Stocks Like Apple Benenfit from Passive Investment, Even Though Earnings Haven’t Increased Since 2015

00:01
SVEN HENRICH: Sven Henrich, been running Northman Trader for about six years.
00:05
Originally, private investors, way background was corporate management actually in corporate
00:10
strategy internationally, always been looking at companies and opportunities.
00:14
Hence, the background and analyzing stock markets comes natural to me.
00:19
Our business model is really looking at identifying the big moves.
00:24
We’re not day traders where we’re looking at swings, so be it long be short.
00:27
Of course, as part of that, we’re looking at the macro environment markets in general–
00:32
central banks, what have you, although that’s secondary, the key is technicals and being
00:38
able to identify the big turns and that’s what we do.
00:41
You see me on Twitter, @NorthmanTrader or on the website, northmantrader.com.
00:48
Yeah.
00:49
In April, I had put out a piece called, “Combustion”.
00:55
It was this whole notion that both bulls and bears need to be mindful of potentially this
01:01
really uplifting scenario.
01:02
We had a big turn from the lows of 2018.
01:06
We’re literally all central bank policy combusted by them and the view was we’re going to be
01:11
raising rates, we’re going to be having a reduction in the balance sheet on autopilot.
01:15
Then of course, markets dropped 20% and then yields dropped, actually started the other
01:21
way around.
01:22
Basically, it was yields heading to 3.2% on a 10-Year in October, and that sparked a whole
01:27
selloff in my mind, but basically, central bank’s completely reverted policy.
01:33
The Fed had this whole job owning operation all year long from tightening to easing and
01:39
rate cuts are coming.
01:41
That’s what they’ve been doing all summer long.
01:43
In April, what I said was we’re going to keep going on this trajectory until something breaks.
01:50
We had a quick correction in May, we had some of the same negative divergences that we have
01:56
in the fall.
01:57
Something interesting happened here, because we had a temporary high and then we had the
02:03
correction.
02:04
Then in July, we came to a new high and we had a correction.
02:08
In June, actually, I had put out this piece called, “Sell Zone,” this was at the end of
02:12
June, just before the Fed meeting in July, and the notion was this period, this price
02:18
zone between S&P 3000 to 3050 is a sell zone, listed a whole bunch of technical factors
02:24
for that.
02:25
We had the initial reaction.
02:26
It was coming off the heels of the Fed rate cut, the first rate cut since the financial
02:30
crisis.
02:31
We dropped from 3028 down to about 2780 on the futures contracts.
02:37
A snappy technical reaction.
02:39
Then it all started again with trade optimism and more rate cuts coming and so we rallied
02:45
again into September.
02:47
My view in April was that would be this potential for a blow off top move and the ultimate target
02:54
of that was about 3100 as an extreme case.
02:59
Now, what I find interesting here is that in September, we got back to this 3000 zone
03:05
that I had identified at the end of June as a sell zone, 3000, 3050.
03:10
We got another rate cut.
03:13
The ECB cut, and we got to 3022, just below the July highs and we dropped again and so
03:21
now we have to rate cuts, two drops, potential for double top because we have these all new
03:28
highs up and sold in the last year and a half.
03:31
There’s not been yet evidence that any new highs are sustainable so markets have been
03:35
this wide range.
03:38
In 2019, primarily driven by multiple expansion, either by trade optimism, or by the Central
03:45
Bank put and my question in general has been, what’s the efficacy?
03:49
Is there a sign that central banks will actually start losing control of the price equation?
03:55
We’re at the edge of control here.
03:57
We’re still in this phase here with the China trade negotiations.
04:02
Global macro has been slowing down throughout the year, the US was the island and the sun,
04:08
if you will, because global markets actually peaked in January of 2018 and then the US
04:13
decoupled from the rest of the world.
04:15
Europe, very close to a recession here.
04:19
The manufacturing data is maybe now spilling into the services sector.
04:24
There is now risk that we’re ultimately going into a global recession into 2020 and what
04:30
central banks obviously, have clearly stated, their intent is to extend the business cycle
04:36
by any means necessary, and we can talk about that separately.
04:40
We’re now at this critical point.
04:42
Will we get a trade deal that’s substantive?
04:45
By substantive, I mean that actually impacts CEO confidence.
04:51
Keep in mind, this whole year and a half year with this trade war going on, companies have
04:57
been holding back on CapEx investments, business investments, and now, we’re seeing a slowdown
05:01
in hiring.
05:02
Remember, with a 50-year low in unemployment, the official unemployment rate, and jobs growth
05:08
has been slowing down.
05:11
If you get a– and I’ve been very consistent on this, if you get a substantive trade deal
05:16
that addresses all the big issues and causes companies to say, “Okay, now we’re more confident
05:21
again,” then yes, you can have a massive blow off rally and now, with easing central banks
05:28
and the oldest liquidity coming in, you can have that run.
05:31
The question is, are these parties really in a position to say we’re going to have a
05:36
substantive trade deal?
05:38
There does not appear to be any sign of that whatsoever.
05:41
We see a lot of positioning, actually this week even, we see China in the US aggravating
05:47
the tactical battle, if you will.
05:49
China is– in this morning’s indicating they may be open to a partial deal.
05:53
What does a partial deal really mean?
05:56
Is there probably a relief rally surrounding a partial deal?
05:59
Probably.
06:00
We can all speculate in the sense that, “Okay, well now, it’s not going to get any worse.”
06:05
It’s a stalemate.
06:07
We’ve basically, everybody’s waving the flag.
06:10
Mr. Trump wants to get reelected in 2020.
06:13
Can’t afford a recession.
06:14
The Chinese don’t want things to get worse either.
06:17
Everybody’s holding back.
06:18
Fair enough.
06:19
That could happen, but is it enough to then get confidence back to say, now, we’re ready
06:24
to invest when the big issues remain unsolved?
06:29
That’s obviously the question that no one can answer.
06:31
Now, of course, the flip side to this is there’s not enough that the parties either can agree
06:38
to that gives anyone any confidence because keep in mind, all the slowdown has perpetuated
06:44
in the last year and a half.
06:47
There has not been any sign of slowing down, maybe a little bit civilization in China but
06:51
now, the US is slowing down.
06:53
