Sunday, April 12, 2020

Eco-Driven Revolution

Eco-Driven Communication

Social media platforms, snapchat, instagram, tik-tok, reddit, facebook, slack are changing our lingustical communication as we know it.

Communication changed from in-person, mail, pagers, phone, text, to now our dominant form of communication, social media. At each iteration, there was a gain in two factors. The gain brought us closer to our total adressable market. TAM went from "1..100...1000...1000... 10,000 ... 100,000... so forth for the entire first world.  (A side point: The second and the third-world are integrating as we speak.)  While our TAM increased, our eco-system also increased. But now for the latter,  that is no longer wanting, has overheated, and needs to corrected downward. Our eco-system has gotten too large, and there are too many people in our immediate network.  That is to say, our addressable network is optimal... I can reach anyone I want to so long as they agree to mutually share that infromation. But having 500+ in your immediate network is information overload for your processing. Computationally, this is not ideal.  So what social media is enabling us to do is... pick-and-choose from a TAM and shrink our ecosytem to very selective communties. One only has to look at Reddit to understand how eco-driven our world is becoming. Moderators, community referrees and policers, regulating what is apropo'. Instagram with "close-friends"... your eco-system was too large so you siloed it to closer friends. But the next step for them will be enabling and entreching communities to thrive on there platform.

Ben Thomas has a chart that shows how the stack involved from a purely technological  and computional point of view. His argument is that the tech stack has reached their end-point.. "The implication of this view should at this point be obvious, even if it feels a tad bit heretical: there may not be a significant paradigm shift on the horizon, nor the associated generational change that goes with it.And, to the extent there are evolutions, it really does seem like the incumbents have insurmountable advantages: the hyperscalers in the cloud are best placed to handle the torrent of data from the Internet of Things, while new I/O devices like augmented reality, wearables, or voice are natural extensions of the phone."  The techno-stack  starts with:

Start with the mainframe: the primary interaction model was punched cards; to execute a program you had to insert your cards into a card reader and wait for the computer to read the program into memory, execute it, and give you the results. Computing was done in batches, because the I/O layer was directly linked to the application and data layer.

This explains why personal computers were so revolutionary: instead of one large shared computer for which you had to wait your turn, a user could access their own computer on their own desk whenever they wanted. Still, the personal computer, particularly in a corporate environment, lived alongside not just mainframes but increasingly servers on an intranet. The I/O layer and application and data layers were being pulled apart, but both were destinations: you had to go to your desk and be on the network to compute.

This last point gets at why the cloud and mobile, which are often thought of as two distinct paradigm shifts, are very much connected: the cloud meant applications and data could be accessed from anywhere; mobile made the I/O layer available anywhere. The combination of the two make computing continuous.

Now that computing is continuous, where cloud-operators can handle large volumes of data and there are devices are physically near as can be -- the end-point -- the medium of online exchange
of information sharing is being cut and chopped and created. Data and infromation have been heriarchial, but now they are being they are networked horizontally swiftyly and precisely.  Machine learning takes that infromation and tries to connect nodes of interest. Your community is being engineering. But there has been a resistance, when one selectively can choose. The presidents, ceo's, rulers, boards, comittees will each have different rules for these communties. We are inching toward a 'west-world'... and while VR / AR will advance this paradigm shift, it's already starting to manifest.



Saturday, January 21, 2017

Tesla



I wanted to give a preview of my valuation for Tesla Motor Inc. that I performed in October 2016. The stock is trading at $243 and my valuation had pegged it at such. Unfortunately, I exited the trade at $220 thinking that some of my input were outlandish. I still think they are, but its interesting to see how the Solar City acquisition has played and what momentum the stock had in response to Mr. Trump and his staunch protectionism and Americanism.

