Disruption innovation typically gains traction during tumultuous times: cheaper, faster, more convenient, more productive, more creative. Consumer and businesses are more willing to change behavior during setbacks.
This period is nothing like the GFC, but while tech budgets were slashed and consumers retrenched during 2008-09, delivered 20% revenue GROWTH and +14% during their worst quarters in that crisis.
Many industries and companies in the crosshairs of disruptive innovation - like autos, energy, banks, pharma, old tech - have attracted investors with high dividend yields in a yield-starved market and share repurchases financed with leverage. Those companies are in harm’s way.
Their stocks feature prominently in traditional equity benchmarks and have been supported by the massive shift to passive and benchmark sensitive investing during the past 20 years, a setup for disappointing returns as innovation disrupts the traditional world order.
Even the #QQQ - once at the vanguard of innovation - has lost its way with airlines (what?), energy, and old tech , #NTAP, and . I haven’t looked at the #QQQ in years. It no longer seems to provide the broad based exposure to #innovation that it once did.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
After I recorded “ITK” on Friday, today the VIX (Equity Volatility Index) shot up to 65, the fourth highest level in the past 40 years: after “portfolio insurance” failed on Black Monday in October 1987, Lehman went under in 2008, and COVID hit in 2020. What does this move mean?
In 1987 and 2020, the panic/cathartic moves in the VIX created significant buying opportunities, particularly for stocks trounced during those downturns. In 2008, however, after the VIX spiked, the broad based equity markets did not bottom for another six months in March, 2009.
In our view, the spike in the VIX today stems from conditions resembling both 1987 and 2008. On Black Monday in 1987, portfolio insurance failed because those relying on it tried to cash out at the same time, much like those relying on the carry trade with Japan today.
I’d argue that no other executive is as aligned with shareholders as @elonmusk, who committed to no salary, no bonus, no stock comp FOR 10 YEARS, unless he created tremendous value for @Tesla shareholders.
Moreover, Musk will not be able to cash in on his options until 5 years after exercising them. Based on this pay package, Elon has worked without compensation since 2018, and IMPORTANTLY current shareholders will benefit from another 5+ years of Elon at the helm.
What were the odds that Musk would hit the goals in his comp package? Although @TashaARK and @skorusARK published our model in 2018 showing that, with brilliant execution, the targets were possible, most analysts, auto manufacturers, and media thought they were laughable.
I believe the Delaware court decision, forcing #Tesla to void the March 2018 vote on Elon Musk’s performance-based pay package, is un-American, an assault on investor rights, and an insult to the Board of Directors of one of the most stunningly successful companies in US history.
I have known Robyn Denholm, Chair of Tesla’s Board, professionally for 17 years since she was named Juniper Networks CFO in 2007. Robyn was and is an independent Director on Tesla’s Compensation Committee.
Robyn is a professional of unquestionable integrity with a no-nonsense, objective, truth-wins-out philosophy. In 2014, when Tesla named her to its Board, I remember thinking that she would add a fresh pair of eyes and enhanced rigor to every part of the process she touched.
Government statistics do not seem to be capturing how weak the economy is. Many companies are reporting shockingly weak revenues. UPS’s US delivery volume growth is worse today than in 2007-2009. After falling for nearly two years, it dropped another ~11% last quarter.
At first I thought that Amazon still was taking share and causing problems, but this chart suggests that market share has changed very little since 2020.
This week, another economic bellwether, 3M, reported that global organic sales dropped more than 3% year over year on a local currency basis last quarter. The services side of the economy is unlikely to escape the global monetary tightening that is gripping these companies.
China is exporting deflation in a more profound way than I believe many economists and strategists appreciate. All else equal, the 15% depreciation in the yuan relative to the dollar in the last year should have increased its PPI inflation rate by 15%. Instead it has dropped 4%.
In other words, the deflationary vortex emanating from China is approaching 20% (15%+4%), highlighted by the burgeoning defaults in Chinese real estate and trust companies.
After it entered the World Trade Organization in 2001, China’s real GDP grew at a double digit rate for nearly 20 years. Rapid growth can cover many economic sins, typically excessive debt and associated leverage. Those excesses are surfacing in China now.
Ironically, as crypto assets soared during the Silicon Valley Bank meltdown, this administration suggested that investors in regional banks - equity and bond holders - should prepare to be “wiped out” in the aftermath of an unprecedented 20-fold increase in the Fed funds rate.
Now we are hearing anecdotes not only that businesses and individuals are hedging their fiat assets with some crypto assets but that they also are lowering risk and increasing returns by shifting from low yielding bank deposits into higher yielding money market funds, a win-win.
As a result, now that they can borrow at will from a government facility at ~4.5%, regional banks seem to be moving from a liquidity crisis to a slower moving solvency crisis.