"Advertising has replaced product recommendations and personalization on Amazon... They are no longer trying to guide product discovery, letting ads instead lead the journey"
“Sponsored products related to this item,” “Four stars and above” and “Brands related to this category on Amazon” advertising sections have all but replaced organic “Customers who bought this item also bought” and “Customers who viewed this item also viewed” suggestions.
Reminds me of a similar morph that has taken place over time
Will repeat what I said after reading LMND S-1, nothing makes me feel more like a boomer than these new age insurance cos and trying to figure out what the excitement is. They’re tiny, money losing, competing in commodity categories with historically shitty returns on capital.
I want to believe that better UX and CX can be a differentiator in a commodity product, but if it doesn’t allow you pricing power (which eg Chubb gets), you’re going to grow fast and consume capital to do so, in a low return business.
This is not about valuation. This is about trying to understand the microeconomic case for these businesses at scale sustainably earning excess returns on invested capital in an industry where almost no one does that.
It's very interesting to see Grantham worry about declining working age population. I agree and have said under population is a much bigger threat than overpopulation. But very difficult to square that with his full blown malthusianism of the early 2010s.
His rants about phosphorus or whatever were just so strange
I have never understood the obsession over the taper tantrum
DB: "equity funds actually enjoyed inflows of over $300bn over the 12 months following the sharp rise in rates... Indeed 2013 saw the S&P 500 rise by 30% which remains the best calendar year for equities since 1997"
In 2019 Powell said "First the taper tantrum left scars on anybody who was working at the Fed at that time".
But why?
We know the tantrum led the Fed to reverse their order of operations on runoff versus hikes, which is a pretty big change
"The first problem with the law is that, as I have repeatedly noted, it gets the flow of value exactly backwards. News orgs need Google and Facebook, not the other way around"
"they know better than anyone that Facebook provided nothing but economic upside for news orgs, and now that the company has said enough is enough they are facing plummeting traffic and revenues"
Meanwhile... “Few imagined” they wouldn’t give in to extortion. 🤦♂️
"Meanwhile, very little of the traffic on Google or Facebook comes from news, and very little advertising appears next to news search results. Google didn't take their money, any more than Boeing took money from the ocean liners. The internet destroyed the model."
"You don’t have to ask the hypothetical “what would happen if Google and Facebook had less market power- would they pay for links?” You can just look at, well, every other site on the internet."
"One of the favored tactics of Murdoch’s shills is to accuse everyone that says schemes like this are ridiculous of being in the pocket of tech companies... let me say clearly as a truly independent analyst I think this regulation is absolutely ridiculous" stratechery.com/2020/australia…
Fed released the scenarios for 2021 CCAR. Here's the assumptions used for the Severely Adverse Scenario, which is the disaster porn.
Morgan Stanley summarizes the differences between the 2nd test done in late 2020. Modestly less severe economic assumptions in most cases, some harsher capital markets assumptions, net net slightly less punitive.
Bank Boards are set to have a level of discretion over capital returns not seen since before the GFC