I had floated the idea of presenting 10 stocks for the new year, which fellow investors can invest in as an ETF equivalent (mimic by investing 1/10th in each). The response was overwhelming.
As a result, with all caveats and reservations in mind, this blogpost is about my Top 10 picks for 2021. If you've been meaning to invest in individual stocks, but were not sure of where to begin, or needed some reasonable ideas, I hope this can provide a reference point (with fractional investing here, you can literally recreate this portfolio with as little as $10). Let's get through a couple obvious disclaimers and get right onto the portfolio:

1. Calendar investing isn't really a thing: We don't invest or change investment decisions, just because its a certain date on the calendar, or a certain position this planet happens to be on its orbit. So, let's keep that in mind. I'm picking companies that I'm comfortable to own for much longer than a year and the list just favors those that happen to be at what I think opportune entry points. There are companies outside of this list that I'm actually more bullish on for long term (e.g. Google and Facebook aren't on the list).

​2. Fit: I have no idea what your specific risk tolerance is, or what your financial goals are. I would ideally suggest 10 different stocks to every individual investor based on their goals (and do comment/reach out to me with your situation and I'll get back to as many as I can with adjustments), but as a generic blog - this is my playground. Now without taking up any more of your time, let's get into it and see what're we playing with:

To make tracking easier, here's a Google Doc: Click here to Access​
Here's a starting snapshot:

As this is published before the first trading day of 2021, you can mimic the investments above and join along. Above models a conventional $10,000 figure invested.

Those who follow me may already know my view on the markets and some of the companies mentioned above (Here's a Seeking Alpha article I wrote on the 2021 outlook). So, here's a 30,000' view of the rationale (and I can do a follow up post responding to all questions/requests) - 

1. Value:

I wanted to balance growth with value and hence the portfolio starts of with value names like Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck. Both have gone through a consolidation phase, have a good dividend yield, and sit at attractive valuations.

• Bristol Myers has nicely built upon Celgene's acquisition and is forecasted to continue to generate mid-teens EPS growth for some years. It trades at just ~6.5x '21 EPS, adjusted for debt and 3% dividend yield. While Merck isn't as cheap (trading at (still very attractive) ~8x '21 EPS, adjusted for debt and 3% yield), it has higher visibility into mid-late 2020s as Keytruda's patent life goes on for years beyond Bristol Myers' Revlimid. They were both surprisingly down for 2020 and the timing presents limited downside.

 

• Sticking to biotech, Regeneron is a name I've owned for years and after the recent fall (driven by sentiment around vaccines as Regeneron is known for its antibody cocktail), it trades at 13x '21 EPS, which makes it a unique value-growth play. Plus, while there's a slight risk to Merck's Keytruda dominance, the challenger Libtayo, is developed and owned by Regeneron. Having both in the portfolio evens out the risk.

2. Growth:

The hunt for profitable 20-30% revenue growers which had secular tailwinds for years to come - led me again to tech names. I filtered the list to those who have had a recent setback in price or have gone through a considerable consolidation phase. This led to me to: Alibaba, Amazon and Salesforce.

Alibaba is undergoing antitrust scrutiny, Amazon forecasters fear harder comps in 2021, and Salesforce analysts are not giving Marc Benioff any benefit of doubt over Salesforce's acquisition of Slack. I see all of these being temporary. As these names go on to deliver great quarters and beat expectations (hopefully), sentiment could change.

• Alibaba has built upon China's swift recovery from the pandemic, is projected to grow revenues 30-50% for both '21 and '22, and still manages to trade at <19x '22 EPS.
• Amazon is slated to grow revenues 35% in '21 and 18% in '22. I believe '22 estimates are low. AWS spending could continue to increase as businesses continue to go digital + new Prime members will continue to spin the Amazon flywheel. It currently trades at ~36x EV/TTM EBITDA and ~3.5x '21 sales.
• Salesforce easily beat expectations, repeatedly, in 2020. Its addressable market has continued to expand and Marc Benioff continues to pursue a much broader slate with continued acquisitions. After the recent fall, its still expensive on most metrics, but the acceleration in growth and sustenance of new growth areas provide clarity enough to forecast growth in the years out. Its expected to be the fastest software company ever to reach $25B in revenues in '22 and reach $30B in '23. It currently trades at ~8x '22 revenues.

3. Risk:

The last 3 names on the list add significant risk to the portfolio:

a) Leveraged ETF:

Readers maybe aware that I trade around leveraged ETFs and I thought it'll be only fitting to include one name here. If I had an option to add weightage, I'd allocate <1/10th to CURE, but in here it qualifies as a 1/10th holding, to keep things simple.

While same time last year, I would've gone with either BIB (2x biotech), SOXL (3x semiconductors) or FNGU (3x FANG names); looking where we are now, Healthcare to me seems like a sector that hasn't participated much in the 2020 rally and major names in the XLV (CURE is 3x XLV) sit at reasonable valuation: JNJ, UNH, PFE, MRK, ABBV, etc. are major holdings. So let's roll the dice.

b) SPACs:

2020 was the year of SPACs and quality of sponsors, for me, is the make-or-break criteria. Chamath Palihapitiya and Brad Gertsner  are one of the smartest investors around. IPOF and AGC are their respective SPACs. These are also risky shot-in-the-dark options, as we don't know what they're gonna acquire yet, but if these work out well, they may offer significant edge to the portfolio. 
I believe we aren't that far into the SPAC craze to have exhausted good targets, and these two respected investors will carve out a niche investment in the fast growing tech space.

4. Balance:

I wanted to diversify a bit into retail/housing and went with Lowe's which offers a decent GARP profile. Housing has been super strong in 2020 and people who have moved into suburbs or bought new houses, will continue to furnish/fix them. Lowe's saw unexpected growth in 2020, but I believe the turnaround which was already underway helped it perform better than the industry + new customers may continue to prefer Lowe's over the coming years. Adjusted for debt and yield, Lowe's currently trades at ~18x '22 EPS, which is fair - not cheap, but I'm banking on the continued turnaround for performance to beat expectations.

I wrestled with:
1. Adding Wayfair (W) instead of LOW or CRM, but with other risk assets in the portfolio, thought a mix of LOW+CRM would be a more dependable choice. I do think Wayfair's ~$20B valuation is attractive though, if they continue being profitable in 2021.
2. Adding FB & GOOG - it would've led to high concentration among FANGs and I'd just mimic the S&P 500 heavyweights, which I resisted the urge to. I kept to adding 1 of the lot and did so for the name longest in current consolidation.

Overall, I've resisted the strong urge to go big into reopening sectors. Yes, we know that the vaccine is here and things will go back to normal sometime in 2021- but easily forecastable sectors (restaurants, hotels, etc) have already rebounded, while those at discount are difficult to forecast (air travel and cruise lines, for example). Not looking at sectors, I've looked at individual names that are attractive at this point and those that I can understand. Somehow again, I've ended up with healthcare and tech. We have 4 healthcare names, 5 tech names in the portfolio (2 SPACs will most likely be tech) and 1 consumer/housing play. Let's hope things get back to normal ASAP, but.. we still beat the market with this portfolio :) Best of Luck to us - Happy Investing! 

Let me know any/all of your thoughts/questions/concerns with this selection. If you liked this post/strategy, do share it with your friends :)

Disclaimers: 
1. I am long all the stocks mentioned above, but am not paid by anyone to recommend these.
2. I am not a financial advisor.
3. Invest at your own risk (Do reach out for suggestion for substitutions/adjustments)
​

Video version of this blog post can be viewed here: ​My Advice to Netflix

This blog post is compilation of LinkedIn posts that appeared in the months of April – June, 2017.
 
Themes discussed are: ​
​ 
April:

• Tesla’s Valuation, vs GM & Ford
• Restaurant M&A: Panera Bread
• Sugar Taxes
• Next-Gen therapy for Atopic Dermatitis
• Corporate distribution of profits
• Impact of customer loyalty on corporate valuation
• Amazon’s patent spree

 
May:

• Facebook’s MAU Growth
• Netflix: Timeline of evolution
• Disney: Struggles with ESPN
• Changing corporate message: sign of underlying issues
• More therapies competing for Rheumatoid Arthritis
• Davita’s business practices
• Restaurant expansion strategy: shift away from malls
• Emerging segment of ‘Connected Home services’: Best Buy
• State of US Consumer spending

 
June:

• Spotting success in Annual Reports: Walmart in 1970s
• Connected Speakers: Hidden intent
• Business Analytics Certification
• Ecommerce growth in China: Allibaba
• Pharmacy M&A: Walgreens & Rite Aid
• Amazon’s acquisition of Whole Foods
• Subscription base: A real moat
• Goldilocks economy of 2017
• A note on Top 25 CEOs
• AACE Annual Meeting in Orlando
• State of Rising Professionals in Project Controls
• How cost cutting led to a bankruptcy
• Elon Musk’s commitment to safety

:​​This blog post is compilation of LinkedIn posts that I authored from January - March 2017.
Themes discussed are:
January:

• New Year wishes (2017)
• US Construction Spending (late 2016)
• Crude oil prices: 2016 Review
• 2016: M&A Review
• Obama Economy: Summary
• JP Morgan Healthcare Conference: The good and bad
• Biotech deals: Mars’ acquisition of VCA, Takeda’s acquisition of Ariad Pharma, Valeant’s sale of assets
• Drug pricing: Need for CEOs to team up to soothe the tone of political commentary.
• President #45: Start of the presidency
• Pharmacy M&A: Update on Walgreen’s acquisition of Rite Aid
• Immigration: Tech industry’s reaction to immigration ban

February:

• Idea Fallacy
• Brand value: Google vs Apple
• Role of immigrants in today's unicorns
• Yelp's Strategy problem
• Groupon's Hyperlocal problem
• Delta's bonus program
• Companies that will benefit most from Tax Cuts
• Restaurant M&A: Popeye's sold to RBI
• Warren Buffett's Annual letter

March:

• Brexit's overblown fears: Case of Priceline
• State of economy and housing market 
• Snapchat IPO: I suggest avoid 
• Womens' Day
• One of the world's worst hedge fund trades
• Semiconductor M&A: "Data is the new oil"
• Tight labor market: Impact on Dollar stores
• Rising Professionals' in Project Controls

​On Globalization: 

• "This year I will fly 1000+ hours to meet global leaders to convince them to promote globalization and free trade"
• "Globalization is essential, but it should include small businesses"
• "We (Alibaba) will be connecting American small businesses to demand from China's 300 million middle class"
• "US ' domestic consumption drove China's growth in last 20 years. Next 20 years could be the other way round"

On Industry trends: 

• "Last 200 years, 'standardization' was the trend. Coming 100 years, 'customization' will be key. This will be a challenge to large corporations, unless they embrace data"
• "30 years later, maybe people will work 4 days a week and 4 hours a day"

On Machine Learning & AI:

• "If you're not innovative or creative  enough, your job will soon be taken over by machines"
• "If there's ever a conflict, humans will win. Machines are good at knowledge. Humans are good at wisdom. Machines will be smarter than humans - that's for sure. We know that when we create them. But humans will have wisdom. AI will be very smart, but it will never have wisdom"
• "Wisdom is from heart. Machine intelligence is about the brain, which is about knowledge. You can always make machines learn knowledge, but you can never put a heart in it"
• "Smart people know what they want, but wise people know what they don't want"
• "We shouldn't make machines like humans. We should make machines do things that humans can't do"

On Data Revolution: 

• "Data is our water and our soil"
• "Machines have drunk (have been fed with) electricity for long, now they will have (to be fed) data. If you want to make machines smart, they must drink data. Without data, innovation society is impossible"
• "We have looked out in space for long, but now data will make us know ourselves, humans - better"
• "When we say we're a big data company, that's compared to yesterday. Compared to tomorrow, we're nothing"
• "Today's data is what electricity was 100 years ago"
• "Our kids will be smarter for sure, because they'll be able to use data"

Closing: 
"Never keep these 3 things to yourself: power, money and glory. 
When you have money, spend it. 
When you have power, empower others. 
When you have glory, let other people have it. Give credit"
​
If you liked the content, share it with your friends/colleagues.
If you'd like to me to cover a similar post about his keynote or some other event that you were intrigued about, leave a comment. 

​
This is not the first time this has happened. I have gotten a wrong pizza delivered, my iCloud notes did disappear once, and I couldn't access my pay portal for months last year. Domino's offered a free pizza the same day, Apple got someone to call me instantly, and ADP, albeit slowest, got around eventually.
 
Take away?

Many companies you deal with, have grown large to a scale, where they've gotten spread and bureaucratic (not referring specifically to any of those covered above). If a company lacks a strong culture to stick onto, it usually breaks apart (operationally) beyond a point. Not everyone working for them is given a lot of authority to affect end results, and it could be really frustrating as a consumer to voice your concerns, as they will listen to you, albeit helplessly.
Here comes your new age savior, Twitter.

Solid and strategically well publicized fact-based rant is real public-shaming. If you have the following and right tags, your tweets could get thousands of views. No company wants one negative experience to affect tastes of thousands of passive customers. Fixing that one negative experience is any day easier, and those who manage social media customer care, definitely have the highest powers in their divisions to fix the leaking tap.
All that you got to have is a little credibility: a real account, preferably your face on the profile, a solid following, right tag strategy, and a complaint backed up by facts. You can affect global consumer tastes, or at least get your package re-delivered.

Do you have any twitterant-ing experiences to share? Let the world know.
Also, feel free to ask me questions about this, or any other social media strategy below. 

Picture credit: zdnet.com

What does an operating system operation have to do with a social networking platform? Little.
But Mr. Nadella doesn’t want you to think of the transaction that way.

Even though Windows and Office make up most of Microsoft’s revenues and profits, he knows that “PCs” are un-cool. In fact, the word “PC” scares investors away. If you’re one of the largest companies on Earth, and your bread and butter is ‘PC’, you’ll easily find a majority betting against your future. Mr. Nadella gets that, and that’s why he thinks of things in a different way.

The Confusion

If you heard the press conference, or if you heard the news outlets, the confusion was clear. Nobody exactly knew why Microsoft bought LinkedIn (that too for a 50% premium). I heard the prepared remarks of both Mr. Nadella, and Mr Weiner, but wasn’t convinced that was the reason. They kept referring to Microsoft as ‘The Professional Cloud company’ and talked LinkedIn in references of billions of users - both of which did not make much sense. Microsoft is still an Operating System and Software company (growing into cloud though), and LinkedIn is still a social networking site with about as many users as Instagram (Instagram users are at least more active).

Theoretically, the biggest plus from my perspective is that both companies serve the same enterprise customers. LinkedIn is a unique social network that runs subscriptions and gets a bunch of its revenue from hiring organizations, while Microsoft is known for having decade old relationships with the same enterprises. It’s not difficult to see how Microsoft can make it look real easy to add additional revenue streams, while offering much better internal and external networking and development. I was excited to hear about what ways had the visionaries thought of, to achieve this. But that wasn’t the focus of the conversation, and very little (if anything) was mentioned. I wonder if this had nothing to do with it in the first place. Maybe LinkedIn wasn’t bought as an integration engine. On the same lines, it was laid out that LinkedIn will be allowed to work independently within Microsoft, retaining its employees, culture, and purpose. Maybe indeed, the purpose wasn’t to alter or enhance the connection between the two platforms at all (at least not right away).  

The Bigger Picture
​
If we step back and look at what has been going on at Microsoft, we can see the picture getting clear, and here’s how -
Microsoft’s core areas of business had been slowing since 2010s and it had missed the smartphone revolution.

​Although the company kept growing, concerns around sustainability of its growth mounted. Mr. Ballmer worsened the trajectory by his focus on hardware manufacturing, and had literally pushed Microsoft 5 years behind the competition by focusing on wrong areas and making not-so-sensible investments. February the 4th, 2014; and in comes, Mr. Nadella.

Picture source: NewYorker.com

Since Mr. Nadella took over, he’s been driving Microsoft towards the frontiers of growth. He’s been trying his best to move into the ‘next growth areas’, while getting through the PC downturn. Turning around, or even shifting gears, for such a huge corporation, isn’t easy though. He focused on cloud. He focused on productivity. He cooled down on services. He kicked out phone manufacturing. All great moves. He even changed the reporting structure to reflect the same. What more to do? How to turn more and more % of that $95 Billion in revenues with growth areas?

While this thought could be underway, Microsoft had ~$120B sitting in cash, while being one of the only two S&P 500 companies with AAA rating. Meanwhile, the only respected social media name (after Facebook, ofcourse) had taken a >50% hit in stock price due to its last couple earnings reports. Microsoft was growing in cloud, making advances in AI, making acquisitions in connectivity, but never had anything to boast on the fourth pillar of recent tech growth trends, i.e. ‘social’. Social is where the data bank is. Social is where the trends are. However, it isn’t easy to build social network from scratch in the second phase of social evolution. In fact, many believe it is impossible. So, while the valuation of Linked (at ~$26 Billion) can be argued, it was worth a bet from Microsoft’s stash. Utilizing a debt against it at record low rates, by acquiring LinkedIn, it changed its transformation trajectory overnight. Combined with intelligent cloud, and connectivity - Microsoft can now target ‘growth areas’ to be making 25% of revenues in 2018. Turning around a slowing giant is no small task and if executed well, Mr. Nadella will have literally turned around a quarter of the company into a growth engine, in less than 4 years - that’s a phenomenal job. Well done, Satya!

This move was indeed a part of the bigger plan, at an opportune time. Satya has now added the social networking feather to his growth engine cap, and is planning the turn around Mr. Softy even faster. Looking at his plan and placing this acquisition in context, the purpose of the acquisition was indeed to: "Make Microsoft cool again!"

Excuse the poster below, but if you replace the Trump with Satya, ‘America’ with ‘Microsoft’, ‘Great’ with ‘Cool’, and a hot head with a cool mind, you’ll see the point of the post.  
Please share, if you liked it. And if you'd like to be the first one to know about my next post, subscribe here.

Picture source: ​http://i.kinja-img.com/

This blog-post is part of a blog series, where we understand the businesses of two tech giants who have revolutionized our lives: Facebook and Amazon. As we understand and analyze their mission, business model, leadership, and valuations - we will reach a conclusion to which side investors should take. This post focuses on understanding Facebook's business model and how to value it.
 - - - - -
"To give people the power to share and make the world more open and connected" , is how Facebook states its mission.
​At its heart, it's a social media company which owns the largest social media platform this world has ever seen. The platform consists of 1.59 Billion MAUs (Monthly Active Users), and humanity has truly never collectively seen such a virtual environment before.

As the mission states, by giving 'Power to share', Facebook gives more and more ways for people to engage, and in the process it keeps building their life's timeline in such a way that they'll never want to let go.
One of the best things about a social media business (as against a conventional media business) is that it is a 'self publishing platform'. Facebook does not have to invest in content, and run the risk of investing heavily in content that users might not like. Here, users create content themselves and it being their own (or friend's) content - they do like it. And in the process of telling their friends, family or the world about whatever they're doing and wherever they're going, they tell something really important to Facebook - they tell them what the corporations in the entire world want to know about the consumers. Yes, Facebook gets your 'data'. Each picture you upload, check in you do, each time you like - you tell Facebook what kind of places you go to, what kind of people you're with and what are things you like (and might buy?).

While 'Facebook sells your data' is a controversial way of saying it, putting it nicely - it curates your information to get you the most relevant ads. Yes, there's the word - 'Ads'. Looking at how it makes money, you can call Facebook an 'internet ad-tech company'. It basically sells ads - and that's how it generates revenues.
Think of Facebook as a company that owns life-long bill-board rights to the most populated country in the world (with population of ~1.6 Billion people). In addition to bill board rights, it also owns the technology to make and run 'smart bill boards' - i.e. where a same bill board might show you a different ad if you're above 60 years old and like to cook, than to me - who is a 26 year old and likes to invest. You see a crock pot on sale, and I see a discount on Wall Street Journal's annual subscription. Isn't that genius? Putting the vastness of the country and the bill board technology together, you can say that Facebook owns almost infinite advertising real estate. It will continue to score accelerated ad revenue as it start to puts up ads in other parts of the country (monetizing), as far as people have reason to stay and they don't flee the country (Facebook platform).

Now while each ad isn't worth a lot, you can imagine that there's minimal extra cost in putting that ad in there if you already own the real estate- thus, the revenue number for the business aren't huge, but margins are great (it's Non GAAP margin in 2015 stood at 60%). The more people use the platform, the more information people share, the better ads they get, and more money Facebook makes. That's the business model basically.

On the other side of the argument, you can say that the whole model is based around a single platform - Facebook; and the world has seen many platforms like MySpace, Orkut, etc come and go. They have been popular with youth in past and youth is known to change its preferences at the pace of fashion. While in my opinion, Facebook is definitely not Orkut 2.0 and its difficult to assume people fleeing altogether, every now and then a 'new killer app' does end up piquing interest of the millennials. This is important because every new app takes away their time and attention. Everyone eventually has 24 hours in a day, and Facebook (sadly) can't do anything about it. Thus any other way in which people start spending their time, they have less time left for Facebook.
I often say - more than MAUs, or DAUs, if there's a metric that Facebook would really care about, it should be called TET - 'The Eyeball Time' (I made it up) - i.e. the cumulative amount of time eyeballs are looking at a Facebook feed. With Facebook having reached the most of internet connected population (ex-China) on Earth and hours/day remaining constant, Facebook's growth is centered around the assumption that it will not let anybody else eat into the eye-ball time you currently pay to its platform (Yes, it's not free).

Thus by nature, Facebook's business model is designed to recognize eyeball distractions beforehand and acquire them. That's what they did with Instagram and Whatsapp. Now they also own your eyeball time when you're uploading cat-photos on Instagram, or talking to your dear ones on WhatsApp. While this does sound simple, this carries a couple risks:
a) Either Facebook ends up paying a lot for an upcoming distraction, but cannot make much (revenues and profits) out of it, or
​b) There comes a distraction which is powerful enough and doesn't agree to get sold to Facebook (Eg: Snapchat).

In the long run, a lot of value will or will not be awarded to Facebook's business model based on how its management tackles both of the above issues. So far, management's track record has been flawless - It has: i) converted whatever it has acquired into enviable growth engines, and ii) kept its product so user-friendly that its users have not gotten distracted, even after putting up ads.

There you have it. Facebook's business model, how they make money and  how to value it. Whether you are a user, parent of users, employee, or an investor - share with me your perspective (in comments) on "What do you think of Facebook - it's business and it's future?" No single person is ever right, but we collectively - often are.

For the next blog in the series, we will do a deep dive analysis into Facebook's current valuations. If you're interested to be the first to know when it gets published, subscribe here. 

Warren Buffett’s annual letter to shareholders is a treasure of financial advice to anyone who was, is, or wants to be an investor in his lifetime. Being issued for 51 straight years now, its release is undoubtedly one of the most anticipated events investors look forward to, each year.

What makes these letters exciting is not only Buffett’s take on American businesses and economy, but also his writing style. His writing very closely reflects the person he is - simplistic, content-rich, down-to-earth, and possessing a fantastic sense of humor. He manages to avoid jargon and explain complex business fundamentals with very relatable examples, anecdotes, and witty one-liners. Especially with the latter, he aptly uses his wit to put intricate mechanisms in a simple context. I’m personally a big fan of them, and if you are too, I’m sure we’re not alone.

Warren Buffett issued 51st annual letter to shareholders last week, and I’m listing most instances that I found to be worthy of addition to his bank of witty one-liners. Some may not appear funny or interesting if you’re not very familiar with the topic being discussed or Buffett himself, but for those moments, bear with me. You might find the next one spot-on.

1. On why he prefers a hands-off management philosophy:
“ With this hands-off style, I am heeding a well-known Mungerism: “If you want to guarantee yourself a lifetime of misery, be sure to marry someone with the intent of changing their behavior.” ”

2. On increasing influence of lobbyists in politics:
“ Congress will be the battlefield; money and votes will be the weapons. Lobbying will remain a growth industry. “

3. On Berkshire’s stake in Kraft Heinz:
“ The new company has annual sales of $27 billion and can supply you Heinz ketchup or mustard to go with your Oscar Mayer hot dogs that come from the Kraft side. Add a Coke, and you will be enjoying my favorite meal ”

4. On hostile takeovers:
“ To be sure, certain hostile offers are justified. We, though, will leave these “opportunities” for others. At Berkshire, we go only where we are welcome.”

5. On owning non-controlling stakes in public companies:
“ At Berkshire, we much prefer owning a non-controlling but substantial portion of a wonderful company to owning 100% of a so-so business. It’s better to have a partial interest in the Hope Diamond than to own all of a rhinestone. “

6. On being open to operating businesses as well as passive investments:
“ Woody Allen once explained that the advantage of being bi-sexual is that it doubles your chance of finding a date on Saturday night. In like manner – well, not exactly like manner – our appetite for either of them doubles our chances of finding sensible uses for Berkshire’s endless gusher of cash. “

7. On improvement in America's Standard of living over the last century:
“ All families in my upper middle-class neighborhood regularly enjoy a living standard better than that achieved by John D. Rockefeller Sr. at the time of my birth. His unparalleled fortune couldn’t buy what we now take for granted. “

8. On adapting to change in technology, but not too much:
“ My parents, when young, could not envision a television set, nor did I, in my 50s, think I needed a personal computer. Both products, once people saw what they could do, quickly revolutionized their lives. I now spend ten hours a week playing bridge online. And, as I write this letter, “search” is invaluable to me. (I’m not ready for Tinder, however.) ”

9. On Buffett reporting on business performance for the year:
“ Our intent is to provide you with the information we would wish to have if our positions were reversed, with you being the reporting manager and we the absentee shareholders. (Don’t get excited; this is not a switch we are considering.) ”

10. Free GEICO advertisements in the letter:
“ Indeed, at least 40% of the people reading this letter can save money by insuring with GEICO. So stop reading – right now! – and go to geico.com or call 800-368-2734. “

11. On managements ignoring stock-based compensation as an expense while reporting Non-GAAP Earnings:
“ It has become common for managers to tell their owners to ignore certain expense items that are all too real. “Stock-based compensation” is the most egregious example. The very name says it all: “compensation.” If compensation isn’t an expense, what is it? And, if real and recurring expenses don’t belong in the calculation of earnings, where in the world do they belong? “

12. On CEOs understating depreciation expense's impact on company's profitability:
“ When CEOs or investment bankers tout pre-depreciation figures such as EBITDA as a valuation guide, watch their noses lengthen while they speak. “

13. On possible errors in Buffett’s judgement:
“ I will commit more errors; you can count on that. If we luck out, they will occur at our smaller operations. “

14. On America's improvement in productivity over last century:
“ It was fortunate that horses couldn’t vote. “

15. Confidence on GEICO eventually surpassing over StateFarm (and in himself being a centenarian):
“ On August 30, 2030 – my 100th birthday – I plan to announce that GEICO has taken over the top spot. Mark your calendar. “

16. On how present business risks can be overcome with adapting in future:
“ When we took over the company in 1965, its risks could have been encapsulated in a single sentence: “The northern textile business in which all of our capital resides is destined for recurring losses and will eventually disappear.” That development, however, was no death knell. We simply adapted. And we will continue to do so. ”

17. On businesses facing risks of natural/human catastrophe:
“ No one knows what “the day after” will look like. I think, however, that Einstein’s 1949 appraisal remains apt: “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” “

18. On whether the industry should wait for more proof on Climate Change, before being prepared for it:
“ This issue bears a similarity to Pascal’s Wager on the Existence of God. Pascal, it may be recalled, argued that if there were only a tiny probability that God truly existed, it made sense to behave as if He did because the rewards could be infinite whereas the lack of belief risked eternal misery. “

19. On web-casting 2016 Annual meeting:
“ Charlie and I have finally decided to enter the 21st Century. “

20. On shareholders worldwide getting a chance to evaluate Buffett & Charlie (on-screen):
“ In making your evaluation, be kind: Allow for the fact that we didn’t look that impressive when we were at our best. “
21. On Buffett's lifestyle and intake of calories:
“ Viewers can also observe our life-prolonging diet. During the meeting, Charlie and I will each consume enough Coke, See’s fudge and See’s peanut brittle to satisfy the weekly caloric needs of an NFL lineman. “

22. On Buffett & Charlie’s eating habits:
“ Long ago we discovered a fundamental truth: There’s nothing like eating carrots and broccoli when you’re really hungry – and want to stay that way. ”

23. On Berkshire Managers participating in Berkshire 5k:
“ Entrants in the race will find themselves running alongside many of Berkshire’s managers, directors and associates. (Charlie and I, however, will sleep in; the fudge and peanut brittle take their toll.) “

24. Playing the smart salesman by giving people ways to save money and spend on Berkshire products:
“ If you are coming from far away, compare the cost of flying to Kansas City vs. Omaha. The drive between the two cities is about 21⁄2 hours, and it may be that Kansas City can save you significant money, particularly if you had planned to rent a car in Omaha. The savings for a couple could run to $1,000 or more. Spend that money with us. “

25. Signing off with confidence:
“ In 2015, no one joined us, no one left. And the odds are good that you will see a photo of the same 25 next year. “

Have any of these quotes reminded you of how they have/can be applied to your management philosophy, business, or investments? It sure reminds me of many. Let’s discuss how we can take these lessons and apply them in our lives. It is only then, that we can make them count.

