Archive by Author

Site Housekeeping: If You’re Reading This, Keep Reading

16 Aug

We’ve recently switched from wordpress.com to a hosted wordpress.com solution.  If you subscribe to our posts via RSS feed, email, etc, there is a non-zero chance you’ve missed this (or thought we just gave up on posting altogether).  If you go to www.stonestreetadvisors.com you’ll be able to see all of our recent posts (for now).  If you subscribe to the RSS feed there, you’ll likely have to do so again as we have one more website transition which should happen in the next week or two.

We apologize for the confusion.  If you have any questions, feel free to shoot me an email.

 

Thanks!

Stone Street Advisors Weekend Housekeeping – Website Changes

30 Jul

Our resident tech pro Bond Wimp is helping me (aka doing 98% of the work) upgrade the Stone Street Advisors website this weekend.  We’re trying to make it as seamless as possible, but don’t be surprised if things get a little screwy over the next few days.

Thanks for your patience!

KPMG on Luxury Market in China (2010)

30 Jul

This is the most recent version of an older version of this report I read recently.  Implications are huge here for many firms, think Tiffany, Coach, LVMH, Ralph Lauren, and the list goes on and on.  Worth a read for anyone who covers luxury retail names and wants to know whats really going on in China.

**update**

Scribd sucks (as I’ve said since it started), so I’m just uploading the pdf directly here. Sorry for the confusion

.Luxury-extends-its-reach-across-China-201005

The Best Laid Plans of Mice & Men: YOKU Summary Thesis Update

28 Jul

A friend sent me an email about YOKU because he’d read my previous work, and I set out to respond quickly and concisely.  However long and about 1,200 words later, I realized I’d inadvertently (basically) summarized my outlook on YOKU in a kind of stream-of-consciousness style.  With the caveat that this is neither my full nor formal analysis, I’ve decided to publish my response to that email for those of you interested in my take on YOKU.

With all that being said, here goes:

(more…)

Bipartisan Policy Center’s Debt Limit Analysis

24 Jul

This may be the best report I’ve read on the Debt Ceiling impasse so far (FD: I haven’t read many in full, sorry).  This report as, among the ones I have looked at, the benefit of being fairly easy to read/comprehend, with as little legalese/technical jargon as possible.

I almost always suggest getting your information not from the media, but from going directly to the source.  This time is no exception.

Take for example these two slides about what could potentially happen far more clearly than anything I’ve read:

This is some serious, serious stuff.

 

**UPDATE: Thanks to the BPC, I’ve updated the link for the report, below, should work fine now**

Read the full pdf report here

 

h/t @dafowc

**Caveat: I do not advocate or endorse this analysis or the accuracy thereof.  I’m presenting it for informational purposes only.

Best Read of the Weekend: Founders Fund: What Happened to the Future?

24 Jul

Venture Capital firm Founders Fund, started by Peter Thiel (PayPal founder, 1st outside investor in Facebook) has a new report on their website “What Happened to the Future” that you absolutely must read if you care about technology.

That’s it.  Stop wasting time, go read it and look at the charts. GO!

 

Interview With The Man, The Legend, Technology Banker Frank Quattrone

23 Jul

via CNBC senior stocks commentator Herb Greenberg, I strongly implore anyone interested in technology, web 2.0, cloud, mobility, social media, etc to watch this.  Remember, this is the man who did THE deals of tech 1.0, and he’s increasingly doing THE deals of tech 2.0.  You should hang on his every word.  The interview is approx 30 minutes, and I recommend you watch every last second..

Here’s the link because wordpress sucks and won’t let me embed the video.

The Effects of a Deferred Productivity Shock: The Jobs Are (Probably) Not Coming Back

22 Jul

Karl Smith of Modeled Behavior pointed me to an interesting post by Arnold Kling, arguing that the great depression, and possibly the crisis of 2008 was the result and/or realization of positive productivity shocks (generally regarded as good things):

The Keynesian model of the Depression is that it was a problem of aggregate demand. The real business cycle model says that it was a negative productivity shock. The PSST model says that it was a transition from one pattern of specialization and trade to another, caused by a positive productivity shock. With tractors, farmers did not need laborers and tenant farming became uneconomical. With trucks, roads, and refrigeration, we needed less local meat and produce, so that farmland near cities could be converted to suburbs and returned to wilderness. In manufacturing, we needed a smaller fraction of labor devoted to production and more people to work on distribution and organization. More women found that their comparative advantage was in market work rather than housework. Thus, by 1950 we had very new patterns of specialization and trade.

What happens though if productivity gains are not recognized over time, or gains are only partially recognized (as measured by output/unit of labor, etc)?  Technology has been available for a decade or more that would have seen many of those laid off post 2007 more gradually over time had the tech been adopted that way and had the greater economic landscape encouraged it.  What if shocks like the most recent (current?) financial crisis allow, if not downright encourage firms to play catch-up, by taking drastic and quick action to recognize previously un-recognized productivity gains?  If GDP and BLS data is even remotely accurate, it seems like we’re now, post-crisis, doing more with less, and there’s very little reason to expect this trend to reverse course anytime soon, if ever.

Consider for example large financial firms.  The biggest among them – think Citi, Bank of America, JPM, Wells Fargo – are hulking conglomerates built from decades of acquisitions, but have been painfully slow to recognize the “synergies” used to rationalize those deals.  Most of these firms still use decades-old technology and processes (I know this all too well from personal experience) simply because they get the job done, and in a race to keep up with the Jones’, no bank executive wants to explain a few quarters of “one time” expenses related to development & deployment of pricey new platforms.

But when life throws you lemons, the best you can do is to make lemonade, and in the midst of the financial crisis and subsequent “recovery,” many of these firms finally started upgrading their systems.  (Whether this was just a way of keeping up with competition – with its implicit chicken or the egg conundrum – or using a larger story to mask otherwise major corporate moves is besides the point.)  This means that many of the back and middle office clerks who were paid say $15-$25/hour (more for managers) to fill out paper trade tickets and pass all sorts of paperwork between redundant and inefficient departments are being laid off & replaced by automated systems that do their jobs far better, faster, and (over time), cheaper.

To give you an idea of the magnitude of these layoffs, consider that for every trader or broker there may be just as many operations staff.  Sure, some will remain to support the new systems and handle the more complicated work that’s too hard/expensive to automate, but many of the lower-wage/skill ones will get the boot, despite their managers’ best efforts to protect their kingdoms (and you bet your butt these managers want to keep their own jobs and are fighting tooth & nail for their employees out of pure self interest).

How do you re-employ someone who’s spent the past 10, 20 or more years of their life working as a back office clerk or in a service (call) center, with no 4-year degree and minimal skills beyond whatever narrow work they’ve been doing every day for such a large part of their lives when similar jobs are disappearing just as quickly as theirs did?

Not a lot to be optimistic about, eh?

Its one thing to be unemployed when you’re in your 20′s and you’ve got a good support system, but when you’re later in your career, it can be absolutely catastrophic, as Megan McArdle explains:

Now think about what is happening to millions of people out there who don’t have that: whose savings and social networks are exhausted (or were never very big to begin with), who are in their fifties and not young enough to retire, but very hard to place with an employer who will pay them as much as they were worth to their old firm. Think of the people who can’t support their children, or themselves.  Think of their despair.

That is what these numbers mean: millions of people, staring into the abyss of an empty future.  We don’t know how to re-employ them.  The last time this happened, in the Great Depression, World War II eventually came along and soaked up everyone in the labor force who could breathe and carry a toolbag.  I hope to God we’re not going to do that again, so what are we going to do with all these people?

Technology has been rendering repetitive task and low-skill jobs obsolete for hundreds of years, and up until now, we’ve always found a way to get those displaced by tech back into the workforce.  Many of the people who’ve been recently laid off find themselves facing a Sisyphean task: their job, and many of the jobs that utilize the same skills simply do not and will not exist again in the foreseeable future.  The brokerage houses I mentioned above aren’t going back to using paper tickets and keeping paper copies of every document  except in the case of massive business interruption (like an Earthquake running through the center of Manhattan), as so doing is about 3 spots down the list in the business continuity plan, and even then they won’t be re-hiring the tens (collectively hundreds) of thousands of people they laid off.

Service (eg call) centers are moving (poorly) to more automation and less human interaction (and much of that human interaction is outsourced to India etc).  New firms (eg Facebook, Twitter, Zynga, Groupon, etc) and industries (eg renewable/green energy) are sprouting up from coast to coast and likewise ramping up hiring but I don’t think they’re ever going to have the need for all of these displaced (especially) service workers, no matter how big they get.  Even if they royally screw up customer service (probable, if not extremely likely), much of it will be computerized, self-service, etc, requiring far fewer employees per customer or user than firms traditionally have.  At best we can hope some of the long-tern unemployed find a place with these new firms, but I think it more likely these new economy firms will hire out of the younger generation right or recently fresh from University.  When the older generation of the long term unemployeed need jobs more than ever in their lives, the only ones that are likely to pop up will almost by definition disqualify them, at least in the minds of those with the jobs to offer.

And this is just looking at a portion of our service sector.  If we want to talk manufacturing, that’s going to take some sort of significant shock that causes firms to (correctly) realize that many of the benefits of third world-manufacturing aren’t worth the costs/risks.  Its possible, but any meaningful improvements will take a decade if not more, far longer than the unemployed have to wait around.

The numbers don’t capture how bad it really is.  No job, no money, no way to support yourself and your family, relegated to government support programs you always thought were beneath you just to feed your kids with nothing on the horizon to get you out of bed in the morning.  For anyone who’s spent any time unemployed, you know just how depressing this is the physical, psychological, and emotional toll it takes on you and those around you.  Some turn to drugs and alcohol, some just give up entirely.

I’m not saying we’re facing an impossible task in finding jobs for our millions of long-term unemployed (to say nothing of jobs for the millions entering the workforce each year), but its going to be a pretty damn steep, miserable uphill battle for many of our friends and neighbors.

** I started writing this post in late winter/early spring of this year**

Robert Schiller: A Lot of What Happens in Markets is Driven by Pure Stupidity

21 Jul

Probably the best quote I’ve read in recent memory, via TheAnalyst_HK, from Yale Economics professor Robert Schiller (emphasis mine):

Economists who adhere to rational-expectations models of the world will never admit it, but a lot of what happens in markets is driven by pure stupidityor, rather, inattention, misinformation about fundamentals, and an exaggerated focus on currently circulating stories.

I think the entire quote is nearly flawless, but the part I’ve highlighted, primarily the latter two issues, strikes me as effectively epitomizing the behavior I see day in and day out, whether in the financial media, my twitter/stocktwits stream, or in closer knit financial/economic circles.*  In a world of momentum and technical trading, these missteps are so widely prevalent and painfully apparent I often find myself close to banging my head on my desk.  I regularly see stocks return 5% or even 10% DAILY, on no real material news, let alone news that suggests a firm is instantaneously worth 10% more.

Efficient markets my ass.

When you treat stock prices as if they’re some ephemeral, transitory dot on a chart that moves based of supply and demand & trade accordingly, you ignore a great deal of information and, while you may make money in the short term (and good for you if you do), you’re taking on an enormous amount of unaccounted for risk in so doing.   Look at a firm I’ve briefly discussed here, ZAGG.  It’s up  ~80% in the past 2 months, and up over 100% year to date, showing no signs of going down anytime soon.  Has business improved so much, in less than a quarter, to rationalize such a run in the stock and current valuation?  I’d like to remind you of a quote from casino magnate Steve Wynn I’ve used here at least a handful of times before, via Long or Short Capital:

[Responding to a question as to why Wynn issued equity at $154 at the end of September and then paid a dividend of $6/share on December 10th. Note that Wynn shares had traded in the $80s in June of last year and at $120 yesterday.]

It is the job, and you can take this as a final statement on the subject going forward. It is the job of board of directors and especially of the CEO to take advantage of the market when that market movement is extreme. When a company increases its value by 100% in 60 days, that’s an unnatural movement of value and the market also goes the other way sometimes. These unnatural movements in value, no company gets to be worth twice as much in 60 days as it was before to any intelligent person, so when that happens, we take advantage of it.

New distribution deals are great, as are new product launches, but more often than not when you read beyond the headline, they’re little if anything to write home about, let alone send the stock price soaring.  In this case, the great new distribution deal is only for one freaking product for one phone on one cell network that combined will likely add maybe a few hundred thousand dollars in sales to a firm doing over a hundred million annually.  New products are great, but there’s probably not nearly as many people lining up to buy $100 iPad case/keyboards as there are iPads.  Not that ZAGG needs to sell the keyboard/case to everyone who buys an iPad, hell I’m sure they’d be ecstatic to sell to 1 out of every 100 of the 9.25 million iPad buyers last quarter.  Unfortunately, 1. they aren’t that popular (and likely won’t ever be) and 2. these announcements and the stock price moves they seem to instigate seem to be completely disconnected from the extremely long list of orange and red flags in the firm’s SEC filings.

I do not have, nor have I ever had a position in ZAGG.  Would I have liked to make money as the stock marched upwards?  You bet your ass!  Did I see it coming, even with strong momentum?  Nope.  Do I think it’s topped out?  Probably not, especially with the large short interest, although I’m not going to lie, if I can get my hands on some Aug or Sept $16 puts for under $2, I very well may pull the trigger.

Just to be clear, I don’t mean to attack momentum/technical/swing traders, not even by accident, as I have learned alot from them and I count many among my friends.  However I am absolutely attacking blind adherence to the strategy (or any strategy!) without paying attention to other factors.

As a fundamental guy, I’ve learned that I have to check out the technicals on a stock before I get in/out of a trade and set stops, lest I decide to say, bet against the market and get steamrolled ala Whitney Tilson and Netflix.  Similarly, technical traders would be well served, at the very least from a risk management perspective, to learn a little more about the fundamentals of firms they trade and monitor their own confirmation bias, especially when a lot of the time, all it takes is look at Stocktwits and a few financial sites!  I think just as fundamental investors can utilize technical/momentum information, tech/momo traders can use fundamental information to help them.  As lame as it sounds, I think we can all help each other, so long as we’re open minded to other perspectives.

Short term profits are absolutely awesome, until they suddenly go *poof* when the market capitulates or changes its mind.  Better to use all available information to see it coming and get out before hand (or avoid putting capital at risk in the first place).

CAVEAT EMPTOR

*No doubt I, myself, am sometimes guilty of these very things, but I try quite hard to be acutely self-aware, however good I am at it is another conversation for another time.

Book Review: Fatal Risk – A Cautionary Tale of AIG’s Corporate Suicide

19 Jul

A while back I asked seasoned financial reporter/investigator Roddy Boyd if I could review his book, Fatal Risk, about the rise and epic fall of AIG.  I finally finished it last week and while I didn’t think I’d ever say this, AIG was a REALLY ridiculously interesting story and one I absolutely recommend reading to anyone and everyone even tangentially interested in business, finance, investing, and economics.  This is truly one of the most important lessons in history, and as they say, those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it…

 

 

 

(more…)

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 59 other followers