All articles

What We’re Reading (Week Ending 15 November 2020)

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

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

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

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

Here are the articles for the week ending 15 November 2020:

1. The Big Lessons From History – Morgan Housel

Harry Houdini used to invite the strongest man in the audience on stage. Then he’d ask the man to punch him in the stomach as hard as he could.

Houdini was an amateur boxer, and told crowds he could withstand any man’s punch with barely a flinch. The stunt matched what people loved about his famous escapes: the idea that his body could conquer physics.

After a show in 1926 Houdini invited a group of students backstage to meet him. One, a guy named Gordon Whitehead, walked up and started punching Houdini in the stomach without warning.

Whitehead didn’t mean any harm. He thought he was just performing the same trick he saw Houdini pull off on stage.

But Houdni wasn’t prepared to be punched like he would be on stage. He wasn’t flexing his solar plexus, steadying his stance, and holding his breath like he normally would before the trick. Whitehead caught him off guard. Houdini waved him off, clearly in pain.

The next day Houdini woke up doubled over in pain.

His appendix was ruptured, almost certainly from Whitehead’s punches.

And then Harry Houdini died.

The riskiest stuff is always what you don’t see coming.

2. The Overton Window & Understanding What Is Possible – Sean Stannard-Stockton, CFA

The Overton Window is a concept named for Joseph Overton, a political theorist. Overton argued that the range of political policy possibilities was not directly related to any politician’s individual preferences, but rather by the range of options that are politically acceptable to mainstream voters. This range of politically acceptable outcomes changes over time, but at any given moment, only policy options that fall within the Overton Window have any hope of becoming reality…

…What is amazing about the Overton Window is that most of the time you aren’t even aware it exists. The possibilities that are Unthinkable are not thought of as not possible due to current social norms, rather they are viewed as actually impossible. But when the window shifts, it is hard to even remember how things used to be…

…A few years ago, the concept of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) started to enter the public consciousness. While this theory is not new, it was previously considered Unthinkable. Starting a couple of years ago, the Overton Window began to shift with MMT sliding from Unthinkable to Radical. When Congress approved a simply massive level of spending back in March, market participants began to realize that one way to view this action was as a real-time experiment in MMT informed policy. Not that either the Democrats or Republicans who voted on a bipartisan basis did so because of MMT, but rather because MMT adherents argue that this massive level of government spending will not result in increased inflation nor will the large associated deficit, or the increase in government debt, prove to be problematic.

A full description of MMT is beyond the scope of this post. But in June, prominent MMT economist Stephanie Kelton published The Deficit Myth, which offers an incredibly accessible explanation of MMT that is easily understandable (and frankly enjoyable) for non-economists. In fact, the book is a major, mainstream best seller which is a rare feat for any economics book…

…The key point is not that MMT is correct. Rather that the MMT view of the world is now entering the Overton Window and is probably best described today as Acceptable. It is not yet considered Sensible or Popular, but in a strange way it may actually already be Policy in that the massive deficit spending engaged in this year is widely agreed as having been one of the most effective fiscal interventions in history.

While some may argue that the Democrats’ likely (unless they win both Georgia runoff races) failure to win the Senate means large government spending is off the table, the Overton Window is not about which party holds a slight majority in Congress. Rather the Overton Window describes the range of policies that society deems acceptable and both political parties are required to operate within this window.

You can see this already playing out with the Republican controlled Senate authorizing a shocking $2 trillion stimulus bill in March, twice as large as all of the stimulus spending done during the Financial Crisis. And today, Republican Senators are calling for “just” $500 billion in additional spending, while the bipartisan Problems Solvers Caucus, made up of moderates on both sides of the aisle, are calling for “just” $1.5-$2.0 trillion in new spending. Either one of these bills, on top of the over $2 trillion in spending already approved, would have been completely unacceptable prior to COVID. The size of this spending dwarfs anything that voters or a majority of Congress would have considered possible.

The Unthinkable is now Policy.

3. Chipotle to Unleash Digital-Only Restaurants – Danny Klein

While the surge was undoubtedly a pandemic byproduct of quarantine behavior and heightened adoption for things like delivery and mobile ordering, the alluring point for Chipotle was it held 80–85 percent of digital sales gains in Q3 even as it recovered 50–55 percent of in-store business. This past quarter, about half of Chipotle’s digital business came via delivery (the rest through order ahead and pickup). As of October, Chipotle’s digital mix remained in the “high 40s,” Niccol said…

…With this all stirring at break-neck pace, it’s not surprising to see Chipotle enter another surging trend. The chain Wednesday unveiled its first digital-only restaurant.

Called the “Chipotle Digital Kitchen,” it will be located just outside the gate of the military academy in Highland Falls, New York. It’s opening Saturday for pickup and delivery only, and will allow Chipotle to enter more urban areas that typically wouldn’t support a full-size restaurant, the company said. Additionally, it will allow for flexibility with future locations.

Chipotle’s Digital Kitchen concept is focused on accelerating digital business in non-traditional venues. The company said the build is unique “because it does not include a dining room or front service line.” Guests must order in advance via the fast casual’s website, app, or through third-party delivery partners. Orders are picked up from a lobby designed to include all of the sounds, smells, and kitchen views of a traditional Chipotle, the company added.

It will also service large catering orders available for pickup in a separate lobby with its own dedicated entry.

4. Cancer Screening Leaps Forward – Andy Kessler

So Illumina spun out a new company named Grail in Menlo Park, Calif., to do what’s known as Circulating Cell-free Genome Atlas studies. Running DNA sequencing on regular blood samples, Grail generates hundreds of gigabytes of data per person—the well-known A-T-G-C nucleotides, but also the “methylation status,” or whether a particular DNA site’s function is turned on or off (technically, whether or not it represses gene transcription).

Most popular DNA screenings for cancer risk test only a single gene site, like BRCA1. But Grail’s chief medical officer Josh Ofman tells me, “cancer may show up as thousands of methylation changes, a much richer signal to teach machine learning algorithms to find cancer” vs. a single site. “There are 30 million methylation sites in the entire human genome on 100,000 DNA fragments. Grail looks at a million of them.” It takes industrial-grade artificial intelligence to find patterns in all this data, something a human eye would never see.

Mind you, this is not a consumer 23andMe test of your genome that says you might have, say, a 68% chance of getting cancer. Grail is detecting the signature of actual cancer cells in your blood. According to validation data published in the Annals of Oncology, the test can find 50 different types, more than half of all known cancers.

5. Lessons in Growth Investing with Anu Hariharan Patrick O’Shaughnessy and Anu Hariharan

I actually think there’s way more opportunity ahead of us. Let me compare it with a little few numbers. Pre-COVID I had looked at this. The total global market cap was $85 trillion. Internet economy enabled businesses was less than 10%, so roughly 8 trillion. Even if you assume a 10% CAGR and play this out. Let’s say in 2045, I think I had seen estimates that if you assume the global market cap is going to be around 450 trillion, Internet economy should surely be at least 15% of that, even if less like $60 trillion economy. Guess what? From 8 trillion to 60 trillion. I’m willing to bet all day long that we are still very, very nascent. Even in the most developed markets.

Let me make it further specific and real for people. Let’s look at the US economy. Pre-COVID, our Internet penetration was up 20% in 2019 and I think April reports 27%. A lot has been written about consumer eCommerce penetration. Not much has been said about B2B wholesale eCommerce penetration. B2B wholesale in the US is a $16 trillion market. Less than 8% of it is online. Less than 8%. 49% of B2B wholesale eCommerce transactions happen via phone and fax. And Faire which is one of the marketplaces that’s working on it is still just attacking a small sliver of retail. The retail market that they serve is a $670 billion market. You have so many more verticals here.

Think of aerospace, chemicals, industrials. You’re just going to see an explosion of vertical players in B2B wholesale eCommerce. B2C consumer eCommerce itself is still sub 30%. So therefore, just the Internet economy we’re just still scratching the surface. We just have years to compound, and I think we’re still in the early stages of the Internet economy…

…Well, there are a lot of people that have really helped me, but I think the kindest thing that comes to mind is Dr. Jeffrey Reed. He was my research advisor at Virginia Tech. I was doing my Master’s in wireless communications. This was in 2002, right after 9/11. And the funding that most state universities got from the government was completely slashed. Even private funding was at an all-time low. So I had come with the hope of getting a research fellowship. The university and the research group had no money to be able to fund me.

I come from a Tier-3 town in India. My parents were very middle class, and my dad had pretty much taken an entire loan against all his assets and could pay only for a year of my tuition. Come summer, and I was working enough in Virginia Tech to cover all my living expenses. But as an international student, you can work only 20 hours and you have to work in campus. You can’t work outside. So there’s only so much I could do. And I remember very vividly, this was July, and my dad basically said, “Look, this is it. This is the last straw. Finish whatever credits you can, you’re going to come back in August.” And I was like, “Yeah, I get it.”

And so I went to my advisor and said, “Look, I really can’t continue, and I need to find a way to graduate. So I should finish whatever credits I can in the summer, and maybe I could do it remotely. Would you be open to doing remotely?” He asked me, “How much money do you need?” And I said, “Well, I haven’t paid tuition this month. I need to pay $1,200.” He took a checkbook, wrote a check, and gave it to me without any questions. And I think if I look back in life, if he hadn’t done that, my life would have turned out very different.

6. Intel’s Disruption is Now Complete – James Allworth

So begins the story that Clay Christensen would love to tell about how Andy Grove of Intel famously came to be a convert to the theory of disruption. Christensen shared with Grove his research on how steel minimills, starting at the low end of the market, had gained a foothold and used that to expand the addressable market, continued to move upmarket, and finally disrupted the giant incumbents like US Steel.

Grove immediately grokked it…

…Yesterday, Apple announced the first Macs that will run on silicon that they themselves designed. No longer will Intel be inside. It’s the first change in the architecture of the CPU that the Mac runs on since… well, 2005, when they switched to Intel.

There’s a lot of great coverage of the new chips, but one piece of analysis in particular stood out to me — this chart over at Anandtech:

What about this chart is interesting? Well, it turns out, it bears a striking resemblance to one drawn before — actually, 25 years ago. Take a look at this chart drawn by Clayton Christensen, back in 1995 — in his very first article on disruptive innovation:

He might not have realized it at the time, but when Grove was reading Christensen’s work, he wasn’t just reading about how Intel would go on to conquer the personal computer market. He was also reading about what would eventually befall the company he co-founded, 25 years before it happened.

7. Twitter Thread On How To Interpret Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine news Natalie E. Dean, PhD

Big news from Pfizer, with apparent high efficacy (>90%) based on 94 confirmed COVID-19 cases at their interim analysis.

A thread on how I interpret this news. Briefly:
“Celebrate, but let the process play out over time as intended.”
1/8

Vaccine trials are “event-driven.” They continue until enough endpoints have accrued (here, lab-confirmed *symptomatic* infections). Statisticians can take planned “early looks” at the data, and so allow us to tell if a product is working exceptionally well (or not at all). 2/8

When the vaccine is highly effective, we need less data to see it. While trials are planned for 150+ total events, this is what we need for a 60% efficacy vaccine. I say this because 94 events is a lot of data for a vaccine trial, and even more so when efficacy exceeds 90%. ⅜

Pfizer’s first analysis was planned for 32 events, which they pushed back after discussions with FDA. But by the time they analyzed the data, 94 had accrued. This shows how quickly trials can generate results when placed in hotspots (and how much transmission is ongoing!). 4/8

While the results are exciting, of course we will want to independently evaluate them. Unlike treatments, promising data from vaccines do not immediately change standard of care. The vaccines will undergo a rigorous review process first which will play out over time. 5/8


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 Apple, Chipotle Mexican Grill, and Illumina. Holdings are subject to change at any time.

Is Zoom Video Communications Overvalued?

Zoom Video Communications is one of the hottest stocks this year and is up by 460% year-to-date. Does it still have legs to run?