Would you like to add any quotes that I missed? Feel free to pitch in with comments. They’re never too many.
Share the post if you think it might be helpful to your friends.

- - - - -
If you found the blogpost helpful,  and would like to be the first to be notified of more posts like these, do subscribe by clicking on the button below. No ads. No spamming. That's not what I do. Just a little guy with big heart and thoughtful mind, trying to speak my heart out. Goodluck! :)  ​
Picture credits: 
1. http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/56018ed1bd86ef19008bc2ca/22-mind-blowing-facts-about-warren-buffett-and-his-wealth.jpg, 
2. http://luminaexpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Geico.jpg

Facebook introduced “Reactions” late last week and it literally changed the way we will react to anything from hereon. It is a big change, but the classic Facebook feed has seen bigger changes before. While change is always welcome, it does create ruffles in the user community because we, the people – ‘get used to’ things and have to overcome the social inertia every time something changes. Here are some of my first ‘reactions’ to the feature and what it means for the future of our social life -   

How does it affect our social life?
​Before I start with my critical comments, let me acknowledge that making even a slight change to what 1.6 Billion people can potentially react to, is a huge deal. And this being a much bigger change, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg correctly recognized it as a "surprisingly complicated" endeavor last year (just that I wouldn’t have found it surprising really). Thus recognizing the complexity behind it, I’m not here to judge their move, but I’m just sharing my experiences as a user here.

Okay, now we can start. So, basically with the ‘Reactions’ feature, now you have more options to express yourself. You can not only ‘like’ someone’s post, but ‘Love’, ‘Haha’, ‘Wow’, ‘Sad’, or ‘Angry’ it (That’s not a right sentence grammatically, but so is most of our evolved social media language). The way I look at it is: If you take all the feelings (to posts) that you had and were told to put it (classify) into boxes – You had just one box before, named ‘Like’, and now you have 5 more boxes to fit your feelings in. Yes, it basically compartmentalized your feelings, or as Facebook would say, it helped you better express your feelings.

But on that note, I’ll like to ask two straight questions:
1) Do you want to (classify your feelings)?
2) Who should decide how you should classify your feelings?
Objectively, we don’t have clear answers for any of those, but I can talk about what I feel -

First, if given a choice – I would rather not (classify my feelings on posts). In an increasingly widening social circle, our feeds are full of stuff we aren’t really very close to. But knowing that people we know are having a nice time, it’s easy to take a second, ‘like’ it, and move on. Not anymore. Now, every time you see something and you want to react to it, you’ll have to spend a couple extra seconds thinking about how you actually feel about it, and whether you want to convey that to the reader. And then, the reader will take it in the way they want, and get different meanings out of that. Having known the other person, you’ll have to be careful of that too. See what happened here? A simple social interaction just got complicated. With tons of interactions people do everyday, it just further complicates social life to a level where it’s no longer fun - wasn’t the virtual life supposed to be the good part of life you spend while you aren’t really having fun?

Regarding second question, for good or for the bad - it’s Facebook who gets to decide how many classifications your feelings get to be boxed into. No, it doesn’t get those rights by being a master of psychology, or a democratically elected leader. But it dicates the social order, of which we all are just a part of - I call it VoP (Vote by participation). Till yesterday, it got to decide that no matter how you felt about things, you were only allowed to ‘like’ or ‘not like’ them. Today, it tells you that you are supposed to have 5 more feelings, but not any more than that. And you can only ‘react’ to something that the poster says first (status), not what he or anyone else follows up with (comments). We are still supposed to only ‘like’ comments, no matter if they make us ‘angry’. Why can we only be ‘wow-ed’ by how a conversation starts and never feel the same way about anything that is brought up after (comments)? Isn’t that so unlike real life conversations? Well, that’s the power you bestow to the one whose platform you use, VoP in full effect. He gets to decide how you interact, and has power to change it. To be fair though, there needs to be an order and someone has to make rules anyway (Just like an elected government makes rules, even if you didn’t vote for it. You have to live in the country and follow the laws). Or else, this virtual life will be total chaos.

Interpretation is confusing:
Though the Facebook team told us that the 5 reactions were specifically chosen because users worldwide can relate to those emotions, and which is true; interpretation of them could be anywhere from confusing to really awkward. Take the case of a Facebook post I did, covering the reaction update for example -
It was a critical review post on the reaction feature and it got 20 reactions in total, out of which 2 were ‘angry’ reactions. Now, I wasn’t sure if those 2 people were ‘angry’ on me, or ‘angry’ on the reaction feature, and thus supporting me. Again, we won’t go on tagging all ‘reactive’ people and asking “So hey, what are y’all angry about?”, or “All of you laughing, what’s the joke I’m missing here?”. You’re getting what I’m saying? Its really confusing how the same ‘universally-understood’ reaction gets read.

One reason users wanted the ‘dislike’ feature was to use it as a weapon to deride a group of their friends who have turned into ‘obsessed self-centered social media personalities’ (OSMPs). OSMP’s are ones who use Facebook like a micro-blogging site, post live videos of them walking down the boring roads and them eating a hot dog (or eating anything basically), and are posting mirror-selfies and asking for likes (Captioning it something like “So, how do I look today?”). I know this all might seem odd to you, but if you’re a teenager, or have a son/daughter who is a teenager, you would be aware of the OSMP phenomena. So well, what do we do of them now that we don’t have a dislike button? Personally, I find the ‘Wow’ button most sarcastic of the lot - which conveys something like “Wow really, did you just do that?”. But again the confusion of perception kicks in here. If the poster is an OSMP, do you really expect him to get the sarcasm? No, most probably he wouldn’t get it all the way till you hold a sarcasm sign for it, like Leonard used to do.













​Picture source: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/9jUp-buwFI0/maxresdefault.jpg
‘Wow’ might be interpreted more of “You look great. Wow” by as OSMP in this case. Emoticons don’t really speak the whole story after all. How much more convenient it would’ve been to just type a sentence and get done away with so many confusions and misinterpretations? But somehow - ‘writing’ anything is becoming old school. Sadly, so. Words are becoming old school. It's a world of abbreviations and emojis.
How often do you see posts quoting a renowned poet and discussing its meaning in our real life situations? Not so often.
How often do you see posts just having a string of comments saying ‘lol’, ‘haha jk’, ‘nvm’ these days? Oh, so often. Well, that’s the kind of community we’re growing into, and we can’t blame Facebook for giving the community what it wants (In the same line of thought, we can’t really blame Donald Trump for being our representative, but then I don’t want to get political here).
 
Why did Facebook take the risk?
If it really can complicate our social lives (which might not make us feel like using the medium as much), or confuse the communication (which is against the aim of the platform), why is Facebook really taking the risk here, and not just playing safe?
Well, because of couple reasons -

1.  It like to ‘move on’:
One of the biggest threat Facebook faces as a social media platform is the ‘sense of boredom’ of its users. If users feel bored, and if there’s nothing ‘new’ to do, they might flock to newer ‘killer apps’. We have seen this recently, with Snapchat, Periscope, and Buzzfeed. Though the latter two might not technically be direct competitors, they have managed to become a ‘sensation’ and take considerable excitement away from Facebook, especially among the teen user base.
Facebook tries to find a way of giving its users what they’re getting out of those other apps, and the race has been evident (Remember Slingshot?). It doesn’t always succeed, but it tries. Now, one common feature all of those three possess, is that it lets users express themselves in different ways. Snapchat now lets you put animated filters and emotions, Periscope lets you ‘heart’ things, and Buzzfeed is well known for its ‘10 reactions’ (yes they called it ‘reactions’ exactly) which are inspired from the millennial lingo.
2.  It has bigger plans:
If you knew Facebook’s business model well, you would know by now that all Facebook is interested in is ‘knowing you better’. ~96% of its revenue, that comes off of targeted online advertising, has its moat in better targeting and placement of ads. And Facebook isn’t the only company with that motto, Google is his soul-brother (Silicon valley will take its own time to practice gender-equality, so let’s say this for now). They want to know more about you than your life coach, life partner, or anyone else possibly. That’s how they will place most apt ads for you everytime you see one, and have a better chance at you clicking on them, and thus at it making money off you. Why am I doing a recap of Facebook’s business model here, though? Because ‘Reactions’ potentially has a huge role to play here.

Through Reactions, Facebook will get to know a lot of things about us, as a person. Remember we covered that couple extra seconds of thought that we’ll be putting in before reacting to anything? By noticing how we reacted, Facebook will be able to back-calculate what we were thinking during those 2 seconds. All users compounding their time together, will be a part of a huge Facebook experiment for free, which will let it understand you better. How? A couple examples -

• Through the way you react to different things in the feed, Facebook will get an idea of your sense of humor (by what makes you laugh and wow things), your temper (what things make us angry, and through what medium), and your expressiveness (do you just ‘like’ stuff or use other reactions the most time), among others. All these are soft-characteristics that Facebook did not have a way to find out using the language of your statuses and locations of your check-ins (these two being very crucial for reading hard facts though). Now, it has a way to drill in.
• With how you react to public announcement or news posts, it can chart how your expression score relative to the rest of community. If a joke is shared, what’s the probability that it will make you laugh? (Number of times you react to it: Number of times you read past it). If an actor passed away, how sad will that make you? (Number of times you were ‘sad’ of an RIP post for an actor, against number of times you read past it), and does it make you less sad than it does to your friends? (against same matrices in your friend-list). Countless scenarios can be made and studied. All those can be linked multiple times to arrive at some hard facts about your personality. I’m sure Facebook algorithms are at it.

Did I sound too cynical? Maybe. But that’s what tech companies do, and they are totally authorized to do so. You give them all the rights, while accepting ‘Terms and Conditions’ after all. And hey - it might not be all that bad. If you do ‘love’ cat photos a lot, you will get ads about everything-cats, or at least more cat photos in your feed. So personal (‘Wow’).

Summing up the reaction:
I totally understand if you don’t like the new feature (any one it may be) and can’t do anything about it. After all, you are a single citizen is in a country of 1.6 Billion people which doesn’t have democracy, and is run by its founder. But you have established your property and businesses (social friends and business pages), that you can’t just run away from the country every time a new law is passed that you don’t agree with. Also, the ruler is often kind and cares about you staying in it (That’s his business, after all). In this case for example, he introduced reactions, but you can still simply go on ‘liking’ posts. It’s not like the like button was taken off and replaced by everything else. So, he in a way has a vested interest in you staying content, and has no reason to divest it anytime soon.

The reason I assumed that users were not happy above was my read-through by seeing how everyone in my feed reacted to it (It might be different in your circle). Even though most are angry, we have seen many such changes before, and I have observed exactly what course the online protesters end up taking:

Day 1: They hate it.
Day 2: They see they're not alone (in hating it) - and they gain steam. They threaten to stop using it and go to Twitter.
Day 3: They see nobody's listening. Next thing, they're checking into the app like they open the fridge.
They always come back. Obsessed.

Now that today is Day 4, be prepared to see people reacting to it much more positively. Also, be prepared to meet people in person and listen to something like “Nice jacket. I saw it yesterday and wow-ed it as well”.

Before we close this chapter, let’s be thoughtful and spare a minute of silence for all who said, “All I needed was a dislike button”.

Closing bonus though: Now, you can be ‘angry’ at a picture of your ex’s wedding. You don’t need to ‘like’ it anymore. (But be prepared of the odd social reception of it)

Let’s turn tables: How did you feel about the ‘Reaction’ feature? What made you like or dislike it? If you were the only user awarded a ‘make or break’ decision of implementing the feature, and making changes to it - what changes would you do to it? Let me know, and in the process we all will know our virtual world a bit better.

- - - - -
Never mind if you liked/loved/Haha-ed/Wow-ed/Sad-ed/Angry-ed the blogpost, if you would like to be the first to be notified of any further writing of mine, do subscribe by clicking on the button below. No ads. No spamming. That's not what I do. Just a little guy with big heart and thoughtful mind, trying to speak my heart out. Good luck! :)  ​

​Walking out with a PhD in Economics in 1971, she would’ve been really proud of her smart self.
The same year, she got to be assistant professor at Harvard. Think of that genius and ambitious girl – who would’ve looked up, closed her eyes, and dreamt of a day when she’d make real difference on economies and will be recognized and revered by the citizens of her country. 
​Oh well, she’s become the number one hate-figure and parody-subject.
​

Not only ignorant twitteratis, but also economists and politicians hate her. Economists hate her, because that’s how they get on TV. TV commentators hate her because she takes away their prime time. And the general public hates her because their 401(k)’s are falling, and they think she’s the big short.
They make fun of her odd grey hair, her clothing style, and even her chin-fat. Please, give the woman a break.
 
I’d suggest looking at her resume before pointing to her looks. She was the one who spoke against Greenspan in 1990s. She was the one who sounded an alarm about the 2008 financial crisis much in advance. She was the one who had double the experience than both her predecessors, when she took over as the first woman chair of Fed. Even today, she’s undoubtedly one of the smartest minds we have to do the job – which isn’t an easy job by the way. In fact, it’s one of the most difficult jobs on Earth. Let’s see why –
 
First, Fed chair isn’t Fed. Fed chair is the public face of the Fed (FOMC as well). FOMC (Federal Open Market Committee) who decides monetary policy comprises of Governors and representatives from presidents of 12 reserve banks. You think she has her team? No. Governors are appointed by the U.S. President and they don’t need to listen to her, and banks elect their own presidents. A mix of both get onto FOMC.
So how many members are elected by her? Zero. She’s the one who convenes everything and presents the decision to the world outside (where we live in). Sure, she has an opinion and say in matters, but why don’t you ever blame the 12 other guys who voted for whatever she’s declaring? No, you’ll just pick the lady.
 
She has to head eight FOMC meetings, be open to questions, explain policy in as much detail as possible, take ownership of it, and testify twice a year before the congress. Most people in Congress, media, and fund houses have an agenda, and they want her to say exactly what they want. For example, some in congress are still questioning why rates are still near 0 after 7 years of recovery. Clearly they don’t follow the economy closely. Ask all the hedge funds who are vilifying her on the 0.25% hike and they’ll tell you that Yellen is rather the cause of impending recession.
 
Caught in between extreme expectations, challenging and fast-changing world, and media-bashing; she continues to speak. Imagine the pressure of facing impromptu questions to which you don’t know the answers. You can’t predict the future. You don’t have the crystal ball. But still you have to give answers, while making sure you’re not saying any single word that is ‘extreme’. Because that surely will be the headline tomorrow, and Dow might drop a thousand points in a flash. Yes, every word could be worth a thousand points. In such madness, I appreciate how she stays calm. She’s an epitome of diplomacy. She’s the best one you have.
 
Have you ever seen her smile? I have, but not very often. Let her take a deep breath, and you take one too. She took over a difficult world with free money and 7.3% unemployment. She’s got it under 5% while ending QE and not going the NIRP way. She’s come a long way. You might not fully agree with her policies – hence, you are free to doubt her. Just don’t yell?

- - - - -
If you liked/disliked the blog,  and would like to be the first to be notified of any further writing of mine, do subscribe by clicking on the button below. No ads. No spamming. That's not what I do. Just a little guy with big heart and thoughtful mind, trying to speak my heart out. Goodluck! :)  ​

Today was indeed one of the craziest rides many investors would've got in - at least since the flash crash (I'm not sure why today's action wasn't branded as a flash crash - I would do so). 
Anyways, let's jot down some things that should be learnt (for such days) from today's market action (starting with the most obvious to the least): 

1. Don't Panic sell. 
(Especially do not touch the long term stocks)
2. Don't Panic buy. 
(Especially into volatile names just to catch one bounce)
3. Don't entirely base your strategy of the day based on what futures tell you before the open.
4. Never place market orders in a volatile market. You might feel stupid for the rest of the day. 
5. If you want to take advantage of price discovery mechanism, trade only the most liquid counters. 
6. Don't get carried away by mid-day rallies. If you you've missed the up move, accept it. If you're already late, don't worry about being a little more. 
7. Wait till 3 pm before calling the direction of the market for the day. 
8. No level is 'too low' or 'too high' for the market to move/cross in a certain day.
9. If the day is crazy-volatile, spread your buys across the day. Don't go all in and get trapped at the entry point. 
10. Lastly, Bad days....end as well. Just as the good ones do smile emoticon

Keep your heads up. If you lost some today, there's always some money to be made tomorrow (the metaphorical tomorrow).


Hope you have something to book profits on..in which case, 

Caching!

1.  Markets were worried about Fed.
2. Markets were worrying about Greece.
3. Markets were worried about Puerto Rico. 
4. And hey, China came in calling! 

What is Mr. Market Missing: 

The fall in Shanghai composite & Shenzhen has a hidden positive for the U.S. Stock markets. Wondering how? 

Let's all agree that Europe worries are a temporary sentiment-changer and Chinese economy doesn't affect all US stocks. Also with the Chinese correction having more to do with the stocks correcting rather than a recession appearing, What is central to our markets is the Fed and interest rates. 

The fall in Chinese markets have created an environment of Chinese economy slowing down. This has led to a sharp decline in commodity prices (Hey, that's why Alcoa is battling to stay in double digits!), including the second leg of oil slump. While the Chinese local economy is only "slowing down" and government is fully committed, hopefully Chinese economy would do alright. However, the global fear of demand will push commodities down..suppress inflation further..and guess who'll take a breather? Fed. And with it, all of us. 

Caching.