Investing Thoughts After Watching Hometown Cha Cha Cha

This heartwarming, heartbreaking, and funny drama contains two investing lessons that we can learn from and apply.

Note: This article contains major spoilers for the popular Korean drama Hometown Cha Cha Cha. If you’re still watching the show or plan to watch it in the future, read this at your own peril! (You can always read this article after watching the show though!)

Together with my wife, I recently finished viewing a new Korean show, Hometown Cha Cha Cha, on Netflix. Thanks to her prodding, I discovered a series that I thoroughly enjoyed – it was not only heartwarming, heartbreaking, and funny, but it also managed to stir up my investing mind.

Two of Hometown Cha Cha Cha’s key characters are the kind-hearted and carefree male protagonist Hong Du-Sik, and the meticulously forward-planning and caring female protagonist Yoon Hye-Jin. Throughout the series, which was set in the beautiful but fictional sea-side town of Gongjin in Korea, it was heavily hinted that Du-Sik had a tragic past but the actual events were always a mystery until the penultimate episode.

Du-sik’s history

When Du-Sik was in university, he became roommates with a senior named Park Jeong-U and the two soon developed a strong brotherly bond. Being a senior, Jeong-U graduated from university first and became a fund manager at YK Asset Management. After Du-Sik completed his studies, Jeong-U roped him into the same firm. 

Du-Sik rapidly rose through the ranks at YK Asset Management. But despite his success, he always remained humble and kind towards everyone at the firm, even to the security guard at the office. Over time, the guard, Kim Gi-Hun, came to know Du-Sik better. Wanting to make money through stocks, Gi-Hun eventually asked to invest in the funds that Du-Sik was managing. Du-Sik, thinking that his funds were too risky for Gi-Hun, tried to dissuade him. Gi-Hun was persistent though, and Du-Sik eventually relented. But before Gi-Hun invested, Du-Sik strongly reminded him to never take unnecessary risks.

Soon after Gi-Hun invested in the funds, a seemingly major Korean company named Benjamin Holdings went bankrupt. The Korean stock market suffered a big one-day decline as a result, with the country’s major market indexes falling between 8% to 12%. Being worried, Gi-Hun sought advice from Du-Sik outside the office. 

During their conversation, Gi-Hun revealed that he had invested in one of Du-Sik’s riskiest funds, named ELF, despite Du-Sik having recommended less-risky choices. On the day of the big decline for Korean stocks, ELF was down by 70%. Du-Sik told Gi-Hun to hang onto the investment because the value of ELF should rise again with time. But – again unbeknownst to Du-Sik – Gi-Hun had poured gasoline into fire. The security guard invested in ELF with his security deposit for his house and so, had no holding power whatsoever. But that’s not all. Snared by greed, he even took up loans to invest in the fund. Upon these revelations, Du-Sik was called back to the office to deal with an emergency but told Gi-Hun that he would get back to him soon.

Back at the office, Du-Sik continued getting calls from Gi-Hun but he never picked them up as he was stressed and busy. A few days later, Du-Sik heard that Gi-Hun had attempted suicide and barely managed to survive. After hearing the news, Du-Sik immediately wanted to visit Gi-Hun at the hospital. But Du-Sik was in no condition to drive as he was suffering from a breakdown. Jeong-U volunteered to drive Du-Sik to the hospital and also share the responsibility for this tragedy. Unfortunately, they encountered an accident while on the road, which resulted in Jeong-U’s untimely death. 

Investing lessons

Gi-Hun’s experience with investing in ELF demonstrated two dangerous but entirely avoidable investing errors. 

First, he invested in something that was highly risky in nature. Hometown Cha Cha Cha did not explain what type of fund ELF was. But given the magnitude of its decline in relation to the broader market’s fall (-70% vs -8% or -12%) and its portrayal as being highly risky, I’m guessing it was an investment fund that utilised significant leverage. What amplified the damage was that Gi-Hun used borrowed money to invest  in ELF. The use of leverage can juice returns when the market is smooth-sailing. But when the waves get rough as they inevitably do, the downward movements are magnified substantially, to the point where you can drown. For example, if you’re investing $10 for every $1 you have (meaning you’re levered 10-to-1), even a 10% decline in your underlying holdings can wipe you out.

Second, he used his security deposit to invest in ELF. In my opinion, one of the most dangerous things an investor can do is to invest with money that he needs to use within a short span of time. If he does so, he may be forced to sell his stocks when prices are low, since the stock market is volatile and short-term price movements are incredibly hard to predict. Jeremy and I run an investment fund together that invests in stocks around the world. In our verbal and written communications to our investors, we highlight our hope that our investors will only invest with money that they would not need for the next five years or more. Even if it’s at the short-term expense of our business, we would not want to invest for someone if we learn that he needs the capital within this timeframe. The reason we do so is because we want ideally all of our investors to have holding power. We do not want our investors to suffer the unnecessary risk of having to be a forced seller at a time when prices are low.

An affinity

While learning about Du-Sik’s tragic past in the penultimate episode of Hometown Cha Cha Cha, I felt an affinity with the character. During the episode, Du-Sik said: 

“He [referring to Jeong-U] convinced me to work at that company [referring to YK Asset Management]. He was a fund manager there. At first, I was hesitant about taking the job. It had nothing to do with my major and was too money-oriented. I didn’t like that. But then he said, “Fund managers give ordinary people hope that even they can become rich.” I think… that made me change my mind.”

I graduated from university with an engineering degree, just like Du-Sik in the show. But unlike the character, I knew, even as a university student, that I wanted to be in the investment world. Where we’re again similar, is that I did not want to just be a cog in the machine and make money – I wanted to be in a role in the investment industry where I could positively impact the lives of many. This is why I was so thrilled when the opportunity to join The Motley Fool’s Singapore office landed on my lap in late-2012. I officially started in January 2013. Back then, the Fool already had a wonderful purpose to “Help The World Invest, Better.” A few years into my stint with the company, the purpose was upgraded: The Fool now wants to “Make The World Smarter, Happier, and Richer.” Both purpose statements are wonderful and resonate with me. 

When I had to leave the Fool’s Singapore office in late-2019, I embarked on a new adventure with Jeremy to set up an investment fund. Our fund’s mission is to “Grow Your Wealth, and Enrich Society.” I was thrilled to once again have the good fortune to be in a role in the investment industry where I could positively impact the lives of many. And although our fund can only serve accredited investors at the moment, we are working towards opening up the fund to all investors in Singapore in the future, if Lady Luck graces us with her presence and we gain the necessary scale to do so.

I never expected to feel an affinity with a romantic comedy such as Hometown Cha Cha Cha. But the character of Hong Du-Sik – and his thought process in deciding to be a fund manager – brought a smile to my heart. I hope Hometown Cha Cha Cha can inspire other young people to develop aspirations to build better financial lives for others – especially the less privileged – if they choose to enter the investment industry. This will give meaning, purpose and blessings to their lives, way more so than the build pursuit of money. 


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

Main Street Vs Wall Street

A conversation with Dollars and Sense on why stocks are performing well while many businesses and workers are struggling to survive and keep their jobs?

I was recently interviewed by Timothy Ho, co-founder of the personal and business finance online knowledge portal Dollars and SenseThe interview is part of Dollars and Sense’s #TheNewNormal interview series. With permissionI’ve reproduced my conversation with Timothy here. We covered a number of topics, such as the recent divergence seen in stock prices and economic growth, and whether I’m invested in other asset classes beyond stocks. You can  head here for the original interview.

Interview

Timothy Ho (Timothy): As a writer yourself, you wrote on your blog about how this current disconnect between Main Street and Wall Street isn’t the first time that stocks did fine when the economy fell apart. What makes this recession experienced by many countries different from past recessions such as the GFC and the Asian Financial Crisis?

Ser Jing: You mentioned the GFC, and I have looked at how stocks recovered during the crisis. Interestingly, it follows a similar pattern to what I wrote about in the blog post that you referenced. Although the S&P 500 reached a low in early-March 2009 during the GFC, many individual stocks bottomed months before that, in November 2008. And it turned out that the US’s GDP and unemployment rate continued to deteriorate for months after these individual stocks reached their crisis-lows. I wrote about this in a blog post linked here. So, I think a takeaway here is that stocks tend to – though not always – look ahead into the future. While things may look bleak today, stocks may already be racing ahead in anticipation of a better tomorrow.

