Sunday, 2 April 2017

Many famous scientists have something in common—they didn’t work long hours.

After his morning walk and breakfast, Darwin was in his study by 8 and worked a steady hour and a half. At 9:30 he would read the morning mail and write letters. At 10:30, Darwin returned to more serious work, sometimes moving to his aviary, greenhouse, or one of several other buildings where he conducted his experiments. By noon, he would declare, “I’ve done a good day’s work,” and set out on a long walk on the Sandwalk, a path he had laid out not long after buying Down House. (Part of the Sandwalk ran through land leased to Darwin by the Lubbock family.) When he returned after an hour or more, Darwin had lunch and answered more letters. At 3 he would retire for a nap; an hour later he would arise, take another walk around the Sandwalk, then return to his study until 5:30, when he would join his wife, Emma, and their family for dinner. On this schedule he wrote 19 books, including technical volumes on climbing plants, barnacles, and other subjects; the controversial Descent of Man; and The Origin of Species, probably the single most famous book in the history of science, and a book that still affects the way we think about nature and ourselves.

Even in today’s 24/7, always-on world, we can blend work and rest together in ways that make us smarter, more creative, and happier.

Scientists who spent 25 hours in the workplace were no more productive than those who spent five.

Darwin is not the only famous scientist who combined a lifelong dedication to science with apparently short working hours.

The 60-plus-hour-a-week researchers were the least productive of all.

The best students generally followed a pattern of practicing hardest and longest in the morning, taking a nap in the afternoon, and then having a second practice.




http://nautil.us/issue/46/balance/darwin-was-a-slacker-and-you-should-be-too

Japan, Australia, Netherlands - GDP grew without recession for 25 years and more


- Australia GDP grew for 25 years because of its resources.

- Netherlands's GDP grew for over 25 years after oil was discovered offshore.

- So, natural resources can help drive GDP growth for a long time.

- Australia grew for the past 25 years primarily due to exports to China. In 1991, exports to China were 2% of Australia's total exports. In 2017, it was 33%.

- Of Australia's GDP growth of 3.5% , 2% is accounted for due to population growth and 1.5% due to increase in resources investment.

Summary: India's GDP can also grow for a very very long time because of the huge population and increasing consumption.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-30/as-australia-eyes-victory-on-growth-its-spoils-look-bittersweet

Sunday, 26 March 2017

Best IPOs by return since listing in last 15 years (2002 to 2017)



The Best Free Investing Tools on the Web

One of the great things about the Internet is that it’s broken down many of the barriers to information that existed in the past. Investors can now become more informed than ever before if they know where to look and who to trust. You no longer have to go through the gatekeepers to access relevant financial market information.
This has leveled the playing field for the individual investor. With an abundance of information available, the winners and losers will be determined by those who are able to better process, filter and analyze the firehose of information that’s being put out there these days.
I spend a lot of time looking at historical market data and am always trying to figure out more efficient ways of doing so. While it can’t help me predict the future, it can help me analyze the present and assess probabilities from the past. Historical data does a better job predicting risk than returns but that’s about the best you can do in the absence of a functioning crystal ball. I prize evidence over opinions so I use a lot of back-tested data in my work.
I get a lot of questions from readers asking what data sources or models I use. I’ve been building my own excel models and formulas for a while and have access to a handful of professional subscription-based offerings. But you don’t have to spend tens of thousands of dollars on historical data providers to access useful financial data in the Internet age. There are plenty of really useful free websites out there that have historical market data, back-testing tools, risk statistics and scenario analysis capabilities.
Here are a number of them that I have found helpful over the years:
NYU’s stock, bond & cash historical returns
NYU professor Aswath Damodaran uses this site to update the performance numbers for stocks (S&P 500), bonds (10-year treasuries) and cash (3-month t-bills) once a year. It shows the annual returns for these three asset classes going all the way back to 1928. You can also download an excel file that contains historical interest rates, bond yields, and dividend yields. I use these numbers frequently.
Portfolio Visualizer
This site has one of the best free asset allocation back-testing programs I’ve come across. There are probably 20-30 different asset classes and sub-asset classes you can back-test to the 1970s with historical returns, drawdowns, real (after-inflation) returns, and growth of your initial investment. This site also allows you to perform Monte Carlo simulations on withdrawal strategies, correlation matrixes between different assets, risk factor analysis and back-test real world portfolios using actual mutual funds and ETFs. That this website is available for free is pretty remarkable.
Robert Shiller’s online data
Shiller has one of the longest running data sets I’ve seen. His famous CAPE spreadsheet has the monthly stock price, interest rate, earnings and dividend data going back to 1871. This site also has his comprehensive real estate data on home prices going back well over 100 years.
Twitter
People on social media love to complain about social media but I find a ton of value in the information I receive from Twitter. I’m constantly finding helpful research, graphs, data and analysis that I wouldn’t be exposed to otherwise. Twitter is my go-to source for what’s going on in the world of finance and the markets along with under-the-radar research.
Fama-French
Ken French updates this site using much of the research he’s done over the years with Eugene Fama. This one is a factor investing nerd’s dream, although the site does take some time to figure out how to use efficiently (at least in my experience). French updates his data regularly with historical returns on factors such as small-cap stocks, value stocks, quality stocks and momentum stocks going back to the 1920s. This site also has great data on sector and industry historical returns. All of the data is easily exportable to excel.
Credit Suisse Global Investment Returns Yearbook
Researchers Elroy Dimson, Paul March, and Mike Staunton update this report once a year with numbers on stocks, bonds, and inflation going back to 1900 for a number of different countries. It’s worth it to go through the entire report at least once.
MSCI
MSCI provides the most comprehensive free source of historical market data on foreign stock markets. They have performance numbers going back to 1970 for different countries, regions, and markets, both developed and emerging.
Abnormal Returns
The best curated content each and every day on investing, personal finance, research and anything else in the world of finance. If you miss anything worth reading you can be sure it will be here.
Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED)
Econ geeks love this site because the Federal Reserve has data on almost anything related to economics you can think of. There’s also plenty of good market data on stocks, bonds, and interest rates as well. And the site allows you to personalize the graphs and datasets.
Morningstar
I find that Morningstar has the best data on mutual funds and ETFs for performance purposes. You can see annual returns going back 10 years, and monthly and quarterly returns going back 5 years. They provide after-tax returns and fund behavior gaps, which I find really useful for seeing what investors are actually earning in these funds. You can also find breakdowns of fund holdings, investment styles, geographic allocations and more.
Yahoo! Finance
I like Yahoo! Finance for daily historical data on stocks, interest rates, and indexes. They also have annual and quarterly performance numbers for mutual funds going back to inception, many of which give you decades of returns.
Portfolio Charts
This is another great asset allocation back-testing tool that allows you to see how a number of different well-known portfolios have performed over the years. This site has the best visuals of any I’ve played around with. You can also stress-test a large number of asset classes and strategies.
And here are a few more I’ve used over the years:
Feel free to shoot me an email if there are any that I’ve missed and I’ll be sure to add them to this list.
Update: Here are the many suggestions I received from my readers for some of their favorites:

Thursday, 23 March 2017

Retail - “What’s going on is the customers don’t have the fucking money"; "Most of people's money is going into mortgage/auto loans"

The "Retail Apocalypse" Is Officially Descending Upon America

Tyler Durden's picture
Consumerism has long been a defining element of American society, but retail giants are now shutting down thousands of their locations amid a long-anticipated “retail apocalypse."
BI reports that over the next couple months, more than 3,500 stores are expected to close:
Department stores like JCPenney, Macy’s, Sears, and Kmart are among the companies shutting down stores, along with middle-of-the-mall chains like Crocs, BCBG, Abercrombie & Fitch, and Guess.”
Some stores, like Bebe and The Limited, are closing all of their locations to focus more on online sales. Other larger chains, like JC Penney, are “aggressively paring down their store counts to unload unprofitable locations and try to staunch losses,” Business Insider notes. Sears and K-Mart are following a similar trajectory moving forward.
Sears is shutting down 150 Sears and Kmart locations, about 10% of their shops. JCPenney is shutting down 138 stores, about 14% of their total locations.
These closures are the consequence of several different factors. First, the United States has more shopping mall square footage per person than other parts of the world. In America, retailers reserve 23.5 square feet per person; in Canada and Australia, the countries with the second- and third-most space have 16.4 and 11.1, respectively.
Another reason retail brick and mortars are failing is the growth of e-commerce. Between 2010 and 2013, visits to shopping malls declined 50%, according to data from real estate research firm Cushman and Wakefield. Meanwhile, online sales from huge online outposts, like Amazon, have exploded.
Back in 2015, Forbes observed this trend:
Earlier this year, the stock market value of Amazon.com surpassed that of Walmart, a turn of events that many saw as indicative of how badly brick-and-mortar big box retailers have lagged behind in building up their e-commerce.”


Walmart is now hustling to bridge the gap, pouring billions into its tech to claw back some market share. Target, also a laggard, is similarly spending as much on tech as on its 1,800 stores. Both those companies, though, generate digital sales that are still only a small percentage of total sales, and a fraction of Amazon’s.”
At that time, Business Insider noted:
The list of failures is getting longer by the day. Macy’s? Cooked – down 42% over the past six months. Nordstrom? Down 20% over the same timeframe. Dick’s Sporting Goods? Awful earnings sent this athletic retailer lower more than 10% yesterday alone. There’s absolutely no way to sugarcoat it—the retail sector is crashing.”
Though Americans increasingly prefer to shop online, their preferences are also changing. Shoppers are choosing to spend their money on “restaurants, travel, and technology than ever before, while spending less on apparel and accessories,” Business Insider reports.
Further, as longtime retail analyst Howard Davidowitz observed in 2014, “What’s going on is the customers don’t have the fucking money. That’s it. This isn’t rocket science.”
As prosperity declines, shopping habits shift, and major retailers like Macy’s, Sears, and JCPenney close their doors, their decisions are likely to have ripple effects on smaller stores in shopping malls. Business Insider explains that in addition to dwindling attendance and income for mall owners, major department store closures can trigger “‘co-tenancy clauses’ that allow the other mall tenants to terminate their leases or renegotiate the terms, typically with a period of lower rents, until another retailer moves into the anchor space.”
As fewer retail giants seek retail space, many malls are facing dire fates, and many expect low-performing malls to be hit hardest by the changing scope of retail, noting roughly 30% of malls will face increased risk of shutting down.

Shopping malls first became popular in the economically fruitful era of the 1950s and 60s. Inspired by major department stores of the 19th century — like Sears and Macy’s, which are now struggling — 20th-century malls grew rapidly, in part, because of government subsidies provided in the form of tax breaks. Smithsonian Magazine has explained that over the decades, real estate developers overshot their expectations, constructing increasing numbers of malls despite a lack of population growth. By 1999, the downward trend we see intensifying today had already begun:
Shopping centers that hadn’t been renovated in years began to show signs of wear and tear, and the middle-aged, middle-class shoppers that once flooded their shops began to disappear, turning the once sterile suburban shopping centers into perceived havens for crime. Increasingly rundown and redundant, malls started turning into ghost towns—first losing shoppers and then losing stores.
Almost twenty years later, the trend has only intensified, and retailers are evidently bracing for an even deeper plunge. As CNBC noted earlier this year:
At $12.7 billion, U.S. department store revenue is $7.2 billion lower than it was in 2001, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Expect these trends to continue.”


Comments

Déjà view  Mano-A-Mano Mar 23, 2017 8:46 PM
Mortgage$/Auto loans consuming much discretionary income...

Squid Viscous  GUS100CORRINA Mar 23, 2017 8:02 PM
meanwhile Panera and DOminos trade for 40x earnings.

folks still have money for shitty pizza and $9 sandwiches,?

scratching head...

Shortage of affordable houses even in the US

Renters Now Rule Half of U.S. Cities
The American Dream increasingly involves a lease, not a mortgage.

by Patrick Clark
March 23, 2017, 2:30 PM GMT+5:30

Just 49 percent of Motor City households were homeowners in 2015, down from 55 percent in 2009 and the lowest percentage in more than 50 years. Detroit isn’t alone, of course: The rate of U.S. home ownership fell steadily for a decade as the foreclosure crisis turned millions of owners into renters and tight housing markets made it hard for renters to buy homes. Demographic shiftsmillennials (finally) moving out of their parents basements, for instance, or a rising Hispanic population—further fed the renter pool.

Fifty-two of the 100 largest U.S. cities were majority-renter in 2015, according to U.S. Census Bureau data compiled for Bloomberg by real estate brokerage Redfin. Twenty-one of those cities have shifted to renter-domination since 2009. These include such hot housing markets as Denver and San Diego and lukewarm locales, such as Detroit and Baltimore, better known for vacant homes than residential development.




While U.S. home ownership ticked up in the second half of 2016, there are reasons to think the trend toward renting will continue. A 2015 report from the Urban Institute predicted that rentership would keep rising through 2030, thanks to demographic trends that include aging baby boomers who downsize into rentals.

In the shorter term, housing market dynamics will also play a role. Fewer than 1 million homes were on the market in the first quarter of 2017, the lowest number since Trulia began recording inventory data in 2012. The shortage makes it harder for renters to buy. Meanwhile, rental landlords, including large Wall Street players and mom-and-pop investors, continue to plow cash into single-family homes.

Those shifts are likely to present new challenges for cities unequipped to handle high rental populations. Detroit Future City, a nonprofit that highlighted Detroit’s shift in a report earlier this month, argues that the city needs an intentional strategy for dealing with the rising population of such households.

That could include providing new protections for renters or creating resources to help landlords keep properties in good repair. On a grander scale, the Center for Budget Policy & Priorities, a Washington-based research institute, published a proposal this month calling for a new tax credit for low-wage workers, seniors, and people for disabilities.

Most low-income families don’t rent by choice, said Nela Richardson, chief economist at Redfin. And plenty of higher-income households rent because they can’t afford to buy. “We don’t have enough affordable supply in either rental or for-sale markets,” said Richardson, adding that cities interested in promoting renter-friendly policies can rethink their zoning policies to encourage more construction.

At an even more basic level, city leaders should check old assumptions about the role renter households play in their communities, said Andrew Jakabovics, vice president for policy development at Enterprise Community Partners, an affordable housing nonprofit.

Homeowners have traditionally been regarded as more engaged, with more at stake in the long-term prospects of their neighborhood, Jakabovics said. That view can unfairly shortchange renters.

“It goes a long way just to make sure you’re valuing renters and making sure voices are heard when it’s time to allocate resources to schools or parks or transit lines,” he said

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-23/renters-now-rule-half-of-u-s-cities

Sears Today, Walmart Tomorrow? Why You Don't Want To Own Any Retail Stocks

MAR 22, 2017 @ 07:50 PM 11,847 VIEWS The Little Black Book of Billionaire Secrets






Adam Hartung , CONTRIBUTOR
I cover business growth & overcoming organizational obstacles.
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
Traditional retailers just keep providing more bad news.  Payless Shoes said it plans to file bankruptcy next week, closing 500 of its 4,000 stores.  Most likely it will follow the path of Radio Shack,  which hasn't made a profit since 2011.  Radio Shack filed bankruptcy, and shut a gob of stores as part of its "turnaround plan." Then in February Radio Shack filed its second bankruptcy - most likely killing the chain entirely this time.

Sears Holdings finally admitted it probably can't survive as a going concern this week.  Sears has lost over $10B since 2010 - when it last showed a profit - and owes over $4B to its creditors.  Retail stocks cratered Monday as the list of retailers closing stores accelerated: Sears, KMart, Macy's, Radio Shack, JCPenney, American Apparel, Abercrombie & Fitch, The Limited, CVS, GNC, Office Depot, HHGregg, The Children's Place, and Crocs are just some of the household names that are slowly (or not so slowly) dying.

None of this should be surprising.  By the time CEO Ed Lampert merged KMart with Sears the trend to e-commerce was already pronounced.  Anyone could build an excel spreadsheet that would demonstrate as on-line retail grew, brick-and-mortar retail would decline.  In the low margin world of retail, profits would evaporate.  It would be a blood bath.  Any retailer with any weakness simply would not survive this market shift - and that clearly included outdated store concepts like Sears, KMart and Radio Shack which long ago were outflanked by on-line shopping and trendier storefronts.

Yet, not everyone is ready to give up on some retailers.  Walmart, for example, still trades at $70/share, which is higher than it traded in 2015 and about where it traded back in 2012.  Some investors still think that there are brick-and-mortar outfits that are either immune to the trends, or will survive the shake-out and have higher profits in the future.


And that is why we have to be very careful about business myths.

There are a lot of people that believe as markets shrink the ultimate consolidation will leave one, or a few, competitors who will be very profitable.  Capacity will go away, and profits will return.  In the end, they believe if you are the last buggy whip maker you will be profitable - so investors just need to pick who will be the survivor and wait it out.  And, if you believe this, then you have justified owning Walmart.

Only, markets don't work that way.  As industries consolidate they end up with competitors who either lose money, or just barely eke out a small profit.  Think about the auto industry, airlines or land-line telecom companies.

Two factors exist which effectively forces all the profits out of these businesses, and therefore make it impossible for investors to make money long-term.

First,competitive capacity always remains just a bit too much for the market need.  Management, and often investors, simply don't want to give up in the face of industry consolidation.  They keep hoping to reach a rainbow that will save them.  So capacity lingers and lingers - always pushing prices down even as costs increase.  Even after someone fails, and that capacity theoretically goes away, someone jumps in with great hopes for the future and boosts capacity again.  Therefore, excess capacity overhangs the marketplace forcing prices down to break-even, or below, and never really goes away.

Given the amount of retail real estate out there, and the bargains being offered to anyone who wants to open, or expand, stores this problem will persist for decades in retail.

Second, demand in most markets keeps declining. Hopefuls project that demand will "stabilize," thus balancing the capacity and allowing for price increases.  Because demand changes aren't linear, there are often plateaus that make it appear as if demand won't go down more.  But then something changes - an innovation, regulatory change, taste change - and demand takes another hit. And all the hope goes away as profits drop, again.

It is not a successful strategy to try being the "last man standing" in any declining market.  No competitor is immune to these forces when markets shift.  No matter how big, when trends shift and new forms of competition start growing every old-line company will be negatively affected.  Whether fast, or slow, the value of these companies will continue declining until they eventually become worthless.

Nor is it successful long-term to try and segment the business into small groupings which management thinks can be protected.  When Xerox brought to market photocopying, small offset press manufacturers (ABDick and Multigraphics ) said not to worry.  Xeroxing might be OK in some office installations, but there were customer segments that would forever use lithography.  Even as demand shrunk, well into the 1990s, they said that big corporations, industrial users, government entities, schools and other segments would forever need the benefits of lithography, so investors were safe.  Today the small offset press market is a tiny fraction of its size in the 1960s. ABDick and Multigraphics both went through rounds of bankruptcies before disappearing.  Xerography, its child desktop publishing, and its grandchild electronic screens, killed offset for almost all applications.

So don't be lured into false hopes by retailers who claim their segment is "protected."  Short-term things might not look bad.  But the market has already shifted to e-commerce, and this is just round one of change.  More and more innovations are coming that will make the need for traditional stores increasingly unnecessary.

Many readers have expressed their disappointment in my chronic warnings about Walmart.  But those warnings are no different than my warnings about Sears Holdings.  It's just that the timing may be different.  Both companies have been over-investing in assets (brick-and-mortar stores) that are declining in value as they have attempted to defend and extend their old business model.  Both radically under-invested in new markets which were cannibalizing their old business.  And, in the end, both will end up with the same results.

And this is true for all retailers that depend on traditional brick-and-mortar sales for their revenues and profits - it's only a matter of when things will go badly, not if.  So traditional retail is nowhere that any investor wants to be.

Learn more about trend planning at AdamHartung.com, or connect with me on LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter.