent in Silicon Valley or New York.

4. Tencent’s Dreams, Part II: Investing in the Metaverse Packy McCormick

A strategic decision nine years ago accidentally set Tencent up to create more value from the Metaverse than it does from its entire core business by focusing on investment over organic growth.

After reading Part I, Rui Ma pointed me to the Tech Buzz China podcast in which she and Ying Lu discuss Pan Luan’s 2018 piece titled “Tencent Has No Dreams.” In it, he argues that a 2011 decision at a management team offsite caused Tencent to lose sight of its product-focused roots.

Back in 2011, Baidu passed Tencent as the most valuable tech company in China, and Pony Ma called a meeting of his top management to chart a new course for the company. In the meeting, dubbed “The Conference of the Gods,” he asked his 16 top executives to list out Tencent’s core competitive advantages. Two winners emerged: capital and traffic.

Led by President Martin Lau and his former Goldman colleague James Mitchell, who he brought on as Chief Strategy Officer, Tencent built its strategy on this flywheel of capital and traffic.

The strategy seems to be working. Since that 2011 meeting, Tencent’s stock has increased nearly 15x, from $44.5 billion to $660 billion. Attract companies to build on its platform with huge traffic, invest in the winners, give them more traffic, invest more or acquire the winners, generate more traffic, attract more companies, and so on. It runs essentially the same playbook with foreign companies who want access to China.

5. A $200 Billion Exotic Quant Trade Is Facing Existential Doubts – Justina Lee

ARP [alternative risk premia] products combine a diverse bunch of trades, often tried-and-tested ideas beloved by quants such as the tendency for cheap stocks to outperform in the long run or for short-term commodity futures to trade below long-term ones. The composition of funds and their returns vary vastly, but managers can point to a few unifying trends that have been a drag on performance in 2020.

The March turmoil upended the normal trading patterns these strategies rely on. Then the fast market recovery whipsawed trend-following systems and forced systematic models to dial back market exposures and miss out on gains.

At the same time, many popular factors used by these funds — such as value and foreign-exchange carry — failed to rebound along with stock benchmarks.

“The recovery depended on whether you were in those main long risk categories of liquid equities and fixed income,” said Anthony Lawler, head of GAM Systematic, which oversees about $3 billion. “ARP by and large are not in those things.”

Equity value has been a persistent drag on ARP portfolios

This year is adding to growing doubts over ARP, which has lagged stock indexes in recent years but has also posted a mixed performance as a portfolio diversifier. While defenders would argue that these products were never supposed to be a hedge against traditional assets, many investors likely got a different impression from their marketing, says MJ Hudson’s Suhonen.

6. Obvious Things That Are Easy To Ignore Morgan Housel

A thing that’s obvious but easily overlooked is that feeling wealthy has little to do with what you have. It’s more about the gap between what you have and what you expect. And what you expect is driven by what other people around you have.

It’s been like that forever and for everyone. John D. Rockefeller never had penicillin, sunscreen, or Advil. But you can’t say a low-income American with Advil and sunscreen should feel better off than Rockefeller, because that’s not how people’s heads work. What would have seemed like magic to Rockefeller became our baseline expectation.

Incomes fall into the same trap. Median family income adjusted for inflation was $29,000 in 1955. In 1965 it was $42,000. Today it’s just over $62,000. We think of the 1950s and 1960s as the golden age of middle-class prosperity. But the median household today has roughly twice the income as the median family of 1955. Part of the disconnect can be explained by lots of people’s expectations being inflated by the lifestyles of a small share of people whose wealth grew exponentially over the last 40 years.

7. Upside-Down Markets: Profits, Inflation and Equity Valuation in Fiscal Policy Regimes – Jesse Livermore

If households and corporations were to deficit spend in the way that the government deficit spends, they would eventually run up against liquidity and solvency constraints. But a sovereign government is not subject to those constraints. Through its central bank, it decides the interest rate at which it borrows. And it doesn’t even need to borrow—it can finance spending by printing new money. As long as there are economic participants willing to withhold the new money, and as long as the economy has the productive capacity to fulfill any additional spending that the withholding process might give rise to, economic problems such as inflation need not emerge.This insight, most notably attributable to the British economist Abba Lerner, is a core component of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). As the insight becomes better understood in 

political circles, it will increasingly drive fiscal policies that seek to guarantee desired levels of income and spending growth in the economy, policies that have the potential to turn markets upside-down, for better or worse.


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. We currently have vested interests in Facebook, Okta, Shopify and Tencent.

Can A Stock Be Considered Cheaper Even Though Its Price Went Up?

Does a stock going up in price automatically make it more expensive?

If the price of a company’s stock went up, it’s more expensive, right? Well, not exactly. Stocks are not something static. Stocks represent part-ownership of an actual and ever-changing company.

Because the underlying company changes, its value may go up or down. If a company’s share price rises slower than its intrinsic value, the stock may have actually gotten cheaper even after the price increase.

What determines intrinsic value?

Most investors agree that a company’s intrinsic value is determined by the company’s cash on hand and the future free cash flows that it can generate. This cash can be used to grow the company or returned to shareholders through buybacks or dividends.

Investors often use historical price-to-earnings and price-to-free cash flow ratios as a proxy to gauge how cheap or expensive a company is.

Facebook shares

Facebook is an example of a stock whose price has risen, but that has actually gotten cheaper based on its earnings and free cash flow multiples.

The chart below shows Facebook’s stock price against its price-to-earnings (P/E) and price-to-free cash flow (P/FCF) multiples over the last five years.

Source: Ycharts

The blue line is Facebook’s stock price. In the last five years, Facebook’s stock price has climbed 220% from US$88.26 to US$282.73.

The red and orange lines show the social media giant’s P/E and P/FCF ratios over the years. As you can see, the P/E ratio has trended downwards, while the P/FCF flow ratio has remained largely flat. This is because the growth in Facebook’s earnings and free cash flow over the last five years has outran and kept pace, respectively, with the rise in the company’s share price. As such, based on these valuation multiples, Facebook shares can actually be considered cheaper today than they were five years ago, even though the price is higher.

Buying stocks with high valuations

The Facebook example highlights that buying a stock at a high P/E ratio may still reap good returns for investors.

In the past, Facebook shares traded at much higher P/E ratios than they do today. Yet buying shares then, still resulted in solid returns.

What this tells us is that if we buy into a quality company that can grow its free cash flow and earnings at a fast rate, even a compression in the stock’s valuation ratios will still lead to strong share price performance.

Final words

Investors often confuse stock price movements as a change in the relative cheapness of a company. If the price of a stock rises, we assume it has become more expensive and vice versa. However, that completely misses the bigger picture.

The difference between a company’s stock price and future intrinsic value is what makes a company cheaper or more expensive.

We should, therefore, put more emphasis assessing whether the company can grow its earnings and free cash flow and the longevity of their growth runway, rather than looking at the recent price movement of a stock.

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 Facebook.

What We’re Reading (Week Ending 13 September 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 13 September 2020:

1. The S-1 Club | Unity is Manifesting the Metaverse – MDA Gabriele

We’d be remiss if we didn’t discuss Unity’s role as a “founder” of the Metaverse, a term coined in Neal Stephenson’s Snow Crash, and further popularized by media analystMatthew Ball.

The Metaverse describes a state of interoperability across digital platforms in the virtual world. To date, virtual worlds have been built as walled gardens with their own laws of physics, currencies, and customs. The Metaverse connects walled gardens the way physical networking infrastructure connected internal networks nearly 50 years ago to create the Internet. The Metaverse also powers real-world interactions by enabling multiple people to experience the same event at once and collaborate in highly immersive environments. Fans of Ready Player One will recall the ragers held in The Oasis.

Where does Unity fit in such a world?

One perspective comes from Unity’s nemesis, Epic Games. As mentioned in Company History, Epic is the creator of the directly competitive Unreal engine. In a conversation with the LA Times, CEO Tim Sweeney described what the Metaverse will enable:

“Just as every company a few decades ago created a webpage, and then at some point every company created a Facebook page, I think we’re approaching the point where every company will have a real-time live 3D presence, through partnerships with game companies or through games like Fortnite and Minecraft and Roblox. That’s starting to happen now. It’s going to be a much bigger thing than these previous generational shifts. Not only will it be a boon for game developers, but it will be the beginning of tearing down the barriers not just between platforms but between games.”

If you ascribe to Sweeney’s view, then the upside for engines like Unity and Unreal is extraordinary. Rather than merely powering game development, Unity has the potential to serve as the foundational layer — the rails — of a new, shared synthetic reality.

