Bitcoin – Not A Passing Fad

July 20, 2014 Leave a comment

I love how crypto coins are making governments nervous.

Personally I’m not a user of it, but I can understand its allure to the nonconformists, to those who like to be considered as “early adopters” and those who just don’t want to be traced.

Bitcoin proponents are looking for ways to have their virtual currency legitimised (in terms of acceptance) but at the same time, government will want to regulate it based around protecting the consumer but the real reason will be so that they can tax it.

Ya Gotta Know How To Tax ‘Em

Government knows how to tax petrol (gasoline), cigarettes, ownership of land, income, sales of goods and capital gains realised on the sale of assets.

This is why I think Electric Vehicles (EV’s) don’t stand a chance of real success. Government support of EV’s is a mere sideshow to appease the “Green Lobby” and until government learns how to tax the electricity trickle from the powerpoint in your garage, then EV’s won’t become too popular. Interestingly,  New Jersey, Colorado, Texas, Arizona, and Virginia have all prohibited Tesla from selling cars in their states, mainly because that their direct internet selling model pisses off the incumbent dealership model ( see an older post from 2013, http://wp.me/p1d84Y-mr ) but it probably didn’t help when a couple Tesla’s were bought using Bitcoin.

Battle Is Just Beginning

U.S. tax authorities have classified Bitcoin as property, which the “crypto industry” doesn’t like.

The Aust. Taxation Office is now trying to figure out taxation guidelines surrounding Bitcoin and other crypto currencies.

An Aussie tax partner has said that under Aust. GST laws, Bitcoin wouldn’t be classified as money as it is not backed by a government. That must be annoying for the government.

Nervousness exists because Bitcoin and other crypto currencies have become a money supply which is not controlled by the state in its currently acceptable fiat format.

It cuts out the middle man!

Filed under Finance & Investment Tagged with , , , ,

Mark Cuban blog post “pressed”

May 21, 2014 Leave a comment

An extract from a Mark Cuban blog dated August 2010.

I have focused on the part about the cost and scarcity of capital rather than the bit about the stock market being for idiots.

 

“Capital found its way to where people/funds thought they were smarter than the rest. Some people thought they understood the tech markets better than others. Some thought they understood retail better, etc.  The belief that an individual/fund had an advantage  drove where capital was allocated.  People posted good performance or identified macro opportunities and put their own and others money to work.  Others saw the success and followed.  Like the saying goes “first there were the innovators, then the imitators, then the idiots”.    Fortunately for market participants over much of the history of the stock market, if you were  the innovator that was  smarter and faster than the other guys, you could make money on the long and / or short side of the market before the imitators and then the idiots flooded the market.

The door was open to opportunity in the past simply because capital was relatively expensive. It was expensive to raise, it was expensive to borrow.  High cost of capital creates scarcity of capital.  The more expensive the scarcer. The scarcer the capital, the more untapped opportunities just waiting for innovators to exploit and the longer it took the imitators and idiots to chase the same opportunities and close them. Which is why you found funds and smart people posting great returns over a long period of time.”

Full blog post is found on the link below

The Stock Market is still for Suckers and why you should put your money in the bank.

Filed under Finance & Investment

Howard Marks discussing data & information

May 16, 2014 Leave a comment

The following quotes and text features investor, Mr Howard Marks, which has been extracted from an article I read in Friday’s May 16, 2014, Australian Financial Review. The story was titled “Day of reckoning for shares ‘inevitable” by James Eyers.

 

“With a deluge of information sloshing around the financial markets each day, Mr Marks suggests savvy investors must extract themselves from the 24-hour news cycle and not conflate the gathering of data with the gaining of wisdom.

“It is very important to recognise that data is not information, and information is not knowledge, and knowledge is not wisdom”.

“Wisdom consists of deriving the significance of data. You have to step back and say, ‘My goal is not to have as much data as I can, but to figure out which data is important and then get it, and then go away to the mountain top and figure out what it all means.’

I would pursue wisdom, not data.”

Filed under Finance & Investment Tagged with ,

Alaska Might Be Next ?

April 27, 2014 Leave a comment

It’s quite simple.

Starting a war is generally good for the economy of the aggressor. Just think of how World War II mobilised the American economy. Putin needs a war to keep his people occupied and distracted from their ailing economy. Putin and his government have talked of a “New Russia”. I think it’ll be Russia who decides whether to start a war, not the United States.

What is more complicated to understand is how and when countries go to war when you consider their debt position, electoral cycle, policies and the effect on their economies.

