Tag: Random Thoughts

In US, we typically hear about gov officials touting x number of high paying jobs are created.

We don’t hear that in China. Internet and finance jobs are considered high wages, but both sectors faced pressure to cut costs thus a decline in wages.

The first rationale seems to be centered around income inequality, which makes sense. Instability is one of the most feared elements in China. If u can’t increase income for all, you decrease income for some.

The second rationale is that many don’t deserve the that high income – they didn’t earn it. It is partially true, especially if someone gets a job by connection or background, or the firm is not providing much value for customers. Sometimes, the latter part is due to the restrictions – there aren’t much room to innovate if there are too many boundaries. Also, there aren’t much incentives to deliver better services if they can’t earn more. People look around and say oh others do poorly and earn similar so why should I do better. This is partially a result of the first rationale.

Thirdly, consumers don’t deserve high quality products / services and they don’t pay for them. Buyers determine the market; if most accept the subpar quality, then what else should the firm do? This is not a standalone issue; this is tied to the second one. The cycle reinforces itself – low-quality products/services tailored to an “accommodating”taste that is trained by mediocre offerings overtime.

When you see pre-spend, you know it’s hot.

When price is fixed, the real supply / demand for some products can’t be gauged easily.

Maybe you can measure the length of a waiting line. This can be observed for a bubble tea shop, or for a Tesla car in the form of waiting time.

The problem is, the company won’t extract more value from a customer even when demand exceeds supply.

How does a company allocate demand when supply is limited?

How does a company do more price discrimination without changing the price?

Certain products from Hermès has implicit pre-spend requirements. Hermès is even sued for this practice.

What company can copy this “pre-spend” strategy? Nvidia.

Buy more previous chips to get the right to buy the next/latest chip.

However, you really need to have a product that everybody wants and they can’t get it from other places.

Don’t pretend to have a huge demand to draw more demand. That’s not a long-term winning strategy. 

I have experienced this – 9% “interest rate” can be risky.

Not to say you can’t do it but be aware of the risk.

When everyone thinks China’s property price can only go up, that’s risky.

It’s hard to call what’s the fair price – most of the time it can be “unfair” for some time and be well above what you think is fair.

Incorrect understanding of risk leads to irresponsible leverage, which might result in an “unfair” pullback.

Collectively, behaviors reinforce each other and the systematic risk is accumulated.

We have seen it in the US stock market, in the US housing market, in the Japan stock market, in the Japan housing market.

This the the first part – “No risk is risky”

The second part is harder.

When to call the reversal could be more art. How much more than “fair” is “fair”?

Nobody can tell you when enough is enough. You have to think independently and get to conclusion. It could be a very lonely journey. But if you make it right, congratulations, you earned yourself a great investor.

How to get to your conclusion? Get more unbiased info, be really reasonable and be patient. Just personal thinking, I am not good enough to give advice.

Most people don’t have the concept of ROI on time, although time is the most valuable resource everybody possesses.

Sometimes you feel you are wasting your time. This is a sign of very low ROI of your time.

But nowadays, low ROI activities are concealing themselves with a very short time commitment so that many people are tricked into it.

Just like people don’t feel that bad to buy a small lottery ticket which likely has a negative return, people don’t feel that bad to waste 10 additional seconds.

When your marginal utility of watching one more short-video is low, this 10 additional seconds is a bad investments. What’s worse, you may keep doing this “bad” investments for some time, resulting in low ROI on 30 minutes of an hour.

Additionally, it’s very hard to measure the ROI on one more additional short-video. Someone could argue that the initial few ones are good, as they are likely the good ones based on other people’s feedback, or first few minutes of “taking a break” is good.

But that utility is decreasing gradually for every additional video you watch.

The incremental decline is too small for people to notice. 

The best way to counter the impact for me is to stop at the end of the video and think what you get from it, and what else you want to watch instead of just accepting what the app gives to you.

If you watched short videos today, just try to ask yourself before you go to bed – what do you remember? I bet there is not much valuable info.

Be aware of your ROI on your time before you open the app and when you are using it. Don’t let your habit guide you.

It has been 4 years since Covid-19.

From q2 2020 to q1 2022, China attracted export orders as many parts of the world was shut down. US lowered the interested rate and asset prices surged.

Then a few things happened: the war in Ukraine, the interest rate hikes, and the Shanghai lockdown among rolling lockdown in different parts of China.

From q2 2022 to q1 2024, US has attracted capital with high rates and developments in AI. US started to introduce more targeted policies in maintaining tech leadership (namely AI), from foundry subsidiaries and chip restrictions. China would get rid of lockdowns but started an even more difficult fight with property sector problems.

As of now, after the eventful four years, many things have rebalanced to a point that I think many have achieved their agenda.

US regained global leadership, via global defense partnerships in Ukraine and middle-east, and via LLMs, monopoly in the most advanced chips, and computing power. US has diversified supply chains and TSMC has plans to build 3nm or below to the US.

China recalibrated its growth model and has de-risked this property bubble. China has built out its own chip capabilities although very limited and maybe only up to 7nm (Huawei restarted smartphone business again in China). China now views itself with fewer chock points than before.

Policymakers should be happy? They seem to have gained tremendous power. In first 2 years, they seem to be reacting / pushed to do things, while in the second 2 years, they were definitely more active in setting the tone.

Regular people lost some confidence/freedom in the last two years, after the first two years of gaining lots of bargain power

The goal for supply chain security is probably not the whole picture.

This sounds like ESG to me.

I think a better question to ask is how to create a new class of mfg businesses that can do well in the US.

Or how the US society embrace this type of business and jobs and their families.

Do people love this kind of mfg work?

Can they earn decent wages?

Are companies profitable? Does ROE and IRR make sense?

There are some differences between a chip maker and a toy maker, but the questions would be similar.

To grow a number, in math there are addend, or multiplier, or exponent.

Similarly, in businesses, one could grow a company in different ways.

• Adding a location for Walmart is likely a addend – the addition won’t help/affect other locations
• Apple introducing Apple Pay is likely a multiplier – value created for all users and profits per users improved across the board
• Exponential impact is more subtle. I think organization / cultural improvement is likely the case, where better talents are attracted, better outcomes are achieved, and a virtuous cycle is created

Is it possible to replicate this kind of growth for individuals? Or to categorize an individual’s effort into similar buckets?

Here is an example I think of:

• Reading a book to learn a piece of knowledge is like an addend
• Reading a book which has impact over a lifetime / all future decisions is like an multiplier
• Reading a book to form a better map of knowledge is like an exponent, in the sense that future books can be “better” read – you get the point faster, you understand the author better, you connect more dots, etc.

Find the exponent, do the exponential function in life.

This is a feeling / theory that I originally thought about during covid-19 – that if you divide people’s risk tolerance by 1-10, before covid it may be ok for people that are 3 ratings apart to mingle (say 5-8), but then only people that are 1 ratings apart are comfortable to be together (say 2-3).

The impact is obvious – if living with less diversified opinions and more like-minded people, people might grow more comfortable within a more similar but narrow circle, and then become less tolerant to different opinions, and might develop a bit biased impression of “mainstream”. It’s a bit like the echo chamber problem exacerbated by social media.

I do feel that even covid-19 is over, the situation is not getting better. Maybe because people are used to being less tolerant over the years. Maybe people just care less about things & people that they don’t see.

It’s not sure if deglobalization is the cause or the result of this.

One things is clear – I haven’t seen much sign of people realizing this subtle change and forces to reverse it.