In fact, I think it was the Fed’s Rosengren that came out last week, and says he’s expecting
06:57
1.7% GDP growth for the second half of the year in 2019.
07:03
Not exactly convincing when you have a market that has rallied on nothing but multiple expansion
07:09
in 2019.
07:10
There’s a lot of risk both to the upside and the downside from my perspective.
07:19
On the one hand, yes, there’s some similar elements.
07:21
On the other hand, people like to say it’s different this time.
07:24
Well, it really is different this time because, look, in the past, we’ve had situations where
07:29
we’ve had high debt, and we’ve had yield curve inversions, we had all these things that are
07:33
taking place at the end of a business cycle, but never before have we seen so much intervention,
07:40
so much jawboning and never before have we come out of a business cycle where central
07:46
banks have not normalized in any shape or form.
07:50
This is uncharted territory.
07:53
I think we’re all– I don’t know what the expression is so maybe we’re all mollified
07:59
or pacified in a way because markets have changed so dramatically over the last 10 years
08:06
as a result of permanent central bank intervention.
08:09
I get it from any investor perspective, because we’ve all been trained, literally trained
08:16
to know that any corrective activity in markets is contained.
08:23
It’s contained within a few weeks, within a few days, within a few hours.
08:28
All bad news is priced in immediately.
08:31
We saw it in December.
08:33
This was the most substantial correction we’ve had since 2011.
08:37
Why did that happen?
08:38
It stopped right when Mr. Mnuchin came in with his liquidity calls to banks and with
08:43
Mr. Powell flipping policy on a dime.
08:46
We’re flexible suddenly.
08:49
This is this point where you never have anything that sticks from a price discovery perspective.
08:57
My concern in general and the voices in the summer was that we’re creating these markets
09:03
that disconnect ever farther from the underlying size of the economy.
09:09
Well, there’s two trains of thoughts.
09:14
First of all, this is a history part of it.
09:18
History actually tells us that the inversion we have on the 10-Year and the 3-Months actually
09:22
precipitates a recession every single time.
09:25
The question is the timing of which.
09:27
Now of course, you have other yield curves.
09:28
Some of them which are inverted, some of which are not, but it’s really the point of the
09:34
steepening.
09:36
Once that inversion reverts back into a steepening phase, that’s when usually the recession comes.
09:42
We’re not at the point yet where that steep learning has taken place.
09:46
However, the 10-Year and 3-Months, it’s been inverted for several months now and that’s
09:51
typically one of these classic warning signs.
09:55
There’s another school of thought that says basically, well, none of this matters anymore
10:00
because we have central banks intervening and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
10:03
I’m not of that viewpoint.
10:06
I think the signals are there.
10:09
What’s missing for the bear case, frankly, as I called it the missing link is the fact
10:15
that unemployment is still okay.
10:18
There’s not been a minute where it’s been slowing.
10:20
We haven’t seen that flip yet, where companies are suddenly really going into layoff mode.
10:27
That’s what interesting looking at Q3 earnings now, because a lot of companies will show
10:34
either flat or actually negative earnings growth, which brings me back to this multiple
10:38
expansion.
10:39
We’ve been running to market highs, not because of great earnings growth.
10:44
Earnings growth is flat to weakening here in this quarter and so companies are experiencing
10:51
margin compression.
10:52
Then there is that point where they want to start looking at the largest expense line
10:58
item, which is jobs.
11:03
What’s been so interesting and the reason I kept saying that all new highs are sells
11:08
is because all these new highs are coming on specific technical signals and sector divergences.
11:16
Especially looking at this year, again, we see– well, last year was basically again,
11:22
this was tech, it was Fang-led.
11:24
It was the big tech companies.
11:27
All new highs came on negative divergences on the technical basis and they were sells.
11:31
What was interesting, ever since 2018, the markup of the market has radically changed.
11:37
Last year, the banks were leading, the small caps were leading, right into these September,
11:43
October 2018 highs.
11:45
That has completely changed in 2009.
11:48
You overlay a chart with the SPDRs vis a vis small caps and transports and the banking
11:53
sector, it’s a horror show.
11:56
When we’re looking at the S&P like in September and again, within all-time highs, I can tell
12:00
you if you go back to exactly last year, the banking sector small caps and transports,
12:06
they’re all down to 11% to 13%.
12:09
They’ve not participated.
12:10
In fact, they’ve been in months long ranges.
12:15
It’s amazing because you see these rallies go up as and hey, people get bullish again.
12:20
Then they drop right back to the bottom but the bottom is holding.
12:24
Even this week, again, the small caps, transports and the banking sector, right on the edge
12:28
of support and they keep bouncing.
12:30
Now, I look at this from a technical perspective, I say, “Okay, well, the more often you tag
12:35
a certain area, the weaker it becomes either to the upside or to the downside.”
12:40
We’ve tagged these areas now multiple times and for a rally to convince, for new highs
12:47
to convince and to be sustainable, we need to see those sectors partake and get above
12:54
resistance.
12:56
Until I see that, I’m very suspicious of any new highs if we get new highs and from my
13:04
perspective, going back to this whole trade deal, unless we see a substantive trade deal,
13:09
I view any rallies to new highs as sells because that’s basically what they’ve been doing.
13:15
Just one more thought on this whole sector piece, there’s a chart I’ve been publicizing
13:20
quite a bit that’s called the “Value Line Geometric Index.”
13:23
It’s a fascinating technical indicator because all these indexes are market cap based.
13:30
The Microsofts, the Apples, the Amazons obviously have a dominant impact on an index like the
13:36
QQQ because they’re worth a trillion bucks each.
13:40
If you take all the stocks and put the same dollar value on them, let’s say everyone is
13:45
worth 100 bucks, and now track their relative performance, you get a completely different
13:50
picture.
13:51
What we’ve seen since 2018, since the September 2018 highs, is that all new highs that were
13:57
made on the S&P come on the lower reading on the value line geometric index.
14:03
That’s another one of those signals that tell you, “Okay, these new highs have been a sell.”