This COVID-19-driven recession has caused pain to many economies around the world. In response, central banks in these economies have at times intervened in unprecedented ways. Some market participants may point to these interventions as the reason why stocks have risen so much from their pandemic lows. But I want to point out something interesting. In my blog post that you referenced, I wrote about how US stocks did during the Panic of 1907. This was a period of immense economic pain for the USA and was one of the key reasons why the US government decided to set up the Federal Reserve (the US’s central bank) in 1913. During the Panic of 1907, the US economy was still in shambles even in 1908, but the US stock market had bottomed in November 1907 and then started climbing rapidly in December 1907 and throughout 1908. And here’s the interesting thing: The US central bank was not even established back then.  So perhaps there’s more to the recovery in stocks from the pandemic lows that we’re seeing today than just the actions of the central banks.

You also asked what makes the COVID-19-driven recession different from past recessions such as the GFC and Asian Financial Crisis. One key difference is that most past recessions were the result of excesses in the economy (both the GFC and Asian Financial Crisis were caused by excessive borrowing – on the part of households and financial institutions in the case of the GFC, and on the part of countries in the case of the Asian Financial Crisis). The COVID-19-driven recession, on the other hand, was caused by disruption to our daily work and ceasing of many economic activities to halt the virus’s spread. It was not caused by excesses in the system. This is a point that Howard Marks, an investor I deeply respect, has made. So, I think a lot of the playbooks that investors have developed based on the lessons from past recessions may not be very applicable in today’s context.

Timothy: It will be easy for us to simply say that investors are starting to realise the importance of investing (or investing more) even during a recession. But is there an element of FOMO (fear of missing out) that is creeping into many retail investors? For example, we see meme stocks, NFTs and cryptocurrencies being incredibly volatile, not to mention, speculation of many pump-and-dump tactics at work. Are these factors contributing to this surprising bull run?

Ser Jing: It’s hard to tell what are the psychological factors that contribute to the current bull run in stocks. I don’t have a good answer. But I do think it’s clear that there are speculative actions being seen, as you rightly mentioned, in some corners of the financial markets. If these speculative actions lead to excessive, widespread optimism about stocks soon, then another crash may be around the corner.

Timothy: While it’s good to see people getting interested in investing and trading in the financial markets, I realised that many new investors I met these days are more open to investing or trading, even when they recognise that they don’t have the knowledge they need. It’s like the desire to get started on their investment journey outweighs the need to learn first. In your opinion, is this good or bad?

Ser Jing: Great question! My answer is “it depends.” If the new investor is young, with decades ahead to make full use of his/her human capital, then getting started on an investment or trading journey even without the requisite knowledge is not a bad thing. The best teacher for such lessons is the mistakes we make ourselves. By starting early, the new investor gets to make the important mistakes, when her capital for investing is small and when she has plenty of time to recover from her mistakes by making more money in the future from entrepreneurship or employment. On the other hand, if the new investor is approaching retirement, then starting to invest or trade without the requisite knowledge is a bad idea.  

Timothy: What are some things about the stock market that have surprised you over the past 18 months?

Ser Jing: I am generally not surprised by what happens in the financial markets, not because I can predict the future (I absolutely cannot – I have no crystal ball), but because I am aware that surprising things happen all the time in the financial markets. But I am still in awe at the magnitude of the rebound in stock prices from the pandemic lows.  

Timothy: With decentralised finance (DeFi) taking center stage (pun intended), do you personally expect to see a financial world in the future where prime assets to hold go beyond just stocks and properties, and include other asset classes like NFTs and cryptocurrencies?

Ser Jing: I am still very much a novice when it comes to NFTs, cryptos, and blockchain technology. I am still learning, and it’s a fascinating area. I don’t know what the chances are that NFTs and cryptos will become prime assets in the future. But I’ve seen some forward-looking venture capitalists compare the state of NFTs, cryptos, and blockchain tech today to what the internet was like 20 years ago. Back then, the internet seemed mostly like an object of curiosity but look at what it is today. For now, I am watching developments in the blockchain space as a highly curious and interested novice.

Timothy: Beyond just individual companies, do you look at other traditional asset classes like indices and bonds in your investment portfolio?

Ser Jing: I don’t have my own personal investment portfolio. I set up Compounder Fund with Jeremy to invest in a way that we would for our own capital. The short answer to your question is that I don’t invest in other traditional asset classes for the fund.

Now for the long answer. First, when it comes to indices, I think it’s a great starting place for an investor who’s new to the financial markets. But for someone with expertise (and a very important part of the expertise involves having the right temperament), investing in individual stocks can generate much higher returns than investing in indices. There’s no guarantee that Jeremy and I have the expertise. But at the very least we have discipline – we’ve written about our investment process and methods in detail, and we intend to stick to what we’ve discussed. Second, when it comes to bonds, I don’t think I know bonds well enough to be able to form an investment opinion on them. I only want to invest in things that I understand well – and for now, it’s only stocks.


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. Of all the companies mentioned, I currently have no vested interest in any of them. Holdings are subject to change at any time.

ASML: The Company Behind A Technological Marvel Powering The World’s Semiconductor Industry

As the only company that can build an EUV lithography machine, ASML has a critical role to play in an increasingly digital world.

On 24 June 2021, I recorded an episode for The Financial Coconut’s podcast series, TFC Stock Geekout. I appeared in the episode together with The Financial Coconut’s founder, Reggie Koh, and we talked about ASML (NASDAQ: ASML) for nearly an hour. We discussed many aspects about the company, including its revenue streams, growth prospects, risks, and more.

ASML is based in the Netherlands and is a company that’s in the portfolio of the investment fund that Jeremy and I run together. It’s a fascinating company to me because it is currently the only company in the world that can build an extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography machine. Lithography is the process of using light to create tiny, tiny structures (called transistors) on a silicon wafer to produce chips. EUV lithography is currently the most advanced lithography process and it uses ultraviolet light of an extremely short wavelength of 13.5 nm. In a world that is increasingly going digital, there is a need for a chip to contain more and more transistors because this improves a chip’s cost and performance. This is where EUV lithography machines shine. Because they use light with such a short wavelength, they allow chip manufacturers to produce chips with transistors that have mind bogglingly small sizes. (How small? Listen to the podcast to find out!)

The podcast episode that I recorded with Reggie was released recently and you can check it out below. I hope you’ll enjoy 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. Of all the companies mentioned, I currently have a vested interest in ASML. Holdings are subject to change at any time.

When The Stock Market Changes

How should investors approach changes in the stock market?

There are many important things about the stock market that can change, such as the behaviour of market participants and their level of collective knowledge. I believe an interesting example of this can be seen in the 2008/09 financial crisis.

The period was an economic calamity and stock prices fell sharply. During the crisis, the S&P 500, a broad index for US stocks, fell by nearly 57% from peak to trough. But then-Federal Reserve chair Ben Bernanke prevented an even worse disaster from happening.

Bernanke was a scholar on the Great Depression that happened in the 1930s. In a wonderful 2002 speech for the birthday gala of celebrated economist Milton Friedman, Bernanke laid out the mistakes the US government had made during the Great Depression. He ended the speech saying (emphasis is mine): 

I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You’re right, we did it. We’re very sorry. But thanks to you, we won’t do it again.”

When the 2008/09 financial crisis erupted, Bernanke sought to prevent the same mistakes from happening. He largely succeeded and I think it’s telling that an 85% fall in stock prices – something that happened in the Great Depression – did not occur during the financial crisis.

I think that this trait about the market – that market participants can learn, collectively – has important implications for investors. Amazon’s founder Jeff Bezos once said (emphasis is mine): 

I very frequently get the question: “What’s going to change in the next 10 years?” And that is a very interesting question; it’s a very common one. I almost never get the question: “What’s not going to change in the next 10 years?” And I submit to you that that second question is actually the more important of the two — because you can build a business strategy around the things that are stable in time. … [I]n our retail business, we know that customers want low prices, and I know that’s going to be true 10 years from now. They want fast delivery; they want vast selection.” 

I believe this applies to investing too. It’s better to build an investment strategy in the stock market around the things that are stable in time. What is one such thing? From my observations, I think one thing about the stock market that has been stable over the long arc of history is that it has remained a place to buy and sell pieces of a business. And I think this trait about the stock market will very likely continue to be stable over time.

With this in mind, what logically follows is that a stock’s price over the long run will continue to depend on the performance of its underlying business over the same period. In turn, a stock’s price will eventually do well if its underlying business does well too. All these mean that a lasting investment strategy is to identify businesses that are able to grow well over a long period of time.


