Yields rose again, with the 10Y crossing 4.10% and the 2Y crossing 4.30% as retail sales again beat expectations with brick and mortar retail spending and ecommerce spending both rising solidly. Stocks continued to react negatively to rising yields. A control + F search of yesterday's
Beige Book returns no results for the word "recession", a stat relayed by some commentator on Bloomberg (didn't catch his name), but is quite telling and quite juxtaposed with some of the market pricing for rate cuts.
There's a few long Twitter/X thoughts of the day below, one a "Xeet" from Richard Jarc who appears to be the writer of "UncoverAlpha" newsletter. I'm not familiar with his research and if you've read this blog hopefully you know that I believe it's an extremely high bar for someone to produce research of any actionable value. Nonetheless, his reason for selling Google shares had me thinking about something related to Google and that is the topic of
Digital Amnesia, a term to describe the phenomenon that words looked up online are often forgotten almost as quickly as they are acquired. You'll probably forget that word after you look it up ☺. With all the new AI technology and GPT's will we ever need to retain any information?
Simon Winchester wrote a book
Knowing What We Know where one of his fundamental arguments (pp. 338-339) is that "today's all-too readily available stockpile of information will lead to a lowered need for the retention of knowledge, a lessening of thoughtfulness, and a consequent reduction in the appearance of wisdom in society." His point from there is that are some really important moments in history where wisdom or the lack thereof played a major role, positing that a greater degree of wisdom is required in making decisions that involve building something than destroying something. That said he doesn't preclude the possibility that these new technologies actually allow us to be wise (see quote posted
here back on December 26th)
XTOD: Imagine spending YEARS of your life studying markets, macro, etc. when you could've gotten the same (or better) result simply by buying a diversified basket of income-producing assets every single month. Investing is one of the few fields where amateurs can beat experts.
XTOD: Jamie Dimon is spot on here… “I don't like how Trump said things, but he wasn't wrong about those critical issues. That's why they vote for him. People should be more respectful of our fellow citizens.” Biden calling 75 million Americans “MAGA extremists” is not uniting us.
XTOD: I believe that there are five big, interrelated influences that are driving the changing world order and that they tend to evolve in big cycles. They are:
1. How well the debt/money/economic system works,
2. How well the internal order (system) works within countries to influence how well people within them work together,
3. How well the world order (system) works to influence how well countries work with one another,
4. The force of nature, and
5. How well humankind invents new and better approaches and technologies.
If you’re interested, I just shared a post looking at all five of them and their prospects for 2024, a year that will likely stand out because all these forces are approaching or are at the brink of seismic shifts. I look forward to your thoughts in the replies https://linkedin.com/pulse/2024-pivotal-year-brink-ray-dalio-fwgie/
XTOD (This dude's definition of a "Short Summary" leaves something to be desired, I'm interested to see what's left for the article...): I sold my $GOOGL position today. I will be publishing an article explaining the reasons in the coming days, but in a short summary:
$GOOGL was one of my biggest positions and has done well for me over the years, but I want to go on the sidelines right now.
1. Search is over 50% of $GOOGL's revenue, and it is becoming increasingly apparent to me that LLMs, when combined with the proper UI and flow, are a better solution to solving the core problem that Google Search addresses, which is answering a question. The other issue that is becoming clearer is that we will soon have LLM assistants who can answer different questions in many touchpoints we didn't have before. So, solutions for solving the problem of answering a question become accessible at almost every step. Example: $MSFT Office and other products, WhatsApp, IG, FB, $AMZN, $AAPL Siri, not to mention a variety of startup products and apps, both on apps and platforms as well as hardware products. With it, the need for you to go "Google" something becomes smaller.
In the past, the main thing that kept the $GOOGL moat so strong was the fact that you couldn't make a Search engine so good because you didn't have enough data to make it good for it to compete with Google Search. But without users using your search engine, you couldn't get data. So the circle was complete. But now a lot of LLMs answer the questions as well as, if not better for some questions as a Google Search, and here is where the moat has gone, IMO. This opens up the gate for other big companies as well as startups to be able to compete for the basic need that search solves (answering a question).
2. $GOOGL has two paths when it comes to Search: either they cannibalize their Search business with Bard as a spin-off individual app/solution that can compete with "legacy" Search with a new LLM-type interface or let others do it and fight it while trying to enhance your "legacy" product but not quite providing the right customer experience because of trying to make your legacy product still relevant. While I believe it is likely that, in fact, in the long run, $GOOGL is the one that develops the best new LLM Search experience, the path to reaching that goal might be painful for shareholders as Search profits and revenue will take the hit in the transition as the new LLM surface at least in the short to mid-term cannot be monetized in the same manner as "old" Search can be.
When reading the book Innovator's Dilemma, the current situation at $GOOGL ticks so many of those boxes of the typical case.
The main reason for me still holding the position was that the valuation is not expensive but quite reasonable, but I found it to be the wrong reason.
When it comes to the ad sector, which will be a strong beneficiary, I believe my position in $META is better, and when it comes to the cloud industry exposure, I prefer getting it via $AMZN and $MSFT.
Again, I have nothing against $GOOGL, but at this point, I decided to go on the sidelines and let the thing play out and have my capital deployed elsewhere.
More details will be published in the article, which will be published next week.
XTOD: Out now - @andyverity's SHOCKING allegations about the manipulation of LIBOR during the Great Financial Crisis (& the cover-up since):
- the scandal is way, way worse than originally reported
- "the real manipulation of interest rates" was orchestrated "by central banks on a much bigger scale than any of the traders who were jailed"
- evidence showing complicity of Bank CEOs and central bankers was suppressed by a team of prosecutors, including the FBI and CFTC (then lead by Gary Gensler, the current Chair of the SEC), who conducted show trials to appease public anger at bankers, sending a few 'rogue traders' behind bars while the much greater manipulation went not only unpunished but unacknowledged
- during 2007 and 2008, nearly all banks were consistently lying about the true cost of borrowing dollars by "lowballing" (i.e. underreporting) their funding rates by 10, 20, 30, and in extreme cases, 1000s of basis points, which led to a massively depressed LIBOR (London Interbank Offering Rate) upon which most of the financial world relied for accurate pricing of real-time floating-rate loans and fixed-income products (upwards of $500 Trillion dollars were tied to LIBOR)
- there is compelling evidence that central bankers and bank executives at the highest levels not only were aware of this lowballing of LIBOR, but blessed it and, in some instances, even directed it
- after the Crisis (2010-2012), it was not this chronic "lowballing" that was punished, but instead individual traders who, from a legitimate range of possible cash offers, reported LIBORs that were favorable to their bank, to the tune of 1, 2, or 3 basis points (i.e. on a much smaller scale than the chronic lowballing)
- while many, many cash traders who reported LIBOR must have been aware of systemic lying, only very few have documented proof of challenging the practice of lowballing, and fewer still who made the Federal Reserve aware of this problem.
- one such cash trader was Peter Johnson, who as early as fall 2007 was calling reported LIBORs "so f***ing wrong" and who in January told an official from the Federal Reserve that the reported LIBORs were "absolute rubbish" because "the market so desperately wants LIBORs down that it's actually putting the wrong rates in"
- In a twist of fate, Peter Johnson was later accused and convicted of conspiracy to defraud, despite the fact that he was a primary whistleblower whose actions provided evidence of lowballing
- There is much, much more to the story. For more details, check out Andy's book, "Rigged: The Incredible True Story Of The Whistleblowers Jailed After Exposing The Rotten Heart Of The Financial System."
- Andy (not me) is the expert on this topic, and it is solely he (not me, certainly not my employer or sponsors) who is making these allegations. Andy is aided by a treasure trove of evidence which he has collected for over a decade and which is extensively covered in his book, and only a small fraction of which is mentioned in the interview. Andy does cite several phone calls however which we managed to add to the interview.
- For a fuller picture, read the sources cited in the description to the interview and listen to the tapes. For the complete picture, buy and read the book, which I recommend highly. Filmed on January 5, 2024.
Huge thank you to @public for sponsoring this interview!
As usual, this interview can be viewed on @ForwardGuidance podcast apps as well as on YouTube on the "@Blockworks_ Macro" channel. Spotify has video now 📽️ Enjoy 💯