Category: What We’re Reading

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

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

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

Here are the articles for the week ending 20 February 2022:

1. Classic 05: A History of 5 Stock Market Crashes w/ Scott Nations – Sitg Brodersen, Preston Pysh, Scott Nations

Preston Pysh  01:18

So Scott, in this episode we’re going to be talking about the crashes of 1907, 1929, 1987, 2008, and the Flash Crash of 2010. I’m sure some, if not all of those years are very familiar for a lot of people in our audience. But let’s start all the way back to 1907. And for people not familiar with this crash, JP Morgan was a key character in this crash. So talk to us a little bit about him and talk to us about the characteristics of the 1907 Crash.

Scott Nations  01:46

JP Morgan was a fascinating man. He was a fascinating man. He was a man of privilege. He was born into privilege. His father was Judas Morgan, who was, well, essentially made the family even more wealthy by selling civil war bonds in London during the American Civil War. JP Morgan was educated as you would expect somebody of his wealth. He had a peripatetic education. He was obviously educated in the United States, but also in Switzerland and in Germany. As a young man in Germany, he developed an appreciation for art; actually a love for art, which informed his private life. But JP Morgan was really raised to be a banker in the early part of the 20th century. He was by far the wealthiest man on Wall Street. Well, maybe not the wealthiest, but certainly the most powerful. He was absolutely the most powerful man on Wall Street. He was called, “the Zeus of Wall Street.” And he really was involved in every aspect of finance in the United States in the first part of the 20th century.

Stig Brodersen  02:54

Now, if we go back to October 1907, the market crashed almost 50 percent from previous ESP. The panic might have been even worse if it hadn’t been for JP Morgan, and he pledged a huge sum of his money and convinced others to do the same. Perhaps you could tell us some of the factors about what caused the crash, but also the story about Morgan’s intervention in the market. It’s a very fascinating story.

Scott Nations  03:22

Before 1907, the United States was really beginning to understand that it was going to be the American Century. It was powerful. It was probably at that point, the most powerful country on the globe. And so, frankly, the United States got carried away with itself. And we’ll talk about some of the specifics of some of these crashes and how these shared some similarities in a bit. But you asked specifically about Morgan’s intervention in the market. This was before the US Federal Reserve existed. In fact, the Panic of 1907 was the cause the Federal Reserve was created. But if you were worried about the market; you were worried about the Panic of 1907, the person you went to see was JP Morgan because, again, he was so powerful. And one example occurred in the midst of the panic. On Thursday, the 24th of October of 1907, when the Press of the New York Stock Exchange went to JP Morgan. At the time, his office was directly across the street from the New York Stock Exchange. Very simply, “Mr. Morgan, we will have to close the exchange early. There’s simply too much selling.” And JP Morgan understood what that meant.

Scott Nations  04:37

His question was: How in the world do you ever reopen a stock market that you’ve been forced to close because there’s too much selling? And so, JP Morgan asked, “When do you normally close?” “Well, sir, we normally close at three o’clock, but we can’t get there. It’s too much sign.” He said, “Then, you will not close one minute early.” And his confidence was…it was not naked. He rounded up bankers in the Wall Street area. Got them all into his office. It was a time when if JP Morgan called, you came running. And he told the assembled bankers, “You have 15 minutes to raise $25 million to save the stock market.” $25 million back then was a colossal amount of money, but JP Morgan essentially said, “You have 15 minutes to raise this money or the stock market is going to close. And who knows when it will ever reopen?” And that’s just one specific story of his involvement. That’s not the first time he did something like that. Probably the most immediate, but within 15 minutes, they had raised actually more than $25 million. The officials were able to go on the floor and say, “We have $25 million to lend to investors, who are in trouble.” People were so desperate to get this money that the clerk, who was responsible for recording borrowers and amounts had his suit coat ripped off of him in the turmoil. So JP Morgan was really the man; the single man, who managed to save the stock market in 1907.

Preston Pysh  06:11

So Scott, you briefly mentioned that the Panic in 1907 was the reason for the creation of the Federal Reserve. Talk to us a little bit more about that idea.

Scott Nations  06:19

It became obvious to everybody after things had settled down after the Panic of 1907, the United States government needed a way to inject liquidity into the system and didn’t have it. And that there needed to be a lender of last resort, if you will, for the financial market. And that didn’t exist before 1907. And so, the Federal Reserve was created in 1913 because everybody realized, if nothing else, JP Morgan is not going to live forever. And we can’t rely on one man, one person to essentially bailout the stock market in times of stress.

Stig Brodersen  06:57

Let’s turn to the next crash, the crash of 1929. And to really understand what happened, we also have to understand how crazy the market behaved in 1927 and 1928. And I think you do a fantastic job of that in your book explaining everything leading up to the crash. In 1928, the Dow closed in 300, which probably to the listeners out there seems outrageously cheap, but that was definitely not the case. And this was at the end of the second biggest two-year run ever. It was actually more than 90%. So Scott, what drove the all-time highs leading up to the crash in 1929?

Scott Nations  07:38

In the late 1920s, actually much of the entire decade, but particularly in the last half of the 1920s, there were simply a euphoria at work in the United States. It was not just financial. It was…it had to do with the United States’ place in the world. And from a military point of view, also from an industrial point of view. So as you pointed out, in 1927 and 1928, the stock market gained more than 90%. We had come out of World War I. We felt great about our place in the world, but there were also some other things that were…for example, in a situation like that; with an economy roaring like that; a stock market booming like that, you would expect the Federal Reserve, which was new at the time, you would expect them to raise rates. One Federal Reserve officer at one time described it as “taking away the punch bowl, when the party really got going.” And the Federal Reserve did not do that. In fact, they kept rates low. They kept rates too low, largely because they wanted to help England return to the gold standard after World War I. That was a tragic mistake–keeping rates that low. There was also a roster of new technologies that were unleashed following World War I. Radio would probably be the biggest, but also the automobile industry really got going; really came into its own. And then, America just felt good about itself. And so, all of those things spawn this euphoria that eventually made its way into the stock market. And the stock market got carried away with itself.

Stig Brodersen  09:13

It’s very interesting. And you mentioned that before here with the Federal Reserve. Now, could you talk more about which actions did it take? You already, again, briefly touched upon that. But if you should outline and put some years on like before, during and then, especially after the crash. It was very interesting, the type of monetary policy that the Federal Reserve decided to carry out.

Scott Nations  09:34

The Federal Reserve really started making errors in policy in 1924, when they were essentially begged by the British government to help them get back on a gold standard by lowering interest rates here in the United States. And they did that. And they continued that sort of policy, and eventually the Federal Reserve simply lost control of the monetary situation in the United States. There was so much money being made by industry and individuals that they were happy to loan that money, the stock market speculators, and that’s sometimes called, “the call money market.” Call money is money that’s available to investors to speculate with, and for a long time that money had been provided by banks. And now, outside investors were providing it, and they did it in droves because interest rates were so low, otherwise. And the bubble was undeniable. In the late 1920s, American brokerage firms paid a $100,000 to put a brokerage office on a single transatlantic liner, the Barren Garea. A $100,000 just to open up; the opportunity to open a brokerage office. Another brokerage firm opened a tent at the US Amateur Golf Open in Pebble Beach. The stock market was such a phenomenon, and the rally was such a phenomenon that people didn’t want to get away from it. 

2. Latest success from Google’s AI group: Controlling a fusion reactor – John Timmer

As the world waits for construction of the largest fusion reactor yet, called ITER, smaller reactors with similar designs are still running. These reactors, called tokamaks, help us test both hardware and software. The hardware testing helps us refine things like the materials used for container walls or the shape and location of control magnets.

But arguably, the software is the most important. To enable fusion, the control software of a tokamak has to monitor the state of the plasma it contains and respond to any changes by making real-time adjustments to the system’s magnets. Failure to do so can result in anything from a drop in energy (which leads to the failure of any fusion) to seeing the plasma spill out of containment (and scorch the walls of the container).

Getting that control software right requires a detailed understanding of both the control magnets and the plasma the magnets manipulate, or, it would be more accurate to say, getting that control software right has required. Because today, Google’s DeepMind AI team is announcing that its software has been successfully trained to control a tokamak…

3. EE380 Talk [on cryptocurrencies and their externalities] – David Rosenthal

“Blockchain” is unfortunately a term used to describe two completely different technologies, which have in common only that they both use a Merkle Tree data structure. Permissioned blockchains have a central authority controlling which network nodes can add blocks to the chain, and are thus not decentralized, whereas permissionless blockchains such as Bitcoin’s do not; this difference is fundamental:

• Permissioned blockchains can use well-established and relatively efficient techniques such as Byzantine Fault Tolerance, and thus don’t have significant carbon footprints. These techniques ensure that each node in the network has performed the same computation on the same data to arrive at the same state for the next block in the chain. This is a consensus mechanism.
• In principle each node in a permissionless blockchain’s network can perform a different computation on different data to arrive at a different state for the next block in the chain. Which of these blocks ends up in the chain is determined by a randomized, biased election mechanism. For example, in Proof-of-Work blockchains such as Bitcoin’s a node wins election by being the first to solve a puzzle. The length of time it takes to solve the puzzle is random, but the probability of being first is biased, it is proportional to the compute power the node uses. Initially, because of network latencies, nodes may disagree as to the next block in the chain, but eventually it will become clear which block gained the most acceptance among the nodes. This is why a Bitcoin transaction should not be regarded as final until it is six blocks from the head.

Discussing “blockchains” and their externalities without specifying permissionless or permissioned is meaningless, they are completely different technologies. One is 30 years old, the other is 13 years old.

Because there is no central authority controlling who can participate, decentralized consensus systems must defend against Sybil attacks, in which the attacker creates a majority of seemingly independent participants which are secretly under his control. The defense is to ensure that the reward for a successful Sybil attack is less than the cost of mounting it. Thus participation in a permissionless blockchain must be expensive, so miners must be reimbursed for their costly efforts. There is no central authority capable of collecting funds from users and distributing them to the miners in proportion to these efforts. Thus miners’ reimbursement must be generated organically by the blockchain itself; a permissionless blockchain needs a cryptocurrency to be secure.

Because miners’ opex and capex costs cannot be paid in the blockchain’s cryptocurrency, exchanges are required to enable the rewards for mining to be converted into fiat currency to pay these costs. Someone needs to be on the other side of these sell orders. The only reason to be on the buy side of these orders is the belief that “number go up”. Thus the exchanges need to attract speculators in order to perform their function.

Thus a permissionless blockchain requires a cryptocurrency to function, and this cryptocurrency requires speculation to function.

Why are economies of scale a fundamental problem for decentralized systems? Participation must be expensive, and so will be subject to economies of scale. They will drive the system to centralize. So the expenditure in attempting to ensure that the system is decentralized is a futile waste…

…The costs that Proof-of-Stake imposes to make participation expensive are the risk of loss and the foregone liquidity of the “stake”, an escrowed amount of the cryptocurrency itself. This has two philosophical problems:

• It isn’t just that the Gini coefficients of cryptocurrencies are extremely high[4], but that Proof-of-Stake makes this a self-reinforcing problem. Because the rewards for mining new blocks, and the fees for including transactions in blocks, flow to the HODL-ers in proportion to their HODL-ings, whatever Gini coefficient the systems starts out with will always increase. Proof-of-Stake isn’t effective at decentralization.
• Cryptocurrency whales are believers in “number go up”. The eventual progress of their coin “to the moon!” means that the temporary costs of staking are irrelevant.

There are also a host of severe technical problems. The accomplished Ethereum team have been making a praiseworthy effort to overcome them for more than 7 years and are still more than a year away from being able to migrate off Proof-of-Work.

4. Geoffrey Moore – Building Gorilla Businesses – Patrick O’Shaughnessy and Geoffrey Moore 

[00:03:07] Patrick: Geoffrey, your books were some of my earliest education in the world of the competitive landscape of technology. I’d actually start at the end in terms of how I think about your work, which is with the concept of a gorilla as a business. Everyone’s going to know, Crossing the Chasm. We’re going to talk a lot about all the insight from that book and that thinking. But I think the gorilla as a concept is for me a great unifying theme of your work, aspirationally we all are going to want to be gorillas or invest in gorillas, or start gorillas at some point. Maybe just begin there. What do you mean by a gorilla company? Define that for us to begin.

[00:03:43] Geoffrey: The simplest definition is a market share leader in a powerful category. In order to sort of take that model apart, we created something called the hierarchy of powers. The idea behind the hierarchy of powers was, go back to investing. If you want to invest in a successful company, you want to invest in one that has more competitive advantage than the alternative investments. How would you actually analyze competitive advantage? That led us to something called the hierarchy of powers. This is the core investment model by on the Gorilla Game and a book called Living on the Fault Line and Going Forward. The hierarchy of power says the most powerful power is what we call category power. It has to do with the technology adoption life cycle, and where is the category that this company specializes in monetizing, where is it in its adoption life cycle? For most businesses most of the time it’s on what we call main stream. In other words, the category’s been established for a decade or more, there’s budget for it. It’s settled out. There’s a pecking order of vendors in the category and the category probably grows close to GDP growth rates. Value investors spend most of their life with categories in that world.

Tech investors, and my whole world is tech. We invest at the beginning of these life cycles. Sometimes before this, there’s not even a category, it doesn’t even exist yet, it’s called category creation. But the key moment in that category development life cycle or what they call the technology adoption life cycle, is when all of a sudden the world goes all in on the new paradigm. The way we went all in on cloud computing, the way we went all in on mobile apps, the way we’ve gone all in on streaming video. When it goes all in what happens is, all of a sudden the world which in a prior year did not have budget for this category, now everybody has budget for this category. And so it creates this huge secular uplift and spend, we called it the tornado. We had a book called Inside the Tornado, huge secular. That’s category power. If you are in that category, that rising tide floats all boats, that is the number one predictor of your future success for the next several years. That’s why you see these incredible valuations in companies that are losing money because the investing community said, yeah, but they’re in the hot category. Having said that, the next thing we said is, well, that category is going to sort out with a pecking order. The power law of returns from that pecking order is, the gorilla is going to get the lion share or the gorilla’s share if you will.

Number two will probably get half of what the gorilla gets. And number three will get half of what the chimp gets. And so that led to gorilla to chimp monkey sort of returns. And so the idea behind the Gorilla Game was, you would see a category going into tornado. You would buy a portfolio of companies that could win. As you saw who was winning, you would gradually exit the ones that are monkeys and chimps and put more and more money into your gorilla. And then you would hold the gorilla because the gorilla’s power position, what happens is the ecosystem forms around the gorilla, which instantiates the gorilla permanently in that category. Now you can screw it up, but in general, it’s not just that the gorillas powerful during the tornado, even on main street, the world is now organized permanently around the gorillas de facto standards and whatever. There was just a clear sense of the sooner you could identify the gorilla and then concentrate in the gorilla, the better it would go…

…[00:09:43] Patrick: I want to come back to category creation and how you think about the idea of a category itself, but this is a great excuse to talk about your notion of architecture. If we were to think about a two by two matrix or something with open and closed architecture on one access and proprietary and non proprietary on the other, this is for me, a critical unlocking idea. Salesforce is a great example. Most power full version of a gorilla. I love the litmus test that you never get fired for blank. The blanks are the gorillas. But talk us through this concept of architecture. Why is this so important within a category? What does it mean? And what does that two by two matrix mean?

[00:10:19] Geoffrey: The difference between open architecture and closed architecture was, Apple has a very closed architecture. You don’t participate in Apples architecture. Whereas Android has a very open architecture. Okay. The idea is, do you want other people to complete your solution? The cable box was contained, but the Roku is an open architecture. In general, I think originally it was all closed. The IBM architecture was just IBM. DEC was just DEC. The Sun just Sun. No, actually it was Sun, they began to do open architecture. They would buy their storage from a different vendor or you’d get your operating system from the Berkeley operating system. That was the beginning of open architecture. I think what we learned during the last 20 years is in general open architecture beats closed architecture, because closed architectures always have a single point of failure. Meaning if any part of the closed architecture doesn’t work, you can’t ship. In an open architecture if you have a failure of one component, you can get it from another vendor and get back in the game.

Now open architecture is harder to manage for quality, and so that was always the challenge, but that was closed versus open. Proprietary versus non-proprietary, has to do with who gets to control the next release of this thing. Open source is not proprietary. Open source, there’s no locking. But proprietary there is locking. And so the most powerful idea was proprietary open architectures, where you had proprietary control of an ecosystem that involved other companies, but they had to eventually play to your standard. That’s what gave the gorilla the most power. Because now what the gorilla can do is, you have to stay with me, I’m a market mover. I don’t just move my own products. I move everybody’s products. By the way, by staying with me, you leave my competitor behind. Every time I differentiate from my competitor, then you conform to my standards, you just made yourself incompatible with their standards…

…[00:16:40] Patrick: What’s that been like watching more recently, if we think about the most pure play enabling technologies today? It might be the API companies, the Stripe, the Twilio, the Okta’s of the world. Well, how did those companies solve this problem of you need the actual use case, the actual application? Amazon AWS is enabling technology, but it was its own best first customer on the retail side. So that application problem was solved by them. How do you approach these pure play, hire this API for this one function in your application type company?

[00:17:09] Geoffrey: It’s typically around the use case. Like Okta, I think started with single sign on. People were just saying, this is such a pain in the neck, that I have to sign into this, have sign. Okta said, okay, we’ll do single sign on. And then once you did single sign on, you thought, well, wait a minute, we’re sitting in a very interesting piece of real state here. There’s a bunch of highways coming together. Maybe we should have some service stations and a restaurant, we should build some hotels. That’s what Okta did. But enabling infrastructure always starts with a problematic application use case that you can’t solve with existing infrastructure.

And so initially, first of all it looks like, well, your market is so small, there’s only this one use case and there’s only this one application and you’re building all this technology to make that better. Are you sure you want to do that? And if that was the only return, the answer would be, well, no, it doesn’t make any sense at all. But if you’re say, no, that’s my point of entry. And then expand, we called it the bowling alley phase of the technology adoption life cycle, where you’d say I, okay, I’ve got my first use case in my first industry. Can I get a second use case in that industry? Or can I find that use case in the second industry? Either way you were going to expand outward. And then at some point, if you can get enough expansion, the world goes well, hang on, this is the new infrastructure. That’s when the tornado starts.

5. Twitter thread on the importance of alignment within a company – Jean-Michel Lemieux

Another common question I’m answering working with scaling tech companies is…

Q. What’s the worst leadership advice you’ve heard?

A. By far the worst is “Hire great people and get out of their way”. 

Let me explain… 🧵 (1/32)

2/ After a year leading engineering at Atlassian @scottfarkas told me in my perf review that I was doing ok but wondered why I didn’t talk and involve him more regularly.

3/ My answer was “I thought that was my job — to take away all this crap from you and let you do your CEO thing. I thought you wanted me to be autonomous. I need autonomy.” He said sure, but you should cheat “and use my brain to help you”

4/ At that point I changed some habits, involved him more in different ways, got over the autonomy complex, and we got a lot more done together. I learned a lot and we made better decisions.

5/ Since then I’ve hired many leaders and had to repeat the same conversation that @scottfarkas had with me over and over and over. Most people default to expect the wrong version of autonomy.

6/ These experiences sent me down a multi-year reflection. Why did I feel like success was maximizing autonomy and showing that I could take care of things without bugging my boss?

7/ I prioritized autonomy over alignment. It’s a million times easier to measure and feel high autonomy than it is to measure high alignment.

8/ What I’ve learned since, way too slowly, is that companies are performing a monumental balancing act trying to decide what 98% of their problem space to focus, what to ignore, and how to ship. That’s your strategy. And it’s complex, ambiguous, and changing.

9/ The hardest part of building a company is alignment on strategy and clearly communicating it. Think about it this way, a 1 degree deviation in course of a rocket heading to the sun means it will miss the sun by 1.2 million miles. A lack of alignment compounds quickly…

…14/ There’s mass confusion on what to align on? Most people just want to know the very high level goals. And this causes most companies that I work with to align superficially. Their strategy is a superficial incomplete map, they don’t remove scope, communicate clearly, etc…

…17/ The biggest alignment problem is the gap between how much people think they have to align versus what they should align on. There are many strategic decisions in the “how”. eg, what technologies to use, new system vs integration, build in core or in an app.

18/ Alignment forces you to talk with your boss and peers to: – define a strategy, narrow focus – communicate it clearly together – and ensure you’re hired enough people who “get it” and can fill in the implementation details with their teams.

19/ So…when you hire someone or you have a new leader, your number one job is alignment. And you do this continuously. It’s definitely never going to be “hire them and get out of their way”.

6. Owning the funnel – Lillian Li

Since I started writing Chinese Characteristics, I’ve been puzzled by a few observations: why is there a fanatic fixation on internet traffic? Why do firms distinguish between private and public traffic? Why did every consumer app become a super-app? And why are B2B offerings are going the same way? Why is every player worth their salt is moving into payments now? Finally, why do Alibaba’s acquisitions tend to languish while Tencent’s investments tend to thrive?

My current framing for Chinese tech’s underlying logic is that every player is always working on owning the awareness-to-fulfilment funnel (or customer journey). This is a descriptive product strategy that builds on a foundational ethos of owning the user. It outlines the offerings that a tech platform needs to provide to achieve that goal. It looks like Western players are converging in the same direction, Shopify and Google’s move into payments and Facebook’s store fronts are all part of the trend.

This behaviour pattern is stark in Chinese tech is for two reasons. The first is that a defined geographical market constrains Chinese tech. It’s no secret that Chinese companies tend to struggle with internationalisation. Unlike their western counterparts, who can build sizable companies being the best-of-breed for different geographies, Chinese tech companies have to focus on owning the user (and funnel) to grow. As I mentioned in my Bilibili piece:

Relative to western consumer tech companies, who tend to focus on “serving a function” as their core mission, Chinese companies tend to focus on “owning the user” as their core mission (though the initial wedge into the consumer is always through a function – Meituan through food delivery, Ofo through bike-sharing, etc.). Owning the end-user and their attention is what led to the rise of the super apps and Bilibili is no different….Put another way; they want to own the Chinese Gen Z population’s attention through providing a comprehensive entertainment service rather than be the platform that caters for all Chinese UGC video needs. 

In an ecosystem where hundreds of competitors spring up overnight, functions and features get commoditised as soon as they are made. Owning the user by providing the whole monetisation funnel is the closest thing to a moat.

The second reason is Tencent. Tencent is the default operating system for the Chinese population, and it has a particular trait. It doesn’t rely on advertising to monetise. What started as a shrewd product decision to prioritise the user experience has had a lasting impact on the nature of internet traffic in China. Inventory on WeChat is scarce, and it commands a premium from advertisers. In chat, links are earned, Tencent’s anointed portfolio can share links, while the associates of arch-nemesis Alibaba and Bytedance get blocked for spam. Baidu has been stagnating in their ad revenue strategy from lacklustre search (owning the funnel means a walled garden approach). When traffic hegemons are capricious, everyone suffers.

Regardless of the origins, once some tech players have started the game of owning their proprietary funnel (or user), everyone has to move in the same direction just to keep up.

7. Six Questions For Derek Thompson – Morgan Housel and Derek Thompson

What aren’t people talking about enough?

For the world, carbon removal technology. It’s the most obviously important nascent technology on the planet, given the fact that even if we shift immediately to 100% renewable energy, that still leaves all the carbon dioxide we’ve already spewed into the atmosphere, which will stay there for decades. We have to find a way to vacuum the skies to avoid the worst effects of global warming…

…What do you want to know about the economy that we can’t know?

What is the right level and distribution of income to maximize total national happiness, both now and in the future? The time element of the question is important. If you waved a magic wand and made it so that everybody had equalish income today, that would clearly eliminate a lot of misery. But if you enforced equal incomes permanently, you’d create a lot of new problems. Where are the rewards for effort? Where are the incentives for hard work, or invention, or problem-solving? How do you fix the issue of free-loading, or resentment between workers and loafers in the utopia of pure and permanent equality? Mandating perfect and permanent equality doesn’t work. But it’s really, really hard to determine what level of inequality is “right.”

---

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), Apple, Meta Platforms (parent of Facebook), Okta, Shopify, Tencent, and Twilio. Holdings are subject to change at any time.

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

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

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

Here are the articles for the week ending 13 February 2022:

1. The Reason Putin Would Risk War – Anne Applebaum

But of all the questions that repeatedly arise about a possible Russian invasion of Ukraine, the one that gets the least satisfactory answers is this one: Why?

Why would Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, attack a neighboring country that has not provoked him? Why would he risk the blood of his own soldiers? Why would he risk sanctions, and perhaps an economic crisis, as a result? And if he is not really willing to risk these things, then why is he playing this elaborate game?…

…But although Putin missed the euphoria of the ’80s, he certainly took full part in the orgy of greed that gripped Russia in the ’90s. Having weathered the trauma of the Berlin Wall, Putin returned to the Soviet Union and joined his former colleagues in a massive looting of the Soviet state. With the assistance of Russian organized crime as well as the amoral international offshore-money-laundering industry, some of the former Soviet nomenklatura stole assets, took the money out of the country, hid it abroad, and then brought the cash back and used it to buy more assets. Wealth accumulated; a power struggle followed. Some of the original oligarchs landed in prison or exile. Eventually Putin wound up as the top billionaire among all the other billionaires—or at least the one who controls the secret police.

This position makes Putin simultaneously very strong and very weak, a paradox that many Americans and Europeans find hard to understand. He is strong, of course, because he controls so many levers of Russia’s society and economy. Try to imagine an American president who controlled not only the executive branch—including the FBI, CIA, and NSA—but also Congress and the judiciary; The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Dallas Morning News, and all of the other newspapers; and all major businesses, including Exxon, Apple, Google, and General Motors.

Putin’s control comes without legal limits. He and the people around him operate without checks and balances, without ethics rules, without transparency of any kind. They determine who can be a candidate in elections, and who is allowed to speak in public. They can make decisions from one day to the next—sending troops to the Ukrainian border, for example—after consulting no one and taking no advice. When Putin contemplates an invasion, he does not have to consider the interest of Russian businesses or consumers who might suffer from economic sanctions. He doesn’t have to take into account the families of Russian soldiers who might die in a conflict that they don’t want. They have no choice, and no voice.

And yet at the same time, Putin’s position is extremely precarious. Despite all of that power and all of that money, despite total control over the information space and total domination of the political space, Putin must know, at some level, that he is an illegitimate leader. He has never won a fair election, and he has never campaigned in a contest that he could lose. He knows that the political system he helped create is profoundly unfair, that his regime not only runs the country but owns it, making economic and foreign-policy decisions that are designed to benefit the companies from which he and his inner circle personally profit. He knows that the institutions of the state exist not to serve the Russian people, but to steal from them. He knows that this system works very well for a few rich people, but very badly for everyone else. He knows, in other words, that one day, prodemocracy activists of the kind he saw in Dresden might come for him too. 

2. Classic 06: Elon Musk – Stig Brodersen and Preston Pysh

Preston Pysh  14:41

One of the key points that I felt was really important to highlight his childhood was his desire to read. They talked about in the book how he had pretty much gone to the local public library and almost had read every single book inside of that library. They described hs characteristic, “If you saw Elon Musk at any given point in time, he probably had a book in his hand, and he was reading it.” And I think that that’s really important for people to understand and to know that a guy like Elon Musk doesn’t become as intelligent as he is. And we’ll get into some of this stuff later on in the discussion here.

15:15

But the one takeaway that I had is this guy is brilliant. He is absolutely a wicked smart dude. And I attribute most of that to the fact that he is a total learning machine. And that’s such a common thread that we’ve found with all these billionaires that we study. They are total learning machines. They are learning something every single day. They’re learning something new. They’re studying things that might not even seem like they’re correlated. And we definitely got that at a very extreme level with Elon Musk, and I find that to be extremely important for people to understand…

...Preston Pysh  24:58

It was around 200 million, I want to say. From the sale of PayPal off to eBay, based on the equity that he owned, he had a very large chunk of money at this point. He moves to Los Angeles, and he really wants to get into the space industry. And he has this idea to start his own space company. There’s some time in between here where he’s living in LA and really trying to figure out what is it that he really wants to do in space. And he’s in these different Mars societies. And he’s donating money to these research stations and things like that.

But in the end, he decides that he wants to start his own space rocket company and really go into the private space industry. Now, where I think the story was really awesome in the book. He talks about how he wants to go over to Russia and buy some of their rockets to start his own space company. So he goes over to Russia and he just has a really bad visit with them. And they really didn’t take him seriously because he’s like 29 years old. He’s still in his 20s at this point. He goes over to Russia and he’s like, “Yeah, I want to buy some of your rockets.” And they look at him like he’s absolutely crazy and weren’t really playing ball really with him.

26:15

So on the flight back, he went over there with some of his close friends that he was wanting to start this space business with… And on the way back, he pulls out his laptop computer and has like all the components listed for basically building his own rocket. And he looks at his friends and he says, “We don’t need to buy this rocket from Russia. Let’s just do our own. Let’s just make our own.” And I think his buddies were looking at him like, “This guy’s going off the deep end.” He’s in these Mars society wanting to the initial thought was let’s put a plant on Mars. So we can say that we put life on Mars. And just this discussion in the book was absolutely fascinating. I think anybody who would read this part would really get a kick out of it.

But anyway, Elon was not in the least bit deterred by how crazy it might be to start his own rocket company and create his own space company from the ground up. I mean, literally, from the ground up and not be buying any of the components from anybody. He’s just like, “We’ll make it all and we’ll just do it.”

Stig Brodersen  27:20

I think it was just so much fun because what people don’t realize that if they listen to the book is that he has a very detailed plan of how to colonize Mars, like, “This year, there should be so many inhabitants. And this year, we should fly this out to Mars.” And if this came from anyone else than Elon Musk, I don’t know… The FBI will probably arrest that guy because he thought he was crazy. He is one that would harm other people. I don’t know. He just sounds so crazy.

But the interesting thing is that all of these things and we were talking about Tesla, and later on, but all these things that he said that would happen, actually happened. I mean, I can see why people would think he would be crazy with his plans about building a rocket because no one does that. Usually, you have countries doing this and it would take decades for countries to do it. But he just flies out to Russia with a friend of his to buy rockets. And when they said no, he just built his own. And he just seems so unrealistic that’s even possible.

Preston Pysh  28:23

You know, the thing I didn’t know before reading this book is I just thought the mission of SpaceX was really to pump all these private satellites into space and be profitable and bid on government work and stuff like that. But that wasn’t it. The mission of SpaceX is to colonize Mars. And I mean, they say that in a very straight face manner. Like that’s the thing that I think is so crazy. When I read that in the book, and I heard that for the first time, I was pretty much flabbergasted like, “Oh, that that was probably not right.” And then it keeps coming back up and keeps coming up. And I’m telling you, folks, the mission of SpaceX is to colonize Mars and to put human beings in colonies on Mars. That’s what Elon is wanting to do.

In fact, that mission statement is so strong for him, that he will not take the company public until that mission is pretty much assured. He will not take the company public. So that’s just totally… I find that to be total insanity. Okay, I really do I find that to be totally nuts because I just don’t think that you would find too many people in this world that would want to do that. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe I’m out in the left field, but I don’t think you’d find too many people that would want to do that. Let alone would have the money to pay to go do that and live in those conditions. I just think that’d be really dismal. But what are your thoughts on that? Is he out to launch?

3. NZS Capital Part II: What’s Going on in Today’s Markets? (Plus more Semiconductors!) – Ben Gilbert, David Rosenthal, Brad Slingerland, and Jon Bathgate

David: Speaking of, we were talking before the episode, the reason we wanted to do this with you guys is from the first episode we did with NZS, your whole way of using complexity theory to think about investing in companies and markets is fascinating. I love it. So many of our listeners loved it and we thought because it’s so different from everything else we’ve heard. Let’s talk to you guys about what is going on right now here in late January 2022 as markets are different than they were a month ago.

Ben: Let me tee up with what David means by right now. We’re recording this at 9:00 AM Pacific on January 27. Right now, the S&P year to date is down about 9.5%, probably rebounded a little bit this morning, and the NASDAQ, which everyone knows is more tech-focused, down about 15%. Quite a start to 2022 after a hell of a run in 2020 and 2021.

By the time you hear this, who knows because it seems like every cycle in every part of the business has gotten shorter and shorter, but that is where we are today. Brad, maybe let’s start with you. This is an enormous question so you can choose to answer however you’d like, but what is going on and how did we get here?