14:08
See that picture change, then you can have sustained new highs.
14:12
To me again, it comes all about efficacy of what the central banks are doing whether we
14:16
get a solid trade deal or not.
14:18
Because in so far, none of these things have shown any impact or suddenly changing the
14:24
growth equation in the economy.
14:31
Volatility has been fascinating.
14:32
I’ve been publishing quite a few pieces on the VIX in the last few months.
14:37
The VIX, I hear this all the time and I keep having to push back.
14:42
People are saying you can’t chart the VIX because it’s a mathematical derivative product.
14:47
Yes, you can chart the VIX.
14:49
In our job, what we do, obviously, we always have to look for what is relevant.
14:55
We can all have our opinions.
14:58
What markets should do or shouldn’t do, they will do what they will do and what we have
15:04
to do is keep ourselves on this and to see what is relevant.
15:07
We know a lot of algorithmic trading is part of markets.
15:12
They follow programs as well.
15:14
You always have to look at, “Okay, what are they looking at?
15:17
What are they sensitive to?
15:19
What are they reactive to?”
15:20
Because we want to be able to interpret risk reward short or long on that basis as well.
15:27
What the VIX has done over the last two years is fascinating.
15:30
There’s been very specific what I call compression patterns in the VIX, especially on the low
15:36
end.
15:37
It can drive people nuts.
15:38
It can get caught, consolidate on the low end and then boom, you have a spike.
15:44
That seemingly comes out of nowhere, but it doesn’t.
15:48
It’s in the charts.
15:49
I call them these compressing wedges.
15:53
Now, what’s been happening on the big picture on the VIX is as the S&P has made new highs
15:58
each time, the VIX and the in between periods has made higher lows.
16:03
There’s a trend of rising volatility.
16:06
Obviously, December last year was the big spike.
16:10
It’s the lows, what happens during the lows?
16:13
Remember, 2017 was the most volatile compressed year ever because we had global central bank
16:19
intervention, we had the upcoming tax cuts, there’s no volatility markets from a trading
16:25
perspective, I hate that.
16:26
I love volatility, I want to see things move, but now that we’ve had these selloffs, even
16:32
the smaller ones, if not been able to contain volatility to the extent that they’ve been
16:38
able to do in 2016 and 2017, since 2018, we have a trend of higher lows.
16:46
Now, the VIX is again in a compression pattern that suggests the possibility of a sizable
16:52
spike still to come this year so we may have one more hurrah before the yearend rally that
16:59
we so often see in markets.
17:05
I think this whole shift of passive is fascinating.
17:08
Maybe a couple of comments on that.
17:10
I haven’t seen this discussed anywhere.
17:12
Just my impression.
17:13
I’m wondering how much of the shift from active to passive investment is actually a consequence
17:20
of central bank intervention.
17:23
What is driving passive?
17:24
Well, you talk about management fees on the active side.
17:27
Well, the main driver for the movement to passive is that people have given up.
17:32
They see active investors lagging the indices.
17:35
Why are they logging the indices?
17:37
Because everything is geared towards the big cap stocks.
17:41
The intervention– if you’re really careful in analyzing and you’re smart and you have
17:46
a smart team, if you diversify in the universe and you get hammered anywhere you lag in the
17:54
indices, and passive allocations keep allocating passively.
18:00
It’s like this dumb machine that doesn’t care how much it pays.
18:05
It doesn’t care what the valuations are, doesn’t care about any of that.
18:11
To your point about signaling, yes, it’s amazing when you see– and that’s why I’m coming from
18:16
a technical perspective, you see charts that are massively, massively historically overextended
18:24
but no one cares because you have this passive machine that keeps investing.
18:28
I think I mentioned this last year, too, it’s like, are people actually aware what they’re
18:33
competing with?
18:35
Because you and I may have a sense of, “Okay, this is getting very expensive,” but a machine
18:42
doesn’t care what it allocates.
18:44
The ETF doesn’t care what it allocates.
18:47
It just has to do rule based.
18:51
You’re sitting in the market with entities that don’t care if they overpay.
18:57
Classic example is Apple.
19:00
Take that stock as an example.
19:03
It’s obviously hugely valued.
19:05
It’s a big company.
19:07
It’s a trillion dollar valuation, but it keeps buying back its own shares.
19:12
Obviously, as a big company, it benefits from these passive allocations.
19:16
What people don’t realize is that Apple has the same amount of earnings that it had in
19:24
2015.
19:25
Four years later.
19:26
Absolutely no change in earnings, same amount of earnings, but people are paying almost
19:29
twice the price for the same stock.
19:31
Why?
19:32
Because Apple’s been buying back its shares, therefore reducing the float and save for
19:37
the same amount of earnings produced a much higher EPS, earnings per share, bigger.
19:43
It looks like it’s growing, but it’s not.
19:45
That’s my point about this whole pacified machine that has been created.
19:52
You, since corrections are not allowed to take place for an extended period of time,
20:00
you’re looking at all of sudden at yearly charts.
20:03
We have stocks, as I mentioned before, like a lot of sectors are lagging behind, and the
20:09
big cap stocks keep holding everything together because all the money goes towards them.
20:15
Because corrections are so short, we have yearly charts that show nonstop gains for
20:23
10 or 11 years.
20:26
There’s absolutely– the December corrections even show up in these charts because they
20:30
were still up on the year in many cases, so you look at Starbucks and Disney.
20:36
Disney is a good example.
20:37
Up 11 years in a row.
20:39
Well, this is this fantasy that’s being propagated now.
20:43
Because I just put my money into passive funds, I don’t have to think about it.
20:47
It’s risk free central banks always intervene and so we have these massive charts that are
20:52
vastly extended.
20:53
Even the technical indicator I watch.
20:56
On any chart timeframe, you will find this useful.
20:59
Be it on the daily chart, the weekly, the monthly, the quarterly and the yearly, it’s
21:03
the five exponential moving average.
21:06
Even on a daily chart, you see vast extensions above it, it will reconnect either to the
21:12
upside or the downside.
21:14
If you see massive extensions on the weekly chart, at some point, it will reconnect.
21:19
The reason I mentioned this is there are stocks like Microsoft that are 50% above the yearly
21:27
five EMA.
21:29
Why is that relevant?
21:30
Because if you look at the history, look at a stock like Microsoft, you can go back to
21:35
its inception and this stock always connect every single year like clockwork.
21:42
There were two exceptions, Microsoft, my favorite example.
21:47
One was the year 2000.
21:48
It was in 1999.
21:50
It was completely extended, did not touch the fire a yearly five EMA.
21:54
Then the second year was 2001 when it went way above, and then it obviously plummeted
21:59
down with the NASDAQ crash and reconnected, and now.
22:04
It’s now on its second year, it hasn’t even touched it.
22:06
It’s vastly extended.
22:07
From my perspective, I look at all this with what central banks are doing here.
22:12
I see risk building that these reconnects, technical reconnects, will take place at some
22:19
point.
22:20
When they do all of these stocks all of the sudden have 30%, 40%, 50% downside risk.
22:28
This is the undiscovered country.
22:30
It really is.
22:32
Look, I’m coming from a training perspective.
22:35
I’m resentful of central banks simply because of the volatility compression that they have
22:40
aimed to do.
22:41
In fact, Jay Powell came out yesterday, made a very telling statement with regards to repo
22:47
and overnight money markets.
22:49
He literally said we have to calm markets down.
22:52
We need to calm.
22:54
Where’s that in your charter?
22:55
Where’s that in your job description to calm markets down?
23:00
Look, markets are supposed to be free flowing in price discovery, but it’s telling because
23:04
he has to control that aspect of the interest rate equations, he has to control it.
23:10
That’s the point.
23:11
Everything is controlled.
23:15
When I look at this experiment that has taken place over the last 10 years, and I’m just
23:21
absolutely flabbergasted that this is not being pressed more critically by journalists,
23:27
by the media and by the public discourse.
23:31
QE, lower rates were emergency measures to deal with a crisis.
23:37
That was the original intent.
23:39
Ben Bernanke, QE1.
23:42
Then came QE2, and then twists and turns, then QE3.
23:48
It morphed into permanent intervention.
23:51
The promise was always we’re going to normalize, becoming come out of financial crisis, everything
23:57
that we do, low rates were going to incentivize growth in the economy.
24:03
They haven’t.
24:04
It was the slowest growth recovery in history.
24:06
In the meantime, low rates have enabled this incredible debt expansion.
24:12
Now, we also got eyes always glaze over with debt no one even– the numbers have gotten
24:17
so big and continue to get ever larger that no one even can fathom these numbers.
24:22
Here’s a fun one.
24:23
In the last 10 years, the US has added more debt to its balance sheet than in the previous
24:31
42 years combined.
24:32
That’s this vertical curve we have and there’s no end in sight.
24:37
When the Fed, last year, tried to normalize its balance sheet and try to raise rates,
24:45
which they managed to get to, basically, the lowest point of raising ever, it all fell
24:52
apart.
24:53
The 10-Year hit 3.2% in October of 2018.
24:58
That was the end of it.
24:59
The debt construct cannot handle higher rates and so they were forced to capitulate.
25:05
My question and the answer to your question is, can they keep this going forever?
25:10
Which is interesting to me, coming back to this point I made earlier about valuations
25:14
of asset prices vis a vis the underlying size of the economy.
25:19
In the year 2000, when the NASDAQ bubble burst, the overall market cap of the stock market
25:26
got to about 144% of GDP.
25:28
That was it.
25:31
It was just too high above the economy.
25:35
That’s where the crash happened.
25:36
That’s where the recession came.
25:39
Then we re-inflated.
25:40
This was the lead up to the housing bubble.
25:43
Cheap money, who caused the housing bubble?
25:46
Well, we can argue it was the Fed with cheap money and this cheap money had to go somewhere
25:51
and so we offered credit and subprime mortgages to people who can’t really afford it.
25:57
The stock market rose to about 137% of GDP.
26:02
Guess where we topped in January of 2018?
26:06
144% market cap to GDP.
26:09
Where did we top in September of 2018?
26:13
146% stock market cap to GDP.
26:16
Where did we end this summer in July?
26:18
144% stock market cap to– there seems to be this natural barrier that says, “Okay,
26:24
well these valuations have to be justified somehow.”
26:29
When I now see the Fed saying, okay, well– back in September, where we’re back at 144%,
26:35
what are you trying to do here actually?
26:38
Obviously, what you have done, what all the central banks have done has not produced organic
26:44
growth anywhere near the growth that we’ve seen in previous cycles.
26:50
That’s why the ECB still in negative rates and they’re trying to do more than negative
26:53
rates.
26:54
For me, that the question is one of control, efficacy.
27:00
Does this produce another lasting jumping an asset prices?
27:05
There is no answer to that question yet, but there may be signs.
27:10
For me, the first sign was, okay, this July rate cut when we had that sell zone of 3000,
27:16
3015.
27:18
Does the Fed rate cut actually produced sustainable new highs?
27:21
The answer to that was no.
27:24
Then in September, we had the second rate cut.
27:26
Did that produce sustainable new highs?
27:28
No.
27:29
Yesterday, Jay Powell talked about increasing the balance sheet again, but don’t call it
27:36
QE, wink, wink.
27:38
We sold off.
27:41
Those are those three specific signs, events where the Fed has not succeeded in producing
27:48
new market highs or for that matter, new growth.
27:53
I think the question is very much outstanding.
27:58
Once we know what’s happening with this trade deal, we need to keep reassessing the mechanics
28:02
of markets and the technicals and see if we can actually see a sizable turn in the economy.
28:09
I’m highly skeptical.
28:12
Because all we’re doing is just keep enabling more debt and demographics are not changing
28:20
as a result of that.
28:21
The deflationary cycle is not changing as a result of that.
28:25
Beyond temporary highs, I have to see where that’s producing anything on the macro form,
28:32
and so far, it hasn’t.
28:36
I think we have to differentiate two things.
28:40
The MMT part, it’s your classic capitulation.
28:44
We don’t know how to solve any of the world’s problems, because that equation is ongoing.
28:51
Because we have demographics that are sending a very clear signal.
28:57
Working age population, by the way, I’ve posted out a few times.
28:59
I find it fascinating.
29:01
For the first time ever, the growth in working age population is actually going negative.
29:06
That tells you everything you need to know.
29:08
There’s a huge demographic change going on as the baby boomers were retiring, how do
29:13
you produce growth with those numbers, unless you believe in some AI productivity fantasy,
