Plant meat didn’t work so far

Meat consumption is huge in China. But Beyond Meat didn’t win the market even it has a local factory.

In November’s q3 earnings call, Beyond Meat says it is doing “a review and potential restructuring of our operations in China”.

A local factory in Shanghai can’t solve Beyond Meat’s problems globally.

Why Beyond Meat didn’t work?

1) Price is too high. Retail price could be ~$10 per pound, or 40+% higher. In earnings releases, Beyond Meat in 23q3 sold 7.199 mn pounds of meat through US retail for 30.518 mn, which translates to $4.23 per pound (the price Beyond Meat sells to retailers). And Beyond Meat is mostly making gross profit loss at these prices. Not to mention the high interest rate and inflation pressure that lead to consumer trade-down.

Beyond Meat patties in Walmart – $9.68 / lb

normal beef patties in Walmart – $5.6 – $7 / lb

Products sold in China is actually at similar price in the US (40 rmb, or $5.6 for 2 patties; 60 rmb, or $8.45 for 4 patties, or 1 lb) – expensive compared with other meat options in China.

Pork (main protein) is ~$1.3 / lb in China.

Beef price is ~$4.6 / lb in China.

2) In restaurants (fast-food chains), the products didn’t take off – not welcomed by consumers. McDonald’s discontinued McPlant in mid-2022, which is a Beyond Meat burger. Burger King, the early adopter of vegan burger (from Impossible Burger) now says “it’s not a big part of the current focus.

3) There are some fundamental issues with the product: e.g. plant- based protein is less likely to be absorbed compared with real meat.

Fed is bullied by the market – why?

Market news nowadays are saying that Fed is bullied by the market.

e.g. FT article: The Fed should resist market bullying

What’s “bullying”? Seems to me that market is leading and Fed is just following the market.

Why is this the case? I got three reasons:

1/ 2024 is election year. Market knows Fed needs to help the economy.

2/ Market understands data better, and Fed has been saying it’s “data-dependent”; no wonder why market (e.g. hedge funds) is leading with all those high-frequency data. Hedge funds can simply simulate what data Fed is receiving and even have better real-time data than the Fed.

3/ Some market players can “influence” or “control” the data. Sounds absurd. Just an example – what if hedge funds can buy up goods which would cause inflation when needed, or sell them at low prices to cause deflation when needed. As long as they can make huge profits in the market, it can be worth the cost.

US car vs. home loans

Read the q3 quarterly report on US household debt and credit (here). One interest takeaway is how divergently different loans perform, vs. the GFC era.

When the GFC hit, both all loans perform badly. Transition into delinquency (30+ days) for credit cards, mortgages, and auto loans reached over 10%. Mortgages delinquency were picking up faster and looks worse than auto loans.

This time around, mortgages looks fine (as of 23q3), and delinquency is going up not only slowly but at the level even lower than 2005-06, while auto and credit cards are deteriorating at a faster rate.

By age groups, for 18-29 and 30-39, the percentage of auto loan balance falling 3-month behind is reaching about the similar level of GFC era. (Another theme: younger generation is under more pressure than the older for the past 2 years)

To reflect back, there was a shortage of cars during the pandemic and used car prices were shooting up. It could cost some money if someone bought a car back then and sold it this year, as 2nd-hand car price has been on a downward path.

The selling and downward pricing trend could be a self-reenforcing process.

Meanwhile, house is a more resilient asset class and current macro is still ok. After 10 years, houses are very likely to worth more but cars very likely won’t.

As shown with the FHFA house price index, which is keeping up.

…which is very different from the GFC era when HPI declined and under pressure for years.

Meta’s growth potential?

Meta’s bottom-line looks amazing – diluted EPS almost tripled from a year ago (+168% yoy).

How?

  • Headcount shrunk 25%
  • Revenue grew 25%
  • $20bn+ buyback in the past 4 quarters

Cheers to Susan Li, the new CFO announced back in 2022q2 earnings. Delivering numbers that investors needed.

Efficiency has improved dramatically – quarterly operating income per full-time employee more than tripled from $65k to $208k.

AI story is impressive; and Metaverse is not dead.

What are the concerns?

1) two-year cagr not impressive: at the midpoint of 2023q4 guidance, two year revenue cagr (vs 2021q4) is <7%.

Two year ads revenue carg for US, Canada and Europe is 6.7% in 2023q3.

Remember, most of Meta’s revenue is ads in US, Canada and Europe (2/3 in 2023q3). User growth obviously is not meaningful. It needs ARPU to grow. While ads pricing won’t be strong given macro uncertainties, it will then rely on showing more ads to users, which won’t be something people would enjoy.

2) operating cost would be higher: infrastructure cost would rise due to AI investments. Reality Lab operating cost would be higher. Two large layoffs were done; hard to cut further. More importantly, new revenue streams are less lucrative than ads (which has over 80% gross margin).

2) regulation, fine: Meta was sued – that has hit the headline. Meanwhile, EU’s DMA would take effect next year. Plus, AI is very data-driven. However, can companies easily get data this time around?

Will EPS continue to grow at 15% or above for 2024, 2025 and beyond? I think doable, but is AI an easily profitable business? Let’s see.

Tesla SOTP… $360bn?

Two biggest component would be electric vehicles and AI.

EV: BYD is <$100bn; BYD delivered higher profits than Tesla; BYD also has energy storage business

AI Models (FSD): OpenAI is <$100bn; latest valuation appeared to be $86bn

AI Chips: AMD is ~$160bn. Tesla should be years behind in terms of external revenue profits (as a business) etc. Let’s just use $160bn, as Tesla has some other business.

Then it sums up to be $360bn = $100bn + $100bn + $160bn

Last time I checked (before earnings), it’s more than doubling that number…


Robots? Boston Dynamics was $1.1bn back in Dec 2020.

Charging? ChargePoint ($CHPT) is ~$1bn market cap.

If someone wants to add ride-hailing services I mean Lyft is <$5bn, not significant.

Even additionally add Enphase and First Solar, which were ~$13bn and $16bn, still not big enough to move the needle.

Insurance could be big. However, if it’s not good enough/taking over now, why it should be in the future? It shouldn’t be a futuristic thing; auto insurance has a history of over 100 years.


$400bn or lower sounds about right.

Small item purchases and $30 happiness

With macro uncertainties, it looks like global consumers are focusing more on small items purchases.

In China, happiness starts with $1.

1/ coffee chain Luckin grew 88% in revenue yoy, and has over 10k store now.

For $2 per cup, if people get it every workday, it’s only $40 per month.

There are additional promotions: with $3 membership card/month, coffee can be almost half priced. $1.5 x 20 + $3 => $33 per month.

2/ mobile gaming (mostly micro transactions) market grew most 60% in 2023 summer. See previous post.

for $30-40, you can get a decent new skin on HoK or Justice Mobile. Some skins are as low as $1.

Globally, $20 per month can also buy lot of happiness.

3/ Netflix added 9mn subscribers in 2023q3 and is going to raise price again in the US. After 3 years, 50mn+ more subscribers joined Neflix, vs 2020q3, when the initial covid impact calmed down (2020q3 added 2.2mn vs. 2020H1 added 26mn).

After raising price, it’s only $23 per month.

4/ OpenAI, whose ChaGPT, although a productivity tool, is mostly paid by consumers with $20 per month plan. It has over $100mn revenue per month now, or 4-5mn subscribers, assuming most revenue is from subscriptions.

5/ Midjourney subreddit members grew to almost 1mn. Midjourney entry-level (Basic) plan is $10 per month. It’s reported that its 2023 revenue is over $200mn. Midjourney might have ~2nm subscribers by year end ($24-30mn revenue run rate).

CATL & Tesla growth? What does CATL business look like?

Are they supposed to be growth stocks?

Well, Tesla does have new stories besides FSD -> AI chips (Dojo) + robots (Optimus), which sound to be pretty exciting.

What about CATL’s future strategy?

Is it like Intel? 

Similarities: They are both the supplier for industry-leading products, and has in-house manufacturing (part of the edge is manufacturing. They can expand into other end markets: Intel also serves server market, while CATL serves energy storage market.

Differences: “Wintel” is amazing; however, auto industry hasn’t been winner take all, even for Tesla. Unless auto OEMs are willing to become PC makers and there is one superior EV structure (asset light) and uses CATL exclusively.. << a very unlikely picture. If Tesla had delivered FSD fast enough and good enough, there is a chance to be a layer that takes most market share, but that doesn’t have much to do with the battery layer.

Differences: Although CATL tech is very good and improves every year, it’s not like it created “Moore’s Law” / a long-term road map for the battery industry. It’s not just about visionary or “leadership”, but because the speed of improvements is fast enough – competitors are catching up instead of falling behind.

Is it like Qualcomm?

Similarities: Qualcomm’s SOC enables / provides a platform for smartphones and other IoTs. CATL enables lots of EV brands. Qualcomm faces competition from integrated player like Apple; CATL faces competition from integrated player like BYD.

Differences: similar to Intel, Qualcomm + Android is powerful and ubiquitous. CATL is lack of a powerful OS layer.

Differences: Qualcomm uses foundry for manufacturing and focuses more on design & licensing. CATL produces in-house, but doesn’t do licensing.

Is it like Denso?

Similarities: big player in auto parts.

Differences: Denso’s business lines is more mixed (no synergy), and centered around automakers. CATL focuses on batter-related products, and are supplying to non-auto customers.

Differences: Denso has ~15% gross margin and ~5% net margin. CATL has ~20% gross margin and ~10% net margin.

 

Investing in China: what are the differences? (1) regulation and justice

It’s difficult to understand each regulation. But I think there is a better, more fundamental and actually easier way – through the lens of justice.

However, there seems to be a difference between what China focuses on vs. the West when it comes to justice. In short, I feel that China weighs a fair outcome over procedural justice.

This difference could partially be explained by the fact that China doesn’t always operate based on exact rules. It could be hard to develop a robust law system in a short period of time and in an evolving society. In fact, rules can be modified to suit the needs, which is the opposite of mainstream western belief. 

When big global companies may get away with perfectly executed deals, Chinese companies may face the consequences afterwards (even before regulation is in place). After all, trouble may come in various forms.

That being said, justice is important. A company may build goodwill to offset any negative consequences it may create, especially formalized in the future. For example, Tencent’ gaming business is lucrative and from time to time is seen to have negative impacts on teenagers. Although Tencent could be procedurally perfect and compliant, it may not be enough. I believe it’s the WeChat etc. that brings a good amount of positive progresses that provide a cushion. Therefore, as those balanced out, it’s not injustice for Tencent to make such a large sum of money. 

Cells, individuals, tissues, communities

Cells to tissues are like individuals to communities.

All those tissues form different organs and a body – just like communities (corporations, institutions, all sorts of organizations, etc.) fulfilling different functions and creating a society.

Cells age. So do we. Cells can be renewed while performing the same duty. It’s just like human beings reproducing and dying.

Cells evolve, so we are  more capable than the creatures hundreds of millions of years ago. People learn, so civilizations grow and build on their own.

Brand advertising in 新国货时代

Many new consumer brands in China are at the inflection point now. While they are often good at initial traffic generation and use of KOLs, brand advertising seems still an effective and a necessary step to go mainstream. It’s also the ultimate battle that can build brand equity into a long-term competitive advantage.

Three takeaways:

1/ buying traffic is cost-effective and useful in early stage to test and improve the product. But it seems to have a decreasing marginal return after certain level – this is also where brand advertising should kick in.

2/ brand advertising may take time to be “effective” when non-linear growth can be observed. Three key factors to determine whether it will work / how long it’s gonna take: 产品完成度,种草基础,渠道渗透

3/ for new segments, first mover or the current market share leader doesn’t effectively mean it’s the winner – as long as there is no clear leadership in consumers’ mind. The first to establish a strong association or become the cognitive referent is the key.