Time

A Few Simple Conclusions on a Few Simple Topics

Book Chapter, Inflation, Investment Strategy, Prediction, Transformative Businesses, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Transformation, Valuation, Employment, and Deflation

Disruption to some of the world’s most important industries, deflationary pressure caused by scaling lower-cost businesses, and sustained low interest rates challenge traditional valuation models. Technological platforms, from blockchain-based businesses to energy storage to DNA sequencing, enable unprecedented disruption to business and economic models.

Interest rates will remain low, equity values will remain high, innovation will drive deflationary pressure, and volatility will be intense and frequent. A new approach is required to understand dynamic global competition and sustainable value.

Innovation

Stupidity and Misery by Another Name

Book Chapter, Investment Strategy, Public Policy, , , , , , , , , , , ,

A National Investment Authority, an idea gaining traction among the administration, would be responsible for “devising, financing, and executing a long-term national strategy of economic development and reconstruction.”

This is not the job of a government; this is the role of the free market. The market does this quite well, and government does this quite poorly. An NIA is another way to bring misery and inefficiency.

Policy reflective of central planning, socialism, or industrial policy brings misery to all. This discredited philosophy that tortured so many in Eastern Europe and Soviet Russia seems to be getting more traction today bewilderingly. It leads to nothing more than bureaucratic idiocy, waste, and disregard for any consumer needs.

Inequality and Wealth Creation

Book Chapter, Public Policy, , , ,

Inequality is not an appropriate measure of economic performance or wealth creation.

Inequality is a relative and comparative statistic. It shows how wealth is distributed, which is not that meaningful, and certainly should not be the basis of economic policy. Essentially, inequality is a comparative metric and not an absolute one. That is, if everyone does better but a few people do much better, inequality increases, and this is seen as something bad even though everyone is better off. It is used to create misleading policies that focus on redistributing wealth that is created versus policy that should be focused on enabling greater and more distributed wealth creation – not wealth capture. Policy should focus on how to best create wealth for more people. The absolute degree of wealth creation is beside the point relative to other people. Creating opportunity for the most people is what matters.

As an example, overall wealth has increased over the last 30 years for every population group, but for the highest group, it has increased more substantially. But, why is that a problem? Instead, it is a natural and unavoidable outcome of the free market.

Here’s the analogy: if you want to hold a lottery, the prize has to be disproportionately large to have the most participants to raise the most capital. The simple goal is that net outflows (prizes) are smaller than the net inflows (contributions or purchased tickets). This is very similar to business opportunities and wealth creation.

As an economy, we want as many contributors to wealth creation – entrepreneurs and new businesses driving economic growth – as possible. The only way to do this is to enable market participants to have the greatest possible reward without restrictions. Most businesses will fail (much like most lottery tickets lose). But, because we have increased the number of willing participants, we also increase the opportunity to create the most wealth – the most businesses, jobs, and economic growth, as well as increasing the tax base from both businesses and individuals. So wealth creation, even if it is concentrated mostly in a handful of people, benefits the overall economy and society much more effectively than any attempt to limit that upside or redistribute it through politically popular but inefficient and demotivating policy.

The superficial and the real

Blog, , , , , , , , , ,

Our political system is binary, and both sides are more extreme than reasonable. There seems little patience for the “reasonable middle” where ideas can be nuanced, refined, and complexity of public policy understood. Instead, our leaders are superficial and guide policy with slogans, not thought. People like AOC and Sanders are caricatures, influential yet ignorant and superficial, forming policies while clueless about what it takes to realistically solve even their most critical issues.

They have great ideas on how to distribute wealth but no ideas on how wealth is actually created. Their perspective is to take existing wealth and distribute it to others instead of developing an engine to help more people create wealth. An example of this kind of dysfunctional policy can be found in resource rich African nations. Instead of building industries using the abundant natural resources present as inputs generating real businesses, those resources are simply gathered and distributed – either to efficient businesses in other countries or among governmental cronies to their Swiss bank accounts. Either way, this attitude is disastrous for an economy ultimately. Wealth is created, and policies should free up the ability to create wealth within appropriate legal restrictions.

no cure for gravity

Book Chapter, , , , , ,

You cannot escape physics. The value of every investment starts at zero. Entropy is our natural state (thank you to the Second Law of Thermodynamics) meaning that we are constantly fighting the destruction of value. There is always a force, equivalent to gravity, pushing an investment down. Value is created by the efficient use of capital and the created, sustainable competitive advantage. Consistent investment in a thoughtful portfolio will create sustained value, but it is work, and you will always be fighting natural physical forces. One recent example is the financial crisis of 2008 to 2009. 40% of the average equity value was destroyed in this time. However, if one invested consistently at the height of the market and continue to invest through the crash and then ultimate recovery, and investor still earned over 9% annually. Thoughtfulness, consistency, patience, and determination is the most effective way to fight gravity and thermodynamics. The most important way to fight physics and the ultimate effect of gravity is to determine what you are looking for first. Highlight growth, disruption, sustainability – what will have a long-term value creating effect. What sectors make the most impactful difference? Recently, as we look at technology, biotechnology, and other important sectors, we see above average returns because of the impactful nature of the sectors. But technology is also permeating finance (Fintech) and entertainment (streaming services) that are disrupting incumbents and creating disproportionate value to the new entrants. Is this sustainable? Will the disruptors capture value, or will more established companies ultimately win? Observation, questioning assumptions, testing models, and assuming no knowledge regardless of historical experience are the only cures for gravity.