Brad: I want to go all the way back a million years in time, but we probably couldn’t.

David: This is Acquired.

Brad: Around the evolution of human psychology. Just to not go quite back that far. I mean, obviously, we had the pandemic started, we’re coming up on two years on that. There was this initial fear that Jon references, I think everybody probably remembers, it does feel like a lifetime ago. Then this just unleashing of incredible coordinated global economic stimulus, both fiscal and monetary in form of low rates here in the US, literally checks being sent to people.

There is this period of uncertainty in 2020 that just exploded into this period of spending in 2021. You look at consumer spending 2021 over 2019 and it’s like probably 18% more I think is the recent Commerce Department data for the US. That’s […] 2020 but versus pre-pandemic levels, there’s just all this money. The way we’re spending it, where we’ve spent it as consumers has been in different places. Instead of going on vacation, we’ve been fixing up our houses, so it’s caused all this sort of acute demand for a lot of things and then not demand for these other things.

The economy just can’t turn. We are so global. We’ve been on the sort of 30-year globalization trend where the supply chain is getting more spread out, and in a lot of ways more fragile and you just can’t get your hands on things. This huge burst in demand last year caused this big pickup in inflation. I think one of the latest numbers is 6% or 7%, and some of it is transitory, some of it is maybe a little bit structural and we can come back to that.

Now the governments are saying, okay, well, we gave everybody way too much money. We gave way too much stimulus out there in the economy, and we’re going to reel it back in. The main tool they have to do that is to raise interest rates. They’ve signaled raising interest rates—depending on how you want to read the tea leaves—maybe four times.

Ben: When they’re raising interest rates, I think I haven’t seen, obviously they’ve been taking on more and more on their balance sheet every month. They’ve been buying hundreds of billions of dollars in assets and I think that’s tapering. Have they ever announced any plan to start shrinking the balance sheet of the Fed along with these interest rate raises?

Brad: I think that ultimately, the Fed would like to stop the experiment of running a massive balance sheet. Suddenly, there are a lot of questions on certainty around how that plays out. You end up with this scenario where no rates are going up and then there’s this tension in the stock market between people who think this is appropriate, inflation is the root of all evil, it’s structural, and it’s here to last and we’ve got to just kill it.

The people who think well, actually, the economy’s quite fragile. We’re still in a pandemic, people are still sick. There’s a lot of things going on. If we all of a sudden just hoover all of the money back out as quickly as possible, then that’s probably as bad as what the situation was, to begin with. The market always wants to find some level of homeostasis.

One of the things we learned from complex adaptive systems is to really think biologically rather than computationally, which is the way a lot of market participants think. If we think about homeostasis, here in our body, we’re trying to constantly maintain our temperature right around 98.6 degrees, we’re trying to make sure we’re not hungry, and then we get enough sleep at night. All these things that our bodies regulate often without us knowing.

The market’s also trying to do this. It’s trying to come to a consensus on what do we think interest rates are going to be a year from now, 5 years from now, or 10 years from now? What do we think inflation is going to be? What do we think profit margins are going to be? What do we think is going to happen in emerging market growth versus developed market growth?

Most of the time, you can never reach equilibrium or homeostasis in a complex adaptive system. You can in a biological closed system like a human body, but most of the time, it’s constantly being perturbed. This idea of disequilibrium is the equilibrium is a concept from Brian Arthur, who sort of wrote a lot of the great texts, complexity economics, and wrote the original paper on compounding and network effects.

David: Increasing returns, right?

Brad: Sorry, increasing returns not network effects. The market, in particular right now, is struggling to find this homeostasis point, these extreme bouts of volatility up and down. The one thing the market needs to come to some sort of agreement on is what is the discount rate? What are interest rates? What should people use as their hurdle rate for the next 1, 3, 5, 10 years? Right now, there are two camps that are disagreeing on it. I think this creates tension, this sort of bouncing back and forth between these two equilibriums in the market.

That started in March of 2021, actually. It was the first time rates started to go up, growth stock started to come down. You can just see this sort of anti-correlation over the last 10 months now of rates going up, growth stocks coming down, and then we’re in this extreme phase right now.

It’s interesting if you look back, I’ve been through a few rate hike cycles in the market over the last 24 years now, I guess. There does tend to be this initial difficulty in finding an equilibrium fear over high growth, high multiple stocks, stocks that may not have current earnings, but people are banking on earnings in the future.

Then what happens is people tend to gravitate back towards the growth assets because they are the assets that are going to create the most value long term. We’re in this initial period of finding equilibrium or something as close to equilibrium as we can get, and then I would expect this to be no different from prior cycles where unless there’s something structural that we’re not aware of yet, people would be gravitating back towards growth assets.

Ben: As another way to put that—just to make sure I’m understanding it—for these companies without earnings but have high growth that got tremendous multiple expansion by public market investors over the last several years, that was the first place where investors got scared and were selling and created all this downward compression on the multiples so these prices dropped like crazy if this high growth, currently unprofitable, or currently not cash generating tech companies.

Those get sort of whacked the hardest first, but you’re saying ultimately if that’s where the growth is in terms of the companies that will become large and profitable in the future, then that’s a place also where there’s flight back there after the exhale of, okay, we’re safe.

Brad: Yeah, that tends to be what happens. One of the things we learned from complex adaptive systems is we can’t predict the future. I’m always sort of on thin ice when I say this happened in the past and so it might happen in the future. I don’t see any particular reason why at the right equilibrium point, these growth assets aren’t, again, more attractive.

Everybody should have their own sort of way of managing a portfolio of investments, whether it’s in public markets, real estate, or whatever you do. What we do is we balance two types of investments we call resilience and optionality and we’re able to shift back and forth. In times of volatility like today, we like to say, and I’m quoting Brinton here but we don’t see volatility as risk, we view it as an opportunity.

Come back to whatever the basics of your own investment strategy are, it’s a very personal thing for everybody and say, what are the two different types of businesses that I own and where should I be shifting the portfolio today? For us that would be, as the market is volatile, moving out are more resilient growth businesses into our more optional growth businesses.

4. Joy & Competitiveness & Culture – Ravi Gupta

Talking about culture is easy. Living it is hard. But I think at least part of the reason it’s so hard to live is because people often don’t take the time to rigorously define it.

Before we get to some thoughts about how you might go about defining your culture, we should talk about why culture is important.3

Earlier in my career, I thought young people talked about strategy and execution being important and old people talked about culture being important. I actually think they are both true. It’s just a timing difference. The thing that matters right now is the strategy and the execution. The thing that matters in the long term is the people who are setting that strategy and driving that execution. In my mind, the culture determines who self-selects to be those people over the long-term. So if you care about the people who will make the strategy and execution decisions in the moment beyond right now, you should care about culture.

I think of culture as the unwritten contract with your team. Here’s what matters to us. Here’s what will endure even if everything else changes. You should only put things in it that you will honor no matter what. With that in mind, I think it makes sense to only have one or two of these things.

5. How Do You Solve A Problem Like Inflation? – Stephanie Kelton

The second chapter of my book, The Deficit Myth, is titled ‘Think of Inflation.’ From the very beginning, MMT has rejected the conventional approach to fiscal sustainability. While mainstream economists were warning of a looming debt crisis here in America, MMT economists were explaining that the relevant constraint facing currency-issuing governments (like the US, the UK, or Japan) is inflation, not bond vigilantes or insolvency.1

It’s been a long time since the world’s major economies had to wrestle with the problem of high inflation. For most of the last decade—and longer in Japan’s case—central banks have been struggling to push inflation higher not lower.

Now that inflation is here—and running well above target in the US, the UK, Canada, across the Euro Area, and beyond—a fiery debate has erupted over what sent prices soaring and what should be done to rein them back in.

Some blame monetary policy—i.e. the Federal Reserve—for stoking the fire by holding interest rates too low for too long and for ‘pumping too much liquidity’ into the system via the Fed’s massive bond-buying program. Others mainly fault Congress and the White House—i.e. fiscal policy—for sending out too many checks to too many people for too many months, sparking an “excess aggregate demand” problem. Occasionally, someone will even assert that the run-up in inflation is the natural consequence of having embarked on an “MMT experiment,” by which they usually mean the combination of quantitative easing (QE) and massive deficit spending.

On one level, I think it’s fair to say that policymakers did experiment with MMT. But I’m not talking about about QE, which was never championed by MMT economists. What I mean is that the fiscal response to the pandemic differed in important ways from what was done in the wake of the Great Recession, when people like Larry Summers and Jason Furman were helping to shape the Obama administration’s (inadequate) economic policy. Back then, both men pushed hard for deficit reduction, with Furman touting a White House budget that would “show that we can live within our means” by bringing “spending down to the lowest share of the economy since Eisenhower was president.” He delivered those remarks in February 2011, when the unemployment rate (U3) stood at 9 percent and headline inflation (CPI-U) was running at just 2.1 percent.

But this time around, it looked like Congress—Democrats and Republicans—had grown more comfortable with the idea of allowing fiscal deficits to cushion the downturn and sustain the economic recovery. And it was the robust fiscal response that came out of the late-Trump/early-Biden administrations that reflected a shift toward a more enlightened understanding of our monetary system and the spending capacities of the federal government—i.e. MMT. Instead of cowering in fear of debt and deficits, as it did during the Obama years, Congress went big. Not once, not twice, but repeatedly, committing some $5 trillion in fiscal support in the first year of the pandemic alone…

…Alongside the debate over what caused the current bout of high inflation is a debate about how to resolve the problem. A number of people have asked me for the MMT solution. There isn’t one. Let me explain.

Before the pandemic, when inflation was consistently running below 2 percent, I was often asked what MMT would tell us to do if inflation ever became a problem. I have probably answered that question a hundred times, and I always try to separate my response into two parts.

The first part of the answer reminds people that the goal is to fend off inflation before it becomes a problem—i.e. the MMT framework aims to promote price stability. The second part of the answer addresses the question of how to deal with inflation after prices begin to accelerate.

Here are my favorite pre-emptive measures. First, instead of relying on a pool of unemployed workers (NAIRU) to keep inflation in check, MMT relies on a buffer stock of employed workers—and a wage anchor—to promote price stability. This has always been the first line of defense against inflation in the MMT framework. The idea is to create a new automatic stabilizer that triggers a powerful counter-cyclical response to changing economic conditions.4 Instead of allowing millions of people to fall into unemployment each time the economy falters, workers could transition into a public service job that replaces some or all of their lost income. The program enhances price stability by maintaining a supply of employable labor from which employers can hire (at a small premium) as conditions improve. The program facilitates bigger deficits (or smaller surpluses) when the economy softens and smaller deficits (or larger surpluses) as demand strengthens.5

The other way to fend off inflationary pressures before they emerge is to change the way Congress currently evaluates proposed legislation. Instead of asking the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to assess the budgetary impacts of a proposed legislation, lawmakers should seek to identify—and mitigate— any inflationary pressures before voting to authorize the spending (or tax cuts). As MMT economist Scott Fullwiler put it, this is about replacing the budget constraint with an inflation constraint.

6. Twitter thread on counter-intuitive investing truths – Max Koh

I’ve received a ton of crappy investing advice over the years. And I see even more here on Twitter. What I’m about to say will piss off some people. Don’t read if you’re easily agitated. Still here? Then grab a whiskey and here’s 25 investing “truths” that just ain’t so:

1. Picking individual stocks isn’t for everyone. 90% of people lack the temperament to be good investors. If seeing your net worth get eroded by 30% or more scares you… Then this is not the game you’re built for. It’ll cause you more pain than joy.  And you won’t last long

2. Diversification isn’t for idiots. People who diversify are those who acknowledge that they don’t know what the future holds. It’s healthy to have self doubt. The real idiot is the one who goes all in purely because you spent months deep diving the business.

3. Concentration isn’t an action. It’s an outcome. Concentration is mostly a result of letting your winners run. It’s an outcome that comes from great performance. It’s NOT something you do from day 1 based purely on your own blind faith (or ignorance)…

…9. A company can be a better buy at $200 instead of $20. When companies are much smaller, they’re less proven. But as they execute and their revenues grow, their market cap grows too. So a company can be a safer bet when it’s bigger. It’s all about the execution…

…12. Management is the most important moat of all. In the end, almost everything can and will be copied. What endures will be the culture and quality of people running the ship. That is much harder to replicate. Speaking of management… Find great leaders and teams who impress you with their character and values. You often find positive surprises when you invest in good quality managers. They also help you sleep better at night when your stock drops 50%.

13. Management is important, but execution is king. The quality of the people matters. But make sure the numbers align with the narrative. For great companies with great leaders, you should see a consistent trend in their key metrics. (continued…) Other than some hiccups along the way… The overall direction of the business and metrics should be moving up. Otherwise, something is amiss. I get suspicious if the management says a lot but numbers are taking a long time to show. Execution is everything…

…17. Everyone talks about product-market fit. Nobody talks about investor-portfolio fit. Even if you own the best companies, you could still lose $$. Because your portfolio may not be constructed in a way that suits your unique personality. (continued…) To endure drawdowns and hold through… Your portfolio must fit your specific risk profile and time horizon. And you only learn whether your portfolio is suitable for you during  corrections. The market is an expensive place to find out who you really are.

7. The Attention Span. “Racehorses and Psychopaths.” – Tom Morgan

Cognitive biases are not a particularly interesting topic to me. Just learning about biases doesn’t seem to change people’s behavior much. But I was fascinated by an excellent recent review of Julia Galef’s new book The Scout Mindset (below). Scott Siskind writes:

“Of the fifty-odd biases discovered by Kahneman, Tversky, and their successors, forty-nine are cute quirks, and one is destroying civilization. This last one is confirmation bias – our tendency to interpret evidence as confirming our pre-existing beliefs instead of changing our minds.”

Why is confirmation bias “destroying civilization?” I think it’s super helpful to step back for a second and examine this idea through the universal framework of map and territory. Consciousness exists on a spectrum from pure abstraction (map) to pure engagement (territory).

Galef’s Scout Mindset sets out to remove information to provide a clearer view of the territory. Soldier Mindset just adds more confirmations to make the map more elaborate, regardless of its accuracy.

The really, really dark side here is that the stronger an abstraction, often an outright lie, the more motivating it can be for tribal behavior. The soldier metaphor is doubly-appropriate. Taken to its most horrifying extreme, war and genocide is facilitated by abstraction. Beyond direct kinship bonds, we have developed common coordinating fictions like nationalities. We went from being able to mobilize a tribe of hundreds, to nations of millions. How many people do you personally think you’d be able to convince to risk their life for you? As the author of Sapiens, Yuval Noah Harari, puts it: “you could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.” A motivating abstraction has to take over at the cognitive limits of empathy, beyond who you can really know and love personally. And yet we can compete and kill more easily by stripping universal humanity from our enemies by turning them into an out-group.

The single passage I have thought of most as I ponder the cultural events of the last two years, and last two thousand years, is from Karen Stenner:

“All the available evidence indicates that exposure to difference, talking about difference, and applauding difference – the hallmarks of liberal democracy – are the surest ways to aggravate those who are innately intolerant, and to guarantee the increased expression of their predispositions in manifestly intolerant attitudes and behaviours. Paradoxically, then, it would seem that we can best limit intolerance of difference by parading, talking about, and applauding our sameness.”

Social movements that create more in-groups are less likely to succeed than ones that emphasize our universal humanity. There’s a remarkable study where participants were shown a video of a hand being stabbed, while their empathic response was measured by fMRI. They found that the empathic response was larger when participants viewed a painful event occurring to a hand labeled with their own in-group, rather than a hand labeled with a different out-group. All it took was a single word emphasizing difference to change how people felt about others experiencing pain.

---

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 PayPal and Tesla. Holdings are subject to change at any time.

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 06 February 2022:

1. Oral History Interview: Morris Chang – SEMI, The Computer History Museum and Morris Chang

Q: The idea really wasn’t very well received in the industry at that time.

MC: No. It was very poorly received. Well, people just dismissed it, you know, “What the hell is Taiwan doing? What the hell is Morris Chang doing?” They really didn’t think that it was going to go anywhere. There was no market because there was very little fabless industry, almost none. No fabless industry. So who are you going to sell these wafers to? Who are you going to manufacture the wafers for? Of course, the obvious answer was the companies that already existed at that time, the Intels, and TIs, Motorolas, and so on. Now, those companies knew that they would let you manufacture their wafers only when they didn’t have the capacity, or when they didn’t want to manufacture the stuff themselves anymore. Now, when they didn’t have the capacity, and asked you to do the manufacturing, then as soon as they got the capacity, they would stop orders to you, so it couldn’t be a stable market. And when they didn’t want to make the wafers anymore, well, the chance was that it was losing money for them. The product was losing money for them. And so what do you want to do? Do you want to take over the loss, you know? And so that wouldn’t be a very good market either.

So the conclusion at that time, the conventional conclusion was that there was no market. Maybe this idea, this pure-play foundry idea, exploited the only strength you have, which is manufacturing, but there’s no market for it. That’s why it was so poorly thought of. What very few people saw, and I can’t tell you that I saw the rise of the fabless industry, I only hoped for it. But I probably had better reasons to hope for it than people at Intel, and TI, and Motorola, etc because I was now standing outside. When I was at TI and General Instrument, I saw a lot of IC designers wanting to leave and set up their own business, but the only thing, or the biggest thing that stopped them from leaving those companies was that they couldn’t raise enough money to form their own company. Because at that time, it was thought that every company needed manufacturing, needed wafer manufacturing, and that was the most capital intensive part of a semiconductor company, of an IC company. And I saw all those people wanting to leave, but being stopped by the lack of ability to raise a lot of money to build a wafer fab. So I thought that maybe TSMC, a pure-play foundry, could remedy that. And as a result of us being able to remedy that then those designers would successfully form their own companies, and they will become our customers, and they will constitute a stable and growing market for us…

…Q: Was there ever a time when it looked like TSMC, or the dedicated foundry idea would not work?

MC: Oh, yeah, I mean the first few years were not easy, but look, the investors had already put in so much money, and we never had any thought of failing. And in fact, we only had two loss years in all our history. We had a loss year in 1987, the first year that we started, and we again had a loss year in 1990. I mean the first few years were pretty tough, but from ’91 on, we just grew without looking back. The year 2000, that was a tough year for a lot of people. Yes, it was a tough year for us too, but we were profitable, 2000, 2001. We have not lost any money, and we don’t intend to lose any money from 1991 on.

Q: In your view, why has the Taiwan foundry industry been successful?

MC: Well, when you say, “Why has our foundry industry been so successful?,” I have to change that. Actually as of two years ago, some analyst made a calculation…TSMC, up to that point, accumulatory, had made 110 percent of the total pure-play foundry industries’ profit. That means our profit exceeded all other people’s losses by 10 percent. Yes, I guess that’s what it meant. So when you say, “Why is the foundry industry so successful…,” maybe you should change your question to, “Why has TSMC been so successful?”  

2. Bored Ape Yacht Club Artist Says Compensation ‘Definitely Not Ideal’ – Matthew Gault

The people behind the BAYC collection, Yuga Labs, have made millions. But someone had to design the now-iconic apes. Every grin and hat and disinterested eye was lovingly crafted by artists before it was fed into an algorithm. In a new interview at Rolling Stone, BAYC lead artist Seneca shared a conflicted experience working in the NFT space.

Seneca is an artist specializing in disturbing and dreamlike imagery. She was the lead designer of the BAYC collection and did many of the initial sketches. She didn’t draw every hat, shirt, and ape herself, but she’s responsible for much of the overall design. “Not a ton of people know that I did these drawings, which is terrible for an artist,” she told Rolling Stone.

Yuga Labs did pay Seneca for her work, and though she wouldn’t disclose the details of the transaction, she said it “was definitely not ideal.”

She’s still hyped on crypto, web3, and NFTs, but she said she learned some valuable lessons working on BAYC. She told Rolling Stone that artists should ask for royalties and understand NFTs and smart contracts before taking on a project like BAYC.

3. Gavin Baker – The Cyclone Under the Surface – Patrick O’Shaughnessy and Gavin Baker

[00:09:15] Patrick: If we had talked, I don’t know, 9, 10, 11 months ago, the setup arguably would not have been nearly as good. Who knows what we would have said then. Maybe we would have thought multiples would have just continued to expand. But today, undoubtedly, like you said, they’re at or below their 2018 levels. The businesses are better. So it stands to reason sort of that there’s more interesting opportunity set in those set in those three major sub-sectors of semis, software and internet. I want to come back to those in a minute. Before we do that, I’d love to level set with the things in the market or the economy or the world that you’re most carefully interested in and watching relative to the last time we talked, when obviously it was sort of all COVID. But the world has changed a lot since then. We’re sort of settled into COVID, inflation has become a dominant theme. What are the themes that, outside of just individual companies, have your interest most, that you think most matter for general market returns from this point forward?

[00:10:05] Gavin: I think for me, inflation is the only thing that matters. And I think there’s a lot of focus on the fed. To me, the fed is a little bit of a side show. I’ve lived through a lot of fed tightening cycles. There’s a lot of great work that’s been done on how equities do. Generally stocks are up, actually I think in every tightening cycle dating back something like 25 years, stocks are up 12 months after the first rate hike. By the way, the reason they’re up is they generally sell off into the first rate hike because the market is anticipatory. And everybody sees these studies, things happen faster, the market is becoming even more anticipatory over time. So I think the Fed is a little bit of a sideshow, from my perspective, and what’s different about this Fed tightening cycle is you just had the highest CPI print in 40 years. And I do think in terms of mistakes I made, I really under-reacted to Powell’s appointment. I’m not somebody who’s mindlessly bullish on growth. I’d say I was very cautious of high multiple growth stocks for probably the summer of 2020 to April, May of 2021. Wrote this big piece on Medium explaining why I was getting more positive. That was way too early. But a lot of those stocks, even back in May, their multiples that already corrected 50, 60%-plus. We digested a pretty big move in the 10 year. Powell was reappointed, clearly with a mandate to crush inflation. The market got that right. I mean, it was right away. The data Powell was appointed, that was a sea change in the market that has persisted through today. And I think just what’s different is that 7% CPI number. And if you think about what drives the market, just like stocks, it just comes down to earnings and multiples. And liquidity drives the multiples and GDP growth drives earnings growth.

The fed, because inflation is at 7%, I think that’s why this selloff has been so severe. Just because this is different than anything any professional, I mean, maybe there’s some people. I guess Warren Buffett was investing in 1982, okay. Maybe there are a couple of people who were professional investors in active investors in 1982, but not many. So as a bottoms-up investor, you do kind of have to be macro-aware. And I think there’s two parts to inflation. The first one is supply chain driven, the shortage of goods everybody’s read about. Ships stacked up the port, we can’t get enough semiconductors to make cars. I am so relaxed about that. It is very rare for me to have a view on something like that. I just think we now have hundreds of years of history and capitalism is amazing at solving problems. It is so good. And we have seen a massive supply response. This is a statistic, I actually just ran this this morning. Amazon has spent more money on capex, and this is just illustrative, it’s not a comment on Amazon. It’s a comment on the supply response. They have spent more money on capex in the last two years than they did in the preceding 20 years.

[00:13:06] Patrick: Insane.

[00:13:07] Gavin: Think about that. From 1999 to they spent 62 billion on capex. They’re going to spend 87 billion in 2020 and 2021.

[00:13:16] Patrick: That is crazy.

[00:13:18] Gavin: That’s unimaginable. And no, I did not go through and nerdily adjust every year for capitalized leases. And maybe it makes it more striking, maybe it makes it less striking, but either way it’s crazy. Taiwan City, their 2022 capex is going to be many multiples of 2018. 2021 and 2022, they’ll spend more than they did in the preceding five years. So there is a massive supply response coming. We know that the economy is slow. We know it from credit card data, retail sales, which a couple of reports here have 16% for the year. They’re flat in November, down two in December. And then the Atlanta Fed does this thing they called the GDP now. And that was ten in November, five in December. So the economy is slowing rapidly. So you’ve got this massive supply response, an economy rapidly slowing before the fed begins to take away the punch bowl. I think you’re about to have a truly massive shift in consumer spending away from goods towards services. If you trend out and look at real personal expenditures, goods spending is roughly 500 billion above the pre-COVID trend line. Services spending is 500 billion below the trend line. And that shift, Omicron is probably the end of COVID, to me as a factor for investing for daily life. So I do think the economy will finally normalize. So when you have this supply response, meaning a slowing economy and a shift away from goods towards services, then I just think all of that inflation goes away.

Goldman did this analysis. Auto is accounted for half of the overshoot in core inflation, used auto prices. They were kind of flat for forever and then they went up 50% in 18 months. All that goes away. Maybe it doesn’t, want to be appropriately humble, but I think highly likely that all that is going to go away. If it doesn’t go away, wow, okay, I’m going to be horribly, horribly wrong. And I do think this post-World War II period is an interesting analog for this. You had a 20% CPI basically, because there was huge boom, factories, really good at making takes and fighter jets and not good at making anything else. There was a supply response and CPI went right back down. And so I think for that component, that is for sure going to normalize. And I think the other thing is wage inflation. And this is something where there are things happening in the economy that have literally never happened before. Like the ratio, there’s more unemployed people looking for work than there are job openings. Now there’s more job openings than there are people looking for work. The ratio of job openings to unemployed hit an all time high. Something happened that’s never happened before. I think it’s important to think about it with an open mind and it’s like, okay, why has this happened?

Well point number one, we had massive stimulus since the New Deal. And on top of that, we had a debt jubilee. And I don’t think we really fully understand how powerful that debt jubilee was. We basically said, “You don’t have to pay rent.” Student loan forgiveness, eviction moratoriums, all this stuff. You had all of that. You had people, lot of people over the age of 62 left the workforce. And I think part of that is people probably took these voluntary buyouts that companies, I’m sure they wish they had not given in the spring of 2020, that I do think you have give people credit for being rational. I think the idea of getting COVID is much scarier if you’re over 60 than if you’re under 40. Sad to say I’m over 40. So you had a lot of people retire. And then I also think you had a lot of people who, because of remote learning, a lot of two income households went to one income households. All of that is normalizing. The debt jubilee is over, stimulus is fading, consumer savings are beginning to draw down. I do think after Omicron, kids are going to be able to sustainably go back to school. So a lot of that stuff is fading, but really, really who knows. And if wage inflation is here to stay, I think it means very bad things for the market. It’s just that simple. I think on balance, it’s probably not here to stay. These forces of globalization, they’re too powerful. I’m not sure that the idler movement is here to stay. It’s one thing to be an idler while you have a debt jubilee and, and a lot of savings. It’s another thing when you burn all of that down.

But I just think it’s important to be humble. Anytime you’re talking about forecasting the future, you want to be humble. People have been trying to do it for thousands of years unsuccessfully. And at the end of the day, that is what fundamentally investing is. You are forecasting the future. You have a differential opinion on the future, full stop. People don’t like to admit that, but that is what it is. As hard as that is to do for individual companies, it’s way harder to do for entire economy, which is the world’s most complex chaotic system, high sensitivity to initial conditions, unpredictable interactions. Everything I’m saying, I want to caveat with that. I don’t know if I’ve given you my two examples before, Patrick, and feel free to stop me if I have, but I always think about the Federal Reserve, they employ more PhD economists than anyone. They have more information on the economy than anyone, like way more information than anyone. They have vast amounts of computing power, and they have no ability to forecast the economy out more than six months. And so A, I’m way less smart. B, I have way less information, certainly have less computing power. So there was a letter written, an op-ed written in the Wall Street Journal somewhere in between 2010 and 12. And I think a majority of the world’s PhD economists signed it. Every famous macro-investor you can think of signed it, but it basically said, “Hey Ben Bernanke, you have no idea what you’re doing. This quantitative easing is going to cause massive inflation. It’s going to ruin America. You’re going to bring about hyperinflation. It’s going to be the ruin of America.” They were dead wrong, horribly wrong…

…[00:25:39] Patrick: I’d love to dive in a little bit, just underneath that big trend, you mentioned the three sub-sectors of semis, software, internet. Maybe we could also talk about a fourth category, which is the big five or the big 10 technology companies that are conglomerates at this point. Maybe we’ll start with semis. I’ve talked to you about this in the past, I’m just totally fascinated by the semiconductor industry. I know this is where you cut your teeth a lot, followed it since its beginning and since the start of your career. A lot of people had never heard of Taiwan Semiconductor two years ago. And I think a lot more people have now, for a variety of reasons, not just the shortages and the importance of supply chain, but also the geopolitical stuff. Walk us through your take on semis today and what’s evolved and what matters in that subsector in tech, since it’s such a key one?

[00:26:21] Gavin: Let’s step back and look at the last 15 years of semis. The industry has completely consolidated to where you almost have these monopolies – monopolies or duopolies in every subsector of semis. You either have a monopoly, duopoly, or in the worst case, an oligopoly of three. And in even their suppliers to capital equipment companies, they’re all either monopolies to duopolies. So the industry has massively consolidated over the last 15 to 20 years in a way that maybe should have never been allowed to happen. Although the fact is that a lot of these markets, for a lot of reasons, mostly because the network effects around software code and then economies of scale, they do tend toward being a monopoly, a monopoly or duopoly. So in basebands, there’s a duopoly. CPUs, there’s a duopoly. GPUs, there’s a duopoly, now it’s an oligopoly because intel is entering that industry. Memory, it’s oligopoly for for both NAND and DRAM, analog almost part by part, it’s generally a duopoly, same thing for FPGAs. So it’s a very consolidated, concentrated industry. And you have had demand, I think structurally shift up. And this has always been a secular growth industry, it’s always grown, I call between 1.5 to low twos, multiple of GDP, global GDP. So it’s always been a secular growth industry, but that multiplier’s shifted up. And the reason it’s shifted up is broadly speaking because of artificial intelligence. Human beings, when they write software code, they make a big effort to minimize their, at least good programmers do, use of resources like compute and memory. You used to have to have a budget you had to work with before the dates of cloud computing, only so much memory and only so much storage. The way of cloud computing has thrown that all out the window. And AI is just the inverse. The way you make AI better is you train it on more data. That’s it.

It’s really just that simple. And there’s just a really good rule of thumb, and Microsoft wrote about this in a research paper 10 years ago, or maybe not, 12 years ago, the quality of a given AI algorithm doubles with every 10X increase in the amount of data you used to train that algorithm. And Mark Edrison wrote this op-ed, whatever it was, 10 years ago about how software is eating the world, now AI is eating software. And that just means that the world is getting much, much more compute and semiconductor intensive. And then on top of that, you have all these, at the end of the day, cars are a massive, massive consumer market. And as those become EVs the next AVS, the semiconductor content for car is really exploding. And you put those two things together, the world is just becoming a lot more semiconductor intensive. The bummer, and I would say I’m probably as cautious as I’ve been on semiconductors in a long time right now, it’s still a cyclical industry. If you look at the history in the industry in the eighties and nineties, you have these capacity cycles and they’re driven by the fact that, God I can’t remember his last name, but he was hilarious, TJ, he ran Cypress Semiconductor, he famously said real men own fabs, because there was this trend of going fab-less. But it used to be, in the eighties and nineties, if you ran out of capacity, well, the only thing you could do was build a new fab. And everybody would tend to run out of capacity at the same time, so all these fabs would come them on at the same time. And so you could think of demand as being the smooth, underlying, true demand, the relatively smooth line, and then capacity comes on in the stair step path.

So you would have these vicious cycles, and companies were always going out of business, but then the world moved to fab-less with few exceptions. Today, Intel, Samsung, Taiwan Semi, they’re the are only companies in the world that can make leading edge logic. There’s only three companies that can make leading edge DRAM, maybe four for NAND. And so they got much better about aggregating capacity smoothly. And as a result of that, the cycles you’ve seen last 20 years are just inventory cycles. And the reason for that is the fundamental equation that covers semis is customer inventories must equal lead times. Because if they don’t, and you’re purchasing manager, you get fired. Okay? And so whatever lead times are, that is what customer inventories are. And that leads to this crazy positive feedback loop where if lead times are going up, inventories are building, which causes lead times to go up, which causes inventories to build further. And then as soon as something changes, all that unwinds. And then lead times are going down, you’re burning inventories. So if you’re a semiconductor company, you’re never seeing true in demand. You’re either seeing above market demand because lead times are going out and inventories are building, or below market demand, or below true in demand. And so you’ve had these inventory cycles really consistently for the last 20 years.

