The largest and the biggest tenbagger


Chart: The Largest Companies by Market Cap Over 15 Years


Google (Alphabet) IPO: 12 Years Later






Crude Oil Pricesスクリーンショット 2016-08-31 22.08.44.png


– To reach more people, Walmart had to build more stores, expand complex supply chains, and hire new employees, which takes a lot of capital and manpower, and the stakes are high for each new expansion.

+ Amazon on the other hand, can bring in more revenues with less of the work or risk involved. Scale allows tech companies to get bigger without getting bogged down by many of the problems that companies with millions of employees can run into.

(I guess here it means that in a technological world, a big firm will not produce large management cost, supervision cost or even institutional inertia like traditional business giants do)

The world’s best tech companies are also able to gain competitive advantages that are extremely difficult to supplant.

(I might agree that engineers and computer science competency are their core competitive advantages, if not the cheap money and high valuation)


スクリーンショット 2016-08-31 23.17.54.png

成立于2002年的Monster Beverage是美国第二大功能性饮料生产商,仅次于红牛。

创始人南非商人Rodney Sacks。一个在欧洲做过多年律师的南非人。他移民美国后,一直在寻找好的投资机会。1992年和朋友用1460万美元收购了Monster Beverage的前身汉森公司。当时的汉森以生产天然苏打水和果味饮料,只有12名员工,年销售额有1700万美元。在欧洲的经历,让Sacks发现功能性饮料已经迅速崛起了,而此时的美国依然以可口可乐这种碳酸饮料为主。但人们开始关注一些新的饮料类型。


Monster Beverage定位18到30岁的年轻人,这些人是最大的美国功能性饮料消费者。


  1. 品牌定位更强悍
  2. 安呢基是红牛的五倍
  3. 性价比也更高
  4. 宣传渠道上,更加精准。
    红牛以大规模电视广告为后台,而Monster Beverage从极限运动入手,切中更细分的目标用户。

(Red Bull commanding approximately 42% of market share and Monster at around a 39% market share.)


从定价权看,Monster Beverage的净利率能够做到15%。可口可乐和百事可乐的净利率才12%左右,康师傅方便面净利率只有3%。定价权背后是产品的品牌,消费者认可度,护城河。

(数字有问题,coca cola的净利率并不低,最近几年MNST的收入成长也并不算快,虽然盈利性有提高。关键应该还是行业的增长,以及竞争不大。前有可乐后有功能性饮料,为何饮料的护城河如此之强,值得再研究下)

スクリーンショット 2016-08-31 23.42.48スクリーンショット 2016-08-31 23.37.20


How to Create a Millennials Positioning Strategy for a New Energy Drink Brand

Japan’s Government are Losing Revenues


Kuroda Money-Go-Round Undercuts Japan Negative-Rate Windfall

BOJ’s Eventual Stimulus Exit Could Eat Up Reserve in Five Months

BOJ Bond Valuation Losses Are Said to Be $8 Billion in 2015


2016/09/09 update



Japan’s government is not profiting from negative yields!

1.The BOJ buys debt from the market
-> pushes prices up and yields down
-> gives extra money to the MOF.


2. The Finance Ministry pays interest income to the BOJ for the bonds it now holds
-> although rates is low (10-year notes currently at 0.1 percent)
-> the amount is huge (BOJ owns almost 327 trillion yen in sovereign debt)
-> interest income in 2015: 1.29 trillion yen


3. The BOJ then uses some of its income to pay for the valuation losses on owned bonds
<- Because BOJ buys debt for more than the face value, and has to write it down [1]
-> BOJ wrote down the value of JGB holding by 874 billion yen in 2015, 40% of the interest income


-> Obviously, if the amortization losses from the BOJ’s bond buying operations become too large, income could go less, even negative

-> The BOJ will buy 120 trillion yen worth of bonds this year(80 QE+40 Redemptions) [4]
-> if it buys 100 yen bonds at 103 yen, that would mean a total loss of 3.6 trillion yen
-> if we assume the average period is 10 year, that would mean 0.36 trillion loss increased per year !  [2]
-> BOJ’s last year coupon income is about 1.3 trillion, it will take only 4 years to make it negative under recent price level.
-> And don’t forget with prices high and coupons low, more and more of the debt on its books will have a negligible income and a high price that needs to be written down.

1x-119スクリーンショット 2016-08-28 19.30.22

-> Therefore BOJ could go bankruptcy if bond purchasing continues! [3] 
# but of course BOJ can prolong the duration of its holdings

4. BOJ then returns much of its leftover profits to the MOF as dividend.


5. BOJ has to cut dividend so that it could back up its reserve 

-> In 2015, the BOJ cut 450 billion yen from its dividend to the government so it could increase its reserve to cover potential losses on bond holdings. [6]
-> According to Bloomberg, Japanese Government benefited 110 billion yen extra money from NIRP [5]
-> The government’s revenue actually decreased under massive stimulus!!

6. Things might be going to worse

The BOJ has approximately 2.7 trillion yen in provisions for potential bond losses after setting aside 450 billion yen in 2015, given its financial statement 

If the BOJ tapers stimulus, it will face potential losses on

  1. bond holdings
  2. higher interest payments on lenders’ reserves

Policy maker Takahide Kiuchi estimated the central bank could face losses of 7 trillion yen per year during a taper of its stimulus.1x-122

“When people realize the limits to the BOJ’s finances, it could possibly create a massive shock”
“The bank has about 7 trillion yen in capital, but that would be eaten up quickly.”

7. Conclusions

A. If BOJ continues its recent project, both the government and BOJ will lose money and go bankruptcy

B. If BOJ suddenly exits from its unprecedented easing policy, existing reserves will be insufficient and it will go bankruptcy

C. The BOJ have to exit, or do helicopter money. But it will definitely avoid selling its bond holdings, and “instead will probably try to maintain its balance sheet by raising the deposit rate”



So that the book value eventually equals the principal. The basic point is that as BOJ committed to hold these bonds until maturity, it doesn’t value the bonds at market price but takes the markdown gradually so that at maturity the book value equals the principal.

More specifically, for the most recent 10-year note, the MOF initially auctioned it for 101.96 yen and the BOJ probably paid more than that. It will now have to take a 2 yen or more loss on each of the bonds in that series it owns, so that when it matures in 2026, the price on its balance sheet will be back at 100 yen. The benchmark bond price was 101.779 yen, with a yield of minus 0.08 percent


In its purchase operations on June 10, the BOJ bought 416 billion yen worth of the No. 342 10-year bond, at an average price of about 102.65 yen.

The BOJ will earn 416 million yen income annually from the 0.1 percent coupon on these bonds, and will have to write down 1.1 billion yen each year to account for the 2.65 yen by which the purchase price exceeded the principal.

And don’t forget BOJ’s purchases often occur at a slight premium to the current market price.



“The BOJ couldn’t go bankrupt in the way a private bank could”

“One could make an economic case that the balance sheet of the central bank should be of marginal relevance at best to the determination of monetary policy,” Bernanke said in the speech, made years before he enacted unprecedented stimulus as Fed chair. “There are many essentially cost-less ways to fix” it, including assistance from the Ministry of Finance, he said.




Japan’s Ministry of Finance made about 110 billion yen ($1.1 billion) more in the year to April than it would have if yields had been zero


The central bank is holding on to as much as half of the profits from the interest received on its bond holdings, after an accounting rule change in November.

Why Fundamental Analysis Works?


The Fundamental Reason Buffett Beats the Market

The Fundamental Attribution Error, or Why Predicting Behavior is So Hard

The Market Outsmarts Everyone



Noah Smith 在讨论最近Farma和Thaler的有效市场之争的时候介绍了一篇14年的新论文。两个学者用了14个常用的BS项和14个IS项去和市值跑回归然后用residual来确定高估低估然后建立portfolio。结果是4-9%的超额收益。事实上这都不能被称为Fundamental analysis,因为与其说是基本面判断,这只是证明了市场价格都是错误定价的,并且mispricing arising from convergence to fair value。




所以这是我个人认为的为什么Fundamental Analysis能成功的原因。其实并不只是基本面分析或者哪一类的投资方式。关键是掌握了具有稳定度的东西。精通财务报表的背后是对经营者和公司模式的认知。这部分可以具有相当的稳定度。而反观技术投资这样的模式是绝对没有任何长期利益的,因为他本身建立在了收到无穷多的影响的脆弱的无数的投资者行为上。


至于Noah Smith 最后说 “Of course, the EMH may get the last laugh, in a way. As often happens, money managers will read this paper and write code to do more sophisticated versions of what the professors did. They will trade on the mispricing, and it will mostly vanish, allowing proponents of efficient markets theory to declare victory.” 我是不这么认为的。从人的行为的稳定上来看的话。

基本面分析的成功来自两件事,市场先无视价值,然后市场又正视价值了(或者是摆向了另一种情感极端)。[1] 这并不会有太多改变。市场参与者无视价值是因为不稳定,收到外界影响,内在影响,固有观念。哪怕明知在统计学上毫无道理,但是我们还是会下意识用外表着装来判断一个理财师的专业度。短期的市场决策收到太多毫无稳定性的力的影响。另辟蹊径的对冲基金的alternative策略可能会逐渐失去有效性。但是无视商业稳定性的价格偏移会一直存在。



Fundamental analysis succeeds if two things are true. First, the market has to have overlooked important things about a company’s value — things that can be observed by carefully scrutinizing publicly available information. Second, the market has to eventually realize the company’s true value.

Economists have become Data Scientist


How Economics Went From Theory to Data

Data Geeks Are Taking Over Economics

Most of What You Learned in Econ 101 Is Wrong


Theory’s dominance peaked in 19831x-114

From 1960s to 1980s, the majority of the articles published in the field’s most influential journals [1], were works of theory.


Reasons for the shift:

  1. personal computers became commonplace
    crunching data became much easier, which impulsed the biggest shift toward empirical work which benefits from a huge stock of untested theories
  2. the subsequent rise of the Internet and digitization
    a huge new array of data to crunch
  3. the grand models — particularly the macroeconomic ones — didn’t explain the world very well
    Economic theory may have become so abstruse even for editors


Session title from nowadays: “Data Gold! Exploiting the Rich Research Potential of Lifetime Administrative Earnings Data Linked to the Census Bureau’s Household SIPP Survey.” / Or study linked data from the European Patent Office, the Finnish statistical agency and the Finnish military to research “whether people with high IQs invented more things and made more money than others”


The data can’t tell us everything

  • Economics in the U.S. had an earlier empirical heyday in the 1920s and 1930, but flummoxed by the Great Depression.


Econ 101 theories are found wrong now,

as the core of economics theory is based on individual optimization.

For example:


In the last two decades, empirical economists have looked at a large number of minimum wage hikes, and concluded that in most cases, the immediate effect on employment is very small.In reality, employment probably depends on a lot more than just today’s wage level.[2]


Recent empirical studies have shown that rather than negative effect, occasionally, welfare programs even make people work more. [3]

  1. For professional theorists, empirical failures simply mean more work to do.
    Many labor economists are now working on complex theories that model the process of employees looking for work and employers looking for people to hire.
  2. But for Econ 101 classes, leaving economic majors thinking that the theories they learned are mostly correct isn’t good.



(As I once discussed, complicated model along with mathematical skill won’t make economics more convincible as they are not working on solid objects from which one can grab some basic laws)


A new way of empirical economics

Instead of a complicated model about optimization and utility functions to compare model to data (structural estimation),

  • a so-called natural experiment [4] just look for a case where some kind of random change in the economy
    E.g. you could study a random influx of refugees to answer the question of how immigration affects local labor markets. You don’t need a complicated theory of how workers and companies behave — all you need is a simple linear model of how X affects Y.


(It increased, but is still minority. Contrary to Noah Smith’s expectation, I doubt the future of this method as economists need sophisticated math to appeal their value. And  this method is actually close to the way of economic historian, whom have been long contempt by the mainstreams.)



American Economic Review, Journal of Political Economy and Quarterly Review of Economics


Theory tells us that minimum wage policies should have a harmful impact on employment.Basic supply and demand analysis says that in a free market, wages adjust so that everyone who wants a job has a job. If you set a price floor, a bunch of low-wage workers would be put out of a job as their productivity is lower than that price floor.

The problem is that employment also depends on predictions of future wages, on long-standing employment relationships and on a host of other things too complicated to fit into the tidy little world of Econ 101.


Theory assumes welfare gives people an incentive not to work. If you subsidize leisure, simple theory says you will get more of it.


This approach are promoted by economists Joshua Angrist and Jörn-Steffen Pischke. Also called quasi-experimental methods — the “credibility revolution.” And their book about the subject is titled “Mostly Harmless Econometrics.”

Consumption Revolution in China




We once discussed the new consumption pattern in the U.S due to demograpic change:  Investment Themes in US market

  1. lower income of the Millennial generation and less shopping of baby boomer
  2. E-commerce-Biased consumption and Social Media as advertising, not brand-conscious
  3. Experiences than material goods, especially on health and education

And we once introduced China as Internet leader: China = Internet Leader on Many Metrics

  1. nowadays most GDP growth comes from Service Industries
  2. 668M Internet Users, 200 minutes Daily Mobile Time Spent
  3. share of online advertising & E-commerce companies, Smartphone-Based Payment  engagement compare favorably to USA

Moreover, we once talked about the impact of IT revolution on business pattern: 20 Years Downside Trend In Real Interest Rate

  1. lowering price of both hardware and software makes investment more effective
  2. internet economy(cloud, big data, IoT, share economy) breakdown the boundary of traditional industry
  3. internet largely lowers transaction cost, save complicated process, connects manufacturers and consumers more directly
  4. consumption needs are met and thus evolved in an increasing speed.

Today’s article gives a closer and anecdotic look on the recent Consumption Revolution in China. And I will continue add contents to this topic when other similar and valuable articles are found.



A. 消费者和消费者习惯

  • 80、90后成为消费的主力:
  1. 平均上网3-5小时天,网购年次数很高
  2. 网购可以是碎片时间的冲动消费
  3. 朋友圈推荐,推荐引擎推荐
    (从PC端到移动端的过程中,搜索已经变成了刷屏 – 碎片化时间中被动地接受信息)
  • 传统广告战略不再有效:评价和粉丝(热点) 成为关键


  • 一些例子:
  1. 万科在调查后发现90后不做饭,他们决定缩小厨房面积,将空间集合做成社区食堂。
  2. 美团外卖成长很快,已经达到每天四百万单,这对没有外卖传统行业的打击很大
    (本身餐饮行业的利润在交完税之后就是7-8%,如果老店同比下降10%就比较危险了 [1])
  • 分享经济的逐渐盛行:效率极大提升、边际成本极大降低的时候,分享经济就会发生


  • 消费升级:
  1. e.g. “三只松鼠,完全是从淘宝发展起来的,2012年刚成立,今年营业额预计40亿,因为它抓住了消费升级和电子商务的浪口。”
  2. e.g. 农夫山泉的成功就是凭借精准的品牌定位,直接瞄准中高端人群 [2]
  • 原来便宜是入口,以后可能是人是IP
  1. 滴滴和美团依靠补贴烧钱便宜教育市场大大缩短了淘宝京东那样长的发展时间
  2. 信息量在不断地提升,时间价值在被动提升,IP力量显现


B. 渠道分化

  1. 百货商店的老店同比下降严重
  2. 购物中心从2014年开始供给过剩,业务分化
  3. 互联网电商目前总量3.88万亿,每年成长高于30%,并且全面覆盖,从服装+3C到食品+个护+家居+母婴,再到最后的生鲜
  • 零售的实质就在于产品极大丰富、价格实惠以及体验良好
  • 中国电商能够超过美国的原因在于:线下连锁不够强大及人口密度更高
  1. 中国从一开始网购就便宜20-30%,线下连锁规模小,被颠覆很容易,美国的线下连锁店都已经有几十年历史了,他们本身的价格就非常具有竞争优势
  2. 送货的密度大,成本也比较便宜,所以体验很好



从拼市场增量成长速度到护城河竞争力 [3]


  1. 食品占比60%,高频刚需且亚马逊仍有不足
  2. 性价比高(独家定制的大包装),自有品牌占比高
  3. 会员制,年费$99,全城最便宜的加油站等绑定


  1. 精选(一个商品一个选择)和自有品牌(占比90%多),价格比沃尔玛还便宜20%
  2. 每一个店500-800平米,不到1,000个SKU,毛利15%-17%,净利2%-3%,存货周转只有2周,效率比电商还高。


  1. 打尽所有品类
  2. 发展 Prime 会员提高购买频次 (据说向Costco学习的)
  3. 宣布做自有品牌,持续创新中:AWS、Kindle、无人机、Echo

总结一下就是找到挖深一个定位 position 战略。其次掌握供应链很关键。



  1. 1亿-2亿用户,而且每个用户每年买八次以上
  2. 三四线城市用户主动下载APP不超过20个,获客成本差别很大
  3. 用户占领无限可能,大数据、云计算、互联网金融,以及将来的AI和VR
  4. 互联网消费垄断很明显:
    搜索引擎、电商平台、在线酒店预订,大头的市占率都能达到60-70%,核心业务的 EBITDA margin 能达到50%以上










  1. 强大的品牌:可口可乐和吉列:品牌的巨大吸引力、产品的出众特质与销售渠道的强大实力
  2. 专利权:药品专利:全球最大的注射器及医用一次性产品的供应商BD公司,全球最大的处方药公司强生公司,葛兰素史克公司
  3. 政府许可权:管制产业:中美能源拥有多家电力公司,伯灵顿铁路公司,信用评级公司穆迪(投资者服务业务利润率高达50%)


  1. 低购买成本 (大采购批量和精准时机把握):毛利率很低但销量很大、市场份额很高的商业连锁零售企业,沃尔玛,好事多,家得宝和美国劳氏;汽车保险公司GEICO(不代理直接销售)
  2. 客户高转换成本:金融行业:富国银行、美国运通、合众银行
  3. 低网络扩张成本:1)价值随客户增加而增加:信用卡、在线拍卖、证券交易所;2)扩张用户成本极低:UPS快递 (大规模配送网络极难复制,更易形成自然垄断和寡头垄断,往往是超宽经济护城河的源泉)


The U.S. Recovery Debate


Economic Survey of the United States 2016

The U.S. Economy Is in Great Shape (Compared with Its Peers)

The U.S. Recovery Is Not What It Seems

CEOs Turn More Bullish About Business Investment


Strongest recovery in the OECD

スクリーンショット 2016-08-22 3.55.32スクリーンショット 2016-08-22 4.01.12.pngスクリーンショット 2016-08-22 4.10.56.pngスクリーンショット 2016-08-22 4.00.16スクリーンショット 2016-08-22 3.59.49

スクリーンショット 2016-08-22 4.02.33

Actually the investment is no longer an advantage.

Facts holding back business investment:

  1. the ample availability of workers at modest wages, with firms choosing labor over capital
    (“Employment growth could slow as labor becomes more scarce,”  “At the margin, businesses might find it more efficient to increase capital expenditures”)
  2. the retrenching of the energy industry
    (“That trend might be over with crude oil prices returning to the $50 range.”)


Not the case: Taking account of population growth


The U.S. population is growing much faster than those of either Europe or Japan, so its economy should almost automatically grow faster as well.

スクリーンショット 2016-08-22 4.12.55

The U.S. is still ahead, but not by much. And within the euro area, Germany actually exceeded the U.S. by 5 percentage points.


スクリーンショット 2016-08-22 3.48.49.png

The fraction of those aged 25 to 54 with a job was about 2.5 percentage points lower in 2015 than in 2007. In the U.K. and Japan, the prime-aged employment-to-population ratio already exceeds its 2007 level.

If the U.S. recovery actually hasn’t been so comparatively strong,

  • Federal Reserve’s unconventional monetary-policy measures – e.g large-scale asset purchases – have been not so much effective than other central banks.


2 More important Figures

スクリーンショット 2016-08-22 4.21.59.png


Recent Ideas



数学里的 e 为什么叫做自然底数?是不是自然界里什么东西恰好是 e?


数学或者物理学和经济学的起点和本质都是观察和发现 但是区别是目标的稳定度 这导致后者不得不人为假设稳定度 从某种方面来说这没有错 因为这大概是人类找到的进一步架构和组建的唯一一种方式 但是结果就是只能很好地运用在auction等变量维度非常少的稳定场景之中


All of a Sudden, Economists Are Getting Real Jobs

online auctions, online advertising, organ donations and the like提供了很好的进行各种优化求解求最优的平台。

但是除此之外他们的理论影响力甚微 [1]。 比起凯恩斯所说的经济学家的奴隶的言论 [2],事实肯能更多是来自于相反的方向。市场的力量被过分的相信了。得到被扭曲的资本价格而竭尽所能降低交易成本创造新商业形态的企业家一定程度上超出了世俗经济学家的范畴。(你看他们都帮经济学家找到了新的工作)


这里岔开一下,最近有一个很不成熟的思想是一些最基本的经济尺標可能值得再深思。比如通货膨胀Inflation shouldn’t be Worried。比如工业时代的GDP能否在digital era中适用。体验和虚拟内容开始越来越多的代替产品,而在被扭曲的资本价格之下,原本定价和衡量方式是否仍然适用值得考虑。



非正统比如说经济史提供了一些很有趣也有意义的观点和方向。但是单纯成为一个历史片段是需要避免的。即便成为了一种理论,形而上的形态也会导致无法使用被主流束之高阁。比如明斯基时刻。Minsky’s moment Economics Without Math Is Trendy, But It Doesn’t Add Up 。再比如科斯的交易成本。即便有williamson的数理公式扩展,仍旧变得最后无人问津。像汪丁丁说的,无法定义,就只能永远讨论。

所以我们无法在经济学里找到正真的universal law [3]了吗。现在所发现的,要么真实而模糊,要么清晰而虚假,要么只存在于短暂的过去的历史之中。





研究是观察,发现,架构。每一步都有很多功夫可以下。观察上比如说Python做数据挖掘 怎样用 Python 做一些有趣的数据挖掘? 就能做出一些很有价值的研究。发现上主要是归纳法,单纯的相关性的归纳可以交给机器学习来提升效率,但更难是爱因斯坦所说的直觉性经验性归纳。我之前也有见过一些羚羊挂角般的叹为观止的研究,这些可能一需要足够多的经验二需要思维确实地去发散。最后架构有可能是更加难的地方,因为刚才说过的现实世界的不稳定性,无法像数学一般建立精妙的推论。所以比起严谨的推论发现可能最后会积累变成一种比较玄的直觉。






就比如我最近在某个micro seminar看到做教育的spence signal的,但是显然我们无法基于此去写信要求校长说明年把本科改成1年研究生改成5年。


“The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.”


“The supreme task of the physicist is to arrive at those universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction. There is no logical path to these laws; only intuition, resting on sympathetic understanding of experience, can reach them. “Albert Einstein