29:20
which we don’t have evidence for that yet.
29:25
MMT to me is the ultimate absurdity of it all.
29:32
Free party, free credit.
29:34
We keep printing money and there’s no consequences.
29:37
MMT adherence will obviously push back hard on this, but even central bankers like Jay
29:44
Powell are very much opposed to MMT.
29:47
I personally think is a fantasy, as well.
29:50
In terms of your question about fiscal policy, can now governments come up with infrastructure
29:58
programs or what have you to really push that equation?
30:03
This is where I’m going to have a different take on everything.
30:06
Now, this brings me back to what we’re seeing in the political sphere in the United States
30:10
and the United Kingdom, in Germany, everywhere across the west.
30:14
We have social fragmentation, the likes we haven’t seen in our lifetimes, at least.
30:24
It’s hard to see political cohesion anywhere.
30:28
Germany, for example, used to have three or four parties, not a six, seven and no one
30:33
has a majority of any sort.
30:36
The UK Brexit is a classic example.
30:40
It’s impossible to come to any agreeable solution that’s been going on for years.
30:46
The United States is, impeachment aside, what’s happening down that front, this fragmentation
30:54
has been going on for at least 20 years.
30:56
It just keeps getting worse and worse and worse, and how do you get to a complex policy
31:03
solution that enables you to actually implement structural solutions if you can’t agree on
31:10
a common reality, and there’s no common reality on anything right now.
31:15
Although to be fair, Democrats and Republicans in the US always agree to spend more money,
31:20
that’s what we just saw again in this latest budget round.
31:24
I remain unconvinced that fiscal– even though I hear Draghi claiming for more fiscal spending,
31:33
I don’t see the political cohesion to bring something like that about– German, interestingly,
31:40
on a side note, they’re actually running it surpluses.
31:43
They’re getting criticized for that, which makes actually, I think Germany really an
31:47
interesting place to– if we do have a global recession, what country is actually able to
31:54
really deal and stimulate ultimately.
31:58
They’ve been very disciplined and holding off on this point, but I suspect they may
32:02
have more ammunition than anyone else when we do hit a recession down the road.
32:09
How do you see the end of the cycle playing out?
32:11
I am actually looking for a yearend rally, because I think what happened in December
32:17
of 2018 was superbly rare.
32:20
It happened only once before and that was in December of 2000.
32:25
That’s how rare these December dumps are.
32:27
However, I’m just going by what I know now, and I don’t know what’s going to happen with
32:31
the trade deal and this time, the other.
32:32
What I do know now is basically what I see in the charts is there’s just another very,
32:38
very sizable volatility spike to come.
32:42
I can’t tell you when that comes, it would maybe make sense for that to happen in October
32:48
or into November.
32:50
Then that spike is probably be a buy in markets for a yearend rally, can see that happening.
32:57
I expect the Fed to cut rates again in October, maybe throw another one in December.
33:02
We’ll see.
33:03
I think ultimately, the question is, and I’ve been posting this chart for months now.
33:07
It’s this broad megaphone pattern.
33:09
If they can get above it, we can have a massive all liquidity and ala March 2000.
33:18
It was just crazy blow off the top.
33:21
I’m not predicting this.
33:23
I’d actually don’t want to see that.
33:24
I think stuff like that is just going to be horrid ultimately, because it will just exacerbate
33:29
the pain on the downside.
33:31
If markets cannot sustain new highs from here, I think going actually back to an earlier
33:37
question you asked about historical example, look closely at 2007.
33:42
We made a high in July, we made a high in July this year, then the Fed cut rates in
33:47
September of 2007.
33:49
Because that was their response when subprime was contained.
33:53
Don’t worry about– there is no recession.
33:55
That’s the same narrative we’re hearing now, there’s not going to be a recession.
34:00
The recession came only two months after– three months after the Fed cut rates.
34:04
It came in December of 2007, when no one saw or admitted a recession was coming.
34:11
After that rate cut in 2007 in September, markets peaked in October, and that was it.
34:16
No one– this is the fascinating thing, see, market tops are only known in hindsight with
34:23
enough distance.
34:24
They’re not apparent or anyone at the time.
34:28
That’s why I’m just using that as an interesting example and as a threshold to say we must
34:33
make new highs from here or we’re risking, we’re actually made a double top in July and
34:39
in September of this year, so I think people need to watch the price action very carefully
34:44
from here.
34:46
Just finishing up on 2007, when markets made on marginal new high in October of 2007, and
34:52
the Fed was cutting rates, Wall Street projected price targets of 1500 to 1600 to 1700 for
35:01
2008.
35:02
All of them.
35:03
All of them were bullish in December, not knowing that the session officially actually
35:09
started in December of 2007.
35:11
The S&P close the year at 800, 880, something like that, cut in half, basically.
35:20
I think what we all need to be closely watching for is efficacy of what happens on the trade
35:26
front, efficacy on what happens with the central banks and the price action in the charts.
35:32
Do we see participation coming from the small caps, transports and the banking sector?
35:40
Yes or no?
35:41
Will we see sustainable new highs or not?
35:43
If we don’t see new highs, risk for double top, watch what the VIX is doing and then
35:49
it remains a range bound market for now with opportunities and both sides but I think there’s
35:54
some critical thresholds that have taken place.
35:57
Punch line, no bull market without central bank intervention.
36:02
It remains an artificial construct.
36:05
I am worried that all of us have a warped perception of value of what markets should
36:13
be doing because, let’s be very clear here, we would not be at new highs in or we would
36:19
not have hit these current levels of 3000 in the S&P were it not for complete central
36:25
bank capitulation, four rate cuts, jawboning trade optimism, all these valuations have
36:35
to be justified at the end of the day.
36:38
You cannot lose one of these equations and so markets remain artificially inflated.
36:45
The question is if, like in 2000, or in 2007, central banks efficacy loses out.
36:52
Remember, they had to cut rates by over 500 basis points to stop the bleeding back then,
36:58
and now, they barely have 200 basis points to work with.

Why Organizations Win, According to Musk, Sinek, and Paul Graham

Finite players play to beat the people around them. Infinite players play to be better than themselves.

I could’ve been reading an article analyzing Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. Except I wasn’t.

ENTER: Simon Sinek

I was listening to Sinek (he was talking at Google) use game theory to describe the kinds of ‘games’ companies engage in: finite games, where the objective is to win (or cause all other participants to stop playing), or infinite games, where the objective is to continue the game as long as possible.

I first came across this line a few months ago. It has stayed with me since then. Suddenly, companies and leaders were falling into either one of these categories for me. If you are an entrepreneur, quite likely Sinek’s line speaks to you too. And you’ll start placing companies into one of these categories. I hope you will, at least.

Take Sinek’s examples as a starting point. Microsoft (under Ballmer’s leadership) executives used to tout how much better their products were compared to Apple. Apple, at the same time, however talked more about end results they were working to achieve. Microsoft, says Sinek, was playing a finite game, whereas Apple was onto an infinite game of self-improvement. Which approach is better did you ask? The business results of both Microsoft and Apple from the time speak volumes about the merits of each approach.

ENTER: Paul Graham

Understanding finite vs infinite games isn’t merely an exercise in the abstract. There is more. Lace it with investor and writer, Paul Graham’s mental model of good vs bad test, and I’d argue that we have a conceptual framework that is critical for business leaders anywhere.

Graham’s recent post about unlearning is a masterclass in understanding the merits of startup life relative to life at institutions like schools or large corporations.

The most damaging thing you learned in school wasn’t something you learned in any specific class. It was learning to get good grades.

Graham’s core idea is that it’s important to know whether you’re spending energy solving a challenge that’s directly connected to reality (studying for a good test), or a challenge that isn’t, usually imposed by an authority (bad test). Recognizing and destroying bad mental models may be even more valuable than adding new ones.

What is the litmus test for a good or bad test? Bad tests are inherently ‘hackable,’ meaning that with clever and directed energy, we can often find a shortcut to ‘scoring well’ on that test and acquiring a label of success without fully solving the underlying challenge. Good tests, on the other hand, are ‘unhackable,’ so we can either succeed at solving the challenge to a varying extent, or fail entirely.

A test in a class is supposed to measure not just how well you did on that particular test, but how much you learned in the class.

Good tests like curing cancer, making education free for anyone, or even winning a tennis match are inherently more engaging because the best scientist, entrepreneur, or player will typically win in each respective scenario.

ENTER: Elon Musk

Sinek and Graham’s models seemed familiar the first time I encountered them, and I wondered why. In filing away these new mental models, I was reminded of their neighbor in the idea world: thinking from first principles, especially as popularized by Elon Musk:

Physics teaches you to reason from first principles rather than by analogy. So I said, okay, let’s look at the first principles. What is a rocket made of? Aerospace-grade aluminum alloys, plus some titanium, copper, and carbon fiber. Then I asked, what is the value of those materials on the commodity market? It turned out that the materials cost of a rocket was around two percent of the typical price.

SpaceX went on to cut the cost of rocket launch by ~90%, while still making a profit.

Why didn’t the giant aerospace incumbents figure this out first?! In my view, the incumbents were busy playing finite games against their competitors, hacking bad tests, and thinking derivatively from their last quarterly results, rather than from first principles. Textbook opportunity for disruption.

Sinek + Graham + Musk For the Win

Good tests map beautifully to infinite games and first principles thinking. All three mental models seem to reinforce a simple message: think like a scientist.

Infinite leaders, says Sinek, filter decisions first through the unchanging values of a company. And only then, factor in the company’s dynamic interests. This may result in sub-optimal single decisions and failures along the way. However, over the years, the long string of decisions strung together will be more cohesive and, therefore, valuable (assuming the company’s values are well set up).

The political environment of a classroom, or large company, is often set up to reward those that hack bad tests and finite games, since the isolated outcome looks favorable. We don’t consider how that outcome will eventually be strung together with other outcomes in order to fully connect with reality.

The book What Have You Changed Your Mind About? chronicles painful realizations by experts playing a finite game in their area of expertise. In it, a successful hedge fund manager, Nassim Taleb (author of the excellent book Antifragile), talks of how he lost faith in probability as a guiding light for making decisions.

Good tests, infinite games and first principles thinking aren’t for everyone. For others, it’s the only way to go.

Helpfully, and devastatingly, startups afford little-to-no buffer from the real world. The company either solves the challenge, or dies. This kind of instant feedback and intolerance for ‘hacks’ forces infinite game leadership at startups –  painful in the short term, but ultimately more rewarding for everyone involved. And the true test of an entrepreneurial leader? As Satya Nadella said, while transitioning Microsoft from a finite game to an infinite game, leaders must find the rose petals in a field of S#$@.

What bad tests or finite games are you putting energy into? Where have you applied first principles thinking?

Exponent: Episode 001 – THE GARBAGE TRUCK SONG

In this, the first episode of the Exponent podcast, we talk about our background, Microsoft and disruption, and the meaning of culture. We also explore our goals for this podcast, and just a bit about Taiwanese garbage trucks.

Show Notes:

  • If Steve Ballmer Ran Apple link
  • The Halo Effect:…and Eight Other Business Delusions that Deceive Managers link
  • Skating Towards the Goal link
  • Bill Gates’ Steve Jobs Moment link
  • Friction link
  • Note: The Internet Explorer rendering engine is called Trident, not Triton

Comment:

  • Companies get disrupted when they focus on maximizing profit and less on building the best product.
  • Steve Balmer was a sucessful CEO from the standpoint of maximizing shareholder value for a ~10 year period.
  • But what about in the long run: 30 or 50 or 100 years
  • What is the purpose of corporations?
  • Should companies milk their core business over a lifecycle and not try to maintain themselves after that.
  • Would it be better for Microsoft to generate billions for shareholders and have them reinvest in a bunch of startups.

Re: HTTP/2 support for iOS 8

I tried Xcode 7 Beta + NSURLSession, which already supports HTTP/2 and it works just amazing.

 

Now I’m wondering, when I release the app built with iOS 9 SDK but with iOS 8 support – will iOS 8 users be able to use HTTP2 ?

Or it will only work for iOS 9 ?

Unfortunately the connection will fallback to HTTP/1.1 on iOS 8.

How Apple CEO Tim Cook Charmed President Donald Trump

President Donald Trump and Tim Cook’s relationship really started after Trump’s election win in 2016, when the Apple CEO and several other CEOs visited the president-elect at Trump Tower. Since then, Apple has became the corporate mascot for Trump’s trade war against China. And Cook put on the charm offensive to help save the tech giant’s bottom line.

Mark Blyth – Why People Vote for Those Who Work Against Their Best Interests

Mark Blyth’s best seller Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea https://amzn.to/2Lcw556 Mark Blyth is a British political scientist from Scotland and a professor of international political economy at Brown University.
37:43
here’s a story when they did the Podesta
email Hawks when they got the Democrats
emails somebody took the data from
WikiLeaks and decided it was called geo
locate the data in other words what were
the place names that the leading
Democrats who are the last part of her
mentor represent all of us remember
right not the elite Republicans what
were the police names that he talked
about and their private communications
and their selection what was the number
one most frequently named place in their
communications can you guess have a
guess Martha Martha’s Vineyard yeah
number two Eastern Southampton then New
York then San Francisco then I think it
was Ellie in DC and the rest of the
country two standard deviations out so
what’s the imaginary of a party this
seeks to represent all if that’s all the
places did they talk about because
that’s where the money is and it’s not
just to castigate the Democrats the
British Labour Party was like this under
blare of the German SPD under shorter
it’s done that’s the left is
systematically failed the people that it
supposedly represents so why should we
be in the least surprised that they
defect and then go to any one at all
that actually says here I know that
everyone’s ignored you for 25 years I at
least hear the fact that you’re crying
and I understand why people’s everyday
experience is very different from a
national average walking out and telling
people that the price of iPods has
fallen which means that really they’ve
got more money than they think at a time
when they can’t afford to send their
kids to college or their kids would be
insane to take on that much debt because
it’s like having a house with no ASSA
it’s just parts on izing and the example
of immigration occupied to that one it’s
very different depending on where you
live
immigration to me is another person from
another interesting country who has a
phd but that’s what it means where I
live right but that’s because I’m in the
top 20% if you’re living in public
housing in France right and those
resources are been finite and those
resources are being cut and you’re the
ones are confronted with incredibly
different cultures coming and not
integrating with you taking the
resources from you at least as you
perceive it and that’s what’s been
narrated by the National Front don’t
expect them not to make end roads
because it gels with everybody’s common
sense regardless of whether we can say
well on average and migrants benefit the
economy no one lives in an average now
the problem here now close with us is
.. prompted the following response I think
the election of Trump has been good for
climate change because it stops the rest
of the world waiting around for America
to solve the problem
so if the gentleman’s and the Chinese
now get together and do technolog
greentech bring it to scale China for
example has installed more solar in the
past few years in the United States has
right if they end up doing that we’re
the suckers because we should have been
leading the investment we’ll be buying
it from them
but in a way if that forces them to do
that and that’s good in a global sense
go for it so does that mean Trump was a
good leader in that regard well that’s a
different question right but it can have
a positive effect so the mark like let’s
not summit all up to you know the one
leader the genius the charisma whatever
the doesn’t that’s not good we are
thinking about it they can’t make a
difference but the key thing is when
they’ve actually got the trust of
everybody who’s who wants them to lead
that’s when societies work better but
when you have leaders who are divisive
who pet people against each other I
never walk so for anybody that’s the
type of populism you want to avoid all

With Jony Ive’s Successor, Apple Bets a Pragmatist Can Turn Prophet

Design has been central to Apple’s formula since Steve Jobs, with help from Mr. Ive, revived the company in the 1990s. Putting Mr. Williams in charge marks a departure for Apple: Never before has core product creation been directly managed by someone who ascended through the operating ranks—a staid domain of planning, procurement and logistics.

Apple didn’t make Mr. Williams available for this article, but people who have worked with him say he has been more visible in the product-development process than Mr. Cook. Mr. Williams has shown interest in products’ look and feel, they said, and helped steer the Apple Watch from being a fashion- and fitness-focused product tethered to the iPhone to one that boasts wireless connectivity and more health features, one of his priorities.

Still, Mr. Williams is an operations executive at his core, the people said, and his skills at logistics and planning make him more implementer than inventor.He sees where we are, not where we need to be in years to come,” said a former colleague, who also praised Mr. Williams’s leadership, versatility and encyclopedic memory.

Apple has sought to emphasize Mr. Williams’s involvement in product development, which encompasses research and development, as well as the business strategy behind bringing new products to life. His biography on Apple’s website was recently changed to read: “Jeff led the development of Apple Watch in close collaboration with the design team, and oversees the engineering teams responsible for Apple Watch.” Until late last month, that section read: “He also oversees the development of Apple Watch,” according to an archived version of the page.

Apple declined to comment on the change.

Some close Apple watchers say Mr. Williams’s new responsibility makes sense given the difficulty anyone outside the company’s executive team would face replacing Mr. Ive. His role entailed leading a team that helped conceptualize products and turn those ideas into elegant, functional physical forms, collaborating with software, hardware and operations divisions, said people familiar with the process.

Indeed, pressure is growing on Apple to find new product successes. Sales of the iPhone are sputtering, and strength in newer items including the watch and the AirPods wireless earbuds hasn’t made up the difference. In the latest quarter, sales in Apple’s wearables, home and accessories division—which also includes Apple TV and iPod and Beats products—totaled $5.1 billion. However, the total decline in iPhone revenue from a year earlier was $6.5 billion.

Apple Music and other services are growing quickly, but the company needs sustained hardware sales to keep the audience for that business growing.

“Phones have plateaued, so what’s the next vision?” said Sean Stannard-Stockton, president of Ensemble Capital of Burlingame, Calif., which sold its position in Apple in late 2018 after a decade as a top holding. “You could have looked at Jony and said: ‘He’s the soul of Steve Jobs.’ I just wonder about their ability to invent the future now.”

Mr. Williams will have a pair of deputies to help him with that effort, not to mention years steeped in the product culture that Mr. Jobs created. Apple last week named Mr. Ive’s former top lieutenant, Evans Hankey, as vice president of its legendary industrial design studio. Ms. Hankey, a product-design graduate from Stanford University, joined the industrial design team about 12 years ago and has managed the design studio for several years. She has shared in a host of product design patents over the years.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

How important do you think product design expertise will be for Apple’s future success? Join the conversation below.

Mr. Williams, who is 56 years old, also will oversee a team of software designers led by vice president of human interface design Alan Dye. A graphic designer who joined Apple’s marketing and communications team in 2006, Mr. Dye has largely led that team for more than five years.

An Apple spokesman declined to make Ms. Hankey and Mr. Dye available.

Mr. Williams, who received his undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering at North Carolina State University, shares much with Mr. Cook. Both earned M.B.A.s at Duke University, and both previously worked at International Business Machines Corp. —a onetime Apple nemesis. Mr. Cook preceded Mr. Williams as Apple’s chief operating officer before his selection as Mr. Jobs’s successor as CEO in 2011.

Mr. Williams’s involvement in product development has grown over more than a decade. After Tony Fadell, co-creator of the iPod, left Apple in 2008, Mr. Jobs put Mr. Williams on a leadership team with Mr. Ive responsible for developing the iPhone 4, said a member of the team.

Some engineers and designers questioned how a supply-chain executive from IBM could replace Mr. Fadell, this person said, but Mr. Williams quieted doubters.

The iPhone 4 featured a glass back instead of the plastic used on past models. During a thermal-engineering meeting, Mr. Williams probed the engineers with questions about how new materials would affect device performance, this person said. He also picked up the prototype to evaluate how it felt. “It was impressive for a negotiator, and spreadsheet guy, and it just came naturally to him,” this person said.

Carolina Milanesi, a technology analyst with Creative Strategies, said Mr. Williams’s operations background could be an asset in his new role. “You need to have a balance between what is possible and what makes sense,” she said. “If everyone came at it from a design perspective, that may not lead to the best possible product.”