Sanctions:

I’m not sure that sanctions will work on a country with a relatively large population, land mass and economy (or in Russia’s case, possessing vast commodity resources). Funnily, I find it interesting that the United States government is much more involved in the Russia, Ukrainian & Crimea story that it was or has been in the Syrian civil war.

Oil & Gas Prices Will Rise:

If America places heavy sanctions on Russia, the price of oil will go up. If Europe is not happy with Russia’s territorial expansion, then the price of gas will rise too.

The U.S. Dollar Will Rise:

Money is leaving Russia and it won’t be converted into Euros, especially with it trading around the 1.38 mark. You may see the Swiss Franc and British Pound rise, but Billions of Rubles will be converted into US Dollars by global money managers. A rising USD will disrupt the currently sweetened competitive position of U.S. products in the global markets. War with Russia won’t help an indebted United States especially given that they have been financing military exercises for the past 12 years.

Please Consider The Neighbours:

Picking a war on Russia will somehow involve China, North Korea & Iran. This will test the various Asian Pacific relationships that the U.S. has been nurturing. Indirectly, it will involve Venezuela too, who will add to the pressure on the oil price. Russia will have little trouble financing a war.

Russia may be pursuing an old imperial model of domination by land acquisition.

As investors, we need to understand the effect on various assets and which ones to own if a scenario of war develops, ’cause China may not choose to buy anymore U.S. government debt and even elect to sell its current holdings.

Imagine if China sold a lot of their Treasuries thus placing pressure on bond prices, which would send U.S. interest rates higher. Consider this in tandem with a rising U.S. Dollar and coupled with rising oil prices. Now that would be interesting.

As a closing tidbit, the U.S. acquired Alaska in 1867 for $7.2 million which is equivalent to 2 cents per acre. Alaska has no naval base and has barely 20,000 U.S. military personnel.

Filed under Finance & Investment Tagged with , , , , , , ,

More Immigration = Lower Wages = Being Competitive

April 1, 2014 1 Comment

It should be simple to understand.

When the labour market is tight, the price of that labour rises.

Australia along with other countries such as Norway, Netherlands and Switzerland all have low unemployment rates. They also have some of the highest average annual wages and minimum wages amongst OECD member countries.

Tight workplace capacity (whether that means offices, factories or other facilities) and a unionised workforce can also add to the cost of labour.

When people earn more, the prices of other products can afford to rise too, simply because rising disposable income means there is more demand for the staples and non-discetionary items.

But today, Australian business operators are complaining that the cost of paying staff is becoming a heavy burden and nationally, we do understand that high wages are making us uncompetitive. They are asking the government for help.

Government doesn’t control the price of labour, so they can’t actually manipulate this price directly. What is confusing furthermore, is that businesses are happy to benefit from the positives of a free market economy, yet they are not willing to accept the cost that comes from such capitalism.

What needs to be done? What help can government provide ?

I would like your comments too.

If  the labour market is tight, then open it up. Allow more immigration. Australia is so large we can easily fit 100 million people here. Make the labour market more competitive and its price will fall. More people will also send the cost of other products down. If there are more consumers, then supply will meet the demand and price equilibrium will weave its magic.

Government needs to take a stronger line on unions and labour contract employment reform. Employees need to be convinced that the statute law passed which governs our land will be steadfastly upheld. The honouring of these laws doesn’t really require the oversight nor lobbying of a union because the “checks and balances” of democracy, its electoral constituents and the Westminster parliamentary system already exist.

I think its time we spoke truthfully about why the cost of labour is high. The headline unemployment rate isn’t the only things that matters, although government seems to think this is the major topic that will keep them elected.

The United States, Spain, Italy & Korea all have higher unemployment rates, noticeably lower wages, export more product (in dollar value), comparatively similar sized GDP per capita and much larger populations.

 

 

Filed under Finance & Investment Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

The surprising truth about what motivates us – video

March 10, 2014 3 Comments

Filed under Finance & Investment

Abnormal Dividend Payments Aren’t Good

February 17, 2014 Leave a comment

The dominant conversation that prospective clients are having with me is about their desire to earn a higher yield on their money.

I’m talking yield in terms of income.

A couple years ago they were earning 6% on their Australian Dollar cash held in the bank but now they are earning 2.7% and so the chase for yield begins, mainly via sub-standard, riskier assets in order to satisfy their single, blinding and qualifying criteria of income yield.

Surely, I must have written about that particular angle previously.

But the current trend amongst listed companies who are holding excess cash or re-generating pre-crisis levels of free cash flow – is to return cash to their shareholders.