What you have right now is, I think a massive inventory cycle. And everything we talked about, the economy slowing even before the fed hikes hit, PCEs shifting away from goods towards experiences. I think demand for semis is almost inevitably going to decelerate a little and that’s going to lead to an unwind of this inventory cycle. And then all the capacity that’s being brought on probably makes it worse. But then I think, you get to the other side of that, and you’re left with that industry that used to grow at 2X nominal GDP to one that probably now is a 3X nominal GDP grower. And you still have that super consolidated supply structure. You’re now having people saying semiconductor companies should be valuing software companies. And no, they shouldn’t. You have a bunch of people. Every fund I know that’s under 50 billion is frantically looking for a semiconductor analyst, where somebody’s really good at semis, have a lot of tourist to the sector. And it’s just when these companies miss, they miss big. Just going back to the fourth quarter of 2018, you can see some really, really, really big misses. So I would say relatively cautious on semis.

4. 14th Five-Year Digital Economy Development Plan – Lillian Li

“It’s the Chinese government’s wishful blueprint. It’s a guidance document that’s put together through rounds of discussions and buy-ins from provincial, municipal and state levels. Still, if any startup or large corporations release the OKRs, there’s no guarantee they will all happen. The history of Chinese Five Year Plans (FYP) is littered with their failures as much as their successes…

…Key takeaways

• The anti-monopoly and other regulations ensuring fair competition will continue throughout 2021 to 2025 –  it seems like there’s significant intent to bring in rules of law to this domain in order to remove systemic risk. More rules around data safety and fair competition seem inevitable given the tone of this document. 

Implications:

• More comprehensive laws and regulations are coming that will specify the limits of platforms and promote consumer and worker welfare.
• The exact methodology for how consumer welfare and fair competition will be guided is still being defined, leaving a certain margin of error for interpretation.
• Fintech will be seen as finance by another name and will be regulated as such.
• Given the indicators around transaction growth and e-commerce, I also do not think the government wants to see platforms completely destroyed. Who’s going to deliver the growth if everyone’s stagnating? 
• Timing will be the tricky part and I have no insight here.  

Key takeaways

• Platform players specifically are asked to step up and become de facto institutions – Tech giants are being asked not what their country can do for them but what they can do for their country. In the guidance plan, the tech players are asked to help with sharing data for future data exchanges and to open their technology stack to help SMEs and other industries digitalise.

Implications: 

• I don’t think platforms will be nationalised, though their functions could become somewhat grey. They are faced with a carrot and stick situation. For instance, they could be asked to help Chinese industries digitalise through DingTalk, Tencent middleware, PDD agricultural investment fund and Meituan’s new retail functions, and not to double down on their current consumer platforms, as there are implications for consumer welfare encroachment.
• I’m sanguine about this, as I think all Chinese consumer tech platforms are being offered a chance to have a second leg as a B2B company. They have the government’s support if they go forward with it. Put another way; they also have a cornered resource since China will not be asking AWS, Google or Salesforce to help with China’s digital transformation anytime soon.

Key takeaways 

• Software and manufacturing cloud is front and centre of policy. It receives strong tailwinds and platforms have a role to play – What gets measured gets done, and in the indicators for the Digital Economy Five-Year Plan, the size of the software and IT service industry is being asked to grow by at least 72% 2025.

Implications:

• The focus for manufacturing industries seems to be the digitalisation of the supply chain I expect many startup players in this space to accelerate through funding and government support in the coming years. More on this in the State of Chinese Cloud part I
• Agricultural tech is also seen as a top priority given the frequency it gets mentioned (seven times in the document), it is still a 13.8 trillion RMB ($2.1 trillion) that employs 25% of the Chinese workforce.
• Open-source software gets several shoutouts as a way to harness decentralised software manpower. This has also followed what I’ve observed in the VC community, opensource in China has been having a hot year in 2021. Now with government backing, expect Chinese open-source to go mainstream in the coming years. I’ll be posting more frequently on this topic too.

5. Fluke – Morgan Housel

Forecasting is hard. And not because people aren’t smart, but because trivial accidents can be influential in ways that are impossible to foresee…

…One night in college – I remember it was late, maybe midnight – I was reading a blog post about hedge fund manager Eddie Lampert. It was written by a guy named Sham Gad, who I had never heard of. I can’t remember where I found his blog; maybe I was searching for information on Lampert, who I admired.

Sham wrote that Lampert went to Harvard. I knew that was wrong – he actually went to Yale. Obviously it doesn’t matter, who cares? But using my student email address (which I rarely used but turned out to be important) I emailed Sham to let him know he was wrong. I never do stuff like that, then or now. The common denominator of the internet is misinformation. I have no idea why I thought it was necessary.

Sham’s a nice guy. He responded and said thanks, he’ll fix it.

A few minutes later he sent another email: “Hey I see from your email address that you go to USC. I’ll be in Los Angeles tomorrow. I’ve never been before, what’s the best way to get from LAX to downtown?”

It was a weird thing to ask a stranger who just trolled your blog. But it’s a reasonable question. If you’re familiar with LA you know there is no good answer. It’s the least transportation-friendly city in the world.

I don’t know why, but without thinking I responded: “It’s hard. I can pick you up. Let me know when you get in.”

He said great. I’ll see you tomorrow.

I’m a private guy. I’ve never done anything like this. At this point my relationship with Sham consisted of 10 cumulative sentences. I didn’t know if he was 17 or 87 years old. But the next day I was driving to LAX to get him.

We stopped at Chipotle on the way back. While eating he said, “I haven’t booked a hotel yet. Is there one nearby you can drop me off at?”

Adding to the list of things you shouldn’t say to a stranger, I said, “You can crash on my couch.”

“Wow, thanks,” he said.

I texted my girlfriend and said, “I met a guy named Sham online. I just picked him up at the airport and he’s sleeping on our couch tonight.”

“Excuse me?” she said.

I know, I’m sorry. I don’t know why I agreed to this…

…The next summer I was interning at a private equity firm. One day – and I remember this occurring within the same hour – two life-changing things happened.

Global credit markets started exploding in 2007, the preamble to the financial crisis. The firm I was at wasn’t in great shape. They told me there wouldn’t be a full-time spot for me after I graduated. I’d have to leave the next month.

That hurt. I needed to find a job as the economy was melting down.

I also needed to finish a project I was working on, researching logistics companies for the private equity firm. That included gathering information on a tiny public company called FreightCar America.

I went to Yahoo Finance. I didn’t find much, but just before clicking away I saw one lonely article in the FreightCar America news feed.

It was a Motley Fool article written by … Sham Gad. (It’s here).

Hey, I know that guy!

I emailed Sham for the first time in a year and told him how cool it was that he was writing for a publication.

We chatted for a bit. I told him I was looking for a new job. Anything. I was desperate.

“The Motley Fool is hiring writers,” he said. “I can put in a good word.” He owed me a favor, after all.

And that was that. I became a Motley Fool writer and stayed for ten years.

I’ve been a writer my whole career. It was never planned, never dreamed, never foreseen. It only happened because Sham got Eddie Lampert’s alma mater wrong and I needed a job at the very moment he wrote a blog post about a company I was researching at a job I was about to be laid off at.

6. Our Take on the Data Deluge, and What’s Next – Dharmesh Thakker, Chiraag Deora and Jason Mendel

Today, our company Collibra*, which focuses on data intelligence—particularly around areas like compliance—also hit a corporate milestone when it announced its latest $250 million financing. It all underscores just how detailed and granular the data market has become, and how much market value is up for grabs as companies both 1) increasingly seek out better data to make more-informed decisions, and 2) use data to improve customers’ experiences.

So what’s driving this data deluge? And how long can it continue? Our research and discussions with hundreds of companies over the last five or more years have highlighted six key factors driving the creation and growth of data and business-intelligence (BI) companies. They’ve also given us insights around how the market may shift in the coming years, so we’re sharing some predictions here too.

Literally, zettabytes of data

The first factor driving the growth of new, data-focused technology is simply the unbelievable volume of data being produced today—data that needs to go somewhere to be useful. Data is being produced from all around us whenever we interact with mobile applications, shop online or even through customer support interactions. If technology is being used, data is being created. Research firm IDC predicts that the global datasphere will grow to 143 zettabytes (for context, each zettabyte is 1 trillion gigabytes) by 2024—a 26% increase from the 45 zettabytes of data that were around in 2019.

It’s obvious, but important we say it anyway. The shift to the cloud is real!

We are still very early in the public-cloud adoption journey, as the majority of data still resides in legacy, on-premise data centers. By 2025, IDC estimates that approximately 46% of the world’s stored data will reside in public-cloud environments. This is a direct driver of the massive increase in data, and new data technologies, as the cost of compute and storage in the public cloud is much lower–there are no upfront capital-expenditure requirements, and access to data is often governed by reasonable, pay-as-you-go or consumption-based pricing. In addition, the automation that comes with the cloud allows companies to free up system engineers from worrying about customizing on-premise systems, and instead focus on other data-management priorities. The migration to cloud promotes flexibility, scalability, and cost efficiency in a way not previously possible with on-premise deployments.

Consumers need information, and they need it now.

Old-style, batch data sets historically have been used for many analytics needs; in this method, data is gathered over time prior to being analyzed. There are and will continue to be great use-cases for batch analytics, including managing payroll or customer billing. But with the advent of mobile computing and the Internet of Things, among other trends, there has been a pressing, new need for analyzing data in real time. Use cases here include fraud detection, tracking real-time ETAs on ridesharing applications, managing the temperature of your home as the day progresses, and many more. Per IDC, the market for real- time or continuous analytics is expected to grow to $4.4 billion by 2024. Aside from enabling a different set of applications, real-time analytics contributes heavily to the growth of data given the constant need for up-to-date data.

7. Why 7% Inflation Today Is Far Different Than in 1982 – Greg Ip

Consumer price inflation in December, at 7%, was last this high in the summer of 1982. That’s about all the two periods have in common.

Today, the inflation rate is on the rise. Back then, it was falling. It had peaked at 14.8% in 1980, while Jimmy Carter was still president and the Iranian revolution had pushed up oil prices. Core inflation that year reached 13.6%.

Upon becoming Federal Reserve chairman in 1979, Paul Volcker set out to crush inflation with tight monetary policy. In combination with credit controls, that effort pushed the U.S. into a brief recession in 1980. Then, as the Fed’s benchmark interest rate reached 19% in 1981, a much deeper recession began. By the summer of 1982, inflation and interest rates were both falling sharply. Four decades of generally low-single-digit inflation would follow.

“We have had dramatic success in getting the inflation rate down,” one Fed official observed that August. But Mr. Volcker had other problems to contend with: His high interest rates had pushed Mexico into default, touching off the Latin American debt crisis, and unemployment would climb to a post-World War II high of 10.8% that fall.

Unemployment took out that record in the early months of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020. Since then, it has been falling rapidly as the economy roars back thanks to vaccines, fewer restrictions on mobility and ample fiscal and monetary stimulus. In December, unemployment sank to 3.9%, closing in on the 50-year low of 3.5% set just before the pandemic.

Monetary policy then and now couldn’t be more different. Back in 1982, the Fed was still targeting the money supply, causing interest rates to fluctuate unpredictably. Today, it largely ignores the money supply, which expanded dramatically as the Fed bought bonds to hold down long-term interest rates. Its main policy target, the federal-funds rate, is close to zero.

Rather than 1982, two previous episodes when inflation reached 7% might hold more useful lessons for today. The first was in 1946. The end of the war had unleashed pent-up demand for consumer goods, and price controls had lapsed. Inflation reached nearly 20% in 1947 before falling all the way back. Today, consumption patterns have similarly been distorted and supply chains disrupted by the pandemic.

---

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 Amazon, Meituan, and Tencent. Holdings are subject to change at any time.

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 30 January 2022:

1. How Inflation Swindles The Equity Investor – Warren Buffett

There is no mystery at all about the problems of bondholders in an era of inflation. When the value of the dollar deteriorates month after month, a security with income and principal payments denominated in those dollars isn’t going to be a big winner. You hardly need a Ph.D. in economics to figure that one out.

It was long assumed that stocks were something else. For many years, the conventional wisdom insisted that stocks were a hedge against inflation. The proposition was rooted in the fact that stocks are not claims against dollars, as bonds are, but represent ownership of companies with productive facilities. These, investors believed, would retain their value in real terms, let the politicians print money as they might.

And why didn’t it turn out that way? The main reason, I believe, is that stocks, in economic substance, are really very similar to bonds.

I know that this belief will seem eccentric to many investors. They will immediately observe that the return on a bond (the coupon) is fixed, while the return on an equity investment (the company’s earnings) can vary substantially from one year to another. True enough. But anyone who examines the aggregate returns that have been earned by companies during the postwar years will discover something extraordinary: the returns on equity have in fact not varied much at all.

2. Complexity Investing & Semiconductors (with NZS Capital) – Ben Gilbert, David Rosenthal, Brinton Johns and Jon Bathgate

David: I’d heard a little bit about complexity theory and the Santa Fe Institute, which I want to get into. I think Bill Gurley talks about this fairly frequently and Michael Madison, and that’s how I kind of originally got turned onto it. Tell us a little bit more about what is it? Because it’s not at all about investing. It’s about the world.

Brinton: That’s right. In fact, I think it was Bill Gurley that recommended Complexity to Brad. Complex adaptive systems are all around us. That’s what governs the world. That’s how the world works. We don’t know how the future is going to unfold because the system is interacting together and it creates what’s called emergent behavior.

Emergent behavior makes predicting useless in most cases, and we can have guidelines, and heuristics and those are all helpful. As far as exact outcomes and what’s going to happen in the future, those are a lot more difficult.

Santa Fe Institute started with a group of scientists from the Los Alamos National Labs. They came together—they were mostly physicists—and they started talking to economists. It was sort of hard sciences and soft sciences, and the physicists were like, hey, economists, guys. You guys seem really smart, but your theories don’t work. All your math doesn’t work. So what’s up with that? With our math, it’s extremely precise. In fact, when the math is off just a little bit, Einstein’s like oh, your math is off. Pluto should really be here and come up with a Theory of Relativity.

David: It’s like we literally made the atomic bomb, it works.

Brinton: Yeah, it works. So they started coming together around this idea of complexity. What is complexity? How do we define complexity? Where does it sit? Because we are living in this complex, adaptive system, how do we think about the future? How do we think about life? How do we think about going forward?

For us, this sparked an interest in biological systems and we found this sort of biology vein much more interesting than the traditional economics vein, and much more applicable to investing than the traditional economics vein…

…We just learned so much. I remember sitting outside of this cafe in Palo Alto with Brad and we have just sort of been at this course with Deborah Gordon, this lady that teaches at Stanford, here to study ants. I thought, man, this concept of resilience is really fascinating. It’s really more about resilience than it is about predicting the future and it’s about adaptability.

Biology doesn’t really care that much about the future. They care about adapting to this wide range of futures. Bees don’t really care if it’s going to snow tomorrow, they can adapt to snow. They’ve learned how to do that over millions of years. What if we looked at companies like that?

Of course, we kept reading, we kept writing. This is probably 2011–2012, and in 2013 we published this long paper that you reference, which is super geeky, but it’s got a lot of pictures because that’s the way we think.

David: You’ve got the Back to the Future DeLorean in there.

Brinton: It’s got the DeLorean. What more could you want? We were really hoping for a DeLorean for the office. That’s our dream office furniture.

Ben: On the note of ants, this is probably the first and best example of an extreme version of resilience in an organization. Can you share the insight you had there?

Brinton: Yeah. We attended this class by Deborah Gordon and she has been studying this group of ants for 30 years in New Mexico. They obsess over this group of ants. They know what every ant is doing at all times. What they found was really fascinating.

They found that about half of the ants of the colony weren’t doing anything. They were just sort of sitting around and then they had half the hands doing these defined jobs. That’s very counterintuitive. We think of ants as sort of the ultimate productivity machines. Then it turns out ants aren’t optimized around productivity. They’re optimized around longevity. They’re optimized around resilience, around living as long as possible, let’s say it that way.

That was really insightful for us. We thought, man, all these companies are optimized around productivity and Wall Street only makes it worse because we’re obsessed over quarterly earnings. What if companies were really optimized around this long-term thinking? Of course, we see that with lots of companies, most of them tend to be run by founders, because founders have a lot of skin in the game, they think long-term, but there are CEOs that think that way also.

We know that the average tenure of a CEO in a SP 500 is less than five years. They’re not optimized like ants are. They’re trying to get a lot of returns really quickly. But companies that take this long-term view are so much more interesting.

David: When I read that, in your paper, the thing that hit me over the head, I was like, oh, this is Warren and Charlie’s laziness bordering on sloth.

Brinton: That’s exactly it.

David: The goal is not productivity. The goal is long-term steady returns and resilience.

Brinton: I think Warren and Charlie got this very early and there’s a lot of science behind that math, but they don’t need that. They’re so good with folksy wisdom.

3. Zoom CEO Eric Yuan on trusting your gut, learning from failure, and leaving behind an enduring legacy – Byron Deeter

When Eric joined Webex as a founding engineer, he witnessed the transformation of this first generation video and collaboration product into a major player that was acquired by Cisco in 2007. He’d also worked his way up to VP of Engineering. But by 2011, Eric was no longer happy.

“Every time I talked to a Webex customer, I was embarrassed,” he says. “I did not see a single happy customer.” Eric realized there was no way to fix all the modern problems plaguing customers by tweaking legacy Webex software. He was convinced that the only way to win back disenchanted customers was to build a new solution from the ground up.

But when he presented his ideas to his coworkers, they were not sold on cannibalizing their existing product. They also doubted whether Eric’s proposal was even possible. In the face of this tremendous pressure from naysayers to abandon his ideas, Eric trusted his gut. He decided to tender his resignation and start his own company.

Buoyed by a strong instinct that he could build something superior, Eric began creating the product we now know as Zoom. The first iteration took him only one year. “I like Nike’s mantra,” says Eric. “Just do it. A lot of my friends told me, ‘Eric, please don’t do it.’ But if it’s your dream, you need to ignore them.”…

…Eric stresses the value of building trusting relationships with customers. He prizes this above all else, even if it means leaving money on the table. “Quite often our sales team would tell me, ‘Eric, we’ve got to increase the price. Customers told us we can,’” he says.

But Eric would repeatedly refuse. He remained steadfast in his conviction that some things are worth more than money. “Our philosophy is to always keep adding more value, while keeping the same price,” he says. “Because down the road, the customer will realize ‘Wow, I paid $14.99, but the product just keeps getting better and better.’”

“If you’re a founder, don’t always think about always increasing the price,” Eric advises. He believes it’s myopic to think that short-term cash in the bank is worth more than deep usage engagement, which creates momentum that will build over time.

4. The Tech Monopolies Go Vertical – Fabricated Knowledge (Doug)

The phrase “Owe the bank 500 dollars, that is your problem. Owe the bank 500 million – that is the bank’s problem.” is something that comes to mind for some of the tech monopolies right now. There is a shifting relationship between the largest software companies in the world and their suppliers, and as the leading software companies have become ever-larger portions of the compute pie, it’s kind of become the problem of the tech companies, and not the semiconductor companies that service them to push forward the natural limits of hardware. Software ate the world so completely that now the large tech companies have to deal with the actual hardware that underlies their stack. Especially as some companies like Intel have fallen behind…

…I believe that in a few years, most of the large tech companies will have a much tighter level of integration and we will likely see much less “commoditized” platforms. Yes, they might run on partially open stacks (think open networking roadmap and Facebook) but their differentiation is going to be not only software but also hardware. We are going back to the old patterns of integration of both Software and Hardware.

The unit economics of this is profound, partially because if a company doesn’t pursue this, they will have to pay the exponential cost of AI compute at face value, but also potential competitors will have to face a new barrier to entry. The profit deserts around their moats, as mentioned in the first @modestproposal1 Invest like the Best podcast, will climb even higher. They will be able to sell products below their competitors while making a profit..

…This is a barrier to entry that few companies can really climb over anymore, with 500 million in R&D only possible by a few companies (270 according to a screener I used) and many of the companies with R&D budgets larger than 500m is large tech companies themselves. It is no surprise they are going custom, as now this is a very capital intense way to create a gulf between them and the rest. For example, something I wanted to note is that every single company mentioned so far spends more on absolute R&D than Intel! Samsung, a company that is out of the scope of this discussion rounds out the list of the companies that spend more than Intel on R&D worldwide. This is likely not a coincidence! Semiconductors are becoming more capital intense as we hit the wall of physics, and by being at that leading edge the new technology monopolies will get to operate in that world alone.

Just imagine now that you are an entrant, trying to sell IaaS, maybe like Digital Ocean (huge fan). If Intel and AMD chips are all that you can use, you better pray and hope their roadmaps are strong, because now that your competitors are able to create and expand their own roadmaps faster than the large semiconductor platforms, you may be forced to eventually buy from them or just be at a structural gross margin disadvantage. You could offer identical services but make worse profits, just on the basis that you don’t make your own chips. If they lower prices, you could even lose money! You cannot compete…

…Software ate the world and hardware has been struggling to keep up recently. Now the largest software companies are slowly becoming hardware companies and pursuing an integrated strategy that only can be achieved at the largest scale possible and with barriers of entry that are quickly expanding in addition to their well-known network or aggregation effects. The walls are slowly rising, the moats slowly widening, and as we are on the cusp of a new hardware renaissance, the decisions the hyperscalers make now are going to have a long-lasting competitive shadow. Stay tuned.

5. It’s Never a Market Crash Problem – Safal Niveshak

It’s almost always an –

• I don’t know who I am problem
• I don’t know how much pain
• I am willing to take problem
• I don’t have the patience to give my stocks time to grow problem
• I bought on the tip of that popular social media influencer and did not do my homework problem
• I did not diversify well problem
• I bought the stock just because it dipped problem

6. Tyler Cowen is the best curator of talent in the world – Tony Kulesa

I am a biotech investor. I know a lot of top biotech investors. I’ve also spent close to a decade at two of the best life science academic institutions in the world.

Tyler’s understanding of biotech is that of a very broad economist. Yet, he is often beating me and many of the people and institutions that I know.

Tyler has identified talent either earlier than or missed by top undergraduate programs, the best biotech startups, and the best biotech investors, all without any insider knowledge of biotech. In comparison, Forbes 30U30, MIT Tech Review TR35, or Stat Wunderkind, and other industry awards that highlight talent are lagging indicators of success. It’s hard to find an awardee of these programs that was not already widely recognized for their achievements among insiders in their field. The winners of Emergent Ventures are truly emergent.

I have now met >5 Emergent Venture winners that work in life sciences. The average age of this group is ~20 years old.

One has attracted international recognition for his new non-profit founded this year. Tyler funded him ~2.5 years ago when his most notable public accomplishment was amassing 300 twitter followers.

Another winner has now started a company backed by top tier investors – professional talent hunters – but he received his first funding from Tyler a year prior, when he was still experimenting with what to build.

Others had been rejected by undergrad programs at Harvard, MIT, and Stanford, but their research talents have become recognized by the best academic life scientists and top biotech startups…

…It isn’t just a matter of more elite selection. In fact, Emergent Ventures has a higher acceptance rate than elite colleges. In May 2020, Tyler reported in an interview with Tim Ferriss that the award rate is ~10%. For comparison, the 2021 acceptance rates of Harvard, Princeton, and Yale were 5%, 6%, and 7%. It also isn’t a wider pool. At that time, he had only ~800 total applications since 2018.

Tyler’s success at discovering and enabling the most talented people before anyone else notices them boils down to four components:

1. Distribution: Tyler promotes the opportunity in such a way that the talent level of the application pool is extraordinarily high and the people who apply are uniquely earnest.
2. Application: Emergent Ventures’ application is laser focused on the quality of the applicant’s ideas, and boils out the noise of credentials, references, and test scores.
3. Selection: Tyler has relentlessly trained his taste for decades, the way a world class athlete trains for the olympics.
4. Inspiration: Tyler personally encourages winners to be bolder, creating an ambition flywheel as they in turn inspire future applicants.

7. Some Things I Remind Myself During Market Corrections – Ben Carlson

Time horizon is all that matters during a correction. This may sound like a humblebrag of sorts but market corrections don’t really bother me all that much anymore. The sight of my holdings falling in price day after day doesn’t bother me for the simple fact that I’ve already resigned myself to this fate.

You see I don’t put money into risk assets that I’m going to need for spending purposes in the next 5 years or so. It’s all long-term capital.

And given this money is going to be invested for the long-term, I already know in advance I’m going to have to endure corrections, bear markets and crashes from time to time.

I know my balance will get vaporized on occasion, I just don’t know when those occasions will be.

The money that I know will be spent in the short-term doesn’t go into risk assets.

An understanding of your time horizon saves you from becoming a forced seller.

It’s best to sell when you want to not when you have to. I’m guessing a lot of the selling in recent days has come from margin calls from investors who bought stocks using leverage. You don’t see massive moves of 10-15% in individual names like we’ve seen without some forced selling.

Buy and hold can be painful when stocks are falling but ‘buy on leverage and get a margin call when your stocks just got killed’ is a far worse fate.

Buy and hold requires you to do both when stocks are falling. It’s much easier to both buy and hold when stuff is going up.

---

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 Zoom. Holdings are subject to change at any time.

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 23 January 2022:

1. Interview: Ryan Petersen, founder and CEO of Flexport – Noah Smith and Ryan Petersen

N.S.: The supply chain crunch has been the biggest economic story in the world for about a year now, causing inflation and throwing the Biden administration’s plans into disarray. What sparked the supply chain crunch? How much of a factor was increased demand for physical goods due to the pandemic? Were shifting trade patterns at all to blame? Basically, why now?

R.P.: The supply chain crunch was started by increasing demand for goods, as consumers stopped spending on services. Americans in particular had more money in their pockets because they weren’t going on trips, spending at restaurants and bars, or attending concerts. Instead as city after city started enforcing lockdowns and restrictions, people started spending a lot more goods and not services. You’ve got to get your dopamine somewhere. So what we saw was an unprecedented increase in imports from China—as much as 20% more containers entering the United States than were leaving our ports since the start of the pandemic. It turns out, our infrastructure is just not made to scale this fast, and by infrastructure what we mean is the entire ecosystem: The number of container ships in the world, the number of containers available, the throughput of our ports, the availability of trucks and truck drivers, the availability of chassis (the trailers that haul containers around), the entire system is overwhelmed and clogged. We simply don’t have enough of these essential supply chain elements, or resilient systems that are agile enough to shift the supply of these assets to where they’re needed.

While the pandemic drove this shift in demand from services to goods, it also changed where consumers were buying goods (increasingly online), the types of goods they were buying, and where those goods were flowing to and from. One thing to note is that e-commerce logistics networks are fundamentally different in their geographical and physical space than that of traditional retail. They’re more complicated because you are edge caching your inventory to be closest to your users instead of positioning everything in a distribution center in a single hub. You now have to position your warehouses all over the United States, making it exponentially more complicated. So the more people bought things online, the more these systems were overloaded.

Then there was the impact of cascading second orders that are inherently unpredictable. For example, as imports increased as much as 20%, exports actually decreased because the United States economy was slow to reopen. In fact exports are still down. If you look at the journey of a shipping container, it runs in a loop: The same container that brings in imports later helps transport exports out of the U.S. So if there are fewer exports going out, that means companies are consciously choosing to ship empty containers back to Asia or else they will run into shortages at the origin ports. At one point over the last year, as an industry, we were 500,000 shipping containers short in Asia. These shortages led to increases in prices. If you wanted to get a container you had to pay a real premium to get access. In some cases renting a container for one journey was more expensive than the price to buy one. In January 2019, rates on the Trans Pacific Eastbound route (TPEB), and Far East Westbound (FEWB) were around $3000. In December 2021, rates remained elevated in the $12,000 – $15,000 range. At one point this year, TPEB rates were as high as $24,000.

Consumers are just buying more stuff than ever and our infrastructure, frankly, isn’t ready for it. It’s getting held back by dilapidated port infrastructure, by congestion, non-automated ports, and bad rail connections to the ports. We’re just recognizing the pain of 20 years of not investing in our infrastructure. And we’re feeling all that pain in one year right now. It’s increasingly difficult for truckers to pick up or drop off containers at ports and warehouses, leading to today’s congested ports, lots, and railyards. So boats can’t get in, we don’t have enough containers, a lot of the empty containers are stuck on the chassis, we don’t have enough chassis because we don’t have enough warehouse space, and we don’t have any space in the warehouses because we can’t move the goods out fast enough.

Until we can focus on what actually clears the ports, rail yards and warehouses, and goods can begin to move at a pace that aligns more closely with the growth in consumer demand, there’s nowhere for the containers to go, and the number of ships waiting to unload will continue to grow…

...N.S.: Was the global economy simply over-engineered? Did we optimize supply chains for efficiency at the cost of resilience, like a machine with tolerance gaps that are too small? And if so, should we recalibrate going forward, to leave more slack in the system in case of future crises?

R.P.: In my opinion, what’s caused all the supply chain bottlenecks is modern finance’s obsession with Return on Equity (ROE). To show great ROE, almost every CEO stripped their company of all but the bare minimum of assets. “Just-in-time” everything with no excess capacity, no strategic reserves, no cash on the balance sheet and minimal investment in R&D. We stripped the shock absorbers out of the economy in pursuit of better short-term metrics. Large businesses are supposed to be more stable and resilient than small ones, and an economy built around giant corporations like America’s should be more resilient to shocks. However, the obsession with ROE means that no company was prepared for the inevitable hundred-year storms. Now as we’re facing a hundred-year storm of demand, our infrastructure simply can’t keep up.

Most global logistics companies have no excess capacity, there are no reserves of chassis, no extra shipping containers, no extra yard space, no extra warehouse capacity. Brands have no extra inventory and manufacturers don’t keep any extra components or raw materials on hand.

And let’s not forget the human aspect of the workforce that makes this all happen. A lot of companies in the industry haven’t invested in taking care of their people, especially during market downturns, so now they can’t staff up quickly to meet surging demand.

When the floods inevitably hit, the survivors will be those who invest in excess capacity, in strategic reserves of key capital assets, in employee trust that let them attract and retain talent. Running lean systems may seem beneficial, until the whole system fails like it did this year. We’ve removed the shock absorbers from the economy and it’s time we add them back.  

2. Standard Oil Part I – Ben Gilbert and David Rosenthal

We dive into original American capitalist mega winner, Standard Oil, and its legendary founder John D. Rockefeller…

…David: Yeah. Rockefeller though just got this vision where he’s like, oh man, the more profit I make, the more capital I can put into this, the more oil I can hold, and the more I can produce. When the price crashes, I’ll just keep buying. He buys the dip over and over again. Because his operations are so much more efficient and so much more profitable, he can afford to pay more than anybody else. He can afford to hold this stuff longer. He’s really thinking long-term in a way that none of his other competitors are.

Ben: When we say he’s tweaking stuff and he’s so much more profitable, he is both horizontally and vertically integrating. Let’s talk about vertically integrating first. He’s doing things like realizing, jeez, we’re hiring a lot of plumbers to come in and lay this pipe every time we do a build-out. They do things like hire their own plumber, hire their own blacksmiths, and decide actually, we should do this ourselves. That way, we can save all this money on piping instead of buying it from a third-party contractor.

Later down the road, he even plants a forest. He buys up a forest so that they can cut down the trees themselves to build the barrels out of.

David: To make their own barrels. Oh my gosh, this is so great.

Ben: They save all this money rather than buying barrels from somebody else. Then, of course, they can innovate on the barrel-making process. He figures out, oh, if we treat the wood in the forest, then it’s lighter and cheaper to ship back to the refinery so we save all this money on transportation. That’s the vertical integration side of things, which would be crazy enough, but he’s figuring out that wait, we do this process. How can we use the whole buffalo? What can we sell the gasoline for? I think they invented Vaseline.

David: Yes. I think they buy the company that invents Vaseline. Petroleum jelly, which is one of the byproducts, they commercialize it.

Rockefeller found his calling here. This is divine passion. There’s just one problem which is the partner, Clark. Clark is not so into how much capital Rockefeller is tying up in the business here. He’s like, hey, we’re merchant traders. The point is profits, and then we keep the profits.

Rockefeller is like, no, reinvesting it in R&D, CapEx, and inventory. Rockefeller starts going around to all the banks and all the financers in Cleveland and lining up. He’s not even using just the profits from their operations. He’s getting more external financing to finance growth here.

Ben: When I say both vertically and horizontally integrating, in the horizontal sense, he is obsessed with trying to figure out how to be the sole supplier of oil to the world. As soon as he figures out that there are economies of scale here, he’s like, okay, cool. How do we start the flywheel, get as much capital as possible, build out as much production as possible, and start having agreements with whoever’s got rights to the land as possible so we can start vending to the world?

David: Yeah, and own this super strategic chokepoint of refining in cities. Clark is spooked by all this. Chernow has this amazing quote that he finds from Rockefeller. I don’t know where he found this. I should look up in the notes at the end of Titan. This is so good. Rockefeller apparently wrote or said this at some point. “Clark was an old grandmother and was scared to death because we owed money to the banks.” It’s so great. 

Rockefeller engineers a coup. Some of Clark’s brothers are also partners in the business at this point in time. They get into all these arguments. John baits them one day into threatening that they should just dissolve the partnership. John’s like, okay, great, let’s dissolve the partnership.

Ben: Because he knows that if he goes to them and says, look, first of all, I don’t think you are risk-tolerant enough, and second of all, I don’t think you’re upstanding so I want out. He knows that he loses leverage by doing that. That’s why he baits them into doing their normal thing of getting all up in a fit and saying we’re going to back out.

David: Totally. Rockefeller immediately goes to the local paper and places a notice that the partnership is dissolving and that there’s going to be an auction for the assets of the partnership including the oil refineries. It sets up this showdown where the Clark brothers and Rockefeller bid against each other for each other’s 50% stake in the business.

Ben: Which is, by the way, a great way to do it. If you’ve got a partnership that’s blowing up, all right, whoever wants to pay more to buy the other person out is the person that should get to own the whole thing. The idea of a bidding war between the two of them to figure out how to value the business makes total sense.

David: Between the two principals. Rockefeller though, remember, he’s been going and getting the relationships with all the banks and financiers, he lines up financing in advance of the auction. He’s got basically unlimited resources, although the price ends up stressing him out. He buys Clark’s 50% of the oil business for $72,500. In exchange, Rockefeller gives Clark his 50% share of the produce trading.

Ben: Which by the way, he probably buys him out for $3–$4 million, something like that, in 2021 dollars.

David: A good chunk of change. That 50%, that $72,500 or however you want to think about it, is 50% of Standard Oil right there.

Rockefeller would say later, “It was the day that determined my career.” Probably bigger than job day. “I felt the bigness of it, but I was as calm as I am talking to you now.” This is what we’re going to see. This man has literally solid ice running through his veins. It’s crazy.

This was a big price. It was more than Rockefeller wanted to pay, but this happens in February of 1865. Back to what’s going on in America, two months later, General Lee surrenders to Grant, and the Civil War is over. With the Civil War over, what’s less important? Commodity, produce trading. What is all of a sudden a hell of a lot more important? Oil, industry, urbanization, everything.

Ben: Because all these soldiers are coming back and getting jobs in factories, you have an industrial boom here. It’s interesting how Rockefeller is obsessed with I’m not a speculator. I’m not one of these people rushing to prospect various plots of land in Western Pennsylvania. It’s funny that it’s, I would say, a picks-and-shovels play. I guess the point to make here is he’s doing the predictable, reliable, stable, very strategic part of the value chain. He’s not out prospecting land.

David: To just doubly underscore strategic, did Rockefeller know the war was going to end in two months? Probably. Sherman’s probably marching to the sea at this point.

Chernow writes, “The war had stimulated growth in the use of kerosene by cutting off the supply of southern turpentine, which had yielded a rival illuminant called camphene. The war had also disrupted the whaling industry, and led to a doubling of whale oil prices. Moving into the vacuum, kerosene emerged as an economic staple and was primed for a furious postwar boom. This burning fluid extended the day in cities and removed much of the lonely darkness from rural life.”

Soon, John D. Rockefeller would reign as the undisputed king of that world. He’s now got the oil operations, the refining business all to himself. December of 1865, the war’s over, all this is going on, and he opens a second refinery in Cleveland next to the Excelsior Works with a new name that he chooses, he wants to let everybody know that his oil, his kerosene, his business, and his operations are going to be bigger than anyone else. It’s going to be the best quality and it is going to reign from sea to sea. What does he call the new operation?

Ben: Standard Oil.

3. Bitcoin Failed in El Salvador. The President Says the Answer Is More Bitcoin – David Gerard

More than 91 percent of Salvadorans want dollars, not bitcoins. The official Chivo payment system was unreliable at launch in September—the kiss of death for a new system. Users joined for the $30 signup bonus, spent it or cashed it out, then didn’t use Chivo again. The system completely failed to check new users’ photos, relying solely on their national identity card number and date of birth; massive identity fraud to steal signup bonuses ensued. Bitcoin’s ridiculously volatile price was appreciated only by aspiring day traders. Large street protests against compulsory Bitcoin implementation continued through October. The government stopped promoting Chivo on radio, TV, and social media. Chivo buses and vans were seen with plastic taped over the company’s logo.

Bukele’s financial problems remain. El Salvador can’t print its own dollars, so Bukele urgently needs to fund his heavy deficit spending. The International Monetary Fund has not lent the country the $1 billion Bukele asked for, and has indicated its strong concerns about the Bitcoin scheme.

So Bukele, known for a populism that is half aspiring dictator, half Elon Musk, once more announced national policy from the stage: At the Latin American Bitcoin and Blockchain Conference on Nov. 20, Bukele came onstage to an animation of beaming down from a flying saucer and outlined his plans for Bitcoin City: a new charter city to be built from scratch, centered on bitcoin mining—and powered by a volcano.

Bitcoin City would be paid for with the issuance of $1 billion in “volcano bonds,” starting in mid-2022. The 10-year volcano bonds would pay 6.5 percent annual interest. $500 million of the bond revenue would be used to buy bitcoins. The bitcoins would be locked up for five years, then sold to recover the $500 million purchase price; any profit on the sale would be paid out as an additional dividend. Holding $100,000 in volcano bonds for five years would qualify investors for Salvadoran citizenship.

4. TIP406: Finding Hidden Treasure w/ Thomas Braziel – Trey Lockerbie and Thomas Braziel

Trey Lockerbie (35:25):

You mentioned your investors expecting you to knock the cover off the ball sometimes. There is this unbelievable example or this investment that you did that I think encapsulates a lot of what we just talked about on this episode, and that was your Mt. Gox investment. So start at the top of this example. I know you’re going to try and spin it in a very humble way, but this is just such an incredible investment. Give us the lay of the land here with this, what you saw and how it’s panning out.

Thomas Braziel (35:54):

You know, I would just say that so much of your life in business, your personal life, and in investing is going to be serendipitous in the sense that I really believe so much of it as preparation meeting opportunity. I happen to be in the right place at the right time. I happen to know a lot about bankruptcy. I happen to know how to buy claims. And I just so happen to something I thought, “Well, wow, this is ridiculously asymmetric. If this works, yeah, this could really work, and I’ll get this ridiculously magnified return on probably the most volatile and interesting asset of our time.” So Mt. Gox was interesting. I mean, I tripped upon Mt. Gox reading the FT, and I saw the administration. It was probably year into the administration and there was an article in the FT. And I had known what Bitcoin was, but I didn’t think anything of it. I mean, I’m living, as we all do, I’m living in my own bubble.

Thomas Braziel (36:50):

And that’s the hard part about investing is this time period where you need to have your ears up and your antennas out and you’re looking, scoping out, trying to find opportunities. But then when you find something that might be interesting, you have to choose and choose wisely as best you can on where you’re going to spend your time. So for this, I saw the docket, I thought, “Wow, Japanese insolvency cryptocurrency claims. Wow. That’s amazing. That is really crazy. I wonder how you buy these.” It was out of curiosity. I wonder how you actually paper buying this kind of thing. And I thought, “Wouldn’t it be cool to buy one just to see if I could do it?” It was like someone saying like, “Wouldn’t it be cool to build a cabinet, see if I could just do it?” And there’s something like that. Someone.

Thomas Braziel (37:35):

So I did. So I went out there in the market, and it’s easy to read about the case. It was all in English and in Japanese, it was in dual languages, just because there were so many foreign creditors that they do everything in English and Japanese. So this is 2016, Bitcoin was probably at $300. I remember I bought some Bitcoin on Zappo and maybe on Coinbase as well, just to be like, “Hey, if I’m going to buy these claims, I should probably know what Bitcoin really is. People talk about it.” I bought one claim and I thought, “Oh, that’s really cool.”

Trey Lockerbie (38:08):

Where did you buy the claim? How did you find someone to sell you a claim?

Thomas Braziel (38:11):

So this is true in American cases, it’s not always true in foreign cases, and it just happened to be that a list of creditors, of approved creditors was… It is available if you’re a creditor in the court, but someone had actually leaked the approved creditor list, and I remember, hopefully this was pre-GDPR, but we had gotten ahold of the list and it’s all public there. I mean, I think there was even links probably to a newspaper where they had the list posted or at least in their servers or whatnot. But there was a list of approved creditors floating around. So I started fishing around and I figured, “Okay, I’ll start with the funny names because those will be easier to Google and find somebody that matches it, because John Smith’s going to be pretty hard to find. But your last name is Lockerbie, is that how you say it?

Trey Lockerbie (38:58):

Lockerbie, yeah.

Thomas Braziel (38:59):

That’s pretty, Trey Lockerbie, I might Google Trey Lockerbie and I’d look for a guy who was maybe into computer science.,Maybe he was into crypto, if he had it as an interest on LinkedIn or on Twitter, something, and maybe he’s the right age, maybe he’s below 35 and is into computer science or is somehow into cryptography and whatnot. So I started doing that and I basically found a few claims, bought them, and I didn’t think… At the time crypto was at 300, we bought the claims for a look through price of about $100 in Bitcoin. So it was an OK trade. It was like, “That’s an okay trade.”

Thomas Braziel (39:36):

This happens a lot of times in the life cycle with trades. It’s like a company you know a lot about. I don’t know, maybe if you follow Disney really close or something and you’re like, “This is an inflection point.” The real inflection point in the trade was 2018, I think when Bitcoin went to over 20,000, but it kind of pulled back, and the trustee was sold some crypto to basically raise a fiat. And we were able to buy the claim, where we were buying the crypto for free. And let me explain how. If you added up the cash in the estate and you added up the crypto, or you just added up the cash, leave the crypto for a second, and you divided by the outstanding claims, you were going to get about 450 to 480 dollars per claim, per BTC, per Bitcoin.

Thomas Braziel (40:23):

And we were able to buy them anywhere between 300 to 400 dollars. So we always knew we were going to get the 450 to 480 back in cash. And on top of the cash was Bitcoin. And I pitched this trade all over town in New York, trying to get a hedge fund to put in capital and let’s do it. And they were… People were like, “Hey, this is not that scalable, this is crypto. We’ll never get it past…” The common objection, too small, not scalable, it’s crypto. I’ll never get it past my investment committee. Or, “Oh, I get it. You’re getting free optionality, but what is Bitcoin even worth? I mean, let’s be real.” And I was like, “Yeah, I don’t know. I think it’s a real possibility it could be worth something, and it hasn’t died yet.”

Thomas Braziel (41:06):

Even at the trade I was putting it on, assuming Bitcoin stayed where it was, it was somewhere between the 8 and 10 X return. And that was in Bitcoin, I think was at about 10 grand. So we’re getting the Bitcoin for free. So our downside extremely limited. I mean, in my mind, practically zero, other than legal risk and cost of collection and IRR risk, and optionality and convexity was incredibly high. So I loaded the boat. I mean, my hedge fund at the time, we were actually winding it down, so we didn’t add any in the hedge fund, but I was able to get a family office on board, and since my hedge fund was winding down, we were making distributions. I mean, this is crazy and I would never recommend someone do this. I put all my personal money in it.

Thomas Braziel (41:49):

So I did that knowing that it was a little aggressive and maybe I did it out of spite for my hedge fund closing, but no, not really. I really thought it was an amazing trade. I remember I actually had a… The claims that we bought in the whole setup, I remember sitting at dinner here in London, where I am now, and one of my investors was coming through. And I remember sitting at dinner with him, trying to explain to him how great this was. And his just… And he is a nice guy and he’s very smart but just can’t be bothered to look at the spreadsheet that… I’m such a young, somewhat naive person just thinking that this guy at dinner, when we’re having drinks and dinner, wants to see my spreadsheet that I printed out where I lay out the convexity and how great this is and all this stuff.

Thomas Braziel (42:36):

And he’s like, “This is great. Yeah, whatever, whatever. Great, great, great.” And he just doesn’t… He did not care. Maybe I wasn’t very good at pitching it, but anyway. So I got a family office on board. We bought a few million dollars worth. I put all my money into it. And I’m going to say the rest is history, because we’ve been buying claims over the years, but now we buy claims, of course we’re not making 40 X, we’re buying the Bitcoin for about half price and maybe 60 cents on the dollar. So we buy them for a large crypto hedge fund that believes in crypto. And I have to say, I’ve spent a lot of time in crypto now because of this, and I’m a bit of a believer.

5. Is the Fed Responsible for an 800% Gain in the Stock Market? – Ben Carlson

In a recent post I shared how the U.S. stock market is now up more than 800% since the lows of the financial crisis.

Right on schedule my Twitter replies and inbox were full of people bemoaning the fact that this entire bull market is an artifact the Federal Reserve policies…

…But what about Japan and Europe? Their central banks have also taken on trillions of dollars of assets on their balance sheets…

…The S&P 500 is outperforming stocks in each of these developed countries by more than 200% in total over the past decade. These countries have been providing similar levels of monetary stimulus over this time and their interest rates have been even lower than ours.

While the 10 year U.S. treasury bond currently yields around 1.7%, yields in Japan (0.1%) and Germany (-0.1%) are much lower. Why aren’t stocks exploding higher in those countries?

Interest rates certainly have an impact on how people allocate their capital but low interest rates alone don’t explain everything that happens in financial markets.

6. How Shein beat Amazon at its own game — and reinvented fast fashion – Louise Matsakis, Meaghan Tobin, and Wency Chen

Over the past decade, thousands of Chinese clothing manufacturers have begun selling directly to international consumers online, bypassing retailers that traditionally sourced their products from the country. Equipped with English-language social media profiles, Amazon seller accounts, and access to nimble garment supply chains, they’ve fueled the acceleration of trends and flooded closets everywhere with a wave of impossibly cheap clothes.

Rest of World spent the last six months investigating this new ecosystem, speaking with manufacturers, collecting social media and product data, making test buys, and interviewing shoppers and industry experts in both China and the U.S. Our reporting reveals how Chinese apparel makers have evolved to cater to the desires of internet-native consumers — and transformed their consumption habits in the process. Capitalizing on this shift are companies like Shein: the most successful, well-known, and well-funded online retailer of its kind.

Shein is now one of the world’s largest fashion companies, but little is known about its origins. 

It was founded in 2012 under the name SheInside, and reportedly began by selling wedding dresses abroad from its first headquarters in the Chinese city of Nanjing. (A spokesperson for Shein denied it ever sold wedding dresses, but declined to specify other details about its history.) The company says its founder, Chris Xu, was born in China, though a since-deleted press release described him as from the U.S.

Shein eventually expanded to offer apparel for women, men, and children, as well as everything from home goods to pet supplies, but its core business remains selling clothes targeted at women in their teens and 20s — a generation who grew up exploring their personal style on platforms like Instagram and Pinterest. 

Its clothes aren’t intended for Chinese customers, but are destined for export. In May, the company became the most popular shopping app in the U.S. on both Android and iOS, and, the same month, topped the iOS rankings in over 50 other countries. It’s the second most popular fashion website worldwide.

By 2020, Shein’s sales had risen to $10 billion, a 250% jump from the year before, according to Bloomberg. In June, the company accounted for 28% of all fast fashion sales in the U.S. — almost as much as both H&M and Zara combined. The same month, a report circulated that Shein was worth over $47 billion, making it one of the tech industry’s most valuable private startups. (Shein declined to say whether the sales or valuation figures were accurate.)…

…Through its manufacturing partners on the ground in China, Shein churns out and tests thousands of different items simultaneously. Between July and December of 2021, it added anywhere between 2,000 and 10,000 SKUs — stock keeping units, or individual styles — to its app each day, according to data collected by Rest of World. The company confirmed it starts by ordering a small batch of each garment, often a few dozen pieces, and then waits to see how buyers respond. If the cropped sweater vest is a hit, Shein orders more. It calls the system a “large-scale automated test and re-order (LATR) model.”…

…The secret is Shein’s internal software, which connects its entire business from design to delivery. “Everything is optimized with big data,” Lin said. Each of Shein’s suppliers gets their own account on the platform, which spits out information about what styles are selling well and can also quickly identify which might become future hits. “You can see the current sales, and then it will tell you to stock up more if you sell well and what you need to do if you don’t sell well. It’s all there.”

The software contains simple design specifications that help manufacturers execute new orders quickly. “A big brand might need a very high-end designer, or a designer with top technology, and even then may only be able to produce 20 or 30 styles a month,” said Lin. “But Shein does not have high design requirements. It is possible that a typical university student could get started designing quickly, and the output could be high.”…

…To convince suppliers to join its system, Shein had to meet only a very basic bar: paying them on time. Receiving timely payments is a huge problem for factories in China, said Malmsten. “They’ve built a lot of loyalty from their suppliers, so they can have more urgency on their orders,” she said. The result is that over 70% of products on Shein’s website were listed less than three months ago, Malmsten found, compared to 53% at Zara and 40% at H&M. “Shein just kind of blew Zara out of the water,” she said.

7. Casualties of Your Own Success – Morgan Housel

Two scientists, Aaron Clauset of the Santa Fe Institute and Doug Erwin of the Museum of Natural History, explained why in a paper that is dense but summed up in a wonderful sentence: “The tendency for evolution to create larger species is counterbalanced by the tendency of extinction to kill” off larger species.

Body size in biology is like leverage in investing: It accentuates the gains but amplifies the losses. It works well for a while and then backfires spectacularly at the point where the benefits are nice but the losses are lethal.

Take injury. Big animals are fragile. An ant can fall from an elevation 15,000 times its height and walk away unharmed. A rat will break bones falling from an elevation 50 times its height. A human will die from a fall at 10 times its height. An elephant falling from twice its height splashes like a water balloon.

Big animals also require lots of land per capita, which is brutal when land is scarce from farming or natural disaster. They can need more food per unit of body mass than small animals, which is the end game in a famine. They can’t hide easily. They move slow. They reproduce slow. Their top-of-the-food chain status means they usually don’t need to adapt, which is an unfortunate trait when adapting is required.

The most dominant creatures tend to be huge, but the most enduring tend to be smaller. T-Rex < cockroach < bacteria.

Size is nature’s leverage. Sought after for its benefits straight up to the point that it ferociously turns against you.

Same thing applies to companies and investments.

---

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 Amazon. Holdings are subject to change at any time.

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 16 January 2022:

1. My first impressions of web3 – Moxie Marlinspike (a.k.a Matthew Rosenfeld)

To get a feeling for the web3 world, I made a dApp called Autonomous Art that lets anyone mint a token for an NFT by making a visual contribution to it. The cost of making a visual contribution increases over time, and the funds a contributor pays to mint are distributed to all previous artists (visualizing this financial structure would resemble something similar to a pyramid shape). At the time of this writing, over $38k USD has gone into creating this collective art piece.

I also made a dApp called First Derivative that allows you to create, discover, and exchange NFT derivatives which track an underlying NFT, similar to financial derivatives which track an underlying asset 😉.

Both gave me a feeling for how the space works. To be clear, there is nothing particularly “distributed” about the apps themselves: they’re just normal react websites. The “distributedness” refers to where the state and the logic/permissions for updating the state lives: on the blockchain instead of in a “centralized” database.

One thing that has always felt strange to me about the cryptocurrency world is the lack of attention to the client/server interface. When people talk about blockchains, they talk about distributed trust, leaderless consensus, and all the mechanics of how that works, but often gloss over the reality that clients ultimately can’t participate in those mechanics. All the network diagrams are of servers, the trust model is between servers, everything is about servers. Blockchains are designed to be a network of peers, but not designed such that it’s really possible for your mobile device or your browser to be one of those peers.

With the shift to mobile, we now live firmly in a world of clients and servers – with the former completely unable to act as the latter – and those questions seem more important to me than ever. Meanwhile, ethereum actually refers to servers as “clients,” so there’s not even a word for an actual untrusted client/server interface that will have to exist somewhere, and no acknowledgement that if successful there will ultimately be billions (!) more clients than servers.

For example, whether it’s running on mobile or the web, a dApp like Autonomous Art or First Derivative needs to interact with the blockchain somehow – in order to modify or render state (the collectively produced work of art, the edit history for it, the NFT derivatives, etc). That’s not really possible to do from the client, though, since the blockchain can’t live on your mobile device (or in your desktop browser realistically). So the only alternative is to interact with the blockchain via a node that’s running remotely on a server somewhere.

A server! But, as we know, people don’t want to run their own servers. As it happens, companies have emerged that sell API access to an ethereum node they run as a service, along with providing analytics, enhanced APIs they’ve built on top of the default ethereum APIs, and access to historical transactions. Which sounds… familiar. At this point, there are basically two companies. Almost all dApps use either Infura or Alchemy in order to interact with the blockchain. In fact, even when you connect a wallet like MetaMask to a dApp, and the dApp interacts with the blockchain via your wallet, MetaMask is just making calls to Infura!

These client APIs are not using anything to verify blockchain state or the authenticity of responses. The results aren’t even signed. An app like Autonomous Art says “hey what’s the output of this view function on this smart contract,” Alchemy or Infura responds with a JSON blob that says “this is the output,” and the app renders it.

This was surprising to me. So much work, energy, and time has gone into creating a trustless distributed consensus mechanism, but virtually all clients that wish to access it do so by simply trusting the outputs from these two companies without any further verification. It also doesn’t seem like the best privacy situation. Imagine if every time you interacted with a website in Chrome, your request first went to Google before being routed to the destination and back. That’s the situation with ethereum today. All write traffic is obviously already public on the blockchain, but these companies also have visibility into almost all read requests from almost all users in almost all dApps.

Partisans of the blockchain might say that it’s okay if these types of centralized platforms emerge, because the state itself is available on the blockchain, so if these platforms misbehave clients can simply move elsewhere. However, I would suggest that this is a very simplistic view of the dynamics that make platforms what they are…

…Given the history of why web1 became web2, what seems strange to me about web3 is that technologies like ethereum have been built with many of the same implicit trappings as web1. To make these technologies usable, the space is consolidating around… platforms. Again. People who will run servers for you, and iterate on the new functionality that emerges. Infura, OpenSea, Coinbase, Etherscan.

Likewise, the web3 protocols are slow to evolve. When building First Derivative, it would have been great to price minting derivatives as a percentage of the underlying’s value. That data isn’t on chain, but it’s in an API that OpenSea will give you. People are excited about NFT royalties for the way that they can benefit creators, but royalties aren’t specified in ERC-721, and it’s too late to change it, so OpenSea has its own way of configuring royalties that exists in web2 space. Iterating quickly on centralized platforms is already outpacing the distributed protocols and consolidating control into platforms…

…“It’s early days still” is the most common refrain I see from people in the web3 space when discussing matters like these. In some ways, cryptocurrency’s failure to scale beyond relatively nascent engineering is what makes it possible to consider the days “early,” since objectively it has already been a decade or more.

However, even if this is just the beginning (and it very well might be!), I’m not sure we should consider that any consolation. I think the opposite might be true; it seems like we should take notice that from the very beginning, these technologies immediately tended towards centralization through platforms in order for them to be realized, that this has ~zero negatively felt effect on the velocity of the ecosystem, and that most participants don’t even know or care it’s happening. This might suggest that decentralization itself is not actually of immediate practical or pressing importance to the majority of people downstream, that the only amount of decentralization people want is the minimum amount required for something to exist, and that if not very consciously accounted for, these forces will push us further from rather than closer to the ideal outcome as the days become less early.

2. Unpacking the Web3 Sausage – Dror Poleg

The vision for web3 is admirable. But Moxie set out to understand how the decentralized sausage is made in practice. He was not impressed.

Moxie’s first concern was that Web3 is not as decentralized as it claims. In this case, access to the basic infrastructure of web3 (the Ethereum blockchain) ends up being routed through a couple of popular API providers. So, even though the blockchain itself is decentralized, most apps that depend on it still go through bottlenecks that are centralized and operated by private, for-profit entities.

To use an analogy, consider a person who buys a piece of gold and stores it in a keyed vault, under a mountain, maintained by a Swiss bank. When the person logs into the bank’s app to check his gold balance, the app doesn’t send a person into the vault to check how much gold is there or whether someone tampered with the vault’s key. Instead, it simply shows data from a third-party database that records the inflow and outflow of gold bars from the whole mountain. So, the customer gets the latest information, but it does not get direct, indisputably true information.

The imaginary bank does this because it’s much easier to maintain a central database of all deposits and remittances from the mountain rather than send someone in person each time a client logs into the app. Ethereum-based apps use API providers for the same reason: it’s easier and simpler for them to do so rather than verify every query on the blockchain itself.

This choice of expedience over decentralization is bad in some use cases and harmless in others. The issue Moxie raised is known, and Ethereum developers have spoken and written about them publicly and are working on ways to mitigate them. And I have also written about how each wave of decentralization creates a concurrent wave of centralization…

…Moxie created an NFT on OpenSea. He intentionally programmed the listing to look different on different platforms (by loading a different image depending on the IP of the requesting site). Initially, he could see the NFT in his crypto wallet, which meant his ownership of it was documented on the Ethereum blockchain. However, a few days later, OpenSea decided to remove his NFT from their marketplace, claiming Moxie violated their terms of services (due to the code that changes what users see).

Technically, the fact that OpenSea decided to remove the NFT from their marketplace should not matter. Moxie still owned it, and this ownership was recorded independently of OpenSea, on the blockchain itself. But when Moxie checked his crypto wallet app, he noticed the NFT had disappeared. How could this be?

Moxie dug deeper and found out that the wallet app he was using (Metamask) did not really show what was in his account on the Ethereum blockchain. Instead, his wallet app relied on an API — the OpenSea API! — to check which NFTs were associated with which blockchain account. And since Moxie’s NFT was removed from OpenSea, the API showed it no longer existed.

This felt like Web 2.0 all over again. A powerful platform managed to confiscate/delete a user’s data and assets from his account without his consent.

But there’s an essential distinction between what happened to Moxie and what happens when a Web 2.0 platform decides to delete a user’s file or listing…

…Moxie dove into how Web3 apps interact with one another and discovered a few key limitations. The most alarming among them was the disappearance of his hard-earned digital goods from his crypto wallet.

But even though Moxie’s NFT did not appear in his wallet app, it still existed, and Moxie was still its owner. The failure to see the NFT was a problem with the wallet app’s architecture and the API it relied on.

The wallet app relied on an API instead of verifying information directly on the blockchain, and the API provider did not include NFTs that were not listed on OpenSea.

If Moxie had used a different app that checks the status of his NFT directly on the blockchain, he could have seen that the NFT is still there. Indeed, you can see that NFT on Rarible, an OpenSea competitor. To return to our earlier analogy, the gold bar is still inside the vault, inside the mountain, even though the bank’s app doesn’t show it.

Of course, the fact that popular wallet apps don’t display stuff in people’s accounts even though that stuff is still there is a problem. But the good news is that even though OpenSea removed Moxie’s NFT, that NFT “survived” and remains in his posession.

3. Mark Smith – Finch Therapeutics: Empowering Immune Systems – Patrick O’Shaughnessy and Mark Smith

[00:02:55] Patrick: Mark, we’re going to talk about an especially interesting topic today, one that I’ve definitely read a bit about, but I’m somewhat of a rookie on. And so you can educate the audience alongside me. And that topic is the microbiome. It’s one of the areas of health and wellbeing that is a very recent phenomenon in the public consciousness and certainly in medical research. It would be good for you to begin by giving us an overview of what this thing is, this word “microbiome,” what it represents. And then I’d like to get into your own origin story and why you’ve devoted this part of your career to this idea.

[00:03:28] Mark: First off, Patrick, thanks for having me here. Excited to share the story of the microbiome and the hidden majority of microbes that live inside all of us. There are about as many microbial cells as there are human cells inside all of us, and they’re fundamental to everything that we do, from the way we digest food and extract energy from it, synthesis of important vitamins, regulation of our immune system. Even how we think and feel can be manipulated by these bacteria that live on and inside of us. It’s almost like a new organ system that we’re just now learning to understand. And the reason that it’s taken us such a long time to really understand the importance of this community is that a lot of these bacteria are actually really hard to grow in the lab. So it’s only when we started to use the methods of high throughput genomic sequencing, that we first used to sequence the human genome, we started to shine that flashlight onto the microbiome over the last 10 years, that we realized there’s actually this enormous diversity of microbial organisms that lives inside all of us and has been really important to our health. You can think about it like a rainforest that lives inside of each one of us and is responsible for keeping us healthy in a lot of ways. As we think about the evolution of this space, this first chapter, which is understanding what’s there. And now we’re at a really exciting point. We’re able to actually go in and manipulate the microbiome, so we can make changes, make edits, add subtractions, and do that in a targeted, rational way in order to try to improve health outcomes for patients.

[00:04:57] Patrick: Give us an overview of where these things are. It’s non-human cells living inside human bodies. You said it’s almost equal in terms of allocation of cells, human versus not. That’s pretty crazy. Where do these things mostly exist? Is there a useful taxonomy or categorization system that might help us understand, for the rest of the conversation, the types of these things, what they’re doing, why they’re related to our health, why they’re there in the place?

[00:05:22] Mark: They’re everywhere. In fact, inside of every one of your cells, there’s this thing called mitochondria. That’s what helps us get energy from food. It’s actually a bacteria that’s just lived with us for such a long time that got embedded into all of our cells. In addition to those, though, the bulk of the microbes that we’re talking about, thinking about here, those that are not part of our human cells and the primary place that they reside is in our gut. And the reason for that is, while microbes are pretty much ubiquitous throughout our bodies, our gut is actually specifically designed to grow bacteria. We’ve spent the last 10 years trying to get really good at growing bacteria. Despite tens of millions of dollars of investment, we think we’re pretty good at solving this problem. We’re orders of magnitude less efficient than you are right now at growing these bacteria inside of your gut. And that’s because we’ve evolved this system specifically to ferment bacteria, and we can go into a little bit more around why we’ve evolved that capability and what it does for us, and why think it’s an important target for developing medicines. But just in terms of a framework to think about these going forward for the rest of the conversation, I usually think about these commensals, that are bacteria that are either neutral to our health or helping us out, and then their pathogens. If you study a medical textbook, you just hear about all the pathogens, all the bad bacteria, but they’re actually the minority. In most of us, most of the time, are dominated bacteria that are a really important part of who we are and our identities…

…[00:10:45] Patrick: What would happen if inside of a human, the entire stock of bacteria was nuked and gone? What would happen to that person?

[00:10:53] Mark: Your immune system would freak out. We actually have examples where we’ve done this, gnotobiotic or germ free animals. We grow them up in incubators, surgically remove them from their moms, prevent any microbes from getting into them when you feed them throughout their lives. They live shorter lives. They’re profoundly unhealthy, and they have dysfunctional immune systems. If we’re the landlord renting out space to bacteria, we want to really firmly control where they are, because if they suddenly got into our bloodstream, they’d make us really sick and we could die from that. Like a nuclear reactor, you want to carefully contain it and prevent it. It can be awesome when it’s going in the right spot, but it’d be really harmful if that leaked out and got into places where it’s not supposed to be. We have this immune system that takes a very significant percentage of our total energy balance. And it’s not dysfunctional that we have this chronic lifelong infection. It’s actually one of the main purposes of it is to shape and control that system. It’s almost like a dead man switch, back in the Cold War. “If you don’t get a signal we’re alive every two minutes, send out nukes” or something like that. How your immune system is regulated, you constantly need to get a signal from your microbiome that they’re paying the rent. And there are these metabolites that they use, energy currency that they pay us in. And if you don’t get that, your body starts to mount this immune response.

And one of the things that’s really interesting is, while antibiotics don’t nuke your entire microbiome and eliminate all the bacteria, they diminish it pretty significantly. We’ve been on this massive uncontrolled experiment over the last 70 years, since we started developing antibiotics. And what happens when you just give a bunch of people antibiotics and really decimate this microbiome, what does that do to their health? And right now we use about 42 billion doses of antibiotics every year, around the world. And what we’ve learned is they have a really big impact on our microbiome, unsurprisingly. That’s what they’re designed to do. We found that there are a lot of diseases that basically didn’t exist a hundred years ago that are now some of the big scourges of humanity. Chronic autoimmune and inflammatory diseases that seem to be linked both in time and place to changes in our relationship with our microbiome. We believe that by restoring the functionality of this interface between these organisms that we’ve co-evolved with since before we were human, in our immune system, by restoring that relationship, you get at the underlying cause of a lot of these autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. Right now, the way we treat those diseases, some of the best selling drugs in the world try to shut down the immune response. And that has a lot of negative consequences and doesn’t necessarily address the underlying cause of that inflammation, which is disrupted communication between our microbiome, this organ system inside of us, and our immune system…

…[00:31:39] Patrick: If the Finch Therapeutic story has got chapter headers from inception through now, what have been those major chapters? So if there’s this blunt force instrument of fecal transplant, C. diff is one disease killing 30,000 people, what are the other addressable conditions that we’re confident in some sort of therapy here working to mitigate or eliminate? I did a conversation on tumor treating fields in cancer, which is this other interesting new modality for treating a big class of problems and has to be tuned for brain versus lung versus whatever other cancer. So what’s the equivalent here? What do you think the biggest, chunkiest problems to be solved are? And then we’ll go into those chapter headers for Finch Therapeutics to business.

[00:32:19] Mark: We see a very large opportunity here. Again, we think this is fundamental to human biology. We think that your immune system is regulated by your microbiome. Your immune system touches almost every disease and that’s the common thread. The nested opportunities that we see laid out ahead of us are C. diff, where we have a phase three program ongoing right now. There’s a lot of evidence that this can be highly effective there. The next wave of opportunities that we see are in conditions where there’s a GI component, maybe multiple opportunities to benefit. So ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease. Autism, actually, interestingly enough, there’s a meaningful GI component. About a third of kids with autism have severe GI symptoms. And we’ve seen benefits both on the GI symptoms as well as behavioral endpoints. Those are a wave of indications that we’re really excited to develop. It gets broader than that. So you start thinking about your point around applications in oncology. There’s some really interesting data that’s come out over the last year. Some of the most interesting new therapies that have been developed over the last few years are these things called checkpoint therapies, that unleash your immune system to attack cancer. We’re actually all developing cancers almost every day. And our immune system mostly clears them before they become problematic. And if you can help to empower your immune system to drive that assault, you can fight cancers. Checkpoint therapies for tens of billions of dollars a year in sales. It turns out that your life expectancy on checkpoint therapy is half as long if you have antibiotics within six months of starting checkpoint therapy. If you take a microbiome from a responder into a non-responder, you can drive a more than twofold increase over the expected response rate complementing what we’ve seen as the setback that you get from disrupting your microbiome.

That speaks to the potential breadth here, where seemingly unrelated indications all have this common thread. And it’s an area that we’ve spent a lot of time focused on. To summarize the broad chapters in developing this technology, for us, the first step was just show this works somewhere, show that we can put all the pieces together to develop an effective therapy. We can manufacture it, we can do it in a consistent way, can deliver it to the right location, all that stuff. The obvious first choice for us was going to C. diff. We had a lot of experience treating those patients and serving that community. C. diff is the first step. For us, this long journey to go from zero to one, and then to go from one to many has actually been a lot faster for us because we’ve been building plans for how we would attack all these other diseases once we’ve proven to the world that this works somewhere. We saw C. diff as creating a floor value in the company where we know it works there. We know we can serve patients and have a reliable revenue stream. And we can use that as a foundation to take some really big swings into these large, potentially transformational opportunities and get to our long term view, which is, “This is going to be a really important new class of therapies over the next 10 years.” My personal mission is to accelerate that reality as much as possible and bring that forward now, so that patients don’t have to wait. When I think about my wife’s cousin having to do this on his own, that is not okay. That’s unacceptable answer to me. There are tons of other patients like that that are out there, just waiting for these therapies to be developed. And every day that we delay that, we’re doing a disservice to that group.

[00:35:27] Patrick: Talk me through the end game. Let’s say you’re successful. You’re able to have a solution that’s much more frictionless than the current, sounds like really arduous problem solving for C. diff or something similar. What does that look like? Are we taking a pill that’s been engineered for us? Are we doing something different? What does the end game look like and what’s the timeline look like?

[00:35:47] Mark: The end game here is that we can sequence your microbiome, identify deficiencies, and then come in and deliver this. Say, the following 10 groups of bacteria, we’re going to deliver those to you. You’re going to take these five pills and that’s going to restore your health and not only treat the specific disease you have today, but potentially prevent other diseases. We’ve made a lot of progress over the last hundred years in terms of living long. We don’t necessarily live well. People end up with these chronic diseases throughout their lives that make their lives really unpleasant with tools like antibiotics. Those are some of the things that drove the longevity and those are life changing and amazing therapies. And I want to be able to use some of those agents that modulate our immune system, that change our microbiome and can save people’s lives, without impacting the quality of those lives. That’s an important long term objective. In terms of what the timeline is, this is happening now. There are already … at OpenBiome are the first step in my journey, we treated over 60,000 patients, built a network of about 1300 hospitals and clinics that we were serving. That is very much a practical reality for patients today. The next step is, we’re running a phase three clinical trial right now at Finch to develop an approved therapy that can scale and serve many more patients. If things go well, this will be available in the next couple of years for patients. These aren’t applications that are decades away. This is already reality for many patients today and has quickly become standard of care. Now we’re scaling that up and bringing it to new indications where we also believe that we can have a differentiated impact. And the way that we do that at Finch is unique to this therapeutic area.

Classically, drug development is all about risk management. And we fundamentally think about ourselves as risk managers. It costs about a billion dollars to develop a new drug, this incredibly capital intensive exercise. And anything you can do to reduce risk early on in that process has a dramatic impact on the expected value of this kind of product. Normally, when you start development of a drug, you maybe have a 5 to 10% probative success when you treat your first patient, that it’s going to actually get approved. You lose roughly a third of candidates just because of safety when you treat the first 10, 20 patients. Before we start any program, a firm underwriting criteria for us to support an investment in new program is we need to have clinical data that already shows that a composition works. And it’s this incredible privilege to basically start with the answer before you underwrite new investments. We start off with all this microbiotic transplant data. At Finch, we built the company around this concept of human first discovery, essentially reverse translation from what’s happening in the clinic, where there are more than 300 ongoing clinical trials exploring all these new applications. When I talked to you about ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease and oncology, that’s not speculation, like, “Hey, maybe this could work here and we’ve got some animal model that suggests it.” Those are completed clinical studies that have read out data, where clinical investors went in, modulated someone’s microbiome and saw that that radically changed their clinical outcome.

We think that’s an exceptional place to start from and to launch a drug development enterprise from. There’s this long co-evolved history of engagement between microbes and humans. It’s the absence of those microbes that’s dangerous, not the presence of them. There’s this expectation and empirical reality that these are generally well tolerated when run in well controlled clinical studies. There are all of these ongoing clinical studies with microbiotic transplantation which gives us that shotgun approach. And then we can mine all that data to figure out why did that work? What made that work? And then use that to develop the next gen products that we’re advancing at Finch. One of the things that’s really interesting is, we don’t just say, “This strain of bacteria matters.” We can say, “This specific strain from this sample put 10 patients into remission. That’s the strain I want to put in my drug.” We can actually cryo-revive these things. We have a massive biorepository with more than 10,000 samples that have been in patients, and we understand what the outcomes are. And we can go back and say, “This strain is a strain that I want to put into my drug. Now I’m going to grow it up and do that going forward.” So it’s that combination of all of these elements of the clinical data, some of the samples and the algorithms to make sense of it that have enabled us to use this strategy of reverse translation from what’s already working in the clinic today.

4. Are we witnessing the dawn of post-theory science? – Laura Spinney

Isaac Newton apocryphally discovered his second law – the one about gravity – after an apple fell on his head. Much experimentation and data analysis later, he realised there was a fundamental relationship between force, mass and acceleration. He formulated a theory to describe that relationship – one that could be expressed as an equation, F=ma – and used it to predict the behaviour of objects other than apples. His predictions turned out to be right (if not always precise enough for those who came later).

Contrast how science is increasingly done today. Facebook’s machine learning tools predict your preferences better than any psychologist. AlphaFold, a program built by DeepMind, has produced the most accurate predictions yet of protein structures based on the amino acids they contain. Both are completely silent on why they work: why you prefer this or that information; why this sequence generates that structure.

You can’t lift a curtain and peer into the mechanism. They offer up no explanation, no set of rules for converting this into that – no theory, in a word. They just work and do so well…

…Somewhere between Newton and Mark Zuckerberg, theory took a back seat. In 2008, Chris Anderson, the then editor-in-chief of Wired magazine, predicted its demise. So much data had accumulated, he argued, and computers were already so much better than us at finding relationships within it, that our theories were being exposed for what they were – oversimplifications of reality. Soon, the old scientific method – hypothesise, predict, test – would be relegated to the dustbin of history. We’d stop looking for the causes of things and be satisfied with correlations.

With the benefit of hindsight, we can say that what Anderson saw is true (he wasn’t alone). The complexity that this wealth of data has revealed to us cannot be captured by theory as traditionally understood. “We have leapfrogged over our ability to even write the theories that are going to be useful for description,” says computational neuroscientist Peter Dayan, director of the Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics in Tübingen, Germany. “We don’t even know what they would look like.”

5. Fundsmith 2021 Annual Letter – Terry Smith

In investment, as in life, you cannot have your cake and eat it, so it is difficult if not impossible to find companies which are resilient in a downturn but which also benefit fully from the subsequent recovery. Of course, you could try to trade out of the former and into the latter at an appropriate time but it is not what we seek to do as the vast majority of the returns which our Fund generates come from the ability of the companies we own to invest their retained earnings at a high rate of return because they own businesses with good returns and growth opportunities. In our view it would be a mistake to sell some of these good businesses in order to invest temporarily in companies which are much worse but which have greater recovery potential… 

…Our portfolio consists of companies that are fundamentally a lot better than the average of those in either index and are valued higher than the average S&P 500 company and much higher than the average FTSE 100 company. However, it is wise to bear in mind that despite the rather sloppy shorthand used by many commentators, highly rated does not equate to expensive any more than lowly rated equates to cheap.

The bar chart below may help to illustrate this point. It shows the ‘Justified P/Es’ of a number of stocks of the kind we invest in. What it shows is the Price/Earnings ratio (P/E) you could have paid for these stocks in 1973 and achieved a 7% compound annual growth rate (CAGR) over the next 46 years (to 2019), versus the 6.2% CAGR the MSCI World Index (USD) returned over the same period. In other words, you could have paid these prices for the stocks and beaten the index — something the perfect markets theorists would maintain you can’t do…

…You could have paid a P/E of 281x for L’Oréal, 174x for BrownForman, 100x for PepsiCo, 44x for Procter & Gamble and a mere 31x for Unilever.

I am not suggesting we will pay those multiples but it puts the sloppy shorthand of high P/Es equating to expensive stocks into perspective…

…Turning to the themes which dominated 2021, you may have heard a lot talked about the so-called ‘rotation’ from quality stocks of the sort we seek to own to so-called value stocks, which in many cases is simply taken as equating to lowly rated companies. Somewhat related to this there was periodic excitement over so-called reopening stocks which could be expected to benefit as and when we emerge from the pandemic — airlines and the hospitality industry, for example.

There are multiple problems with an approach which involves pursuing an investment in these stocks. Timing is obviously an issue. Another is that their share prices may already over anticipate the benefits of the so-called reopening. As Jim Chanos, the renowned short seller, observed ‘The worst thing that can happen to reopening stocks is that we reopen.’ It is often better to travel hopefully than to arrive.

In our view, the biggest problem with any investment in low quality businesses is that on the whole the return characteristics of businesses persist. Good sectors and businesses remain good and poor return businesses also have persistently poor returns as the charts below show:…

6. What A World – Morgan Housel

Franklin Roosevelt looked around the room and chuckled when his presidential library opened in 1941. A reporter asked why he was so cheerful. “I’m thinking of all the historians who will come here thinking they’ll find the answers to their questions,” he said.

Everything we know about history is limited to what’s been written down, shared publicly, or spoken into a camera. The stuff that’s been kept secret, in someone’s head, taken to the grave, must be – I don’t know – 1,000 times as large and more interesting…

…Gabby Gingras was born unable to feel pain. She has a full sense of touch. But a rare genetic condition left her completely unable to sense physical pain.

You might think this is a superpower, or an incredible gift. But her life is dreadful. The inability to feel pain left Gabby unable to distinguish right from wrong in the physical world. One profile summarized a fraction of it:

As Gabby’s baby teeth came in, she mutilated the inside of her mouth. Gabby was unaware of the damage she was causing because she didn’t feel the pain that would tell her to stop. Her parents watch helplessly.

“She would chew her fingers bloody, she would chew on her tongue like it was bubble gum,” Steve Gingras, Gabby’s father, explained. “She ended up in the hospital for 10 days because her tongue was so swelled up she couldn’t drink.”

Pain also keeps babies from putting their fingers in their eyes. Without pain to stop her, Gabby scratched her eyes so badly doctors temporarily sewed them shut. Today she is legally blind because of self-inflicted childhood injuries.

Pain is miserable. Life without pain is a disaster…

…John Maynard Keynes once purchased a trove of Issac Newton’s original papers at auction. Many had never been seen before, having been stashed away at Cambridge for centuries.

Newton is probably the smartest human to ever live. But Keynes was astonished to find that much of the work was devoted to alchemy, sorcery, and trying to find a potion for eternal life.

Keynes wrote:

I have glanced through a great quantity of this at least 100,000 words, I should say. It is utterly impossible to deny that it is wholly magical and wholly devoid of scientific value; and also impossible not to admit that Newton devoted years of work to it.

I wonder: Was Newton a genius in spite of being addicted to magic, or was being curious about things that seemed impossible part of what made him so successful?…

…Part of the Armistice that ended World War I forced the dismantling of Germany’s military. Six million rifles, 38 million projectiles, half a billion rounds of ammunition, 17 million grenades, 16,000 airplanes, 450 ships, and millions of tons of other war equipment were destroyed or stripped from Germany’s possession.

But 20 years later, Germany had the most sophisticated army in the world. It had the fastest tanks. The strongest air force. The most powerful artillery. The most sophisticated communication equipment, and the first missiles.

A catastrophic irony is that this advancement took place not in spite of, but because of, its disarmament.

George Marshall, U.S. Army Chief of Staff, noted:

After the [first] World War practically everything was taken away from Germany. So when it rearmed, it was necessary to produce a complete set of materiel for the troops. As a result, Germany has an army equipped with the most modern weapons that could be turned out. That is a situation that has never occurred before in the history of the world.

There’s a set of advantages that come from being endowed with resources. There’s another set of advantages that come from starting from scratch. The latter can be sneakingly powerful.

7. Twitter thread on evaluating people – Dan Rose

In 2006 I was meeting with Jeff Bezos to discuss acquiring Audible when he described their founder Don Katz as “a missionary, not a mercenary.” I later learned Jeff got this framing from John Doerr, and it struck me as a good distinction when evaluating people…

…Most great founders are missionaries. Starting a company requires a level of commitment that lends itself to missionary zeal. Of course some founders are primarily motivated by money, but mercenary founders tend not to build lasting companies, opting instead for a quicker exit.

Missionary founders also care about making money, but they are primarily motivated by a higher calling. The mission of the company means something to them in their bones. They truly believe in serving their customers, improving people’s lives, putting a “dent in the universe.”

I remember my new hire orientation at Amazon in 1999. They shared a letter from a customer living in a rural village in Eastern Europe who was grateful to have access to books. We left with stickers that read “Work hard. Have fun. Make history.” I remember thinking, Let’s Go!

Chris Cox delivered a new hire orientation speech at Facebook religiously every Monday talking about the evolution of communications from the printing press to the internet and social media. Cox’s missionary speech left everyone in the room with that same feeling, Let’s Go!

---

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 Amazon and Facebook. Holdings are subject to change at any time.

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 January 2022:

1. We may finally be able to test one of Stephen Hawking’s most far-out ideas – Paul Sutter

In the 1970s, Hawking proposed that dark matter, the invisible substance that makes up most matter in the cosmos, may be made of black holes formed in the earliest moments of the Big Bang. 

Now, three astronomers have developed a theory that explains not only the existence of dark matter, but also the appearance of the largest black holes in the universe…

…Dark matter makes up over 80% of all the matter in the universe, but it doesn’t directly interact with light in any way.  It just floats around being massive, affecting the gravity within galaxies.

It’s tempting to think that black holes might be responsible for this elusive stuff. After all, black holes are famously dark, so filling  a galaxy with black holes could theoretically explain all the observations of dark matter.

Unfortunately, in the modern universe, black holes form only after massive stars die, then collapse under the weight of their own gravity. So making black holes requires many stars — which requires a bunch of normal matter.Scientists know how much normal matter is in the universe from calculations of the early universe, where the first hydrogen and helium formed. And there simply isn’t enough normal matter to make all the dark matter astronomers have observed.

That’s where Hawking came in. In 1971, he suggested that black holes formed in the chaotic environment of the earliest moments of the Big Bang. There, pockets of matter could spontaneously reach the densities needed to make black holes, flooding the cosmos with them well before the first stars twinkled. Hawking suggested that these “primordial” black holes might be responsible for dark matter. While the idea was interesting, most  astrophysicists focused instead on finding a new subatomic particle to explain dark matter.

What’s more, models of primordial black hole formation ran into observational issues. If too many formed in the early universe, they changed the picture of the leftover radiation from the early universe, known as the  cosmic microwave background (CMB). That meant the theory only worked when the number and size of ancient black holes were fairly limited, or it would conflict with measurements of the CMB. .

The idea was revived in 2015 when the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory found its first pair of colliding black holes. The two black holes were much larger than expected, and one way to explain their large mass was to say they formed in the early universe, not in the hearts of dying stars.   

2. Orlando Bravo – The Art of Software Buyouts – Patrick O’Shaughnessy and Orlando Bravo

[00:09:54] Patrick: Would you take us all the way back to the very first deal? I think Prophet 21 was the name of the firm that you did in the software world. I want to start there, because obviously, this has become an absolute dominant trend in the world of investing, of businesses, et cetera. But back then, when you did your first one 22 years ago, it was a very different situation. I think the evolution from then to now is really important for people to understand. Talk us through the unique dynamics of that deal, how you came to it, how you got the idea, how it was financed. I know that was very different back then. I would love to hear the story of the first technology software deal that you did.

[00:10:30] Orlando: Prophet 21 was a deal that our team originated because we had an investment team at the time after the dot-com bubble burst in 2000. We were looking to do something different than all of private equity, really. We were searching for it. Carl Thoma, my mentor, was open-minded enough to allow us to do that. The theme that we had at the time was you can buy software maintenance streams… remember, it was all on-premise two years ago… you can buy software maintenance streams less expensively than almost any other form of recurring revenue in different industries, media, radio, which was popular then, transaction processing, and that quality of that revenue is even more sticky than those categories. Now, the challenge was that that universe, which is a challenge today, by the way, but the challenge then, having us not done that before, was that these companies were unprofitable, especially coming out of that bust that happened in the year 2000. We had to say, theoretically, with 90% gross margins, these businesses can be high cashflow generative, and therefore good candidates for a fundamental control-type investing.

In doing our work, we came across Prophet 21. The company was for sale. We were able to succeed, actually, without much competition. That was interesting. It was one of those unusual deals where there was not that much competition, even though there were players starting in the software industry back then that were very good and had similar ideas as we had. It was interesting, because that company had never made money before. Now, it wasn’t losing all kinds of money. It was close to break-even, so management did care about that. That wasn’t a completely irrelevant concept to them. Secondly, the company had never done a lateral acquisition and the company had inconsistent performance. We bought the business and part of the reason was the price looked great at around two times maintenance revenue, one times two. Imagine, remember those days.

[00:12:37] Patrick: Charming.

[00:12:39] Orlando: Exactly, those were the days. We decided through meeting the person that became chairman of our operating committee, that the best approach was to back existing management for all the reasons that I mentioned before that existing management has. They really wanted to win, but have them work with our operating partner in terms of improving that company. Of course, three years later, you end up with a success story, a five margin, good growth, six software acquisitions, and it was a great investment. That experience really made us very passionate about the possibility of working with existing management that deeply cares about that business, that doesn’t move from company to company, that lives in that environment. They provided software for small and mid-market distributors, so they knew all the distribution customers, they knew the culture, they knew how they talk, how they trade, how you have to discount it. They know that world and were good at it. If you can marry that with an operational approach… as my partner would always say, “Everybody needs somebody to learn from”… if you can marry that with what we would bring, you would not only have the possibility of great success, but also it was a good approach to doing business. It felt really good. Then we did a second deal, and the same thing happened with existing management, and then a third one and so on and so forth, so we quickly developed this as our mission.

[00:14:02] Patrick: I’d love to zoom out and talk about the software industry, maybe even the enterprise SaaS-specific sector of it, where you’ve done a lot of your work and some of the weird features of it. You mentioned some of these businesses have 90% gross margins. Everyone herald’s software as like the best business model ever, but I think the average public market business, or maybe even the private market ones, they lose a lot of money still. Obviously, there’re reasons for that, but I’d love you to just walk through what seems like a huge dissonance between the average SaaS company and the type of company that you’re trying to run and manage.

[00:14:34] Orlando: There is no difference in the business model between that average and what we’re looking to do. In essence, when you see us buy control of the business, we are underwriting our plan, not what is going on in that company. In many cases, we’re buying break-even businesses or businesses that may be losing money. That’s not the way it’s going to be run in partnership with management going forward, because the model would break and you couldn’t support some debt into that transaction, which is highly creative. The challenge is for the market inefficiency here is that public investors who are extremely smart, creative, highly-educated, and great, for some reason they believe that “investing in growth” is the same and goes hand-in-hand with losing money and having a negative margin. Those two concepts are completely different. They many times have nothing to do with one another, and many times high profitability leads to higher growth because what high profits means, really, is that first you have operating management that innovates correctly, that runs those different functional areas in a way that is operationally sound. They measure all their activities. They look at inputs versus outputs. They readjust to what is working. Being highly profitable also means that you have a good enough product and you’re charging a price for that product that allows you to produce that profitability, where for example, the yearly increase in the value of that product merits a price increase that is higher than your labor inflation, a key point today in this inflationary world. If you do that really, really well and you provide so much value to your customers that you capture some of that in your price, and every day you become better at your operations because you learn from the past and you’re actually measuring this, it means that you have more money to invest in tactical growth, which is sales and marketing or distribution and more money to invest in strategic growth, which is product development, R&D and new initiatives.

See, when you’re highly profitable and you’re growing very fast, it also means that management is making the right investment decisions in growth. You’re an investor. You see all kinds of different sales channels. Well, if you lose money and you can lose money, sure, you’ll try it all. You’ll try direct sales, channel sales, inside sales, web sales, marketing. You can try all kinds of marketing plays. When you’re really profitable, it means you’re doing the right ones that fit your product and your business and what your customers need. The same thing is in R&D. You could have 20 R&D initiatives, and if one works and you grow really fast, that’s great. But how about the other 19? I can get really passionate about this. The other fallacy that I see with investors in this space is saying, “Well, this company’s growing really fast now. It’s 200 million in ARR, which is plenty of scale by the way to run it profitably, and I’m going to model what management told me, which was a 30% operating margin in year four. I understand why they’re losing a lot of money now is they’re growing at 50%.” But see, the operating world doesn’t work that way. That company in year four is not all of a sudden going to change how they plan, how they think about initiatives, how they tell their direct reports what’s important and what’s not. It just doesn’t work that way. They’ll never get there. You’ve got to start now to get there.

[00:18:23] Patrick: What do you think most explains… I think I have these numbers roughly right… the average SaaS company, maybe in the category has a slightly negative EBITDA margin, losing money on an EBITDA basis? I think probably your portfolio is closer to 35 or 40% EBITDA margin today. That’s a huge gap. What are the major explanations that make up that 40%? I mean, you’ve started to talk around some of the attitude differences, but literally, where do you think that change in margin most comes from versus the average SaaS company out there that’s loss-making?

[00:18:54] Orlando: I think that comes from investors really incenting management teams, just on top line. We work in a free market, capitalist, incentive-based system. If you’re running a company and your investors tell you, “I don’t care about the bottom line at all. Go grow revenues as quickly as you can,” that’s the directive from the shareholders and that’s what’s most likely going to happen. Now, those investors, at what point in time did they become indoctrinated with this business model? We could have a philosophical discussion about that.

[00:19:29] Patrick: Yeah. I’d love to hear.

[00:19:30] Orlando: Right. Is it that early-on VCs, teach these companies that way in order for them to, of course, grow in winning their markets? That’s the great thing to do, but also by doing that, do these companies need to raise more money and therefore there’s more room for investors to get the equity and then so on and so forth? It’s very interesting. One of the things that’s just so important to say is we believe in both high growth and high margin, and they’re not mutually exclusive. One actually drives the other, because when you also get growth, you should drop to the bottom line a higher margin than your existing margin in your business. In software where you have the marginal cost of your product is nearly zero, you do have to provide support, and of course, you have to pay for the distribution.

3. 10 Lessons from 2021 – Michael Batnick

Investors don’t necessarily get better with experience because markets are adaptive, unlike most of our learning environments. I won’t ever touch a stove again on purpose because I know it’s hot. I won’t go in a cold shower because I know it’s cold. But “I won’t ever buy stocks again when the CAPE ratio is above 25 because I remember 1999” is not the same thing.

To quote myself, “The greatest lesson we can learn from history is that those who learn too much from it are doomed to draw parallels where none exist.”

Skeptics sounds smart. Optimists make money. As I said at the top of this post, my reflections and lessons of this year are a time capsule of the current environment. An environment that might change as soon as I hit publish. Sure doom and gloomers will look like soothsayers from time to time, but I don’t know anybody who got rich fading the human spirit. Don’t short capitalism.

It’s easy to be a knee-jerk skeptic. In fact, that will probably serve an investor well. Shiny objects can be dangerous. But a healthier attitude, especially in a bull market, is to be knee-jerk curious. “Metaverse? What’s that? Sounds dumb, but maybe it’s worth investigating.”…

…Avoid extremes. Never go all in or all out. Both lead to extreme thinking, which leads to extremely bad outcomes. It’s one thing to say, “crap, I guess I can’t handle a portfolio of 80% stocks, I’ll dial it back to 60%.” It’s a whole other thing to say, “crap, I can’t handle the volatility. I’m gonna go to cash until things settle down.” One person is going to survive the ups and the downs and the other person isn’t.

4. DAOs, DACs, DAs and More: An Incomplete Terminology Guide – Vitalik Buterin

Here, we get into what is perhaps the holy grail, the thing that has the murkiest definition of all: decentralized autonomous organizations, and their corporate subclass, decentralized autonomous corporations (or, more recently, “companies”). The ideal of a decentralized autonomous organization is easy to describe: it is an entity that lives on the internet and exists autonomously, but also heavily relies on hiring individuals to perform certain tasks that the automaton itself cannot do.

Given the above, the important part of the definition is actually to focus on what a DAO is not, and what is not a DAO and is instead either a DO, a DA or an automated agent/AI. First of all, let’s consider DAs. The main difference between a DA and a DAO is that a DAO has internal capital; that is, a DAO contains some kind of internal property that is valuable in some way, and it has the ability to use that property as a mechanism for rewarding certain activities. BitTorrent has no internal property, and Bitcloud/Maidsafe-like systems have reputation but that reputation is not a saleable asset. Bitcoin and Namecoin, on the other hand, do. However, plain old DOs also have internal capital, as do autonomous agents.

Second, we can look at DOs. The obvious difference between a DO and a DAO, and the one inherent in the language, is the word “autonomous”; that is, in a DO the humans are the ones making the decisions, and a DAO is something that, in some fashion, makes decisions for itself. This is a surprisingly tricky distinction to define because, as dictatorships are always keen to point out, there is really no difference between a certain set of actors making decisions directly and that set of actors controlling all of the information through which decisions are made. In Bitcoin, a 51% attack between a small number of mining pools can make the blockchain reverse transactions, and in a hypothetical decentralized autonomous corporation the providers of the data inputs can all collude to make the DAC think that sending all of its money to1FxkfJQLJTXpW6QmxGT6oF43ZH959ns8Cq constitutes paying for a million nodes’ worth of computing power for ten years. However, there is obviously a meaningful distinction between the two, and so we do need to define it.

My own effort at defining the difference is as follows. DOs and DAOs are both vulnerable to collusion attacks, where (in the best case) a majority or (in worse cases) a significant percentage of a certain type of members collude to specifically direct the D*O’s activity. However, the difference is this: in a DAO collusion attacks are treated as a bug, whereas in a DO they are a feature. In a democracy, for example, the whole point is that a plurality of members choose what they like best and that solution gets executed; in Bitcoin’s on the other hand, the “default” behavior that happens when everyone acts according to individual interest without any desire for a specific outcome is the intent, and a 51% attack to favor a specific blockchain is an aberration. This appeal to social consensus is similar to the definition of a government: if a local gang starts charging a property tax to all shopowners, it may even get away with it in certain parts of the world, but no significant portion of the population will treat it as legitimate, whereas if a government starts doing the same the public response will be tilted in the other direction.

5. In the Middle of Transition: 2022 Semiconductor Outlook – Doug (Fabricated Knowledge)

The semiconductor market for years has been characterized by booms and busts… Historically, the boom-bust cycles are primarily driven by supply.

The core reason for this is that capacity additions are extremely lumpy and adding new capacity via a fab came with huge fixed costs, and then very low variable costs, especially in sub-sectors like memory. The incentives were obvious. If you had a new fab, you could use your marginal cost advantage to offer a cheaper product and, in the process, blow up the total profit pool. In many ways, this was the story of the ~80s-90s memory market…

…But of course, things changed. Moore’s law slowed down and the rising cost of making semiconductors from both the fabrication and design perspective has forced consolidation and more rational industry competition. Why blow up the profit pool of your entire industry when the magnitude of costs is reaching tens of billions of dollars? Why not add capacity in a more disciplined manner given that you know what your competitors are doing? This is exactly what’s happening in memory, the most hyper-cyclical part of the industry. Most of the more mature semiconductor segments have already started to focus on their own product fiefdoms. With little competition head to head and only at the margins. Consolidation also helped quite a bit.

Another large driver as software eating the world and semiconductors being used in more and larger parts of the economy. Our cars and our homes took more semiconductors, and of course, our phones became much more integral parts of our lives. We went from essentially one market in the 1990s (PCs) to multiple end markets today…

…The important thing is that each of these cycles are happening independently. For example, phones are starting to slow down in volume as the average life of a phone increases, while automotive companies are just starting to ramp EV and ADAS content in their cars.

This is a simple expression of the law of large numbers. If semiconductors have a positive growth relationship it would mean that the bigger the number of different markets that are not correlated, the closer the aggregate results will approach the underlying trend. Each new diversifier will lower the volatility of just a single market’s results. I think that’s happening today.

So back to the path of cyclical to secular growth and what it would look like. Especially for a cyclical industry, each time there’s a year of sustained strong results there’s an expectation of a reversal to the mean. As bullish as I am, I don’t have the guts to say, “growth only, no down years.” That kind of statement is insane to make if you’re in the business of having reasonable accurate projections given the historical base rate.

But right now, we have clear indications of new demand streams from AI, new industries, and the broader slowing of Moore’s law. We also have more disciplined and consolidated supply, and despite the crazy capacity additions that have already taken place, the industry continues to grow. Semiconductors seem to have swapped from a supply-driven industry to a demand-driven industry since the pandemic. That, to me, is the big key of what the cyclical-to-secular market would look like. Additionally, semiconductors actually grew through a recession, which is pretty telling for the secular argument.

If there were ever a scenario of an historically cyclical and supply-driven market shifting into a secularly growing, demand-driven market, we’re living in it. Students of history know that each year there should be a supply-driven correction at some point, but each year the balance of supply and demand looks to be in demand’s favor. So, while we think that the continued and consistent supply additions will eventually turn the market, demand continues to outweigh supply additions.

If this sounds familiar, it’s because it’s pretty much the regime we’ve been living under since 2020. The chip shortage was originally expected to abate or turn around by the end of 2021 and that looks like it won’t happen. Now it’s expected to end in 2023, but it’s not like there hasn’t been a huge capacity addition since last year. The supply-demand crossover always seems to be just one year away. What’s happening? Why haven’t the recent capacity additions relieved the supply-chain crisis? An exchange that I thought was pretty enlightening was this conversation on the Q3 2021 ASML earnings call, answering an analyst’s question:

“Yes, Sandeep. I mean you’ve been around a long time and you asked the million-dollar question. So — and the real answer is we don’t know. We have some indications and some ideas. And yes, you are absolutely right, the wafer out capacity today is a big — is a lot larger than it was in Q4 2020. That’s true. And still, we see these shortages. Now I spoke to a very large customer and basically asked the same question.

And I actually said, Peter, we don’t know either. Because somehow we haven’t been able to connect all the dots that actually are the underlying drivers for this demand.”

This sounds like an anecdote in favor of the shift towards a demand-driven market. Each year, massive supply is added, yet demand continues to simply outweigh it. That would be what the “secular growth” case would look like for me, and in some ways we’re in the perfect expression of that transition. We’re in the middle of it.

6. Does Not Compute – Morgan Housel

Investor Jim Grant once said:

To suppose that the value of a common stock is determined purely by a corporation’s earnings discounted by the relevant interest rates and adjusted for the marginal tax rate is to forget that people have burned witches, gone to war on a whim, risen to the defense of Joseph Stalin and believed Orson Welles when he told them over the radio that the Martians had landed.

That’s always been the case. And it will always be the case.

One way to think about this is that there are always two sides to every investment: The number and the story. Every investment price, every market valuation, is just a number from today multiplied by a story about tomorrow.

The numbers are easy to measure, easy to track, easy to formulate. They’re getting easier as almost everyone has cheap access to information.

But the stories are often bizarre reflections of people’s hopes, dreams, fears, insecurities, and tribal affiliations. And they’re getting more bizarre as social media amplifies the most emotionally appealing views.

A few recent examples of how powerful this can be:

Lehman Brothers was in great shape on September 10th, 2008. Its Tier 1 capital ratio – a measure of a bank’s ability to endure loss – was 11.7%. That was higher than the previous quarter. Higher than Goldman Sachs. Higher than Bank of America. It was more capital than Lehman had in 2007, when the banking industry was about as strong as it had ever been.

Seventy-two hours later it was bankrupt.

The only thing that changed during those three days was investors’ faith in the company. One day they believed in the company. The next they didn’t and stopped buying the debt that funded Lehman’s balance sheet.

That faith is the only thing that mattered. But it was the one thing that was hard to quantify, hard to model, hard to predict, and didn’t compute in a traditional valuation model.

GameStop was the opposite. The statistics showed it was on the edge of bankruptcy in 2020. Then it became a cultural obsession on reddit, the stock surged, the company raised a ton of money, and now it’s worth $11 billion.

7. TIP410: The Changing World Order w/ Ray Dalio – William Green and Ray Dalio

William Green (00:11:23):

You make some slightly chilling predictions about the US without being definitive because, obviously, these are probabilistic bets. For example, I think at one point you say, “I think that the odds of the US devolving into a civil war type dynamic within the next 10 years are around 30%.” You say that’s related to the high risk of internal conflict, the kind of politic polarization and anger that we’re seeing in the country. You also talk about the rivalry with China and say that the probability of a big war in the next 10 years is 35%. I was both struck by the way that you think the importance of thinking probabilistically, which is something that’s always struck me when I interview great investors, whether it’s Joel Greenblatt or Howard Marks, this sense that nothing is black and white. It’s always betting on probabilities, which clearly is something that you’ve been a master of over the decades.

William Green (00:12:17):

But also I was very struck by actually the seriousness of those claims. I wondered if you could talk about that gravity because you say, for example, that the US really is in danger of tipping over one way or the other. It’s that you say it’s, “The world’s leading power is on the brink and could tip one way or the other.” Can you give us a sense, digging into firstly the debt issue and the printing of money, why this is such a precarious position to be in? Because I’m no economist and I sort of need the idiot’s guide to why this is such a treacherous financial situation to be in.

Ray Dalio (00:12:53):

Maybe I can describe the typical cycle and then pull it out. I won’t go through all of the 18 measures, if that’s okay. I think it’ll create the template. There are internal orders and there are external orders, and what I mean by an order is a system of operating. Usually, internal orders are written by constitutions and external orders are written by treaties and so on, and they follow a war typically. Let’s say World War II. There’s a war. After the war, there are winners and losers. The winners get together and they determine the order, the system. For example, the system in 1944 they determined the Bretton Woods monetary system with the dollar at the center and gold at the center. It was an American world order because the United States had 80% of the world’s gold, it accounted for half the world’s economy and it had the monopoly on nuclear weapons, which was dominant.

Ray Dalio (00:14:06):

So the United States was dominant in all ways and the center of it, the reason United Nations is in New York and the IMF and the World Bank are in Washington because we began the American world order dominated that way. That’s an example. But if you go back to other cases, the Treaty of Versailles was the prior world order. In order words, a war and then a resolution of that war and then new rules as to who did what. If you keep going back, you will see that there are those world orders that just go back, the Peace of Westphalia in something like 1668 or something. Each system then creates a new system and a new world order, and then that happens also internal orders like, let’s say, revolution.

Ray Dalio (00:14:57):

The Chinese domestic order began in 1949. They had a civil war and then they started their domestic order in 1949. There’s a cycle, and the way the cycle works typically is after the war there’s a peace. The peace comes because there’s a dominant power that no one wants to fight, and also everybody’s so sick of war and then so you usually have a period of peace, often quite an extended period of peace. And there’s the consolidation of power by the new leader and then the development of a system that allows development because you wiped out a lot of the old. You wiped out the old debts, you wiped out many of the old things, but you’re in the process of wiping them out and new start. Then that begins the arc of the period of peace and prosperity and productivity.

Ray Dalio (00:15:53):

For example, the Second Industrial Revolution was that kind of period, the post World War II period was that kind of a period in which there’s competition, things working hard and there’s a rise in living standards. Those rise in living standard, particularly work well in a capitalist economy. Capitalism was really, that I mean markets, stock market and so on, was invented by the Dutch. It’s a way of creating buying power to enable, let’s say, entrepreneurs to be able to do well but it distributes wealth indifferently so that it creates a larger wealth gap. Over a period of time, it creates a larger opportunity gap because there’s a tendency of those who gained well to be in a favored position.

Ray Dalio (00:16:47):

For example, their children can get education that poor children can’t get or they might have more influence and so on, and so you get larger gaps and those gaps also can represent opportunity gaps and so on. There’s a tendency also toward debt and capital market valuations to keep rising, so debt rises in relation to income because debt is buying power but there’s… If you pay it back in hard dollars or hard whatever the currency is, then that’s a problem. So you see it rise. All of these cycles, you see debt rise relative to income and that’s because it’s better to have spending power like we had this last cycle, send out the checks and send out the money. You’re sending out buying power. That is so much easier to do and favorable to do than to restrict it and to contain it. That’s what raises debt relative to income and raises that so that you produce a debt cycle.

Ray Dalio (00:17:55):

Go back to Old Testament and they’ll about the 50 year cycle and the Year of Jubilee and so on. But these cycles have gone on for a long time, and so these wealth gaps grow, level sort of indebtedness grow. Also what happens is the competitiveness as they get richer, the competitiveness declines because… It declines first because people, as they get richer they become more expensive in the world, they want to work less hard and also they gather more competition. Let’s say, for example, the Dutch built ships that were the best to go around the world and collect riches, but the British learned from that and hired Dutch ship builders to build ships or inexpensively and better ships by learning from them. So others become more competitive.

Ray Dalio (00:18:52):

Also, when they do very well at the top they typically become dominant in world trade. The Dutch accounted for 25% of world trade. As a result, they bring their currency and the currency that’s then commonly used around the world becomes a world currency, which we call a reserve currency. When they have that currency, then that becomes also something that people want to save it so those in other countries will want to buy that currency, which means lend and so that they will lend to countries, which tends to make them get more into debt. It’s a great privilege, they call it the exorbitant privilege, to be able to borrow money because you the reserve currency, but it does get you deeper into debt in your own currency. That sows the seeds again for problems.

Ray Dalio (00:19:48):

There’s a political system that also operates with this kind of cycle, which is the political system rewards spending and it doesn’t penalize debt. Nobody pays attention to how much debt you get into, they pay attention to what they receive. When they get more stimulation, that produces it so there’s a tendency to have that which raises the living standard over the short run but also produces the indebtedness for the long run. So that when you get, let’s say, in the top of that cycle you can see living standards are really at their highest, they’re very high. You start to see the complexion of the finances deteriorate, you see the competitiveness deteriorate and so on. People also behave differently.

Ray Dalio (00:20:38):

There is an age cycle. Those who went through the war and went through the Depression have a different psychology than those who are now the next generation, so as this passes on so then you have newer generation operating that, they know really to enjoy life more, devote attention to other things and so on. So competitiveness starts to decrease while the indebtedness… But it’s a very good feeling position to be in, but that sows the seeds. Then when you have excessive levels of indebtedness… When you have the gaps and the excessive level of indebtedness and you have the bad finances… Because when you have that borrowing, the debt, then it’s bad for the owners of the debt. Right now you have very negative real interest rates, in other words inflation adjusted interest rates so it doesn’t make any sense to hold the debt, those assets. Then you see the movement to other things and so on.

Ray Dalio (00:21:42):

Then when you have the large wealth gaps that enters into it at the same time as you have internal conflict and external conflict. When that gets… The cycle’s described in detail in the book, but you start to see political polarity and the rise of populism of the left and populism of the right becomes extreme and progressively more extreme. As a result, you no longer can be in the middle. In other words they say, “Pick a side and fight.” And the media and the politics work together to enrage people and to make them more inclined to fight. Of course, that generation didn’t go through war. Because they didn’t go through war, they’re more inclined to fight and everybody is cheering the fighter who will fight for their side.

Ray Dalio (00:22:33):

In history, it shows that when the causes that people are behind are more important to them than the system, the system is in jeopardy, which is the case now. That progresses and you have either an internal conflict, you have a financial problem [inaudible 00:22:50]. Now other things matter. You asked about the cycle because there are other things like education and civility. A long leading economic indicator is the quality of education, but education is not just understanding history and memorizing or knowing how to do math and such things, it’s also education in civility, how people behave with each other, the idea of all of those. As there’s better education, there’s better productivity that follows.

Ray Dalio (00:23:21):

There are a number of measures that I include in there. For example, infrastructure investing, how you’re improving your infrastructure, there’s measures of the military strength. When they go internationally, they need a stronger military to protect their supply lines and all of that. All of those… There’s 18 different measures that you can see, and you can see what the numbers were and are of those types of things to make up the arc, but the arc is basically along those lines until you get to the irreconcilable differences, whether they’re internal or external, and you get to the financial problems. That’s why I’m saying… I think just by the measures that’s where we are. If we take the very simple financial, is the amount of money that somebody’s earning greater than the amount that they’re spending? Are their assets better than their liabilities?

Ray Dalio (00:24:19):

That’s true for individuals, companies and countries because that country’s an aggregate of those. You can look at the financial condition. When you get to the printing of money stage, you are very late in the cycle. That’s a concerning thing. You have that financial piece together with the internal conflict or, let’s say, internal order and disorder piece. There’s a chapter on internal order and disorder, explains the cycle. Then there’s the external order and disorder, but it’s made up of a number of those other things like education, quality of leadership and so on.

---

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 ASML. Holdings are subject to change at any time.

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 02 January 2022:

1. I Have A Few Questions – Morgan Housel

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

What haven’t I experienced firsthand that leaves me naive to how something works? As Jeff Immelt said, “Every job looks easy when you’re not the one doing it.”

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 is a problem that I think only applies to other countries/industries/careers that will eventually hit me?

What do I think is true but is actually just good marketing?

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?

2. TIP409: 2021 Top Takeaways w/ Trey Lockerbie – Trey Lockerbie

Trey Lockerbie (00:00:02):

In today’s episode, I am sharing my top takeaways from some of the conversations I had throughout 2021. I can’t express how grateful I am for having the privilege to learn from some of the greatest minds in finance, business, and investing. People like Howard Marks, Jeremy Grantham, Joel Greenblatt, Kyle Bass, Chamath Palihapitiya, Jim Collins, and so many more…

…Trey Lockerbie (00:04:47):

All right. So keeping on the topic of inflation, I also wanted to highlight this soundbite from episode 351 with Morgan Housel. At the beginning of the year, a lot of people were speculating around hyper-inflation just simply because of the money being printed.

Trey Lockerbie (00:05:01):

But Morgan’s point was highlighting that hyper-inflation really doesn’t happen until there’s also the supply side component. Now funny enough later in this year, we’re starting to see some real inflation numbers due to supply-side issues. But what Morgan’s really getting at here is how at risk, the dollar is from hyper-inflating away.

Morgan Housel (00:05:18):

Most historical periods of hyper-inflation if we’re really talking about real hyper-inflation, virtually all of them, I would struggle to find one example that did not take place in a society where they had massive output shrinkages. Because either it’s during the war and their factories are bombed to rebel, like happened in, Weimar Germany, or happened at the end of world war II in a lot of countries, or if it’s because the government has confiscated the major industries and run them into the ground as happened in Venezuela and Zimbabwe.

Morgan Housel (00:05:45):

It’s never just too much money, it’s always too much money during a time where your production, your GDP are collapsing. And I think that’s really important because of what happened after 2008 when the Feds started printing a lot of money. So many people, including myself, by the way, were saying, “Hyper-inflation right around the corner,” Feds printing so much money, you know what’s going to happen.

Morgan Housel (00:06:04):

And it didn’t. And I think the reason it didn’t is that the economy was well able to soak up a lot of that excess liquidity because our factories still had all the capacity that they can make stuff and produce stuff in a way that did not exist during Weimar Germany, or in Zimbabwe when the government had confiscated so many of the firms and run them into the ground. Or in Venezuela where the oil industry has been confiscated and run into the ground because they didn’t keep anything up.

Morgan Housel (00:06:30):

So it’s not to say that you can’t have a rise in inflation unless you have a decline in supply. It’s not that, but most of the time, big bouts of inflation come from a massive shrinkage in any economy’s ability to produce. Now, could that happen in the United States, too? Sure. Could it happen that we just don’t keep up with factory investment or we’re not investing in the right fields and we get to a spot where supply is shrinking, yes, of course, that could happen.

Morgan Housel (00:06:53):

And it’s happening right now in some specific fields. What’s happening in housing right now and particularly lumber is really fascinating, where the price of lumber is just going berserk. It’s going off the charts. I think it’s up about fivefold in the last year, the price of lumber to build a house. And from my understanding why that is, is not because we ran out of trees or even ran out of cutdown timber, there’s plenty of timber that’s been cut down and stripped of as bark, there’s plenty of that.

Morgan Housel (00:07:18):

From my understanding, a lot of the mills last spring said, “Oh, because of COVID, we’re going into the next great depression, shut down the mill, don’t invest in the mill, lay off the mill workers.” And now even though there’s plenty of logs, there’s not enough supply to manufacture finished wood. So we do have a decline in output in something like that. And sure, in enough we have nearly hyper-inflation in lumber.

Morgan Housel (00:07:41):

So it can happen in specific industries. I wont to be surprised if it happens in airlines this summer too, where you have airlines, some of whom have laid off tens of thousands of their workers or just through attrition have lost thousands of workers, flight attendants, pilots, and whatnot. Because last year, there was no work for any of them, and now this summer everyone who’s vaccinated is going to want to get on a plane and go somewhere.

Morgan Housel (00:08:02):

And so at the same time, you’re going to have maybe record demand, you have a huge decline in supply and could that lead to huge inflation in airlines? I think almost certainly. I think it’s some senses it will. The other area where I know it’s happening right now is rental cars. Where last year, a lot of the rental car companies just in a bid to survive started liquidating their fleets, just so that they had enough money to survive.

Morgan Housel (00:08:25):

And now that everyone wants to book a vacation right now, there are so many fewer rental cars available right now than there were last summer. So is there going to be huge inflation in rental cars this summer? Probably, but again, I’m making this point that it’s not just the money coming in, it’s the supply that went out that really causes the problem…

…Trey Lockerbie (00:57:51):

And as far as my favorite definition of risk, I think it came from Morgan Housel’s book where it says risk is what is left over when you think you’ve thought of everything. And in my episode with Morgan, he shared some amazing color around it. Here it is.

Morgan Housel (00:58:05):

People hear that and they think, “Okay, that’s great,” but let’s talk about the biggest risks that are out there. And you’re like, “No, no, no. The biggest risk is what no one is talking about because it’s impossible to know.” Or it’s so unlikely, it’s so crazy that people just wouldn’t even think about. Here’s a story that I wrote about this week that I think is really fascinating.

Morgan Housel (00:58:20):

During the Apollo space missions in the 1960s, before we started launching ourselves into space in rockets, NASA tested all of its equipment in super high altitude hot air balloon. So they would take a hot air balloon up to 130,000 feet, like just scraping the edge of outer space and they would test their equipment. They’d test their theories before they actually went up in rockets. So one time in 1961, NASA sent up a guy named, Victor Prather to 130,000 feet.

Morgan Housel (00:58:48):

And the goal of this mission in this hot air balloon was to test NASA’s new space suit prior to actually going into space. They wanted to go up to 130,000 feet, make sure everything was airtight. It worked under pressure, et cetera. Victor Prather goes on this mission, goes to 130,000 square feet, test a suit, the suit works beautifully everything’s great. Prather, Is coming back down to earth and when he’s low enough, he opens up the visor on his helmet, the face shield on his helmet.

Morgan Housel (00:59:13):

When he is low enough to breathe on his own, he can breathe the earth’s air, he’s low enough that he can do that all fine. He lands in the ocean as his planned and as the rescue helicopter comes to get him, he’s trying to tie himself onto the rescue helicopter’s rope and he slips, slips off his craft and falls into the ocean. Again, not a big deal because as soon is designed to be watertight and buoyant, but Victor Prather had opened up the mask in his helmet. As he falls into the ocean, he’s now exposed to the elements. His suit fills up with water and he drowns.

Morgan Housel (00:59:44):

And this to me is so fascinating because the NASA space missions during the moon race in the 1960s was probably the most heavily planned mission ever. You had thousands of the smartest people in the world, planning out every single minute detail and checking it over and over again, and being signed off by the most sophisticated expert risk committees that exist in the world, and they were so good at it. I mean, to have men walking on the moon, you need like every single millisecond was planned out every detail. And with Victor Prather, it was the same thing. They planned out every second of that mission.

Morgan Housel (01:00:20):

And then you overlook one tiny little microscopic thing, like opening your visor when it’s okay to breathe the earth air. And it kills them, and that to me is just an example of a risk is what’s left when you think you’ve thought of everything. And I think that’s an example of what happens in a lot of fields. Think if you were an economic analyst in the last five years and your job is to forecast the economy and you spend all your day, you spend 24 hours a day modeling GDP, modeling employment trends, modeling inflation, every detail about what the federal reserve is doing.

Morgan Housel (01:00:50):

You built the most sophisticated model in the world to predict what the economy’s going to do next. And then a little virus sneaks in and 30 million people lose their job. That’s how the world actually works. No economists in their right mind would’ve included that in their forecast. If you go back to 2019 or whatever, no one would’ve said, “Oh, I expect GDP is going to fall 20% next year, because we’re going to have…”

Morgan Housel (01:01:12):

No one said that. Of course, you couldn’t. You would be ridiculous to say that, but that’s how the world works. And I think it’s the same thing if you look at September the 11th or Pearl Harbor or Lehman brothers going bankrupt, because I couldn’t find a buyer, all the big events that actually move the needle, are things that people didn’t see coming.

3. Brantly Millegan – Ethereum Name Service – Eric Golden and Brantly Millegan

[00:05:40] Eric: And so I think a fun part to jump off, as I went through this, I’ve just learned so much about naming numbers, which is way more complex and interesting than I ever could have imagined. I think something that would be interesting is to just start with Web 2.0, and how Domain Name Services worked in general, and this idea of DNS. So if I wanted to own Ericgolden.com today, how would that work? How does the current internet work with naming numbers?

[00:06:05] Brantly: DNS actually predates not only Web 2, but it actually predates Web 1. It was not invented for the web. A lot of people think of these as like web domains, because that has become their primary use case. But it was actually not invented with the web in mind because the web didn’t exist. The current DNS came out 1984, 1985. The basic thing is, okay, you have types of identifiers that make sense for software. A software, if you have a string of 15 numbers, it can identify that, that number, non-number a second, it takes is easy. It can generate these things automatically. But of course, people can’t read this not friendly. We need language and social context, which computers, at least for the time being, are terrible at. Maybe AI will solve this problem, but right now it’s not. So naming system, at least with DNS, it’s just trying to bridge that gap. In some ways, the basic concept is to look up system. You have a name and you have data attached to that name. So when you type in a name somewhere, your computer just goes and looks it up on the system and grabs the relevant data and brings it back, just does all this in the background. The current system DNS has the best of 1980s technology. Something for people to remember on that is okay, public private key cryptography, which was invented in the ’70s, that was illegal to use in most contexts in the 1980s.

It was invented by some people in the United States, U.S government basically recognized that this is extremely powerful technology, we need to protect this. It wasn’t until the ’90s, there was this PGP movement with Phil Zimerman and Hal Finney and a couple others, that basically pressed the issue with the U.S government, eventually convinced the U.S government to make it no longer considered a munition, basically made it so anybody could use it. You wouldn’t get in trouble for sharing technologies with our enemies or something. That public private key cryptography technology, that is necessary for how the whole internet works. It’s the basis of wallets. So cryptocurrency wallets is just a public private key pair. It’s what it is. You have your private key and you have your public address. It’s really the hash of your public address. But this is critical technology. That was not legal in the ’80s. So all this is to say is DNS was designed and built without this. This is like the level of technology. And there have been attempts after the fact to try to add this into DNS, but it doesn’t even necessarily have wided options. It’s kind of hard once you build something. So DNS is very simple. It doesn’t have all the best technology. Something I will say for DNS though, is that it overall works extremely well. In insane engineering achievements in the world that this little project in the ’80s which was never intended to be used by the whole world, successfully scaled it up to billions of users. It’s spectacular. I have huge respect for the DNS community.

[00:08:48] Eric: Research this and getting to about ENS and DNS, I learned this idea called the Zooko’s triangle, that you needed these three properties to have an ideal naming system. Human meaningful, which is the fact that those numbers don’t mean anything to us. So how can we use English language or language to connect security and decentralization? So to your point, DNS is created in the ’80s. The decentralization for was essentially illegal. How did DNS satisfy those things today? How did names work today?

[00:09:20] Brantly: Is DNS decentralized? Depends on what you mean by this. There’s aspects of DNS that are very decentralized. So there’s parts DNS that are not decentralized. I’d say with our standards today, we’d probably say it’s not decentralized. It lacks things like users don’t have self custody of their names. So the way DNS works, if you own brantly.com, the fact that you own that depends on a number of other trusted third parties to maintain that for you. You can’t do self custody of brantly.com. That’s not possible given the way the system works. There’s always other people who have access to your name and could take it away from you if you want. By the way, that’s good and bad. Obviously it’s bad because it can be abused, censorship or something. It’s kind of good though. It’s really convenient. People who do a lot of bad things on the internet, it’s really convenient that the powers that be can just shut it off. It’s a double edge sword. But what ENS does is takes a lot of the DNS architecture, it virtualizes it, it puts it on Ethereum. It takes out all of those trusted third parties that they’re just required based on how the technology works with the old system, and allows for things like self custody and censorship resistance, which I think are very powerful.

[00:10:31] Eric: So people that were studying DNS and thinking about doing naming services with the introduction of Blockchain, it doesn’t seem like ENS was necessarily the first, but it does seem like it’s become very popular. And I’m always cautious with the word winning or the best. To me, and I’ve heard you talk about this, I just think about the usage. I see a lot of people with .eth names that it’s kind of being adopted. So I guess when people had the depth of history you had of DNS, saw Blockchain, give me a little understanding of there was Namecoin or there were other projects that I think attempted to do this, and how did they lead to ENS and how are they different?

[00:11:08] Brantly: Satoshi Nakamoto invented Blockchain technology because he wanted to have a decentralized currency, that was his motivation. That technology, as we all know well now, can be used for other things. Decentralized currency or peer-to-peer currency is just one application of Blockchain technology, of many. And people realized this pretty early on. The first non-currency use of Blockchain technology or attempt uses, was for internet naming. So Namecoin was some people called the first altcoin. Whenever you talk about a first, it’s like, “Well, what do you count?” There was that little project that kind of got going, but didn’t last very long. Do you count that. Namecoin was certainly the first important one, I would say. It has its own Blockchain, it has its own coin, it has Dot-Bit names. I think Satoshi was involved. Aaron Schwartz who sadly took his life in that whole MIT debacle thing, he was involved. There were a bunch of other people involved. They were right, that Blockchain technology is great for naming and provides a lot of interesting things. Namecoin’s now a dead project, it’s not doing anything. The problems with it is that you now had bootstrap your own Blockchain, it was kind of siloed off. They had problems with the distribution of names, things like this. But then came Ethereum in 2015. Ethereum was a revolution in the Blockchain space. There is like before Ethereum times and the after Ethereum times. Before Ethereum, if you wanted a new application, you had to build your own Blockchain and bootstrap it. This is very, very difficult to do. If you ever wanted to change anything about it, it’s really hard to change. Ethereum said, “Hey, let’s have a general purpose Blockchain. You can put any application on it. You don’t have to launch your own Blockchain, you just launch it on our Blockchain. Launch new applications easily.” And this led to this explosion of creativity and experimentation and development.

So ENS launched 2017, it has a huge number of advantages of Namecoin. So one, it’s in the Ethereum ecosystem. So it has composability. It can interact with everything else in Ethereum. It benefits from all the Ethereum infrastructure. We don’t have to build our own metamask and our own wallets and things like that. It’s like it all just in the Ethereum ecosystem, benefit from the security of that. So we just focus on that application. I think we also learned from some of the other failures of Namecoin regarding distributions to Nick being from the beginning was Like,” we have to have the incentive setups to disincentivize squatting and incentivize use from the beginning.” Because if you don’t, it just gets taken over by squatters and no one uses it, and the project actually fails. There have been many attempts, good faith attempts over the years. I would say ENS is the first one that’s actually gotten serious adoption and has gotten escape velocity. And I would say it’s the first one that has a shot at actually becoming a new protocol of the internet, which I think is really exciting and also makes the core team feel law of responsibility. Like, “Oh crap, this thing that many people have been working on and thinking about for years and attempts, we actually have something that is working. We need to not screw this up.”…

…[00:18:59] Eric: So, one thing I want to go back to is the enforcement and this censorship resistant thing that gets people very passionate, and I definitely see the arguments. In the current DNS system, if I’m a malicious actor and I set up a website, you had mentioned earlier they could shut it down, this is the strength in the weakness. First question is, who has the rights under DNS to shut down a domain or a bad actor?

[00:19:23] Brantly: So, there’s a bunch of different levels to the DNS system, but for the most part, generally speaking, people actually can’t just willy nilly shut down your website. And it depends on the reason why, and they’ve actually developed… See, something that the DNS community grappled with, actually early on, was there was no system for determining what could be shut down or not, or someone’s abusing something, can you do an enforcement action against them? And the DNS community, over many years, came up with a system called UDRP, which was an attempt to have a system with due process and everything. So, if you think someone’s misrepresenting themselves as you, or so something this, there’s a way you can take action. It’s not perfect. A lot of people think it’s just entirely arbitrary. That’s not true. It’s something. With ENS, when I tell people… Because some people say, “Well, what about abuse on the internet? You have to have a way to stop it,” which, actually, I agree on. We don’t want people using ENS for terrible things. But what I tell people is that you just have to come up with a new type of enforcement framework. What this means is, if someone’s doing something bad, let’s say, with .eth name, you can’t call up ENS and get them to fix it, you have to go to that person. You can’t do it through a centralized thing, you sort of have to go to that person, you have to find that person. Of course, you can always enforce something with the person themselves. That’s another thing, too. We use the word, like censorship resistance. That’s not the same thing as uncensorable. There is no such thing as something that’s uncensorable. That doesn’t exist in the world. Anybody who tells you that is not accurate. Censorship resistant just means maybe it’s harder to censor, or not through the normal ways that you would censor something.

4. The Lazarus heist: How North Korea almost pulled off a billion-dollar hack – Geoff White and Jean H Lee

In 2016 North Korean hackers planned a $1bn raid on Bangladesh’s national bank and came within an inch of success – it was only by a fluke that all but $81m of the transfers were halted, report Geoff White and Jean H Lee. But how did one of the world’s poorest and most isolated countries train a team of elite cyber-criminals?

It all started with a malfunctioning printer. It’s just part of modern life, and so when it happened to staff at Bangladesh Bank they thought the same thing most of us do: another day, another tech headache. It didn’t seem like a big deal.

But this wasn’t just any printer, and it wasn’t just any bank.

Bangladesh Bank is the country’s central bank, responsible for overseeing the precious currency reserves of a country where millions live in poverty.

And the printer played a pivotal role. It was located inside a highly secure room on the 10th floor of the bank’s main office in Dhaka, the capital. Its job was to print out records of the multi-million-dollar transfers flowing in and out of the bank.

When staff found it wasn’t working, at 08:45 on Friday 5 February 2016, “we assumed it was a common problem just like any other day,” duty manager Zubair Bin Huda later told police. “Such glitches had happened before.”

In fact, this was the first indication that Bangladesh Bank was in a lot of trouble. Hackers had broken into its computer networks, and at that very moment were carrying out the most audacious cyber-attack ever attempted. Their goal: to steal a billion dollars.

To spirit the money away, the gang behind the heist would use fake bank accounts, charities, casinos and a wide network of accomplices.

But who were these hackers and where were they from?

According to investigators the digital fingerprints point in just one direction: to the government of North Korea.

That North Korea would be the prime suspect in a case of cyber-crime might to some be a surprise. It’s one of the world’s poorest countries, and largely disconnected from the global community – technologically, economically, and in almost every other way.

And yet, according to the FBI, the audacious Bangladesh Bank hack was the culmination of years of methodical preparation by a shadowy team of hackers and middlemen across Asia, operating with the support of the North Korean regime.

In the cyber-security industry the North Korean hackers are known as the Lazarus Group, a reference to a biblical figure who came back from the dead; experts who tackled the group’s computer viruses found they were equally resilient…

…When the bank’s staff rebooted the printer, they got some very worrying news. Spilling out of it were urgent messages from the Federal Reserve Bank in New York – the “Fed” – where Bangladesh keeps a US-dollar account. The Fed had received instructions, apparently from Bangladesh Bank, to drain the entire account – close to a billion dollars.

The Bangladeshis tried to contact the Fed for clarification, but thanks to the hackers’ very careful timing, they couldn’t get through.

The hack started at around 20:00 Bangladesh time on Thursday 4 February. But in New York it was Thursday morning, giving the Fed plenty of time to (unwittingly) carry out the hackers’ wishes while Bangladesh was asleep.

The next day, Friday, was the start of the Bangladeshi weekend, which runs from Friday to Saturday. So the bank’s HQ in Dhaka was beginning two days off. And when the Bangladeshis began to uncover the theft on Saturday, it was already the weekend in New York.

“So you see the elegance of the attack,” says US-based cyber-security expert Rakesh Asthana. “The date of Thursday night has a very defined purpose. On Friday New York is working, and Bangladesh Bank is off. By the time Bangladesh Bank comes back on line, the Federal Reserve Bank is off. So it delayed the whole discovery by almost three days.”

And the hackers had another trick up their sleeve to buy even more time. Once they had transferred the money out of the Fed, they needed to send it somewhere. So they wired it to accounts they’d set up in Manila, the capital of the Philippines. And in 2016, Monday 8 February was the first day of the Lunar New Year, a national holiday across Asia.

By exploiting time differences between Bangladesh, New York and the Philippines, the hackers had engineered a clear five-day run to get the money away.

They had had plenty of time to plan all of this, because it turns out the Lazarus Group had been lurking inside Bangladesh Bank’s computer systems for a year.

In January 2015, an innocuous-looking email had been sent to several Bangladesh Bank employees. It came from a job seeker calling himself Rasel Ahlam. His polite enquiry included an invitation to download his CV and cover letter from a website. In reality, Rasel did not exist – he was simply a cover name being used by the Lazarus Group, according to FBI investigators. At least one person inside the bank fell for the trick, downloaded the documents, and got infected with the viruses hidden inside.

Once inside the bank’s systems, Lazarus Group began stealthily hopping from computer to computer, working their way towards the digital vaults and the billions of dollars they contained.

And then they stopped.

Why did the hackers only steal the money a whole year after the initial phishing email arrived at the bank? Why risk being discovered while hiding inside the bank’s systems all that time? Because, it seems, they needed the time to line up their escape routes for the money.

5. “Play-to-earn” and Bullshit Jobs – Paul Butler

In Bullshit Jobs: A Theory, David Graeber makes the case that a sizable chunk of the labour economy is essentially people performing useless work, as a sort of subconscious self-preservation instinct of the economic status quo. The book cites ample anecdotal evidence that people perceive their own jobs as completely disconnected from any sort of value creation, and makes the case that the ruling class stands to lose from the proletariat having extra free time on their hands. It’s a thoughtfully presented case, but when I read the book a few years back, I was skeptical that any mechanism to create bullshit jobs could arise from a system as inherently Darwinian as capitalism.

I’ve recently been exploring the themes around web3 to see if there’s a “there” there, and Graeber’s book has been on my mind again. One of the most apparently successful examples of web3 that people point to, aside from art NFTs, is so-called play-to-earn games. The most successful of these is Axie Infinity, a trade-and-battle game reminiscent of Pokemon.

In a crypto economy crowded with vapourware and alpha-stage software, Axie Infinity stands out. Not only has it amassed a large base of users, the in-game economy has actually provided a real-world income stream to working-class Filipinos impacted by the pandemic. Some spend hours each day playing the game, and then sell the in-game currency they earn to pay their real-world bills. That’s obviously a good thing for them, but it also appears to be a near-Platonic example of Graeber’s definition of a bullshit job.

Gamers have a word, grinding, to describe repetitive tasks undertaken to gain some desired in-game goal, but are not fun in themselves. This seems to sum up players’ experience with Axie Infinity, which is often described as work or a chore…

…There is some logic to the idea that the game could sustain a mix of players, some of whom are net recipients of capital and some of whom are net contributors who are in it for a good time. This is how other in-game economies have sustained themselves. I’m wholly unconvinced that Axie Infinity is headed in that direction, frankly, because it just doesn’t look fun enough that people will pony up upwards of $1,000 to play it for its own sake. Informal polls, unscientific as they are, seem to bear this out.

(As for power and respect, well. I’m old enough to remember the momentary schoolyard respect associated with earning a rare Pokemon in the original GameBoy game, but it’s not a kind of respect that can be bought and sold.)

By blurring the line between “player” and “worker”, the game has effectively built a Ponzi scheme with built-in deniability. Sure, some users will be net gainers and other users will be net losers, but who am I to say the net losers aren’t in it for the joy of the game? The same could be said about online poker or sports betting, to be sure, but we would rightfully recoil if those were positioned as a way to lift people out of poverty.

6. Why it’s too early to get excited about Web3 – Tim O’Reilly

The term Web 3.0 was used in 2006 by Tim Berners-Lee, the creator of the World Wide Web, as a look forward to the next stage of the web beyond Web 2.0. He thought that the “Semantic Web” was going to be central to that evolution. It didn’t turn out that way. Now people make the case that the next generation of the web will be based on crypto.

“Web3” as we think of it today was introduced in 2014 by Gavin Wood, one of the cocreators of Ethereum. Wood’s compact definition of Web3, as he put it in a recent Wired interview, is simple: “Less trust, more truth.”

In making this assertion, Wood was contrasting Web3 with the original internet protocol, whose ethos was perhaps best summed up by Jon Postel’s “robustness principle”: “TCP implementations should follow a general principle of robustness: be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others.” This ethos became the foundation of a global decentralized computer network in which no one need be in charge as long as everyone did their best to follow the same protocols and was tolerant of deviations. This system rapidly outcompeted all proprietary networks and changed the world. Unfortunately, time proved that the creators of this system were too idealistic, failing to take into account bad actors and, perhaps more importantly, failing to anticipate the enormous centralization of power that would be made possible by big data, even on top of a decentralized network…

…If Web3 is to become a general purpose financial system, or a general system for decentralized trust, it needs to develop robust interfaces with the real world, its legal systems, and the operating economy. The story of ConstitutionDAO illustrates how difficult it is to build bridges between the self-referential world of crypto assets being bought with cryptocurrencies and a working economic system where the Web3 economy is linked to actual ownership or the utility of non-Web 3 assets. If the DAO (decentralized autonomous organization) had succeeded in buying a rare copy of the US constitution at auction, its members wouldn’t have had a legal ownership stake in the actual object or even clear governance rights as to what might happen with it. It would have been owned by an LLC set up by the people who started the project. And when the DAO failed to win the bid, the LLC has had trouble even refunding the money to its backers.

The failure to think through and build interfaces to existing legal and commercial mechanisms is in stark contrast to previous generations of the web, which quickly became a digital shadow of everything in the physical world—people, objects, locations, businesses—with interconnections that made it easy to create economically valuable new services in the existing economy. The easy money to be made speculating on crypto assets seems to have distracted developers and investors from the hard work of building useful real-world services…

…There is another kind of bubble, though, identified by economist Carlota Perez in her book Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital. She notes that virtually every past major industrial transformation—the first Industrial Revolution; the age of steam power; the age of steel, electricity, and heavy machinery; the age of automobiles, oil, and mass production; and the internet—was accompanied by a financial bubble.

Perez identifies four stages in each of these 50–60-year innovation cycles. In the first stage, there’s foundational investment in new technology. This gives way to speculative frenzy in which financial capital seeks continued outsized returns in a rapidly evolving market that is beginning to consolidate. After the speculative bubble pops, there’s a period of more-sustained consolidation and market correction (including regulation of excess market power), followed by a mature “golden age” of integration of the new technology into society. Eventually, the technology is sufficiently mature that capital moves elsewhere, funding the next nascent technology revolution, and the cycle repeats.

An important conclusion of Perez’s analysis is that a true technology revolution must be accompanied by the development of substantial new infrastructure. For the first Industrial Revolution, this included canal and road networks; for the second, railways, ports, and postal services; for the third, electrical, water, and distribution networks; for the oil age, interstate highways, airports, refining and distribution capacity, and hotels and motels; for the information age, chip fabs, ubiquitous telecommunications, and data centers.

Much of this infrastructure build-out is funded during the bubble phase. As Perez puts it:

What is perhaps the crucial role of the financial bubble is to facilitate the unavoidable over-investment in the new infrastructures. The nature of these networks is such that they cannot provide enough service to be profitable unless they reach enough coverage for widespread usage. The bubble provides the necessary asset inflation for investors to expect capital gains, even if there are no profits or dividends yet…

…So is what we’re calling Web3 the foundational investment period of a new subcycle, or the bubble period of the preceding one? It seems to me that one way to tell is the nature of the investment. Is abundant financial capital building out useful infrastructure in the way that we saw for the previous cycles?

It’s not clear to me that NFTs fit the bill. There’s no question, though, that the disruption of finance—in the same way that the internet has already disrupted media and commerce—would represent an essential next stage in the current cycle of technological revolution. In particular, if it were possible for capital to be allocated effectively without the trust and authority of large centralized capital providers (“Wall Street” so to speak), that would be a foundational advance. In that regard, what I’d be looking for is evidence of capital allocation via cryptocurrencies toward productive investment in the operating economy rather than capital allocation toward imaginary assets. Let me know of any good instances that you hear about.

To make clearer what I’m talking about, let me take an aside from crypto and Web3 to look at another technology revolution: the green energy revolution. There, it is completely obvious that bubble valuations are already financing the development of lasting infrastructure. Elon Musk has been a master at taking the outsized speculative price of Tesla stock (which at one point a year or two ago was valued at 1,500 years of the company’s profits!) and turning it into a nationwide electric vehicle charging grid, battery gigafactories, and autonomous vehicle capabilities, all the while catalyzing entire industries to chase him into the future. So too has Jeff Bezos used Amazon’s outsized valuation to build a new infrastructure of just-in-time commerce. And both of them are investing in the infrastructure of the commercial space industry.

In assessing the progress toward Web3 as advertised, I’d also compare the adoption of cryptocurrency for other functions of financial systems—purchasing, remittances, and so on—not only with traditional banking networks but also with other emerging technologies. For example, are Ripple and Stellar more successful platforms for cross-border remittances than bank transfers, credit cards, or PayPal, in the same way that Google Maps was better than Rand McNally or first-generation GPS pioneers like Garmin? There’s some evidence that crypto is becoming a meaningful player in this market, though regulatory hurdles are slowing adoption. Never mind remittances, though—what about payments more generally? How does growth compare with that of a non-crypto payment startup like Melio, which is focused on building against small business use cases? Given the interest in crypto from companies like Square (now Block) and Stripe, they are well positioned to tell us of progress for crypto relative to more traditional payment mechanisms.

7. Explaining Our Miraculous Flourishing – Marian L. Tupy

There is no God in Jonah Goldberg’s new book, Suicide of the West: How the Rebirth of Tribalism, Populism, Nationalism, and Identity Politics is Destroying American Democracy. But the book nonetheless revolves around a miracle. “The Miracle” is the shorthand Goldberg, a bestselling author, syndicated columnist, senior editor at National Review and a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, uses to describe the escape of our species from the depths of ignorance, poverty and every-day conflict to the heights of scientific achievement, material abundance and relative peace.

To appreciate Goldberg’s Miracle, consider the following. Homo sapiens are between 200,000 and 300,000 years old. Yet the modern world, with all the conveniences that we take for granted (I wrote this article sitting on a plane 8 kilometers above ground, using an internet connection provided by a satellite orbiting 37,000 kilometers above the surface of the Earth), is merely 250 years old. Put differently, for the first 99.9 percent of our time on earth, progress was painfully slow. Then everything suddenly changed. Why? That’s the question that Goldberg strives to answer…

…The Miracle happened not because of, but in spite of, hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. Our rule-based society, where equality before the law takes precedence over the social and economic status of the individual, a staggeringly complex global economy that turns strangers from different continents into instant business partners, and a meritocratic system of social and economic advancement that ignores people’s innate features, such as race and gender, is both very new and extremely fragile…

…In a refreshingly non-relativistic manner, which is one of Goldberg’s trademarks, he writes, “I believe that, conceptually, we have reached the end of history. We are at the summit, and at this altitude [political] left and right lose most of their meaning. Because when you are at the top of the mountain, any direction you turn – be it left toward socialism or right toward nationalism … the result is the same: You must go down, back whence you came.”

And that descent (decline, if you will) is the key threat that we all ought to keep in mind. The forces of tribalism always linger just below the surface and are never permanently subdued. From Russia and China to Turkey and, to some extent, the United States, the all-mighty chieftain is back in charge. From the darkest corners of the web, where nationalists and anti-Semites thrive, to the university campuses, where identity politics flourish, group loyalty takes precedence over the individual. These dangerous sentiments originate, it is true, in human nature. But their renewed lease on life springs, as Goldberg reminds us, from something much more banal – ingratitude defined as “forgetfulness of, or poor return for, kindness received.”

---

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 Maps), Amazon, PayPal, and Tesla. Holdings are subject to change at any time.

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 19 December 2021:

1. Want to be a Disruptor? – Marc Randolph

Stories of disruption almost always start this way.

I recently consulted for a large manufacturer who sold their product using a classic distribution model; they sold their product to distributors; the distributors sold to retailers; the retailers sold to the end users.  Everyone was happy.  Of course, to support so many tiers of distribution, the price to the end-user had to be high, but so what?  They had a monopoly.  Where else was a customer going to go?

But then the inevitable happened.  A start-up launched a similar product, but rather than take the leader on directly, they bypassed the usual channels and sold directly to end users.  The product wasn’t as good, but by cutting out distributors and high-priced salespeople, their prices were about half.

The CEO of the larger company saw this happening and knew exactly how to respond.  They would launch their own direct-to-consumer division and use their more powerful brand name and dramatically larger marketing budget to nip this threat in the bud.  All good.

All good, that is, until their VP of sales heard about it.  “We’re going to compete with our own distributors? You’re going to make my job harder? I’m out of here!”

The next call came from their biggest distributor. “You’re going to compete with me?  Find yourself another distributor!”

Soon the entire retail network was up in arms.  The direct-to-consumer division idea was shut down before it even started.

And the start-up?  They got three good years of market share gains before the larger company finally decided to launch the D2C division they should have launched at the beginning.  But by then it was too late. 

2. The Volatility is the Point – Joshua Brown

You don’t grasp that returns only come to those who are willing to bear that volatility when others won’t.

The volatility is the point.

It is the growling guard dog that keeps others away and safeguards the opportunity for you, if you dare.

It’s the reminder that the road to wealth isn’t freshly paved blacktop. As Logan Roy explained to his son this weekend, “It’s a fight for a knife in the mud.”

Its the governor that forces us – me, you, everyone – to be thoughtful about the size and nature of risk we’re about to take.

If not for the volatility, the fluctuation and drawdown, the pain of seeing dollars on a screen disappear, then premium returns over the interest rate on a checking account would not exist. That’s where the term ‘risk premium’ comes from. No risk, no premium. Showing off your ignorance of this concept lets everyone know how immature, inexperienced, uninformed and short-sighted you are.

Real players of the game know this. That’s why you never see them cackling at others over losses, be they temporary or permanent. Anyone who’s ever accomplished anything in the investment markets has lost. Many times. Lost big. Will lose again.

You cannot win if you are unwilling to lose.

It cannot be any other way.

3. Aaron Wright – A Primer on DAOs – Eric Golden and Bill Aaron Wright

[00:05:08] Eric: From that germ, that whitepaper, that first let’s call it DAO, it was about a year later, they were attempting to raise $500,000. They raised something like 150 million. There was a famous hack, which people can go read about, and then an SEC letter that said, “These are securities.” And so the first DAO didn’t go well. And I think what I’m really curious about is someone like you, who’s starting to take a very successful career and dedicate it to this space, what made you stay with DAOs in the midst of all this, I’m assuming, very negative emotion?

[00:05:37] Aaron: Why did I get involved with this? Many ways, lawyers are architects. They structure transactions, they help people manage risk, and they also help structure the flow of value. And so it’s a core thing that lawyers think about all the time or these top level issues related to how value flows, how to create different structures to accommodate the different risks, and also governance. That’s a big thing of what lawyers think about, particularly if they’re counseling in a more traditional setting, like a board of directors, or working with clients that may have these difficult questions that emerge when different groups of people work together. And so for me, I was fortunate enough to fall down the Bitcoin rabbit hole pretty early, fascinated by concepts around Bitcoin. And I think many folks in the ecosystem recognized that the DAO itself was an experiment. And even though it didn’t wind up in a place that everybody was hoping, this core idea of having a different and disparate group of people work together to pull capital to begin to support projects was something that I’ve always found really fascinating.

I think the notion that we can build more effective organizations, more efficient organizations is something that is probably one of the most important sets of questions that we, as a society, have to grapple with. I think for folks that have grown up during the time when I’ve grown up, we’ve seen failures on the part of different corporations, different governmental bodies, different organizations, to be responsive to the needs of people. And to me, DAOs, at their broadest level, are hopefully going to be able to present new ways to do things or improve ways to do things so that we can begin to tackle these problems. But at its core, why have I been so focused on blockchain technology and Ethereum? I think it’s because this idea that’s embedded in blockchains is exceptionally powerful. How can we work together, even though we may live in different countries, even though we may live in different time zones, to build something that we can all reasonably rely upon in order to order our affairs, whether that’s a store value like Bitcoin or the broader use cases that we’re seeing on Ethereum?

I just think that that’s one of the most important technical tasks that we can spend time with. And that’s why I’ve been so focused on it. And I do think that its core, Ethereum is a super fascinating system, not just because it’s a more generalized version of Bitcoin and not just because it has this global virtual machine that you can execute smart contract code in, but fundamentally, it’s a rules engine and it’s a protocol for rules and law. And that’s something that I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about, both as a practicing lawyer and as an academic. So not surprisingly, it tickles me in all the right places…

…[00:13:26] Eric: So I’m super excited to go into Flamingo. But before we do that, I just want to go back to something you said about Silicon Valley missing some of the biggest moves here. What do you think it is about Silicon Valley that led to this blind spot?

[00:14:34] Aaron: Crypto is one of the first major technology categories that didn’t come out of traditional academia. Obviously, lots of academic innovations have fed into crypto, but Bitcoin started with a synonymous whitepaper, a, or a group of developers that released into the wild on a message board… Mailing list, not even a message board. So I think it’s always been a little non-traditional, and I think a lot of the entrepreneurs and innovators that work in the crypto space don’t necessarily fit the classic archetype of a Silicon Valley entrepreneur. They may not have gone to the best schools. They may be located outside of the Valley. They may be working on remote teams, at least pre-COVID, was not the norm. They may not have gone to the most illustrious schools.

So, that combination, I think, has always made it a little bit of an oddity to some Silicon Valley-type investors. It’s not that they haven’t backed amazing teams, they have. I just think there’s been some that have slipped through the filter, which I’m sure always happens, but it seems to happen at a higher rate when it comes to crypto.

I think the other thing is, for the projects that they did back, in many ways, they seemed obvious to plenty of folks in the space that they needed capital and support. It didn’t make much sense that that capital shouldn’t come from the community that they were interacting with. The folks that were actually going to use the platforms or projects or DAP or whatever they’re developing and/or continue to provide longer-term support. I think that was another thing that fed in into our thinking…

…[00:18:05] Eric: We’re going to jump into the legal side, obviously, and understand the difference between this and an LLC. But before we get there, I think the secret sauce of DAOs, in particular, from my watching of Flamingo from the outside, it’s this idea of a hive mind as you call it. First, can you just define for the audience, what is a hive mind because I really think this is the secret sauce that people don’t focus on as much of what makes a DAO or specifically Flamingo special?

[00:18:30] Aaron: I think it’s a unique characteristic of our DAOs and other DAOs that are following a similar model. We have 70 plus members, many of whom put their own capital at risk. And they’re passionate about a particular topic. So this is what they’re geeking out on. They’re spending countless hours per day, even if they have other jobs, completely obsessing over NFTs, opportunities, different communities, artists, ecosystems that are creating NFTS by blending together the voices of not just a handful of people, let’s say like one or two people, or maybe possibly more, which would be the normal setup inside of like a hedge fund or a venture capital fund. It’s a broader group.

That broader group creates a filter about potential opportunities. So we’ve seen in the NFT ecosystem plenty of projects that launch and then their price goes up and then it rapidly comes down. Those types of projects don’t tend to gain traction inside of Flamingo. Even though if you’re an avid reader of CryptoTwitter, or even paying attention in the popular press, some of these projects would’ve hit your radar. This broader base of active participants, I think just creates a better noise to signal ratio. And people are interested in different parts of the ecosystem.

We have some folks that are really focused on early NFTs and collectibles. We have other members that are really focused on generative art. And we’ve done a lot to support generative art, both by supporting Art Blocks and also by collecting a whole bunch of generative artworks. We have other folks that are focused more on this transition of digital artists into NFTs or emerging artists that are using NFTs to develop their platform. We have folks that have been diving deep into the metaverse, and that’s why we set up Neon because we realized that that was a bigger opportunity. And we’re geeking out on different land or parcels or other items that can be acquired in the metaverse.

We had folks that were focused on gaming and other subcategories inside that broader NFT ecosystem. So because this broad range of coverage, it’s like a brain. Different people are focused on different areas, but everybody could have an opinion on it. And you kind of get a sense of whether or not you’re making a good or bad decision, palpably feel opportunities and whether people are excited about it. And now that have a network of DAOs, you can see these different hive minds coming to decisions. And sometimes you get some interesting signal across all the DAOs.

[00:20:51] Eric: How does this brain work? I’d really like to talk about the investment process. How do you source a deal? How do you think about what people would in normal investing think about is due diligence? How do you make a decision and then monitor that investment?

[00:21:06] Aaron: In terms of deals, that would be more kind of in the bucket of the LAO. So supporting a project or a company or some other more venture capital like, venture capital styled investment, there the deals come from all angles. All of our members have different networks that they’re a part of. They know different founders. And if they hear that a project that they’re interested in is raising, they’ll flag it. We congregate on Discord. So they’ll flag it in a new opportunities channel. And they’ll circulate a little bit of information. That catches one or more person’s eye. Then either that member will schedule a time to talk to the team to get more detail, and then report that back. My company, Tribute Labs, will fill in the gaps. So if no member’s able to do that, we’ll schedule a call and collect that information and report it back.

Either based in the conversation in Discord. We also have some calls that people can voluntarily join, which are pretty well attended. We’ll get a flavor of whether or not people want to move forward. If there’s like a sentiment that people want to move forward, there’ll be some soft polling on Discord, just to get a sense and confirm it. And assuming that they want to move forward, it goes up for a formal vote.

Somebody will draft up a proposal or the team will apply and describe why they need the capital. And then it goes up for a formal on-chain vote at that point in time. If more people want to support the project than not support the project during a voting window, it’s seven days in LAO. It’s shorter in some of the other DAOs. Then the capital’s committed. And then we take steps to kind of make sure that all the legal docs and other things are in order and are authorized to settle the transaction on behalf of the members.

[00:22:47] Eric: So in the LAO, I guess thinking about that, that sounds a lot like a venture capital model. How do you think in the way of speed that what you just described, going into a Discord, saying, “I have an idea. I was just talking to this founder. I like it. Let’s get together.” How does that compare in speed to a traditional several partners at a venture capital firm having a meeting to say, “We should do this deal”?

[00:23:07] Aaron: Before crypto, and I think a lot of VC funds that operate in crypto are moving faster, but we can come to a decision in a matter of hours if needed. People are online. They can weigh in on polling. If we need to move quick, then we can move quick. If things are slower, we can move slower and collect some more information. So just the cadence. If you look at the number of deals that the LAO’s done, it’s over a hundred. That’s a lot for most VC funds.

They’re really looking, at least a lot of them are looking to kind of maximize their exposure into a smaller number of bets. We take a slightly different approach where we’re looking to build connections to great projects and teams. We’re happy to participate in a number of different rounds and work with as many teams as we think are worthy of working with.

Inside Flamingo, when it comes to a particular project in different capacities or NFT opportunity, well, it’s a similar process in the sense that people flag either an artist or they’ll flag a set of NFTs that they’re interested in, and there’ll be a conversation related to it. And people will get excited and will decide what the allocation should be. And then either members will acquire them or we’ll acquire them on behalf of the members.

[00:24:18] Eric: One of the beautiful things about blockchain is I can look into your portfolio and see things that you’ve purchased. And now I’m talking about Flamingo. When I look at it, you have 242 CryptoPunks, which I think makes you one of the top holders. You have 22 Bored Apes. I’m curious, just how did you arrive at those allocations? What was it like? Someone said, “Hey, these Bored Apes are launching. This is a good idea. Let’s just throw some money at it.” Or were you saying, “No, we really want to meet with the founders first.” Like, how do we go from, I just saw something on Twitter or my friend told me something we should get involved to sending capital from the Flamingo DAO?

[00:24:51] Aaron: CryptoPunks have been around for a while. We developed inside Flamingo just some core buckets that we were interested in collecting. One of those buckets inside Flamingo was early NFTs. So that included things like CryptoPunks, Autoglyphs, and there’s a handful of other projects.

We began to look at the market and tried to get a sense of what we thought the opportunity would be. When it came to Punks, we bought a handful off the bat. And then there was increasing numbers of proposals to just expand that exposure until we got to a point where we became one of the largest holders in that project. The thesis there, at least distilling it down for members, was really that if there’s going to be trends of NFTs, at some point, people would look back to see what the really first original ones were. And there was some one-off ones, but CryptoPunks stood out as being one of those early iconic sets. And we wanted to have a pretty heavy exposure into that.

For Bored Apes, Bored Apes, it’s an amazing project and I think it’s completely fascinating. And I think they’ve developed an amazing community and have an incredible roadmap. That one, I think members were a little less sure about, just because of the way it was kind of released. And the fact that at that point in time there was more sets of NFTs that were getting created every day. But one member in particular was very, very interested in Bored Apes and thought that we should at least have some exposure there. So we just decided to acquire a handful. And then, I think we acquired a couple more after that, as we began to learn a little bit more about what Bored Apes was thinking about as a community and the plan for developing those sets of characters.

4. Integrating Around The Consumer: A path forward for the global apparel manufacturing supply chain – Jon George and Peter Ting

A widely used but erroneous framework that has guided the supply chain’s business model evolution (and those of other industries) is based on the notion of core competence. If a process fits a company’s core competence, it’s done internally, and if another company can perform the process better or for lower cost, it’s outsourced. The problem with this approach is that what may not be a value-added activity today, may be crucial tomorrow and vice versa. Additionally, core competencies can actually become core rigidities, limiting a company’s ability to adapt to a changing landscape. So, “core competence” is not the most reliable framework for managers in deciding which activities their companies should perform in order to maintain attractive profits over time.

In contrast, the Theory of Interdependence and Modularity is based on the fact that products, services, and even entire industries have architectures that dictate which components or steps are required to make something work and how they should fit together. Products and services have multiple constituent components, and they go through several value-added processes before reaching consumers. The place where any two components fit together is called an interface. Interfaces exist not just within products but also between stages in the value-added chain. For example, there is an interface between manufacturing and distribution, and another between distribution and retailing.

An architecture is interdependent if one process component cannot be completed independently of another. This happens if the way one component is designed and made depends on the way other components are designed and made. When there are unpredictable interdependencies across an interface, the same organization needs to perform both steps in that value chain in order to adequately do either step.

Businesses commonly adopt an interdependent architecture during early phases of an industry when products and services aren’t quite good enough for consumers. An interdependent architecture optimizes on performance, and businesses need to integrate multiple components and value-added processes to be competitive. For example, early computer manufacturers like IBM designed and produced nearly all the required components—including microprocessors, drives, memory, operating systems, etc.—to deliver computers with enough performance to satisfy customer expectations.

In contrast, in a modular architecture, components and processes fit and work together in well understood and highly defined ways. This happens when there is no unpredictability across interfaces. In this architecture, each step of the value-added process is specifiable, verifiable, and predictable. Therefore, it doesn’t matter who makes a given component or performs a service in a certain part of the value chain. Today’s personal computer industry is highly modular. Nearly any component from any manufacturer can fit into any motherboard due to industry-wide standards that specify exactly how interfaces pass data from one component to another (SCSI, USB, etc).

A modular architecture optimizes on flexibility, but this comes at the cost of performance. Modular architectures must be highly specified. As a result, engineers have less latitude in designing a product for bleeding edge performance. Thus, modular architectures tend to be prevalent in products or industries that have matured to a point where some aspects of performance can be sacrificed in favor of choice and customization.

The primary difference between the two architectures and the main implication to businesses is the basis of competition, or the way in which companies must optimize their offerings in order to compete effectively. Initially, when there is a performance gap—when functionality and reliability are not yet good enough for consumers—companies win by taking the interdependent architecture and controlling every critical component of their offerings. However, as products and services improve over time, the basis of competition changes. Performance gaps that once necessitated integration become performance surpluses, and consumers at some point stop paying a premium for ever more functionality. When this overshooting happens, what becomes “not good enough” is that consumers cannot get exactly what they want, when they need it, as conveniently as possible. As a result, the industry migrates to a modular architecture to meet customer demand along new dimensions: speed to market, convenience, and customization. 

5. Could cosmic rays unlock the secret tomb of China’s Qin Shi Huang guarded by terracotta warriors? – Stephen Chen

The Mausoleum of the First Qin Emperor in Xian, Shaanxi province, was built by hundreds of thousands of labourers over nearly four decades and finished around 208BC, according to Han dynasty historian Sima Qian, who lived soon after that period.

With a total area more than 70 times the size of the Forbidden City, it is the biggest tomb ever built for an individual in the world.

The tomb’s surface buildings are no longer standing, but its underground structures are mostly still intact. Some archaeologists believe the central chamber that housed the emperor’s coffin and most valuable treasures remain undisturbed after they combed the entire field and found no holes indicating thieves had been at work.

The study, funded by the central government to evaluate the feasibility of the cosmic ray project, found at least two cosmic ray detectors would be needed, to be planted in different locations less than 100 metres (328 feet) under the surface of the tomb.

These devices, each about the size of a washing machine, could detect subatomic particles of cosmic origin piercing the ground.

The data would allow scientists to identify hidden structures unseen using other detection methods in high detail, said Professor Liu Yuanyuan and her colleagues at Beijing Normal University in a paper published in Acta Physica Sinica, the official journal of the Chinese Physical Society, on Monday…

…After decades of surveying, archaeologists have confirmed the existence of an underground palace more than 30 metres tall. They also found trace evidence supporting descriptions by Sima that had been disregarded as fairy tale, such as pools and waterways filled with mercury to mimic China’s major rivers and the sea.

But the palace’s detailed structure and the exact location of the emperor’s chamber remained uncertain. Sima’s other descriptions – such as traps armed with arrows and crossbows to shoot anyone who enters the tomb – were not verified.

Using cosmic rays in archaeology is a concept that dates as far back as the 1960s. Astrophysicists discovered that cosmic rays could hit air molecules and produce a particle known as a muon that could penetrate almost anything.

Muons have a higher chance of being absorbed when going through denser materials. By comparing the number of muons a detector received from various angles, archaeologists could discover hollow structures, such as hidden chambers or passages in a building.

6. How To Be Successful – Sam Altman

Most people are primarily externally driven; they do what they do because they want to impress other people. This is bad for many reasons, but here are two important ones.

First, you will work on consensus ideas and on consensus career tracks.  You will care a lot—much more than you realize—if other people think you’re doing the right thing. This will probably prevent you from doing truly interesting work, and even if you do, someone else would have done it anyway.

Second, you will usually get risk calculations wrong. You’ll be very focused on keeping up with other people and not falling behind in competitive games, even in the short term.

Smart people seem to be especially at risk of such externally-driven behavior. Being aware of it helps, but only a little—you will likely have to work super-hard to not fall in the mimetic trap.

The most successful people I know are primarily internally driven; they do what they do to impress themselves and because they feel compelled to make something happen in the world. After you’ve made enough money to buy whatever you want and gotten enough social status that it stops being fun to get more, this is the only force I know of that will continue to drive you to higher levels of performance.

This is why the question of a person’s motivation is so important. It’s the first thing I try to understand about someone. The right motivations are hard to define a set of rules for, but you know it when you see it.

Jessica Livingston and Paul Graham are my benchmarks for this. YC was widely mocked for the first few years, and almost no one thought it would be a big success when they first started. But they thought it would be great for the world if it worked, and they love helping people, and they were convinced their new model was better than the existing model.

Eventually, you will define your success by performing excellent work in areas that are important to you. The sooner you can start off in that direction, the further you will be able to go. It is hard to be wildly successful at anything you aren’t obsessed with.

7. Investing: Is it skill or luck? – Eugene Ng

“There’s a quick and easy way to test whether an activity involves skill: ask whether you can lose on purpose. In games of skill, it’s clear that you can lose intentionally, but when playing roulette or the lottery, you can’t lose on purpose.

— Michael Mauboussin”

With activities of skill, like chess, swimming, basketball, one can lose on purpose (as long as you have some basic mastery of the activity). Whereas with activities of luck, like roulette, coin toss, lottery, one cannot lose on purpose. If one cannot lose on purpose, one cannot win on purpose. Following which, if one can lose on purpose, one too can win on purpose, it is likely to be an activity of skill. This has significant implications to us as investors, who are buyers of individual stocks for the long-term. Can this similarly be applied to investing? Which begs the question, can one lose intentionally and pick losing stocks for the long-term?…\

…That is also, why we are of the following view that:

1. Investing, especially over relatively short periods of time, is much more a matter of luck than of skill.
2. Investing, especially over relatively long periods of time, is much more a matter of skill than of luck.

Investing is often viewed by many and the financial media as more luck than skill, because in the short-term, feedback loops are often unclear and inconsistent and can be very volatile. In addition, very few investors keep playing the game very well for decades and beyond, thus investing is rarely viewed as a skilled game by most. But as we think one can possibly win intentionally (read our book to find out how), we do believe one can also lose intentionally as well. To us, investing is both a game of both luck and skill, and where it is on the continuum, depends on the strategy deployed, how it is being played, and the time perspective.