2. Will Money Printing Cause Inflation? – Michael Batnick

If we’ve learned anything since the government’s response to the last crisis, it’s that quantitative easing or money printing or whatever you want to call it, does not necessarily plant the seeds for higher prices in the future. If you have any faith in how markets work, then look to our borrowing costs as a clue. If investors were really worried about the size of the federal deficit, than the costs for funding it wouldn’t be at a record low.

One of the reasons that people worry so much about the size of the deficit is because they think of the government like a household. But unlike a household, the government can create more money. Unlike a household the government can keep borrowing. And unlike a household, the bill never comes due.

3. WeChat and TikTok Taking China Censorship Global, Study Says – Jamie Tarabay

ByteDance Ltd.’s TikTok often buries or hides words that reflect political movements, gender and sexual orientation or religion in most countries where it operates, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute said in a report released Tuesday. Most of the content censored on WeChat supported pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong, as well as messages from the U.S. and U.K. embassies regarding a new national security law enacted by Beijing at the end of June that has provoked protests across the city.

TikTok, which began as a place where teens lip-sync to music, has become a forum for political protest including the Black Lives Matter movement, said Fergus Ryan, one of the authors. Hashtags related to LGBTQ+ issues were also suppressed in several languages, according to the report. Other topics censored in the past included criticism of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

4. Understanding Stakeholder Value: Where Do Profits Come From? Sean Stannard-Stockton

In our 2017 post PRICING POWER: DELIGHTING CUSTOMERS VS MORTGAGING YOUR MOAT, we explained how companies that seek to capture as much of the surplus value as possible for themselves and leave as little as possible in the hands of their customers, do not have nearly the opportunity to maximize long term shareholder profits as those companies that relentless try to increase consumer surplus.

A company that is “mortgaging its moat” as described in the post, is one that seeks to extract as much of the consumer surplus as possible from their customers and capture the value as profit for themselves. This is what a monopoly is all about. Monopoly conditions disconnect sellers from needing to worry about competition and allows them to set pricing at the level that wins the maximum amount of profits while minimizing consumer surplus. Under these conditions, there is some end point at which the company has extracted every dollar of consumer surplus for themselves and 1) they are unable to extract any more, while 2) consumers are willing to try any other even barely viable alternative just to attempt to exit the exploitative relationship they are in with the seller.

Conversely, a company that is “delighting customers” is one that, because they relentless drive up the value of their products and services by creating so much additional consumer surplus, gets no push back from consumers when they raise prices. Under these conditions, there is no theoretical limit to the amount of consumer surplus a company can create nor on the value they can capture as producer surplus (profits) via raising prices.

5. Reed Hastings Had Us All Staying Home Before We Had To – Maureen Dowd

Has the pandemic altered Mr. Hastings’s perception of the competition?

It’s the “sideways threats” that bite companies, he said. “If you think of Kodak and Fuji, competing in film for 100 years, but then ultimately it turns out to be Instagram.”

Speaking of which, I wondered if he thinks that Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg and Jack Dorsey have done enough as far as election meddling and disinformation threats?

“Every new technology has real issues that have to be thought through and, you know, we’re in that phase for social media,” he said, adding: “The car, many people think is a great invention for human freedom, but it also has killed a lot of people over time. Film got used by Hitler for terrible purposes.”

He continued: “So I find Mark and Sheryl to be sincere in trying to think these things through.”

6. Taming the Tail: Adventures in Improving AI Economics Martin Casado and Matt Bornstein

Many of the difficulties in building efficient AI companies happen when facing long-tailed distributions of data, which are well-documented in many natural and computational systems.

While formal definitions of the concept can be pretty dense, the intuition behind it is relatively simple: If you choose a data point from a long-tailed distribution at random, it’s very likely (for the purpose of this post, let’s say at least 50% and possibly much higher) to be in the tail.

Take the example of internet search terms. Popular keywords in the “head” and “middle” of the distribution (shown in blue below) account for less than 30% of all terms. The remaining 70% of keywords lie in the “tail,” seeing less than 100 searches per month. If you assume it takes the same amount of work to process a query regardless of where it sits in the distribution, then in a heavy-tailed system the majority of work will be in the tail – where the value per query is relatively low…

… The long tail – and the work it creates – turn out to be a major cause of the economic challenges of building AI businesses.