Again, here is a short preview with some pro's and con's to see what I see in Tesla's journey:

Upside:
  • Cutting Traditional Automotive Cost
    • B2C model and not a B2B (dealership and discounts)
    • Less Marketing Cost
    • Engine build will be more standardized and thus more cost savings
  • Control of its Supply Chain / Vertical Integration
  • Licensing Software
Downside:
  • Cyclical Risk of Auto-Sales                          
  • Regulatory Environment
  • Competitors
  • Consumers & Cyber Risk


Below is the actual model:






Sunday, October 16, 2016

Global Automakers, Revving and Reinvesting

By Ajay Shah

The speed at which the auto industry is heading underscores their attempt to escape their traditional model and consolidate with Silicon Valley. But, and here is the big question: who will reap the profits of autonomous driving, electrification, and ride-sharing? 


Brave New World

     The scandal from Volkswagen AG for deliberately misleading regulators about their carbon emissions illustrates the political emphasis the world places on green-technology. And if the Nissan Leaf was any indication of electric vehicles, the future looked dim. On the other hand, Tesla's stylish Model S, is a vehicle that both car enthusiasts and average consumers can now appreciate. Elon Musk has said the company does not know how to make slow cars -- the Model S P100D can do 0 to 60 in 2.5, we're talking McLaren P1 and Bugatti Veyron time.  The Model S, which also includes advanced autonomous driving capability, has recently surpassed the Mercedes S-Class in US sales. By 2020, with completion of its Gigafactory, Tesla is looking to penetrate the mass-consumer automobile market with its Model 3 Sedan. With a car that is high-tech, stylish, quick, and eco-friendly, they have given consumers a real reason to purchase their cars over traditional automakers.
    Meanwhile, Uber and Lyft in the US, Didi in China, and more ride-sharing companies have radically altered the way consumers think about getting from point A to point B. Bill Gurley, a VC heavily invested in Uber, suggested two years ago that its quicker pick-up times and higher coverage density, trust and civility between driver and user, and ease of payment through its mobile application, would force consumers to ditch their second cars and get on-board with the company. This is an attractive option to consumers too: AAA estimates that it cost an average of $8,558 per year to own a car in the US, but each vehicle is used just 4% of the time.
      The dot-com boom of the late 1990s did not have the same ramifications as it did for automakers, it was neither here nor there -- it just was. However, more recently, innovation has charged forward in the auto-industry: if both driver-less tech and consumer / commercial ride-sharing applications can drive-down regulatory hurdles, the world will begin to get close to period where the same Model S may be used 20-24 hours per day, six-to-seven days a week. As a result, global automakers remain in a frenzy as technology has found a way to penetrate and disrupt the automobile industry.




Auto M&A

    When WSJ Correspondent Mark Baker asked how Ford was preparing for both electrification and autonomous driving, CEO Mark Fields responded, “We’re going to disrupt ourselves ... We want to lead in specific areas around autonomous vehicles, around the connected car as it becomes part of the Internet of things, around mobility, ride sharing, car sharing, around data and analytics and how we can anticipate customers’ needs.”  Investors can see how Ford's recent investments in laser-sensor maker Velodyne Inc. ($75m), cloud-computing company, Pivot Software Inc ($182.2m), and Civil Maps ($6.6m), a 3-D mapping startup, represent a significant shift in the company’s vision.
    Other counter-parties are following suit. GM took a $500m stake in ride-hailing startup Lyft, and acquired Cruz Automation for a hefty sum. BMW recently announced that it was joining forces with Intel, one of the world’s largest chipmakers, and Mobile-Eye, who develops software and algorithms to process visual information for their driver assistance systems market. OEMs, Tier 1 and even 2 & 3 suppliers have also been forced to rethink how they can position themselves as big players look to them as cheap sources of inorganic growth. According to one of William & Blair's investment bankers, Todd Cassidy writes that when Visteon sold its interior business to Reydel Automotive Holdings, "For Visteon it was an optimization of its automotive portfolio, preferring to devote resources to its higher growth and profitable cockpit electronics products such as instrumentation clusters and infotainment displays. It will not be unexpected to see this wave of corporate portfolio rationalizations and divestitures continuing as diversified suppliers concentrate their energy on their highest-margin businesses." According to data compiled by Bloomberg, "the total value of automotive-supplier deals in 2015 and 2016 was $74.4 billion ...  with each of those years far exceeding the $17.7 billion annual average in the previous 10 years. The number of transactions valued at $500 million or more also skyrocketed to 18 last year, triple the level of the previous decade. As important it is to recognize the global spike in M&A between these two industries, there is a few issue that investors in automakers need to examine before buying into this gleeful narrative.
Source: Bloomberg