We know that over the past couple years companies have “returned cash” by re-purchasing company shares. Appropriately, they have also re-financed debt at cheaper rates. This has also improved their “earnings per share” data which the stock market and analysts have loved.

Today’s trend is to return cash by increasing the company’s dividends at larger increments than in the past. Some companies are even making interim (or extraordinary) dividends in addition to their normal payment schedule.

Is this corporate board room’s new “increasing the share price” strategy? Raise your dividends abnormally, so those who are chasing yield will buy your shares and thus send your share price higher.

This also serves management handsomely, especially if they have share price performance linked remuneration (options, bonuses etc.), but I think this is also exhibits management’s laziness for their lack of ability to find ideas on how to use their company’s money to grow the business.

Company management would be quick to suggest that “this is in the best interest of shareholders”.

I don’t like this strategy, whether it’s from a corporate or an investing perspective.Historically, I have seen this occur before.

Today, the company appeases the market by handing out the cash and Tomorrow, it needs cash again; which is when they either issue new shares (which dilutes existing holders) or borrow money (often at interest rates higher than a couple years ago) which usually equates to a higher gearing ratio in their balance sheet.

One of our investing themes is to look for companies that are retaining their earnings. Our preference is to keep the money in the balance sheet and then deploy that capital to grow the business.

All this talk of corporate activists demanding cash being returned and balance sheets being lazy – blah, blah, blah.

I’d rather see the excess money left in the company’s bank accounts instead of leaving. If the board and management can’t develop a strategy on how to use that money appropriately, then they should be leaving, not the company’s money.

I think this is better for shareholders.

Filed under Finance & Investment Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

At Least 70% Didn’t Chuck A Sickie

February 17, 2014 2 Comments

TOYOTA, A TELLING TALE…

from The Pickering Post

http://pickeringpost.com/story/toyota-a-telling-tale-/2759

“Two years ago we were working so hard to create conditions whereby we could stay in this wonderful country and produce cars.

“We had restructured the business and, despite acceding to recent union demands for even better wages and conditions, we were seeing a dim light flickering at the end of the tunnel.

“We were honest with our employees and had explained the seriousness of the company’s economic plight.

“They had assured us of their cooperation, so we determined to all pull together in a desperate attempt keep the company viable.

“There was an air of camaraderie, a feeling of hope.

“It was Australia Day that week and it fell on a Thursday. On the Friday, thirty percent of our workforce didn’t turn up, thirty percent called in sick.

“That’s when I finally realised we were stuffed.”

Filed under Finance & Investment Tagged with , , , , , ,

Spend 30% of your revenue on Advertising

February 16, 2014 Leave a comment

Zillow and Trulia are competing to become the major force in the U.S. online real estate industry.

I think they are still in the early stages of large marketshare opportunity as Americans quickly catch up to (and are surpassing) how Australians have used the internet when searching for houses to buy or rent.

These internet based companies have recently announced plans to spend $65 million and $45 million on national advertising in 2014.

These advertising budgets equate to 32% of Zillow’s and 27% of Trulia’s 2013 revenue.

These are online businesses that dominate their industry space and yet they feel the need to increase their advertising budget in order to grow. I would also bet that advertising using “traditional” media will receive its fair share of revenue, in the manner which online dating agency and online gaming/betting advertise using television and print to get their message across.

Surely these figures are only for their advertising budgets and wouldn’t include the salaries of their in-house marketing staff.

Now 20% or 30% of your revenue being spent on advertising seems exceptionally high so I have listed some companies that continue to spend even though they already have large, visual and dominate brands.

Samsung spends $4.3 billion per year on advertising. This is equal to 3% of their current annual gross revenue.

Coca Cola spends $3 billion (6% of 2013 revenue)

Microsoft & Google part with $2.5 billion each (both accounting for 4% of revenue in each company)

McDonalds outlays $1 billion (also 4%)

and Apple’s advertising budget just hit $1 billion which represents 0.6% of their annual sales.

An article written by George Boykin from Demand Media expanded on this topic by writing;

“The U.S. Small Business Administration recommends spending 7 to 8 percent of your gross revenue for marketing and advertising if you’re doing less than $5 million a year in sales (and your net margin is 10-12% after expenses), while some marketing experts advise that start-up and small businesses usually allocate between 2 and 3 percent of revenue for marketing and advertising, and up to 20 percent if you’re in a competitive industry.

