Trillion Dollar Tweets, Continued

There is no point going through all the dirty aspects of politics to gain a position of power unless you intend to use it. Some have believed Trump to be a slave to the stock market, but in rapid succession he…

  • raise tariffs on Chinese imports
  • announce escalating tariffs on Mexican imports until illegal immigration crisis abates
  • hinted he was looking at putting tariffs on Australian aluminum & other exports
  • had leaks from the justice department & FTC announcing that Facebook, Apple, Amazon and Google are all being looked into

In such a way he flipped the script & forced the Federal Reserve’s hand:

President Donald Trump’s Friday move to slap tariffs on Mexico meant “the dam broke” for economists who had been hesitating to join the market in anticipating Fed rate cuts, Goldman Sachs Group Inc.’s Jan Hatzius and his team said.

The above Bloomberg article concludes with

investing superstar Stan Druckenmiller is piling in. He said he could see the Fed funds rate going to zero in the next 18 months if the economy softens.

A separate Bloomberg article states

“When the Trump tweet went out, I went from 93% invested to net flat, and bought a bunch of Treasuries,” Druckenmiller said Monday evening, referring to the May 5 tweet from President Donald Trump threatening an increase in tariffs on China. “Not because I’m trying to make money, I just don’t want to play in this environment.”

Yesterday as there was sector rotation into value stocks I bought a bit of beaten down stocks like AbbVie, Foot Locker, Bank OZK, etc. & also traded in and out of PetMed Express 3 or 4 times. On today’s explosive open I sold out of most those positions I put on for a few hundred dollars gain each. I also sold out a small stake I had in Western Digital & a bit of AT&T. I am down to a couple boring holdings in a couple REITs & the 2 biggest pharmacy chains. If they suck I will hope on steady dividend payments until they stop sucking & if they turn up a bit more I might lighten up even more. I think I am probably a bit north of 90% cash at this point.

I am probably going to remain mostly in cash & shorter duration bonds as if the market has someone as talented & experienced as Stanley Druckenmiller sitting on his hands, it would be a bit bold for me to try to go big in such an environment.

Abrupt Shift from Growth to Value?

Google is drawing regulatory scrutiny from the United States Department of Justice, which has sent their stock sliding about 7% so far today.

At this point, Google has literally almost nobody on their side in the political game. Everyone has a reason to hate them. Republicans think they squelch free speech that does not align with their political bias. Democrats think they are too economically powerful & use their monopoly to dominate smaller competitors (and, worse yet, they combined with Facebook & Russia to help get Trump elected).

Google is now off over 20% from where they were trading on April 29th, sliding from ~ $1,288 to around $1,027 a share.

One line in a WSJ article about the pending investigation is particularly absurd:

it created new design features like the “knowledge graph,” which populates the boxes that appear at the top of search, often answering a query without requiring the user to click through to another website. In March, 62% of Google searches on mobile were “no-click” searches, according to research firm Jumpshot. Google has argued that if consumers don’t find the rearranged content useful, they won’t click on it.

The bolded part directly contradicts Google’s historical behaviors when enforcing guidelines on others. When manually penalizing sites for link spam Google presumes the target site acquired the links on their own accord (even if they were built by a competitor). Google further justifies manual interactions on the basis that perceived attempts to manipulate the result set are verboten, not that searchers are so sophisticated that they can easily skip over any lower quality stuff that makes its way to the top.

They’ve recently redesigned their mobile search results while making both domain names & their ad labeling less obvious. That & other changes (like adding favicons to organic results to make the organic results look like ads & scrollable local results) should juice earnings, but the broader narrative of perceived risk certainly creates incentive for some people to lighten up their positions.

Making domain names less obvious will push more brands to bid on their own brand as a broad-match keyword in order to try to curtail phishing & other forms of lowbrow brand arbitrage which will now take off since the search results usually no longer show the domain name the content came from.

My guess is during this quarter Google constrains infrastructure spending, has blow out revenue growth (in addition to the mobile shifts mentioned above, some YouTube vids have double pre-roll & post-roll ads) AND announces a buyback. Though they only have a month left in the current quarter to drive blow out revenues.

The Google narrative likely has another day or two of spook out ahead of it, but I wouldn’t be against putting on a small position of a few shares of it here. I haven’t yet (largely because I dislike them :D) but if they slide below $1,000 a share at some point much of the risk is priced out of the stock.

Their big issue (in addition to the regulatory pressure) is Amazon is rapidly growing their ad business & Google seems unlikely to compete on the logistics front with Amazon unless Google were to acquire companies like Target & Kroger, but their ability to pull off those sorts of acquisitions is diminished when they are already under regulatory scrutiny.

Whenever they start reporting YouTube as a separate revenue stream (like did with AWS) that should lead to a good move higher in the stock. Though investors will likely remain in a wait-and-see mode given the recent slowdown in revenue growth & new regulatory headwinds. And they will still want to attribute a massive portion of their overhead costs & infrastructure costs to YouTube to show low margins on that. If they show high margins they’ll get revenue re-negotiation from a lot of players AND they look even worse each time an article like today’s NYT feature On YouTube’s Digital Playground, an Open Gate for Pedophiles gets published.

Growth has outperformed value for nearly a decade.

“Value stocks are either cheap for a good reason or cheap because of (unfairly) low expectations,” Patrick O’Shaughnessy, CEO and Portfolio Manager at O’Shaughnessy Asset Management, told IBD. “The market has left a lot of these stocks too cheap,” he said, but he can’t tell you when things will turn around. “Any good value investor knows how to suffer.”

Retail is once again dead is also apparently going to get investigated by the FTC. They’re off 4.5%

The FTC’s plans for Amazon and the Justice Department’s interest in Google are not immediately clear. But the kind of arrangement brokered between the Justice Department and the FTC typically presages more serious antitrust scrutiny, the likes of which many Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill have sought out of fear that tech companies have become too big and powerful.

And so is Facebook. They’re off about 7.5% today.

The Times They Are a Changin’

Here is a snapshot of the market today.

FANG pulled down communications, the Nasdaq 100 & the S&P 500, while defensive sectors like healthcare, consumer staples, etc. and haven assets like gold are up on the day.

As government bond yields fall they make corporate bonds & bond alternatives (like REITs & value stocks) look more appealing by both offering higher relative yields AND having lower debt service costs (provided yield spreads do not blow out).

Effect and Cause of The China Probrem

I think it was the venerable Jim Grant who I remembered hearing emphasize that markets are reciprocals. Risk is what you take, price is what you pay & value is what you get.

Quite often the explanation after the fact is getting cause and effect backward.

Bonds strengthen with volatility, leading to market sell off.

Um maybe the market falling caused the spike in volatility & rush into bonds?

The flattening then inverted yield curves across many countries do not happen in isolation of cause.

The Yuan has slid to offset tariffs, though perhaps not enough to put them on a currency manipulator list. Other regional Asian currencies have been weak as well. Kyle Bass put out a paper on the quiet panic in HK, noting how he believes the HKMA has spent north of 80% of their usable reserves defending their peg to the US dollar & the Singapore Dollar has been slipping too.

Turkey is doing Turkey.

I remember drinking there back when I was in the Navy & we pulled into port on my 21st birthday. They had a lot of zeros on their currency, as they will soon have again.

Huawei maintains their R&D budget is being spent on innovation rather than theft. They say we need them more than they need us & they are fine without us.

Yet they claim their blockage from the US market is unconstitutional.

If tariffs were costing US households $831 each & Huawei technology was legitimately superior I am skeptical we’d go through with cutting them off. Their wholesale theft of Cisco IP including the typos in user manuals would indicate their “tech” is more recycled than cutting edge.

Rather their theft-based economic growth miracle is coming to an end. It is smart for the US to do unto China as China would do unto others. If they block your legitimate enterprises based on “security” to drive subsidies for home grown (cloned?) competition, then block their tech exports based on “security”

If things are unbalanced & such lack of balance is hollowing out your economy you need to launch economic grenades at the other side so they eat a bit of their own home cooking.

Not to mix metaphors, but… nothing is more unpalatable than home cooking when the chef knows the cut rate foods that made the ingredient list to create the poisoned stew.

Other countries like Japan are implementing foreign ownership limitations in vital economic areas like IT & telecom.

Baidu is priced like a heavy industrial commodity tied to a cyclical company that has been through a couple bankruptcies in the past 20 years. Baidu’s share price is around where it was at the end of 2010. Skepticism is high & even a $1 billion buyback announcement had no real impact on the decline, as that is only about 5% of their investible capital & they might further dilute the company by listing it in China.

Each day their stock looks cheaper than the past. But how low might they go if the fleeing foreign capital is followed up by a bit more selling to drive the price down in order to repatriate the company as a whole?

Think of how much stimulus China has done in the past decade (via the rule of 72 & an 8% growth rate they’ve more than doubled) & yet such a core company tied to the rapid growth of the web – sitting in a monopoly position – has went nowhere in terms of market cap.

Net buybacks have had a bigger impact than most would believe.

net buybacks—the number of shares that companies repurchased across the entire stock market, less the number of new shares issued—explain the bulk of the intermediate- and longer-term differences in stock-market returns around the world. … China’s real GDP, in U.S. dollars, grew at an 8.0% annualized rate over the 10 years through year-end 2018, versus a 2.1% annualized rate for U.S. GDP. And yet U.S. equities’ annualized return over this decade was more than double that of China’s. … net buybacks explain 80% of the difference in countries’ returns between 1997 and 2017. … The researchers calculated that the issuance of new shares in the Chinese market—largely as state-owned enterprises went private—had a “massive dilution effect” of nearly 24% a year between 1997 and 2017. Little wonder, therefore, that the country’s equities struggled over this period, despite its economy’s incredibly fast growth.”

Alibaba – the great company that it isis considering a dual listing in HK. Those share sales would be in spite of recent weakness & would be the opposite of a buyback. Why rush to buy any of it with that risk in place & momentum clearly to the downside: “China’s central bank has warned in a report that uncertainties brought by trade frictions between China and the United States could have an adverse impact on the global economy.”

As far as the broader stock market goes we are back in December in terms of momentum. Jawboning isn’t really driving the markets: “the short-squeeze in yuan lasted around an hour, before sellers returned… Erasing all Guo’s hard jawboning work.”

For now we’ll sit on the sidelines as China sticks to a managed decline:

Their strategy is perfectly clear, therefore also the implications. Managed decline. … But in order to manage just that minimal growth in currency, the dollar squeeze on the asset side means something has to give. The only thing left, China’s big monetary fudge factor or plugline, is bank reserves. Therefore, in order for currency to stay positive bank reserves have now to contract by around 8-10% every month.

The Federal Reserve can’t eat the risk of stoking further inflation until there is some other fire they are fighting:

The leader of the free world has a super hero name for himself and it’s “Tariff Man“, a state of affairs you’d think would be conducive to inflation. As it happens, Tariff Man has a penchant for pro-cyclical fiscal policy that borders on the fanatical. Again, that should be conducive to inflation, as piling fiscal stimulus atop a late-cycle dynamic when unemployment is parked at a five-decade nadir is tempting fate, assuming the Phillips curve is “just sleeping” (and not “gone to meet its maker”, like the Norwegian blue). And “Tariff Man” is also engaged in an around-the-clock effort to commandeer monetary policy, which he’d like to be pro-cyclical too. One more time: That should be conducive to inflation.

Our solution to every bump in the road is more intervention versus more capitalism:

“The economic engine we have in place today has for decades produced virtually no increase in wealth for the majority of earners. According to information pulled from the Federal Reserve, the median net worth of the bottom three quintiles of families declined in inflation-adjusted dollars from 1998 until 2013, tumbling by 20 percent or more. This decrease has hit working-class families the hardest; their real net worth has been halved over this time. … I’d argue that we don’t really have all that much capitalism anymore. Individuals simply do not have equal, competitive rights to own the means of production. Corporations, which have replaced both the feudal empires of the 1600s and the trusts of the early 1900s, are the contemporary preferred owners of capital goods to be extended privileged rights by central governments. … With Blackstone able to offset the cost of its 400 lawyers against $5 trillion of assets, how can small banks or asset managers compete? The answer is they can’t, so they get acquired (or go out of business). … researchers at Harvard Business School have shown that favorable merger reviews are more likely for firms that make large political donations to the politicians who sit on the two committees that oversee the FTC and the DOJ. … From 1950 to 1980 or so, prices on average goods were marked up roughly 18 percent above marginal cost; this level was largely stable during the entire period. However, beginning in the 1980s, prices began to rise, rocketing to 67 percent above cost today. When you are an oligopoly and customers have no real choice among the top three to five providers, you don’t need to openly collude. Just all raise your prices together, and customers are stuck. … it’s critical for the government to normalize the legal rights of individuals to, at the very least, give them equal status with the current preferred neofeudal empire, the corporation.”

The belief in the Fed put is a mistake because they’ll have to wait for the market to crash before they can use the market crashing as pretext to intervene further.

Once they indicate they’ll buy ETFs it is off to the races.

Trillion Dollar Tweets, RIP

Here’s an actual Bloomberg headline which shows just how fake the “markets” have become…

Stock Traders Wait Anxiously for a Trump Tweet to Reverse Rout

three weeks after the president rekindled the trade war with China, sending the Dow into a 4% tailspin, traders are growing increasingly impatient for their dose of White House succor. Where is it?

There is literally no incentive for the Federal Reserve to intervene after a 4% correction. They’ve exited their market distorting QE efforts, already announced QT will end in about a quarter & now President Trump owns the stock market narrative.

A big part of the purpose of the Trump tax cuts was to let the economy run hot to where wages were improving & he had a big cushion he could use to put the screws to China to force a more favorable trade deal. However the Federal Reserve used the economic strength to justify lifting rates.

Many states & local governments also lifted income taxes to fund underfunded pension plans. In many areas the state & local increases more than offset the Federal rate declines.

So now there is rising input costs, disrupted supply chains, net tax rates that are flat to up, faltering stock markets, & inverted yield curves. What’s more, the Federal Reserve engaging in QT & lifting rates has been a large part of why the stock market has went nowhere over the past year and a half. So that means lower capital gains driven tax revenues, which when combined with higher interest expense on servicing the debt have blown out the deficit.

It almost feels as if the Federal Reserve prefers China dumping Ozone-depleting chemicals into the environment & supply chains with Chinese re-education camp labor in them versus the prospects of sustainable livable wages for the ordinary American.

That view is perhaps cynical, but a decade ago it was the financial economy that was saved while the actual economy was allowed to burn to the ground.

And now that Trump owns the market, the bubble fomenting arsonists at the Federal Reserve would prefer to remain in the background & wait until such a crisis emerges that they can don the firefighting suit & claim they saved the world.

So the market probably has at least another 10% to the downside before there is any serious jawboning to presage any further non-market interventions.

Financial Securities Melt Down, Bitcoin Melts Up

Once again the stock market was down bigly on the ongoing trade war headlines.

One of the few asset classes that has not crapped the bed recently is cryptocurrencies, which have rallied hard over the past couple weeks.

Are cryptocurrency investors betting on financial conditions getting so bad the Fed has to cut rates?

Why would Bitcoin be treated like gold or longer dated treasuries while art prices were collapsing along with stocks?

Is it one of the few safe asset classes during turbulent times? Or is there another liquidity issue at a major exchange causing them to go all-in on a pump-n-dump to mask their losses? Bidding up an existing coin might have less legal risk than launching another ICO.

When almost nothing is real, it isn’t hard to move the markets.