On The Contrary: Hard Times For Automakers

   When Google successfully organized and made the world's information accessible and useful, many news-media companies were brimming with optimism. For instance, New York Times
reporter Peter H. Lewis wrote twenty years ago, "With its entry on the Web ... The Times is hoping to become a primary information provider in the computer age and to cut costs for newsprint, delivery and labor.” However, since then, news-corporations have faced near-extinction and bankruptcy. It finds itself trying to balance an unforgiving catch-22: they can either drive their advertising revenue by flamboyant articles or they can drive their digital subscription by solid journalism. However, either strategy does not look promising in revenue-growth. As digital advertising becomes more ubiquitous and saturated from Facebook and other social media companies, the value of ads continues to plunge. Executives also remain puzzled on how they can increase subscription in a world where consumers have always been reluctant to pay for anything on the internet, especially when there is a plethora of alternative news outlets that circulate the same information. The point here is that even the right move or step does not guarantee success or survival; there are revolutionary factors that can fundamentally break a business in half.
  Fields closed his interview with this, "we need to make sure we have one foot in the present managing our current business and one foot in the future..."  That sense of optimism is beginning to parallel the naivety the Times entered in with. At first glance, it seems like large automakers have properly hedged their bet on the future of transportation.  But these bets in Uber and other ride-sharing companies, who have been attached market valuations of a few billion dollars, are simply cautious forays with long term pay-offs. And who knows how long it'll take for Uber to reach profitability and establish a cohesive business model? Furthermore, the investments in the smaller less-known tech companies remain uncertain as well.
  Nevertheless, Ford's willingness to embrace technology is noble idea, but their biggest problem is the trade-off between sustaining their already battered business and reinvesting in the risky future of the automotive industry.  Unfortunately, investors in automakers must be more cautious of the former, as more focus will have to be placed on their current auto-manufacturing business. This is because:

1. High Reinvestment

     According to Sergio Marchioness, CEO of Fiat Chrysler, the “time to re-invest enterprise value in product development” is 36 years for retailers. By comparison, for automakers the time is estimated to be around 4 to 5 years.  And between the vehicle's frame, power-train, brakes, suspension/wheels, steering, interior, exterior, and now greater emphasis on connectivity and electronics, it is a cost-structure that leaves operating margins slim. The small-chip bets on these tech-firms and in-house R&D has pushed their already high re-investment even higher.  Furthermore, to make matter worse, competition between auto-makers is stifling which ultimately shortens product-life cycle time.
Source: Aswath Damodaran

2. Low Growth

 Unless you are Ferrari, the auto-business is a highly cyclical one. And with US auto-sales near an all time -historical high and a needed boost in sales from emerging market economies in Asia and Latin America, the compounded annual growth rate in aggregate revenues at auto companies between 2005 and 2014 was still only a abysmal 5.63%.
Source: Deal Engine, Todd Cassidy


 One writer for the Economist ponders, "Within the industry, the big question is not whether this future will arrive, but whether tech firms or car-makers will grab the spoils. Will the sign on the dashboard say Ford (powered by Google) or Google (powered by Ford)?"  Financially burdened with higher- reinvestment and lower sales moving forward, how will they be able to compete with the Valley? Thus, until global automakers can can figure out a way to cut conventional automotive cost and decrease their reinvestment, tech companies with deep pockets and more focus and expertise on software development, such as Google, and disrupters who continue to patent their technology, garner funding, and alter the way consumers think about using automobiles, such as Uber and Tesla, are better positioned to reap the spoils of the new world.


Sources:
aswathdamodaran.blogspot.com
https://www.fcagroup.com/en-US/investor.../SM_Fire_investor_presentation.pdf