Office Hours #Q&A #WWDC #transcript
Recording and transcript of the June 9, 2026 Asymco One Office Hours, recorded the day after Apple's WWDC 2026 keynote. Horace Dediu shares his impressions of the event and takes questions from Asymco One subscribers.
Subscribe to Asymco One to listen to the recording and read the transcript.
Sign up and latest updates at asymco.com/live.
A Series on Valuation in the age of AI
Apple recently hit an all-time high. Today the stock is trading at a P/E of 35. The P/E ratio is the current share price P divided by the last four quarters’ net earnings per share E. But we also have a pretty good idea of the earnings for the next quarter, ending June (now almost half-way completed). The guidance very clearly suggests that on a one Quarter forward basis the P/E ratio is 34.
I’ve maintained for at least 15 years that a reasonable multiple for Apple is 35. This was mainly because other large cap technology companies were also trading around that number. While at this ratio, if a company is growing at 22% it means that an investor will make their money back in about 10 years. Thereafter all free cash flows will go entirely to the investor’s pocket. That seems a reasonable return. It’s not a particularly risky bet to assume 20% growth for 10 years if you look at (a) history and (b) how many people in the world have not yet started using Apple products and (c) assess how well management is doing their job.
So by this measure, Apple seems to be reasonably priced. Historically it has not been reasonably priced but that is due to the disconnect between understanding the business and falling for the usual false tropes. The following graph shows the share price and where it fell between the bands of Earnings multiples. The grey areas represent periods of significant share price decline.
But much of the volatility of the stock is also due to overall sentiment collapse. That has happened on many occasions, most notably the 2008 financial crisis and “great recession.” (Another was the Covid crisis.) In these cases, regardless of underlying strength, the shares were available very cheaply.
Today perhaps we should ask if a bubble is forming due to exuberance around AI which is inflating the market in unsustainable ways.
There are four reasons why the current asset value explosion is different.
First, it is highly concentrated in a handful of names.
| 2005 S&P 500 top 10 | % of the S&P index | 2026 S&P 500 top 10 | % of the S&P index |
| Exxon | 3.1% | NVDA | 7.8% |
| MSFT | 2.5% | GOOG | 7.3% |
| Citigroup | 2.2% | AAPL | 6.4% |
| GE | 2.0% | MSFT | 4.6% |
| Walmart | 1.7% | AMZN | 4.4% |
| BoA | 1.6% | Broadcom | 3.0% |
| J&J | 1.6% | TSLA | 2.4% |
| Pfizer | 1.4% | META | 2.3% |
| Intel | 1.3% | Walmart | 1.6% |
| AIG | 1.3% | Berkshire Hathaway | 1.5% |
| Total | 18.7% | 41.3% |
Second it is fueled by equity not debt. Third, it involves disproportionate capital expenditure rather than M&A. Fourth it is accompanies by sharply growing revenues (though not as sharp as investment growth.)
In other words, whereas the equity value is growing rapidly, so is income and investment without leverage. This is a low-debt with high income scenario. Previous crises were high income with high debt (2008) or low income with low debt. (Dot Com).
That’s not to say that we have uniform fair equity values. We need to do quite a bit more due diligence to determine the state of the valuations precisely because we have unusual capital allocation strategies.
To cover this topic I’ll will break the analysis into multiple posts. They are:
Please return to these pages in the next few days to read these posts.
Shameful.
"I sold it too soon. But, I bought it even sooner, so," Buffett told CNBC's Becky Quick in an interview Tuesday on "Squawk Box" .
Apple remains Berkshire Hathaway's largest holding even after the conglomerate trimmed its stake to $61.96 billion at the end of last year, according to InsiderScore.
However, Buffett said Tuesday that he would continue to add to the position if it gets cheaper. He said the iPhone maker is not yet attractive even after falling more than 14% off its recent high, and dropping more than 6% this month. That's amid turmoil in the broader market, with both the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the Nasdaq Composite in a correction.
"I'm very happy to have it be our largest holding," Buffett said. "I was not happy to have it be as large as almost everything else combined."
"It's not impossible that Apple would get to a price, we would buy a lot of it," he added. "But not in this market."
Buffett said the firm has made more than $100 billion in the stock pretax, and was favorable in his comments regarding Tim Cook's leadership of the firm over Steve Jobs.
"Tim Cook has done better with the hand. Steve Jobs — he couldn't have done what Steve Jobs did — but Steve Jobs handed him a hand that Steve would not have done as well," Buffett said.
"Tim was a fantastic manager, and he's a good guy, and somehow he gets along with everybody in the world," he added. "That's a technique I wouldn't have, for example, certainly my partner, Charlie Munger, wouldn't have had it."
Source: CNBC
NB: Warren Buffett said he sold Apple stock too soon but clarified he has no actual regrets. Buffett said it is better than any business Berkshire owns outright including its railroad, which is worth more in dollar terms but earns nowhere near the return on capital that Apple does. He also said his railroad might last longer than Apple.
He said if Apple ever got cheap enough, he would buy a lot more of it. He owned a lot more of it priced a lot lower than what he would have to buy it back at. Complete nonsense.
Also Warren Buffett:
Quote: "Our favorite holding period is forever". Action: Trade Apple to realize gain.
Quote: "Price is what you pay, value is what you get". Action: Trade Apple to make $100 billion pretax, mention that price determines decision.
Quote: "At a healthy business, cash is sometimes thought of as something to be minimized as an unproductive asset that acts as a drag on such markers as return on equity" Action: Sell Apple and other equities and move $300 billion into unproductive cash.
Quote: "Investors, of course, can, by their own behavior, make stock ownership highly risky. And many do. Active trading, attempts to ‘time’ market movements..." Action: time decision to trade Apple for cash on the basis of price, tax and market conditions.
Quote: Apple is "probably the best business I know in the world," "we like to own businesses not stocks". Action: Convert Apple ownership into cash.
Quote: "I'd love to own 100 percent" of Apple. Action: Sell 60% of Apple holdings.
Quote: "I don't think of Apple as a stock. I think of it as our third business" Action: Sell Apple, move into unproductive asset cash.
Quote: "I sold Apple too soon". Action: Also say that you don't regret it.
Actions speak louder than words. The results will be felt by his shareholders.
Apple has so far returned $761.5 billion to shareholders. 143.3 billion in accumulated dividends and $618.2 billion in share buybacks. These are the gray areas in the graph above. The question that often comes up is: isn't this capital return program a misallocation? In particular isn't buying back shares and retiring them a waste of money?
By definition, it cannot be. The mechanism of buying shares and retiring them is a process of returning retained capital to shareholders. The other ways this can be done are through dividends (periodic or one-time) or the sale of the company (liquidation). Ignoring the liquidation option which does not make sense for viable companies, the decision between dividends and buybacks comes down to a tax efficiency question.
The result is, however, roughly the same: retained earnings, which are stored by the company as cash typically (net value for Apple today is $57.2 billion), are an asset balanced by a liability to the shareholder called Total Shareholder Equity (valued today as $60.3 billion.) As such, the retained earnings belong to the shareholders. It's why they own the company. It's what their cash share of the value in the company is.
It's also surplus to the company's needs. Had the company needed this cash, it would have spent it on building the products and services it sells or operations that maintain or grow the business. Those expenses appear in cost of sales (COS) or cost of goods sold (COGS) or in operating expenses Sales, General and Administrative (SG&A) or Research and Development (R&D). If it's not spent this way then it drops to the net income line and, crucially, is subject to taxation (about 12% to 15% for Apple). After taxation, once returned, it's taxed again as either capital gains (in the case of buybacks) or dividend income. These rates vary on the jurisdiction of the owner and the current tax policy.
Note that the spending on R&D includes development of future projects which are not directly related to current products. Engineering of current products is expensed against COGS. R&D for Apple ($29.4 billion in last 12 months) is significant, having grown to 9% of sales, as the graph below shows.
For the company to decide to return capital it really does mean that it has no good ideas on how to spend it given what the company knows it can and cannot do. It's a judicious decision and one which honors the relationship between owner and manager with fiduciary responsibility to the owner.
Still, doesn't that mean it's wasted?
No. Giving it to the shareholder means that the company says "It belongs to you, I don't know what to do with it on your behalf, so here, you figure out what to do with it." The shareholder can then make an allocation decision that suits their sense of what is valuable or useful. The return is a deferral of decision to the owner rather than their agent.
To the extent that once returned, the capital is misspent, that is on the spender, not on Apple.
Consider the alternatives. Instead of returning capital, what some managers decide to do is to re-allocate those retained earnings to acquire other companies with the promise of value creation through synergies. However these are often huge wastes of money. The new asset is recorded as "goodwill" on the balance sheet, offsetting the retained shareholder equity. As the synergies fail to materialize, the asset (goodwill) is written off, and shareholder equity decreases accordingly, and so, value evaporates or is transferred to the owners of the acquired company who cash out above market value.
Acquisitions are a process of picking the pocket of shareholders.
The alternative might be to spend heavily on R&D. That is more admirable but the amount involved is enormous and it's very difficult to find enough people and projects worth pursuing without turning R&D into an academic organization. Remember that with R&D at $7.4 billion per quarter, the company is spending 41 times more than it did in 2006.
And doubling or tripling R&D, even if possible, would impact margins to such an extent that Apple's profitability would show very poorly indeed. That would collapse share prices and decrease share-based compensation, limiting the possibility of recruiting talented engineers. It would bring quite a lot of negative consequences.
Another exercise to undertake would be to ask what would happen if the mechanism of share buybacks were made illegal. It was not always legal anyway. That is left as an exercise to the reader.
This is a transcript of an Asymetric podcast. It was lightly edited for legibility.
Judd Rubin: Three continents, one conversation, this is Asymetric. We are very excited to have Balaji Srinivasan with us today. Balaji, you're a busy man, Horace you're on the run as usual, so why don't we dive right in. Thanks for joining us today.
Balaji Srinivasan: Good to be here. Good to see you, Horace.
Horace Dediu: Likewise.
Balaji: I know you from online, from Twitter, or at least, I know of your work. It’s always interesting for people to understand how they're maybe thought of by folks who are maybe a little bit on the periphery. And I, we've, always thought of you as the most quantitative Apple analyst, I guess you and [John] Gruber would be the two people who, if you're in the Apple ecosystem, might be the most perceptive commentators outside of Apple itself.
Horace: And John's a qualitative guy, right, so that makes sense.
Balaji: Yeah, exactly. And I'm not like a huge, I mean, it's funny, certainly I have a lot of Apple equipment, but I wouldn't consider myself an Apple fanboy, per se. I converted to Apple when they supported BSD in OSX, because it was a better compute experience.
And, for the last, almost 20 years, the typical developer/engineer/founder, whatever, set up has been a Mac laptop locally, and then all your compute is on AWS or a Linux box or something in the cloud.
Horace: Yeah, me too, actually, because when I started my university work, it was all on Unix, and this was in the days of VAX computers, Digital Equipment, and I just loved that interface at the time of DOS. This felt like, you know, ages ahead. And then I moved from a console to a workstation, which would have been a large screen using the X windowing system and that was my career for five years.
I wasn't even on a PC anymore, I wasn’t using a Mac, but in 2000 when they switched, roughly around that time they switched to being, like you said, BSD. And I was like, okay, Mac is the way to go. Anyway, we don't want to talk about necessarily Apple, tell us what you're working on these days.
Balaji: Sure. I've actually got the crypto plan for world domination that I thought I might discuss with you. Which is essentially how if you're a crypto maximalist, so to speak, how I think crypto is the most important threat to the Big Five.
And essentially the plan for the next decade for how crypto goes after, not just FinTech, but Messaging, Log-in, Social, Search; Crypto Phone, Crypto OS, compilers, databases, advertising, actually reinventing CPA (cost per action), hosting, data centers, creator monetization, and then, on the back end, equity, compensation, privacy, and then most importantly: values.
I actually think that people are underestimating the scope of how big of a deal crypto is and that the Big Five don't really get it. The Big Five, meaning, Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft.
And there's pieces of their empires that I haven't yet figured out how crypto might disrupt. Amazon's physical logistics, for example, but there's much more of it that is crypto vulnerable than I think people think. And your audience might be interested in this. Some of this is new, even, for maybe my audience.
So we could go area by area. And push back.
Horace: Yeah, the one thing I would caution on, is this usage of the word disruption, because I'm also a student of Clay Christensen. To what extent what I challenge you to answer is, to what extent might these Big Five find [crypto], possibly sustaining?
So if they would say, ‘Oh, well, thank you very much. We'll take it from here.’ So, I agree that there's an opportunity here to disrupt, but many times people just assume change is always disruptive, but change can be sustaining as well. So, please tell us.
Balaji: So, actually, on that point, there's a colloquial usage of disrupt, which just means a change. And then there's the more technical, the Clayton Christensen version, which is, it starts out as sort of an inferior product in some ways, but it's 10x on one axis, it's sort of underestimated. And then it takes the bottom end of the market, and then zooms up to the top in such a way that the incumbent finds it difficult to adopt it because it attacks their margins and so on.
Right? That's assuming the kind of, more technical --
Horace: That's what I mean, yes. That's low end disruption. There's also new markets where it basically carves out for itself a new niche and it does things that nobody's asked it to do. Or markets that are non-consuming, like, you know, emerging markets or something like that, and grows from that base as opposed to low end.
But, yes, generally speaking, that it comes in and is not good enough initially.
Balaji: Yeah, so I think that this fits, as I'll go through each of these examples, I think each of these fit both the sort of colloquial usage, as well as the more technical usage. But let me go one by one and just talk through these points.
So first, at a high level, I'm actually pretty confident that, with the exception actually of Facebook and Twitter, I think crypto is kryptonite to large companies because they don't understand it. And in particular, they're sort of frozen by antitrust and they can't take on more regulatory risk, even if they had the personalities internally to do so. I actually give a lot of credit, even if I think Libra was misguided in some respects, in terms of implementation, I give a lot of credit to [Mark Zuckerberg] for trying to get into crypto relatively early and putting out a project. Even if, in many respects, I think the parameters were flipped, as I can get into, to simply push through that relatively early, starting in 2018, when the other companies didn't get there is because he has a founder's mentality still.
And I think Twitter is actually the dark horse here where it's the furthest ahead on Bitcoin, specifically, as opposed to crypto more generally, that's an internal distinction in the community that I can talk about. But I don't think that Google, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon actually get it because they're not founder led.
And also because they're under this regulatory microscope.
Horace: By the way, just a funny story. So I'm here in Germany because I'm at an event for e-bikes called Eurobike, or just bikes in general. So I'm a fan of Micromobility, I've been talking about it for a couple of years now. I get the same impression. I've spoken to people at those companies that they're not seeing it, they’re not feeling it. Their entire mobility focus is still automotive. It's not that there's a cognitive problem. They understand the idea, but they can't actually implement it, it's this innovator's dilemma thing.