In 2010 the Chief Marketing Officers, or CMO, Council conducted a survey of its 6,000 chief marketing officer members to assess marketing and advertising spending across a wide range of industries. The survey results revealed that 58 percent of chief marketing officers spent less than 4 percent of gross revenue on marketing, 16 percent spent between 5 and 6 percent, 23 percent spent more than 6 percent, while 2 percent spent more than 20 percent. This survey seems to suggest that if you set your spending level between 0 percent and 6 percent of gross revenue, you will be in good company that includes 74 percent of the CMO Council membership.”

Source: http://smallbusiness.chron.com/percentage-gross-revenue-should-used-marketing-advertising-55928.html

Obviously, many businesses aren’t in the league of Coca Cola in terms of brand recognition nor marketshare or pricing power but it seems for ambitious companies seeking growth such as Zillow & Trulia, spending the suggested “mean” of 3% of their revenue on advertising and marketing will probably result in a mediocre payoff.

 I am wondering three things:

1) If the adage of “spend more and you’ll get more” holds true, then why do people attend seminars on “How To Advertise Successfully For No Money” ?

2) I don’t think many companies (large or small) even spend 3% of their revenue total on advertising yet they are quick to complain about the lack of sales.

3) How much thought does a company actually give to figuring out how to deliver their message in a competitive and crowded world, where others are also seeking attention.

Is placing an ad in your local newspaper, paying for Google Adwords, begging or buying for “Likes” on Facebook effective advertising?

Is this going to provide you with a Return On Investment?

If you answer “no” or “not sure”, then you are wasting your money and time.

Filed under Finance & Investment Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,

Can You Smell The Deception & Misdirection

January 26, 2014 Leave a comment

This is a periodical post about things that I see in the financial press, which I tend to interpret differently. When managing investors money, you need analyse the news and not just simply read it because you can’t assume you are getting to the truth.

Firstly, Jakarta warns Australia they are prepared to “clash” over border violations incurred by the Australian Navy. Australia best heed their warnings and wipe that smirk off your face because 300 million Indonesians should send your xenophobic fears into overdrive. I hope our government isn’t pinning all of our defensive hopes on U.S. Marines stationed in Darwin?

But equally Telstra is looking to form a 50/50 venture with Telekom Indonesia. Can David Thodey please be our next foreign minister?

I can’t believe why any company in the world wants to pay that much for a small insignificant business such as Warrnambool Cheese & Butter. Good luck to them.

Panic, Panic – protestors block Bangkok streets and the Thai Prime Minister is suspected of corruption. The Thai stock market has risen 9% in 10 days since this story picked up steam.

Alex Waislitz’s Thorney Group raises $68 million. Now I’m not sure what their raising target was but from a distance, their reputation could have easily raised 4 times that amount. My point is, would-be stockbroking firm geniuses should keep in mind that it’s difficult to raise money from the public.

With 65% domestic market share, Qantas still thinks it plays on an uneven playing field.

Franchisee of Australia’s 370 Burger King stores, Competitive Foods Australia, posts revenue of $1.03 billion for fiscal year 2013 and makes $21.4 million profit. That’s a lot of invoices and money to handle in order to make a 2% net profit margin. Last year, revenue was $935 million and profit was $8 million. Hey Jack, I see that cost cutting program is working?

Australian rail operators (in the Pilbra, Western Australia) are complaining that truckers have got an unfair price advantage when they transport iron ore. If trucking iron ore is cheaper than by rail, then the iron ore giants should then give their competitors access to their railroads. Umm, I didn’t think they would.

Various interviewees in newspapers are wishing for a weaker Australian Dollar. Be careful what you wish for. When you see commodity prices rise, it is usually accompanied by a higher Australian Dollar. In Australia we mainly export commodities, ’cause we don’t manufacture things such as cars, televisions or clothes anymore. So if the AUD remains weaker, we can sell US Dollar denominated commodities and receive a lot of AUD once its converted but it’s also good for overseas money to buy up Australian assets (see Australia is “on sale”).

Australia’s stock market falls due to weak Chinese data. Yup, heard this one before. Just like other brokers who actually ask me if I’m staying up late to watch the U.S. unemployment numbers. It doesn’t really affect the earnings of the shares in the companies that I and my clients own but if you need to justify a movement in the stock market with some sort of news, good luck and be my guest. Please continue to manage your investments on the basis of “jumping at shadows”.

Finally, this week, not a single economist who provided an estimate on the Australia Consumer Price Index reading got it correct and Deutsche Bank posted a “surprise” $1.15 billion quarterly loss.

Whether these professionals continually get their ‘calls” incorrect, can’t make money themselves or continue to pay fines for manipulation & price rigging, yet people still give these investment firms their money to manage.

Filed under Finance & Investment Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →