Adult as a Term of Approval

C.S. Lewis was a fantasy author, and he has a great quote regarding his critics who worried about adults liking stories that are considered childish. 

Critics who treat 'adult' as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.

In searching for the context of the quote, I came across the excellent essay On Three Ways of Writing for Children. Towards the end he makes the point about how realistic fantasies can be much more dangerous than obvious fantasies.

The dangerous fantasy is always superficially realistic. The real victim of wishful reverie does not batten on the Odyssey, The Tempest, or The Worm Ouroboros: he (or she) prefers stories about millionaires, irresistible beauties, posh hotels, palm beaches and bedroom scenes—things that really might happen, that ought to happen, that would have happened if the reader had had a fair chance. For, as I say, there are two kinds of longing. The one is an askesis, a spiritual exercise, and the other is a disease. 

In other words, 50 Shades of Grey represents a far more dangerous fantasy than Game of Thrones. And C.S. Lewis was saying this before the time of reality TV.

Assorted Links

1. Counterintuitively, test prep actually helps minorities.  Perhaps a less politically correct interpretation of SAT research more generally is that it highlights how general intelligence factors and conscientiousness are heritable. These traits are correlated with both higher income and outperformance on standardized tests. 

2. Rent seekers win a round in New Jersey. If there is economic activity going on around automobiles in New Jersey, the dealerships want their cut even though they aren't adding any value. Many of these dealership owners are presumably Republicans, so this is an example of rent seekers in the "free market" party winning a round.

3. Technological adaptation favors the very young.

4. Risk aversion or approval seeking behavior by college women. The politically correct explanation is that it is the males who are overconfident. 

Random Links

1. Tracking the Ukrainian conflict - live. (Hat Tip: Garry)  The best way to pressure Russia seems to be to use the Magnitsky Act against any high profile Russians affiliated with Russia's invasion. Additionally, here are some interesting thoughts on how much US credibility actually matters in foreign affairs.

2. The perils of excess information.

"Once an experienced analyst has the minimum information necessary to make an informed judgment, obtaining additional information generally does not improve the accuracy of his or her estimates. Additional information does, however, lead the analyst to become more confident in the judgment, to the point of overconfidence."

This creates an interesting problem for asset managers who should know all of the risks to their portfolio but for whom overconfidence can be quite dangerous.

3. The French do seem to be more forgiving of personal indiscretions. After this poll I could see DSK entering politics yet again.

4. Scott Sumner on Abenomics

Finance Related Links

1. A valuation expert thinks about What's App from a valuation and from a trading perspective

Damodaran's trading perspective of looking at cost per user sounds plausible, but I wonder if the calculation was as simple as "Facebook messenger is going to be worth X% of the company in the future. Buying Whatsapp at least doubles Facebook's chance of dominating the message space, and X > 22% so it is worth paying almost 11% of the company for Whatsapp."  Also, from a valuation perspective Facebook doesn't have to monetize users more than 1 dollar a year in the short term, they can keep Whatsapp's promise to be ad free for 5 years and only later start aggressively monetizing a greater user base.


He's trying to teach the idea of margin of safety, a long term perspective and investing in what you know, but it's interesting that in doing so he is highlighting investments that definitely underperformed Berkshire's book value as a whole. The farm is worth 5 times the amount it was bought in 1986, Berkshire stock is up over 5000% since 1987.  The actual calculation is more complicated than that since the farm gave off earnings in the meantime, but the difference is still quite notable.

3. MTGOX, the original bitcoin exchange, is down right now

It could be that they are insolvent or they are just particularly incompetent, but it is probably a combination of both.  The coins on the exchange, which could not leave MTGOX custody, were trading at less than 30% of the value of bitcoin on other exchanges.  It would be amusing, but highly illegal, if they were actually buying these discounted coins and arbitraging the difference on other exchanges to make it back to solvency.

Facebook is Buying Continued Relevance

When Facebook was going public they bought Instagram for around a billion dollars. Instagram was succeeding at something Facebook was trying to do - get teens to engage with a photo-sharing and social network app on mobile. Facebook paid about 1% of its market capitalization to own this emerging company. Later data revealed that it was definitely a good move - people really like Instagram.
   
More recently, they paid a lot more for Whatsapp, a messaging app founded in 2009. They paid $16 billion, or $19 billion dollars when restricted shares that will paid out as retention bonuses are included. That works out to over 10% of Facebook's current market capitalization.  Whatsapp was starting to beat Facebook in the messaging space - in most of the developed world outside of Japan and Korea Facebook and Whatsapp are the number one and number two messaging apps (It's unclear if counting Apple's iMessage as a separate app would change the math significantly).

There is no question that owning the messaging and mobile photo sharing spaces is what Facebook needs to do. And the mobile messaging space in particular appears to be very profitable. Line has been monetizing their user base quite well recently. But the big question is whether or not these nascent competitors that Facebook bought will continue to dominate the market for the foreseeable future.  

Zynga tried to implement the strategy that Facebook is applying when they bought Omgpop, the company behind the popular app Draw Something. Zynga wanted to get a foothold in the mobile gaming space but found out that success was not repeatable. While the analogy is worrying considering Zynga's subsequent troubles, Facebook is in a signficantly better position. With Whatsapp the network effects are stronger and there is no pressure for Whatsapp to create any other hits - they just have to outcompete other messaging apps and monetize their current business. 

But if consumers move on to other methods of communication in a few years, Facebook will have to buy the new competitor in the space if they are unable to innovate successfully. The social space is adapting to new technologies and is changing much more quickly than other areas. If Facebook needs to continue to buy competitors to keep their mindshare with consumers constant they will dilute their shareholders before they are able to deliver significant value. They might also start to attract the attention of the FTC.

One thing that this acquisition highlights is just how technology companies are threatened by the changing technology landscape. An investor who is bullish on technological innovation should be wary when buying the current technological incumbents - these incumbents risk either be outcompeted by new entrants or having to buy them at inflated prices.

Any press is good press, right?

The current story with Under Armour and the US Olympic speed skating team could test that hypothesis. There is a lot of speculation about whether or not the suits, which have vents that might be making them less aerodynamic, are holding the team back from winning the medals they were expected to win.

Under Armour, the only thing holding the US Olympic speed skating team back.

I'm guessing that wasn't the message the marketing executives were going for when they decided to sponsor the speed skating team. In actuality it should probably work out okay for them since their name is being mentioned in a lot of places. Also, the product that isn't working optimally, olympic speed skating suits, isn't something that is or could generate significant earnings for the company. This doesn't seem to be anything like the Lulu Lemon bend over test situation where consumers were starting to notice their favorite brand was declining in quality. As strange as it might sound, this is probably a case where Under Armour does a little bit of damage control and benefits from the free press. It will be interesting to look at this issue again in a year or so and see if there was any noticeable impact.

Russians officials are bad at propaganda

The sorry state of the hotels the media are staying in at Sochi have themselves become a major story of the Sochi Olympics. It's a sad story because the hotels were probably fully funded, and it is likely that the extreme level of corruption innate in the workings of Russian government and business led to their current incomplete and dilapidated state.

What makes this story even more of a tragicomedy is how Russian officials have responded to these stories. The WSJ article on this, titled Russian Officials Fire Back, is quite peculiar.

First, Dmitry Kozak, the deputy prime minister in charge of Olympic preparations implied that foreign journalists are making the whole thing up out of bias against Russia. Not only that, but he has proof they are making up stories because they have surveillance video from the hotel rooms which show journalists doing things that would destroy the showers before they take pictures to post online.  When asked directly about surveillance video (which he implied was aimed at the showers of the visiting media) he was pulled away by an aide who apparently realized that their boss was going down a path where he was admitting to much worse wrongdoing in order to cover up general incompetence. 

In a later press conference, Kozak said something un-ironically that is quite scary.

"The realization of such a project is an enormous victory for the entire country," he said. "As we say in Russia, victors don't get blamed."

In the West there is also a saying, "Winners write the history books." But when it is said by a prospective winner they are admitting that they are being evil but will be able to cover up their misdeeds due to the lack of influence of the losers. Apparently in Russia, government officials still take the attitude that they won't be held accountable as long as they achieve certain primary goals. 

And with the exception of Vladamir Putin's spokesman, who shows up at the end of the article, none of the officials quoted seem to worry about sounding like corrupt despots who think they can change reality just by lying enough.

If it is this bad when the world spotlight is shining brightly on Russia, it's scary to think about how corrupt and broken things are on a day to day basis.

Negative EV Superbowl Betting

Bloomberg had an article before the big game on how amateurs and professional bet on the Superbowl.  Amateurs like lottery ticket type payouts - bets that pay off in low probability situations. The two trades highlighted in the article were "Will there be a safety" and "Will there be overtime?" 

Thanks to the first play of the game, amateurs made out well if they bet the first score would be a safety (or even if there would be a safety at all). But it was yet another game without any overtime. The amateurs pushed the overtime odds from a 13 to 1 payout to a 6 to 1 payout - and despite a small point spread it didn't even come close to paying off.

In general, the favorite trades of retail "investors" are either even odds or ones in which they risk a little capital to make a lot. In general, risking a lot of capital to make a little bit just doesn't seem fun or safe - even when the probabilities are in the investor's favor.  It's also a lot more fun to make or even read about high payoff bets than it is to look at all of the bets that didn't pan out. 

And while these bets are often negative expected value, they can sometimes make money. Plus, having money riding on random events can turn a boring game into something interesting. So while retail bettors are going to lose money on average, maybe the bets aren't negative expected value after accounting for psychic benefits.

Some Links, Some Comments

1. The Cult of Overwork by JamesSurowieki. It's interesting to note that overwork generates cognitive dissonance where employees will be more dedicated to their job after working long hours because their actions indicate that they have been dedicated. Cialdini calls this form of influence "commitment and consistency."

2. NFL treats is cheerleaders quite badly if they are thought of as employees. If instead the NFL made clear that cheerleaders were joining an elite club and not a job, it would be interesting to see if the quality of cheerleaders fell significantly.

3. Some historically bad forecasts. It's interesting to note that Samuelson wasn't alone in his bullishness on the U.S.S.R. - most economists after World War 2 believed that planned economies, which could generate far more savings and investment, would win out in the end.

4. The Bill Gates 2014 letter. It's an interesting read that highlights some of the good that foreign aid does, but it is obviously biased in favor of what Mr. Gates has been spending billions of dollars on. One amusing part is in which Bill Gates uses the general population's cognitive bias of anchoring as a rhetorical flourish: 

"When pollsters ask Americans what share of the budget goes to aid, the average response is “25 percent.” When asked how much the government should spend, people tend to say “10 percent.” I suspect you would get similar results in the United Kingdom, Germany, and elsewhere." 

The actual amount is below 1%, and if Americans knew this they still might think it should be slightly lower. The 10% figure was only mentioned because it was within an order of magnitude of the erroneous 25% estimate. While foreign aid definitely saves lives in the short term, the letter definitely overstates their positive long term impact.

A Ballsy Strategy

Step 1: Create a portfolio of 25 companies to hold for the year. Make it public.

Step 2: Create a fund around this portfolio of 25 companies - companies that will not change. The fund will be equal weighted.

Step 3: Charge investors 3.5% for the privilege of investing in this fund, because buying 25 equally weighted stocks and holding them for a year is really hard

Step 4: Wait and see if anyone chases the -3.5% underperformance. Sell them all of the other high fee products you can! (Step 4 is speculative)

Outside observers: Wonder who would actually invest in this fund. Check to see if those investors are managing their own money or are pretending to act as fiduciaries.

I'm not using the company or fund name in this post. I'm not sure if the actual fund will be equal weighted and exposed to the same 25 stocks throughout the year, but that is what the news stories suggest. Even if it was a harder strategy to replicate, 3.5% in fees is a high cost for any long only US equity strategy.  And there are many funds that charge really high fees for simplistic strategies - the difference is they usually aren't mentioned in top Bloomberg stories.