The most immediate impact is on the raw cost of data and compute resources. These costs are often far higher for ML than for traditional software, since so much data, so many experiments, and so many parameters are required to achieve accurate results. Anecdotally, development costs – and failure rates – for AI applications can be 3-5x higher than in typical software products.

However, a narrow focus on cloud costs misses two more pernicious potential impacts of the long tail. First, the long tail can contribute to high variable costs beyond infrastructure. If, for example, the questions sent to a chatbot vary greatly from customer to customer – i.e. a large fraction of the queries are in the tail – then building an accurate system will likely require substantial work per customer. Unfortunately, depending on the distribution of the solution space, this work and the associated COGS (cost of goods sold) may be hard to engineer away.

Even worse, AI businesses working on long-tailed problems can actually show diseconomies of scale – meaning the economics get worse over time relative to competitors. Data has a cost to collect, process, and maintain. While this cost tends to decrease over time relative to data volume, the marginal benefit of additional data points declines much faster. In fact, this relationship appears to be exponential – at some point, developers may need 10x more data to achieve a 2x subjective improvement. While it’s tempting to wish for an AI analog to Moore’s Law that will dramatically improve processing performance and drive down costs, that doesn’t seem to be taking place (algorithmic improvements notwithstanding).

7. Airbnb’s resurgence – Felix Salmon

Estimates from Edison Trends show Marriott and other hotel chains seeing much lower spending than at this time last year. At Airbnb, by contrast, spending is hitting new all-time highs.

Airbnb spending is running a whopping 75% higher than this time [September 2020] last year, says the research shop, based on a panel of spending data including more than 65,000 Airbnb transactions.

That means Airbnb’s revenues have comfortably surpassed Marriott’s, for the first time.


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.

How People Think About Investing

A friend of mine and his colleague recently approached me to give an online presentation. My friend works in a financial advisory organisation and he wanted me to share my thoughts on how people generally think about investing and how could he and his colleagues explain long-term investing in a convincing manner. The presentation took place on 7 September 2020.

I prepared a speech and slide-deck for the session. They are meant to be viewed together. You can download the slide deck here. The speech is found below.


Hello all! Good afternoon, thanks for having me. Before I begin, I would like to thank Sam and Maxxell for inviting me to speak to everyone who’s gathered here. 

Max is my friend, and he wanted me to touch on two things today: The mentality of individual investors and how to explain investing convincingly. So I’m going to be talking about these things today, specifically in relation to the stock market, because this is where I think I have some knowledge in. For this session, I will be presenting for 30 minutes, and then we can have the next 30 minutes for Q&A.

[Slide 2]

I need to share a disclaimer too. Everything I say here today should not be seen as a recommendation of any stock or investment product, nor should they be seen as a solicitation for the purchase of any stock or investment product. What I say should also not be taken as financial or investment advice. 

Introduction

[Slides 3 to 4]

With this, a quick introduction of myself before I dive into the presentation. I was with The Motley Fool Singapore, an online investment advisory portal, for nearly seven years from January 2013 to October 2019. My role was to conduct research on the stock market and individual stocks, and communicate them to readers of Fool Singapore’s website, so I have a lot of experience interacting with men-on-the-street types of investors. I was a co-leader of the investment team at Fool Singapore and recommended stocks for subscribers to the company’s online investment newsletters.

One of my proudest achievements with the company was to help its flagship investment newsletter, Stock Advisor Gold, beat the market soundly. Stock Advisor Gold was launched in May 2016 and we recommended two stocks per month, one from Singapore, and one from international markets, including the US, UK, Malaysia, and Hong Kong. We measure the return of our recommendations by taking an average of the performance of each stock we recommend; at the same time, we also track the performance of a global stock market index. The newsletter nearly doubled the global stock market’s return over a 3.5 year period as you can see.

Today, I run an investing blog called The Good Investors together with my long-time friend, Jeremy Chia. The Good Investors is our personal investing blog, where we share our investing thoughts freely. I will be sharing this presentation deck on the blog, so you can refer to it later. Jeremy and I also run an investment fund named Compounder Fund, which invests in stocks around the world for the long run. Compounder Fund was launched in May this year and started investing in mid-July. Its mission is to “Grow Your Wealth and Enrich Society” and Jeremy and myself see it as more than just a business – it’s a platform for us to do good. 

With the introduction over, let’s dig into the meat of today’s presentation: How individual investors think about stock market investing and how to explain investing in a convincing way. What I want to do is to contrast six investing “beliefs” I commonly come across with actual real world data. And by me doing so, I think you’ll gain a better appreciation for how to better describe stock market investing to your clients.

“Belief” No.1: The economy’s bad (good), so stocks must do poorly (really well)

[Slides 5 to 8]

Throughout my career, one of the most common things I’ve heard from investors is to link the economy with the stock market. If the economy’s surging, stocks should be doing well, and if the economy’s faring poorly, stocks should be doing badly. But real-world data show that this is often not the case. 

For instance, we can look at the Panic of 1907 which was a period of severe economic contraction in the USA. It does not seem to be widely remembered today, but it had a huge impact and was in fact one of the key motivations behind the US government’s decision to set up the Federal Reserve (the USA’s central bank) in 1913. For perspective of how tough the Panic of 1907 was, when 1908 started, business volumes in many industries fell by 72% from a year ago; by the middle of 1908, business volumes had recovered to just 50% of what they were in 1907.

Now let’s look at how the US stock market did from 1907 to 1917. US stocks fell for most of 1907. They bottomed in November 1907 after a 32% decline from January. But they then started climbing rapidly in December 1907 and throughout 1908 – and the US stock market never looked back for the next nine years. Earlier, I described the horrible economic conditions in the country for most of 1908. Yes, there was an improvement as the year progressed, but economic output toward the end of 1908 was still significantly lower than in 1907. So this is one great example of why stocks and the economy are not the same things.   

I have two more examples. First, you can refer to this chart on the disparity between the stock market returns and economic growth for China and Mexico from 1992 to 2013. Despite stunning 15% annual GDP growth in that period for China, Chinese stocks actually fell by 2% per year. Mexico on the other hand, saw its stocks gain 18% annually, despite its economy growing at a pedestrian rate of just 2% per year. Second, in the second quarter of 2020, US GDP fell by over 9% from a year ago. But some of the US stock market’s largest companies actually experienced revenue growth. For instance, Amazon grew its revenue by an amazing 40%, while Apple, Facebook, and Microsoft each posted low-teens revenue growth.

So when we’re looking at the stock market, I think it’s important to focus on stocks and not the economy. They are not the same things. 

“Belief” No.2: There’s so much uncertainty now, let’s invest later

[Slides 9 to 13]

Another common thing I’ve heard individual investors say over the years is that “There’s so much uncertainty now, I prefer to wait for the dust to settle before I invest.” Today, with COVID-19 as a backdrop, this sentiment is likely to be even stronger than before.

But let’s imagine that sometime in the future, there’s one single year in which the price of oil will spike, the US will go to war in the Middle East, and the US economy will experience a recession. How do you think the US stock market will fare over the next five years or the next 30 years after this particular horrendous year? Take a second to think about your answer and remember it. 

The events I mentioned all happened in 1990. The price of oil spiked in August 1990, the same month that the US went into an actual war in the Middle East. In July 1990, the US entered a recession. But from the start of 1990 to 1995, the S&P 500 was up by nearly 80%, including dividends and after inflation. From the start of 1990 to the end of 2019, US stocks were up by nearly 800%. What’s really fascinating is that the world has actually seen multiple crises in every single year from 1990 to today as shown in the table, which is constructed partially with data from finance writer and venture capitalist, Morgan Housel – uncertainty was always around, but that has not stopped US stocks from rising over time. 

“Belief” No.3: What goes up, must come down

[Slides 14 to 15]

“What goes up must come down” is also one of the common things about the stock market that I’ve heard investors say. But the historical evidence shows otherwise. 

This chart from Credit Suisse shows the returns of stocks from developed economies as well as developing economies from 1990 to 2013 – this is more than 110 years. In this timeframe, stocks in developed economies (the blue line) have produced an annual return of 8.3% while stocks in developing economies (the red line) have generated a return of 7.4% per year. There are clearly bumps along the way, but the real long run trend is crystal clear. For perspective, an annual return of 8.3% for 113 years turns $1,000 into nearly $8.2 million. 

So what goes up, does not necessarily have to come down permanently – when it comes to the stock. But there is an important caveat to note here: Diversification is crucial. Single stocks, or stocks from a single country can face catastrophic, near-permanent losses for various reasons. Devastation from war or natural disasters. Corrupt or useless leaders. Incredible overvaluation at the starting point. These are some of factors that can cause single stocks or stocks from a single country to do poorly even after decades. By diversifying, we lower our risk.

“Belief” No.4: It’s risky to invest in stocks for the long run

[Slide 16]

The fourth “belief” I want to highlight is the commonly-held idea that it’s risky to invest in stocks for the long run. What the data shows is the complete opposite: The longer you hold your stocks (assuming you have a diversified portfolio of stocks), the lower your chances are of losing money. 

The chart I’m showing now comes from Morgan Housel. Morgan once studied the S&P 500’s data for the years stretching from 1871 to 2012 and found that if you hold stocks for two months, you have a 60% chance of making a profit. If you hold stocks for a year, you have a 68% chance of earning a positive return. If your holding period becomes 20 years, then there’s a 100% chance of making a gain. 

So instead of it being risky to hold your stocks for the long run, the reverse is true – the longer your holding period, the less risky investing in stocks becomes.

“Belief” No.5: Stocks are so risky because they move up and down so much!

[Slides 17 to 20]

There are also investors who believe that stocks are really risky financial products because they move up and down violently over the short run. But it’s all a matter of perspective. To explain further, I want to play a quick game with all of you. I will introduce two companies – both are real companies – and I want to ask you to think about which of the two you will like to own. 

The first company has been a nightmare for investors. From 1995 to 2015, it has fallen by 50% or more on four separate occasions. It has also declined by over 66% twice. The chart you see, from a Motley Fool article by Morgan Housel, shows when and by how much the company’s share price was below its high from the previous two years.

The second company has been a dream for investors. From 1995 to 2015, its share price surged by 105,000%. A $1,000 investment in the company’s shares in 1995 would have become more than $1 million by 2015. 

You have five seconds to think about which company you want to own. Ready? I’m going to reveal their names now..

Both the first and second company are the same! They are Monster Beverage, a US-listed company that sells energy drinks. What this shows is that volatility in stocks is a feature, not a bug. When stocks go through their ups and downs, it’s not because they are risky – it’s just what they do! Even the best stock in the world will not give you a smooth ride up, but this does not mean it’s risky.

“Belief” No.6: I just need to find a world-class fund manager

[Slides 21 to 22]

The last common belief investors have that I’m going to discuss today is the idea that all they need to succeed in the stock market is to find a really good fund manager. If only it were that easy..

From November 1999 to November 2009, the US-based investment fund, the CGM Focus Fund, gained 18.2% annually. I’ll need all of your help to make a guess as to what return the fund’s investors earned over the same period…

Okay, now for the reveal. The fund’s investors lost 11% annually in the decade ended November 2009. How did this happen? CGM Focus Fund’s investors piled into the fund when it was doing well, but sold at the first whiff of trouble. This caused the fund’s investors to basically buy high and sell low. 

CGM Focus Fund’s experience is not an isolated case because it happened with Peter Lynch, who is one of the best stock market fund managers the world has seen. From 1977 to 1990, Peter Lynch earned an annual return of 29% for Fidelity Magellan Fund, turning every thousand dollars invested with him into $27,000. But the average investor in his fund made only 7% per year – $1,000 invested with an annual return of 7% for 13 years would become just $2,400. The same problem with CGM Focus Fund happened to Lynch too. When he would have a setback money would flow out of his fund through redemptions. When he got back on track, money would flow back in after missing the recovery.

So investing with the best fund manager in the world is not enough – investors need the discipline to stay with the manager too.

Conclusion

[Slides 23 to 25]

To conclude, this is the important takeaway from my presentation that I hope you have: The stock market is a wonderful wealth-creation machine for investors who are able to invest for the long run in a diversified manner, both geographically and across industries.

The ride up is not going to be smooth. This is because humanity’s progress has never been smooth. It took us only 66 years to go from the first demonstration of manned flight by the Wright brothers at Kitty Hawk to putting a man on the moon. But in between was World War II, a brutal battle across the globe from 1939 to 1945 that killed an estimated 66 million. This is how progress looks like.

The stock market, ultimately, is a reflection of human ingenuity. The stock market is a collection of businesses that have been formed by entrepreneurs seeking to solve a problem. And so because human progress has never been smooth, the stock market won’t be a smooth ride up. But what an amazing ride it’s going to be. 

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 have a vested interest in Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Microsoft.