Curated Insights 2019.11.01

GrubHub shareholder letter (October 2019)

A common fallacy in this business is that an avalanche of volume, food or otherwise, will drive logistics costs down materially. Bottom line is that you need to pay someone enough money to drive to the restaurant, pick up food and drive it to a diner. That takes time and drivers need to be appropriately paid for their time or they will find another opportunity. At some point, delivery drones and robots may reduce the cost of fulfillment, but it will be a long time before the capital costs and ongoing operating expenses are less than the cost of paying someone for 30-45 minutes of their time. Delivery/logistics is valuable to us because it increases potential restaurant inventory and order volume, not because it improves per order economics.

Earlier, we talked about the great progress we are making with enterprise brands. We love working with large enterprise brands because they help drive new diners to our platform and keep diners from going to other platforms. That said, the biggest enterprise brands don’t need Grubhub to bring them new diners in the same way independents and small chains do because they spend billions a year on developing their own brands. What they need most is a driver to take the food to their diners. And, as we just noted, that isn’t cheap, or particularly scalable, so the unit economics and long term profit outlook for our business would look very different if a majority of our business was coming from large enterprise brands.

Life of pie: A closer look at the Domino’s Pizza system

The key to operating a successful Domino’s master franchise is to have the Domino’s brand stand out against all the other pizza options that are available in the marketplace. In other words, the brand has to be put to work to generate demand, which can only be achieved with significant marketing spend. Tv is still quite important for Domino’s and generally requires a significant advertising budget. That budget has to be levered on a good number of restaurants in order to make sure the marketing expenses stay at a reasonable level per store.

Every new market that’s entered starts more or less from scratch, with limited consumer awareness and entrenched behavior that benefits the incumbents. This is why it is so difficult for a new Domino’s market to get to a scale that makes economic sense. Once you manage to reach that scale that the flywheel can start spinning, because at that point the business can self-generate its growth through reinvestment in marketing.

It appears that the entire Domino’s franchise has come under a bit of pressure from aggregators like Takeaway, Uber Eats, Grubhub and Doordash, which are oftentimes operating at a loss. Since the aggregators are providing access to technology platforms that many small operators would not be able to afford or operate on their own, they’ve essentially levelled the playing field for pizza restaurants again. In my opinion this has decreased Domino’s Pizza’s advantage in the mobile ordering space. Domino’s Pizza Inc.’s CEO conceded recently that the aggregators are indeed having an effect on their same store sales growth (item below). For now I have no strong conviction on Domino’s but it is a business with some fascinating developments.

Schwab kills commissions to feed its flywheel of scale

“ we did not expect such a swift reaction in the sense that we thought that we come out with IBKR Lite as an additional offering and that we go on for a while, and will attract some customers and then eventually, other people will start reducing and maybe all go to zero. So this — this very swift reaction was a surprise to us.” – Thomas Peterffy, Founder and Chairman, Interactive Brokers Group (IBKR), 3Q 2019 Earnings Call

We believe Schwab’s business stands to benefit the most because of the relatively small impact to its revenue and income and the broad, efficient set of high quality service it offers to clients. While the commission cuts mean Schwab offers an even more compelling value to its customers for its existing suite of high quality services, a disadvantaged competitor like TD Ameritrade is trying to figure out how to charge for its “premium” services for customers, effectively raising prices for service in other ways and depressing its value proposition.

Decades of experience indicates the companies offering higher value propositions win more customers. By continuing to pursue aggressive reinvestment in both client service and technological efficiency, Schwab can continue to leverage its growing scale to further improve upon the value proposition it provides clients while continuing to drive down its expense (efficiency) ratio. We believe the gap in differentiation will only get wider now that the smaller competitors are much weakened financially, which is why it made sense for Schwab to be so aggressive in cutting commissions both in 2017 and again October 2019.

An Elastic technical review

Elastic isn’t building a cloud side and a on-prem side to their platform like MDB is. It’s all Elastic Stack in the Elastic Cloud, just hosted at whatever cloud provider the customer desires, and managed by the finest experts one could find — thems that wrote it! There isn’t tooling appearing in Elastic Cloud that isn’t in core platform, unlike MDB with their Stitch serverless platform. However, the downside is that their Elastic Stack releases must bundle the proprietary modules side-by-side with the open-source products.

One striking difference as I walked through the product line, is the number of use cases it solves that DO NOT INVOLVE CODE. MDB is for developers only, to embed into their application stack. Elastic is for that, but also for non-developers to use without needing any custom development. IT can hook up Beats for monitoring infrastructure or network traffic. Enterprise users can feed in datasets with Logstash, for staff to query, visualize, or apply ML in Kibana. I expect this trend to continue, as it really opens up the applicability as to who can use the product line.

Best of all, Elastic is making exciting moves that are moving their company beyond being a do-it-yourself tool provider.


Third Point’s Q3 letter: EssilorLuxottica thesis

Our analysis of potential merger synergies points to over €1 billion in additional profit through efficiencies and revenue growth, almost double the Company’s current targets. In the near‐term, this will be driven by cross‐selling to wholesale customers, insourcing lens procurement, and supply chain efficiencies. The longer‐term opportunity to disrupt the industry value chain is even more appealing: combining lens and frame to shrink raw material need and waste, reducing shipping costs by merging prescription labs with global distribution hubs, and providing a true omni‐channel sales offering. These initiatives will transform the way glasses are sold, significantly improving the customer experience.


Ensemble Capital client call transcript: Mastercard update

While you might hear about how merchants pay 2% or more in credit card fees, Visa and Mastercard are only collecting about 1/20th of that fee, with the banks, the ones taking the credit risk, earning the bulk of the fee.


Ensemble Capital client call transcript: Tiffany & Co update

Tiffany is one of just a few global American luxury brands and the casual observer cannot tell a Tiffany diamond engagement ring from one purchased elsewhere. There’s no room on a diamond for logo placement, after all.

As a company, Tiffany is older than Cartier (founded in 1847), Louis Vuitton (founded in 1854), and Burberry (founded in 1856). This durability matters in luxury because it communicates a brand’s ability to endure all kinds of major socioeconomic changes and remain relevant over successive generations. It also communicates a certain timelessness of core products that remain in fashion despite intermittent fads and trends.

The advertising industry has a problem: People hate ads

“It’s harder to reach audiences, the cost of marketing is going up, the number of channels has exponentially proliferated and the cost to cover all of those channels has proliferated,” Jay Pattisall, the lead author of the report, said in an interview. “It’s a continual pressure for marketers — we’re no longer just creating advertising campaigns three or four times a year and running them across a few networks and print.”

That includes automation and machine learning technologies, which Forrester expects will transform 80 percent of agency jobs by 2030. In July, JPMorgan Chase announced a deal with the ad tech company Persado that would use artificial intelligence to write marketing copy.

Steven Moy, the chief executive of the Barbarian agency, said that multiyear contracts had shortened, with budgets tightening and performance metrics becoming more stringent.

For the first time ever next year, Facebook, Google, YouTube and other online platforms are expected to soak up the majority of advertising dollars, according to WARC.

Last year, 78 percent of members of the Association of National Advertisers had an in-house agency, up from 58 percent in 2013 and 42 percent in 2008.

Curated Insights 2019.09.20

The financial Turing test

Imagine we could simulate the universe where each time you are born to different set of parents with a different genetic makeup. Sometimes you are born a man. Sometimes you are born a woman. Sometimes black. Sometimes white. Sometimes smart. Sometimes not. Etcetera etcetera. What would you do to have the highest probability of becoming financially secure regardless of your background?

If you wanted to re-state this question more simply, it is: How do you get rich without getting lucky?


Product-user fit comes before product-market fit

The jump from product-user fit to product-market fit is no trivial leap. Skipping what to focus on during the product-user fit stage and prematurely racing to spark the market adoption can actually decelerate your path to product-market fit. Forcing growth on a product that isn’t yet ready for broader adoption will not ultimately convert to a market of highly retained, happy users. And if you don’t listen to the early power users closely enough, you may never discover the insights that get you to a world-class product.

Power users are the biggest sign of product-user fit. Making the leap from product-user fit to product-market fit is about listening to these users to evolve your product to attract more users. When exploring products that have only been in market for a short amount of time, the behavior of power users is often more interesting and important than any aggregate metrics. If the goal is to “make something people want,” then continuously talking to and observing early power users is the only way to really understand what drives both user retention and non-user activation.

5 reasons to consider buying Berkshire Hathaway

First, we think Berkshire’s broad diversification provides the company with additional opportunities and helps to minimize losses during market and/or economic downturns. Berkshire remains a broadly diversified conglomerate run on a completely decentralized basis, with a collection of moaty businesses operating in industries ranging from property-casualty insurance to railroad transportation, utilities and pipelines, and manufacturing, service, and retailing. The economic moats of these operating subsidiaries are built primarily on cost advantage, efficient scale, and intangible assets, with some of these businesses being uniquely advantaged as well by their ability to essentially operate as private companies under the Berkshire umbrella. The operating subsidiaries also benefit from being part of the parent company’s strong balance sheet, diverse income statement, and larger consolidated tax return.

Berkshire’s unique business model has historically allowed the company to–without incurring taxes or much in the way of other costs–move large amounts of capital from businesses that have limited incremental investment opportunities into other subsidiaries that potentially have more advantageous investment options (or put the capital to work in publicly traded securities). The managers of Berkshire’s operating subsidiaries are encouraged to make decisions based on the long-term health and success of the business, rather than adhering to the short-termism that tends to prevail among many publicly traded companies. Another big advantage that comes from operating under the Berkshire umbrella is the benefit that comes with diversification not only within the company’s insurance operations, but also within the organization as a whole. In most periods, it is not unusual to see weakness in one aspect of Berkshire’s operations being offset by the results from another or from the rest of the organization.


We can be weird, or it can be public

WeWork seems to be facing the traditional tradeoff: Stay private, keep control, but lose access to billions of dollars of funding, or go public, raise unlimited money, and have to act normal. If it does either of those things, that will mark a sort of end of an era. At the height of the unicorn boom, big tech companies could stay private without giving up the benefits of being public, or they could go public without taking on the burdens of being public. Now they might have to make hard choices again.

Shopify is now a major player in e-commerce. Here’s how it happened, according to the COO

Over the years, we’ve also realized as we grow bigger, we have incredible economy of scale. If you were to aggregate all our U.S. stores [customers’ sales volume] we would be the third-largest online retailer in the U.S. Amazon is first, eBay second, and Shopify is a very close third. What that means is when we go to the payment companies, when we go to the shipping companies or go to anyone, we negotiate on behalf of more than 800,000 merchants. Instead of keeping the economies of scale for ourselves, we distribute [the benefits] to the small businesses. I think that’s why we have been really successful.


The foodoo economics of meal delivery

The newbies, born more recently, have turned a once-tidy business into a food fight. They include listed firms such as Meituan of China and Delivery Hero of Germany, Uber Eats (part of Uber), Ele.me (owned by China’s Alibaba), and privately held DoorDash, based in San Francisco, and Deliveroo, from London. For most of them, delivery is their core business, so they share their cut of the bill with riders as well as restaurants. This substantially broadens the market to restaurants offering everything from steak to Hawaiian poké bowls. But margins suffer. Funded largely by venture capital, they have thrown subsidies at customers, forcing their veteran rivals onto the defensive. To catch up, the veterans are investing in advertising and delivery networks—at a big cost. This week Grubhub and Just Eat reported slumping earnings, and Takeaway mounting losses, as they spent heavily to fend off the upstarts.

The only mouthwatering aspect of the delivery business is its potential size. According to Bernstein, a brokerage, almost a third of the global restaurant industry is made up of home delivery, takeaway and drive-throughs, which could be worth $1trn by 2023. In 2018 delivery amounted to $161bn, leaving plenty of room for online firms to expand; the seven largest increased revenues by an average of 58%. Their businesses support the trend of 20- and 30-somethings to live alone or in shared accommodation, with less time and inclination to cook. In China, by far the biggest market for food delivery, one-third of people told a survey that they would be prepared to rent a flat without a kitchen because of the convenience of delivery. Delivery also fits neatly with the gig-economy zeitgeist, alongside ride-hailing firms such as Uber, Lyft and China’s Didi.

Moreover, potential growth may be overstated. Subsidies make true demand hard to gauge. When delivery charges and service fees eventually rise, which they will have to if profits are to materialise, some customers may flee. In the meantime, cheap money lets firms undercut rivals but distorts incentives. The war of attrition could get even worse if giants like Amazon muscle in, as it has tried to do by buying a stake in Deliveroo (the deal is stalled at present because of antitrust concerns). Alibaba, Amazon’s Chinese counterpart, uses Ele.me as a loss leader helping drive traffic to its profitable e-commerce sites.

Untangling the threads: Stitch Fix is a bargain

There have been numerous ecommerce 2.0 flameouts over the past decade (e.g. Gilt Groupe, Fab.com, Birchbox, Shoedazzle, Beachmint, One Kings Lane). Venture capitalists flocked to these businesses due to large addressable markets and strong top-line growth. To be fair, there have been some big winners (e.g. Wayfair) which can justify the VC game. But as Bill Gurley points out, innovations around pricing or distribution — think flash sales and subscriptions in a box — don’t represent core differentiation or sustainable competitive advantages. Additionally, these startups had access to hundreds of millions of VC funding and therefore weren’t forced to prove out the unit economics before scaling rapidly.

Are Airbnb investors destroying Europe’s cultural capitals?

The definitive story of how a controversial Florida businessman blew up MoviePass and burned hundreds of millions

Farnsworth’s pitch to MoviePass: $25 million for 51% of the company, two seats on the five-member board, and a promise to drop the monthly subscription price, temporarily, from $50 to $9.95, with the goal of hitting 100,000 subscribers. If all went well, the next step would be taking MoviePass public. But Farnsworth’s plan worried Spikes; to him, $10 a month was too low. At that price MoviePass would start losing money when a subscriber used the service more than once a month.

In the US, the average price for a movie ticket is about $9; if a customer ordered a ticket every day for a month (the maximum the MoviePass plan allowed), it would cost MoviePass about $270, of which the subscriber’s fee would cover just $10. But in July 2017, the MoviePass board agreed to the deal. And on August 15, the price drop went into effect. Thanks to word-of-mouth buzz and press attention, within two days subscriptions jumped from about 20,000 to 100,000. MoviePass had transformed from a scrappy startup trying to keep the lights on to a disrupter in the making.

But Spikes saw a looming disaster. The company was overwhelmed by its overnight success and couldn’t keep up with demand. A quarter-million new subscribers were signing up every month, and MoviePass customer-service lines were flooded with complaints from people who had been waiting weeks for their cards. MoviePass had lowballed the number of cards it would need after the price drop. It got to a point where the vendor making the MoviePass cards didn’t have enough plastic and had to call on its competitors to fulfill all the card orders. “We all knew we were selling something we couldn’t deliver on,” one former staffer said.

Pat Dorsey: Never put any moat on a pedestal

The same way you evaluate any other business, which is trying to think about the present value of future cash flows. This is an area where the world has changed pretty significantly over the past couple of decades because, 30 years ago, most investments were done via the balance sheet. They were investments in buildings, in factories, in railroads, in locomotives and all those came out of the balance sheet. Today, a lot of investment happens out of the income statement. If you are a software company, and you are acquiring new customers, who might have a nine to 10-year lifespan with the business, that comes out of sales and marketing, and so that depresses your current margins.

But it seems insensible to me to argue that I should not invest in a customer who could be with me for 10 years and who will pay me 3% more every year as I raise prices. Why is that not just as valuable an investment as a machine that will wear out in 10 years? One is an appreciating asset and the other is a depreciating asset. The former — the customer — comes by way of investing through the income statement and depresses current margins. As for buying the machine, it is just a capital expenditure. If you have a business that is re-investing heavily today, a software company or an Amazon for example, you have to think about the incremental unit economics. How much does it cost to acquire each customer and how much value do they deliver over some span of time, and then try to think about what does this business look like at steady state, say in a five or 10-year timeframe. You know what margins it will have once the investment slows down and then you discount those cash flows back to the present.

So far, Uber and Lyft have competed very heavily on price. That was evident in both of their IPO filings, they have been trying to undercut each other on price, which is not the sign of a healthy competitive dynamic that’s going to result in great return for shareholders. Maybe that will change, I don’t know. But, when I see two big companies trying to basically undercut each other on price and, it’s not really clear who is going to win, I’d rather just stay on the sidelines and watch. One of the most important things for an investor to do is to maximise return on time. By analysing Uber and Lyft, we probably aren’t going to get a lot of advantage, because everybody and their mother is trying to have an opinion on these things, and it’s just not clear how the competitive dynamics will pan out long term. So we’ve spent literally zero time on them!

A lot of it comes down to the unit economics of the business. Boeing and Airbus need to absorb a lot of fixed costs. Building an aircraft factory, investing and designing a new aircraft, requires a lot of very high fixed costs, and so they need to absorb that. And so, each incremental plane sold is very important to both companies. So they need to take market share from each other. Whereas for Visa and Mastercard, their fixed cost for the payment networks, those costs were sunk decades ago. Their network is there. It exists. So there’s no incentive to compete on price, because they don’t have the same economics of cost absorption.

When to sell and when a moat is weakening are really two different questions. But I would say, the biggest signal that a moat is weakening is the lack of pricing power. If a business historically had been able to raise prices and is no longer able to raise prices, that generally indicates that its competitive advantage is weakening or disappearing.

Howard Stern is getting ripped off

Take a look at Joe Rogan, who currently has the most popular talk show podcast with over 200 million downloads per month. This number comes from Joe himself¹, but let’s assume he was exaggerating and it’s only 100 million downloads per month.

Assuming he sells ads at a low $18 CPM (cost per thousand listeners) and sells out his ad spots, he’s making approximately $64mm in annual revenue. If he’s on the higher end, at $50 CPM, he could be making as much as $240mm per year². The only factor that would change this is how many free ads Joe gives to companies that he has a personal equity stake in (like Onnit, the supplement brand he co-owns).

That means that Joe makes somewhere between $64-$240 million per year in revenue from his podcast advertising alone—and that’s handicapping his audience by half what he claims to have. That number also doesn’t include any additional revenue generated from his wildly popular YouTube channel, which has over 6 million subscribers.

Based on existing advertising revenues alone, Joe Rogan could easily be worth over a billion dollars, even if he doesn’t realize it. If estimates are correct, he owns a business that produces somewhere in the neighborhood of $60-$235 million/year in profit and is likely growing at 30–50% annually (assuming his audience is growing alongside the podcast ecosystem)³. If it were publicly traded, his podcasting business could easily fetch a valuation in the billions.

Even the small stresses of daily life can hurt your health, but attitude can make a difference

When people talk about harmful stress — the kind that can affect health — they usually point to big, life-changing events, such as the death of a loved one. A growing body of research suggests that minor, everyday stress — caused by flight delays, traffic jams, cellphones that run out of battery during an important call, etc. — can harm health, too, and even shorten life spans.

Curated Insights 2019.08.16

The arc of collaboration

As the ecosystem of specialized SaaS apps and workflows continues to mature, messaging becomes a place of last resort. When things are running smoothly, work happens in the apps built to produce them. And collaboration happens within them. Going to slack is increasingly a channel of last resort, for when there’s no established workflow of what to do. And as these functional apps evolve, there are fewer and fewer exceptions that need Slack. In fact, a sign of a maturing company is one that progressively removes the need to use Slack for more and more situations.

And core Dropbox is not a solution to this. People store their documents in it. But they had to use email and other messaging apps to tell their co-workers which document to check out and what they needed help with. Dropbox understands this concern. It’s what’s driven their numerous forays into owning the workflows and communication channels themselves. With Carousel, Mailbox, and their new desktop apps all working to own that. However, there are constraints to owning the workflow when your fundamental atomic unit is documents. And they never quite owned the communication channels.

Slack is not air traffic control that coordinates everything. It’s 911 for when everything falls apart. Every slack message about a new document your feedback is wanted on or coordinating about what a design should look like is a failing of process or tools. Slack is exception handling. When there’s no other way to make sure someone sees and update, or knows context, Slack is the 911 that can be used.

And as Figma expands into plugins, the ecosystem will continue to solve for more and more of the needs and exceptions. Over time, our workflows align with our functional flows. And collaboration is no exception. And Figma is not alone. More and more apps in all categories understand that collaboration should and must be built in as a first party if they want to best serve their customers. Notion, Airtable, etc all understand this. The feedback loops of collaboration get so short that they become part of the productivity loop.

Disruption: Finding the right balance in confinement care

Unlike 28 Days, Pantang Plus has 150 confinement therapists (aged between 25 and 60) working directly with the start-up. The company had to recruit a workforce of that size after they were challenged to do so. “During MaGIC’s accelerator programme in 2016, we could only handle four therapists at a time. But after that, we were tasked to take in 100 of them. So by word of mouth, we managed to recruit 102 therapists,” says Zamzana, adding that Pantang Plus also received a RM30,000 grant to kick off its business.

When orders started pouring in, the company needed to process the transactions quickly. It was difficult as it had to accommodate massage bookings, process quotations, confirm orders and send out therapists. After enlisting Hisamudin, a former systems engineer who had sold his media start-up, she managed to expedite the processes. The duo were coached to focus on a certain segment and they chose the affluent and urban market.

According to Hisamudin, by tapping this particular segment, they get fewer customers but each of them is more lucrative. The company managed to grow its business from 20 bookings in 2016 (which work out to about RM43,347 in sales) to 156 bookings (RM418,540) last year. Since its debut, the company has paid out about RM280,000 to therapists.

Before the online platform was set up, there was a lot of back and forth with the customers and building trust was not difficult, says Zamzana. But now that a lot of the processes are automated, she has noticed that customers are more hesitant and apprehensive about the services it offers. “So, I created a standard operating procedure (SOP) where we meet with customers for personalised consultation sessions so we can manage their expectations,” she says.

There is also an SOP for customers to protect the therapists. “There have been cases where they were mistreated, paid unfairly or were told to do all sorts of things beyond their job scope. The SOP lays out the conditions that govern the packages that are subscribed to. So, I take full responsibility if the customer is not satisfied or if the therapist is mistreated,” says Zamzana.

Hisamudin says the company is constantly improving the platform to automate the back-end process for both the customer and therapist. “We also plan to automate the payment gateway so we don’t have to check whether we have received payments from customers, which can be tedious,” he adds.

WeWork’s S-1: some quick observations

In connection with this offering, Rebekah and Adam are dedicating additional resources to amplify the positive global impact of our organisation. This effort is designed to enable us to scale our social and global impact as the Company grows. Rebekah and Adam Neumann have pledged $1 billion to fund charitable causes. To fulfil this pledge, Rebekah and Adam will contribute cash and equity to charitable causes within the 10 years following this offering. Their first contribution aids in the conservation of over 20 million acres of intact tropical forest, including the region pictured on the final page of this prospectus. To evidence their commitment to charitable causes and to ensure this commitment is meaningful, if Adam and Rebekah have not contributed at least $1 billion to charitable causes as of the ten-year anniversary of the closing date of this offering, holders of all of the Company’s high-vote stock will only be entitled to ten votes per share instead of twenty votes per share.

Adam currently has a line of credit of up to $500 million with UBS AG, Stamford Branch, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and Credit Suisse AG, New York Branch, of which approximately $380 million principal amount was outstanding as of July 31, 2019. The line of credit is secured by a pledge of approximately [blank] shares of our Class B common stock beneficially owned by Adam. In addition, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. has made loans and extended credit to Adam totalling $97.5 million across a variety of lending products, including mortgages secured by personal property. None of these other lending products are secured by a pledge of any of Adam’s shares of capital stock in the Company.

Asset managers with $74 trillion on brink of historic shakeout

In this new environment, the beneficiaries have been the world’s largest asset managers, who are wielding far more influence and increasingly attracting a larger share of investor money. They’ve been able to take advantage of their size to keep overall expenses down and help make up for lower fees. Crucially, they’re also the most likely to be offering both passive investments as well as actively managed funds. That means the biggest firms are just getting bigger: The two largest U.S. indexing titans—BlackRock Inc. and Vanguard—oversee combined assets of around $12 trillion this year, up from less than $8 trillion just five years ago.

Fidelity Investments once boasted the world’s largest mutual fund. But the Fidelity Magellan Fund that stock-picking star Lynch propelled from a $20 million offering into a multibillion-dollar behemoth is not even in the world’s top 25 mutual funds today, according to Morningstar. In a sign of the times, only three of the top 10 funds worldwide are actively managed funds, Morningstar data show.

Europe’s fund industry has remained fragmented, in part, because it’s dominated by divisions of banks and the link hasn’t been an advantage as the financial firms focused less on building their fund units and more on averting crisis after crisis.

The booming, ethically dubious business of food delivery

In 2020, more than half of restaurant spending is projected to be “off premise”—not inside a restaurant. In other words, spending on deliveries, drive-throughs, and takeaway meals will soon overtake dining inside restaurants, for the first time on record. According to the investment group Cowen and Company, off-premise spending will account for as much as 80 percent of the industry’s growth in the next five years.


How the supermarket helped America win the Cold War

Between 1946 and 1954 in the U.S., the share of food bought in supermarkets rose from 28 percent to 48 percent. By 1963, that number had risen to nearly 70 percent. A&P had so much market power that the Department of Justice went after it for anticompetitive practices. This was an interesting development, considering that the U.S. Government played such a significant role in the creation of supermarkets in the first place.

RV Capital’s view on Variable Interest Entities

The VIE structure is incredibly favourable from a Chinese perspective. Control of the companies remains in China. The contractual right to cashflow is mainly theoretical as most companies reinvest most of their earnings (which makes sense given the opportunities for growth). Finally, it aligns with the government’s legitimate aim to foster a competitive and vigorous economy that the costs of said competition are borne in part by foreign capital whilst the benefits accrue exclusively to its citizens. Why would China ever do anything to risk the VIE structure when anything that superseded it could only possibly be less favourable?


Tenure voting and rethinking what’s fair in corporate governance

Tenure-based voting would allow all shareholders to have an equal opportunity to earn a greater say in a company’s governance. All longer-term investors — with the definition of “longer term” agreed upon by the company and its shareholders — would earn more rights to weigh in on strategy and management, while shorter-term investors would simply vote with their feet by selling their shares if they aren’t aligned with that strategy. In adopting a tenure-based voting system, a company and its shareholders would need to determine the time periods associated with higher-vote stock. For example, all shares could start with one vote per share as of the acquisition date of the shares, and after, say, a two-year hold period, accrete to 1.5 votes per share, with perhaps additional votes per share for each additional holding period. If an investor were to sell her shares, the new holder of the shares would start at one vote/one share and begin a new holding period. The rules could be tailored to achieve whatever goals the shareholders have in mind, probably requiring a majority of shareholders to approve the initial plan (or any substantive modifications).