We do believe that gradually with time, in years and decades, that investing as an activity in the luck-skill continuum, can shift more to the right over time (i.e. more skill than luck), as skill becomes more evident for the ones who do have the skill, with luck still playing a crucial role.

---

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 don’t have a vested interest in any companies mentioned. Holdings are subject to change at any time.

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 12 December 2021:

1. TIP399: The Real Life Tony Stark W/ Josh Wolfe – Trey Lockerbie and Josh Wolfe

Trey Lockerbie (00:14:13):
That is interesting because yeah, it’s easy to assume that with that kind of money and success and ego, even, and experience, you would be tempted to apply that to the people you’re investigating and not let them be as autonomous as maybe you have. So that’s an interesting point. Bill’s also very interested in nuclear and I am as well. I’m just kind of hopeful for that for the future of energy. And you’ve got experience in the space as well and I’d like to just maybe take a minute and explore what the future of nuclear looks like in your opinion,

Josh Wolfe (00:14:44):
In part the future of nuclear is going to look like the past, or I think ought to, but we’ll get to that in a second. Bill funded a company called TerraPower, which is a traveling wave nuclear reactor and he was quite bullish on that. And frankly pre COVID and pre some of the tensions between US and China, it looked probable that China was going to become a big, early customer. But we spent a few years going back 10 years here at Lux looking at every part of the nuclear fuel cycle and studying it. And we did this as an exemplar of, while I was discussing before being intellectually competitive and looking where other people were looking, everybody in the venture world, going back to the early 2010s, was looking at clean and green, and they were looking at biofuels, ethanol, batteries, electric vehicles, wind solar, things that were mostly talked about in Al Gore’s movie of the time An Inconvenient Truth, which helped to light a fuse under the movement.

Josh Wolfe (00:15:30):
And it became a little bit of a religious movement, most of the people praying at the altar really did not talk about nuclear. Nuclear still had a, what I would consider, generational and celebrity taboo, the generational being going back to the ’60s and ’70s, and the celebrity being people like Neil Young and Patty Smith who were rockers of the day, who basically were singing at concerts, being like no nukes. And there was a conflation for the ever everyday person that no nukes as a form of nuclear weapon versus no nukes in the form of power, which is clean and green, and at the time nobody was really focused on low carbon. And so the conflation of nuclear war and nuclear power, I think, has set us back many generations. I think it’ll take another 50 years really until we see widespread nuclear use.

Josh Wolfe (00:16:12):
So we looked at every part of the nuclear fuel cycle, we decided that uranium miners were mostly hucksters and fraudsters, as many mining companies are in Nevada and Montana. And we basically said, leave that to somebody else. And the other unique thing about nuclear, as opposed to say oil and gas, was a characteristic that, the marginal price of the input in oil or gas is basically defined by your marginal cost of extraction, and it’s what guides markets. The marginal price of uranium is just a very small percentage of the total operating cost for nuclear. Most of it is the operations, the regulations, the CapEx that goes into the physical equipment, the maintenance, the human labor, it’s a very different construct. It’s a small sub single digit, single digit percentage so that when uranium fluctuates as it did going back a decade from like 25, to 30, to $70 per pound of uranium, it didn’t matter.

Josh Wolfe (00:17:01):
And so, we did not look at the mining people, we did look at modular reactors, and while Bill Gates had funded that in TerraPower, and there were probably six or seven other different constructs for efficient modular reactor instead of building a Gigawatt power plant that might cost $1 billion and could serve a million people. The idea was, could you build something that was smaller, maybe a $100,000 or $1 million and build hundreds of them? And put on powers you need in a very modular way. I think it’s a great idea, I just unfortunately think that it’s going to take a very long time, you’re going to have to have safety and approval and manufacturing. You also increase the chance that there’s a risk on any one thing that creates a failure point that could actually triple everything which normally in a redundant system you would be okay with, but in this you’re increasing more failure points.

Josh Wolfe (00:17:42):
The history of traditional nuclear power, particularly in the US is somewhere between exceptional and extremely exceptional. You had Three Mile Island, which was a disaster, zero people died. There was more evidence of the efficacy of the fail safe systems that basically shut the system down. That also, unfortunately, happened to coincide with the movie The China Syndrome. So this is going back to 1979, I think. And again, it captured the zeitgeist of a nuclear down, and so that was just unfortunate. In contrast, Chernobyl was an absolute certifiable disaster, and that’s been well documented literally in documentary or a dramatized movie, I think on HBO or Showtime about Chernobyl and I think it really talks not so much to the engineering failure, but to the human failure of being able to report truthfully up a chain of command to prevent things from getting worse.

Josh Wolfe (00:18:26):
And then Fukushima was also a disaster, less a human disaster, maybe you can say it would be the equivalent here of like an army Corps of engineers, but in failing to anticipate this super low, negative, back swan event, a super low probability high magnitude consequence, it wasn’t nuclear failure, it was a failure of the architecture to be able to prevent a breach from a tsunami. And so, that set it back, but already you see Japan beginning to restart and rebuild for nuclear. So one would’ve imagined that that would’ve been a generation or two before people would embrace nuclear again, already they are. You’re seeing the consequences both in energy scarcity in Europe, the rise of the green party, and Germany the increased leverage has given Putin in Russia with natural gas pipelines. France has, always generated about 80% of its electricity.

Josh Wolfe (00:19:09):
Southern California had shut down nuclear power plants and had to import electricity from Arizona, which was producing it by a nuclear. And so unfortunately the religious zeitgeist around no nukes has, I think, created some worse devils in the world. And I believe that the future is going to be a combination of speculative investment that is going into phishing, primarily large dollars will go into fusion. I expect that, of course, there’s a very low probability that many of those things will ever actually produce energy. Obviously this entire planet is premised on receipt of power from a fusion reactor, that is the sun, but I’m more skeptical about it being on a timeline that’s investible. And so I would advocate that there just needs to be a rebranding of nuclear. I talk about it as elemental power.

Josh Wolfe (00:19:51):
So people could talk about the sun, which they like the wind that they like. So solar and wind. You could talk about natural gas to an extent, and then you could talk about uranium, this wonderful yellow rock that, when enriched slightly can boil water with no carbon released and turn turbines and produce beautiful, clean electricity. As I joke that if elemental power were discovered, in recent weeks, we would be screaming with joy and it would grace every cover of every publication, exalted that we just solved the climate crisis. So, I think it more than any engineering or investment, it just needs a rebranding and zeitgeist to capture young people, advocate and demand for elemental power, and I think that would be the best thing for society…

…Trey Lockerbie (00:53:02):
One of the sense that was missing in your outline there that I just couldn’t help, but call out is the smell. The smelling sense that I know you had a passion for developing that technology, is there any update there?

Josh Wolfe (00:53:12):
No, it’s a constant hunt for me and maybe a hunt for a year or 10, I have no idea. But I am primed for the optionality of trying to discover it. What it is, just for people who are watching or listening, is the idea that I can pick up this phone and it is a remote control for pretty much everything in my life. I’m able to conjure a car, conjure a meal, control devices around me through response system, or iPhone, and I can capture high fidelity sound, I can play that sound back with high fidelity speakers. I can capture high fidelity imagery, static or dynamic in the form of video, increasingly 4k and 120 frames a second, and then I can play whatever high quality, high density, high pixelated displays.

Josh Wolfe (00:53:51):
The one sense that I can capture today, and I already have haptics that are tapping me on my watch, so I have a sense of feel, I can’t capture smell. And when you say, “Well, why do you want to capture smell?” It is our most salient memory connected sense. And so whether it’s the smell of a loved one, the smell of nostalgia, the smell of a wine or a food, being on a beach in vacation, capturing that dimension, not just of the sound of the waves or the visual of it in a different speed, slow motion, or faster, as realistic as possible. But that smell that is like the one French word I know, that [foreign language 00:54:21] of that moment, and being able to share that with somebody.

Josh Wolfe (00:54:25):
And so that second piece is not only, do you have to capture it? But you have to be able to play it back. Now capturing, if I would’ve told you 20 years ago, you can walk into a cafe and hold up a little magic Star Trek device and whatever song is playing, it will tell you exactly what that song is. You never have to write it down, you don’t have to record it and the ability to Shazam is effectively capturing a digital signature of sound waves that are permeating through the air, tied to a central database. It does pattern recognition, figures out what segment that is and what it matches to in the database. It says, “It’s this Drake song or whatever it is,” the same thing will happen with smell.

Josh Wolfe (00:54:56):
There are volatile organic compounds, today you can use a mass spectrometry machine to be able to look at the chemical signature of that visually. And eventually those technologies will become solid state, they will shrink down. Maybe they’ll be small scale lasers in the same way that we have like LIDAR in our iPhone today that can do 3D depth sensing of physical spaces used to require big machine, and you’ll be able to get a smell signature, press a button and basically have a Shazam for, hey, what is that smell? And then somebody else will have to invent the playback mechanism. So they’ll be recording and they’ll be playback, and I’m absolutely convinced it will happen because it kind of already obey the laws of physics, and there’s no reason that it can’t, we just have to find the right combination of technologies to put together, to make it happen and I hope to fund the ones that win. 

2. Blockchain Can Wrest the Internet From Corporations’ Grasp – Chris Dixon

As the internet has evolved over its 35-year lifespan, control over its most important services has gradually shifted from open source protocols maintained by non-profit communities to proprietary services operated by large tech companies. As a result, billions of people got access to amazing, free technologies. But that shift also created serious problems.

Millions of users have had their private data misused or stolen. Creators and businesses that rely on internet platforms are subject to sudden rule changes that take away their audiences and profits. But there is a growing movement—emerging from the blockchain and cryptocurrency world—to build new internet services that combine the power of modern, centralized services with the community-led ethos of the original internet. We should embrace it.

From the 1980s through the early 2000s, the dominant internet services were built on open protocols that the internet community controlled. For example, the Domain Name System, the internet’s “phone book,” is controlled by a distributed network of people and organizations, using rules that are created and administered in the open. This means that anyone who adheres to community standards can own a domain name and establish an internet presence. It also means that the power of companies operating web and email hosting is kept in check—if they misbehave, customers can port their domain names to competing providers.

From the mid 2000s to the present, trust in open protocols was replaced by trust in corporate management teams. As companies like Google, Twitter, and Facebook built software and services that surpassed the capabilities of open protocols, users migrated to these more sophisticated platforms. But their code was proprietary, and their governing principles could change on a whim…

…There has been a lot of talk in the past few years about blockchains, which are heavily hyped but poorly understood. Blockchains are networks of physical computers that work together in concert to form a single virtual computer. The benefit is that, unlike a traditional computer, a blockchain computer can offer strong trust guarantees, rooted in the mathematical and game-theoretic properties of the system. A user or developer can trust that a piece of code running on a blockchain computer will continue to behave as designed, even if individual participants in the network change their motivations or try to subvert the system. This means that the control of a blockchain computer can be placed in the hands of a community.

3. Bill Doyle – Novocure: Using Physics to Fight Cancer – Patrick O’Shaughnessy and Bill Doyle

[00:03:04] Patrick: So Bill, where to begin this really interesting conversation? It’s a field that I have limited experience with, but a deep interest in and before we get into Novocure specifically, maybe the best place to begin is a little bit higher level with just the state of cancer research and treatment writ large. If you could sort of paint a picture for us of what the world looks like today, relative to maybe when you first got involved in this space. So that we can appreciate the rate of change and the state-of-the-art today.

[00:03:32] Bill: From my perspective, and I certainly don’t have the only perspective here, but I think, first and foremost. We’re all familiar with cancer, we’re all touched by it, either personally or through loved ones. I think we all fear it. We fear it because not withstanding all of the research and progress that’s been made. The approaches to treat chemotherapy haven’t changed all that much in a 100 years. We still have essentially three tools and I’ll expand upon this a little bit, but those three tools are well known. Surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy, or I’ll make a slightly larger basket, pharmacological therapy. There have been progress made in all of those areas. They’re all 120 years old, approximately. A few trace back to the first surgeries for breast cancer at Johns Hopkins or the first chemotherapies that were used in Germany and clearly the Curie’s in radiation therapy.

We’ve got about 120 years of history, but still today, the majority, and really the vast majority of people who are diagnosed with cancer will die of that cancer. Now, we have some wonderful examples of some cures. Great progress in areas, leukemia, certain types of breast cancer. But again, I can make the statement that most of the people who are diagnosed with cancer will die, in fact of that cancer. Now, there is more than hope. There’s been incredible, tremendous progress, particularly over the last 20 years. I think our understanding of the cell, understanding of the genetics of cells and proteins has clearly expanded and that has led and is leading to new therapies. Today, it’s still most effective of cancers, so called the simpler cancers, the cancers that may result from a simple genetic mutation and the more complex cancers we’ve yet to make progress. But we think that progress may be very much on the horizon.

[00:05:41] Patrick: Can you just describe, maybe an overly simplistic question, but what cancer is literally? What is happening in the cells or in the body when somebody gets and has a cancer that grows and becomes life threatening?

[00:05:52] Bill: Of course, normal cells grow. They divide and they die and then are removed from the body. In its simplest sense, cancer is an uncontrolled growth. In the case of solid tumors, which are the cancers that we’re focused on, literally results in masses that impinge upon normally functioning organs, for the most part and disrupt their function. Furthermore, those cancers will metastasize. And that’s the fancy word for spread from their point of initiation to other parts of the body, creating satellite cancers that also have this deleterious effect…

…[00:19:12] Patrick: Now we can finally get with that great setup and great overview of the space itself, into the technology that you at Novocure have pioneered. This idea of tumor treating field. So introduce us first to the technology. And then we’ll use that understanding to start to dive into the business itself too.

[00:19:28] Bill: So we start where you started. Historically, the therapies available to the oncologists have been broadly surgery, radiation and drug therapies. We just discussed that the drug therapies are … And the strategies are expanding from poisons to things like immune stimulators, but it’s still in that realm of pharmacology. Novocure has developed a completely new modality, a fourth modality to fight cancer. The original invention was made by a gentleman named Yoram Palti. Dr. Palti, is an MD, PhD professor at the Technion in Israel and Dr. Palti’s expertise actually his many expertise, but his principle expertise is the effect of electrical phenomenon on tissue. He’s one of the pioneers in developing the technology that is used to treat, for instance cardiac arrhythmias. When there are electrical signals that are going to the wrong place in the heart, that results in atria or the ventricles beating too quickly or too slowly.

One of the therapeutic approaches to treat those arrhythmias is to map those electrical pathways that are firing in the wrong direction and then put a catheter inside the heart and make a small burn to prevent that pathway. Dr. Palti was at the forefront of developing those systems that are used in hospitals around the world. But about 20 years ago, he called me and I got to know him. In an earlier part of my career, I was responsible for R&D and business development in the medical device group at J&J. So I got to know Professor Palti, as we were working on these cardiac ablation systems together. And he called me and I flew to Israel. We had lunch at one of these delightful beach restaurants in Tel Aviv. And I was expecting to hear the next generation of cardiac therapy and he surprised me with an idea to treat cancer. And again, this was completely out of left field.

But his idea was that many of the proteins that are involved in cell division have a very strong electrical charge. They’re so called strong dipoles. So they have a strong negative charge on one end of the protein and a positive charge on the other end of the protein and electric fields, similar to magnetic fields or gravitational field. A gravitational field pulls on masses, a magnetic field pulls on ferous metals. An electrical field pulls on charged bodies. And he said, “If I can get an electric field inside a cell, I think I can push and pull in those proteins. And instead of getting a normal cell division, I think I can kill that cell.” And that was the fundamental idea that we now call Tumor Treating Fields. That we can get an electric field selectively now into a rapidly dividing cancer cell push and pull on the machinery of division. And instead of that cell dividing and becoming two cancer cells, have it die during cell division.

[00:22:37] Patrick: So going back to the issue that you brought up, cancer is different from a bacteria, or virus that are so different, we’ve got cells that are roughly similar to normal healthy cells. What is the mechanism by which … I want to come back to how this thing actually works. The pulverizer of cancer cells through electrical fields, but how do you first make sure that you’re not pulverizing good, healthy cells? What is the difference that you’re able to work off of to make this targeted?

[00:23:02] Bill: That was one of the big questions on day one. This sounds good, but other cancer therapies. One does it work and two, what’s the toxicity profile of this therapy? Because we were all brought up worried about our cell phones, worried about living under power lines. There’s sort of all this mythology around electric fields. Now, we’re going to put it into the body. We have some lucky biology here. What I just described, in order for that to happen, obviously the electric field has to get into the cell and it turns out the cell membrane that surrounds the cytoplasm is actually a pretty good filter for electric fields. It keeps the electric fields out of the cells. And in order to get the electric fields into the cell, we have to tune them to a specific frequency that will penetrate the cell membrane. And it turns out because of a number of physical properties, back to the difference between cancer cells and normal cells. There are enough differences having to do with the salt on the membrane, the thickness of the membrane, the size of the membrane, where we can differentiate between cancer cells and normal dividing cells.

The analogy I like to use here, when I’m describing this to my non-physicist friends, which are most of my friends. We all have car radios. You can think about all the radio stations that we listen to, all exist in the ether. It’s not as, if you’re pressing a button and you’re turning on one station, they’re all there. But the box that we use allows us to filter one at a time. In the old days, when I had my first car, it had a knob and I would turn that knob, which turned a capacitor. And I grew up outside of Baltimore. So I would go to 98 megahertz that would let 98 Rock into the amplifier. And that’s what I would hear. I’d get tired of that. I’d go to DC 101, a 101 megahertz, and that would let 101 megahertz into the amplifier. And that’s what I would hear. That’s what we’re doing with cells. We tune that frequency for GBM, the Tumor Treating Fields get into the GBM cells. If we want to treat pancreatic cancer, we tune the Tumor Treating Fields to get into the pancreatic cancer and then we treat that cancer. So it’s maybe not a perfect analogy, but it’s like tuning an FM radio…

…[00:34:42] Patrick: This might be another odd question, but prior to meeting you, why had I not heard of this? I’ve known people that have had GBM, for sure. Obviously, cancer writ large. And I was very familiar with the original three, surgery, radiation chemotherapy. This didn’t come out last year. Like technology’s been around for, I think almost 20 years now. What are the interesting non-obvious barriers to adoption? What do people fear about this? What are some of the non-medical challenges that you faced? Why hadn’t I heard of it?

[00:35:10] Bill: Being a pioneer creates great opportunity, but also, there’s huge challenges. I sort of joke, when I had that lunch with Palti. The good news is, I was trained as an engineer. So I knew what an electric field was, the bad news for me is, I had no idea how hard it was going to be to change how medicine is practiced. Let’s face it, surgery, radiation, chemo, as I said, they’ve all been around for over a 100 years. The current generation of oncologists study these modalities in medical school. I won’t call it the military industrial complex. The oncology industrial complex is focused around doing drug research. Most of the oncologists, there is always that point and I don’t know whether it’s in high school or college where you go to physics or biology. Vast majority of docs went biology. They didn’t go to physics.

A lot of my discussions with clinicians and brilliant clinicians, but they start with, this is an electric field, It really is Physics 101. I think too, if you diagnose with GBM, I would hope in the US at least, Tumor Treating Fields would be presented to you as a therapy option. I know that’s not universally the case yet. We’re working very hard to make that the case. Right now, about 40% of the eligible patients in the US receive a prescription for Tumor Treating Fields. Now, that’s better than five. The other 60 can all benefit. So we’re working very hard to overcome really the educational gap, but let’s face it. I was skeptical when I first heard about this, everybody starts skeptical. Oh, yeah. We’re going to zap it with magic rays.

4. Web3 is Bullshit – Stephen Diehl

At its core web3 is a vapid marketing campaign that attempts to reframe the public’s negative associations of crypto assets into a false narrative about disruption of legacy tech company hegemony. It is a distraction in the pursuit of selling more coins and continuing the gravy train of evading securities regulation. We see this manifest in the circularity in which the crypto and web3 movement talks about itself. It’s not about solving real consumer problems. The only problem to be solved by web3 is how to post-hoc rationalize its own existence.

The blockchain offers nothing new or worthwhile to the universe of technology. It’s a one trick pony whose only application is creating censorship resistant crypto investment schemes, an invention whose negative externalities and capacity for harm vastly outweigh any possible uses. Every single problem proposed to be solved by blockchain hits up against three fundamental technical limitations that inescapably arise from economic or legal concerns. The three technical issues of the narrative are:

1. The Compute Problem
2. The Bandwidth Problem
3. The Storage Problem

On a compute basis, blockchain networks don’t scale except by becoming the very same plutocratic and centralized systems they allegedly were designed to replace. There is an absurd cost to trying to do censorship resistant computation. In this regime there is a hard incentive to minimize program execution time because the entire network is forced to recompute every single program as part of it’s insanely wasteful process of attempting to reach consensus about a giant global state machine. This inevitably drives the cost per program instruction into the stratosphere. The Ethereum virtual machine has the equivalent computational power of an Atari 2600 from the 1970s except it runs on casino chips that cost $500 a pop and every few minutes we have to reload it like a slot machine to buy a few more cycles. That anyone could consider this to be the computational backbone to the new global internet is beyond laughable. We’ve gone from the world of abundance in cloud computing where the cost of compute time per person was nearly at post-scarcity levels, to the reverse of trying to enforce artificial scarcity on the most abundant resource humanity has ever created. This is regression, not progress.

And then there’s the inconvenient truth about the bandwidth problem of both computers and human resources. Blockchain solutions are vastly more expensive to maintain than centralized solutions, and centralization always wins purely from its ability to physically serve data over a network to customers more efficiently. For this hypothetical proposed decentralized Facebook there are several inescapable logistic questions. Who will pay for the global data centers to serve content? Whose lawyers will respond to the DMCA requests? Who is going to ban the Nazi accounts? Who will issue deletes on CSAM content? Who will reset grandma’s password when she forgets? Running a global business on this scale requires an inescapable amount of centralization just by the brute fact of having to exist and interact with the rest of the civilization. If you introduce centralized data centres and processes to handle all of the messy human interactions, well then congratulations you’ve just recreated Facebook by another name.

Finally there’s the notion of the storage problem, which taps at the heart of what many argue is one of the biggest societal questions of the 21st century: “Who owns our data?”. The web3 narrative is incredibly antithetical to the notion of data deletion because the technical underpinnings of append-only and immutable databases don’t admit this operation by design. Yet every new business model must cross the bridge about customer data visibility and who they will let on the platform. Who’s servers will have custody of your private family photos and who get’s to determine those access controls? And these are questions that are not about consensus algorithms, distributed databases or cryptography at all, they’re inescapably questions about power, privilege and access. Technology won’t save us from having to ask the hard questions of who should have power to control our digital lives. The answer will always be somebody, it’s just a question of who.

5. The Strange Brain of the World’s Greatest Solo Climber – J.B. Mackinnon

Honnold is history’s greatest ever climber in the free solo style, meaning he ascends without a rope or protective equipment of any kind. Above about 50 feet, any fall would likely be lethal, which means that, on epic days of soloing, he might spend 12 or more hours in the Death Zone. On the hardest parts of some climbing routes, his fingers will have no more contact with the rock than most people have with the touchscreens of their phones, while his toes press down on edges as thin as sticks of gum. Just watching a video of Honnold climbing will trigger some degree of vertigo, heart palpitations, or nausea in most people, and that’s if they can watch them at all. Even Honnold has said that his palms sweat when he watches himself on film.

All of this has made Honnold the most famous climber in the world. He has appeared on the cover of National Geographic, on 60 Minutes, in commercials for Citibank and BMW, and in a trove of viral videos. He might insist that he feels fear (he describes standing on Thank God Ledge as “surprisingly scary”), but he has become a paramount symbol of fearlessness…

…The cognitive neuroscientist who volunteered to carry out the scan is Jane Joseph, who in 2005 was one of the first people to perform fMRIs on high sensation seekers—people who are drawn to intense experiences and are willing to take risks to have them. Psychologists have studied sensation seeking for decades because it often leads to out-of-control behaviors such as drug and alcohol addiction, unsafe sex, and problem gambling. In Honnold, Joseph saw the possibility of a more remarkable typology: the super sensation seeker, who pursues experiences at the outer limits of danger, yet is able to tightly regulate the mind and body’s responses to them. She is also simply in awe of what Honnold can do. She had tried to watch videos of him climbing ropeless, but being a low sensation seeker herself, found them overwhelming.

“I’m excited to see what his brain looks like,” she says, sitting in the control room behind leaded glass as the scan begins. “Then we’ll just check what his amygdala is doing, to see: Does he really have no fear?”

Often referred to as the brain’s fear center, the amygdala is more precisely the center of a threat response and interpretation system. It receives information on a straight pathway from our senses, which allows us to, for example, step back from an unexpected precipice without a moment’s conscious thought, and triggers a roster of other bodily responses familiar to almost everyone: racing heartbeat, sweaty palms, tunnel vision, loss of appetite. Meanwhile, the amygdala sends information up the line for higher processing in the cortical structures of the brain, where it may be translated into the conscious emotion we call fear.

An initial anatomical scan of Honnold’s brain appears on MRI technician James Purl’s computer. “Can you go down to his amygdala? We have to know,” says Joseph. Medical literature includes cases of people with rare congenital conditions, such as Urbach-Wiethe disease, which damage and degrade the amygdala. While these people generally don’t experience fear, they also tend to show other bizarre symptoms, such as a total lack of concern for personal space. One individual was comfortable standing nose-to-nose with others while making direct eye contact.

Purl scrolls down, down, through the Rorschach topography of Honnold’s brain, until, with the suddenness of a photo bomb, a pair of almond-shaped nodes materialize out of the morass. “He has one!” says Joseph, and Purl laughs. Whatever else explains how Honnold can climb ropeless into the Death Zone, it isn’t because there’s an empty space where his amygdala should be. At a glance, Joseph says, the apparatus seems perfectly healthy.

Inside the tube, Honnold is looking at a series of about 200 images that flick past at the speed of channel surfing. The photographs are meant to disturb or excite. “At least in non-Alex people, these would evoke a strong response in the amygdala,” says Joseph. “I can’t bear to look at some of them, to be honest.” The selection includes corpses with their facial features bloodily reorganized; a toilet choked with feces; a woman shaving herself, Brazilian style; and two invigorating mountain-climbing scenes.

“Maybe his amygdala is not firing—he’s having no internal reactions to these stimuli,” says Joseph. “But it could be the case that he has such a well-honed regulatory system that he can say, ‘OK, I’m feeling all this stuff, my amygdala is going off,’ but his frontal cortex is just so powerful that it can calm him down.”

There is also a more existential question. “Why does he do this?” she says. “He knows it’s life-threatening—I’m sure people tell him every day. So there may be some kind of really strong reward, like the thrill of it is very rewarding.”

To find out, Honnold is now running through a second experiment, the “reward task,” in the scanner. He can win or lose small amounts of money (the most he can win is $22) depending on how quickly he clicks a button when signaled. “It’s a task that we know activates the reward circuitry very strongly in the rest of us,” Joseph says.

In this case, she’s looking most closely at another brain apparatus, the nucleus accumbens, located not far from the amygdala (which is also at play in the reward circuitry) near the top of the brainstem. It is one of the principal processors of dopamine, a neurotransmitter that arouses desire and pleasure. High sensation seekers, Joseph explains, may require more stimulation than other people to get a dopamine hit…

…Even to the untrained eye, the reason for her interest is clear. Joseph had used a control subject—a high-sensation-seeking male rock climber of similar age to Honnold—for comparison. Like Honnold, the control subject had described the scanner tasks as utterly unstimulating. Yet in the fMRI images of the two men’s responses to the high-arousal photographs, with brain activity indicated in electric purple, the control subject’s amygdala might as well be a neon sign. Honnold’s is gray. He shows zero activation.

Flip to the scans for the monetary reward task: Once again, the control subject’s amygdala and several other brain structures “look like a Christmas tree lit up,” Joseph says. In Honnold’s brain, the only activity is in the regions that process visual input, confirming only that he had been awake and looking at the screen. The rest of his brain is in lifeless black and white.

“There’s just not much going on in my brain,” Honnold muses. “It just doesn’t do anything.”

To see if she was somehow missing something, Joseph had tried dialing down the statistical threshold. She finally found a single voxel—the smallest volume of brain matter sampled by the scanner—that had lit up in the amygdala. By that point, though, real data was indistinguishable from error. “Nowhere, at a decent threshold, was there amygdala activation,” she says.

Could the same be happening as Honnold climbs ropeless into situations that would cause almost any other person to melt down in terror? Yes, says Joseph—in fact, that’s exactly what she thinks is going on. Where there is no activation, she says, there probably is no threat response. Honnold really does have an extraordinary brain, and he really could be feeling no fear up there. None at all. None whatsoever.

6. The Secret Levels Master Plan (just between you and me) – Sam Corcos

Most people don’t yet realize the magnitude of the problem that metabolic dysfunction poses for society. If you want to dig deeper into this, you should check out our blog post, The Ultimate Guide to Metabolic Fitness, but the highlights are:

• More than 10% of the US is currently diabetic, and the rate is accelerating.
• There are almost 90 million prediabetic Americans; 70% of those people will be diabetic within 10 years, and 84% of people with prediabetes do not know they have it.
• Fewer than 25% of candidates of eligible age qualify for the military and this is largely due to being metabolically unfit; it’s a national security problem
• Metabolic dysfunction might be the single largest (preventable) force pushing up the cost of healthcare. Individuals meeting at least three criteria for metabolic syndrome have 60% higher annual healthcare costs; diabetes alone contributes to $327 billion in medical costs and lost productivity, expected to exceed $600 billion by 2030…

…One reason we’ve been so in the dark about metabolic health is that there are no good tools to measure how your diet affects you in a quantifiable way. The biggest levers for metabolic health are, in no particular order:

• Sleep
• Diet
• Exercise

There’s no way to say which is the most important because they’re so interdependent. If you sleep poorly, your body releases stress hormones, generates inflammation, triggers hormones that lead to sugar cravings, and develops acute insulin resistance. Together, this may result in erratic mood and energy throughout the day, making it harder to exercise and prepare healthy meals, and generate a negatively reinforcing cycle of poor metabolic health.

We currently have good tools for measuring and quantifying sleep (including Eight Sleep, Oura) and exercise (like the Apple Watch, Fitbit, Whoop). This has allowed people to discover how their choices affect those aspects of their life, but there hasn’t been a way to quantify how your diet affects you. This forces people into making guesses about what is working and what’s not, leaving 59% of people saying conflicting food and nutrition information makes them doubt their choices.

In the same way that everyone knows to get eight hours of sleep, and how Fitbit convinced people that walking 10,000 steps is a good target for exercise, we will show people that maintaining a flat glucose curve is optimal for lifestyle and long-term metabolic health.

Empowering people to see for themselves how their choices affect their health gives them agency. We all know that eating a box of donuts is bad for us in a general, ill-defined sense, but without an immediate consequence like pain or death, it’s hard to feel compelled to overcome the powerful rewards of smell, texture, and taste.

By quantifying the consequence of a choice in real-time, we can effectively close the loop on diet, connecting a specific action to the nature and degree of the reaction, and allowing us to continuously improve our choices. The first time you see the data that closes the loop on how your choice of breakfast directly caused your mid-day energy crash—that’s when you make a change.

7. Elements of Effective Thinking – Farnam Street

We’re seduced into believing that brilliant thinkers are born that way. We think they magically produce brilliant ideas.

Nothing could be further from the truth while there are likely genetic exceptions, the vast majority of the people we consider brilliant use their minds differently.

Often, these geniuses practice learnable habits of thinking that allow them to see the world differently. By doing so, they avoid much of the folly that so often ensnares others. Eliminating stupidity is easier than seeking brilliance.

I came across The Five Elements of Effective Thinking, authored by Dr. Edward B. Burger and Dr. Michael Starbird, which presents some practical ways for us to improve our thinking.

They make a pretty bold claim in the introduction.

You can personally choose to become more successful by adopting five learnable habits, which, in this book, we not only explain in detail but also make concrete and practical.

The five habits are:

1. Understand deeply
2. Make mistakes
3. Raise questions
4. Follow the flow of ideas
5. Change

---

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 do not have a vested interest in any company mentioned. Holdings are subject to change at any time.