Equitile Conversations Podcast Now Launched

My colleague George Cooper and I have started a new Podcast Series called Equitile Conversations.

It will focus on Markets, Risk, Macroeconomics, and Geopolitics, and from time to time we will have guests.

To start things off, the first two episodes have been released on www.equitileconversations.com

The Demographic Transition 

https://www.equitileconversations.com/2459100/episodes/16771145-the-demographic-transition

And also

The Investor’s Mind   

https://www.equitileconversations.com/2459100/episodes/16777961-the-investor-s-mind-behavioural-bias-revealed

As well as the website, The podcast is also available via the usual platforms inc Apple, Spotify, Amazon, Podcast Index etc

Introducing Equitile Conversations

A new venture, I have teamed up with George Cooper at Equitile to create a modest podcast called Equitile Conversations.
We hope this will become a regular series, covering many of the wider issues in investment and finance.
In this first edition we look at the impact of changes in global demographics.
This edition is a “barebones” product, a dedicated web page and show notes will follow in time.
You can find Equitile Conversations on Spotify or go straight to it via this link

As Mr Smith said

In 1776 the Scottish economist and moral philosopher Adam Smith (1723-1790) published his magnum opus – An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Better known as The Wealth of Nations it can be considered a seminal work in economics, and the benefits of free trade. Like many great works it is more frequently referred to than read, so as an encouragement to read it (long but in very plain and digestible English) here are some interesting and still pertinent quotes.

‘No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable.’

‘The interest of [businessmen] is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the publick … The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order … ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined … with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men … who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the publick…’     

‘The greatest improvement in the productive powers of labour, and the greater part of the skill, dexterity, and judgement with which it is any where directed, or applied, seem to have been the effects of the division of labour.’

‘It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.’

‘But the amount of the metal pieces which circulate in a society, can never be equal to the revenue of all its members. As the same guinea which pays the weekly pension of one man to-day, may pay that of another tomorrow, and that of a third the day thereafter, the amount of the metal pieces which annually circulate in any country, must always be of much less value than the whole money pensions annually paid with them…..That revenue, therefore, cannot consist in those metal pieces, of which the amount is so much inferior to its value, but in the power of purchasing, in the goods which can successively be bought with them as they circulate from hand to hand

All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.’     

‘Science is the great antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition;…’     

‘Whatever part of his stock a man employs as a capital, he always expects is to be replaced to him with a profit. He employs it, therefore, in maintaining productive hands only; and after having served in the function of a capital to him, it constitutes a revenue to them.’

‘Whatever a person saves from his revenue he adds to his capital, and either employs it himself in maintaining an additional number of productive hands, or enables some other person to do so, by lending it to him for an interest, that is, for a share of the profits. As the capital of an individual can be increased only by what he saves from his annual revenue or his annual gains, so the capital of a society, which is the same with that of all the individuals who compose it, can be increased only in the same manner.’

Odds and Sods

Two v short links today

Firstly (for UK readers) have you ever wondered what the odds are of winning on Premium Bonds

Nice article here https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/premium-bonds-odds-of-winning-132223817.html

“To have a 50/50 chance of winning even £50, a saver who put in £1,000 would have to wait more than 200 years. To have an equal chance of winning £1m, someone with £1,000 invested would have to wait 3.2 million years.”

And if you are interested in the memoirs of a famous bookie – I can very much recommend Odds and Sods: My Life in the Betting Business https://www.amazon.co.uk/Odds-Sods-Life-Betting-Business/dp/0340546840/

Summer Reading – Some Suggestions

Here are six books from my bookshelf I have (and continue to) enjoyed

A Very English Scandal by John Preston

Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad

Winter King by Thomas Penn

The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins

Going to Extremes by Nick Middleton

Chaos by James Gleick

Talking Markets with Wilson & Buik

Great to have an interesting chat with David Buik & Michael Wilson on their podcast – Talking Markets. We chatted about risk, commodities, China, Russia and the gold market. And I managed to squeezed in a bit about James Bond villains and AI ! Was recorded last month but I think it all still holds true.

Amara, Chesterton & Falkland

The above names might sound like a firm of top American lawyers, but in fact they are all eponymous “laws” that are worth thinking about when we are trying to make decisions. The term law is I think too strong, I prefer to say rule or perhaps even just guideline. Labelling aside the key point is they all address the time element of decision making, albeit in slightly different ways. They can act as three correctives or at least reasons to pause for thought when deciding upon things.

Firstly, Roy Amara (1925 – 2007) on technology,

“We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run” 

Amara was a scientist and headed The Institute for the Future, a think tank spin off from the Rand Corporation. He neatly explains how new technology often arrives with a fanfare of excitement and then the long and very difficult work to implement it at scale tends to drop out of view, but in time the technology impacts the marketplace and grows in significance and importance. This is sometimes illustrated by the famous Gartner Hype curve. It is a useful lesson for investors that being first is not always a guarantee of success and that implementation is as important as invention or innovation.

Named after the writer and renowned thinker G.K. Chesterton (1874 – 1936) “Chesterton’s fence” is the principle that reforms should not be made until the reasoning behind the existing state of affairs is understood. In his book of collected essays, The Thing (1929) Chesterton described it as thus.

There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”

This is very valuable advice, as we are often all too eager to discard old ideas, methods, and rules of thumb in our endless desire to be first and new with everything. We risk the Law of Unintended Consequences if we destroy such “fences” without careful consideration and thought. Much better to follow Newton’s oft quoted observation to stand on the shoulders of giants to see that bit further forward.

“If you don’t have to decide about something, then don’t decide.”

I particularly like this so called Falkland’s Law, there is however a problem, I can find no definitive source for this quote (some have suggested it might be Admiral Lucius Cary, 2nd Viscount Falkland, who was a British naval commander during the 17th century.), but no matter. So again, somewhat like Chesterton it can be best to leave things well alone. This advice is also valuable as it alludes to the fact that much of decision making is about timing, and that with more time there is opportunity to perhaps gain more useful information. This has echoes in options trading (both financial and real options), and we like to keep our options open until we really do have to decide. Of course, doing so incurs a cost (premia in formal contracts) and is an important consideration as well.

Messrs Amara, Chesterton & Falkland do not solve any particular issues for us, but their observations may help us stumble forward in the murky future of what to do next.

Harold’s Ice Cream War

Have you ever wondered why so many similar businesses seem to cluster together? Right next to their competition, surely this makes no sense. We see this in filing stations, coffee shops, burger joints, often with restaurants and many other retail shops. It begs the question, Why?

So a quick thought experiment. Imagine there is a long sandy beach, and you spot a business opportunity, to open an ice cream stall. The beach is exactly a mile long with easy access from either end, and let’s assume some cliffs, so no other access points.  So where to set up your new business? Right at the halfway point seems best, with no potential customer being more than half a mile away.

All goes well, then a competitor arrives, let’s call him Harold, and he sets about creating his own stall, selling a range almost the same as yours. So, what to do? Ok you negotiate with him and explain the best strategy is co-operation and that you should both now move your locations, you to the ¼ mile mark and Harold at the ¾ mile mark. That way you both get an equal share of customers. Also it’s a plus for the beach goers as they are never more than a ¼ mile from a stall. This outcome is known as being a socially optimal solution.

Unfortunately, after a couple of days Harold breaks your agreement and moves his stall closer to the halfway line, expanding his territory and encroaching on the area over the halfway point, and thus threatening your potential sales area. How do you react? Well naturally you are annoyed and in retaliation move your stall, to seek to gain business, towards the halfway line, and closer to his stall. This is now war, as you both compete to gain business territory from the other, and eventually you will both end up next to one another at the half mile point – pretty much a stalemate. Or in game theory terms you have both found the point at which neither of you can maximise further business without jeopardising some existing customer base – a so called Nash Equilibrium.

This makes sense for you and Harold, now your arch competitor, but some of the customers will be disadvantaged, particularly those at the extremes ends of beach, who now have to trudge up to ½ mile for that ice cream.

Many thoughts flow from this experiment know as the Hotelling Theory of Spacial Competition (named after Professor Harold Hotelling, whose name I have pinched here). Like all such thought experiments it may be rather oversimplistic (our old friend ceteris paribus looms large here), in that in the real world there could well be more than two players in the marketplace, and no doubt they will all look to develop different marketing and different product offerings. Additionally competitive pricing now comes to the fore after the geographic location battle has hit an equilibrium, and here again a price clustering effect (punctuated by short term price wars) starts to take hold.

One further observation, imagine loads of stalls start crowding on the beach, at some point some of the stalls will be unprofitable and will likely withdraw from the business. This leads to the conclusion that any cluster has a natural limit, with the least profitable player just about clinging on, and others less successful being driven out of business This marginal pricing phenomena is also often seen in the property market where people claim properties are unaffordable – whereas in fact the market price will likely settle at the point of the marginal affordability of the last available prospective purchaser. (Often, we hear people calculate how much they can borrow before looking at houses – we seem drawn to maximising this factor to the limit).

So businesses clustering together is often a very sensible strategy, and its quite amazing how this seems to seen throughout free market economies across a range of products. All of this may be blunted a great deal (if not negated) by the provision of virtual services, but in physical goods Harold Hotelling seems to rule.

For more on Harold Hoteling and his work see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Hotelling

And for more on the Nash Equilibrium see https://www.britannica.com/science/Nash-equilibrium