Balaji: Yeah. I mean, it gets to the fundamental thing, right? Which is that a founder is able to say, ‘Hey, we were doing X for such a long time and X got us to where we are, but now we're doing, not X. We’re doing the opposite of that.’
And they have the credibility to turn the entire organization, in particular, to impose short-term costs for long-term benefit to cannibalize or disrupt, in the colloquial sense, an existing product for a new one.
You know, Satya [Nadella, Microsoft CEO] is actually the exception. I would put him, if I rank order the existing companies by their crypto friendliness…
What's interesting is it's the $100 billion and $10 billion and $1 billon companies that are much more crypto friendly than the trillion-dollar companies.
So Shopify, for example, gets it, right? Coinbase. Stripe, I think, is coming around. So the ones that are sort of like the sophomores or the juniors, as opposed to the seniors, are going to, I think, use this to slip stream. And I think this is a disruption again, you know, I know you're from the Christensen club, so I may use that colloquially, so poke at it.
I think this is a change or an alteration or a forcing function, whatever you want to call it. That is actually on par with the desktop to internet transition. That you can think of this as, just like you went from on disk to online, the transition from online to on chain involves a similar number of cultural and technical changes that render the current generation, basically like the Borlands and DEC Alphas and so on of the previous generation.
Horace: So tell us how do you think that… You gave a lot of examples, of things going on chain --
Balaji: Yeah, so let's go to specifics. Let's start with the obvious, which is FinTech. One of my colleagues, friends, Chris Dixon runs the crypto fund at a16z. He observed a while ago that many Unix command lines became apps.
For example, GIT became GitHub. That's an obvious one, but had these command line chat apps that effectively became Facebook and IRC and Slack and so on and so forth, right? Command line apps turned into full-blown UXs. Crypto is actually the reverse in some ways where every FinTech app can be turned into a crypto command line. For example, Affirm or PayPal or Funbox, or, many of these things that essentially are doing cashflow transformations of some kind can be written as a few lines of code in Solidity. Which is Ethereum's programming language. And that alone is actually kind of a big deal where you can write that down and then just start piping arbitrary amounts of money through it, between countries, where it really is the internet of money. Any user can route money to any other user, if both users have a crypto address, if they have a Bitcoin address or an Ethereum address for the purpose of smart contracts.
And so that's just a fundamental backend change. And one way of thinking about it is over the last 10 years, since the financial crisis, Dodd-Frank basically stopped the issuance of new banking charters. Were you familiar with that? Did you ever see the graph of that?
Horace: No. No, tell us.
Balaji: So, you're a graph guy - I've got a chart on this somewhere on Twitter, but basically the way that they dealt with the banks' failure during the financial crisis is to effectively reward them by eliminating their competition entirely by refusing to issue new bank charters for almost a decade. And, here's the graph over here.
The state's solution to the financial crisis was to stop issuing commercial bank charters for almost a decade and to reward failure by regulating away competition via Dodd-Frank.
The network solution was FinTech and now DeFi.
The reason I bring this up is FinTech is a front end, Blockchain is a backend. Over the last 10 years... You're probably familiar, at least to some extent, with the FinTech side of things. Imagine if, when I sent you a message via Gmail, that behind the scenes, Google printed out the email, put it on a Pony Express, took it to you cross continent, scanned that and put that into your inbox.
And it looked like it was digital, but it actually had this antiquated pre-internet backend of a two or three-day delay in there, but the company did the best it could to obscure that. You know, all of those hacky steps in between, yeah? That's a good analogy for what FinTech is, where it's this shiny web-like front end, but on the back end, you're dealing with pre-internet mechanisms for settlement where it's often FTP or flat files or some horrible Cobol-era file format. It just wasn't set up for the workloads that we have when you actually press on that. Right? Once you set it up and you give people the expectations of being as performant as a Facebook or a Twitter or a Gmail, and you start putting huge workloads through - that the financial system doesn't anticipate, you get things like the Robin Hood issue of earlier this year.
Horace: Yep.
Balaji: Right? You make people think that it can handle internet-like workloads. But it can't, it just kind of simulated that. Taking that Gmail analogy a little bit further, with Gmail, every email that I send you is basically non-fungible. In the sense that each one is just a different set of characters. But if it was fungible, if it was money where every dollar is the same as every other dollar, Google could… when I hit a button to send you a hundred bucks, Google could just extend you effectively a hundred bucks on credit where it's assuming I'm good for the hundred bucks. Right?
And that is essentially the mechanism by which a lot of FinTech companies operate where they're like a central buffer that makes users think that this stuff is instant and fast, but it's actually not on the backend. Okay, so FinTech is a front end. Blockchain's a backend, where it's a genuine innovation.
So it's almost like this flanking thing where bank charters were cut off. FinTech built all of these fancy front ends on top of banks by doing deals with banks, by now, more recently starting to get licenses in Utah and places like that. And then blockchain, the crypto space, built a completely different set of rails where they essentially, over 10 years, got people to accept these things as money-like.
And now they're coming together where, with Robin Hood, with Square, most FinTech companies are aware that crypto is a big deal. It's not going away. And the reason many of them have a hard time getting their head around it is that it flips basic assumptions.
What Satoshi did with Bitcoin is he flipped absolutely basic assumptions. Where the concept of Bitcoin starts with the idea that deflation is actually good if it's coming from productivity. The typical macroeconomist would say hyperinflation is bad, but deflation is also bad. A little bit of mild inflation is good. This is what you'll read in every Econ 101 textbook.
Horace: Yep, that's true.
Balaji: And so Satoshi said, actually, no, that's not the case.
You want to have users be able to hold their own funds and you want to have a fixed monetary policy that gives certainty for investing in the future. That can't be monkeyed around with, by the Fed open markets committee, to bail out banks and stop transactions and so on. That meant so many flips of fundamental premises.
Number one, digital gold being good rather than bad. Number two, that users should be able to custody their own money rather than having it at banks and they should be able to take that risk. Number three, that transactions by default should all be able to go through. So it's like a default approved as opposed to a default sanctioned and so on and so forth. They basically just flipped fundamental premises.
And when you flip fundamental premises, you can often get to just a completely different environment, completely different worldview, completely different set of solutions. I mean, it's like land animals versus sea animals or like Google's culture versus Apple's culture, right?
I mean, now they've become more similar but Apple for a long time, it used to be very private internally and Google was very public internally. Both of them worked on their own terms, but were just fundamentally different in terms of their premises and axioms.
Horace: Let me get back to this example you gave us, of online as a way to do fundamental transactions. Now, one of the things that, and this seems very much, like you said, behind the scenes, because from the front end the consumer is given an illusion of technical competence. But in the backend, it's actually still jury rigged.
Now, the thing that I would ask is what does that mean and how does it feel different for the consumer? Because if you fix the backend, then yes, it's much more robust and clean and probably safer. But I think that the way it affects behavior is not so much that people feel different about that interface, but rather that they will do more of it.
In other words, that, like you said, it was about volumes that caused the cracks to appear in Robin Hood. So to me, the question, the reason, let's say I'm not skeptical, but I'm slightly reluctant to dive headfirst in on crypto is that I'm asking all the time is: How does it feel different for the end user?
And the end user would have to have some sort of emotional response to this change and say, ‘Wow, this is really amazing! Now it's much better.’ Or, ‘Now I can do things that I couldn't do before.’ So what I would posit is that the change you speak of would allow the users to suddenly say, ‘You know, I may do a wire to pay for a very large sum, but now I would do it a hundred times a day. Or I would do it to pay my friend, or I would do something financially that I never did before.'
And I, by the way, I feel this pain a lot because I live in two countries and you probably do as well, and you have to always transfer money and it's an absolute nightmare. And it's almost confiscatory in the way they steal money on the way, to try to transfer funds internationally.
So do you see this driving new user behavior or is it simply that you fixed something that was broken?
Balaji: Absolutely, excellent question. Let me give a few points on that. An interesting thing Evan Williams once said, in a sort of counter-intuitive way, was that the way to get people to adopt an app is to not do something totally different, but to take something they're already doing and just cut out steps. Make it just faster, simpler, etc.
You know, people were blogging and then they did Twitter. People were blogging and then they did Medium and made it simpler, with front end editing. And that's one view, that technology is incremental. But the other view is it's transformative. Wait a second - our lives are so different than the past.
And here's how I reconcile those, then let me get to specifics. If you go from physical mail to email, just sending point to point email, to a group email with reply all. To a group email with reply all where you add attachments of images to a Facebook thread, to then real-time chat in something like Slack or Discord where you're attaching images.
Each one is an incremental step over the previous one. But if you were to think about how expensive it would be to do a Facebook thread by physical mail. You'd have, I don’t know, a thousand friends and you'd be printing out the thread each time and sending postcards to each of them, with someone saying LOL…
If you would just diagram that out and see how many packets were moving back and forth between those thousand participants of which maybe 95, 99% of them are, actually, not even participating. So therefore they wouldn't even go and send in their postcards. And you'd say how much of a cost that would be on the legacy postal system?
At a certain point, when it's a million postcards to be one simple Facebook thread that we take for granted that has some images and a reply and maybe a link or something like that. Well, then the quantitative difference makes a qualitative difference.
Horace: Absolutely. Yup.
Balaji: Right? And in the same way, that's basically what's happening with crypto. And one way of thinking about it is - and this is now changing, but in the first 10 years, what crypto was best for and by the way, within crypto the term ‘crypto’ is an overarching thing that encompasses... There's just different people who have a beef with the term. One group, are those people for whom, you know, crypto used to mean cryptography, right?
And the second are those folks who think of Bitcoin as its own area, as distinct from crypto in general. I think crypto is the right term for the space as a whole. I think, in particular, cryptocurrency and blockchain is to cryptography roughly as the internet is to software. Software is not synonymous with the internet. Computer science is not synonymous with the internet, but it’s certainly the most frequent deployment and monetization point for it. And, in the same way, I think many cryptographic concepts will be deployed and monetize within the blockchain and cryptocurrency space.
On the second thing, just to finish this little tangent for a second, Bitcoin people think of Bitcoin as the only real cryptocurrency and everything else is a scam and a fraud and blah, blah, blah.
Which I don't believe. And I don't think Satoshi Nakamoto believed that, but this is something you'll probably hear more and more of.
But just in terms of that term, ‘crypto’ is basically thinking of the space as a financial and technological and efficiency related movement. There’s also a very strong overlap, which I'll get to on the ethical aspects and how it's actually a pro-freedom movement. And those overlap. And a Bitcoin maximalist would be like purely on the pro-freedom side, or in their mental model of it.
Okay. Just coming back up the stack. So, end-user benefit basically in the first 10 years, crypto benefited what I'd call the power users and the marginalized. The people who are at both ends of the spectrum. It's the exact opposite of the bell curve.
It's not the person in the middle. It's a person at the extremes. And so that's why I like the example of, ‘Hey, I'm buying coffee at Starbucks. You know, this crypto thing doesn't seem like too much of a benefit.’ It's actually a good point. And the reason is crypto is good for transactions that are very large, very small, very fast, very international, very automated and/or very transparent.
So those six things: large, small, fast, automated, international, transparent.
Your Starbucks [order], maybe it's 10 bucks or 15 bucks, whatever, for coffee and bagels or something like that. You know, big city prices nowadays. That's not a very large nor very small transaction. It's not millions of dollars. It's not a cent. It doesn't need to be very fast because to clear it, settlement can happen over a day or something like that. It doesn't need to be ridiculously fast. It doesn't need to be very automated because with both you and the clerk, there are humans monitoring the transaction on both ends.
It's not very international. You're both literally in the same coffee shop and doesn't need to be very transparent. There's no reason for either of you to have that receipt on chain. So everybody thinks about coffee payments because that's maybe the most frequent thing that people actually buy on a daily basis.
There are not too many other things. People used to buy a newspaper on daily basis, but they don't really do that anymore. They may have a subscription, but they don't consciously buy it. So relatively a few other things you buy on a daily basis. You don't buy a chair on a daily basis. You don't buy a computer on a daily basis.
So they think about their coffee purchase, but that's actually sort of the opposite. So where crypto is actually really good - let's start at the power users first. The power users can be split into two overlapping groups, which are engineers and investors. Both of them are trying to do things like, for example, move a million dollars across the world to Japan in a day to do something, right?
The engineer might be doing that because they're moving money around on the back end of Airbnb or Uber or PayPal or something like that. They're pooling capital from lots of users and trying to do something with it. Take the profits from one area and move it to another. Accept all of these wire transfers in different currencies and convert them into USD within Airbnb's main account, something like that.
Brian Armstrong, founder of Coinbase, saw what a big deal this was as an Airbnb payments engineer. He realized it was not a solved problem. That's actually how he got into Bitcoin originally. So as an engineer, you understand it from that perspective. An investor understands it from a similar perspective where you want to do an international wire and, you know what? It's actually still a pain to do that.
Wires get lost. There's [the matter of] correspondent banks. It's a huge pain to do a wire trace or something. But you know what's really simple? If both sides use USDC, which is the stable coin I helped launch, but it's the number two stable coin in the world. Maybe the number one, if you think of it, as in terms of legal stable coins, you can go to a website, stablecoinstats.com.
Right now, it's $26 billion outstanding in USDC and over the last 24 hours, it was $694 million in volume. Okay. That's quite a lot of wire.
Horace: Impressive. Yeah. That’s striking.
Balaji: That's striking. The whole space is bigger than people get from the outside.
A good metaphor is crypto is a country. It's a fractal country of a hundred million people, which is bigger than most people realize. Cambridge had a study on this last year. It's probably bigger than that now, but it's a hundred million people who hold some crypto, according to the surveys, spread across countries.
And the key is you have to have that sort of value flip right in your head to think of it as money. It's basically like, do you think of the yen as money or not? Do you think of the ruble as money? And if you do, then you can participate in the Japanese or the Russian ecosystem. And if you do not, then you do not.
But crypto is like a country that is exponentially expanding. And there's a million people at the core and then 10 million people around that and a hundred million and it'll keep growing. And then once you’re part of this economic environment, all these other people accept cryptocurrency as money, all of these things become possible.
And once the other person, on their side, accepts USDC as a dollar equivalent, well, I can hit enter. And just like how sometimes you'll send somebody a file and you'll talk to them on the phone for a minute or 30 seconds, and they'll be like, ‘Oh, okay. I got the file in my inbox, done.’
You can now do that with an international wire transfer with USDC. You can hit enter, and they will see it on chain in a few seconds. Now, at first, all that's doing is it's similar to the transition from mail to email, where you go from a two to three day delay to seconds. But then over time that increases the metabolism of business.
For example, I sold a company, Earn.com, to Coinbase several years ago.
One of the things we did there was kind of a V1 of this where we would accept Bitcoin from somebody in Greece or Japan, let's say $10,000 worth. And then we were able to issue a thousand $10 amounts of Bitcoin to a thousand individual people in different places for microtasks.
And the thing is that, because I could get that $10,000 wire or wire equivalent from them same day, you didn't have to know whether they were good for the money.
Horace: I think it's unbelievable. But let me bring you back to the Big Five and the questions [from earlier in the discussion]. We just did FinTech, I think convincingly, the next question is how does this, which yes, it will increase metabolism, but how –
Balaji: How does it disrupt the Big Five?
Horace: Yeah. In particular, those examples you gave: messaging and platforms and coding and all these other things.
Balaji: Let me just tie up one last point on the previous thing, if you don't mind. I mentioned [crypto] is good for the power user and the marginalized.
So the power user - the dev or the investor wants to move millions of dollars around the world with the keystroke. The marginalized, that's somebody who just wants to hold on to a bank account equivalent. That's somebody in a Venezuela or a place where the currency is being inflated. Or Nigeria, where people are being pushed out by the police.
But it's also anybody who's de-platformed or canceled or ostracized, or basically locked out of the financial system for whatever reason. Like the OnlyFans.com thing recently, [which is an] obvious example of something where… That's what cryptocurrency sells, where the banking system can't just lock you out.
And what's interesting is sometimes these are the same entity at the same time. Something like binance.com, for example, is both a power user of crypto but it's also marginalized where it's sort of on the margins of the legal systems in the world.
A couple of other quick points on this before I move on.
One thing people often talk about is, ‘Where are all the use cases for crypto?’ Well, now there are many of them are out there. You know, I've actually got a post on this: And What Has Blockchain Ever Done For Us?Crypto has transformed crowdfunding, it's transformed international wire transfers, it's transformed gold.
Just those three applications are worth trillions of dollars, but there's way more. If you go to defipulse.com, it's transformed loans, it's transformed derivatives. Many of these applications are actually out there and already at substantial scale.
But a very important point is speculation was installation. Without people speculating that this thing could be big, it wouldn't have had a price. Without it having a price you couldn’t treat it as money. Without it being treated as money, you couldn't build all of these apps. The loans wouldn't work because it'd be just sending zero for zero.
The thing about crypto, in particular, is it has the opposite emergence mode from social networks. You know, we've now been tuned to such an extent to DAUs (daily average users) and MAUs (monthly average users) and whatnot, that we sort of forget in the 2000s, that those were metrics that people scoffed at and poo-pooed because social networks were piling up all the users, but where the money, you know?
Even as late as 2012 or 2013, there was an article, something like why Facebook will never make a significant profit. And just a few years later, [people were saying] ‘Oh my God, they're so evil, They're dominating the world.’
The New York Times had an article in the early 2000s, Google's Toughest Search is For a Business Model, right. And of course, Amazon.bomb.
And you've seen all these kinds of things. With Facebook in particular, it piled up users. It made money, actually, pretty early on, but Twitter, Pinterest, Snapchat, this entire model of piling up users before making money was, and is, a common one. Now people understand it so much that they think that's the default emergence mode of new technology,
But crypto flips that. Where it piled up the money before it had the users. Making money, almost in the literal sense, before the users came. So it flipped it around. And so instead the question people were asking is, ‘Oh, where's the utility?'
Now it's actually coming.
But I wanted to point that out. It's the opposite of the social network model, MAUs and DAUs, there’s a totally new set of metrics you need for crypto, which are not daily active users, but daily inactive holders - that is people who are holding for the long-term and are committed to it.
So that's macro, let's go to specifics. So I mentioned FinTech. Pretty much every FinTech app is going to get backend blockchain-ified. Unless there is some prohibition within the country on that. And if that is the case, it'll probably get out-competed internationally, even if it has a captive market at home.
And the reason for that is, if you think about an email address, it is something which is uniform across geographies. I don't need to look up the postal code of this, or the zip code of that. With an email list, you don't need to know whether somebody is in Nigeria or Switzerland or India. Just hit enter and you send it. That uniformity alone is something that blockchain addresses give you. It’s way easier to do a cross-border deal with somebody in Japan and Brazil or Nigeria with the smart contract than it ever was before.
In fact, one might even argue international business didn't even really exist before smart contracts and cryptocurrency. And the reason I say that is if a Brazilian company wants to acquire something in Bangladesh - -
Judd: You need locals.
Balaji: Yeah. You know, what you might do is say, all right, there's not too much law on the Brazil - Bangladesh interface, but there'd be U.S. - Brazil and U.S. - Bangladesh. So let’s set up an intermediate there and work through the precedents on both sides and get A plus B and B plus C.
The other country you might use for this is China, but if we actually go down to brass tacks and think about what the obligations are for each side and how the legal systems interact, you sort of need that centralized intermediate, the U.S. and China are the only two countries that do so much business worldwide.
There's probably a Chinese enterprise in Bangladesh, probably a Chinese one in Brazil, and so you could make the things add up and the laws add up and the property rights add up. But that's something that only works at scale. For large companies doing those kinds of transactions, you can make it work and you'd probably set up a U.S. or Chinese intermediary to help make it work. To lubricate it.
But if you wanted to do it direct - how do you do direct? These people don't speak each other's language? They certainly don't know or trust each other's legal system. So all kinds of weird peccadilloes. But on chain, everybody can read the same code. So, essentially, the pooling of money, the friction of diligence, the consistency and uniformity of naming, all of those things are 10x improvements just from a developer-investor standpoint, the power user standpoint with FinTech.
So all FinTech gets disrupted by blockchain. That's very clear to me, it's already happening in some ways, but that's very obvious. All right, let me pause there and get your thoughts, feedback, and then I’ll move on to the next one.
Horace: Yeah, exactly. I love the way you framed it in those six categories of applicability.
Most people don't experience small transactions or international or transparency's not a concern of theirs. But that allows me to classify this as the type of disruption where it would allow things to happen which normally wouldn't happen. It would allow, like you said, inter[national] deals to happen in ways that no one would even think of doing today.
And as a result, it's sort of a new market disruption. It would unify people who are now divided by country boundaries. It would unify them in, as you said, this new country, this country of coin, [of] which they would be all effectively citizens that would somehow communicate and understand each other so much better, because they are not divided by these artificial boundaries. And I think that would, if you said the exponential growth is current[ly happening], then it would encompass a substantial part of the globe. And that in itself is so powerful that we can't even fathom the consequences of. But it's effectively, in the FinTech world, I think what you're saying, and I'm sort of reading ahead of it here, so what you're saying is that once that platform or that foundation is laid, you can imagine a lot of new things emerging and that will build new empires. Is that where you getting at?
Balaji: Yes. I actually think crypto is to America as America was to Europe. Like you can, and let me explain what I mean by that. It's actually-
Horace: No, I get it, yeah.
Balaji: And just like you had, so why is that actually a good analogy and not just simply verbiage? If you know different kinds of distance metrics, the most obvious distance metric is the great circle distance on the surface of the earth between two people.
That's just the distance as the Crow flies. You know, on the surface of globe. There's another distance metric, which is the geodesic distance between two people in a social network. You could have, for example, you and I right now are closer geodesically than we are geographically. And then there's people outside who are closer geographically than geodesically. People I don't know, or haven't spoken to, but they’re within a mile of me or, or within a mile of you.
And so those metrics, they actually have typologies associated with them. Just like you can have a cartography of continents, you can have a cloud cartography of who is close to who in the social network. In many ways, you're probably closer to people in Cupertino and New York and various financial capitals around the world than you are to people who are a mile away physically.
And that is something, when you start visualizing what that cloud continent looks like, with all the nodes colored by what coins they hold, you know, a big orange for Bitcoin and blueish for Ethereum and so on and so forth. You start getting a visual that looks a lot like the European incursion into the New World.
Without, of course, any Native Americans or anything like that, it's sort of the pure expansion of different demographics into this new region where people are spending more and more of their time. And VR will make this more than a metaphor. It'll actually be like physical space.
Now the one thing I would edit on your point is that when I said crypto's a country and you said without internal boundaries, there actually is a lot of crypto tribalism. So it's actually an interesting thing where just like there was the New World and the Old World, there's a crypto world and the fiat world, and there are conflicts within the crypto world and there are alliances with folks in the fiat world.
So it's actually an interesting analogy to the age where the French and the English and the Spanish and so on all slugged it out for the Americas. Again, without the native population there, it's sort of the pure version of that. So with that as an analogy, it's something where you can build things from scratch. All these ideas that were infeasible in the Old World, like democracy or so many innovations that the U.S. had in terms of governance and —
Horace: The federation, the transportation networks, the frontier, the way the U.S. was constructed, mostly accidentally, allowed it to become a superpower.
And I think the continental scale of it, which again was accidental by acquisition of territories peacefully and not peacefully, but generally Europe was stuck in a centuries old grid of monarchies, feudalism and all the other baggage they had carried. It just wasn't able to have a frontier mentality. I sometimes think that that conquest of land, that the open horizons is reflected in the dynamism and the ability to invent that followed.
Balaji: Yes. This is Frederick Jackson's Turner's frontier thesis, and one can argue whether these changes were all good or all bad. I think there were some both good and bad innovations that came back from the New World to the Old. For example, The French Revolution, they were in part inspired by The American Revolution, but had a much worse result.
Communism actually, there were a fair number of Americans that were involved in it. There's a book by Kenneth Ackerman, for example, Trotsky in New York, where he raised money in New York. Also Lenin was basically released by the German government. Even the New York Times had something of this, like Lenin was a German agent.
So some of that stuff that came back to Europe from the Americas, that’s not that well-known, but it's also not that obscure. You can Google around and find it. Some of that stuff that came back from the Americas was not good, but some of it was. The modern railroads and the history of how many technical innovations came back from the U.S. to everywhere else. From mass production to, I mean, in some ways bad, but the atomic bomb, nuclear power, all of these things that you would not have had without that fresh new, clean slate to build things and have influence back [the Old World].
And I think that's very similar to what we're seeing in crypto, where in many ways it's already changing the financial system. The most obvious is every government in the world, every bank, knows what CBDCs (Central Bank Digital Currencies) are, at least in concept. And China is shipping a digital Yuan. Which means that a post on a message board by a pseudonymous guy 10 years ago has shook the entire world, and is already a topic for not just discussion, but active execution by the governments of a billion people.
And that's, that’s-
Horace: Just while we're on this cultural aspect, what is your opinion on who Satoshi is? I'm curious as you seem to know —
Judd: Are you Satoshi?
Balaji:. No, I'm not Satoshi. I wouldn't tell you if I was Satoshi, but I'm not Satoshi.
Judd: What if we asked twice?
Balaji:. What's that? What if you asked twice? Ha ha. No, I mean, Satoshi Nakamoto had a very important combination of skills.
First, he was a world-class programmer. The thing about something like Bitcoin is computer security. The late Dan Kaminsky, who was a friend of mine and absolutely a genius in computer security had an article in 2013 where he said, I tried to hack Bitcoin and I failed. And this was very exciting.
The point that he made was that, in most applications, security can rightfully be a little bit of an afterthought. That’s to say that in the early years of the web, maybe not so much today in 2021, but in the early years of the web, you just needed to stand up a site and get users. And you could sort of assume that there wasn't that much to be hacked and people didn't care that much. And so people would optimize for growth over security, because if you have growth and no security, then you can hire engineers and add the security later. But if you have security and no growth, you have no money, and it doesn't matter. Nobody cares if it's secure.
And the thing that's different about cryptocurrency is that security is a fundamental characteristic. If it's hacked, even once, if you can duplicate coins, inflate coins, and that's a persistent issue and an unfixable issue, then the value goes away.
So security wasn't an afterthought. Satoshi built the code like you'd build the code for a space shuttle. Where it was just a different mentality from the very start. And so, first of all, he’s a genius programmer. But, second, he clearly had a deep humanities background to build something — I mean, with many kinds of inventions, there's Newton and there's Leibniz. You know, there’s an idea in the air and there's simultaneous invention of some kind.
But Bitcoin wasn't like that. It really was something where one person's genius shaped the world and it took a while for people to catch up. And it wasn't like there were a lot of contemporaneous Bitcoins with similar ideas. It was something where it was kind of out there and it took a while for people to get it. And even still today, people don't get it because it flips premises.
And unless you're actually reasoning from first principles… people will quote Econ 101 as if it's like some kind of inoculation against this thing that’s at a trillion dollars [in market value]. It's similar in my view, by the way, the American, just to digress on this for a second, the American school and maybe the international school of macroeconomics, I think is similar to like Soviet economics where the Soviet Union had all of these prizes that were given out for Marxist economics. But it didn't amount to a hill of beans because their premises were actually wrong. Some of it was good. Like, I think Kantorovich did linear programming. Some of the math was useful, but it was something where the premises were wrong. And one of the reasons for that is that with macroeconomics, you can't actually run experiments very easily. Because the maximum that we know in macro is something like communism doesn't work. In the sense if you compare a North Korea versus South Korea or China before Deng Xiaoping to Hong Kong and Taiwan and Singapore, or East Germany versus West Germany. You take ethnically similar populations, you partition them, run the experiment for 40 years, communism impoverishes one side of the country versus the other. We've now seen that multiple times. So that's the extent to which you can see that within macroeconomics and so in that sense you've got controlled experiments, but that's not actually the fundamental principle of macroeconomics.
It's something more like John Lanchester wrote this in London Review of Books, you know, almost a decade ago. And Tyler Cowen wrote about it. The fundamental principle of macroeconomics is governments aren't households. Meaning governments can print money, meaning governments can seize things at gunpoint, and so on and so forth.
And this type of stuff, this kind of discussion goes to philosophical roots. It goes to economics. It goes to history. It goes to policy. It's inseparable.
Horace: But just to build on that, the way I would say it, governments typically have a monopoly on violence. What it boils down to is that they can do these things, which are not allowed by households, is because they have armies.
Balaji: Yes.
Horace: They have police forces that effectively are armed. Citizens may or may not be armed, but generally never could match the firepower of the state. So this is — the monopoly on power is monopoly on violence, at this moment.
Balaji: That's right. And the thing about that is that the modern school of macroeconomics is backed not by mathematics, but by guns. Actually, Paul Krugman, in an interview with Joe Weisenthal said, fiat currency, if you like, is backed by men with guns. It's like Mao’s thing, “power comes from the barrel of a gun.” Whereas, and so once we're honest about that, we're like, oh, it's not Econ 101, it's AR-15. Right? And so once you realize, okay, that's actually the backing. These fancy formulas, it's just like the Soviet Union, the Marxist stuff was backed by AK-47. Right?
So once you realize that, okay, well, I'll give you another one, which is Bitcoin is backed by SHA256. So Bitcoin is actually backed by cryptography and mathematics versus violence. And that's just a fundamentally different set of premises. So the reason this is inescapable to talk about is that you can use JavaScript without really knowing much about history. But to understand the problem that Bitcoin solves, you really do need to understand history and philosophy. And that's why Satoshi was-
Horace: Yeah, exactly. I was going to bring you back to Satoshi. So he's a humanist and he's also a programmer par excellence. But you also speak of him in the past tense. Why do you do that? Is he not still with us? And what’s happened, what will happen with his share of Bitcoin?
Balaji: Well, nobody knows. It's something, which is interesting, where it shows that with good enough OPSEC, to my knowledge, nobody's actually, de-anonymized him.
A lot of people suspect that Satoshi was close to Hal Finney, who was an early extropian and programmer, but nobody knows for sure. Some people think it's Nick Szabo. I don't think it's Nick because Nick has never published code to my knowledge. So I don't think he could have done it himself, but Nick has published ideas that are clearly influential on Bitcoin. But the reason we speak of it in the past tense is for him to authenticate a message he'd have to do so from the private keys that are associated with early Bitcoin addresses that we know belong to him that only he would hold.
He could trivially do that. And he has not done that in last seven years. And Hal Finney actually died of Lou Gehrig's disease, I believe, around that same time. So it sort of connects that Hal Finney might be Satoshi, but it's not known. And nobody really wants to poke into it because in many ways what Satoshi did, it’s amazing that it was a human being who did it, like a single human being. And I think it really was a single human being because something like that is just sort of hard to do as a team. Satoshi… the fact that he has disappeared means that Bitcoin is “decentralized,” or rather it is one of the forces that makes Bitcoin feel decentralized.
It is something where there's no identifiable leader, yet it has massive global adoption. Now, you can argue, well, the core developers and the miners and the reference client, and so on, are points of centralization. Each of these are tested over time. I think mining centralization just got tested. People had made the point, oh, China could take over mining, but China just cracked down on mining.
It was a huge drop. If you looked at the Bitcoin mining charts, the hash rate dropped from, I think, around 180 exahashes to like 80 exahashes. That's a huge drop. The biggest drop I think ever in Bitcoin history. And all that happened was what you'd sort of predict by looking at it. Transactions slowed down for a little while, and now it's back up to 140 exahashes.
So China, which is probably the largest and most organized and ruthless and technologically competent state, all the things combined, took a hard swing at Bitcoin mining, actually pushed it out of the country. Bitcoin kept ticking. So Satoshi's absence has helped decentralize it because everybody can imprint their own thing on it.
In this sense, Bitcoin is like Linux where ferocious competitors like Google and Facebook still collaborate on Linux. And the reason is Linux is a demilitarized zone where one party's contributions cannot be deleted or removed by the other parties. It is a true commons where you can give, but not really take back.
And that's what Bitcoin is like: a truly decentralized technology where every user is a root user. Nobody else can de-platform you, nobody else can take away your funds. It is something where you have parties that can be highly dis-aligned, but aligned on BTC. Very, very powerful thing.
And a big part of that comes from Satoshi’s absence and disappearance.
Horace: Okay. Take us home then, back to the Big Five. How do we think about all this building up to something much more visible.
Balaji: All right, so the first 10 years, we can very much compare the current era to the year 2000 for the internet where you had infrastructure, you had Yahoo, you had AOL and you had the early broadband connections.
You have the first billionaires, you had everybody knowing what the internet was, but a lot of the applications of daily use didn’t yet materialize. And there were a lot of people who’d use the internet to check news or send email, but you could basically get away with a completely offline life, even in the year 2000. By the year 2010, that was not true.
And by the year 2020, it's flipped the other way around. Now you need a phone in many places in Asia to get in with your vaccine passport and so on and so forth. And so I think that's similar to where crypto is today. Where the infrastructure is being built out. We have the exchanges, we have the mining, we have the coin developers.
We have the first billionaires. We have widespread awareness of it. But yet today, you can still live a completely crypto free life. I do not believe that will be true by 2030. And I believe it will be totally flippened by 2040, where it'll be crypto first for the entire financial system. But let me go to specifics, okay?
So we talked about FinTech. Every loan, every mortgage, it'll start with all the digital stuff first because that’s which is easiest. The stuff that has an offline correlate to it, like mortgages, will be harder because you have to have so-called crypto oracles recording the transfer of things offline. But all the FinTech stuff, that's kind of obvious.
Okay, then messaging. The big thing about crypto is it allows for provably, encrypted end-to-end encrypted messaging. See when, nothing against WhatsApp, but it just tells you that it's end-to-end encrypted. They could have a bug in the implementation. It's not easy for the user to verify that. You know, it feels the same as Facebook Messenger.
It's trusted [as] end-to-end encryption, but then you can get backdoors and stuff put in. Whereas with crypto messaging… You know, it's funny, when you say cryptocurrency is taking two concepts that seem to be totally distinct like encryption and money, they have, of course, come together since the advent of HTPS and credit card payments on the internet twenty-five years ago.
But crypto has put them directly together in a very powerful way. In the 1990s and the 2000s people talked about this thing, they still talk about it, called the public key infrastructure problem, which is if you could assume that everybody had public and private key pairs, you could imagine this magical world where all of these privacy preserving things were possible.
Now many of your [listeners] may not know what public and private key pairs are. Roughly speaking, a public key is like a sealed envelope that you can give out and people can then put a message in there and seal it up and send it. And only you with your private key can actually see what's inside that envelope.
They can send you messages that only you can decode. There's many other uses for them, but that's one way of explaining them. The thing about it is, when you talk about everybody having a private key and public keys that are out there, well, you could do secure messaging.
For example, if your public key is out there next to your Twitter account, I could just take that public key. I could gin up a message. I could post that to you publicly, but only you would be able to decrypt it. The reason public key, private key, the whole public key infrastructure problem has been hard to solve is you need people to keep their private key available and secure at all times. So if you want to keep it available, you can just put a post-it note on your desktop computer, but it wouldn't be secure. If you want to keep it secure, you could go and put it in a lockbox somewhere, but it wouldn't be available. You’d forget where it was.
To have something be secure and available at all times is actually very expensive. It's like your wallet, it’s like your cell phone. It's something which, you've got eyes on it at all times. And that's something which basically has to be on your person and you need a strong incentive for doing it.
And so the big thing that crypto has done is it's made that incentive literal. It's money. If you lose your private keys, you lose money. And so because of that, everybody, millions of people, hundreds of millions, billions of people will have private keys that they can encrypt messages with. And so that will unlock end-to-end encrypted messaging in a provable way where you don't have to trust WhatsApp, or what have you.
And that's going to become more and more important as you're seeing, for example, Apple ran all these billboards on privacy and, I’m not sure what your stance is on that, but the CSAM thing, if you saw that, recently was basically cracked. Where people were able to put fake caches on people's devices to make it seem as if they had CSAM on there, but they didn't.
And I think you're going to see more and more of this, where there's a lot of advertising based assertions of privacy that are then eroded by some action and people will not want to take the Big Five’s word on trust. They already don't. And they're going to want provable end-to-end encrypted messaging.
We already saw this earlier this year, where there was an exodus in part from WhatsApp to Signal over some rumors that’s WhatsApp’s new terms of service were making it more feasible to eavesdrop on you. And I'm not sure how true that was or not, but you're actually starting to see consumer demand for privacy, which people didn't think existed.
Let me pause there. That's messaging, let's talk about that.
Horace: I think therefore the, let's say, the disruptive technology, as opposed to business model, is trusted encryption. And I think that what you're saying, effectively, is that the incumbents are going to struggle to implement. That's why I'm struggling. I'm thinking of it as a competitive question.
But if the struggle seems to be what you're suggesting, this is asymmetric or contrary to the way they would implement this new demand for privacy.
Balaji: Yeah, here’s the thing. A lot of people tried to separate blockchain and cryptocurrency.
They were like, ‘Oh, this blockchain thing is a great database, but this crypto thing it's weird and unregulated and volatile and it's bad. And so let's do it without that.’ And they tried to do enterprise blockchain where eight banks would get together and have some shared database. And that actually was the worst of both worlds solution where it had all the complexity of enterprise and all of the technical complexity of blockchains.
And the thing is that every application of blockchains will involve a crypto component. So the reason that big companies will find it hard to adopt this is… Why do people have these public and private key pairs? Because they have cryptocurrency, probably because they have an Ethereum or a Bitcoin address or a wallet locally on their computer. That is the prerequisite.
That installation is like having a web browser locally on your computer. And from that you can access internet. If you have a crypto wallet on your computer, you can access the financial internet. And if you do not, you cannot. And so these big companies, because they haven't yet grasped the nettle of how important it is to have Bitcoin and Ethereum integration in their messaging and payment apps, will not get that until too late.
They'll try their own in-house solution because they understand open source, but they don't understand open state. You know, they understand open source in the form of GitHub and open source code and whatnot. But open state is yet another level where it's not just a source code that’s public, it's a database that’s public. The Bitcoin blockchain is public. The Ethereum blockchain is public. Every user is a root user. It's shared state. It's the next step after open-source. They just don't get that culturally. And by the way, I wouldn't call it trusted end-to-end encryption. I'd actually call it something slightly different, which is verifiable end-to-end encryption.
It's end-user verifiable. So that's the big difference. Trust only if you can verify.
Horace: So that gets us to messaging. Potentially you get a situation where unless they buy the whole concept, as you said, the implementation has to be coin plus blockchain. So it's not just blockchain. It has to have this, sort of, pain.
Well, I call it pain because it's like you suffer if you lose, you know, it's verifiable
Balaji: Yes. That's right.
Horace: And, so I think what you're getting at culturally in terms of what's asymmetric about this technology is that it's not just utility, it's utility plus consequence. And that consequence or consequential nature, I think, is what is difficult to absorb for, not just the Big Five, but almost any larger platform company or technology as we know it.
We get into a state of triggered, let's say, consequences, which are negative. And people are just squeamish about it. And I think that you can't be a manager in these companies and say, ‘Man, the consequences of this, I mean, we could get sued, you know?’
Balaji: Exactly.
Horace: Am I getting close?
Balaji: Absolutely. Because, you know, what’s more scarce than financial budget? Risk budget.
Horace: Yes.
Balaji: Yeah. These giant companies have cash cows and are under regulatory scrutiny. So they don't have the risk budget.
They don't have the appetite for risk. And it's actually true that their risk is greater than that of a small company on doing this because they're under the microscope more. That doesn't mean it's impossible. [Jack] Dorsey has managed it with Twitter, but that may be because he's just under the level of scrutiny, where the Big Five are under that maximum scrutiny.
But even Facebook has actually said, ‘You know what, we're going to take the hit on this.’ I give them props for trying in the space. Simply as a founder, it's actually a non-trivial thing to do, but it is one of these things where the short-term incentives are so strong to not take a risk. And you really need CEO buy-in to do it.
I mean, as I said, Satya did a decent job on this, where Microsoft was relatively early on Ethereum support on Azure, and so on. And there's some of that. There’s some of the public cloud stuff they're doing, like the safe things. But putting it into Google Pay or Apple Pay or things like that, or buying it at the corporate level, these guys are all going to be late adopters on that because the risk budget isn't there. You need consensus within the company. And the thing about a crypto company is everybody is hired from the crypto country. Everybody's hired and they already have that consensus.
It's similar to the 1990s and early 2000s, and people thought open source was communism. Ballmer said something like that. If you remember that in the year 2000-ish. And this is hard to remember right now, but if you remember in the early 2000s, there was a cultural and ethical movement around tech, related to open source that was pro-Linux, anti-Microsoft, anti-corporate in some ways and so on. And that actually gave a lot of the early energy for people in technology thinking of themselves as the good guys.
And then over time the good guys became the big guys. And now they are sort of in play at safe corporate mode with lots of MBAs and spreadsheets and chiseling of customers and all the stuff that is hard to escape when you've got millions or billions of users and all this regulatory pressure. But it just changes your culture.
Then on top of that, they've got all of these political disputes internally at the company and leaks and all of this stuff. And so now crypto is like the next version of that, where it is not simply a technology, it has an ethical component to it. It has that philosophy, that community aspect, where it is returning power to the user, it is pro-privacy. It is decentralization as opposed to these centralized tech companies. That by the way, as a user —
Horace: I would even take it a step further. It has an ethical component, which may be a bit squishy, but I'd say it has even a political component. And I think by political here, I mean it's divisive in some ways. And you have to accept the premise that as a participant, you have essentially a partisan point of view.
And that itself is a giant leap because I think the neutrality of, the implicit neutrality, of a company’s governance is like, ‘You know, we play both sides of the aisle where we're going to be.’ And I don't mean this in the sort of left-right sense. But this is a new dimension.
Balaji: Absolutely.
Horace: And if you want to participate, you have to be willing to put yourself in that state. I sensed this myself because I find myself being drawn into this world. And that's been uncomfortable for me because I do not wish to be partisan. I do not wish to be political.
I do not wish to make a statement with my support for a currency or whatnot. But this discomfort also attracts me in the sense that, intellectually I'd say, ‘Well, that's interesting.’ We call the show Asymetric - as an asymmetry, it's fascinating, right? That you have to be in that dimension now. And that's what I think fundamentally would be the root of the disruption. In the true sense.
Balaji: That's right. I think I was able to articulate this in a recent post. That's the difference between Web 1, Web 2 and Web 3.
So Web 1, roughly, was about technology risk. Can we even build it? Can we make packet switched networks? Can we make web browsers, all of that stuff? Can we make operating systems? Okay. Web 2, it wasn't that tech risk went away completely, but much more of it shifted to market risk. Now that you had open source databases and you had all of this open source tooling, a lot of it was, ‘Hey, we know we can build it.We can snap together this web app or later this mobile app, but will people buy it?’
Will this consumer behavior be adopted? Will they use, you know, Snapchat versus FrontBack? If you remember FrontBack, there were a lot of these fruit fly type experiments with consumer internet, in particular, where the risk was not so much, ‘Will the app work?’ It is, ‘Will people actually buy it, will they use it?'
And now we're in the third stage, which is Web 3. With crypto [related] things, we know we can build it. The tooling has now become mature enough that it's not, again, there is still technical risk, but you can launch a token or a coin and we know people will buy it.
It's actually kind of interesting that there's almost always going to be some demand for the thing, at least, you know you can get it off the ground. But the question is now will people ban it? So in other words, Web 1 was about tech risk. Web 2 was about market risk, but Web 3 is about regulatory risk.
Horace: Yeah, that’s what I mean by political. I think I've used this word in maybe my own way because regulatory ultimately gets into the question of politics and that isn't, again, the classical left-right divide, but more like, ‘What is your philosophy? What do you believe in?’ What matters is your point of view and, and that you're forcing people to have that.
That's the thing here. I think it's forcing people and you cannot separate them any more, saying, ‘I'm neutral. I just believe in tech.’ It's forcing you to make a stand and that’s a very uncomfortable position for any corporate entity. It forces them to become partisan, in a way, on this dimension.
And that is what they will resist. I'm sort of taking your point here. And I'm trying to, myself, think of how this becomes disruptive
Balaji: You’re right. You’re right. When you're serving a billion people, they have an Innovator's Dilemma-like thing. The problem for them is that this is a, whether you want to call it political belief or partisan belief, or what have you, ethical belief, in decentralization, which is growing exponentially.
If you think about the number of crypto adopters as just one metric, it's like a hundred million today. And it was certainly not that in 2010. Sub 1,000,000, probably, sub10,000, probably sub 1,000, even in 2010. So that's massive, massive growth, but it's growth that they feel that, probably correctly, that it would be challenging for them to tap into without taking a significant messaging and risk budget hit.
Now, again, can they do it? I mean, as I said, Dorsey has managed it. I think Facebook could have, rather than doing Libra or Diem, they could have just built Bitcoin and Ethereum into their Messenger app and started with that. And that would have been smart. And they could still do that in VR, potentially. They're at least further ahead.
They've actually taken some of the hits internally on getting there. They've got some engineers, but the biggest companies that want to be all things to all people and do inoffensive things… You know, the thing which people tell startups, they tell them focus, focus, focus, focus, focus.
You almost can't focus too much on some micro demographic. You win there and then you level up, and you win there and you level up again. And the big company is not going to be able to focus because they're all things to all people. And that's now something which is no longer simply a market thing, but it's also a political / ethical thing, where you have to essentially bet on decentralization.
Horace: I'm starting to get it. Do you want to get into some of the others - we've done messaging, do you want to get into some of the others?
Balaji: So we talked about FinTech. We talked about messaging and, by the way, messaging is not simply, just like you go from email to group mail to Facebook threads.
Messaging starts with one-to-one messages, but every single messaging app will be rebuilt with verifiable end-to-end encryption, where you'll use your, probably your Ethereum name, but you could do one to one messages. You could do one to N, you could do N to N. You could do blogs, you could do blogs behind encryption walls.
You can do Slacks. All of these things are being built around so-called DAOs (Decentralized Autonomous Organizations) today, which combined sort of messaging plus corporate governance plus communities. So, relate to that login.
So right now, a huge moat for these big tech companies is log-in. With Apple login, with Facebook login, with Google login, with Twitter, where they've got hundreds of millions of users and you can use their APIs and implement logging onto your site, but you're also subject to them.
They can cut you off. That's no longer the case with something like ENS (Ethereal Name Service), where you can log in as Horace.eth. Just your local private keys are determined, not a password that can be reset, not account that you can be deplatformed from. That is a fundamental change where the solution to that equation, the private key, is held locally on your computer and that's the sufficient and necessary condition to log in.
If you have that you can log in. And if not, you can’t. So that completely changes login where it means that for example, you can't be deplatformed from social networks. It means you can authenticate also without people necessarily knowing who you are besides the fact that you have that key.
It's a structural shift in how you actually even log into systems and it's sort of like phone numbers or emails. Where, if I have a collection of your phone numbers or your emails, like on a sub stack, or in a set of numbers that have opted into text messaging, I can contact you. But even better than that, because nobody can even intermediate with the phone number the telcos could in theory, stop you. But with this kind of messaging login combination, they can't really stop me from messaging somebody on ENS.
So that disrupts Facebook login, Twitter login, Google login, LinkedIn login, all those - and it’s already happening with applications like Uniswap, for example, you could log in with ENS.
Number four: Social. So when you've talked about messaging and login, you get to social and social is basically just sending lots of different kinds of messages back and forth to each other.
Decentralized social networks are now actually out there and early and working. Just technologically - Mirror, Bitclout, Capsule Social, many others. A lot of the DAO chat-style networks are out there. I've invested in a bunch of these. I'm going to invest in more, no particular endorsement of any one of them, but decentralized social networks are now actually out there where every like and post equivalent is actually on chain versus simply in a centralized database. And the way of thinking about what a big deal that is is you do not have root access to Twitter's database or Facebook's database. But with a decentralized social network, a developer can hit enter and print out every tweet equivalent from the beginning. They can print out the social graph, they can index a social graph and they can search the social graph.
So there's applications, so-called block explorers. This gets us from Social into Search. One thing that is not very much thought about, because this battle happened almost 10 years ago, is how Google strive mightily try to buy Facebook. They were really annoyed at the emergence of Facebook and LinkedIn and Twitter because they were dark to them.
These are graphs that they couldn't search and they knew how big it was going to be. And they were like, ‘Oh, we're only gonna be able to index the open web, this is closed.’ The only thing that really came out of open social was the open graph standard. But they weren't able to get these social networks to open up their databases because, of course, they could make more money with them closed than open because if the database were open and anybody could read and write to them, well, they would not be any more the monopoly provider of advertising on their platform.
That's why Twitter shut down Tweetdeck and deplatformed all these companies that were initially building on its open protocol, it made more money with advertising vs having an open protocol. The critical thing that decentralized social networks have solved is the alignment of interests between the developers and the users and the platform creators where everybody just benefits from the token’s appreciation. And now you can build on this decentralized social network in a way that you could not do so on Twitter, because they'll deplatform you. You can't build on Facebook's API, they’ll deplatform you if you get successful enough.
So decentralized social networks, don't just enable decentralized social they also enable decentralized search because an underappreciated aspect of Google… First, a lot more searches are done on Twitter these days than people realize. I think it's, it's crept up quite a lot relative to Google. I'm not sure if you have this behavior, are there days where you search on Twitter more than on Google?
Horace: Not more, but there are days. And when I do, it's frustrating because I don't find searching on Twitter easy.
Balaji: It's not that easy, but —
Horace: But I sense what you're saying. Also with the Facebook problem that the shift to social from web was, I think Google dropped the ball there. I think that's one of the greatest failures that they didn't manage to transition to social in any way.
Balaji: Yeah, they got YouTube. That’s their big one that they did get.
Horace: YouTube was, yeah, it's the best thing they've done actually since search.
Balaji: So alright, so extending this point, a very important technical point where you’re thinking about search is [that] closed social network databases are harder to index in the open web, but blockchains are easier to index in the open web. And, this actually is something which most people don't realize, blockchains, until really the last year or so, were for the most part used to contain financial data.
And so block explorers like Blockchain.com or btc.com, that are indexes of the Bitcoin blockchain, or Etherscan.io [which] indexes the Ethereum blockchain. Those don't look like search engines to people, really, because the data structures they were indexing were things that weren't really things you thought of as being on Google.
You're looking for Bitcoin addresses and transactions and later on smart contracts and tokens, but these are very high volume search engines. And to show how behind the eight ball Google is, Google hasn't built a block explorer for Bitcoin, even. Or any of the major crypto chains. Forget even Ethereum, they haven't done Bitcoin. And that’s so within their core competency, it has zero regulatory risk, but just shows how behind they are, that they haven't done that in 2021. The reason that's important is what we've just proven over the last year, which is a huge milestone, is something like Bitclout or Mirror shows that you can host social networking data on a blockchain. There are others like Hive and Steam that have also shown this. And once it's all on chain, it becomes so much easier to index for the purposes of search.
People for example, stood up a thing, cloutavista.com to index Bitclout. This is a demo, I'm not saying any particular decentralized social network will win, but in 10 days they were able to stand up the search engine.
How long would it take you to stand up a search engine for Twitter? It would take basically forever because you need access to their API. They're not going to give you access to the API. And if they do, it's going to be very throttled and very expensive, and you'll have to raise venture just to pay for that. They can cut you off or change it at a moment's notice. They don't care about your business. And even if you give them a hundred percent of the company, they might not care.
Search will be transformed by block explorers. There's so many different ways from a technology standpoint that blockchains are easier to index.
Just one example, there are entire PhD dissertations that are written on freshness indexing. You've got a million websites, you've got a limited crawl budget. You can't crawl all of them every second. It'll make the servers mad, but it'll also use up your own bandwidth. And they don't update every second.
So how do you actually crawl them? Well, you have to have some statistical model of when they're likely to get updated and you have to go back to the website when it's predicted to have been updated and you have to have some provision for them going from one update a week to one update a day when you see a lot more changes than they used to have, and you're updating your parameters… It's this huge mathematically complicated thing.
And that's just one aspect of search indexing. And all that goes away with blockchains because you just subscribe and you get a block every 10 minutes or one minute, and it's got all the changes there. So, just the architecture obviates that entire —
Horace: It’s self indexing.
Balaji: It’s self indexing. You get a change set. You know, this is also related to the broader move towards, log structured databases and so forth, which, if you've got listeners who know about what's been happening in data science, that's been a big deal. But it all kind of comes together where you have Kafka and so on.
These change sets that are coming in, you can just subscribe to them as opposed to having to go out and get them. You don’t have to crawl. So that simplifies fundamentally - that alone makes search easier.
Okay. Going a little bit further. The Crypto Phone, you know what's happened recently with Apple and the CSAM thing?
The reason that it's bad for Apple to be searching your phone like that is today they're searching for photos with incredible possible levels of false positives, because people can put these adversarial machine learning images on somebody's phone and frame them for a very serious crime.
Tomorrow, though, they can use the same technology to scan for cryptowallets on phones. And it may be ordered to do so by governments. So that alone is going to mean, and there's already pushes for a crypto phone out there. Foundation Devices, for example, there are people who are building it. But a crypto phone is also important because of other things like payments. You have all this pressure on Google and Apple for payments.
The fact that you've got login, payments and identity, getting decentralized and app developers making more money and users having their funds secure. These are the kinds of pressures that could actually lead to a new mobile operating system. And actually that gets to the next point, which is Crypto OSes.
So that's actually where, unbeknownst to most people, the operating system innovation today is happening in crypto. The reason is, a blockchain like Ethereum has a compiler and a database and a built-in programming language, and is as complicated as a web browser in many ways. Because you can write programs on it.
You don’t just write programs on it. You write programs that interface with other programs on it. Ethereum is a programming environment where one Solidity program can call another. That's what it means to be composable. You know, you can take a loan and you can pipe it into a Dex (decentralized exchange), and you can pipe that into interest, and so on and so forth.
So the innovation in operating systems is happening in crypto where the operating system and the payment system and the login, and then eventually the social network, they're all just kind of baked into one thing that's happening in plain sight. But that's actually what comes after Android and iOS and Windows and so on. It's in plain sight and it's an operating system that also has the community, the fan boys, which are critical for it, because they're all the token holders.
Horace: I’m already extrapolating what you're saying. So my concern now is this, what you're saying is effectively, then… Let me put it to you from an investor's point of view and say, okay, I got you. It sounds like the value of Apple, Google and others will probably start to evaporate.
Balaji: Well, I wouldn't say… it's gonna take like 10 or 20 years. These are huge incumbents —
Horace: Like I said, I’m just extrapolating. I ask you this then, okay, what would you do instead? Who would take their place? And the answer, if I may, it sounds like there is no way to concentrate profit anymore in an operating system. Because, by nature, this isn't going to be replaced by another Apple or another Google.
Those business models will simply not longer be viable. You're going to have to find ways of creating value elsewhere. Because what you're saying, effectively, is search is not value accruing. Platforms that are effectively communication platforms are no longer accruing. And so that includes Facebook and messaging. And even the phone itself. So then, what would be the new empires if there were new empires to be built?
Balaji: The coins.
Horace: The coins themselves?
Balaji: Yes. Because basically, if you think about the whole fiduciary duty model of a corporation and people have pushed back on that, they said, ‘Oh, you know, a corporation has duties to the community, not just to its shareholders’ and so on.
Crypto answers that by making the community the shareholders.
Horace: So would you recommend any coin in particular or is, are they all pretty good?
Balaji: Well, they’re definitely not all pretty good. I would say if you're just starting out, buy Bitcoin. That’s just where to start.
I think Ethereum is also, obviously, at very large scale, and those are like the number one and two. Once you are familiar with… If you can only do one thing, buy Bitcoin. If you're a little more adventurous, buy 50/50 Bitcoin and Ethereum. Beyond that, I could go on for hours and hours about different kinds of coins and what they do.
But what I will say is if you think about what happened with the internet, it took all these different forms of media, like radio and television and newspapers, and it turned them all into packets. And what crypto is doing is it's turning every single existing financial instrument into on chain debits and credits.
Because ultimately what is a loan? It's debits and credits somewhere. What is a mortgage, what is a derivative? What is equity? What is a cap table? And the fundamental mechanism of value creation… what’s the most important data structure in Silicon Valley? You can argue it was the cap table. You know, the capitalization table determines who holds what equity. And that little Excel data structure, with a thousand odd rows is what led a thousand odd people to build Google in 2004 and align all these people from around the world to build this amazing thing. Even more than their billion row data sets.
That cap table is now on chain. If you go to something like the Brave Basic Attention Token, or any of these other tokens, and you look on Etherscan, you go from a thousand people to 50,000 or 100,000 or even 1,000,000 people that hold a given token.
So you've scaled up the basic aligning function of Silicon Valley, the equity shares for shareholders, into something that is not equity, but it's like Equity 3.0 or the sequel to equity. The problem with this, of course, is the reason crypto is not equity is it's API keys. It's something which you can use to interface with an app.
It is your encrypted messaging system. It is your login. It's all these things that a share doesn't do. And so fitting it into older classifications, like the SEC and others want to do is just sort of like trying to treat every packet that's being sent to your house as physical mail and requiring you to get a stamp for it and saying, 'Oh my God, I can't believe how bad you are. You're not in compliance. You don't have a stamp.’
It's this old way of looking at things that I don't think is going to survive long-term. I think we're in the middle of, you know how there's a Reformation and then the Counter-Reformation you're familiar with that. Right?
Horace: Yeah, sure.
Balaji: We're in the middle of what I would call the Decentralization and the Counter Decentralization in both the U.S. and China. They're pushing back on decentralization. Pretty hard in China and fairly hard in the U.S. And I think it's going to increase.
But I think the rest of the world also has a say. And I think what's really under-appreciated is, and this is kind of related to this also, you know, that Google, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook have to deal with; the rest of the world no longer wants to have American tech companies be able to deplatform their political leaders in these countries. Or unbank them. And they don't want the Chinese companies to do so either because the new boss would be same as the old boss. So I wrote a series of articles on this, where what I think happens is that the new non-aligned movement is the aligned movement, the decentralized movement. Where just like many of these countries have actually said, ‘Hey, you know, for military or government purposes, we should look at open source software first versus proprietary software.’
They're going to, over time, shift to using Bitcoin and Ethereum and other decentralized cryptocurrencies for different purposes. Because they are a transaction and soon communications networks that cannot be shut down by American or Chinese companies. And that's another thing which a Google or Apple or Facebook can't really compete with because the whole point is it's not them. Unless they manage to launch a fully open source project.
You know, React is something Facebook launched that is a genuinely open source project that people can use. Because even if Facebook cuts them off, you can go and modify it. Unless they actually launch a chain and take the whole hit of doing that, they won't have the trust. Because people don't want them to have server side control.
So going a little bit further, advertising and e-commerce. So, the engine of Facebook and Google is CPM and CPC ads. Costs per impression. And then per click. Every thousand impressions, every click, you pay them. They don't usually do full CPA advertising where you only pay them when something is sold.
If [you’re] Casper mattresses, though, what you'd want to do is you say, ‘Hey, I'm selling a mattress for X dollars. I only want to pay Google when I've got a conversion that came through Google.’ The issue with this is Casper as an incentive to understate the number of conversions and Google has an incentive to overstate it.
You would need an incorruptible neutral third-party ledger of all transactions in order to actually do full CPA advertising. And guess what? That's what the blockchain is.
So CPA advertising is going to be an area where I think that's going to start really hitting the Big Five in an area where they don't expect it because the people within the crypto community, on both the e-commerce and the consumer side, the merchants and the consumers are at sufficient scale where if a pure CPA thing was introduced, it would just be better.
It would be something where you might offer discounts to people because of it. It gives you better analytics. And then what this also does by the way, is it's better for merchants because it means automated accounting. All the stuff that you're currently paying PwC or all these guys to do, can be turned into a shell script if all your stuff is on chain. Which is a huge thing, because it also automates diligence and then automates M & A, you can start actually stacking things. Once you, I mean, we're talking five or 10 years out, but once you start going from, okay, all transactions are on chain, then all financial statements are on chain, then actually M & A can be put on chain because these higher order abstractions can be built on it.
And this is sort of like saying in 1990, well, once you've got emails, you'll have blogs and social networks. We're looking far out, but that's what happens once you start having more stuff on chain, it becomes more programmable. Okay, so CPA advertising: there’s e-commerce, there’s accounting, a few more pieces.
[Let’s talk about] hosting. AWS. So, centralized hosting is going to be tricky to fight head on for awhile because you know, the scale, the capacity of blockchains isn’t there yet. But it's improving dramatically. And if you look at Filecoin and Chia, and of course, Bitcoin itself, Ethereum… one of the most remarkable things is a moat that I thought 10 years ago would be very difficult to disrupt, which is just the sheer scale of Facebook and Google's data centers, right?
That's something that seemed like only a huge centralized company could do. We have now proven that if the protocol is fixed, people will do massive multi-billion dollar international data center build outs, not just for Bitcoin mining, but for Chia and Filecoin and many other lesser well-known coins.
If the protocol can make money, people will buy the hardware and they will rack and stack it. And that means that many things that we think of as companies will be turned into monetizeable protocols and decentralized in this way. So the hosting, the data centers will get there.
Creator monetization. This is another attack where, you know, Facebook and Twitter are now trying to do these newsletters and so on. But for 10 years, 15 years, they really didn't give creators a cut. And with crypto, creators, don't just things like NFTs, they don't just make money from art, they can make money from equity-like appreciation. People can buy into their coin to go and attend their events, or you could log into a Substack equivalent by just holding enough of the coin.
So this combines like the earlier things I was saying about login. So the crypto, the encryption, the payments are kind of the same thing. It also kind of attacks the Big Five and other tech companies on the backend. It's like holding a coin is in many ways better than equity compensation. It's liquid, it's marked to market. If it's legal in a country, you would just do that.
Some countries are just going to be smart and they're going to stop with all this stupid stuff from the 1930s and orange groves… just using 100 year old regulations to harass founders today. You have to deal with it because that's what the environment is.
And you can, I think, make a very strong argument that crypto is not the same as equity because you can use it for API keys, you can use it for other things. But eventually there'll be countries, and actually, even in the U.S., Wyoming has passed DAO laws.
There are states within the U.S., both subnational and international regulators that are enlightened and are going to say, absolutely, we want the entire stock market on chain. We want the stock chain. We want the transparency, we want the throughput, we don't want to have the Robin Hood situation where we're still dealing with DTCC (Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation) and these antiquated ways of recording stock transfers with paper certificates. We want modernity, we don't want to talk about orange groves and try to fit a square peg into a round hole.
So I think equity compensation, the backend, that gets transferred to coins. And these companies that are used to outbidding are not going to be able to do so, because if you actually look at the growth of Bitcoin and Ethereum and other coins over the 2010s, as remarkable as the growth in the Big Five tech companies are, those coins make them look like slow growth companies.
The story of the 2010s, in retrospect, with zero offense to Uber or Airbnb or Stripe, it was Bitcoin. That was the biggest hit of the 2010s. It was bigger than all the other startups combined, because it wasn't a startup. It was a coin.
I mentioned FinTech, messaging, login, social, search, crypto phone and crypto OS, advertising, hosting, data centers, creator monetization, equity compensation.
There's also values. You know, this is very important, actually. It almost goes unsaid, but it shouldn’t. The initial values that tech stood for back in 2012, or thereabouts, Twitter called itself ‘the free speech wing of the free speech party.’ And there was a huge emphasis on this during the Arab Spring. And of course with open source. And that strain still exists. The current non-free and focused, very state aligned thing where you're censoring people, for contesting, what the WHO is saying, where the WHO changes what it said last week is, is basically the Western equivalent of the Chinese censoring Li Wenliang for getting the message out.
And I certainly don't agree with everything that is said on social networks, but I do agree that the centralized authority is not always right. And to simply treat that as truth and censor people who are saying something contrary to that means it's not a free society anymore.
So the values aspect, anybody who cares about those values, and those are some of the most ideologically motivated and committed engineers, those folks are going to crypto. Then there’s, obviously on the privacy end, you only get verifiability if you've got the private keys locally.
So you put all that together and that's actually a recipe for attacking enormous swaths of the whole thing.
There's one other aspect I'll add there, which is when the back ends become open, this actually disrupts APIs in a very fundamental way. Because right now, yes, you have APIs, but they're pretty siloed. You'd use a bunch of APIs in your app, but to make Stripe talk to Shopify, to this or that, maybe you'd use Zapier or maybe you'd write your own customer integration. It's not that easy to work with because you don't have root on those databases.
With crypto backends you do have root, you have total root access. Every user can look at every single row of the, it's not exactly a row, but every entry in a blockchain. Any user who owns coins can write and any user with sufficient compute can write blocks. And so, because of that, anything that's like the next Google Docs or the next messaging app that's built on a blockchain has much better interop[erability] between chains because it transforms what an API is.
API access, your API key, is holding the coin. And you can do anything you want so long as you hold enough coin, within compliance of the protocol. So what I just outlined, that’s essentially a recipe for 10 years of disruption.
Horace: Absolutely. But let me say this - I think it's not just disruptions of the Big Five as you put it, or maybe Big 100. A lot of possible asymmetries here. But my concern or, rather, optimism even, is that this is about institutions more, even, than private equities. It's institutions that have been built throughout the Industrial Revolution. And you talked about putting equities on, the very idea of holding paper to represent something else. The very idea of institutions, which are there to ensure transactions and trusts.
Those, again, I'm sort of parroting the ethos of coin, but you've effectively shown the roadmap as how it happens in the ways that are very tangible. My point is this - because when I wanted to have the show with you was to ask a sort of a profound question.
Is someone living in a 21st century, as my son was born in 2005, will they see as much change throughout their life as someone born in 1900? Or even someone born in 1800 living through the 19th century.
So if I asked this question of myself, because it's not so much about me but the next generation. And I struggled with this question because I felt like the first 20 years of this century, haven't been all that exciting in the same way that the first 20 of the last century or even the one before it. If you think about the 18th Century, sorry, 19th Century- early 1800s were very volatile. There were the Napoleonic wars. And then we ended up with the Industrial Revolution taking off. Steam engines, railroads. It was a crazy century. And then you get to the 20th and you've got World War I already would have passed [by now]. We would have had the invention of the airplane, the mass production of automobiles.
We were heading into the Roaring 20s by now, and the 21st Century looks pretty lame so far. And I thought to myself, you know, all of these changes… I am a technologist. So I think of all the changes that we saw in the previous centuries, it was due to technological innovation, due to inventions.
And the formation of the Industrial Revolution was fueled by capitalism. That's what we call it, capitalism. But I ask myself, and I’ll put the question to you, is: Do you think someone born in 2000 and then living 100 years, which is not improbable, would they experience this century in as much of a sense of wonder and change and drama that the 20th Century, now, of course, there's a lot of negative things have happened. But, fundamentally, someone born in 1900 dying in the 1990s would have seen a completely different world.
And that's exciting. That's very exciting to think that you're part of this dramatic, poetic change. And good and bad, but generally progress. And I would say I'm excited now from what I heard, that possibly the 21st Century will be even more exciting because it certainly would undo a lot of things, if what you say is true, but also might create new things we cannot imagine.
Certainly, 1900 Man would not have imagined life in the 1990s, no way. And I don't know if we can, and we should be humble about what will be created from this creative destruction that has to happen. But do you believe, as I do that, should we be optimistic that something will emerge, that will be even more exciting than than the last century?
Balaji: Yes, though, let me get my take on that, I actually did a whole interview - it’s funny because we think about some of the similar things, but I did a whole interview with Sotonye, which you might find interesting on this topic of 1800s, 1900s, 2000s, actually, in its own way.
My thesis is 1950 was sort of peak centralization. And in many ways, if you go forward and backward in time, we're getting more decentralized from then. So 1950, you had one telephone company and two super powers and three television [networks]. You had AT&T you had the U.S. and U.S.S.R., and you had ABC, CBS, NBC.
If you go forward in time, 1991, the internet frontier opens, NSF (National Science Foundation) repeals its acceptable use policy and allows commerce on the internet. Backward in time, 1890, the frontier closes, the western frontier. Frederick Jackson Turner, his [essay], the frontier thesis, where he talks about how actually it was the frontier that made America, more than even democracy or capitalism.
It was exit, it was immigration, it was the free soil. And the fact that people could just start a new community or a new business, or go out west and, and make their name on nothing that gave America its character. Now, of course, there's the Native Americans and so on, which obviously complicates that story.
With the internet you have a frontier that did not have that issue. And if you go backwards and forwards, there's lots of parallels where as the centralized state in the west, its grip loosens. We see the Coronavirus and the Spanish Flu. We see left and right fighting in the streets. And we saw that in the 1920s and 1930s.
We see the tech billionaires, and we have the Robber Barons of the past. We see the private banking era of the past, and we have the cryptocurrencies of the present. We see the same, well, not the same but similar, arguments in William Jennings Bryan’s Cross of Gold speech on monetary policy was a huge thing in the late 1800s in the U.S. and digital gold is an issue again.
We see fundamental arguments over the role of the state and all this stuff with sanctuary cities, and gun laws being different at local level from the federal level and states pushing against the federal government as similar to some of the tectonic plate movements in the 1930s with the federal government versus the states. And then also even the mid 1800s.
And what I think happens is all of those things get resolved in the opposite direction this time. Where if you ramp up from, arguably, the 1700s, you might track it all the way back to 1492, or something like that. But at least from the 1700s to 1947, technology's favored centralization.
You've had railroads, telegraph, radio, television, movies, mass media and mass production, where a few people could control a lot. And then you go to de-centralization with the transistor, the personal computer internet, remote work, smartphones and now cryptocurrency where you're decentralizing power away from the Maos and the Stalins and the Pol Pots. And even the FDRs. The people who run these gigantic countries, where who's the number two after them? All of this power is concentrated in a few people.
Now we're actually decentralizing it out. And, in many ways, people talk about inequality rising, but actually in many ways, equality is rising and that's actually what people have a problem with.
And what I mean by that is A) global income equality is converging because China, India, other countries have been rising, relatively, they were very poor 40 years ago. But it's not just them. It's also chunks of South America and Southeast Asia and Eastern Europe and Russia, and so on.
B) consumption inequality is plummeting because a kid in Nigeria or India or Brazil has basically the same Google experience as Larry Page because it costs just fractions of a cent. And then C) and this is to my point, power inequality is decreasing because some kid in India or Nigeria is not going to grow up to be the president of the U.S. but they can become the founder and CEO of their own tech company. Or their own crypto protocol. And so they can rise in a different way, which doesn't include migrating to the U.S. and doing that whole 20th Century rigmarole.
So I do think it's an exciting century in many ways. I actually think the 20th Century was a much worse century than the 19th Century, because the 20th Century was two world wars and communism and socialism for much of the planet.
It was okay in the U.S. and Western Europe. But [for] much of the planet, it really sucked. And now it actually might flip where the U.S. and Western Europe, the U.S. more so even, that feels like it's kind of… Maybe not all of the U.S. I'm actually bullish on individual states like Wyoming and Colorado and cities like Miami and so on. They've gotten behind crypto. And the reason I just keep saying, ‘crypto crypto,’ is because, as we just went through, the sheer scope of applications is difficult to realize until you've gone through it. It's really a big deal. It's a civilizational technology. It's not simply like a toaster oven or something.
So those states have gotten behind crypto. I think there's pieces of the West that are going to be good, there’s pieces that aren’t. And it's almost like a flip of the 20th Century where it's the East that is more capitalist, that's India in particular, but it’s also east Asia, it is probably Eastern Europe that is maybe more capitalist than the U.S., much of the U.S., and much of Western Europe.
So, that's my broad scope of history.
Horace: Yeah, I wouldn't be as… my judgmental question on better or worse was not really that most people would be better off or [had] suffered more, but more in this poetic sense. We feel like we've made progress
Balaji: Acceleration, yes. Yes.
Horace: And the 20th Century… I don't think that you can argue that the technologies that emerged, that someone born in that century would have witnessed —
Balaji: Yes, they go from out houses to flush toilets, and so on.
Horace: Yeah, exactly. Not distributed very well, but the thing about the 21st is I cannot imagine how it's going to go. But to me, I sense that we will [eventually] feel like we're making progress. And I think we'll feel, because the first 20 years, it hasn't felt like that. I mean, we've certainly had a lot of… the joke goes, you know, we didn't get flying cars, but we got 132 characters.
So there's going to be much more coming. And I think there's a sense of wonder in the sense of opportunity, a sense of optimism in the sense of the decentralization. But also, like I said, that optimism around the small states. I live in Finland now, but my point is -
Balaji: Yes. Small states, yes.
Horace: I said this once, the 20th Century was the century of the large state. The superpower was every everyone's idea of success. But now, I think it's going to be much more the small states that are going to be the 21st Century giants, if you will.
And so that's my point. I agree that it might be a very different feel from an individual point of view, but I think, as a civilization, we're probably going to look back, or historians will look back on 21st and say, what was the defining thing?
Like, I think of the 19th Century, sort of as the steam century. And I think of the 20th as the chemical engineering [century]. You know, at the end of the day, it was the fact that we built everything on top of energy that was suddenly released, right?
Balaji: Well, it's interesting, because I'd say the 20th century had a lot of stuff.
You can argue this, but going up to the moon landing. Then after 1969, outside of digital technology, things really slowed down. It's hard to think of some, I mean there's a microwave oven and stuff like that. This is the point Thiel has made, people have made this with the website, WTFhappenedin1971.com.
I think partially it is the gold standard, but partially it is, essentially, the sort of risk aversion that arose after that point in time. When nuclear power plants were made very difficult to build and regulations were enforced in such a way that it was just difficult to take risks, voluntary risks.
There's actually a great book, Where Is My Flying Car?, have you read that?
Horace: No, but I can imagine what it says.
Balaji: It's by J. Storrs Hall. It's self published. It has a really bad looking cover, but it's really good. It's something where you learn something from every few pages. Highly recommended —
Horace: I did my own conference once on the subject of what happened to modernism.
The idea of utopia, it being foreseen in the 1950s based on technological progress, which, I put it to you this way. So if you were born in 1900, by 1950, you were middle-aged. But you would have seen all of this progress. And if you were, technologically sort of extrapolating it you'd say, well, that's where you get the flying cars by the 1990s.
So you see the ad copy, the way advertisers were, and the usual visuals from the 1950s of flying, or progress in agriculture, in transportation, progress in, not so much computation, but the extrapolation of the first half of the 20th Century.
And I pointed out that the last place where such optimism existed was in the tech sector because the rest of the country, the rest of the world, felt like it was in stagnation. And, again, we can quibble on this or discuss this on another episode. But I think we're in agreement that possibly this is the key.
If someone were to look back on the 20th and then say, okay, maybe it was internal combustion. But someone looking back on the 21st would say it's Bitcoin.
Balaji: Yes.
Horace: It’s crypto. That's the biggest thing that happened in this century.
Balaji: It is. I actually do think Bitcoin, the impact of it is at least on par with the steam engine. Maybe more like the Reformation or even the Bible, in terms of where it's going to be long-term. It is just such a fundamental, it's a social technology, because it just changes the relationship of people to each other and decentralizes power in this very, very, very fundamental way. And I don't think people get that.
Horace: I think that's a great thesis. That's what I wanted to do in this show is to sort of zoom out as much as possible. But you took us zoomed in to explain that these are the building blocks. And it's hard for people to, you need —
Balaji: Yes, crypto is too zoomed out in some ways, right?
Horace: Yeah, but you need the mind that can grasp this, can go both ways. And that that's very hard, flexible plastic minds. I've spoken to people in the community who are very nuts and bolts. And then there are some who are very idealistic and some very ideological. And most people, when they look at this and say, ‘My God, it’s filled with nerds and it's filled with ideologues. They're a bunch of maniacs.’ So it's important to bridge those two somehow. So thanks for all that.
Balaji: Hopefully this was good. We talked about applications and of relevance to your audience. Happy to do it again. This was great.
Horace: Excellent. Thanks so much.
Research #Industry · 52 comments
At the latest Apple Summit in Los Angeles the question of Apple's valuation was foremost on many minds. The illustration I used there to discuss valuation is shown below.
It shows the history of revenues (by reported segments) and gross margin for the five largest companies in the world by market capitalization. I have been publishing this illustration for five years ((initially with Samsung rather than Facebook because it was originally a set of "challengers" to Apple. The fact that with only one substitution the illustration turned into a view of the five largest companies in the world was a welcome surprise.)) in order to contrast the growth and perception of value between companies that might be considered comparable with Apple. Thus the graphs show the top and (near) bottom lines of the companies over an epoch of about a decade. ((This being the iPhone epoch))
In contrast with the histories above, there is a price set on the equities today. These prices are captured by the market capitalizations as follows:
| Current market cap (billion) | Peak market capitalization (Billion) | |
| Apple | $918 | $955 |
| Amazon | $844 | $856 |
| Alphabet | $810 | $825 |
| Microsoft | $780 | $789 |
| $584 | $589 |
Market capitalizations are interesting because they show perceptions of value. The traders in the equity are negotiating with each other on what the shares are worth and, as a voting system in a liquid public asset, share pricing is very representative of the perceptions about that asset. Representative because there are literally millions of decisions being made on a daily basis which determine this price.
The sales and profit data in the illustration above is about the past. In contrast the market engine is voting about the future. Any student of finance knows: the value of a company is the net present value of all future discounted cash flows (plus any current assets.)
So what would history have to do with it? What use is the trajectory?
This goes to a deeper question: How does history inform the future? What is the value in knowing previous performance when thinking about future performance? The common caveat in mutual fund prospectuses is "Past performance is no guarantee of future results". We are repeatedly warned of this because it is within our nature to look at history and recognize patterns. But beware! At least beware those whom you might entrust with your fortune.
But consider that it's conventional wisdom to also say that culture and preparation are the best ways to ensure a prosperous future. Ask athletes or coaches and they will say that practice and dedication lead to success. Sports fans know that a team or player with a record of success is more likely to succeed in the future. In this way sport is, in many ways, a simulation of reality. Which is why it's so popular: a metaphor of life teaches as well as entertains.
Knowing how to read ability as well as conscientiousness are keys to scouting talent. Again, it's not a guarantee, but in various fields of human endeavor the past does predict, with high accuracy, the future.
This relationship between past and future is what education is based on. We spend our lives preparing and training ourselves and our children and their children with the implicit hope that this leads to better outcomes for everyone. We establish a pattern of success because it is the best predictor of future success. Practice, learn, commit, defer satisfaction, trade time for knowledge, fight, lose and try again. These are the qualities we look for in the past of individuals when assessing their potential for the future. Culture is everything, we are told. Build a track record, we tell the young.
So what does this have to do with valuation?
We can't easily measure the cultures of persistence and perseverance in companies. Grit, guts, stoicism, fortitude, courage, the Finnish "sisu". These are not measurable in financial reports. Yet our language is as filled with words to describe character and our financial reports are empty of them.
It's left to investors to work it out. The exercise of relating the future to the past is the calculation of the ratio between Price (future) and Earnings (past). A high P/E ratio suggests repeated success from past success. A low P/E is a disbelief in a future repeating the past.
The P/E ratio thus allows us to say to what degree recent past performance is repeatable. I.e. how many `last years' can we expect in the future. A P/E of 1 means a company is worth what it earned last year. A P/E of 10 means it is worth ten years' proceeds. ((We could easily calculate P/E for more than one year but the default is one year.))
This P/E ratio is shown for the five companies above as the overlaid bars in the graph above.
Sure, you say, but it depends on the industry and circumstances. A future divorced of the past is more likely in an environment where there is rapid, chaotic change. The more volatility in fundamentals, the more uncertainty. Technology is changing rapidly and therefore it's quite possible that Apple's low P/E reflects this disconnect.
If so then what about its peers? Why would Apple be subject to different technological risk than other technology companies? All of the top five companies are considered "tech". Indeed, Apple is perhaps the least technologically oriented as it has a brand and consumer orientation. It operates hundreds of stores, and sells design as much as it sells algorithms. It fundamentally tries to deconstruct human needs and package those needs in products.
Alphabet, Microsoft and Facebook primarily don't "sell" to end-users. The revenues come from businesses in the form of advertising or licensing. They don't have support staff, interacting with people who buy what they use. They need to understand needs but they trade other things. And Amazon offers AWS to enterprises as its own unique product. Other than AWS it operates a marketplace, acting as an intermediary.
Apple is a consumer company depending on consumer tastes as a brand. This is more typical of a non-tech company in a boring business of consumer brands.
But it's not valued as either a tech company or a consumer company. Both have typically higher P/E ratios. In fact, Apple's P/E ratio is lower than the S&P 500 and has been below that level for almost the entire history of the iPhone, regardless of growth rate.
A track record of hit products and the stability of a brand seem to be of no value. Perseverance, consistency and stability are not valued. If it were an athlete with a track record of world-record performance and a spectacular reputation with the public, it would not be granted an above-average pay for its performance.
In the past I've argued anti-fragility as a cause. In the context of the other companies, Apple is at the center of perceived vulnerabilities and is thus perceived as vulnerable . The other four are at the center of no competition and perceived as invulnerable. And yet Apple, so far, has survived. So have the others, but apart from Microsoft, they are much younger. I argued that Apple exhibits anti-fragility and has unrecognized robustness. Perhaps Warren Buffet now agrees and this is encouraging to the thesis.
Yet, at an even deeper level, in Apple's valuation we see how culture is not valued. How the idea of character assessment is not applied to businesses. How ethos is unquantifiable and thus discounted. How markets, accustomed to weighing things, reflective of collective human judgement, demonstrate that we are woefully incapable of valuing that which matters most.
Oscar Wilde famously said that the cynic knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. Here's to the sentimentalist, because at the end of the day those who change the world know the value of everything and the price of nothing.
Research #Theory · 123 comments
To the nearest million, as of the end of September 2017, Apple's cash and investments totaled $268,895,000,000. Note that this includes investments in the form of short- and long-term marketable securities. Long-term marketable securities are not always accounted as "cash" because strictly cash is considered a liquid asset and some securities may not be sufficiently so. Nevertheless, most analysts would agree that Apple's securities are sufficiently liquid to qualify as cash. Note that for archaic reasons this cash is separated into US and non-US holdings with $17 billion located in the US.
Indeed Apple's cash is extraordinary. It amounts to about 30% of its market capitalization. One reason is that Apple has taken many loans, totaling about $100 billion.
Quite the contrary, Apple's operating cash flow is eye-watering. In the 2017 fiscal year (ending September) Apple generated $63,598,000,000 from operations. The loans are not needed to operate. They are used to pay shareholders.
Because it's their money.
Apple is holding it for them but if it has more than it needs it's obligated to return it. You see, If you were to look for "cash" in financial statements you find it on the balance sheet as an asset. Since it is growing and since a balance sheet has to balance, there has to be a liability that grows in proportion to offset the cash asset. That liability is called Shareholder's Equity. This is a "debt" the company has to shareholders. If it pays out cash to shareholders then it zeros out an asset and a corresponding liability. The net is zero as far as Apple is concerned but shareholders get something in return for giving Apple money in the first place.
Yes, welcome to tax laws. Although it generates more money than it can use, and that money should thus be returned to shareholders, some of the money is collected outside the US. US (and US only as far as I know) tax laws have a "repatriation tax" that is levied on money coming into the country. This has nothing to do with corporate taxes which are levied on earnings. So after paying shareholders with the cash it had in the US, Apple had to borrow money to pay shareholders money they had outside the US.
Because then shareholders would get less than 70% of their money. They would probably complain and blame the managers for being incompetent. Such blame usually comes with a lawsuit attached.
Now Apple has no option but to pay the tax and repatriate the cash. It's still a tax. The amount will be about $38 billion or about 15%. Previous repatriation "holiday" levies were around 10%.
The payments are called "dividends" and shareholders must treat them as income--a form of double taxation because these funds are after the company paid earnings tax and possibly repatriation tax. Apple does pay dividends regularly but because of tax inefficiency (i.e. because government policy discourages dividends) the company mainly buys its own shares and retires them.
Yes, it makes little sense but the math is simple. If the company buys its own shares and makes them disappear then existing shareholders will end up owning more of the company, making their shares more valuable. They can realize the gain if/when they sell the shares (and pay capital gains tax instead of dividend income tax on the already (double) taxed profits.)
No. The owners of the company remain the same: whoever owns shares owns the company and they can be traded in public exchanges. In theory they could reduce the share count to a single share and there would presumably be a single shareholder who would own the company, making it "closely held" but the company's managers are still required to report and act as if it was public. Going private usually means a set of shareholders agree not to allow the shares to float on the open market and thus to also keep the affairs of the company out of public eye. It reduces liquidity and is generally harder for shareholders to exit their investment. This has nothing to do with reducing the number of shares in circulation--which is what Apple is doing.
The share price is an argument between shareholders and potential shareholders on the value of the company. It should reflect reality but many times it doesn't. Over time however the math catches up with sentiment. In other words realization that there are fewer and fewer shares available compels people to not sell them, increasing the price. Short term investors tend not to pay attention to this but they are not the shareholders who Apple wishes to pay back anyway.
Simply, because it's more than can be spent wisely. The company considers its mission to be very narrow: add value in specific areas where they can create tremendous value uniquely and under conditions (technologies and business models) they can control. Many such projects don't require capital. Manufacturing, data centers and Apple stores require capital but R&D and sales not so much. Creating products is very cash efficient. For example, the iPhone--the most successful product of all time--cost almost nothing to develop; certainly nothing that required Apple to dip into its cash. Funding for the type of product development Apple does comes from existing cash flows and mostly consists of salaries for their employees.
It buys companies but usually small ones which are essentially acquisitions of teams and their intellectual property. Apple does not buy "business models" or customers or cash flows which is what large companies are valued for. Operationally, it's also because Apple has a strong culture and it wishes to preserve it. Acquisitions dilute culture which is why integrations often fail. Statistically, large acquisitions are value destructive and the larger they are, the more likely they are to fail. Incidentally, when a company is acquired with cash that hole in the balance sheet is filled with something called "goodwill" which reflects some intangible value of the new asset. If and when the acquisition is deemed to have failed the goodwill is written off and so is shareholder equity. That's how shareholders are robbed.
As individuals we think that having lots of cash makes us rich. For companies it's the opposite. Cash is a liability. If you come across a company that is cash rich and has nothing else, its enterprise value will be zero. Companies are valued on their future cash flows, meaning their ability to generate cash, not how much they managed to keep. In other words, cash is a measure of past success and investors are interested only in future value. That future value comes from the intelligent allocation of resources toward a valuable goal. A company rich in cash but poor in vision is likely to be taken private or broken up and shut down. Cash is an IOU to shareholders with a thank-you note for the support through the years.
Research #Theory · 42 comments
How Apple is managed is one of its enduring mysteries. The idea that a company with $235 billion in sales is managed with a single P/L ((Profit and Loss statement is an income statement usually applied for a subset of a larger company which allows subdivisions to be managed individually.)) is fascinating in many ways. Not least of which is how it allocates resources. The fundamental question of which great idea gets to be funded and which great idea gets to be ignored is the core of every manager's dilemma. The Apple problem is at scale when each decision's consequences are so momentous. In the case of Apple there are so few projects that reach the market and their impact is so great that one wonders how they can be sure they are doing the right thing.
Conventionally, product development is filtered through a sieve of metrics, market sizing and impact on top/bottom income lines. These "financial" measures of success are considered prudent and optimized for return on equity (also known as the maximization of shareholder returns).
But this can be a toxic formula. The financial optimization algorithm always prioritizes the known over the unknown since the known can be measured and is assigned a quantum of value while the unknown is "discounted" with a steep hurdle rate, and assigned a near zero net present value. Thus the financial algorithm leads to promoting efficiency at the expense of creation. Efficiency may be the right priority when times are difficult and resources are scarce but creativity is the right priority in a time of plenty. And abundance is what being big is all about.
To allow for some creation large firms create divisions. Some divisions are tasked with "core products" which are measured by a set of firm metrics and some are tasked with "emerging products" which are given a set of loose metrics. This leads to obvious resentment and war between divisions when resources need allocating.
Ominously, the core divisions tend to always win. At the root of divisional power struggles are measurements--the roots of financial metrics. Managers fight with data. "You can't manage what you can't measure" they're taught. But if you have something that can be easily measured and something that is difficult to measure, won't the easily-measured be managed and the hard-to-measure be ignored?
There is a general principle at work here: Managing by measurement is fraught with the pitfall of measuring the wrong thing. Making sure that you're measuring the right thing becomes the value-adding role of the manager. A role that is increasingly being neglected.
The mass phenomenon of measuring the wrong thing because it's the easiest to measure is called "financialization". Financialization is the process by which finance and finances (rather than creation) determine company, individual and society's priorities. It comes about from an abundance of data that leads to fixation on what is observable to the detriment of awareness of hazards or obstacles or alternatives. This phenomenon is more likely when the speed of change increases and decision cycles shorten.
Financialization is creeping into all aspects of society and the extent to which it infects companies is the extent to which they suffer from early mortality.
So is Apple avoiding financialization? How can anyone avoid the tyranny of mis-optimization?
The unified P/L might be a clue. It obviates the need for divisional rivalry and power-based or financial politics. Without divisional P/L, management can be organized functionally with the obvious benefit of de-politicization. The singular P/L does create another problem however: the absence of an alternative resource allocation algorithm centralizes the decision. By centralizing decisions at the highest level, few decisions can be taken and that means each decision has to be right more often. We swap a distributed but financialized process for a central but capricious one.
So how is the central decision process made fair? What guides the allocation process?
I believe that Apple does not avoid quantified decision making. I believe the logic of their decisions is based on a nuanced quantification of the company's customer base. Opting to think about how many customers they have rather than how many things they can sell could offer the Apple manager a better decision tool, avoiding financialization and mis-optimization.
The guiding principle is putting the customer rather than the firm at the center of the decision process. The idea of this change of orientation extends to a re-definition of the purpose of the firm. Apple calls it its "North Star" and it places "making the best product" at that location.
The challenge is how to measure "goodness" of product. It's easy to overshoot "best" and become too good. What regulates greatness is another measurement: absorption of what you create. The true orientation (which Apple won't confess to) is absorbable greatness.
Absorbable greatness is measured through other proxies: customer creation, customer satisfaction, and customer retention. By adding and preserving great customers you can be sure that what you create is indeed the "best". Setting the goal, and indeed the purpose of the firm, as the creation and preservation of customers seems to be the unwritten constitution of Apple.
The idea that the purpose of the firm is to create and maintain customers is not new ((Customer creation is in contrast to the notion that the purpose of the firm is to maximize shareholder returns. The notion of customer creation as primary purpose was popularized by Peter Drucker. The notion of optimization through shareholder value creation was popularized by Jack Welch.)) but it is relatively rarely practiced. The reason is that the data is harder to obtain. The data that comes from sales is crisp and concrete. The data about customers is muddy and soft. In a world where spreadsheets are used as weapons, the crisper the data, the better the ammunition.
Clarity wins arguments but it may not be where salvation or truth can be found. Good judgement in a cloudy reality is a better compass than a clear road map to a fantasy world.
Optimizing around customer acquisition rather than equity returns leads to a new set of metrics. What would these metrics look like for Apple?
The company publicly offers three separate sets of quantity of customers and quality of customers.
In terms of quantity we have:
In terms of quality of customers we have:
The following graph shows the historic data for service accounts and corresponding services revenues.
The following graph shows the average price per hardware product indicative of loyalty through stability in the face of growing competition.
The following graph shows an estimate of growth in active devices as a proxy of customer base.
Unlike product shipments and revenue data which follow rises and falls in individual products due to the cyclicality of technology and adoption, these graphs show a smoothness and predictability of customer base behavior.
Looking at Apple this way gives the impression that the company has a large number (nearly a billion) of repeat (subscribed to service) customers. These customers can be seen to spend a predictable recurring amount (average selling price) on Apple's brand. The repetition of these metrics in public commentary suggests that customer acquisition and retention are among Apple's goals.
The key question is whether this is Apple's primary goal.
Seen this way each centralized resource allocation question can be assumed to be prefaced with "In order to create/preserve customers should we...?"
This leads to answers quite different from questions that start with "In order to sell/profit more should we...?"
For instance, offering education products, retail store experiences, healthcare products, green energy initiatives, accessories, content and services make sense even if they may have poor financial "returns". These initiatives score highly on customer retention and satisfaction. They may lead to engagement and repeat sales. Managers working on these initiatives would gain the respect of their peers, leading to more esteem and higher quality output. Finally, and most importantly, these efforts would be preserved regardless of cyclical downturns.
The assessment of analysts should therefore be couched in similar terms: "What is the impact of a new initiative in customer creation and preservation?" rather than "What is the impact of a new initiative in driving revenues and profitability".
We can see immediately why the second question is popular while the first isn't: it's easier to assess an answer to the second because we have the data that allows for its calculation.
This is why asking the wrong questions is popular.
It's not cynicism. It's access to data.
Research #Industry · 42 comments
There is no shortage of information about what happens to companies in distress. The cause of distress varies widely and is often not well understood but the actions and symptoms of distress are very consistent. We can look at examples in each industry, even in each product category for a rich set of distressed company data.
For over a year I've been chronicling the decline of incumbents in the mobile phone industry. However, decline cannot continue indefinitely. At some point a company "exits" the industry. Either through a sale or divestiture or, rarely bankruptcy. The list of exits is already long. The length and the correlation between exit and the lack of recovery implies that Nokia will also exit.
But how, exactly?
Will Nokia be acquired? If so, then by whom? What other options exist? How can we analyze this?
The easiest way to guess is to look at what happened to other companies in similar circumstances. The clearest and easiest comparison to apply is Motorola. Motorola was at one time the largest phone vendor and it went through a violent decline. Like Nokia, it was diversified into networks and a few other businesses. Unlike Motorola it's not an American company. This matters because American companies are more comfortable targets for corporate raiders. The legal and boardroom mechanics are not "better" or "easier" in the US than in Europe but they are more familiar to those who might engage in it.
So one avenue that Motorola traveled on was the intervention of activist investors who forced management change, affected strategy and pushed some tactical initiatives. This external pressure was successful in the case of Motorola. The company was split up, it was re-purposed and re-focused and, with a bit of good luck, was acquired.
The process however still took two years. In that time the company languished but stayed alive. Its headcount was reduced by nearly two thirds. It was in a precarious situation throughout. Its story is not over but ownership did change hands and those who took a risk with it while in distress managed to get a reward.
This example (and Sony's acquisition of Sony Ericsson and HP's acquisition of Palm) cannot apply to Nokia. An activist investor is unlikely and the company has not yet made itself attractive to a buyer. So what would Nokia need to do to be acquired?
The first step toward an acquisition will be divestiture of its Nokia Siemens venture. The second will be a spinoff or sale of its non-smart phone division. The third might be the allocation of its IP across these separate entities or in a separate holding.
As the company is broken up, value can be released. Investors will be able to value it better and make appropriate assessments of risk. Only at this point would an acquirer perhaps buy the "rump" Nokia smartphones group.
However, even this scenario is not without huge risks. By the time the split is completed, the operating companies could have deteriorated to such a degree that they are no longer viable. Timing is critical.
So if the smartphone group is isolated and made available, who could buy it? Microsoft is always cited as the primary buyer. I've been skeptical of this as Microsoft has found it difficult to make hardware work. It acquired Danger leading to Kin which failed. It has struggled with Xbox for a decade and has yet to recover all its costs for the effort. It has failed embarassingly with Zune. It also has shown no particular success with its original Surface table computer.
But management has re-committed itself to a new hardware effort with the new Surface. This renewed potential opens up the possibility of entering into the integration of a phone again into their business, and Nokia would be remarkably well positioned to help.
At this time, the possibility still seems remote. The company has dismissed speculation of building phones again and again. Unlike PCs, the phone platform is not yet mature and volumes and distribution are very different.
However, there is one other option.
Microsoft has historically "rescued" technology companies in distress with cash infusions for minority equity stakes. It injected some cash into Apple, Barnes & Noble and even Facebook. It did so not because they wanted to own these companies but because they wanted them to survive or thrive. The move acts as a signal to the industry, partners and developers. So what I see more likely than an acquisition is Microsoft capitalizing a spun-off Nokia Smartphones company in exchange for a small equity stake.
The valuation of this stake will be huge as I expect billions of dollars for single digit share ownership. However, Microsoft would not be doing it to get a return from those shares. It would probably later sell them at a loss. But it would be buying a strategic option whose value may be far greater.
Research #Market #Theory · 81 comments
When asked where Apple's growth will come from, most analysts or observers will cite new products. As long as there are new products, then there is growth. Conversely, if there are no new products, then there will be no growth. This is such a commonly held belief that it's axiomatic: Apple is being valued based on short-term foreseeable growth.
To be more precise, analysts value the wave of growth of every new product and heavily discount the post-growth phase assuming commoditization. There is no value assigned to Apple for extending market reach to the mass market.
Consider: Analysts currently forecast an operating income (or EBIT) of $43.3bn for 2012 and $49.7bn for 2013. That implies growth of 28% in 2012 and 15% in 2013. These growth rates are modest in light of Apple's recent historic growth and especially 84% in 2011 on EBIT level. Much of this growth has been due to iPhone which quickly captured 4% market share in four years. To suggest 15% growth in 2013 is to suggest that Apple will not increase its phone market share by an appreciable amount. The implicit assumption in that growth figure alone is that Apple will remain a niche player.
Bear in mind that 15% growth is so low as to be half the the growth in the Mac business and below the likely growth in the overall phone market. Considering the risk premium on equities, this growth forecast assumes essentially a no growth scenario. But even with no growth, Apple's cash flows are huge and thus they should add up to some significant present value. Since we know the value as reflected in the current price, we can work backwards to determine the discount rate being applied to those future flows. In other words, we can calculate how risky Apple's existing product cash flows are seen to be.
Based on assumptions originating from analysts' consensus, we can construct a simple model that will approximate the discount the stock market puts on Apple's future cash flows. Let's have a look at an adjusted Gordon or dividend discount valuation model on EBIT basis:
Shares are valued based on the projected future cash flows of a company. Discounting EBIT with Weighted Average Cost of Capital and subtracting growth will yield enterprise value (= market capitalization - cash).
Applying analysts’ assumption of close to zero growth to Apple's post 2012 EBIT means EBIT stays constant for 2013 and beyond. Let’s solve for the implied capital costs. Right away we can eliminate growth (g) as it equals zero. EBIT reflects operating cash flow since in a zero growth scenario CapEx will equal deprecation and there are no changes in net working capital. As Apple has no debt but a cash surplus, WACC will be equal to cost of equity[1].
Solving for capital cost (WACC) with available analysts' EBIT estimates reveals a discount rate of 15%.
But let’s remember that analysts have consistently and by a large margin missed Apple's financial performance. So let’s dial in a more aggressive estimate of around $56bn of EBIT for the fiscal year 2012. The discount rate goes up to 19% and implies an EBIT multiple of 5.3x.
In other words, Apple's cash flows for a zero growth scenario are being discounted at a rate of 15% to 19%. This places the company in an extremely risky category of investment. It is certainly not something that can be categorized as a value stock.
The discussions on this blog regarding Apple’s valuation have been insightful, but only danced around the triangle of price, earnings and growth. When the growth forecasts are considered vis-a-vis current pricing, the assumptions built into 'consensus' forecasts for Apple are condemnations of the company.
They present a view of a company that is extremely vulnerable and can neither preserve its current cash flows nor find new sources of growth. It is, quite plainly, a company doomed to commoditization.
---
Notes:
As the market continues to exhibit signs of instability, an interesting paper[1] identified a correlation between the U.S. stock market and an index of the U.S. Financial Conditions. This index measures the assessment of the probability of a crisis.
The conclusion is that an imminent crisis mentality pervades equities markets today and implies that pricing is largely disconnected from fundamentals. On this blog we've discussed the topic of fundamentals and marveled at how pricing seems to be largely exclusive of it.
The case is made by the following chart:
The first chart shows the share price (blue) and the earnings per share (EPS in green) as well as several multiples of EPS. During the period of 2006 through 2008 the stock ranged between a P/E of 35 and 45. beginning with the collapse in confidence due to the banking crisis, the share price fell to within a range of 15 and 25. Now, with Apple's growth accelerating above 100%, the stock price seems to be sliding below the 15 P/E bottom.
In the second chart I show the P/E in blue and the P/E/trailing Growth. Adjusted for earnings growth the equity is cheaper now than at the bottom of the last recession. You can also observe the trend or slope of the decline in the P/E/tG. It might be alarming to see the decline but it also might be comforting to know that the P/E/tG cannot go to zero. Either Price has to go to zero or earnings or growth have to go to infinity. The closer P/E/tG goes to zero however (it's at 0.17) the more undervalued Apple appears to be.
Naturally these metrics of P/E are arbitrary and the price is simply what the buyers are willing to pay for the equity. But the value of any metric is the trend. The value can be compared to a different time or to a different equity. The trend here is that Apple, at least, is being discounted at a time when it's growing more robustly than ever.
Which is why finding an explanation is so important. This is where the paper sheds some potential clues. The author concludes that there is a pervasive crisis phobia which affects multiples. Paulsen writes:
If cultural mentalities were less crisis-phobic today, what would the PE multiple be on the stock market coming off a 12.8 percent profit quarter with a 2.2 percent Treasury yield and only about a 1.6 percent core consumer price inflation rate? Certainly, much higher than 12 times earnings! 16 times earnings? 17 times? This simply illustrates just how much the crisis-centric mindset is depressing investment potential and it also suggest how much opportunity there is to increase stock valuations just by improving the cultural mindset. Long term, the real investment opportunity is not a dramatic improvement in economic or profit growth (although either or both could occur), but rather is just a slow but steady decay in “crisis-fears” similar to what we experienced during the last recovery.
----
Reference:
