When the current coronavirus (COVID-19) hit the world and people prepare to stay at home for weeks, some of the social infrastructures are receiving increased attention.
The delivery system is a very good one to start. As uber not only provides uberEATS but also grocery delivery, Walmart / Target / CVS increasingly focus on delivery, etc., I will try to review the development of US delivery system recently and what is implied for the future.
Pre-industrialization: The Origin And Natural Power
The origin of United States Postal Service (USPS) can be dated back to 1775 when Benjamin Franklin was promoted as the first postmaster general.
In 1778, the US Constitution, Article I, Section Eight, known as the Postal Clause, says “The Congress shall have Power to establish Post Offices and post Roads”. This explains the importance of the postal system and its position as a government branch nowadays.
In the early days, mails were mainly carried by manpower and horsepower. In 1785, the Continental Congress authorized the Postmaster General to award mail transportation contracts to stagecoach operators, in effect subsidizing public travel and commerce with postal funds. Despite their higher costs and sometimes lower efficiency, stagecoach proposals were preferred over horseback.
The Philadelphia Stage Coach (about 1800) | Source: https://peterpappas.com
… expanded the scope of JumiaPay beyond our physical goods marketplace. As of December 31, 2018, JumiaPay was only available within our physical goods marketplace. It is now also available within our on-demand services, Jumia Food, and hotel booking portals, Jumia Travel, in selected countries.
…we continued to expand the range of financial and digital services available from third parties, powered by JumiaPay, offering our consumers an increasing range of relevant every day services.
In Nigeria for instance, consumers can now access micro-loans offered
by a local fintech startup, alongside event tickets offered by a local event ticketing provider.
In Egypt, in the second quarter of 2019, we started distributing services from a local deals provider allowing consumers to purchase their vouchers on the Jumia platform, using JumiaPay.
Not surprisingly, 2019 has been a good year for JumiaPay, with quarterly TPV ( Total Payment Volume) growing constantly and annual TPV of ~€124 million.
TPV as a percentage of Jumia’s GMV, grew from 8.6% in 19Q1 to 15.1% in 19Q4. (update: GMV before adjustment)
Meanwhile, the value per transaction on JumiaPay is lower than its value per order on Jumia, which makes sense as JumiaPay is more user in every day purchases.
In 19Q4, €19 per transaction is roughly half of the Jumia order value (€36).
JumiaPay provides a hyper-growth opportunity.
In the Q4 press release, it says “the ramp-up of JumiaPay on-platform is attributable to our continuous education efforts of consumers, the expanding range of digital services offered as part of our JumiaPay app as well as a number of newly introduced marketing initiatives. These include Mastercard Tuesdays discounts, cash-backs funded by card issuing banks or the possibility to pay for purchases in 12-month installments at no interest, offered by partner banks. “
Below is the chart for Jumia’s performance in terms of GMV.
A spike in 2018Q4 just before IPO is controversial..
Although with the “artificial” growth in 18Q4, the trend looks good
The more worrying part is the slowdown in GMV growth – especially when Jumia is still has a long way to go
Jumia’s full year 2019 GMV is €1.1 billion, up 33% compared to 2018.
Comparatively, Pinduoduo’s GMV in the twelve-month period ended December 31, 2018 was RMB471.6 billion (US$268.6 billion), an increase of 234% from RMB141.2 billion in the twelve-month period ended December 31, 2017.
Combined with Jumia’s annual active customer base, we can see the GMV per AAC declining over time.
In its Q4 press release, Jumia says “we have reduced promotional intensity and consumer incentives on lower consumer lifetime value business. While most product categories experienced GMV growth in the 20 to 50% range, phones and consumer electronics contracted by approximately 20% on a year-over-year basis. This aspect of the business mix rebalancing will likely continue to negatively impact GMV development over the next two quarters.”
Source: Jumia 2019Q4 Presentation
“…we have increased our focus on everyday product categories such as Fast Moving Consumer Goods (“FMCG”), fashion, beauty and personal care as well as digital services which provide affordable entry points into the Jumia ecosystem…”
We could also see that Pinduoduo’s GMV per active buyer is a little bit insane..
approx. annual GMV per active buyer = $268.6 billion / 418.5 million = $641.8
Jumia is at ~€180 in 2019, using annual GMV divided by ending AAC.
To compare it with consumers’ e-commerce purchase across the globe..
Jumia was offering 13,500,000 ADR shares with an IPO range of $13 to $16 per share and priced at $14.5 per share.
Mastercard Europe SA has agreed to purchase €50.0 million of shares in a concurrent private placement at the same price.
As of December 31, 2018, Mobile Telephone Networks Holdings (Pty) Ltd (“MTN”), Rocket Internet SE (“Rocket”) and Millicom International Cellular SA (“Millicom”) own respectively 31.28%, 21.74% and 10.15% of the Company.
Other shareholders are AEH New Africa eCommerce I GmbH (8.86%), AXA Africa Holding SAS (6.06%), Atlas Countries Support S.A. (6.06%), Chelsea Wharf Holdings S.à r.l. (5.51%), CDC Group (4.04%), Rocket Investment Funds (3.48%) and Goldman Sachs (2.83%).
Africa has one of the most digitally connected populations on the planet, with 400 million internet users.
Comparatively, say China has three times the number of internet users (1.2bn), Jumia would have 12 million or 18.3 million respectively.
Pinduoduo, a relatively new e-commerce platform in China, said its Active buyers in the twelve-month period ended December 31, 2018 were 418.5 million, an increase of 71% from 244.8 million in the twelve-month period ended December 31, 2017.
We are talking about totally different stages of e-commerce. Low penetration means more education and infrastructure are needed while potential upside is large.
In the future where Fintech firms dominate, established companies are reacting with three main strategies:
Cut costs for legacy business lines – like what we said in a previous post Banking Headcount Cut
Consolidate with other legacy companies to gain more market share and thus more say/power, further cutting expenses and trying to get more economy of scale – like what we said in the last post From TD Ameritrade To E-Trade: A Wave Of Consolidation
Acquire Fintech startups or replicate what they are doing – like the title of this post Buy & Be FinTech
Plaid is a Fintech firm that enables a lot of other Fintech apps & digital transaction based businesses, providing underlying APIs. It counts Venmo, Robinhood, Coinbase, Acorns, etc. as customers.
Credit Karma lets people check their credit scores, shop for credit cards and loans, file taxes and more. It had close to nearly $1 billion revenue in 2019, growing at 20%.
The company started out originally in 2007 providing free credit scores, later extending that to full credit reports. Credit Karma’s launch of a financial planning tool in 2013 drew a direct comparison to Intuit’s Mint. And since then, Credit Karma has launched other products that directly rival Intuit, for example a free tool to help people file their taxes. These not only represented direct competition, but a disruptive threat, since Credit Karma’s products skewed younger and were built on a “free” premise (offering the products at no charge and instead making money off showing users and selling relevant, related products). The fact that Credit Karma partners with so many other financial services providers also means it’s sitting on a huge data trove that it leverages to build and personalize products, representing a data science angle for Intuit here, too. [TechCrunch]
Meanwhile, besides the notable acquisitions of Fintechs, companies are building similar services by themselves.
By mimicking the experiences/apps offered by startups, established players are essentially becoming Fintechs themselves, thus evolving internally and embracing the future more positively.
Financial Times reported last year in October that HSBC has embarked on a cost-cutting drive that threatens up to 10,000 jobs, as its new interim chief executive Noel Quinn seeks to make his mark on the bank.
It is also not a surprise as fintech companies are becoming more compelling and providing more superior services efficiently.
The long-term trend is inevitable. For example, in retail banking, every major bank is shutting down branches. The previous “comparative advantage” of having more footprint in the last century has become a liability. The bigger they were, the more pain they were feeling.
In a Jan 2017 report, The Guardian said HSBC “will be left with 625 branches by the end of the year [2017], which means it will have more than halved its high street presence since June 2011 when it had 1,301 branches.”
And in today’s report, HSBC US said the bank will close about 80 branches this year in the U.S. alone, a reduction of about 30%.
Other retail banking services such as trading and wealth management are also shifting online + automation. Younger generations just don’t need much face-to-face financial services and digital infrastructure has become more potent than ever. The industry’s reduction in cost structure leads to lowering fees and squeezes every player who couldn’t adapt (fast).
Many Institution services are also digitalized/automated.
Not surprisingly, many parts of the investment banking world such as trading are cutting headcount as well.
Almost 30,000 lay-offs have been announced since April at banks including HSBC, Barclays, Société Générale, Citigroup and Deutsche Bank. Most of the cuts have come in Europe, with Deutsche accounting for more than half the total, while trading desks have been hit hardest.
Greenhouse gases trap heat and make the planet warmer.
Several of the major greenhouse gases occur naturally but increases in their atmospheric concentrations over the last 250 years are due largely to human activities. Other greenhouse gases are entirely the result of human activities. [IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report]
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary greenhouse gas emitted through human activities.
Based on global emissions from 2010 | Source: IPCC, EPA
Emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel use and from the effects of land use change on plant and soil carbon are the primary sources of increased atmospheric CO2.
An electric car using average European electricity is almost 30% cleaner over its life cycle compared to even the most efficient internal combustion engine vehicle on the market today
Source: ICCT
In most countries, the majority of emissions over the lifetime of both electric and conventional vehicles come from vehicle operation – tailpipe and fuel cycle – rather than vehicle manufacture. The exception is in countries – Norway or France, for example – where nearly all electricity comes from near-zero carbon sources, such as hydroelectric or nuclear power. Lifecycle emissions for electric vehicles are much smaller in countries such as France (which gets most of its electricity from nuclear) or Norway (from renewables). [carbonbrief]
Producing batteries in a plant powered by renewable energy – as will be the case for the Tesla factory – substantially reduces lifetime emissions. The IVL researchers estimate that battery manufacturing emissions are between 61 and 106 kg CO2-equivalent per kWh.
With the technology advancements and cleaner energy sources for plants, the marginal and average cost of producing batteries will continue to go down.
DTC is a buzzword that attracts capital in the private market.
However, public market usually doesn’t have much patience or appetite for future stories.
Casper, the magical mattress unicorn, which raised $100 million in March 2019, marketing itself as a “Sleep Economy” company, is receiving a market cap of $400 million (EV ~$300 million).
The main problem though, is not about the DTC model.
Brands such as Canada Goose and Lululemon are counting on DTC to grow.
The slowing revenue growth rate is also okay. Public market is not relentlessly looking for 100% or 50% growth.
Indeed, Canada Goose and Lululemon, which grew at sub-25% in the last 12 month, are valued at over 4x and 8x sales respectively.
Casper, which is expected to grow at 23% for 2019, has EV/Revenue below 1x.
From 2019 February to October (FY19Q1-Q3), Lululemon‘s SG&A expenses are 36.4% of revenue.
That ratio is 70.5% for Casper from Jan to Sep 2019.
Plus the differences in gross margin, the unprofitable DTC brand growing at sub-25% still needs additional efforts to prove its business is viable/sustainable.
With Yescarta’s annual sales of $456 million in 2019 and Kymriah catching up, the acquisition price paid in 2017 by Gilead was indeed very high.
In its 19Q4 earnings, Gilead disclosed an $800 million write-down related to a Kite Pharma setback in indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma. That followed an $820 million write-down this time last year related to Kite’s multiple myeloma candidate KITE-585. [fiercepharma]
The competition will become more fierce as BMY just submitted application for its CAR-T therapy acquired from Celgene (Celgene acquired from Juno) -lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel). The treatment is also for adult patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) after at least two prior therapies.
BMY’s data: among patients evaluable for efficacy (n=256), the overall response rate (ORR) was 73% (187/256, 95% CI: 67 – 78) with 53% of patients (136/256, 95% CI: 47 – 59) achieving a complete response (CR). Responses were similar across all patient subgroups. Among all patients, 79% (213/269) had grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE). Instances of any grade cytokine release syndrome (CRS) occurred in 42% (113/269) of patients at a median onset of 5 days and grade 3 or higher CRS occurring in 2% (6/269) of patients.
Founded in February 2005, with $11.5 million total venture funding and 65 employees at that time, Youtube commanded 46% of visits to U.S. online-video sites in September. That compared with a 21% share for the video activities of News Corp.’s MySpace site and 11% for Google Video. Youtube had close to 20 million monthly visitors in August 2006.
Back then, Google reported total revenues of $6.14 billion in 2005 and $10.60 billion in 2006, and had a market value of $132 billion. Its net income was $3 billion in 2006 with $3.6 billion cash flow from operations and more than $11 billion cash balance.
On Monday Feb 3, 2020, Alphabet first provided the breakdown for some of its non-Google-search businesses, including Youtube.
Year Ended December 31,
2017
2018
2019
Google Search & other
$
69,811
$
85,296
$
98,115
YouTube ads(1)
8,150
11,155
15,149
(1) YouTube non-advertising revenues are included in Google other revenues.