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

A New World of Accelerating Growth

Companies are growing faster today.

In 2016, Michael Mauboussin, a highly-regarded researcher and author in the investment industry, co-wrote a research paper published by Credit Suisse titled The Base Rate Book. Mauboussin and his co-authors studied the sales growth rates for the top 1,000 global companies by market capitalization since 1950. They found that it was rare for a company – even for ones with a low revenue base – to produce annualised revenue growth of 20% or more for 10 years.

For example, of all the companies that started with revenue of less than US$325 million (adjusted for inflation to 2015-dollars), only 18.1% had a 10-year annualised revenue growth rate of more than 20%. Of all the companies that started with inflation-adjusted revenue of between US$1.25 billion and US$2.0 billion, the self-same percentage was just 3.0%.

The table below shows the percentage of companies with different starting revenues that produced annualised revenue growth in excess of 20% for 10 years. You can see that no company in Mauboussin’s dataset that started with US$50 billion in inflation-adjusted revenue achieved this level of revenue-growth.

Source: Credit Suisse research paper, The Base Rate Book

But in a research piece published in June this year with Morgan Stanley titled The Impact of Intangibles on Base Rates, Mauboussin noted that Amazon had defied the odds. The US ecommerce juggernaut ended 2016 with US$136 billion in revenue and Mauboussin wrote (emphasis is mine):

“… work that we did in 2016 [referring to The Base Rate Book] revealing that no company with [US]$100 billion or more in base year sales had ever grown at that mid-teens rate for that long. Our data were from 1950-2015 and reflected sales figures unadjusted for acquisitions and divestitures but adjusted for inflation. The analysis was not specific to any particular business, but the clear implication was that it was improbable that a company that big could grow that fast.

Amazon will be at a [US]$515 billion-plus sales run rate by the second quarter of 2022 and will have a 6-year sales growth rate ended 2022 of 27.6 percent, if the consensus estimates are accurate… If achieved, Amazon’s results will recast the base rate data.”

In The Impact of Intangibles on Base Rates, Mauboussin also shared the two main ways of making forecasts: The inside view and the outside view. Psychologist Daniel Kahneman, who won a Nobel Prize in Economics in 2002, has an interesting story in his 2011 book, Thinking, Fast and Slow, on these two ways of forecasting.

Kahneman shared in his book that years ago, he had to design a curriculum and write a textbook on judgement and decision making. His team consisted of experienced teachers, his own psychology students, and an expert in curriculum development named Seymour Fox. About a year into the project, Kahneman polled his team for estimates on how long they thought they would need to complete the textbook. Kahneman and his team assessed their own capabilities and concluded that they would need around two years – this was their inside view. After conducting the poll, Kahneman asked Fox how long other similar teams took to complete a curriculum-design from scratch. It turned out that around 40% of similar teams failed to complete their projects and of those who managed to cross the finish line, it took them at least seven years to do so. This was the base rate, the outside view. Kahneman and his team were shocked at the difference.

But in a validation of the outside view, Kahneman’s team eventually took eight years to finish their textbook. A key lesson Kahneman learnt from the episode was that incorporating the base rate would be a more sensible approach for forecasting compared to relying purely on the inside view. 

In an investing context, taking the inside view on a company’s growth prospects would be to study the company’s traits and make an informed guess based on our findings. Taking the outside view would mean studying the company’s current state and comparing it to how other companies have grown in the past when they were at a similar state. 

Jeremy and I manage an investment fund together. The fund invests in stocks around the world, and we have invested nearly all of the fund’s capital in companies that (a) have strong historical growth and thus high valuations, and (b) have what we think are high chances of producing strong future growth. For the fund to eventually produce a good return, its portfolio companies will need to grow their businesses significantly, in aggregate, in the years ahead.

Before we invested in the companies that are currently in the fund’s portfolio, we studied their businesses carefully. After our research, we developed the confidence that they would likely continue to grow rapidly for many years. We took the inside view. But we also considered the outside view. We knew that trees don’t grow to the sky, that it’s rare for companies to grow at high rates for a long time, and that some of our companies already had massive businesses. Nonetheless, we still invested in the companies we did for two reasons. First, we knew going in that we were looking for the outliers. Second, we had suspected for some time that the base rates for companies that sustain high growth for a long time have been raised from the past. 

Mauboussin’s research in The Impact of Intangibles on Base Rates lends strong empirical evidence for our suspicion. He found that companies that rely heavily on intangible-assets grow faster than what the base rate data show. This is an important observation. According to the 2017 book Capitalism Without Capital by Jonathan Haskel and Stian Westlake, investments in intangible assets around the world overtook investments in tangible assets around the time of the 2008/09 global financial crisis and the gap has widened since. As more and more intangibles-based companies appear, the number of companies with faster-growth should also increase.

But intangibles-based companies also exhibit a higher variance in their rates of growth, according to Mauboussin’s data in The Impact of Intangibles on Base Rates. Put another way, intangibles-based companies have a higher risk of becoming obsolete. The quality of an investor’s judgement on the growth prospects of intangibles-based companies thus becomes even more important.

Why did we suspect that companies today are more likely to be able to grow faster than in the past? A key reason is the birth of software and the internet. In our view, these two things combined meant that for the very first time in human history, the distribution of a product or service has effectively zero marginal costs, and can literally travel at the speed of light (or the speed at which data can be transmitted across the web). Paul Graham shared something similar in a recent blog post of his, How People Get Rich Now. Graham is a co-founder of the storied startup accelerator and venture capital firm Y Combinator. He wrote:

“[B]ecause newly founded companies grow faster than they used to. Technology hasn’t just made it cheaper to build and distribute things, but faster too.

This trend has been running for a long time. IBM, founded in 1896, took 45 years to reach a billion 2020 dollars in revenue. Hewlett-Packard, founded in 1939, took 25 years. Microsoft, founded in 1975, took 13 years. Now the norm for fast-growing companies is 7 or 8 years.”

If you’re an investor in stocks, like us, then I think it’s important for you to realise that we’re in a whole new world of accelerating growth.


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

Playing The Right Game When Investing

“Investing” is not a one-size-fits-all thing. Everyone is playing a different game in the financial markets. Do you know the game you’re playing?

One of the best books I’ve read over the past year is William Green’s Richer, Wiser, Happier. In his book, Green writes about the lessons he’s gained from his interactions with some of the world’s best investors over the past few decades. One of the investors Green profiled in his book was Nicholas Sleep, whom I admire deeply. Here’s a memorable passage from the book on Sleep’s experience while investing in Amazon:

“Skepticism about Amazon continued to swirl. In the midst of the 2008 market meltdown, Sleep attended an event in New York where George Soros spoke about the threat of an impending financial apocalypse. Soros, one of the most successful traders in history, named just one stock that he was shorting as the world fell apart: Amazon.”

Amazon’s share price ended 2007 at US$92 and eventually fell to a low of US$35 during the 2008/09 financial crisis in November 2008. So Soros likely earned a handsome profit with his short of Amazon. But what’s also interesting is that Amazon’s current share price of around US$3,500 is tens of times (even more than a hundred times) higher than where it was at any point in 2008. The chart below shows Amazon’s share price from the end of 2007 to 30 June 2021.

Source: Yahoo Finance

The passage about Soros from Green’s book, and Amazon’s subsequent share price movement since the end of 2007, reminded me of an article from venture capitalist and finance writer, Morgan Housel. In his piece, Play Your Game, Housel wrote:

“It’s so easy to lump everyone into a category called “investors” and view them as playing on the same field called “markets.”

But people play wildly different games.

If you view investing as a single game, then you think every deviation from that game’s rules, strategies, or skills is wrong. But most of the time you’re just a marathon runner yelling at a powerlifter. So much of what we consider investing debates and disagreements are actually just people playing different games unintentionally talking over each other.

A big problem in investing is that we treat it like it’s math, where 2+2=4 for me and you and everyone – there’s one right answer. But I think it’s actually something closer to sports, where equally smart and talented people do things completely differently depending on what game they’re playing…

2. Figure out what game you’re playing, then play it (and only it).

So few investors do this. Maybe they have a vague idea of their game, but they haven’t clearly defined it. And when they don’t know what game they’re playing, they’re at risk of taking their cues and advice from people playing different games, which can lead to risks they didn’t intend and outcomes they didn’t imagine.”

An investor who shorted Amazon early in 2008 and covered his short position later in the year, and another investor who invested in the company early in the same year but for the long run, both made the right decisions. They were merely playing different games

At the investment fund that I’m running with Jeremy, we clearly know the game we’re playing. We’re looking for great businesses, buying their shares, and holding them for the long run while knowing that the share prices can be volatile. Other market participants can say that Amazon’s share price may fall by 30% over the next year – and they may well be right. But it’s of no consequence to Jeremy and me. Guessing what share prices will do over the short run is not the game we’re playing, and it’s not a game we know how to play. What’s important to us – and what we think we understand – is where Amazon’s business will be over the long run. 

When investing, heed Housel’s words. “Figure out what game you’re playing, then play it (and only 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. I currently have a vested interest in the shares of Amazon. Holdings are subject to change at any time.

Investing Basics

A presentation on investing basics

I was invited by Autodesk’s Singapore office to give a presentation on investing on 30 June 2021. I would like to thank the Autodesk team for inviting me and for the event’s superb organisation. During my presentation, I talked about what stocks are; active versus passive investing; what asset allocation is; and useful resources for individuals to learn about investing. You can check out the slide deck for my presentation below!


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

How To Invest Through High Inflation

Buying the right businesses means you never have to worry about inflation.

Note: An earlier version of this article was first published in The Business Times on 30 June 2021

Is high inflation coming? If so, what stocks should investors be buying? Of late, these are hot topics in the investment industry. Earlier this month, strategists from the US-based investment research and brokerage firm, Bernstein Research, said that “there is probably no bigger macro issue, both tactically and strategically, than inflation and what this means for portfolios.”

Thankfully, Warren Buffett had laid out a blueprint in the 1980s for investors to deal with high inflation.

The right business characteristics

Chuin Ting Weber, CEO of Singapore-based bionic financial advisor, MoneyOwl, wrote in a recent article that “for the US, historically, the worst inflationary period in recent memory was from 1973-1981.” According to her article, the US inflation rate in that period ranged from 4.9% (in 1976) to 13.3% (in 1979). In 1981, the country’s inflation-reading was 8.9%.

It’s against this backdrop that Buffett, widely-regarded as the best investor the world has seen, discussed how investors can cope with inflation in his 1981 Berkshire Hathaway shareholder letter. He wrote that “businesses that are particularly well adapted to an inflationary environment… must have two characteristics”. 

First, the business must have “an ability to increase prices rather easily (even when product demand is flat and capacity is not fully utilized) without fear of significant loss of either market share or unit volume.” Second, the business must have “an ability to accommodate large dollar volume increases in business (often produced more by inflation than by real growth) with only minor additional investment of capital.”

In other words, a business that can cope well with high inflation must have (1) pricing power and (2) the ability to increase its sales volume by a large amount without the need for significant additional capital investments.

How inflation hurts

But just why is the reverse type of business – one that has no pricing power and that requires significant investment capital to increase sales volumes – bad in an inflationary environment?

The pernicious effect of a lack of pricing power is straightforward. In an inflationary environment, costs for a business will rise. Without the ability to increase its selling prices, a business’s profit will suffer.

Why would businesses that need significant additional investment of capital to increase their sales volumes suffer during inflationary periods? The reason is more complex. Buffett explained in his 1983 Berkshire Hathaway shareholder letter.

He used two businesses to illustrate his point. One is See’s Candies, a subsidiary of Berkshire’s that makes and sells confectionaries. The other is a hypothetical company. For our discussion here, let’s call it Bad Business.

When Berkshire acquired See’s Candies in 1972, it was earning around US$2 million in profit on US$8 million of net tangible assets. On the other hand, Buffett gave Bad Business the hypothetical numbers of US$2 million in profit and US$18 million in net tangible assets. 

Buffett further illustrated what would happen to the two businesses if inflation ran at 100%. Both See’s Candies and Bad Business would need to double their earnings to US$4 million just to keep pace with inflation. To do so, the two businesses can simply sell the same number of products at two times their previous prices, assuming that their profit margins remain constant.

But there’s a problem. Both businesses would likely also have to double their investments in net tangible assets, “since that is the kind of economic requirement that inflation usually imposes on businesses, both good and bad.” For example, doubling dollar-sales would mean “correspondingly more dollars must be employed immediately in receivables and inventories.”

This is where See’s Candies starts to shine. Because See’s Candies requires US$8 million in net tangible assets to produce US$2 million in profit, it will only need to ante up a further US$8 million “to finance the capital needs imposed by inflation.” Bad Business, on the other hand, would require a much larger sum of US$18 million in additional capital to produce the output required (the extra US$2 million in profit) simply to keep up with inflation. 

Buffett summed up the discussion by saying that “any unleveraged business that requires some net tangible assets to operate (and almost all do) is hurt by inflation.” The businesses that are “hurt the least” are the ones that require little tangible assets.

The right businesses

In my opinion, technology businesses that offer digital products or services have one of Buffett’s required characteristics for a business to cope well with inflation. Examples of such technology businesses, under my definition, include DocuSign (the provider of an e-signature software solution), Etsy (the owner of its namesake e-commerce marketplace that connects buyers and creators of artisanal, unique products), and Facebook (the company behind its eponymous social media platform). 

When such a technology business sells its products or services, its marginal costs are minimal – there’s no major difference in costs for the business to provide a piece of software to either one customer or 10. Such products or services also involve minimal inventory, so increasing selling prices in an inflationary environment will not involve the need for employing correspondingly more dollars in inventories. In other words, this technology business can accommodate a large increase in sales volume without the need to increase its working capital. 

Contrast this dynamic with a business that manufactures widgets or physical products. The production of each new widget or product requires additional capital for raw materials and/or new manufacturing equipment. Widgets and physical products also involve inventory, so increasing selling prices in an inflationary environment will require correspondingly more dollars in inventories, thus tying up valuable working capital.

This is not to say that all technology businesses that offer digital products or services can cope well with inflation. It’s also important to consider their pricing power. We can gain some insight on this by understanding how important a technology business’s digital product or service is to its users. The more important the product or service is, the higher the chance that the business in question possesses pricing power.

A better approach

In the early 1970s, Buffett correctly foresaw that high inflation in the USA would rear its ugly head later in the decade. But it’s worth noting that he then got his subsequent views on inflation wrong. 

For example, in his 1981 Berkshire Hathaway shareholder letter, Buffett wrote that his “views regarding long-term inflationary trends are as negative as ever” and that “a stable price level seems capable of maintenance, but not of restoration.” In another instance, this time in his 1984 Berkshire Hathaway shareholder letter, Buffett shared his belief that “substantial inflation lies ahead.”

What happened instead was that inflation in the USA declined substantially after the 1970s. According to data from the World Bank, the country’s inflation rate averaged at 7.1% in the 1970s, 5.6% in the 1980s, 3.0% in the 1990s, 2.6% in the 2000s, and 1.8% in the 2010s. 

This is not a dig at Buffett. He’s one of my investment heroes. This is simply to show how hard it is to be correct about macroeconomic developments.

So instead of wondering whether high inflation is coming, the better approach for stock market investors – in my opinion – is to not care about inflation. Instead, investors can simply focus on finding businesses that have a high chance of doing well over the long run regardless of the level of inflation.

On this point, I come back again to technology businesses that are selling digital products and services that are highly important to their users. It’s easy to do a lot worse than investing in businesses that have pricing power and that can produce large increases in sales volumes without the need for significant additional investment of capital.


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

How I Invest

A deep dive into my investing approach in the stock market.

I was recently interviewed by the co-founders of FIRL (Finance in Real Life), John and MJ. I had an absolute blast talking to them. During our 2-hour-long conversation, we discussed:

  • How I developed an interest in investing
  • My investment philosophy
  • What I think about diversification
  • Six stocks that are currently in the portfolio of the investment fund that I run with my co-founder Jeremy Chia, namely, Netflix, Haidilao, MercadoLibre, Meituan Dianping, Twilio, and ASML.
  • The differences between institutional investors and individual investors (hint: institutional investors are not always the “smart” money!)
  • And so much more!

Check out the video of our conversation below. If you enjoyed the video, everything good about it is the credit of the FIRL team (the reverse is true too – everything bad about it is my sole responsibility!)

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

What We’re Reading (Week Ending 09 May 2021)

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 09 May 2021:

1. The hottest and least understood e-commerce model: Community Group Buying – Lilian Li

Fresh groceries have remained the holy grail of e-commerce. A task so daunting that even Amazon hasn’t been able to crack it. In China, the retail grocery market is estimated by McKinsey to be worth 5.2 trillion RMB (794bn dollars) in 2019, with only 10% of that currently online. In 2020, it seems like we’ve finally found a business model where the unit economics works at scale. Theoretically at least.

That’s 社区团购 or community group-buying, the least understood business model in online retail right now. In this edition, we’ll look at this business model’s innovations, its enabling factors, what will determine the winner’s success and ultimately its challenges…

…With community group buying, the format works like this:

  • A self-designated community leader creates and maintains a WeChat group.
  • Community leader sign-ups individuals from their local region (usually within their regular walking distance), each WeChat group is capped at 500 people.
  • They maintain a weekly or daily schedule of posting a product selection to the group.
  • The products are links to mini-programs where residents click through to place their orders. Residents do not have to order the same products and will only need to pay when their collective demand exceeds a designated value.
  • The products are not limited to groceries but also include other life essentials like paper towels.
  • Once the residents place their orders, the entire collated order is delivered in bulk to collection points the next day for the community leader to pick up.
  • Community leader unpacks the bulk order and then organises this into the resident’s orders. They will either deliver the order, or the residents will come to this pick up themselves.
  • In case of issues, the community leader is the first point of contact for the residents. They will escalate the problem to the platforms and handle the resolution on behalf of the residents.
  • For their work, the community leaders get 10% commission from their group orders. Given the hands-on nature of the work, a community leader can typically only manage three WeChat groups well at any one point.

With the addition of community leaders into the supply chain, the unit economics for online groceries are fundamentally changed. Now CAC is lowered since community leaders are responsible for creating their own customer groups. Customer Life Time Value (CLTV) is extended since customers have more hands-on support and social buying promotes frequent purchases. Conversion rates are much higher – can reach 10% in WeChat community group buying rather than typical 2-3% e-commerce conversions. Community leaders and customers take care of the last-mile delivery, shaving off precious additional logistics costs (lowering logistics costs is often the sole driver of profitability in marketplaces). The platform can carry fewer SKUs, buying in large quantities directly from the source rather than through intermediaries and have higher pass-through rate, which means the produce stays fresh and contributes to a positive customer experience. 

“The delivery cost per order for the home delivery mode is 7-10 RMB. This part of the cost is relatively rigid, and other fulfilment costs such as storage are about 1-2 RMB. The community group purchase model with a better order density can achieve less delivery cost of than 1.5 RMB per order” – Xingsheng Youxuan  (One of the startup unicorn in the race)

The model is a win-win-win proposition for the consumer, community leader and the produce platform itself. The typical community group buying customer is price-conscious, often residing in third or fourth-tier cities, and frequently elderly (a population who find it hard to navigate the complicated purchasing consumer apps). For these consumers, they can access fresher, cheaper and potentially a wider range of goods (especially seafood in more remote regions). For the community leaders, who are typically local shopkeepers or stay-at-home mums, they can earn additional revenue while serving their community. For the produce platforms, they can run a streamlined operation with less spoilage and high volume throughputs. Ultimately, they can operate a profitable business at scale.

2. Chip shortage highlights U.S. dependence on fragile supply chain – Lesley Stahl

Car companies across the globe have had to idle production and workers because of a shortage of semiconductors, often referred to as microchips or just chips. They’re the tiny operating brains inside just about any modern device, like smartphones, hospital ventilators or fighter jets. The pandemic has sent chip demand soaring unexpectedly, as we bought computers and electronics to work, study, and play from home. But while more and more chips are needed in the U.S., fewer and fewer are manufactured here.

Intel is the biggest American chipmaker. Its most advanced fabrication plant, or fab for short, is located outside Phoenix, Arizona. New CEO, Pat Gelsinger, invited us on a tour to see how incredibly complex the manufacturing process is…

…Lesley Stahl: I’m wondering, if we’re going to continue to have shortages, not just in cars, but in our phones and for our computers, for everything?

Pat Gelsinger: I think we have a couple of years until we catch up to this surging demand across every aspect of the business. 

COVID showed that the global supply chain of chips is fragile and unable to react quickly to changes in demand. One reason: fabs are wildly expensive to build, furbish, and maintain.

Lesley Stahl: it used to be that there were 25 companies in the world that made the high-end, cutting-edge chips. And now there are only three. And in the United States? – You.

GELSINGER HOLDS UP FINGER

Lesley Stahl: One. One.

Today, 75% of semiconductor manufacturing is in Asia. 

Pat Gelsinger: 25 years ago, the United States produced 37% of the world’s semiconductor manufacturing in the U.S. Today, that number has declined to just 12%.

Lesley Stahl: Doesn’t sound good.

Pat Gelsinger: It doesn’t sound good. And anybody who looks at supply chain says, “That’s a problem.”…

…Pat Gelsinger: Well, they’re pretty happy to buy from some of the Asian suppliers.

Actually, they don’t always have a choice. For chips with the tiniest transistors – there is no “made in the U.S.” option. Intel currently doesn’t have the know-how to manufacture the most advanced chips that Apple and the others need.

Lesley Stahl: The decline in this industry. It’s kinda devastating, isn’t it?

Pat Gelsinger: The fact that this industry was created by American innovation– 

Lesley Stahl: The whole Silicon Valley idea started with Intel.

Pat Gelsinger: Yeah… The company stumbled. You know, it’s still a big company – we had some product stumbles, some manufacturing and process stumbles.

Perhaps the biggest stumble was in the early-2000s, when Steve Jobs of Apple needed chips for a new idea: the iPhone. Intel wasn’t interested. And Apple went to Asia, eventually finding TSMC: the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company – today, the world’s most advanced chip-manufacturer, producing chips that are 30% faster and more powerful than Intel’s.

Lesley Stahl: They’re ahead of you on the manufacturing side. 

Pat Gelsinger: Yeah.

Lesley Stahl: Considerably ahead of you. 

Pat Gelsinger: We believe it’s gonna take us a couple of years and we will be caught up…

…But TSMC is a manufacturing juggernaut worth over a half a trillion dollars. Collaborating with clients to produce their chip designs, it’s been sought out by Apple, Amazon, contractors for the U.S. military, and even Intel, which uses TSMC to produce their cutting-edge designs they’re not advanced enough to make themselves.

Lesley Stahl: How and why did Intel fall behind?

Mark Liu: It is surprising for us too…

…Pat Gelsinger: China is one of our largest markets today. You know, over 25% of our revenue is to Chinese customers. We expect that this will remain an area of tension, and one that needs to be navigated carefully. Because if there’s any points that people can’t keep running their countries or running their businesses because of supply of one critical component like semiconductors, boy, that leads them to take very extreme postures on things because they have to.

The most extreme would be China invading Taiwan and in the process gaining control of TSMC. That could force the U.S. to defend Taiwan as we did Kuwait from the Iraqis 30 years ago. Then it was oil. Now it’s chips.  

Lesley Stahl: The chip industry in Taiwan has been called the Silicon Shield.

Mark Liu: Yes.

Lesley Stahl: What does that mean? 

Mark Liu: That means the world all needs Taiwan’s high-tech industry support. So they will not let the war happen in this region because it goes against interest of every country in the world.

Lesley Stahl: Do you think that in any way your industry is keeping Taiwan safe?

Mark Liu: I cannot comment on the safety. I mean, this is a changing world. Nobody want these things to happen. And I hope– I hope not too– either. 

3. How Shopify’s Network of Sellers Can Take On Amazon – Nilay Patel & Harley Finkelstein

[Patel] And so how does Shopify make money? You take a cut of every transaction, you charge a subscription fee. Where do you take your cut?

[Finkelstein] Yeah, so two sides. One is on the subscription side. So there’s a subscription fee. Starts at $29 a month, if you’re just getting started, and goes up to $2,000 a month for some of the larger merchants. But we also have a payments business. Shopify Payments powers a majority of, particularly in our main geographies, a majority of transactions. We have a capital business. We’ve now given out more than $2 billion of capital to small businesses. We have a fulfillment business and a shipping business. Actually, this is maybe a good point to pause on for a second.

If you were to pretend that Shopify was a retailer, we’re not a retailer, but pretend we were, we would be the second largest online retailer in America, after Amazon. The reason I say that is because the second largest online retailer in America, they’re entitled to massive economies of scale. And so what we try to do is, we try to go to the shipping companies and capital companies and the payment companies, and we negotiate as if we were the second largest retailer, except instead of keeping those economies of scale for ourself, we distribute those economies of scale and give those advantages to small businesses.

And we think what that does is a real leveling of the playing field so that these companies can get bigger, faster, at a pace that, frankly, we’ve never seen before. There’s rumors now that some of our biggest merchants are going public, are filing for IPOs. Some of them didn’t exist five years ago. In the history of commerce and retail, we’ve never seen that type of scale at that speed…

…[Patel] So I want to just pull back for one second, talk about Shopify as it’s something that you could look at as the second largest online retailer in America. You’re up against Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple, the rest. This last quarter of earnings, these companies all did extraordinarily well. When I started Decoder, the question I would ask everybody is, “What are the trends you see in a pandemic? What’s going to snap back?”

Nothing’s snapping back, except maybe we’re not going to go work in offices the way that we used to. The economy has moved online in a real way. We are really dependent, in particular, on a handful of very large companies. I’ll pick on Apple because they have a lawsuit. They want to take a cut of every time you push a button on the iPhone.

Shopify enables small businesses to compete at that level. You have this economy of scale. You’re also partnered with those companies. You’re competitive with those companies. What is that relationship like? Where does Shopify slot in?

[Finkelstein] Shopify’s entire business model is predicated on: if small businesses do well, we do well. If they don’t do well, we don’t do well. And so the relationship we have, first of all, with small business, I think is very different than a lot of other technology companies where the small businesses, whether they sell a lot or not, they still need them for things like exposure and traffic and other all those things related to marketing and advertising. But the way we think about it is, the future of retail, in our view, is not going to be online, nor is it going to be offline. It’s not going to be on Instagram or TikTok or Facebook or Walmart.com, it’s going to be everywhere.

And the future of retail, in our view, is going to be about consumer choice. Now, that is very different. Commerce is about as old a construct as currency. We’re talking about since the beginning of time, you’ve had commerce and you’ve had currency, but it was always the retailer dictating to the consumer how to purchase.

So a great example is, go back when you were 10 years old or something and you wanted to go buy a video game at the video game store, There was a time it opened, at 9AM on a Saturday morning. Once you picked up the game on the shelf, you went into line. You had to use this credit card, but they didn’t accept that credit card. But basically, it’s always the same. It was always the retailer dictating to the consumer how to purchase.

The big shift that is happening that will exist long after the pandemic and, frankly, will be the future of retail, will be that consumers will simply say, “I want to buy however is most convenient for me.” And if you’re a really forward-thinking merchant like Allbirds, for example, and you know that it’s all about consumer choice, then you’re going to have a great physical store in San Francisco and New York City and a whole bunch of other places, you’re going to have a great online store, you’re going to cross-sell on things like Instagram and Facebook, you may also activate the TikTok ad channel because that’s when you can reach new potential customers. But what Shopify’s role in all that is, is that we want to integrate all of it into a centralized retail operating system.

So, think of Shopify as the hub of where you run your business day-to-day. When you say you’re going to work in the morning, you open up the Shopify admin, you have your inventory, your analytics, your reporting, you do fulfillment from there. One major spoke of that hub will be the online store. Another major spoke may be the offline store, but all the other spokes are going to be with Facebook and Google and Instagram and TikTok and all those companies.

And so our partnership with all these companies is predicated on this idea that we want to enable these merchants, these brands, to sell wherever they have customers. What is the modern-day town square? If you want to sell across a whole variety of age brackets, you need to sell everywhere. And that is really what Shopify’s role is, and that’s the reason why we partner with all these companies…

…[Patel] Oh, that’s really interesting. The reason I ask that is, Shopify is growing really fast. You were there in the early days. I keep coming back to this theme, you are now enabling companies to compete with the giants. You are yourself, in some ways competing with the giants. You are in some ways partnered with them.

As you have to make decisions there, you’re up against a lot of capital, a lot of market power, I’m definitely going to ask you about this Apple-Epic lawsuit. Sometimes you’re just up against other people controlling the interface, and just saying what you can and can’t do. How do you use your overall framework to make a decision, like we’re not going to have the Shop App become an actual marketplace for customers?

[Finkelstein] That’s actually an easier answer, because when you’re specific about that, you ask yourself, “What is best for the merchant?” Forget everything else. What is best for the merchant? During COVID, when COVID first hit, it hit hard in Canada around mid-March. We extended our trial from 14 days to 90 days. That’s a big change. There’s a real cost to moving a trial from 14 days to 90 days, nine zero.

But that was the right thing to do, even if it wasn’t the easy thing to do. Because it meant that more people that may have been on the fence about whether or not to digitalize their brick-and-mortar store, or to commercialize their hobby, or to enter the entrepreneurship ring, were able to do so with less risk, with less cost. That’s an easy decision, because you say, “What is best for the merchant there?”

The other thing is, we use a lens around Shopify, which is the idea of, we want to build a 100-year company. And we’re about 15 years in, so we have like 85 years left to go. When you use a long-term horizon of a 100-year company, you tend to not necessarily focus on short-term metrics or short-term results. You’re able to actually think a lot longer about what you’re trying to do here. And ultimately, just to be clear, what we’re trying to do here, is we want to be the world’s entrepreneurship company.

There is a company that owns search, and it’s Google, and they’ve done an amazing job organizing the world’s content and information. And there’s a company that owns social, and for the most part right now, it’s Facebook. But no company has yet to really own and make entrepreneurship something that is accessible by everyone, and we think we have the best shot at that.

So using that lens, it’s a lot easier to make decisions for the long run. It also means in some cases, that we will do something that maybe in the short run is not great for Shopify, but in the long run is great for the merchant. Or in the short run, it’s also great for the merchant, in the long run may eventually be good for Shopify. We can take these long-term bets, because we’re playing this ridiculously long game of a 100-year company.

4. The Pastry A.I. That Learned to Fight Cancer – James Somers

Computers learned to see only recently. For decades, image recognition was one of the grand challenges in artificial intelligence. As I write this, I can look up at my shelves: they contain books, and a skein of yarn, and a tangled cable, all inside a cabinet whose glass enclosure is reflecting leaves in the trees outside my window. I can’t help but parse this scene—about a third of the neurons in my cerebral cortex are implicated in processing visual information. But, to a computer, it’s a mess of color and brightness and shadow. A computer has never untangled a cable, doesn’t get that glass is reflective, doesn’t know that trees sway in the wind. A.I. researchers used to think that, without some kind of model of how the world worked and all that was in it, a computer might never be able to distinguish the parts of complex scenes. The field of “computer vision” was a zoo of algorithms that made do in the meantime. The prospect of seeing like a human was a distant dream.

All this changed in 2012, when Alex Krizhevsky, a graduate student in computer science, released AlexNet, a program that approached image recognition using a technique called deep learning. AlexNet was a neural network, “deep” because its simulated neurons were arranged in many layers. As the network was shown new images, it guessed what was in them; inevitably, it was wrong, but after each guess it was made to adjust the connections between its layers of neurons, until it learned to output a label matching the one that researchers provided. (Eventually, the interior layers of such networks can come to resemble the human visual cortex: early layers detect simple features, like edges, while later layers perform more complex tasks, such as picking out shapes.) Deep learning had been around for years, but was thought impractical. AlexNet showed that the technique could be used to solve real-world problems, while still running quickly on cheap computers. Today, virtually every A.I. system you’ve heard of—Siri, AlphaGo, Google Translate—depends on the technique.

The drawback of deep learning is that it requires large amounts of specialized data. A deep-learning system for recognizing faces might have to be trained on tens of thousands of portraits, and it won’t recognize a dress unless it’s also been shown thousands of dresses. Deep-learning researchers, therefore, have learned to collect and label data on an industrial scale. In recent years, we’ve all joined in the effort: today’s facial recognition is particularly good because people tag themselves in pictures that they upload to social networks. Google asks users to label objects that its A.I.s are still learning to identify: that’s what you’re doing when you take those “Are you a bot?” tests, in which you select all the squares containing bridges, crosswalks, or streetlights. Even so, there are blind spots. Self-driving cars have been known to struggle with unusual signage, such as the blue stop signs found in Hawaii, or signs obscured by dirt or trees. In 2017, a group of computer scientists at the University of California, Berkeley, pointed out that, on the Internet, almost all the images tagged as “bedrooms” are “clearly staged and depict a made bed from 2-3 meters away.” As a result, networks have trouble recognizing real bedrooms…

…In his late twenties, Kambe came home to Nishiwaki, splitting his time between the lumber mill and a local job-training center, where he taught computer classes. Interest in computers was soaring, and he spent more and more time at the school; meanwhile, more houses in the area were being built in a Western style, and traditional carpentry was in decline. Kambe decided to forego the family business. Instead, in 1982, he started a small software company. In taking on projects, he followed his own curiosity. In 1983, he began working with NHK, one of Japan’s largest broadcasters. Kambe, his wife, and two other programmers developed a graphics system for displaying the score during baseball games and exchange rates on the nightly news. In 1984, Kambe took on a problem of special significance in Nishiwaki. Textiles were often woven on looms controlled by planning programs; the programs, written on printed cards, looked like sheet music. A small mistake on a planning card could produce fabric with a wildly incorrect pattern. So Kambe developed SUPER TEX-SIM, a program that allowed textile manufacturers to simulate the design process, with interactive yarn and color editors. It sold poorly until 1985, a series of breaks led to a distribution deal with Mitsubishi’s fabric division. Kambe formally incorporated as BRAIN Co., Ltd.

For twenty years, BRAIN took on projects that revolved, in various ways, around seeing. The company made a system for rendering kanji characters on personal computers, a tool that helped engineers design bridges, systems for onscreen graphics, and more textile simulators. Then, in 2007, BRAIN was approached by a restaurant chain that had decided to spin off a line of bakeries. Bread had always been an import in Japan—the Japanese word for it, “pan,” comes from Portuguese—and the country’s rich history of trade had left consumers with ecumenical tastes. Unlike French boulangeries, which might stake their reputations on a handful of staples, its bakeries emphasized range. (In Japan, even Kit Kats come in more than three hundred flavors, including yogurt sake and cheesecake.) New kinds of baked goods were being invented all the time: the “carbonara,” for instance, takes the Italian pasta dish and turns it into a kind of breakfast sandwich, with a piece of bacon, slathered in egg, cheese, and pepper, baked open-faced atop a roll; the “ham corn” pulls a similar trick, but uses a mixture of corn and mayo for its topping. Every kind of baked good was an opportunity for innovation.

Analysts at the new bakery venture conducted market research. They found that a bakery sold more the more varieties it offered; a bakery offering a hundred items sold almost twice as much as one selling thirty. They also discovered that “naked” pastries, sitting in open baskets, sold three times as well as pastries that were individually wrapped, because they appeared fresher. These two facts conspired to create a crisis: with hundreds of pastry types, but no wrappers—and, therefore, no bar codes—new cashiers had to spend months memorizing what each variety looked like, and its price. The checkout process was difficult and error-prone—the cashier would fumble at the register, handling each item individually—and also unsanitary and slow. Lines in pastry shops grew longer and longer. The restaurant chain turned to BRAIN for help. Could they automate the checkout process?…

…For the BRAIN team, progress was hard-won. They started by trying to get the cleanest picture possible. A document outlining the company’s early R. & D. efforts contains a triptych of pastries: a carbonara sandwich, a ham corn, and a “minced potato.” This trio of lookalikes was one of the system’s early nemeses: “As you see,” the text below the photograph reads, “the bread is basically brown and round.” The engineers confronted two categories of problem. The first they called “similarity among different kinds”: a bacon pain d’épi, for instance—a sort of braided baguette with bacon inside—has a complicated knotted structure that makes it easy to mistake for sweet-potato bread. The second was “difference among same kinds”: even a croissant came in many shapes and sizes, depending on how you baked it; a cream doughnut didn’t look the same once its powdered sugar had melted.

In 2008, the financial crisis dried up BRAIN’s other business. Kambe was alarmed to realize that he had bet his company, which was having to make layoffs, on the pastry project. The situation lent the team a kind of maniacal focus. The company developed ten BakeryScan prototypes in two years, with new image preprocessors and classifiers. They tried out different cameras and light bulbs. By combining and rewriting numberless algorithms, they managed to build a system with ninety-eight per cent accuracy across fifty varieties of bread. (At the office, they were nothing if not well fed.) But this was all under carefully controlled conditions. In a real bakery, the lighting changes constantly, and BRAIN’s software had to work no matter the season or the time of day. Items would often be placed on the device haphazardly: two pastries that touched looked like one big pastry. A subsystem was developed to handle this scenario. Another subsystem, called “Magnet,” was made to address the opposite problem of a pastry that had been accidentally ripped apart.

A major development was the introduction of a backlight—the forerunner of the glowing rectangle I’d noticed in the Ueno store. It helped eliminate shadows, including the ones cast by a doughnut into a doughnut hole. (One of BRAIN’s patent applications explains how a pastry’s “chromatic dispersion” can be analyzed “to permit definitive extraction of contour lines even where the pastry is of such hole-containing shape.”) At one point, when it became clear that baking times were never consistent, Kambe’s team made a study of the phenomenon. They came up with a mathematical model relating bakedness to color. In the end, they spent five years immersed in bread. By 2013, they had built a device that could take a picture of pastries sitting on a backlight, analyze their visual features, and distinguish a ham corn from a carbonara sandwich.

That year, BakeryScan launched as a real product. Today, it costs about twenty thousand dollars. Andersen Bakery, one of BRAIN’s biggest customers, has deployed the system in hundreds of bakeries, including the one in Ueno station. The company says it’s cut down on training time and has made the checkout process more hygienic. Employees are more relaxed and can talk to customers; lines have been virtually eliminated. At first, BakeryScan’s performance wasn’t perfect. But the BRAIN team included a feedback mechanism: when the system isn’t confident, it draws a yellow or red contour around a pastry instead of a green one; it then asks the operator to choose from a small set of best guesses or to specify the item manually. In this way, BakeryScan learns. By the time I encountered it, it had achieved an even higher level of accuracy…

…In early 2017, a doctor at the Louis Pasteur Center for Medical Research, in Kyoto, saw a television segment about the BakeryScan. He realized that cancer cells, under a microscope, looked kind of like bread. He contacted BRAIN, and the company agreed to begin developing a version of BakeryScan for pathologists. They had already built a framework for finding interesting features in images; they’d already built tools allowing human experts to give the program feedback. Now, instead of identifying powdered sugar or bacon, their system would take a microscope slide of a urinary cell and identify and measure its nucleus.

BRAIN began adapting BakeryScan to other domains and calling the core technology AI-Scan. AI-Scan algorithms have since been used to distinguish pills in hospitals, to count the number of people in an eighteenth-century ukiyo-e woodblock print, and to label the charms and amulets for sale in shrines. One company has used it to automatically detect incorrectly wired bolts in jet-engine parts. At the SPring-8 Angstrom Compact Free Electron Laser (sacla), in Hyogo, a seven-hundred-metre-long experimental apparatus produces high-intensity laser pulses; since reading the millions of resulting pictures by hand would be impractical, a few scientists at the sacla facility have started using algorithms from AI-Scan. Kambe said that he never imagined that BakeryScan’s technology would be applied to projects like these.

5. 99 Additional Bits of Unsolicited Advice – Kevin Kelly

  • That thing that made you weird as a kid could make you great as an adult — if you don’t lose it.
  • If you have any doubt at all about being able to carry a load in one trip, do yourself a huge favor and make two trips.
  • What you get by achieving your goals is not as important as what you become by achieving your goals. At your funeral people will not recall what you did; they will only remember how you made them feel.
  • Recipe for success: under-promise and over-deliver.
  • It’s not an apology if it comes with an excuse. It is not a compliment if it comes with a request.
  • Jesus, Superman, and Mother Teresa never made art. Only imperfect beings can make art because art begins in what is broken.
  • If someone is trying to convince you it’s not a pyramid scheme, it’s a pyramid scheme..
  • …Train employees well enough they could get another job, but treat them well enough so they never want to.
  • Don’t aim to have others like you; aim to have them respect you.
  • The foundation of maturity: Just because it’s not your fault doesn’t mean it’s not your responsibility.
  • A multitude of bad ideas is necessary for one good idea.
  • Being wise means having more questions than answers.
  • Compliment people behind their back. It’ll come back to you.
  • Most overnight successes — in fact any significant successes — take at least 5 years. Budget your life accordingly.
  • You are only as young as the last time you changed your mind..
  • …When a child asks an endless string of “why?” questions, the smartest reply is, “I don’t know, what do you think?
  • To be wealthy, accumulate all those things that money can’t buy.
  • Be the change you wish to see
  • When brainstorming, improvising, jamming with others, you’ll go much further and deeper if you build upon each contribution with a playful “yes — and” example instead of a deflating “no — but” reply.
  • Work to become, not to acquire.
  • Don’t loan money to a friend unless you are ready to make it a gift.
  • On the way to a grand goal, celebrate the smallest victories as if each one were the final goal. No matter where it ends you are victorious.
  • Calm is contagious.
  • Even a foolish person can still be right about most things. Most conventional wisdom is true.
  • Always cut away from yourself.
  • Show me your calendar and I will tell you your priorities. Tell me who your friends are, and I’ll tell you where you’re going.
  • When hitchhiking, look like the person you want to pick you up.

6. The Golden Age of Fraud is Upon Us – Ben Carlson

If Charles Ponzi were alive today, I have no doubt that he would be able to raise capital from investors, probably in the form of a SPAC. Many investors would laud him for being a genius as he bilked investors out of millions of dollars.

When I was researching the history of financial scams for Don’t Fall For It the one thing that jumped out above all else is how similar financial frauds are across time and place. They typically involve new technologies, people with extraordinary sales skills and the insatiable human desire for get-rich quick schemes.

Despite the fact that people have been getting duped by hucksters and charlatans for centuries, there was one period that kept coming up over and over again in my research — the 1920s.

It was the golden age of financial fraud.

The Roaring 20s had everything a con-artist looking to dupe people out of their money could ask for — innovation, new financial products, a booming economy, rising markets, new and exciting technologies, loose lending standards, new communication tools and people getting rich all over the place.

This period included Dr. John Brinkley, a fake doctor, who told people he could solve their fertility problems by implanting goat testicles into the male scrotum. He quickly became wealthy by promising to cure people’s ailments with his secretive medicines and procedures.

Then there was the match king, Ivar Kreuger, who used his match factories to create obscene amounts of leverage and offer insanely high rates of return to investors who put money into his ever-growing empire of new financial products. Kreuger created one of the biggest financial scams no one has ever heard of. It all fell apart in the Great Depression.

The Roaring 20s was a time of innovation in the financial markets but there were still bucket shops where people went to gamble their money on the markets. A scam artist nicknamed “The Kid” would set up fake bucket shops promising people the ability to buy $5 stock certificates for $1.

What was the catch?

Of course, those certificates were fake. He ran this same scam in multiple cities all over the country.

There are endless stories like this from that period.

The financial markets feel wonderful right now. It would have been nearly impossible to not make money over the past year or so. The economy could legitimately be setting up for our own version of the roaring 20s.

Yet these good times could also be setting us up for a new golden age of financial fraud.

You have new and exciting innovations happening all around us. A new asset class is being established right before our eyes in cryptocurrencies. Tens of thousands of people have become multi-millionaires in a matter of years.

All of the scam artists, hucksters and charlatans have to be licking their chops right now.

During bull markets and economic boom times people witness others becoming very wealthy. So they let their guard down, take more risk than they reasonably should and trust people they shouldn’t while chasing easy riches.

And the people most susceptible to financial fraud tend to be the more highly educated investors who have already made a ton of money.

One of the studies I reference in my book discovered people who were caught up in financial scams were actually more knowledgeable about markets and investing than people who weren’t involved in scams. This makes sense when you realize the people with the most money have the biggest target on their back.

7. What Is an Entertainment Company in 2021 and Why Does the Answer Matter? – Matthew Ball

Entertainment companies today don’t make movies or TV shows. They don’t even mainly “tell stories”. They manage the proprieties of those stories in such a way to create and sustain deep affinity, i.e., build love. 

This is a very different rubric than the media industry is used to. It also suggests that many low-margin businesses, products, or titles create more value than an income statement might realize. Think about the correlation between the pajamas you wore growing up and the adaptations/films you deeply want to succeed, versus those you’re largely indifferent to. It’s doubtlessly true that the comics divisions of Warner Bros.’ DC, and Disney’s Marvel deliver minimal revenues and dilutive margins. But comics remain a low-cost channel for story and love building. Notably, almost all of the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s forthcoming series are from the last (and largely unknown) decade of comics. It doesn’t matter to maestro Kevin Feige that his films have eclipsed not just the comics by several literal orders of magnitude, nor even all of film history. These comics are where new stories are created, discovered, and refined. The now globally famous character of Miles Morales first appeared in 2011, Ms. Marvel (who has her own MCU TV series this year) comes from 2013. Riri Williams, who will take up Iron Man’s mantle in her own MCU TV series first appeared less than five years ago.

This trend also means that Hollywood needs to solve its video game problem. The category simply matters too much to audiences. It is also becoming more social, immersive, and narratively rich each day. Consider the evolution of TV/video versus games over the past fifteen years. The MCU films and series of 2021 are more interconnected, complex, and visually impressive than 2008’s Iron Man, but they’re still rather similar. Games, meanwhile, have been entirely reinvented for live services, social multiplayer, and UGC. Now, we’re only a few years from the point in which millions will come home to join a live event with a real-time motion capture hero like Tony Stark (who will likely not be performed by Robert Downey Jr., even though it will look like him) alongside their friends. Not long after, these will be integrated into the weekly release schedule a TV series, thereby enabling the audience to help the heroes as they watch them.

This also connects to Disney’s greatest love advantage: it’s theme parks. For all the success of Disney+, the strongest, most profitable, most defensible part of Disney’s business is its capex-heavy, physical theme parks. As I wrote in “Digital Theme Park Platforms: The Most Important Media Businesses of the Future”, “there is no simple way to quantify how important this business unit is to Disney… The financial role is obvious… [but] There is nothing that can compare to the impact of a child being hugged by her heroes. The ability to enjoy your favorite IP as “you” is unique and lasts a lifetime.” The problem with Disney’s parks, however, is that they can only ever reach a tiny portion of Disney’s fans (and rarely its lower income and foreign fans). And it takes tens of billions of dollars and close to a decade to reach more (which is why most of Disney’s competitors lack parks, despite their importance and profitability).

Digital theme parks, however, “are always ‘open’, ‘everywhere’, ‘full of your friends’, and impervious to COVID-19… They also boast an even larger (i.e. infinite) number of attractions and rides, none of which need be bound by the laws of physics or the need for physical safety, and all of which can be rapidly updated and personalized. These digital parks also allow for much greater self-expression (e.g. avatars, skins).” And soon, every fan will be able to receive a hug from the actual Iron Man.

This isn’t to say an IP holder needs to own a gaming studio, per se. Obviously that’s an advantage in a number of ways, but at minimum, every IP owners needs cohesive and comprehensive strategy for interactivity that goes beyond MGs, GGs, and avatar licensing.

What does all of this mean for the industry overall? Well, one of the key lessons over the past several decades in entertainment is one of “more”. We want more of the stories we love, more often, in more places, and more media, always. We might gripe about how Disney will never let Star Wars end or that endless sequels undermine the significance of any films that came before, but the truth is only we want something to “end” … until immediately after it does. Give us The Mandalorian, even as we tire of the sequel trilogy, and then second season of The Mandalorian one year later. We hated the prequels but delight at the idea of a spinoff of Ewan McGregor’s Obi-Wan. Two Star Wars games aren’t enough, nor is four. Just look at gaming over the past year and a half. Yes, the pandemic led us to play more games, but mostly we played our favorite games more.

If our biggest stories become bigger, and ultimately, we want endless amount of “more” from our favorite stories, then most of us will hit a sort of “Dunbar’s Number” for franchises. The bigger Marvel (or anyone) gets narratively, in love building, and in monetization, the harder it will be for a Power Rangers reboot or Dark Universe or Transformers Ecosystem to grow. Consider the mocap example. We’re not going to run home to mocap every hero we know of, even if we watch a diverse selection of hero movies. This means fewer stories will collect ever-more of the benefit.

There used to be a fight to be one of the winning comic books, video games, or film franchises. This meant there was room for many winners and that the reach of any winner was limited. Soon, it will be a fight for dominance between all franchises and across all mediums. The major stories will expand into all categories, from film to TV to podcasts, and be envisioned as interactive experiences. And as long as they continue to offer more “more”, there’s little reason for a fan to look (and invest) elsewhere.


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