Zoom Video Communications Inc (NASDAQ: ZM) has been on a roll this year. The video conferencing software provider has been one of the main benefactors of the COVID-19 pandemic.

In the quarter ended 30 April 2020, Zoom’s revenue increased by a mind-boggling 169% from the corresponding period a year ago. But that wasn’t all. In the very next quarter ended 31 July 2020, Zoom again blew past expectations, reporting a 355% increase in revenue.

Unsurprisingly, investors have reacted sharply to the news, sending Zoom’s stock price up 460% since the turn of the year. As of the time of writing, the company was valued at US$114.8 billion. To put that in perspective, the Singapore stock market’s largest company by market capitalisation, DBS Group Holdings, is only valued at S$61 billion. Zoom was born just nine years ago in 2011 while DBS took 52 years to get to where it is today.

The question now for investors is whether Zoom is overvalued. 

Growth skeptic

In March this year, I preached conservatism when it came to Zoom. The company, then, had a market cap of around US$38 billion. It had just doubled in value and I was concerned that investors were getting too optimistic. 

Looking back, I was way too conservative in my growth projections. Zoom went on to blow past consensus expectations in the two quarters after that, as I had described earlier, far exceeding what some of the biggest bulls had expected.

Zoom has become more than just a company, it has become a verb. Even my non-techy parents use “Zoom” as a synonym for video conferencing.

Since my article, Zoom has more than quintupled in value. After seeing the quick pace of adoption, my blogging partner, Ser Jing, and I decided that Zoom was worthy of a place in our investment fund’s portfolio.

We bought our first tranche of shares at US$254, which was then close to an all-time high and have added more since. Today, Zoom’s shares trade at around US$404.

Believing

I used to be one of the sceptics when it came to Zoom’s valuation but I am now firmly in the opposite camp. In fact, I think that even after the recent run-up in its share price, Zoom can still provide significant value for long-term investors.

Zoom exited the quarter ended 31 July 2020 with an annual revenue run rate of US$2.6 billion. Unlike many high-growth software companies, Zoom boasts not just GAAP profitability, but also a high free cash flow margin. In that quarter, it had a free cash flow margin of 56%. Boosted by record collections during the quarter, Zoom’s cash flow margin is best-in-class for software companies.

Even after accounting for any one-off jump in collections for the quarter, I think Zoom can settle at a free cash flow margin of close to 40% at its steady state.

Given this, and using Zoom’s annual revenue run rate, Zoom currently trades at a normalised price-to-annual free cash flow run rate multiple of 110. By most accounts that seems like a high multiple to pay. But let’s not forget that Zoom has immense business momentum in its favour. The company just grew by a staggering 355% in the last quarter and in its recent Zoomtopia customer and investor day event, the company let slip that usage is up since then.

Can Zoom continue to grow?

Zoom has undoubtedly been one of the benefactors of shelter-in-place measures enacted by governments around the world to combat COVID-19. But even after life returns to normal, I believe Zoom will still be a mainstay for most companies. Video conferencing has become a norm due to the ease and practicality of its use. In fact, many companies have announced that they will permanently adopt work-from-home or hybrid work settings, allowing employees to spend either all or part of their time working from home.

Although Zoom’s growth will understandably slow when the pandemic passes, I believe the company will still see decent growth well into the future as video conferencing becomes even more prevalent for businesses and individuals alike.

Zoom is also barely scratching the surface of its total addressable market. In its IPO prospectus released last year, Zoom stated that it is addressing a US$42 billion communications market, according to independent market researcher International Data Corporation. But I believe the US$42 billion figure understates the increasing number of use cases that video conferencing addresses. The pandemic has demonstrated that video conferencing software can be used for education, telemedicine, fitness classes, and many more purposes than previously imagined. 

Given the momentum in video conferencing, I think it is not beyond Zoom to quadruple its annual revenue and free cash flow run rate in five years to north of US$10 billion and US$4 billion respectively.

Zoom’s current valuation is, hence, just 28 times that projected free cash flow in 2025. More importantly, I don’t see its growth stopping there. Zoom’s CEO, Eric Yuan, and his crew are highly innovative and have already recently released new products such as Zoom Phone and Zoom hardware to expand its addressable market. 

Final words

From a trailing-12-months perspective, Zoom seems immensely overvalued. However, for a company that is growing as fast as Zoom is, the next 12 months will look very different from the last 12, so we certainly shouldn’t be looking backwards to come up with a valuation.

Looking beyond the next 12 months, Zoom’s growth will likely endure as it seeks to win its share of the more than US$42 billion market opportunity ahead of it. Competition remains a threat to Zoom, given that Zoom users can just as easily switch to an alternate software. But I believe that Zoom’s relentless pursuit of customer satisfaction and its superior product gives it a big leg up over its competitors. Zoom boasts a net promoter score of 62, the highest among video conferencing software that I’ve seen. 

Zoom’s branding is also remarkably strong at the moment. Like Google, Zoom has become a verb, which is a fact that shouldn’t be underestimated.

Although there is invariably a chance that Zoom can lose its focus on satisfying customer, and competition can erode growth, the pie is large enough for multiple winners in this space. Given all this, and the momentum behind Zoom, I think that the odds of its success far outweigh the risks. For more on Zoom, you can head here to find an investment thesis for the company that Ser Jing and I have penned for our investment fund.

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 Zoom Video Communications. Holdings are subject to change at any time.

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

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

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

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

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

Here are the articles for the week ending 08 November 2020:

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

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

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

Deep privilege.

Constant family.

Countless friends…

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

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

So buy that coffee.

Have that ice cream.

And be nice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. I Have A Few Questions – Morgan Housel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


DisclaimerThe Good Investors is the personal investing blog of two simple guys who are passionate about educating Singaporeans about stock market investing. By using this Site, you specifically agree that none of the information provided constitutes financial, investment, or other professional advice. It is only intended to provide education. Speak with a professional before making important decisions about your money, your professional life, or even your personal life. I currently have no vested interest in Ant Financial or Alibaba. Holdings are subject to change at any time.

My First Investing Loss

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

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


Interview

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DisclaimerThe Good Investors is the personal investing blog of two simple guys who are passionate about educating Singaporeans about stock market investing. By using this Site, you specifically agree that none of the information provided constitutes financial, investment, or other professional advice. It is only intended to provide education. Speak with a professional before making important decisions about your money, your professional life, or even your personal life.

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

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

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

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

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

Here are the articles for the week ending 01 November 2020:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

25 million!

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

How is this not a bigger story?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

How Many Stocks Should You Own?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concentration and the risks

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

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

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

Higher concentration = Higher variance

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

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

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

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

How does this relate to the individual investor?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are the articles for the week ending 25 October 2020:

1. Early Work – Paul Graham

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Compounding: How it Works and Why Diversification is Key

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do stocks compound?

This leads us to the next question. How?

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

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

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

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

But here’s the catch…

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

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

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

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

Source: JP Morgan report

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

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

That’s why diversification is key

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

This is why diversification is key.

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

Last words

Compounding is a game-changer when it works.

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

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

DisclaimerThe Good Investors is the personal investing blog of two simple guys who are passionate about educating Singaporeans about stock market investing. By using this Site, you specifically agree that none of the information provided constitutes financial, investment, or other professional advice. It is only intended to provide education. Speak with a professional before making important decisions about your money, your professional life, or even your personal life.

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

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

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

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

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

Here are the articles for the week ending 18 October 2020:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. John Quincy Adams

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

12. Zachary Taylor

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

13. Millard Fillmore

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

20. James Garfield

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

23. Benjamin Harrison

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

26. Theodore Roosevelt

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

32. Franklin D. Roosevelt

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

33. Harry S. Truman

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

35. John F. Kennedy

See also inflation.

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

44. Barack Obama

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

45. Donald Trump

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

Bonus: Joe Biden

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

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

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

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

And a depression was stopped in its tracks.

I have more questions than answers:

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

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

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

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

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

The Fed is the alien in this example.

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

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

Markets rebounded across the board in record time.

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



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