by Adam Hartung | Jan 14, 2021 | eBooks, Investing, Politics, Strategy, Trends
Chicago, and Illinois, are in big economic trouble.
- 7th straight year of population decline. Losing 235,000 people in 10 years, 3x the amount of any other state. Last year saw a decline of 79,500 people – second only to much larger New York – and the rate of people leaving is accelerating.
- Illinois has, on average, property taxes 2x the national average. If you owned the “Home Alone” house in suburban Chicago, since the movie was made in 1990 you would have paid $890,000 in property taxes.
- Chicago is the worst residential real estate market of any large city in America. While values have been rising elsewhere since the Great Recession, in the last decade, property values in Chicago have declined 20%.
- Sales tax is 9%, and on some products 10%+, one of the highest rates in the USA. On-line purchases are taxed at 10.25%, for example. Illinois is one of only 7 states to charge sales tax on gasoline. And Illinois has the highest cell phone tax in the country.
- Illinois roadway toll fees are widespread, and among the highest in the USA, with the majority of those funds going NOT to road improvement but rather into the general budget to cover state expenses.
- Illinois is 46th in private sector job growth – and would be 50th except the #1 source of job growth is government jobs. And 40% of the government workforce makes $100k+/year. The total number of jobs in Illinois December, 2019 was 6.2M – unchanged since 2015 – and up only slightly from 5.9M in 2010 – yielding a pathetically low growth rate for jobs of 1/2 of 1% (.5%) per year
- 1/3 of the state budget is pension payments, and pension debt is 26% of state GDP – highest in the country. Lots of retirees, very few new jobs to pay their pensions.
Thrive to the Future – 4 top trends for 2021 and beyond.
Gibbon wrote “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” as a treatise to uncover how such a powerful empire could lose its greatness. There is no doubt, Chicago and Illinois were once great. The area was known for great jobs, great infrastructure, great transportation system, great homeownership – and for many decades considered one of the best places to live in America. Back when agriculture and manufacturing dominated the economy. But quite obviously, as the world changed, and the sources of economic value (including jobs) changed, the late, great state of Illinois kept pushing on with “business as usual” instead of changing policies and investments to re-orient for the Information Era.
Things were not destined to become this bleak. Chicago could be Austin today – but obviously it isn’t. Where Austin, and Texas, looked at trends and made investments beyond the old “core” of oil and gas, Chicago and Illinois completely failed to look at trends that indicated a clear need to change. Problems, and the path to solve them, have been obvious for years. It was easy to predict this would happen. But a chronic focus on the short-term, rather than the long-term, combined with a complete unwillingness to change how investments were made caused state and city leaders to consistently ignore warning signs and make one bad decision after another.
Indicators of Decline
I’m an expert on trend-based planning, so let’s take a look at the telltales this was coming and how those telltale indicators were ignored:
- In February, 2006 (yes 15 years ago) I wrote that Illinois was the #1 net job loss market in the country. This factoid highlighted an emerging problem in the underlying economy. The state was still considerably dependent on old-line agriculture/food giants, those businesses were crumbling and unlikely to recover as the economy shifted. Notably Kraft was in its 5th year of what was to be a turnaround (that never happened) and Sara Lee was under incompetent leadership that kept selling businesses to shore up declining revenues and earnings. The state, and city, had failed to develop an infrastructure for investment in start-up companies. There was a total lack of investment money for entrepreneurs from paternalistic large companies such as Motorola and Ameritech. And a lack of money for innovation from banks, venture capital and private equity firms. Existing businesses were aging, cutting jobs and none were focused on investing in new companies to keep the local economy tied to the emerging Information Economy [ link ]
- In February, 2009 Forbes selected Chicago as the 3rd most miserable city in the USA, citing high taxes, no job growth, infrastructure decay, congestion and bad weather. An uproar ensued – but no change. I then noted my 2006 column, and recommended a very serious Disruption in how Chicago was managing its resources. Clearly the “more of the same” strategy trying to defend its past was not working. Unless there was a disruption, Chicago would get worse – not remain the same, and certainly not get better. The signs were clear that from ’06 to ’09 nobody was thinking about the big changes needed [ link ]
- In June, 2010 it was reported that Illinois lost 260,000 jobs between 2000 and 2010 – and that was an indicator of why Chicago and the state were having so many economic problems. I recommended the city and state make significant changes in resource allocation to keep more start-ups local. The University of Illinois was the #4 engineering school in the US, but the vast majority of graduates left to one or the other coasts. Local businesses were not developing new businesses, thus not hiring these top students. Start-ups at the universities, and by recent grads, could not obtain funding, so they fled to where the money was. Economic reliance on stalled companies like Kraft, Sara Lee, Motorola, Lucent, Sears and United had created a Growth Stall that was sure to lead to additional job losses – when the best talent was right there in the state! [link ]
- I followed up a week later that same June with a column on how Mayor Daley was very popular with voters and local businesses, but he was setting up the city (and state) for failure. There was a focus on keeping the “old guard” happy, and doing so by completely ignoring opportunities for future growth. Offering tax breaks and subsidies to recruit corporate headquarters (like Boeing) created very few jobs, and was a poor use of resources that should be diverted to funding start-up tech and bio-tech companies. And financial machinations, like selling the city’s parking rights, gave a short-term lift to the budget, hiding significant weaknesses, while creating massive long-term problems. Chicago and Illinois politicians were focused on short-term actions to get votes, and ignoring the very real jobs problem that was tanking the economy. [ link ]
- By April, 2014 I was able to clearly demonstrate that my predicted economic stagnation spiral had taken hold in Illinois. Defend & Extend investments to shore up declining companies – like Sears – robbed local governments of funds for job creating programs. And a decade + of no job creation was forcing taxes up – at a remarkable rate – which kept businesses from moving to Illinois; kept them from opening software labs, coding facilities, research centers, pharma and bio-pharma production plants, etc. With no growth, but rising costs, the death spiral had begun and needed immediate attention [ link ]
- In September, 2016 the outward migration from Chicago and Illinois had become a powerful trend. Looking at demographics, the market was aging. Rising costs and no growth had pinched budgets to the limit, while pension costs had become an unsustainable burden on the state’s citizens. Just like Japan was in an aging crisis, Illinois was in an aging crisis. And this was destined to create even more problems for the economic death spiral that began before 2006. [ link ]
- So by January, 2017 the demographic tailspin was clearly creating a vacuum pulling people out of Chicago and Illinois. Fully 4 years ago it was obvious that the predicted trends had taken hold, and nothing short of an incredible disruption would save Chicago from becoming the next Detroit. Using the simplest trend planning tools made it clear that unless there was radical change in investments the Chicago empire was at its end. [ link ]
Lessons for business?
Far too many businesses act like Chicago. “Business as usual” dominates. Resources are automatically routed to defending old business lines, rather than investing in new products and solutions. Focusing plans on historical customers, products and markets create blindness to market shifts, and a reluctance to move forward to new technologies and markets. Very little energy is put into trend analysis, and plans are not built based on trends and likely future outcomes (planning from the past dominates over planning for the future.) People who point out likely future bad outcomes unless serious change is undertaken are ignored, or shouted down, or removed entirely. Short-term financial machinations (selling assets, or a business, or offering deep discounts to keep customers) create an illusion of security while long-term trends are undermining the business’ foundation.
We are experts at trend analysis, trend planning and effective resource allocation. It was clear 15 years ago that major resource reallocation was necessary for Chicago to continue growing its economy. Don’t let a fixation on doing more of the same get in the way of your future growth, like Chicago. Let us help you identify critical trends and invest smarter to build on trends and grow.
Key lessons?
First, the world is growing and leading businesses will grow. If you’re not growing, you’re dying. Just like GE and Exxon. Second, never plan from past success, but instead plan for the future. You don’t grow value by being operationally excellent, because the world is forever changing and it will make your past business less valuable even if you do run it well. Third, make sure your plans are all built on trends. Let trends be the wind in your sales, or the current under your boat, or whatever analogy you like – just be sure you’re using TRENDS to drive you business planning, product development and solutions generation. Customers buy trends and help for them to achieve the future.
Did you see the trends, and were you expecting the changes that would happen to your demand? It IS possible to use trends to make good forecasts, and prepare for big market shifts. If you don’t have time to do it, perhaps you should contact us, Spark Partners. We track hundreds of trends, and are experts at developing scenarios applied to your business to help you make better decisions.
TRENDS MATTER. If you align with trends your business can do GREAT! Are you aligned with trends? What are the threats and opportunities in your strategy and markets? Do you need an outsider to assess what you don’t know you don’t know? You’ll be surprised how valuable an inexpensive assessment can be for your future business. Click for Assessment info. Or, to keep up on trends, subscribe to our weekly podcasts and posts on trends and how they will affect the world of business at www.SparkPartners.com
Give us a call or send an email. [email protected] 847-726-8465.
by Adam Hartung | Dec 22, 2020 | eBooks, Innovation, Investing, Strategy, Transportation, Trends
Thrive to the Future – 4 top trends for 2021 and beyond.
On December 7, Uber announced it is spinning out its autonomous car development effort to a new company- Aurora. On December 8, NASA announced a large flare from the sun was going to produce auroras over the northern hemisphere. NASA’s solar flare fizzled and there was no light show. What about Uber’s Aurora?
After spending what was likely a billion dollars on development, Uber is pushing its AGV out the door, along with $400 million, to be a separate company all on its own named Aurora. After a lot of development, serious steps forward in self-driving technology, and some problems, Uber is simply walking away. Expensively. It begs the question “what went wrong.”
The #1 problem with this investment was created at the outset. What is Uber’s value proposition? That was at the very least complicated, and at the worst never quite clear. Uber was always supposed to be a lot more than an alternative to taxi and limo services. Ostensibly Uber was a tech company that matched up unused resources with people who could use those resources – which is why Uber is often lumped into discussions with AirBnB. Both are supposedly tech companies that allow the unleashing of locked-up value in underused resources to marginal users who could benefit from the marginal increase in resource capacity.
If that’s the case, why would Uber invest in autonomous car technology? That’s what went wrong. People driving their own cars as gap-filling cabs is a value delivery mechanism. It is one use of the technology in one application. The value of Uber is supposed to be its matching technology with some elaborate pricing capabilities (surge pricing, for example.) But autonomous cars were an improvement in the delivery system – an effort to eliminate the costly driver and thus compete more specifically against taxis in ferrying around people. Uber confused its Value Proposition with its Value Delivery System – and thus it made huge investments in the latter when it should have remained focused on the former.
Uber needs to refocus on its Value Proposition.
How can Uber help me unlock value in my underused resources? How can Uber help me get better access to resources, help me access underused resources? Neither of those are met if I have to turn my car into an autonomous vehicle, at my own cost. In a way it actually defeats the Value Proposition, because rather than unleashing locked-up value in my resource (car) it causes me to invest in technology I don’t need and may not even want. And as an Uber user I get no additional value from the car being driverless – that doesn’t inherently help me meet my needs any better. Overall, autonomous vehicle technology really misses the point of the Uber Value Proposition.
Lots of companies make this mistake. They get so focused on how they are delivering value that they over-invest in the Value Delivery System, and lose sight of the Value Proposition. Encyclopedias got so focused on printing books they forgot their value proposition was instant information – thus letting Google drive them out of business. Newspapers were so focused on the process of daily newspaper prep and delivery they forgot their Value Proposition and let on-line news outlets kill them. Sears and ToysRUs got so focused on running traditional stores (and traditional retail metrics) they forgot their value proposition and let Amazon steal customers away. ABC, NBC, CBS, BBC got so focused on running broadcast television networks they let streaming services (Netflix, Disney+, Hulu) steal all the entertainment eyeballs.
Uber’s mistake just happens to be really costly, and really dumb.
They should never have invested in autonomous vehicle technology. Leave that for someone who identifies a very real unmet customer need that is fulfilled with an autonomous vehicle. The leadership of Aurora first and foremost have to define their value proposition – and then figure out how to deliver that value with their technology. Nobody succeeds by inventing a technology that solves no real problem – that’s how you get Segway! Or the Amphicar that turned itself into a boat. Instead, you identify the need then develop the delivery mechanism to fulfill that need.
Do you know your Value Proposition? Can you clearly state that Value Proposition without any linkage to your Value Delivery System? If not, you better get on that pretty fast. Otherwise, you’re very likely to end up like encyclopedias and newspaper companies. Or you’ll develop a neat technology that’s the next Segway. It’s always know your customer and their needs first, then create the solution. Don’t be a solution looking for an application. Hopefully Uber and Aurora will both now start heading in the right directions.
Did you see the trends, and were you expecting the changes that would happen to your demand? It IS possible to use trends to make good forecasts, and prepare for big market shifts. If you don’t have time to do it, perhaps you should contact us, Spark Partners. We track hundreds of trends, and are experts at developing scenarios applied to your business to help you make better decisions.
TRENDS MATTER. If you align with trends your business can do GREAT! Are you aligned with trends? What are the threats and opportunities in your strategy and markets? Do you need an outsider to assess what you don’t know you don’t know? You’ll be surprised how valuable an inexpensive assessment can be for your future business. Click for Assessment info. Or, to keep up on trends, subscribe to our weekly podcasts and posts on trends and how they will affect the world of business at www.SparkPartners.com
Give us a call or send an email. [email protected] 847-331-6384
by Adam Hartung | Sep 1, 2020 | Finance, Investing, Strategy, Trends
On 8/31/20, the Dow Jones Industrial Average went through a change in composition. Out went Exxon, Pfizer and Raytheon. In came Salesforce.com, Amgen and Honeywell. This is the 8th time the Index components have changed this decade, the 13th time since 2000 and the 55th change since created in 1896. So changes are not uncommon. But, are they meaningful? Ask any academic and you’ll get a resounding “NO.” There is no stated criteria for selection, no metrics for inclusion, no breadth to the number of companies (which has changed significantly over time,) and not even a weighting for market capitalization! The DJIA has no relationship to “the market,” which could well be measured better by the S&P 500, or the Russell 3000. And it doesn’t even link to any specific industry! To academics, “the Dow” is just a random number that reflects nothing worth measuring!!
The DJIA is (currently) a group of 30 stocks selected by the editors of Dow Jones (publisher of the Wall Street Journal, owned by News Corp – which also owns Fox News – and controlled by Rupert Murdock). Despite its lack of respect by academics and money managers, because of its age – and the prestige of being selected by these editors – being on the DJIA has been considered somewhat revered. Think of it as an “editorial award of achievement” for size, profitability and perceived stability. For these reasons, over time many investors have believed the index represents a low–risk way to invest in corporations and grow their wealth.
So the daily value of the DJIA is pretty much meaningless. And being on the DJIA is also pretty much meaningless. But, investors have followed this index every trading day for 124 years. So, it is at least interesting. And that’s because it is a track on what these editors think are important very long-term economic trends.
The original Index composition looks NOTHING like 2020. American Cotton Oil Company, American Spirits Manufacturing Company, American Sugar Refining Company, American Tobacco Company, Chicago Gas Light and Coke, General Electric, Leclede Gas, National Lead, Pacific Mail Steamship Company, Tennessee Coal Iron and Railroad Company, United State Cordage Company and United States Leather Company. Familiar household names? This initial list represents the era in 1896 – an agrarian economy just on the cusp of coming into the industrial age. Not forward looking, but rather somewhat reflective of what were the biggest parts of the economy historically with a not forward.
Over 124 years lots of companies left the DJIA — were replaced – and many replacements left. Some came on, went off, and came back on again – such as AT&T, Exxon (formerly Standard Oil of New Jersey) and Chevron (formerly Standard Oil of California.) Even the vaunted GE was inducted in 1899, only to be removed in 1901 – then added back in 1907 where it stayed until CEO Jeff Immelt imploded the company and it was removed for good in 2018.
But, there has been a theme to the changes. Originally, the index was largely agricultural companies. As the economy changed, the Index rotated into commodity companies like gas, coal, copper and nickel – the materials leading to a new era of tools. This gave way to component manufacturers, dominated by the big steel companies, which created the industrial era. Which, of course, led to big manufacturing companies like 3M and IBM. And, along the way, there was recognition for growth in new parts of the economy, by adding consumer goods companies like P&G, Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, Kraft (since removed,) and Nike along with retailers like Sears (later removed,) Walmart, Home Depot and Walgreens. The massively important role of financial services to the economy was reflected by including Travelers, JPMorgan Chase, American Express, Visa and Goldman Sachs. And as health care advanced, the Index added pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson and Merck.
Obviously, the word “industrial” no longer has any meaning in the Dow Jones Industrial Index.
Reading across the long history of the DJIA one recognizes the editors’ willingness to try and reflect what was growing in the American economy. But in a laggard way. Not selecting companies too early, preferring instead to see that they make a big difference and remain important for many years. And a tendency to keep them on the index long after the bloom is off the rose – like retaining Kraft until 2008 and still holding onto P&G and Coke today.
The bias has always been to be careful about adding companies, lest they not be sustainable. And not judge too hastily the demise of once great companies. Disney wasn’t added until 1991, long after it was an established entertainment leader. Boeing was added in 1987, after pioneering aviation for 30 years. Microsoft added in 1999, well after it had won the PC war. Thus, the index is a “lagging index.” It reflects a big chunk of what was great, while slowly adding what has recently been great – and never moving too quickly to add companies that just might be tomorrow’s leaders.
Sears added in 1924, wasn’t removed until 1999 when its viability is questionable. Phillip Morris Tobacco (became Altria) was added in 1985, and hung around until 2008 — long after we knew cigarettes were deadly and leadership didn’t know how to do anything else. Even today we see that United Aircraft was added in 1939, which became United Technologies in 1976 and then via merger Raytheon in 2020 – before it is now removed, as all things aircraft are screeching to a pandemic halt. And Boeing is still on the Index despite the 737 fiasco and plunging sales. IBM was added in 1939, and through the 1970s it was a leader in office equipment creating the computer industry. But IBM after years of declining sales and profits isn’t really relevant any longer, yet it is still on the Index.
As for adding growing stars, GM stays on the Index until it goes bankrupt, but Tesla is yet to make consideration (largely due to lack of profit history.) Likewise, Walmart remains even though the “big gun” in retail is obviously Amazon.com (another lacking the size and longevity of profits the editors like.) McDonald’s stays on the list, despite no growth for years and even as the Board investigates its HR department for hiding abhorrent leadership behavior – while Starbucks is eschewed. And Cisco is there, while we all use Zoom for pandemic-driven virtual meetings.
So what can we take away from today’s changes? First, the Index has changed dramatically over 20 years to reflect electronic technology. IBM, Microsoft and Apple are now joined by Salesforce. Pharma company Pfizer is being replaced by bio-pharma company Amgen in a nod to the future, although almost 40 years after Genentech went public. Exxon disappears as oil prices fall to sub-zero, demand declines globally and electric cars are on the cusp of taking market leadership. And conglomerate Honeywell is added just to show the editors still think conglomerates matter – even if GE has nearly disintegrated.
Is any of this meaningful? I don’t really think so. As an award for past performance, it’s a nice token to make the list. As business leaders, however, we need to be a LOT more concerned about developing businesses for the future, based on trends, than is indicated by the components of the DJIA. Driving revenue growth and higher margins comes from doing the next big thing, not the last big thing. And, as investors, if you want to make outsized returns you have to know that a basket of largely laggards (Apple, Microsoft and Salesforce excepted) is not the way to build your retirement nest. Instead, you have to invest in companies that are creating the future, making the trends a reality for businesses and consumers. Think FAANG.
Nonetheless, after 124 years it is still sort of interesting. I guess most of us do still care what the editors of big news companies think.
TRENDS MATTER. If you align with trends your business can do GREAT! Are you aligned with trends? What are the threats and opportunities in your strategy and markets? Do you need an outsider to assess what you don’t know you don’t know? You’ll be surprised how valuable an inexpensive assessment can be for your future business (https://adamhartung.com/assessments/)
Give us a call or send an email. [email protected]
by Adam Hartung | Jul 14, 2020 | Disruptions, Innovation, Leadership, Marketing, real estate, Retail, Trends
TRENDS: Covid-19 has accelerated a lot of trends. Few more than retail. Oddly some people have taken the view that Covid-19 changed retail. Actually, it didn’t. The pandemic has merely accelerated trends that have been driving industry change for almost two decades.
Back in 2004, Eddie Lampert bought all the bonds of defunct Kmart and used those assets to do a merger with Sears – creating Sears Holdings that encompassed both brands. The day of announcement Chicago Tribune asked for my opinion, and famously I predicted the merger would be a disaster. Clearly both Kmart and Sears were far, far off trends in retail, both were already struggling – and neither had a clue about emerging e-commerce.
Why in 2004 would I predict Sears would fail? The #1 trend in retail was e-commerce, which was all about individualized customer experience, problem solving for customer needs — and only, finally fulfillment. By increasing “scale” – primarily owning a lot more real estate – this new organization would NOT be more competitive. Walmart was already falling behind the growth curve, and everyone in retail was ignoring the elephant in the room – Amazon.com. Loading up on a lot more real estate, more inventory, more employees, more supplier relationships and more community commitments – old ideas about how to succeed related to fulfillment – would hurt more than help. Retail was an industry in transition. All of these factors were boat anchors on future success, which relied on aggressively moving to greater internet use.
Unfortunately, Eddie Lampert as CEO was like most CEOs. He thought success would come from doing more of what worked in the past. Be better, faster, cheaper at what you used to do. In 2011 Sears asked its HQ town (Hoffman Estates) and the state (Illinois) for tax subsidies to keep the HQ there. Sears had built what was once the world’s once tallest building, named the Sears Tower. But many years earlier Sears left, the building was renamed, and Sears was becoming a ghost of itself. I pleaded with government officials to “let Sears go” since the money would be wasted. And it was clear by 2016, that Lampert and his team’s bias toward old retail approaches had only served to hurt Sears more and guarantee its failure. Now – in 2020 – Hoffman Estates has taken the embarrassing act of removing the Sears name from the town’s arena, admitting Sears is washed up.
****
It was with a multi-year observation of trends that I told people in 2/2017 that retail real estate values would crumble . Now mall vacancies are at an 8 year high and 50% of mall department stores will permanently close within a year. We are “over-stored” and nothing will change the fast decline in retail real estate values. Who knows what will happen to all this empty space?
Trends led me in March 2017 to advise investors they should own NO traditional retail equities. Shortly after Sears filed bankruptcy Radio Shack and storied ToysRUs followed. And with the pandemic acting as gasoline fueling change, we’ve now seen the bankruptcies of Neiman Marcus, JCPenney, J Crew, Forever 21, GNC and Chuck e Cheese (but, really, weren’t you a bit surprised the last one was still even in business?) After 3 years of pre-Covid store closings, Industry pundits are finally predicting “record numbers of store closings”. And, after 15 years of predictions, I’m being asked by radio hosts to explain the impact of widespread failures of both local and national retailers ( ).
Ignominious ends are abounding in retail. But – it was all very predictable. The trends were obvious years ago. If you were smart, you moved early to avoid asset traps as valuations declined. You also moved early to get on the bandwagon of trend leaders – like Amazon.com – so you too could succeed.
As we move forward, what will happen to your business? Will you build on trends to create a new future where growth abounds? Will you align your strategy with the future so you “skate to where the puck will be?” Or will you – like Sears and so many others – find an ignominious end to your organization? Will the signs change, or will the signs come down? The trends have never been stronger, the markets have never moved faster and the rewards have never been greater. It’s time to plan for the future, and build your strategy on trends (not what worked in the past.)
But don’t lose sight of the lesson. TRENDS MATTER. If you align with trends your business can do GREAT! Like Facebook. But if you don’t pay attention, and you miss a big trend (like demographic inclusion) the pain the market can inflict can be HUGE and FAST. Like Facebook. Are you aligned with trends? What are the threats and opportunities in your strategy and markets? Do you need an outsider to assess what you don’t know you don’t know? You’ll be surprised how valuable an inexpensive assessment can be for your future business (https://adamhartung.com/assessments/)
Give us a call or send an email. Adam @Sparkpartners.com
by Adam Hartung | Dec 11, 2018 | eBooks, Investing, social media
Since 2012, I’ve been a huge fan of Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix and Google. And they have dramatically outperformed the market. In the last few weeks their values have fallen dramatically, and I’ve heard grumblings that these are no longer the stocks to own.
I virulently disagree. Great companies are where you should invest. If you don’t think these are great companies, you would be right to sell them (such as GE, Sears, and many others.) But despite complaints about privacy, usage rates, nefarious users, and other attacks on technology, the reality is that we love the convenience these companies gave us. We may not think things are perfect, but we are a lot happier than we used to be, and we are pretty happy with how these companies respond to product concerns.
- These companies are still global leaders in some of the biggest and most powerful trends everywhere
- The shift to e-commerce from traditional retail continues unabated
- The movement to mobile devices continues
- Using the cloud to replace device storage and network storage will not slow
- Entertainment continues to move to streaming from TV and other sources
- Ad growth remains firmly on the internet and mobile devices
- Platform usage (such as social networks) keeps growing as more uses are developed
These mega-trends are the foundation of the FAANG companies. These companies became great by understanding these trends, then developing products for these trends that have attracted billions of customers. Their revenue growth continues, just as their product development continues. And their profits keep growing as well. Nobody ever saved their way to prosperity. To increase value you must increase profitable revenues. And that capability has not left these companies.
Some of these company’s leaders have recently been called to Washington to testify. Will they be attacked, split up, further regulated? Will the government kill the golden goose? Given that the US House of Representatives has not firmly moved to the Democrats, I see almost no sign of that happening. Democrats like happy constituents, and given how happy consumers are with these companies the Democrats are very unlikely to intervene. There has long been a deep friendship, built on significant campaign financing and lobbyist involvement, between these companies and Democrats. The change in government almost insures that the actions in Washington will prove to just be a lot of short-term heat, with little change in the overall lighting.
I don’t know when these stocks will reach a short-term bottom. Just like nobody can predict market highs, it is impossible to predict lows. But the one thing I feel very strongly about is that in a year these companies will be worth more than they are valued today.
For insight into my strong favorability for these companies, take a look at the infographic I’ve provided regarding Facebook. Despite the Facebook stock ups-and-downs, this infographic explains why long-term it has been very smart to buy Facebook. Despite how people have “felt” about the company, it is a GREAT company built on powerful trends. To understand even better, buy the ebook “Facebook, The Making of a Great Company” on Amazon for 99 cents.