“Ninety five percent of spot bitcoin trading volume is faked by unregulated exchanges, according to a study from Bitwise this week. The firm analyzed the top 81 crypto exchanges by volume on industry site They report an aggregated $6 billion in average daily bitcoin volume. The study finds that only $273 million of that is legitimate.”

Cryptocurrencies are hacking targets and are still widely used for money laundering, plus a variety of other financial crimes

“Crypto Capital worked with organizations associated with financial crime, money laundering and securities fraud—and major crypto exchanges too.”

They might also have actual real world uses soon.

You can use Bitcoin at Whole Foods, Microsoft launched a decentralized identity tool based on blockchain, Amazon offers a managed blockchain service & Facebook is building a mainstream cryptocurrency.

Facebook aims to burrow more deeply into the lives of its users. It is building a type of checkout option that consumers could use on other websites, some of the people said. Similar to how a Facebook profile can be used to log into hundreds of websites (including The Wall Street Journal), Facebook envisions allowing those credentials to be selected as a payment method when users buy goods online. … One idea under discussion is Facebook paying users fractions of a coin when they view ads, interact with other content or shop on its platform—not unlike loyalty points accrued at retailers, some of the people said. … It is also working to tie online purchases more closely to ads.”

The idea of using cryptocurrencies for regular day to day purchases is still for the most part unrealistic unless they have that sort of loyalty program incentive bonus integrated with them.

Stable coins typically do not change in price much, though some of those are not even fully backed by fiat currencies:

“As of the date [April 30] I am signing this affidavit, Tether has cash and cash equivalents (short term securities) on hand totaling approximately $2.1 billion, representing approximately 74 percent of the current outstanding tethers.”

Even if stable coins become more integrated then they still run up into all the costs associated with regulation & KYC laws while also eating legal bills tied to lawsuits.

Volatility is the main reason people invest in & believe in cryptocurrencies.

The transaction fees are more than a bit overwhelming. E-trade may soon offer cryptocurrency trading, but they’d mostly appeal to daytraders & daytraders would need much tighter spreads than what something like Coinbase offers.

The following shows why cryptocurrencies are utterly horrible in terms of transaction costs. As of about an hour ago Coinbase would buy a Bitcoin for $7,993.35 though they would also charge a $119.10 fee, driving that buy price down to $7,874.25. The same service would sell a Bitcoin for $8,073.37, with an additional bonus fee of $120.29, bringing the cost to $8,193.66.

If you average together the buy & sell price it comes to $8,033.96, with a $319.41 spread. That means if you invest $8,000 at a time, you are getting clipped for a 1.99% spread in each direction each time you trade.

BuySellSpreadMidpointSpread %
default$7,993.35 $8,073.37 $80.02$8,033.361.00%
fee$119.10 $120.29 $119.70 avg
after fee$7,874.25 $8,193.66 $319.41$8,033.963.98%

How much more ridiculous do those fees get if you are dealing in smaller sums? Do they go from 2% in each direction to 5%? And what convenience do they provide over cash that offsets the massive conversion fees & the headache of dealing with the accounting of gains and losses on all those FX transactions.


The spreads are much better if you use Coinbase Pro. For a similar transaction fee you could put through a $50,000 transaction & the spread outside of that fee is frequently only a dollar or two.

I am a bit surprised they haven’t damaged their brand with what a rip off their core platform is relative to the rates available on their pro subdomain. Even so, the PRO user interface would probably overwhelm most people who’ve never traded financial instruments.

A person who was willing to hold a small amount of inventory could probably run a decent arbitrage business creating something like the core Coinbase site while buying & selling off the PRO subdomain.

Price up. Volume up.

Though the critical question remains: is any of it real?

Roku, Zillow & Uber

Roku smashed their quarterly numbers, which led to a big pop at open yesterday & the stock was up over 25% on the day. They are winning on top of winning, with revenue per user up, users up, and users using their service more and more.

Zillow reported quarterly numbers which beat expectations & have their stock up about 6% today in spite of the market sliding on the trade war narrative.

I’m not seeing how the Zillow numbers were good. Their core high-margin business continues to decelerate.

  • their core (high-margin) Premier Agent business was up 2% YoY from $213.7 million to $217.7 million
    • in prior quarters they claimed slowing growth in this business line was from shifting the business model from selling email leads to selling a mix of email & phone leads
    • I think a couple other things hit them though:
      • the TCJA lowering salt deductions caused a slowdown in some of the bubble areas
      • some of the areas that were less bubble driven do not have as efficient of auctions for attention so Zillow is not able to capture as much of the vig on those markets
      • some state & local taxes have went up in a way that more than offset the federal income tax decline
  • Zillow claims they are already getting $200 million a day in dealflow to look through, with an offer to sell every 2 minutes. They refer sellers to local partner agents & in spite of this additional dealflow their Premier Agent business was still only up 2% YoY.
  • There is also an ongoing class-action lawsuit against the NAR which could blow up the 6% commission model.

I still see Zillow as having strong value that would be nearly impossible to recreate for less than the cost of buying the company outright. But you would think they would have more growth in their core Realtor-focused ad products given how dominant they are in their category.

Uber opened down about $3 below their IPO price of $45 a share. The wave of startups adding to the stock market could adversely impact aggregate share scarcity.

If this was just about economic growth, the S&P 500 this cycle would have peaked around 1,850, a thousand points lower than where we are now. … What has been the driver is this near-perfect symmetry we have seen: between a US$4 trillion expansion of the Fed’s balance sheet, a US$4 trillion surge in corporate debt, and US$4 trillion in share buybacks. By creating scarcity in the market for safe securities this cycle, investors were forced to move up the risk curve and this meant tremendous opportunity for CEOs and CIOs to issue gobs of debt to receptive yield-starved investors. And this debt, or at least 25 per cent of the new issuance, went to fund an unprecedented wave of share buybacks.

David Rosenberg

If the trade war goes astray, it could be a market top for some period of time, particularly if Uber has already seen their high.

“Gulf money is notoriously late to the party, purchasing Carlye Group in 2007 at the peak of the credit bubble, and anchor investors in Glencore IPO in 2011 at the peak of the commodity bubble. Now they are “all in” on Uber and opened offices in Silicon Valley to do more. … When the leading company in the hottest sector goes public, it reflects a peak in social mood and usually presents an important inflection point in financial markets. As a rule, insiders sell at the top. … The AOL Time Warner merger in 2000 culminated in the tech crash, the Blackstone IPO in 2007 presaged the 2008 meltdown, and the Glencore listing in 2011 marked the peak in the commodity super-cycle. Uber, we believe, will mark the peak in Silicon Valley and tech valuations.”

Jawad Mian

Update: The stock market turned up late in the day on (bogus) constructive trade talks, but Uber still closed off 7.6% down.

Those who expressed confidence in adverting a trade war based on the (bogus) constructive commentary get to wake up some presidential weekend Tweets stating otherwise.

There’s a very difficult problem with China and the trade situation: They have structured their entire economy around cheating and embedded it into the Community Party, which has top-level control over all of it.

Trying to change that is likely a bridge too far; it would require the Chinese Communist Party, and Xi himself, to acknowledge that (1) what they were doing was and is wrong and (2) they’ll cut it out.

The second you might get.  The first you won’t get.

Communists are never wrong, you see.  They can’t be.  To admit so is to admit their political and economic system is wrong and therefore that other competing ideas might be superior.  Down that road lies their own death and they know it.

Karl Denninger

The Credit Markets Drive the Stock Market

The following Brian Reynolds interview by RealVision highlights how important pension funds are for driving the credit markets & stock market.

A few notes from it:

  • pension funds are significantly underfunded & they roughly need to get about a 7.5% return to meet cashflow obligations
  • pensions tend to prefer the credit markets to the stock market & use leverage to drive further incremental gains over the yield on a particular bond
  • many companies issue debt into the hungry bond market & use the funds to buy back shares, goosing earnings per share by lowering the denominator with a lower share count
  • it is hard to outperform the stock market index with active management at scale & many active managers are short the market, driving further underperformance
  • it is much easier to outperform in bonds during a bull market by simply buying lower quality debts at higher yield, which works until it doesn’t.
  • the Detroit bankruptcy changed the actuarial assumptions for public pension plans because pensioners did eat a loss. thus state & local tax increases ramped significantly, which more than offset the much heralded Trump tax cut
  • market volatility dissipates & the market returns its grind ever higher until at some point pension plans ask to cash out of a particular issue & are unable to, which drives a rush for the exits.
  • the above sort of cycle has driven bubble after bubble. so far this century we have had bubbles in:
    • telecom / internet / information technology, which caused the Federal Reserve to lower rates, thus igniting
    • residential real estate / housing, which caused the subprime bubble crash after they began raising rates, which then led to large scale balance sheet expansion, which then led to a bubble in
    • commodities, in particular debt associated with oil fracking & then a commodity price decline, …
    • and now some sectors of commercial real estate
  • individual investors have favored ETFs over mutual funds, but largely that move has been a wash. most of the net buying of stock since the recovery has been from buybacks from companies.
  • he believes a while after yields invert there will be an LBO spree which will drive the final blow off top
  • in the next crisis pension plans are perhaps going to be more likely to receive a bailout than banks were in the last crisis
  • the pension-driven bubble cycle is likely only to end if we go from defined benefit pension plans to defined contribution pension plans

Scientific Games

Scientific Games (SGMS) reported earnings & the market reaction was beautiful with a powerful short squeeze causing the stock to jump 15%. I figured they were going to have a positive reaction to their earnings announcement, if for no other reason the ability to shift narrative.

  • they had just recently spun out their SciPlay mobile gaming subsidiary (SCPL) via an IPO, raising $301 million for a 17.4% stake. Funds were used to lower leverage on the parent corporation by paying down debt
  • as of this morning, SciPlay is valued at $1.86 billion
  • they still own most of that mobile subsidiary (much like IAC’s stake in Match)
  • outside of their 82.6% equity stake in SciPlay (valued at $1.54 billion), the remaining core business is highly debt leveraged but has limited enterprise value beyond the heavy debt load
  • many spin outs (or new line reporting) have led to a revaluation upward of the core remaining business
  • they would not have had strong incentive to spin out the other company while retaining the majority of its equity unless they felt the parent company was healthy enough to continue servicing the debt
  • Zynga’s stock (ZNGA) has been on fire this past year as mobile gaming keeps growing

Scientific Games has been beaten down for the past year & I figured even if they bombed the numbers the narrative shift would carry the day.

Last week I put most of my liquid savings in a low-yield Vanguard bond fund so I would sort of ignore the stock market & focus on other stuff, so I only put a tiny position on just before close yesterday using a bit of money that was in my IRA to quick flip Scientific Games around the quarterly results.

The short squeeze is still going with the stock up over 19% now, so I certainly sold too soon, but it will likely trend down later in the day as shorts finish covering & new shorts re-engage.

Trading the Trade War

The trade war ending has already been priced into the market, which is part of why the market has tanked for the last couple days after another round of Trillion dollar Tweets.

When the market sold off Monday I sold off the VIRT position I had recently established.

By close of Monday the stock market made up most of its losses & then today was once again down.

There are lots of obvious first-order impacts of the trade war. A slowing Baidu (BIDU) now trades for about a 15x P/E on fears of slowing down of the Chinese economy & potential capital flight from foreign investors if the trade war accelerates & supply chains move.

Today US federal government bonds & muni bonds are up. However most of the market is down.

There are also defensive sectors which can turn very much non-defensive if market behavior shifts enough. For example, if a market sell off continues it could not only project a recession, but it could cause one. That, in turn, would likely lead to an electoral landslide for the Democrats. That, in turn, would lead to some defensive sectors like healthcare getting dramatically repriced as some portions of the value chain are grown while others are gutted.

My view on the trade war stuff has been to fade consensus. When everything being perfect is priced in, expect turbulence. Whenever it seems all hope is lost with negative headlines everywhere, become a buyer. If the market is down again tomorrow it might be a decent day to nibble.

CMGI Sighting: Taking a Break from Trading

I’ll still read about the capital markets daily, but I have found trading quite distractive when considering my daily workflow. I’ve sold most my positions other than WBA, CVS, a REIT & a somewhat negatively correlated stock that tends to outperform when the market craps the bed. In the current market where a flood of IPOS are coming online, I’d hate to be in anything other than low beta stuff unless I was obsessively watching it.

I guess that near constant distraction would be worth it if my investing returns drastically outperformed what I was doing elsewhere, but the capital markets are far more competitive than most other markets. As a newbie it is better to wade into such waters when the central banks are pumping liquidity into the market after a pull back than to either buy beaten down value plays that keep getting more beaten down or diving into some beyond meat IPO pump-n-dump styled elevator price action.

I am the only person in America to have not filed an S-1 to go public this year. I love seeing endless IPO’s, but I know that with IPO’s comes supply and with endless supply comes lower prices (at least generally).

I also have some 1999 Déjà Vu going on.

SoftBank Group Corp. is considering audacious fundraising plans, including a public offering of its $100 billion investment fund and the launch of a second fund of at least that size, as it looks to seize on an exploding startup scene, people familiar with the matter said. … Highlighting the need for new funds: Mr. Son recently returned from China, where he negotiated informal deals worth several billion dollars that the Vision Fund doesn’t yet have, one of the people said.

If he & money from Saudi Arabia are existing, who is the next marginal buyer left in the market? I can’t believe the Wall Street Journal published an article with this analogy:

A Vision Fund IPO is the most ambitious of the plans under consideration and would take place after the fund is fully invested, likely by this fall, according to people familiar with the matter. The hope is to create a smaller version of Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. —only loaded with young technology companies, many of which have yet to turn a profit, instead of a stable of well-established utilities, insurers and energy companies.

Like Buffett, except the opposite.

  • Not value-based investments
  • Not profitable
  • No large insurance premium float to fuel other investments, but rather a bunch of marked up money-losing companies where the exit is done in part to raise funds to create another pro-cyclical investment vehicle which will likely invest in companies that also compete against the last batch of startups before they get profitable

Blue Apron is now profitable after a couple years as a public company & a 90% slide in their stock price.

Anyone remember CMGI? The Vision Fund feels like a high-stakes liar’s poker version of that. A loose collection of money losing somethings fueled by unrelenting optimism … sold to you.

Sounds like a press release to me

This sumptuous show last fall at the Hammerstein Ballroom in Manhattan represented the avant-garde not of theater but of Internet hype. It introduced a new home page and ad campaign by AltaVista, the search engine, to about 100 journalists and Wall Street analysts, and laid the groundwork for an initial public offering. AltaVista — prompted by its new owner, CMGI, one of the most successful incubators of Internet companies — promised to take on Yahoo with ”a portal as powerful and immediate as life itself.”

To do so, it would spend $120 million on a new slogan, ”Smart is beautiful.” These days, that strategy does not look very smart, and the prospects for the CMGI empire are not very beautiful.

CMGI’s shares are off 91 percent this year, to a value of about $3.8 billion, closing on Friday at $11.94.

And I wasn’t the only one who saw the CMGI parallel

If you lose 50% of your capital base, you have to double your base just to get back to even. If you ride a CMGI down 90% you’ll need a 10-bagger to get to par, excluding the impacts of inflation.

Maybe the market heads higher from here on a China trade deal & the Federal Reserve lowering rates once more to throw fuel on the fire, but I suspect the Fed will first have to see a catalyst to justify throwing more fuel on the fire & at the very least I’d rather wait for such a catalyst before putting much capital at risk.