Curated Insights 2019.08.23

The WeWork IPO

Given this vision, WeWork’s massive losses are, at least in theory, justifiable. The implication of creating a company that absorbs all of the fixed costs in order to offer a variable cost service to other companies is massive amounts of up-front investment. Just as Amazon needed to first build out data centers and buy servers before it could sell storage and compute, WeWork needs to build out offices spaces before it can sell desktops or conference rooms. In other words, it would be strange if WeWork were not losing lots of money, particularly given its expansion rate.

What is useful is considering these two graphics together: over 300 locations — more than half — are in the money-losing part of the second graph, which helps explain why WeWork’s expenses are nearly double its revenue; should the company stop opening locations, it seems reasonable to expect that gap to close rapidly. Still, it is doubtful that WeWork will slow the rate with which is opens locations given the company’s view of its total addressable market.

The sheer scale of this ambition again calls back to AWS. It was in 2013 that Amazon’s management first stated that AWS could end up being the company’s biggest business; at that time AWS provided a mere 4% of Amazon’s revenue (but 33% of the profit). In 2018, though, AWS had grown by over 1000% and was up to 11% of Amazon’s revenue (and 59% of the profit), and that share is very much expected to grow, even as AWS faces a competitor in Microsoft Azure that is growing even faster, in large part because existing enterprises are moving to the cloud, not just startups.

WeWork, meanwhile, using its expansive definition of its addressable market, claims that it has realized only 0.2% of their total opportunity globally, and 0.6% of their opportunity in their ten largest cities. To be fair, one may be skeptical that existing enterprises in particular will be hesitant to turn over management of their existing offices to WeWork, which would dramatically curtail the opportunity; on the other hand, large enterprises now make up 40% of WeWork’s revenue (and rising), and more importantly, WeWork doesn’t have any significant competition.

In short, there is a case that WeWork is both a symptom of software-eating-the-world, as well as an enabler and driver of the same, which would mean the company would still have access to the capital it needs even in a recession. Investors would just have to accept the fact they will have absolutely no impact on how it is used, and that, beyond the sky-high valuation and the real concerns about a duration mismatch in a recession, is a very good reason to stay away.

Pershing Square on Berkshire Hathaway

Berkshire’s primary asset is the world’s largest insurance business, which we estimate represents nearly half of Berkshire’s intrinsic value. In its primary insurance segment, Berkshire focuses on the reinsurance and auto insurance segments. In reinsurance, Berkshire’s strong competitive advantages are derived from its enormous capital base, efficient underwriting (a quick yes or no), ineffable trustworthiness, and its focus on long-term economics rather than short-term accounting profits, all of which allows the company to often be the only insurer capable of and willing to insure extremely large and/or unusual, bespoke insurance policies. We believe that Berkshire’s reinsurance business, operating primarily through National Indemnity and General Re, is uniquely positioned to serve its clients’ needs to protect against the increasing frequency and growing severity of catastrophic losses. In auto insurance, Berkshire subsidiary GEICO operates a low-cost direct sales model which provides car owners with lower prices than competitors that rely on a traditional agent-based sales approach. GEICO’s low cost, high quality service model has enabled it to consistently gain market share for decades. The enduring competitive advantages of Berkshire’s insurance businesses have allowed it to consistently grow its float (the net premiums received held on Berkshire’s balance sheet that will be used to pay for expected losses in the often distant future) at a higher rate and a lower cost than its peers. While Mr. Buffett is best known as a great investor, he should perhaps also be considered the world’s greatest insurance company architect and CEO because the returns Berkshire has achieved on investment would not be nearly as good without the material benefits it has realized by financing these investments with lowcost insurance float.

For more than the last decade, Berkshire has grown its float at an 8% compounded annual growth rate while achieving a negative 2% average cost of float due to its profitable insurance underwriting, while incurring an underwriting loss in only one out of the last 15 years. These are extraordinary results particularly when compared with the substantial majority of insurance companies which lose money in their insurance operations and are only profitable after including investment returns. Furthermore, we believe that Berkshire’s cost of float will remain stable or even decline as its fastest growing insurance businesses (GEICO and BH Primary) have a lower cost of float than the company’s overall average. Since the end of 2007, we estimate that Berkshire has averaged a nearly 7% annual rate of return on its insurance investment portfolio while holding an average of 20% of its portfolio in cash. Berkshire has been able to produce investment returns that significantly exceed its insurance company peers as the combination of the company’s long-duration float and significant shareholders’ equity allow it to invest the substantial majority of its insurance assets in publicly traded equities, while its peers are limited to invest primarily in fixed-income securities. We believe these structural competitive advantages of Berkshire’s insurance business are enduring and will likely further expand. Berkshire also owns a collection of high-quality, non-insurance businesses, which include market-leading industrial businesses, the largest of which are the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad and Precision Castparts, an aerospace metal parts manufacturer. While Berkshire’s non-insurance portfolio is comprised of highly diversified businesses that have been acquired during the last 50 or so years, we estimate that the portfolio derives more than 50% of its earnings from its largest three businesses: Burlington Northern (>30%), Precision Castparts (~10%), and regulated utilities (~10%).

While we have utilized a number of different approaches to our valuation of Berkshire, we believe it is perhaps easiest to understand the company’s attractive valuation by estimating Berkshire’s underlying economic earnings power, and comparing the company’s price-earnings multiple to other businesses of similar quality and earnings growth rate. Using this approach, we believe that Berkshire currently trades at only 14 times our estimate of next 12 months’ economic earnings per share (excluding the amortization of acquired intangibles), assuming a normalized rate of return of 7% on its insurance investment portfolio. While generating a 7% return on such a large amount of investment assets is not a given—particularly in an extraordinarily low-rate environment—we believe that Berkshire’s ability to invest the substantial majority of its insurance assets in equity and equity-like instruments and hold them for the long term makes this a reasonable assumption. Based on these assumptions, we believe that Berkshire’s valuation is extremely low compared to businesses of similar quality and growth characteristics.

WeWTF

The last round $47 billion “valuation” is an illusion. SoftBank invested at this valuation with a “pref,” meaning their money is the first money out, limiting the downside. The suckers, idiots, CNBC viewers, great Americans, and people trying to feel young again who buy on the first trade — or after — don’t have this downside protection. Similar to the DJIA, last-round private valuations are harmful metrics that create the illusion of prosperity. The bankers (JPM and Goldman) stand to register $122 million in fees flinging feces at retail investors visiting the unicorn zoo. Any equity analyst who endorses this stock above a $10 billion valuation is lying, stupid, or both.


The dating business is IAC’s best asset — and its greatest challenge

Match is among IAC’s greatest hits. The stock has nearly doubled this year alone, thanks largely to soaring Tinder membership. IAC sold a portion of Match in a 2015 IPO at $12. The stock is now $85, and IAC’s Match stake is worth close to $19 billion. It accounts for more than 90% of IAC’s current $21 billion market value.

This month, Levin and IAC disclosed a solution to the Match problem. The company is considering distributing Match shares to its shareholders in a tax-free transaction. And IAC is thinking about a similar handoff of its 84% stake in ANGI Homeservices (ANGI). That operation is a $4.3 billion market-cap business that IAC created in 2017 by acquiring publicly traded Angie’s List and merging it with IAC-owned HomeAdvisor.


How big stars maximise their take from tours

Historically, tours were loss-leaders used to promote albums. As revenues from recorded music have collapsed and productions have become increasingly elaborate to draw the crowds, ticket prices have risen steeply. The cost of a concert ticket in America increased by 190% between 1996 and 2018, compared with 59% for overall consumer prices. But as the continued success of scalpers demonstrates, they are still far below the market-clearing price.

How aggressively cute toys for adults became a $686 million business

Funko Pops are now available from 25,000 retail brands worldwide, from Walmart to Amazon to Hot Topic and even, somewhat bizarrely, Foot Locker. In 2018, the company’s net sales increased 33 percent to $686.1 million, with figurines accounting for 82 percent of all sales. After the company released its Q2 earnings report in early August, declaring that sales up are 38 percent compared to this time last year, CEO Brian Mariotti called his company “recession proof.”

Collectors like Jack make up 36 percent of Funko’s customers, while 31 percent are “occasional buyers.” Wilkinson says Funko Pops appeal to both markets because of the “science of cute” behind the figurines’ design.

Funko now has more than 1,000 licensed properties, from the Avengers to the Golden Girls, Fortnite to Flash Gordon, Stranger Things to The Office. “Evergreen and classic” properties like Harry Potter, Star Wars, and Disney make up nearly half of all Funko Pop sales, but the company is seemingly constantly procuring new, unexpected licenses, from drag queens to food mascots to NASCAR drivers.

A May 2019 investor presentation from the company boasts that a Pop can be designed and submitted to a licensor in 24 hours, molded into a prototype in 45 days, and “sourced from Asian facilities while maintaining quality control” in just 15 days. Funko also prides itself on its low production costs — each new figure costs between $5,000 and $7,500 to develop.

Is it possible, then, that Funko will run out of things to Pop? At present, the company’s profits continue to climb, from $98 million gross profit in 2015 (when Funko had just 205 active properties) to $258 million in 2018. History has shown us that collectibles tend to decline in popularity, and it is possible that Funko Pops could go the way of the Beanie Baby. Yet at present, there are more than enough fans keeping the company in business.

To encourage collectors, Funko uses many tried-and-tested market tricks, like releasing toys exclusive to certain locations (Mr. Rogers is exclusive to Barnes & Noble) and producing limited-edition runs (only 480 holographic Darth Mauls were released at San Diego Comic-Con in 2012). Yet the company doesn’t just rely on people like Jack and Tristan. A third of all customers are only occasional buyers, and the customer base appears to be a diverse set of people with a diverse range of fandoms. In 2018, no single property made up more than 6 percent of purchases; Pops related to new theatrical releases encompassed 20 percent of sales, TV show-related Pops accounted for 16 percent, and gaming Pops made up 17 percent. There is a roughly equal gender split in customers (51 percent women to 49 percent men), and last year, international sales grew 57 percent.

Interestingly, Funko’s average customer is 35 years old — two years younger than Jack, who says his date recovered from seeing his spare room. “The rest of the night went very well and we went on several more dates,” he said. Although it ultimately didn’t work out with her, Jack says his “crazy room of Funko Pops” didn’t have “too much influence on it either way.”


Move over Lego: The next big collectable toy powerhouse is here

Collectibles are a $200 billion market on their own, and video games are on pace to be a $300 billion industry by 2025. And Funko sits right in the middle of it all.

Funko is very good at what it does; its revenue and fanbase is proof of that. But when Microsoft reached out about a video game collaboration, there were all sorts of new questions on Funko and Microsoft’s part because Funko wasn’t just an aesthetic anymore; it had to be interactive for the first time. And interactive is tricky. It forces designers to decide, how does a Funko walk? How does a Funko fight? Can a Funko bleed? (No, by the way, they can’t).


The real story of Supreme

Twenty-five years later, as fads (like televised street luge) have fallen by the wayside, Supreme remains a skate brand—a purveyor of all the hard and soft goods one needs for the sport. But it is something much more than that, too. Since its beginning, in 1994, Supreme has slowly worked its way to the very center of culture and fashion. Or more accurately, culture and fashion have reconfigured themselves around Supreme. Supreme’s clothing and accessories sell out instantly, and the brand has become a fashion-world collaborator of the highest caliber with projects now under way with designers high (Comme des Garçons, Undercover) and low (Hanes, Champion). Though the particulars of the privately held company’s business are undisclosed, a $500 million investment in 2017 from the multinational private equity firm the Carlyle Group, for a 50 percent stake, put Supreme’s valuation at $1 billion.

The formula for success—for building a brand that lasts for 25 years—sounds simple enough: Create a high-quality product that will last a long time, sell it for an accessible price, and make people desperately want to buy it. But executing such a plan is far trickier. And in figuring out how to thrive according to strict adherence to its own highly specific principles and logic, Supreme has, deliberately or not, re-arranged the alignment of the entire fashion industry.

Powerful as Supreme has become as a trendsetter, the company is still fiercely committed to its own novel approach. Supreme didn’t launch a website until 2006. It was purposefully late to Instagram, too. Outside of Japanese fashion magazines and downtown NYC wheat-paste poster campaigns, Supreme’s only real marketing efforts are made in the skate world. Conveniently, marketing to skaters is likely the best way for Supreme to market to the fashion world. In other words, the fact that Supreme doesn’t pander to the fashion industry only makes its allure more powerful.

ETF fear mongering myths

Even if every ETF investor wanted to sell (which would never happen), remember that ETFs only own approximately 6% of the stock market and 1% of the bond market.

Curated Insights 2019.07.12

Spotify’s moats, management, and unit economics

Podcasting is a relatively nascent industry that is booming. As the #2 podcast player in the world, Spotify should benefit greatly from this trend. While Apple continues to dominate podcasting, their share has quickly fallen from 80% to 63% the past few years. Meanwhile, Spotify has been gaining share every year.

Around 85% of Spotify’s content is controlled by the three big record labels, plus MERLIN (a digital rights agency that represents thousands of independent labels). It’s great when a company has captive customers that results in pricing power. It’s not great when a company is a captive customer of their suppliers and thus has less control over their costs. With that being said, Spotify has a lot of power over the record labels as well.

In 2018, streaming accounted for 47% of global recorded music revenue—and Spotify has almost 70% market share of global streaming revenue. Look at the below chart showing industry revenues over time (purple is streaming revenue). If the major record labels want to continue enjoying the growth they’ve experienced the past few years, they have to work with Spotify.

China’s total number of births dropped over 10% last year

The total number of births in China last year dropped by 2 million from 2017, the National Bureau of Statistics announced at a news conference on Monday. The massive drop — from 17.23 million to 15.23 million — indicates that China’s birth rate last year was the lowest the country has seen since famine-stricken 1961.

Curated Insights 2018.09.07

A market shakeup is pushing Alphabet and Facebook out of the tech sector

One of the biggest impacts will be on tech—a sector that has grown so big, at 26.5% of the S&P 500, it has produced more than half of the market’s gain this year, according to Bespoke Investment Group. Tech is being cut down to size, though, as several of its biggest stocks head over to the new communication sector. The losses will chop about 23% off the tech sector’s market value. It will be more oriented to chip makers, hardware, and software.

Thankfully, S&P and MSCI don’t make such changes often. The GICS taxonomy goes back to 1999. It has grown to 11 sectors, the latest being real estate, carved out of financials in 2016. But that was minor compared with the new musical chairs—affecting more than 1,100 companies globally.

Redrawing the GICS boundaries was necessary to reflect the changing tech and media landscapes. When the old sector lines were drawn, people made calls with flip phones, used MySpace for social media, and paid AT&T for cellular service and landlines. But mergers and tech developments have jumbled things up: Netflix is threatening Hollywood, Comcast has turned into a media giant, and Alphabet is in everyone’s business. Sure, technology remains the heart of these businesses. But so what? Facebook and Alphabet aren’t like Apple and Microsoft, which develop hardware and software, says Blitzer. It makes more sense to group Facebook and Alphabet with firms making money off advertising, content delivery, and other types of “communications,” he says.

Amazon sets its sights on the $88 billion online ad market

In turn, brands are increasingly recognizing Amazon’s vast customer reach, particularly to its more than 100 million Prime subscribers. In a study conducted last summer by Catalyst, the search and social media marketing company, only 15 percent of the 250 brands marketers polled felt they were making the most out of advertising on Amazon’s platform, and 63 percent of the companies already advertising there said they planned to increase their budget in the coming year.

In India, Google races to parry the rise of Facebook

Facebook ads, compared with those on Google search or YouTube, tend to transcend language barriers more easily because they rely more on visual elements. Pinpointing younger consumers and rural populations is easier with Facebook and its Instagram app.

Facebook and Google between them took 68 percent of India’s digital ad market last year, according to advertising buyer Magna. Media agency GroupM estimates digital advertising spending will grow 30 percent in India this year.

The tension is building between Spotify and the music industry

The easiest way for Spotify to save money would be to cut labels out of the process entirely. While the company has said time and time again that it doesn’t want to operate a label or own copyrights, it has been taking on functions of a record label. The company has developed tools to help artists plan tours and collect royalties, funded music videos and recording sessions, and held workshops with songwriters.

Record companies know Spotify can’t cut them out completely. They control too much music and offer resources artists need. But Spotify’s growth poses a threat. Successful independent artists, like Chance the Rapper, have created the perception that musicians may not need labels at all. “The music industry hates that Spotify, YouTube and Apple Music reduce the relevance of the traditional music business,’’ Masuch said. “Distribution is controlled by companies that aren’t part of the traditional ecosystem.’’

4 reasons Tesla Mobility is worth a lot less than Alphabet’s Waymo

Jonas estimates that Tesla has a 13% discount rate, versus Waymo’s 10%. “Tesla likely has a higher cost of capital vs. Alphabet/Waymo,” he writes.

Tesla will have to make money on the rides themselves, while big tech companies like Alphabet can also make money off the time spent in the car as well as what it learns from drivers. “Tesla’s business model offers potentially less room for adjacent revenue monetization,” he explains.

Tesla has offered very little information on what Tesla Mobility’s business model will look like, while Waymo and General Motors (GM) have “become increasingly conspicuous with their efforts to grow the business with specific targets for commercialization and deployment,” he explains.

More than half the value assigned to Waymo by Morgan Stanley’s internet team came from logistics, by which they apparently mean moving people and stuff around. That’s an opportunity Jonas doesn’t include for Tesla. “Logistics accounts for $89bn of the total $175bn value in our internet team’s Waymo DCF,” he writes. “We have not specifically ascribed any logistics based revenue to Tesla Mobility at this time.”

Lessons from Chance the Rapper (Value chains and profit pools)

“There is what’s called a master and a publishing portion of the record. So the master is the recording of it, so if I sign a record deal or a recording deal, I sign away my masters, which means the label owns the recording of that music. On the publishing side, if I write a record, and I sign away my publishing in a publishing deal, they own the composition of work… so the idea of it, you know what I’m saying? So if I play a song on piano that you wrote, I have to pay you publishing money, because it comes from that idea. Or if I sing a line from that song, it’s from the publishing portion. If I sample the action record, if I take a piece of the actual recorded music, that’s from the master. None of that shit makes any sense right, that shit didn’t make any sense to you? ‘Cause that shit is goofy as hell.”

Peak Valley?

Silicon Valley has always had one important advantage over other regions when it comes to the tech sector. There is a much higher density of talent, capital, employment opportunity, and basic research in Silicon Valley versus other locations. When I say density, I mean physical density. If you walked a mile, how many tech companies would you pass along the way? That metric in Silicon Valley has always been higher than elsewhere and still is. So even though the return on capital (human and invested) has significant headwinds in today’s Silicon Valley, it is still a lot easier to deploy that capital there. And I think that will continue to be the case for a long time to come.

Quantum computing: the power to think outside the box

That could make it easier to design new materials, or find better ways for handling existing processes. Microsoft, for instance, predicts that it could lead to a more efficient way of capturing nitrogen from the atmosphere for use in fertilisers — a process known as nitrogen fixation, which currently eats up huge quantities of power.

When something is familiar and common, you set a low reference point. So most bad outcomes are placed in the “Oh well, you got unlucky. Next time you’ll do better,” category, while all wins are placed in the, “Easy money!” category. Index funds live here. Even in a bad year, no one thinks you’re crazy.
When something is new or unfamiliar, you have no idea where the reference point is. So you’re cautious with it, putting most bad outcomes in the “I told you so” category and most wins in the “You probably got luck” category. When something is new and unfamiliar, the high reference point means not only will bad outcomes will be punished, but some good outcomes aren’t good enough to beat “par.” So even high-probability bets are avoided.

Newcomers

We were doing something different. And anytime you’re doing something different the only people who can participate are people who don’t have career risk. Anytime you introduce the factor of career risk into the decision-making process, you have to do the norm. It’s a divergent system: If you invest in a divergent system and it goes wrong, you have massive downside for your career personally, separate from the organization. It could be the right decision – it was probabilistically a great bet. But if it goes wrong and it looks different, you could get fired. And if it goes right, you still may not have enough upside career-wise.

Deciding whether to do something isn’t just about whether or not it’ll work. It’s not even about the probability of whether it might work. It’s whether it might work within the context of a reference point – some gauge of what others consider “normal” to measure performance against. Thinking probabilistically is hard, but people do it. And when judging the outcomes of decisions, a win isn’t just a win; it’s “You won, but that was an easy bet and you should have won.” Or, “You won, but that was a gamble and you got lucky.”

Curated Insights 2018.06.24

Tails, you win

Correlation Ventures crunched the numbers. Out of 21,000 venture financings from 2004 to 2014, 65% lost money. Two and a half percent of investments made 10x-20x. One percent made more than 20x return. Half a percent – about 100 companies – earned 50x or more. That’s where the majority of the industry’s returns come from. It skews even more as you drill down. There’s been $482 billion of VC funding in the last ten years. The combined value of the ten largest venture-backed companies is $213 billion. So ten venture-backed companies are valued at half the industry’s deployed capital.

The S&P 500 rose 22% in 2017. But a quarter of that return came from 5 companies – Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Boeing, and Microsoft. Ten companies made up 35% of the return. Twenty-three accounted for half the return. Apple alone was responsible for more of the index’s total returns than the bottom 321 companies combined. The S&P 500 gained 108% over the last five years. Twenty-two companies are responsible for half that gain. Ninety-two companies made up three-quarters of the returns. The Nasdaq 100 skews even more. The index gained 32% last year. Five companies made up 51% of that return. Twenty-five companies were responsible for 75% of the overall return.


16 years late, $13B short, but optimistic: Where growth will take the music biz

The primary problem, however, is how the major labels monopolize royalty payments. Spotify and Apple Music take roughly 30% of total revenues (which goes to operating costs, as well as customer sales tax and platform fees), with the remaining 70% paid out in royalties. Out of this remainder, the major labels keep roughly 70%, with 15% going to performers and 15% to composers. And remember, a hot song often boasts a handful of writers and several performers, each of whom will share in the net royalty (Spotify’s most streamed track in 2017, Ed Sheeran’s “Shape of You,” counts six writers; Kanye West’s 2015 hit “All Day” had four performers and 19 credited writers).

A common rejoinder to this argument is that growth in subscriptions will solve the problem – if everyone had Spotify or Apple Music, per-stream rates would remain low, but gross payments would increase substantially. There are three limits to this argument. First, prices would likely need to drop in order to drive additional penetration. In fact, they already are as the major services embrace student pricing and family plans (which cost 50% more but allow four to six unique accounts): Over the past three years, premium user ARPU has fallen from $7.06 per month to $5.25. To this end, family plans exert significant downward pressure on per-stream rates, as the number of streams grows substantially more than revenue. For related reasons, the industry is also unlikely to return to the days where the average American over 13 spent $80-105 a year (1992-2002). Even if every single American household subscribed to Spotify or Apple Music, per capita spend would be around $65-70. This is still more than twice today’s average of $31, but such penetration is unlikely (in 2017, only 80% of American mobiles were smartphones). Put another way, much of the remaining growth in on-demand streaming will come from adding additional users to existing subscriptions. While this increases total revenue per subscription (from $120 to $180), it drops ARPU to at most $90 and its lowest, $20.

Second, growth in on-demand music subscriptions is likely to cannibalize the terrestrial and satellite radio businesses. In 2017, SiriusXM (which has the highest content costs per listener hour in the music industry) paid out $1.2B in US royalties, roughly 33% of that of the major streaming services. US terrestrial broadcast revenue generates another $3B+ in annual royalties. These formats are rarely considered when discussing the health of the music industry, even though one reflects direct consumer spend. But they provide significant income for the creative community (though notably, terrestrial radio royalties compensate only composers, not performers). As on-demand streaming proliferates and cannibalizes more terrestrial/satellite radio listening (still more than half of total audio time in the United States), streaming royalties will continue to grow – but much of this will come at the expense of radio royalties.

Streaming services have an opportunity to cut out labels by forming direct-to-artist deals or establishing their own pseudo-label services. Not only has this long been predicted, it’s been incubated for years. Since 2015, the major services have cultivated exclusive windows and radio shows with major stars, including Beyoncé, Kanye West and Drake. While this construct still went through the label system, it generates clear business cases for further disintermediation.


How Netflix sent the biggest media companies into a frenzy, and why Netflix thinks some are getting it wrong

Hastings has never really feared legacy media, said Neil Rothstein, who worked at Netflix from 2001 to 2012 and eventually ran digital global advertising for the company. That’s because Hastings bought into the fundamental principle of “The Innovator’s Dilemma,” the 1997 business strategy book by Harvard Business School professor Clayton Christensen. “Reed brought 25 or 30 of us together, and we discussed the book,” Rothstein said of an executive retreat he remembered nearly a decade ago. “We studied AOL and Blockbuster as cautionary tales. We knew we had to disrupt, including disrupting ourselves, or someone else would do it.”

BTIG’s Greenfield predicts Netflix will increase its global subscribers from 125 million to 200 million by 2020. Bank of America analyst Nat Schindler estimates Netflix will have 360 million subscribers by 2030. Netflix estimates the total addressable market of subscribers, not including China, could be about 800 million.

Netflix has another edge in the content wars. While networks make decisions on TV ratings, Netflix plays a different game. Its barometer for success is based on how much it spent on a show rather than hoping every show is a blowout hit, said Barry Enderwick, who worked in Netflix’s marketing department from 2001 to 2012 and who was director of global marketing and subscriber acquisition. Since Netflix is not beholden to advertisers, niche shows can be successful, as long as Netflix controls spending. That also gives Netflix the luxury of being able to order full seasons of shows, which appeals to talent.

“Reality is, the biggest distributor of content out there is totally vertically integrated,” said Stephenson. “This happens to be somebody called Netflix. But they create original content; they aggregate original content; and they distribute original content. This thing is moving at lightning speed.”

Hastings derived many of his strategy lessons from a Stanford instructor named Hamilton Helmer. Hastings even invited him to Netflix in 2010 to teach other executives. One of Helmer’s key concepts is called counter-positioning, which Helmer defines as: “A newcomer adopts a new, superior business model which the incumbent does not mimic due to anticipated damage to their existing business.”

Google’s half-billion bet on JD.com

With the second-largest share of China’s B2C e-commerce market after Alibaba’s Tmall, JD.com already sells most major multinational consumer brands within China. Among CPG brands, 100% of home care and 95% of personal care brands are present on the platform. Gartner L2’s recent Digital IQ Index: Beauty China finds that 97% of mass beauty brands are sold on JD.com, either through brand flagships or JD.com-operated stores. Premium beauty brand presence is slightly lower at 77%. International luxury brands have generally been more wary of mass-market e-tailers, but JD.com has scored major names like Saint Laurent and Alexander McQueen since the launch of its luxury app Toplife and white-glove delivery service.


Google places a $550 million bet on China’s second-largest e-commerce player

For its part, JD.com said it planned to make a selection of items available for sale in places like the U.S. and Europe through Google Shopping — a service that lets users search for products on e-commerce websites and compare prices between different sellers. When retailers partner with Google, it gives their products visibility and makes it convenient for consumers to purchase them online. For the tech giant, its shopping service is important in helping to win back product searches from Amazon and to stay relevant in the voice-powered future of e-commerce.


Google is training machines to predict when a patient will die

Google has long sought access to digital medical records, also with mixed results. For its recent research, the internet giant cut deals with the University of California, San Francisco, and the University of Chicago for 46 billion pieces of anonymous patient data. Google’s AI system created predictive models for each hospital, not one that parses data across the two, a harder problem. A solution for all hospitals would be even more challenging. Google is working to secure new partners for access to more records.

A deeper dive into health would only add to the vast amounts of information Google already has on us. “Companies like Google and other tech giants are going to have a unique, almost monopolistic, ability to capitalize on all the data we generate,” said Andrew Burt, chief privacy officer for data company Immuta. He and pediatric oncologist Samuel Volchenboum wrote a recent column arguing governments should prevent this data from becoming “the province of only a few companies,” like in online advertising where Google reigns.

Adobe could be the next $10 billion software company

“The acquisition of Magento will make Adobe the only company with leadership in content creation, marketing, advertising, analytics and now commerce, enabling real-time personalized experiences across the entire customer journey, whether on the web, mobile, social, in-product or in-store. We believe the addition of Magento expands our available market opportunity, builds out our product portfolio, and addresses a key underserved customer need.”

Both have a similar approach to the marketing side, while Salesforce concentrates on the customer including CRM and service components. Adobe differentiates itself with content, which shows up on the balance sheet as the majority of its revenue .


After 20 years of Salesforce, what Marc Benioff got right and wrong about the cloud

Cloud computing can now be “private”: Virtual private clouds (VPCs) in the IaaS world allow enterprises to maintain root control of the OS, while outsourcing the physical management of machines to providers like Google, DigitalOcean, Microsoft, Packet or AWS. This allows enterprises (like Capital One) to relinquish hardware management and the headache it often entails, but retain control over networks, software and data. It is also far easier for enterprises to get the necessary assurance for the security posture of Amazon, Microsoft and Google than it is to get the same level of assurance for each of the tens of thousands of possible SaaS vendors in the world.

The problem for many of today’s largest SaaS vendors is that they were founded and scaled out during the pre-cloud-native era, meaning they’re burdened by some serious technical and cultural debt. If they fail to make the necessary transition, they’ll be disrupted by a new generation of SaaS companies (and possibly traditional software vendors) that are agnostic toward where their applications are deployed and who applies the pre-built automation that simplifies management. This next generation of vendors will put more control in the hands of end customers (who crave control), while maintaining what vendors have come to love about cloud-native development and cloud-based resources.

What’s so special about 21st Century Fox?

The attraction of Fox’s movie studio is clear. 20th Century Fox owns blockbuster franchises like “X-Men” and “Avatar,” as well as a highly regarded arthouse-movie shop in Fox Searchlight. All told, Fox’s studios collected more than $1.4 billion at the box office last year, according to Box Office Mojo.

One is the company’s 39 percent stake in Sky, the European satellite and broadband internet provider, which is already the subject of a bidding war between Comcast and Fox. Here’s what DealBook wrote about the attraction of Sky last week: Based in London, the broadcaster and internet service provider has 23 million customers in five countries, and it owns valuable broadcasting rights to English Premier League games, Formula One races and other sporting events. It also produces its own entertainment programs and has a streaming service, Now TV.

The other is Star, one of India’s biggest broadcasters, which operates 60 channels and the mobile streaming service Hotstar. Neither Comcast nor Disney has a meaningful presence in the fast-growing India market. Owning one of the country’s top content creators and distributors would give either company both a wealth of locally produced content and platforms on which to provide its other movies and TV shows.


Disney tests pricing power at theme parks

Raising prices—currently around $100 on average days and more than $120 during “peak” times around holidays—could mitigate tourist appetite and increase Disney’s profits. Internal projections at Disney show that even after raising prices at roughly double the rate of inflation over the past five years, it could charge much more than it currently does without driving away too many customers, a person familiar with the company’s parks operations said. Disney parks executives are working on adopting a dynamic pricing model similar to airlines, in which prices fluctuate depending on when a ticket is purchased, this person said.

Disney doesn’t release annual attendance figures for its parks, but more than 38.8 million people visited its domestic locations in 2017, an annual increase of about 1.3%, according to the Themed Entertainment Association trade group. Rising prices and attendance at the parks have contributed to strong growth in the company’s parks and resorts division in recent years. Annual income for the segment has grown more than 70% since 2013, hitting $3.8 billion in 2017.

These are the world’s biggest disruptors (and how the disrupteds are fighting back)

According to Barclays, historically the competitive advantage of legacy consumer focused businesses depended on either: 1) creating a monopoly⁄oligopoly in supply (creating a “scarce resource” in the process), or 2) controlling distribution by integrating with suppliers. Here, the fundamental disruption of the internet has been to turn this dynamic on its head by dominating the user experience. Barclays explains further:

First, while the mega-tech internet companies have high upfront capital costs, their user base is so large that the capital costs per user are insignificant, specially relative to revenue generated per user. This means that the marginal costs of serving another customer is effectively zero, thus neutralizing the advantage of exclusive supplier relationships that were leveraged by legacy distributors. Secondly, the internet has led to the creation of infinitely scalable networks that commoditize⁄modularize supply of “scarce resources” (thus disrupting the legacy suppliers of those resources), making it viable for the disrupting internet company to position itself as the key beneficiary of the industry‘s disruption by integrating forward with end users⁄consumers at scale.

As a result of the disruption, the user experience has become the most important factor determining success in the current environment: the disruptors win by providing the best experience, which earns them the most consumers⁄users, which attracts the most suppliers, which enhances the user experience in a virtuous cycle. This is also why so many legacy businesses find themselves unable to compete with runaway disruptors, whose modest advantage quickly becomes an insurmountable lead due to the economics of scale made possible by the internet. This has resulted in a shift of value from the disrupted to the disruptors who modularize⁄commoditize suppliers, integrate the modularized suppliers on their platform, and distribute to consumers⁄users with which they have an exclusive relationship at scale.

This further means that the internet enforces strong winner-take-all effects: since the value of a disruptor to end users is continually increasing it is exceedingly difficult for competitors to take away users or win new ones. This, according to Barclays, makes it difficult to make antitrust arguments based on consumer welfare (the standard for U.S. jurisprudence), but ripe for EU antitrust regulation (which considers monopolistic behavior illegal if it restricts competition).

Japan robot makers outperform Europeans in profitability

Fanuc, Yaskawa Electric and the other two top players worldwide, ABB of Switzerland and Germany’s Kuka, together hold more than 50% of the global market for industrial robots, Nikkei estimates. Fanuc is strong in numerical control devices for machine tools, while Yaskawa boasts expertise in motor technologies. On the European side, ABB is known for dual-arm robots and supplies a wide array of manufacturing equipment, while Kuka’s strength lies in automotive production equipment such as welding robots.

Fanuc is far ahead of the other three in margin, but Yaskawa has boosted its number in recent years. Its margin rose to 9% last fiscal year, surpassing ABB’s 7% and marking the first time in 14 years that the Japanese duo each logged better margins than their two European rivals. In-house production of core component motors helps the Japanese players secure wider margins, said Yoshinao Ibara of Morgan Stanley MUFG Securities. Fanuc’s thoroughly automated production processes also contribute to high profitability.


Why aren’t we all buying houses on the internet?

“The old idea that real estate is never going to change, that we’re going to pay 6 percent, is completely untrue,” argues Glenn Kelman, the CEO of Seattle-based Redfin, a publicly traded brokerage whose calling card is lower commissions. For Kelman, the rush of cash into real estate startups feels like vindication for a corporate model that investors have regarded with skepticism. Redfin’s low-fee model relies on an army of in-house agents who trade typical commissions for the volume that’s possible with internet-generated leads. A Redfin world isn’t a world without real estate agents, but it is one where fewer agents do more. The nation’s 1.4 million working real estate agents do not particularly like Redfin.

Zillow has a different approach. The company hasn’t disrupted the traditional agent model; on the contrary, it’s dependent on it. In the first quarter of 2018, Zillow raked in $300 million in revenue (Redfin’s revenue for all of 2017 was $370 million); more than 70 percent of that came from the company’s “Premier Agents,” who pay for prime placement on the site to generate leads. In becoming an iBuyer (the industry’s term of art, short for “instant buyer”), the company won’t bite the real estate–brokering hand that feeds it. If anything, the pivot provides a lucrative opportunity for local agents to cement their relationships with a company that is trying to become an industrial-scale homebuyer.

Zillow also isn’t the first company to try acting as a middleman. San Francisco–based Opendoor has made tens of thousands of offers on homes, mostly in Sun Belt cities like Phoenix and Dallas. These places are an easier market than New York or San Francisco: The housing stock is newer, cheaper, and more suburban—which is to say, self-similar. Transactions taxes tend to be lower. The company sees itself as competing against seller uncertainty. “[Zillow] keep[s] the agents at the center of the transaction, which is in line with their business model,” says Cristin Culver, head of communications for Opendoor. “And we keep the customer at the center, which is really our North Star, and that’s the difference.” The company’s rapid appraisals make it possible for sellers to skip agents on the first transaction, and after doing some small renovations (paint, HVAC, basic repairs), Opendoor’s “All Day Open House” allows buyers to find and unlock the house themselves with a smartphone. Easy, right? And yet most of them come with an agent, and the company says it’s one of the biggest payers of commissioners in its markets today.*

Why Japan’s sharing economy is tiny

A generous estimate of the sharing’s economy value in Japan is just ¥1.2trn yen ($11bn), compared with $229bn for China. “It’s a very difficult situation,” says Yuji Ueda of Japan’s Sharing Economy Association. Almost 29m tourists visited Japan last year; the goal is to attract 40m by 2020, when Tokyo hosts the Olympics. But the number of hotel rooms is not keeping up with demand.

Indonesia ecommerce through the eyes of a veteran

50% of all ecommerce orders are still limited to JABODETABEK (The Greater Jakarta Area) while the next 30% are in the rest of Java. This leaves 20% spread unevenly throughout Indonesia. Lots of marketing dollars (and education) will have to be spent outside JABODETABEK to push more traffic and conversion online.

Social commerce is massive in Indonesia and it is believed that transactions happening via Facebook and Instagram may be equally as big as the ‘traditional’ ecommerce. As of now, there is no official way to track how big this market is but looking at the data from various last mile operators based on non-corporate customers, this market share is between 25% and 35% of their volumes and has been constantly growing.

Domestic ecommerce supply chain design is becoming more critical in ensuring lower OPEX. Decentralisation of distribution centres are happening with various major marketplaces and 3PL investing in distribution centers (DC) outside JABODETABEK with the objective of bringing products closer to market and also reducing the last mile cost. With a long term view, some too have started investing in having a presence in 3rd Tier Cities outside Java, in line with the government’s infrastructure development.


Malaysia’s economy more diversified than thought

While commodities make up about 20% of total exports, electronics constitute an even larger portion: 37% in 2017. Even when oil prices were at their peak in 2012, commodities comprised 30% of total exports versus electronics at 33%.

Higher oil prices add to the government’s fiscal revenue. We estimate that for every 10% rise in global oil prices, Malaysia’s current account increases by about 0.3 percentage points of GDP after four quarters.

Government estimates suggest that every US$1 per barrel increase in oil prices adds about RM300mil to revenue. That said, oil revenue is only budgeted at 14.8% of revenue for 2018 compared with the peak in 2009 when it constituted some 43% of total fiscal revenue.


SEC says Ether isn’t a security, but tokens based on Ether can be

For the SEC, while cryptocurrencies like bitcoin and ether are not securities, token offerings for stakes in companies that are built off of those blockchains can be, depending on the extent to which third parties are involved in the creation or exchange of value around the assets. The key for the SEC is whether the token in question is being used simply for the exchange of a good or service through a distributed ledger platform, or whether the value of the cryptocurrency is dependent on the actions of a third party for it to rise in value.

“Promoters, in order to raise money to develop networks on which digital assets will operate, often sell the tokens or coins rather than sell shares, issue notes or obtain bank financing. But, in many cases, the economic substance is the same as a conventional securities offering. Funds are raised with the expectation that the promoters will build their system and investors can earn a return on the instrument — usually by selling their tokens in the secondary market once the promoters create something of value with the proceeds and the value of the digital enterprise increases. Just as in the Howey case, tokens and coins are often touted as assets that have a use in their own right, coupled with a promise that the assets will be cultivated in a way that will cause them to grow in value, to be sold later at a profit. And, as in Howey — where interests in the groves were sold to hotel guests, not farmers — tokens and coins typically are sold to a wide audience rather than to persons who are likely to use them on the network.”


Study: Charts change hearts and minds better than words do

Through survey experiments, Nyhan and Reifler arrived at a surprising answer: charts. “We find that providing participants with graphical information significantly decreases false and unsupported factual beliefs.” Crucially, they show that data presented in graphs and illustrations does a better job of fighting misperceptions than the same information presented in text form.

Curated Insights 2018.04.29

Amazon shareholder letter 2017

In the very first lesson, the coach gave her some wonderful advice. “Most people,” he said, “think that if they work hard, they should be able to master a handstand in about two weeks. The reality is that it takes about six months of daily practice. If you think you should be able to do it in two weeks, you’re just going to end up quitting.” Unrealistic beliefs on scope – often hidden and undiscussed – kill high standards. To achieve high standards yourself or as part of a team, you need to form and proactively communicate realistic beliefs about how hard something is going to be – something this coach understood well.

The football coach doesn’t need to be able to throw, and a film director doesn’t need to be able to act. But they both do need to recognize high standards for those things and teach realistic expectations on scope. Even in the example of writing a six-page memo, that’s teamwork. Someone on the team needs to have the skill, but it doesn’t have to be you. (As a side note, by tradition at Amazon, authors’ names never appear on the memos – the memo is from the whole team.)

How China is buying its way into Europe

We analyzed data for 678 completed or pending deals in 30 countries since 2008 for which financial terms were released, and found that Chinese state-backed and private companies have been involved in deals worth at least $255 billion across the European continent. Approximately 360 companies have been taken over, from Italian tire maker Pirelli & C. SpA to Irish aircraft leasing company Avolon Holdings Ltd., while Chinese entities also partially or wholly own at least four airports, six seaports, wind farms in at least nine countries and 13 professional soccer teams.

Importantly, the available figures underestimate the true size and scope of China’s ambitions in Europe. They notably exclude 355 mergers, investments and joint ventures—the primary types of deals examined here—for which terms were not disclosed. Bloomberg estimates or reporting on a dozen of the higher-profile deals among this group suggest an additional total value of $13.3 billion. Also not included: greenfield developments or stock-market operations totaling at least $40 billion, as compiled by researchers at the American Enterprise Institute and the European Council on Foreign Relations, plus a $9 billion stake in Mercedes-Benz parent company Daimler AG by Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co. chairman Li Shufu reported by Bloomberg.

Is Google cheap?

According to Net Market Share, Google has around 82 per cent of the entire online search market. That figure includes China, where they are banned. Bing has around 5 per cent of the pie so, if the 3 trillion figure for Search holds true, Microsoft’s competitor processes 6,022 searches per second, versus Google’s 96,450.

Our readers may also point out Alphabet’s dependence on advertising revenues, a historically cyclical business which is an easy tap to turn off for many corporations in economic downturns. That being said, one could easily counter by mentioning the good ship Alphabet’s serene sail through the currently stormy waters of the wider advertising world. Or the fact that there are very few alternatives in terms of audience reach.

We have not even accounted for Google’s famed ‘Other Bets’ line — a collection of misfit, moonshot investments including self-driving software Waymo, health-data laboratory Verily Sciences and Alphaville favourite, smart-city planner SideWalk Labs.

Open, closed, and privacy

To focus on simply Google and Facebook, though, is to miss how much other data collection is going on: ad networks are tracking you on nearly every website you visit, your credit card company is tracking your purchases (and by extension your location), your grocery store is tracking your eating habit, the list goes on and on. Moreover, the further down you go down the data food chain, the more likely it is that data is bought and sold. That, of course, is as open as it gets.

First, it is even more unlikely that a challenger to either will arise without meaningful access to their proprietary data. This, to be fair, was already quite unlikely: the entire industry learned from Instagram’s piggy-backing on Twitter’s social graph that sharing data with a potential competitor was a bad idea from a business perspective.

Second, Google and Facebook will increasingly be the only source of innovations that leverage their data; it will be too politically risky for either to share anything with third parties. That means new features that rely on user data must be built by one of the two giants, or, as is always the case in a centrally-planned system relative to a market, not built at all.

Third, Google and Facebook’s advertising advantage, already massive, is going to become overwhelming. Both companies generate the majority of their user data on their own platforms, which is to say their data collection and advertising business are integrated. Most of their competitors for digital advertising, on the other hand, are modular: some companies collect data, and other collect ads; such a model, in a society demanding ever more privacy, will be increasingly untenable.


Facebook beats in Q1 and boosts daily user growth to 1.45B amidst backlash

Zuckerberg says one of his biggest regrets is that Facebook didn’t get to shape the mobile ecosystem because the company was still small when iOS and Android launched. That’s why Zuckerberg is adamant about Facebook having a major role in the future of virtual reality and augmented reality, which he sees as computing platforms of the future.

Global recorded music revenues grew by $1.4 billion in 2017

Global recorded music revenues reached $17.4 billion in 2017, up from $16 billion in 2016 — an annual growth rate of 8 percent. Streaming revenues in particular have contributed to this growth, and were up 39 percent year-over-year to reach $7.4 billion, or 43 percent of all revenues. But perhaps the biggest story of all is the growth of artists without labels. With 27.2% year-on-year growth this was the fastest growing segment in 2017.

Investing and business lessons from Aileen Lee (Cowboy Ventures)

Venture investors are looking for large addressable markets. How big is the market? What is the problem that you’re trying to solve? Who’s on your team? And how relevant is the team to that problem? What is the product that you’ve built, if you have built something? Or what do the wireframes look like? What kind of traction or feedback have you gotten from the market in terms of whether people are going to like the product, or whether they do like the product? What does the financial model and the economic model look like? What are you going to do with the money?” “What is the mission and vision of the company? Venture investors are looking for a big mission and vision that’s quite ambitious and that can be backed up by, ‘Here’s where we want to be and here’s how we’re going to get there over time. This is what we want to get done the next 12 months or the next 18 months.’

If you don’t attack a big market, it’s highly unlikely you’re ever going to build a big company. Great markets make great companies. We’re never interested in creating markets – it’s too expensive. We’re interested in exploiting markets early. I like opportunities that are addressing markets so big that even the management team can’t get in its way.

Why is China treating North Carolina like the developing world?

It’s about 50 percent cheaper to raise hogs in North Carolina than in China. This is due to less-expensive pig-feed prices and larger farms, but it’s also because of loose business and environmental regulations, especially in red states, which have made the U.S. an increasingly attractive place for foreign companies to offshore costly and harmful business practices.

How?

The market is all about discounting and expectations. It always has been and it always will be.

On January 31, 2006, Google Inc. announced its financial results for the fourth quarter of 2005: revenues up 97%, net profit up 82%. It’s hard to imagine how such phenomenal growth could be bad news. But Wall Street’s analysts had expected Google to do even better….Google’s stock fell 16% in a matter of seconds, and the market in the shares had to be officially halted. When trading resumed, Google, whose stock had been at $432.66 just minutes earlier, was hammered down to $366…Google earned about $65 million less than Wall Street had expected, and in response Wall Street bashed $20.3 billion off Google’s market value.

Basis—the “stable” cryptocurrency with $133 million invested—explained

Basis coins won’t be directly backed by dollars or any other asset. Instead, the Basis blockchain will attempt to adjust the supply of Basis coins over time to maintain a peg to the dollar, much as foreign central banks expand and contract their own money supplies to maintain a stable currency value.

The more consequential change is the addition of a third asset class called bonds. When the value of Basis coins falls, the system creates new bonds and sells them for Basis coins. Each bond has a face value of one Basis coin (and hence $1), but investors can acquire them at a market-determined discount.

Then, during a subsequent expansion, the system pays back these bondholders before paying anything out to shareholders. Bondholders get their money back in a first-in-first-out order, with the oldest bond being repaid first.

In effect, buying a bond amounts to making a bet that the demand for coins will rebound in a timely fashion. The less confident the market is that this will happen, the steeper the discount—a bond might sell for 0.8, 0.5, or even 0.2 Basis coins—and the greater the potential profit.

Kids worldwide spend less time outdoors, and then need glasses

Eyeglass sales are expected to double globally between 2012 and 2026, and the amount of time people are spending indoors may be a leading cause. By 2050, half of the global population, or almost 5 billion people, are projected to be nearsighted, up from a quarter, or 1.4 billion, in 2000.

Interestingly, however, while outdoor time helps to prevent nearsightedness, it doesn’t seem to affect its progression once it develops. The same recent summary suggests that the rapid rises in Asia are related in part to outdoor time: “The limited questionnaire data available suggests that the time that children spend outdoors is lower in the developed countries of East and Southeast Asia.”