Gravitas Spark CrowdFunding

Tag: finance

  • Japan’s Secret Private Power….

    Japan’s Secret Private Power….

    Thirty three years ago I was slightly ahead of George Soros in battering Sterling (GBP) out of the European exchange rate mechanism (ERM). In time terms only. I left the trading bit to the Japanese banks who I witnessed on the Tokyo trading floor of broker, Meitan Tradition, wield financial power like the world had never seen. Sound a bit Trumpy?  Yes, but unlike the Orange trade toddler, this was all attached to financial reality. In fact, nine of the ten biggest banks in the world at the time (September 1992) were Japanese. And, that night those banks tried to buy every German Deutschmark (DEM) on the planet, sharing the view of Soros that the British government would give up defending Sterling (against the DEM link) and pull their currency from the ERM. They were right.

    Soros and the hedge funds got the headlines but traders in every global trading centre knew who really moved the markets and broke Sterling. Fast forward to today, another financial sage, the greatest of them all, Warren Buffett is retiring and rightfully grabbing the headlines. However, one of Buffett’s final significant trades was to build 10% stakes in five of Japan’s biggest trading conglomerates. We referenced this in the first of our Japan series of articles and promised more on the investment environment and why the smart money is quietly returning to Tokyo trading floors.  So let’s start with the public markets.

    Japan’s stock market has suffered infamous ‘lost decades’, and it was only last year that the benchmark Nikkei index recovered to previous peaks and marked a new all-time-high. It took 34 years. However, the recovery of Japan’s stock markets has been accelerating in recent years and Buffett first started building equity positions in 2019. Change in corporate behaviour has been slow, but the following initiatives have been considered the key catalysts:

     

    *Japan Corporate Governance Code: Introduced in 2015 by the Tokyo Stock Exchange (TSE) as a set of principles to improve long-run value creation and encourage engagement with shareholders. Previously, Japan Inc had a notorious reputation for rejecting any strategic/governance or ownership challenges through “poison pill” defensive tactics.

     

    *TSE “name and shame” pressure: In early 2023 the TSE asked companies with poor ratings (valuations with a price-to-book ratio (PBR) of below 1x) to disclose initiatives they were making to improve ratings. In main street terms, a PBR of less than 1x is effectively the investment market saying the company is destroying value and therefore the book value is in decline, rather than creating wealth. In financial terms, returns running below the cost of capital destroys wealth. 

     

    So, did it work? Yes, slowly but surely, Japanese companies started to address return on capital, shareholder dividends and non-core holdings dragging performance. For example, Toyota started to offload cross-shareholdings in companies like Denso and KDDI. Then Obayashi, one of the biggest construction companies increased its dividend. Finally, share buybacks, which were extremely rare in Japan’s corporate world, have exploded. In 2024 more than $100 billion of buybacks (from existing shareholders) were committed to by companies publicly listed in Tokyo. That’s a 75% increase in this shareholder-friendly activity on 2023. And, there’s lots more to come. Consider the following:

     

    *The price-to-book (PBR) of Japan’s entire stock market is barely 1.3x. That compares to the US market on 3.9x.

     

    *There are at least six sectors in Japan where average PBR is below 1x:  banking, insurance, utilities, basic materials, autos, and auto parts.

     

    Please note these companies can remain cheap forever if investors believe there is no possibility of improved returns and strategies. So, there needs to be confidence in the ability to influence change. Of course, the ultimate barometer of change appetite is the willingness to accept new owners of a business. And, that’s where private equity activity and the buying out of publicly listed (cheap) companies is the pulse check on CHANGE actually happening. Let’s just say things are quite giddy. Activity really picked up with the 2023 buyout of the iconic blue chip firm, Toshiba, by local private equity house, Japan Industrial Partners(JIP) for $14 billion. That set the tone for M&A activity in Japan to grow by 44% to $230 billion in 2024(Source: Nikkei Asia), and the involvement of private equity houses has been striking.

    In previous times Japanese corporates would have considered it “a loss of face” to be seen meeting and exploring investment from “the barbarians at the gate”. Now, it’s very much game on and Japan Inc is increasingly open to private equity investment.  The big buyout battles have featured the usual global giants like Blackstone, Bain, Carlyle, Elliott etc but the acquisition targets in recent months have been a fascinating mix of $60 billion convenience stores (7-Eleven), $4 billion software (Fuji Soft), $8.5 billion cybersecurity (Trend Micro) and $42 billion auto parts (Toyota Industries). The last deal does not actually involve private equity but is in fact a potential acquisition by Toyota Motor Corp. It’s the sheer size of this deal which caught the eye and also a reminder of the cash firepower in Japanese listed companies. Two things to consider:

     

    *Cash held on Japanese corporate balance sheets is estimated to be more than $2 trillion, or almost 50% of Japan’s GDP.

     

    *Despite market reforms and 80% compliance with TSE “name and shame” pressures, almost 50% of Japanese listed companies (TOPIX) are trading at PBR valuations of less than 1x.

     

    This mix of cheap underperforming companies and enormous “dry powder” of cash on balance sheets is incredible fuel for both corporate and private equity buyout activity. The US since 1996 has seen the number of publicly listed companies decline from 7,300 listings to just 4,300. In Japan, the opposite has happened with 3,900 companies now listed and adding about 100 companies per year. I could see that trend reverse as private equity and corporates increase acquisition activity (and take public companies private) but there’s also another potentially massive driver of public assets moving into private hands. We have written about demographics before, but we haven’t considered the seismic and more rapid financial transfer going on in Japan right now.

    According to a Japan Times article written back in 2020, the country was about to embark on a wealth transfer never experienced by any other country in history. Between the years of 2020 and 2030 it was forecast that $5 trillion would transfer to Japan’s “Millennial” generation via inheritance. That’s $500 billion per annum or more than 10% of GDP every year for ten years. We have previously written about the $14 trillion of savings by Japan’s households (50% of it in passive cash) but this active $5 trillion wealth transfer is highly likely to lead to changed financial behaviours and riskier investment targets. The local millennial generation watching private equity activity take off must be tempted to get involved. Indeed , local capital (JIP) has shown what’s possible with the Toshiba take-out. Europe might be tempted to get involved too. Not necessarily with a Japan focus. But, recall Mario Draghi’s EU Competitiveness Report last year and its recommended financial policy changes for the following:

     

    • Infrastructure project funding
    • Innovation investment of €884 billion, mostly from venture capital.
    • Strengthening the Capital Markets Union (CMU) across the 27 jurisdictions
    • Revitalizing the securitization market to improve the financing capacity of the banking sector.

     

    Bluntly, Europe has been poor at putting risk capital to work. However, the experience of Japan and financial market reform has been extremely positive in driving domestic and foreign investment capital into its corporate assets. So, there is recent precedent. But, is there the money? Well, try this for starters – a 2021 report from X-Wealth forecasts a wealth inheritance transfer of $3.6 trillion across all of Europe by 2030. Maybe the demographic  “Japanification” of Europe won’t be as scary as some think. In fact, the future is looking increasingly private.

     

  • Beautiful Minds Will Prevail

    Beautiful Minds Will Prevail

    The late Peter Sutherland would smile. Sutherland’s stellar career took in stints as Ireland’s youngest ever Attorney General, youngest ever EU Commissioner, father of the student Erasmus Programme, Director General of GATT and its successor, the World Trade Organisation, topped off with Chairman roles at Goldman Sachs and BP. He was a pretty decent rugby prop forward too. Sutherland’s appreciation of equilibrium at scrum time, laser-like attention to detail and powerful negotiation skills were critical to his success in securing 123 sovereign signatories to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1993 when the highly complex Uruguay Round of global trade talks were in danger of collapse. He might always have been “Suds” to his friends, but in the international business world Sutherland was the “father of globalism”. And, he truly understood the complexity of global trade agreements. So, what would he make of the Trump regime’s shakedown of the global trading system? Well, as all students devouring legal judgments in the UCD Sutherland School of Law will know, precedent is key. And…..we have Brexit as our stare decisis case study.

    Recall the Brexiteer mantra of “Global Britain” and those fantasy soundbites like “we hold all the cards”, “they need us more than we need them”, or best of all “Britannia Unchained”. Sound familiar? In hindsight, the freedom to pursue new trade deals featured far more chains and ridicule than expected. Britain is still to create the promised bi-lateral free trade deals with the likes of the US and India, while Truss-trumpeted deals done in Pacific Rim countries have had no more impact than if these faraway agreements had been signed by penguins. We mentioned “equilibrium” earlier and this really isn’t just a scrummaging thing. The brilliant Nobel Prize winning research by John Nash, featured in Hollywood’s “A Beautiful Mind”, are the foundation of all game theory analysis applied to trade deals. The Nash Equilibrium is a key concept in game theory where knowledge of other players’ strategies (politics) gives no players incentives for deviating from their own strategy. Hence, we experienced a “hard” Brexit. Now, think about China and the US currently engaged in escalating tariff retaliations. Also, remember the Pacific penguins.

    The Trump trade team seem to believe they have 70 nations queuing up to sign trade deals with the US. Let’s be very clear, and Britain can attest to same, the signing of bilateral trade agreements (two countries in isolation) is extremely difficult to execute. Peter Sutherland would quickly point out that a change in trade terms with one country automatically opens up the possibility of trade being diverted through more favourably disposed countries eg China production switching to Vietnam during the Trump 1.0 administration. Trade is by definition MULTI-LATERAL and requires Nash-like understanding of game theory and trade negotiation. Britain’s trade delegations can sheepishly tell you all about how their Japan deal negotiations went. The short version is that Japan told Britain any new trading terms would be inferior to the EU because the EU was a far bigger and  more important trading partner. Now,  cast your minds back to Trump 1.0 and his renegotiation of an existing trade agreement (NAFTA) with Mexico and Canada. This “straightforward” renegotiation took TWO YEARS to complete. The current Trump trade advisory team are delusional about their ability to close out a series of bilateral trade deals in 90 days. Also, there is no Nash or Sutherland on the US team. In fact, it’s far worse than that…

     

    *Trump’s White House Counsel on Trade, Peter Navarro, and his alter false ego Ron Vara, went on TV last night to claim bond yields (which “didn’t intimidate” his mobster boss) were going down while the rest of the sane world saw them continue their worrying climb higher.

    *US Secretary of Commerce, Howard Lutnick, continues to laugh hysterically in his media appearances and reassured all viewers on Fox yesterday that the US economy would “explode”. Yes, Howard, that’s what we all fear.  

    *If you were hoping AI was going to help frame a complex trade agreement then think again. US Secretary of Education, Linda McMahon, was outside her WWE wrestling comfort zone but still managed to stun a panel discussion this week with her comments on how “A1” would impact teaching. Yep, Linda hasn’t really heard the “AI” term in conversation before, and her reading to date on the topic picked up the AI term as “A1” which is a steak sauce apparently.  

     

    Not only will trade deals not get done there is now a US institutional credibility issue. As I write, the US dollar, US Treasuries and US stock markets are being sold by investors all over the world. Typically, the US dollar and Treasuries would strengthen in a period of stock market volatility so this is HIGHLY unusual erosion of trust in US governance. There is perhaps worse to come. Lost in the crazy headlines this week was a decision by the US Supreme Court to allow Donald Trump to fire officials leading two independent agencies. Again, the critical point is precedent. These officials have the same legal status as that of Federal Reserve governors. Already, Trump is whining about the Fed not cutting interest rates so the possibility of Federal Reserve Chair, Jay Powell, being removed by Trump can’t be ruled out. We should also be aware that the trade war with China could go financial and some commentators are speculating about the US government reneging on US Treasury interest(coupon) payments. A hint of either of these actions would make this week’s market gyrations look like jelly ripples in comparison. And yet, it’s possible we could have an “Orange Swan” event in the global financial system. Also, if it’s black swans you’re looking for, keep an eye on Chinese internal politics.

    President Xi looks like he’s in for the long haul in this trade war with the US, but he’s not sure about his comrades. Latest reports suggest that the second ranking general in the People’s Liberation Army(PLA), He Weidong, has been purged. That level of rank in the PLA being purged has not happened since 1968 during Mao’s Cultural Revolution, and signals some dissent within the Politburo. Regime change in Beijing is a long-shot but most of the action in the near term will be in Washington.

    Business decision-making is paralysed and the charts showing US Economic Policy Uncertainty Index in this week’s Financial Times were unprecedented, surpassing even Global Pandemic levels of confusion. Consumers aren’t feeling much better. The results of the University of Michigan consumer survey has just hit the screens and the commentary is ugly:

     

    “Consumer sentiment PLUNGED 11% this month to a preliminary reading of 50.8, the second-lowest reading on records going back to 1952. April’s reading was lower than anything seen during the Great Recession”

     

    This all reads as gloomy stuff but there’s a potentially “beautiful” outcome not quite in Trump’s strategic vocabulary. Financial markets, business and voters are all aligning in rapid fashion and beginning to smell incompetence. Was it only a few weeks ago that Trump’s security team shared military operational details with the outside world in real time via mobile phone chat groups? This week, team Trump stands credibly accused of almost blowing up the world’s financial markets. Whether you’re a Fox News viewer, or an oil worker in Galveston, or a farmer in Idaho you know something’s up and it isn’t pensions, savings or 401ks. Global trade needs great thinkers not spoofers, and the world is calling this ugly trade bluff quickly.

     

     

  • What Signals Are You Watching?

    What Signals Are You Watching?

    I’m a bit lost. I can still remember as a child staring out at the Ballycotton Lighthouse as it guided battered yachts to safety during the Fastnet Race disaster of 1979. Fast forward to today and there’s another potentially calamitous “storm” brewing for the most basic concepts of accepted facts and truth. Worryingly, there’s increasing evidence that the “lighthouse” of global leadership on rules of law and common values has gone dark. Orwellian dark. I know we’ve been here before with White House Press Secretary, Sean Spicer, and bonkers claims of inauguration crowds for Trump 1.0 but the second coming of Trump is a whole new level of autocratic demands to “reject the evidence of your eyes or ears.” That’s Orwell, not the White House.

    It would appear that “their final, most essential command” this week is to NOT read the time-stamped texts of the US Secretary of Defense on the unsecured Signal mobile chat app shared with 16 other US security chiefs (plus one mistakenly added journalist) and conclude that this was the most embarrassing and dangerous self-inflicted security failure by US institutions in decades. The cover-up and spin-fest since the Atlantic magazine scoop has witnessed equally incompetent and criminal attempts to parse the meaning of “war plans” and “attack plans”. To be clear, the key “ground truth” in this intelligence near-miss is that advance information on a military mission puts US military personnel in danger. But here we are.

    Donald Trump has given a press briefing stating the US “has to have Greenland” and his Kremlin keeper, Vladimir Putin,  is dovetailing on message beautifully by saying “Trump’s plan to seize Greenland is serious”. Doesn’t that sound like two mob bosses agreeing ‘territory’?  Yes, but don’t ask the lawyers. Leading law firm, Skadden Arps, has just “agreed” to provide $100m of pro-bono work for initiatives supported by the White House in order to avoid adverse targeting by a regime irked by previous “woke” cases taken by Skadden.  So, do we all surrender as democracy dies in darkness? Well, there are other Signals to watch with possibly more impact than a Houthi-Yemen air strike mission. In fact, their potential impact could be sufficiently influential to trigger “lighthouse” leadership, even change.  I’m looking at three Signals in particular.

    First, as we head towards the Trump self-styled “Liberation Day” of trade tariffs imposed globally, we watch the money or flow of same. Some might think the enormous switch by investment institutions out of US equities (down 5% year to date) to international equities (eg. German Dax up 15% year to date) is a big deal. It is. But, equity markets could be due a “rotation” anyway after 15 years of US dominance and, frankly, more challenging valuations when economic leadership veers into cult lunacy territory. The awkward fact for the Trump crime gang is that foreigners own $16 trillion of US stocks and they are selling them even quicker than Tesla shares. However, the bigger more worrying signal is in the debt (or credit) markets. As we regularly say, debt(bond) markets can really intimidate as they can cause proper global economic damage. So, when I look  at the ‘plumbing’ of the financial system and corporate debt (credit) data, I’m seeing signs of cracking and stress. The jargon monoxide will involve terms like “spreads”, “VIX”, “call options” and “default pricing” but, take it from me, this is where the intimidation of the Trump White House is beginning.

    Second, how long will Trump’s ‘broligarchs’ go along with his trade war when there is possibly a far more consequential technology “war” exploding across our screens every day? My sense is that there could be a calculation that trade wars are a dangerous commercial distraction. Check out the latest data from Stripe. Software companies (SaaS) were always the uber-growth leaders, with Stripe analysis showing the median time for the top 100 software/SaaS start-up companies to reach $5m of recurring revenues was 37 months(data from 2018). But, there’s a new growth monster in town. Stripe data (2024) shows the top 100 AI start-ups hitting that $5m milestone in….. 24 months. You might have read that executive suites across the USA have been paralysed by indecision due to erratic Trump economic policy. Indeed, M&A deal activity has fallen to the lowest in a decade and year-to-date is down a whopping 30% on last year. However, the story in start-up world is very different. In the first quarter (Q1) of 2024 there were two start-ups acquired for more than $1 billion (unicorn status). In Q1 this year, there have been ELEVEN $1 billion plus start-up acquisitions. In fact , the total value of these deals this year has been more than $54 billion or 10x the activity value of Q1 2024. It’s all driven by AI and cloud infrastructure(including Google’s largest ever deal with Wiz) but when you see the latest text-to-image generation of OpenAI and the “Ghibli” craze you’ll definitely feel something’s up. But not the Tesla share price…

    Finally, and Elon Musk might think I’m being “mean” (while he cuts social security support for the elderly) but Tesla’s share price is worth watching. The DOGE whisperer in the Oval office says he’s leaving government ‘service’ at the end of May. However, for Tesla and its shareholders, post its $800 billion share price meltdown, the value destruction pain may not end in May. The brand damage of embracing right-wing extremism has been staggering to witness but the end-game could be no less dramatic. The recent deal to sell X/Twitter to xAI (this x stuff is tiresome isn’t it) has been seen as a way for Musk to avoid margin (debt) calls on Tesla shares he has pledged as security on cross-company loans. The trigger for those margin calls was reportedly a Tesla share price of $120 per share (vs today $263 per share) but I’m not sure the pain point has been removed. The market value of Tesla is still more than $800 billion compared to Ford at less than $40 billion. Let’s not forget it’s a car company where a balance sheet and cash flow can implode if sales/revenues go into reverse. Last year revenues had a small 1% decline… but this year? Watch revenues closely, and watch Musk.

    This might seem like a random set of signals to watch but sadly, there’s one emerging truth re US leadership. Money talks, not values nor principles. The Japanese (Nikkei) stock market has kicked off the week with a 4% wipe-out and we can only wonder when the men with the money (and the loans) pay a visit to the White House. We might have to wait a bit, but I’m hopeful the money will find that “lighthouse” moment.

  • Three Pictures Of Opportunity From A Changing World Order

    Three Pictures Of Opportunity From A Changing World Order

    It is difficult to avoid pictures of the St Patrick’s Day sex-pest parade at the White House but I can assure you it is well worth the effort. Clearly, the rule of law and the world order is enduring a seismic shakedown but it would be a mistake to assume all is lost. Hidden behind the disbelieving headlines and festive mug-shots there are a number of alternative pictures really worth thinking about. Hedge fund billionaire, Ray Dalio, wrote The Changing World Order: Why Nations Succeed and Fail  as recently as 2021 and used five centuries of history to show how nation success depends on cycles much like business. So, I have been struck by three investment trends whose emergence could be attributed to these long-run cycle shifts. The first cycle journey actually starts with cars…..

     

    The mighty Volkswagen AG (VW) of Wolfsburg was founded in 1937 in the midst of another seismic geopolitical shift and 80 years later in 2017 became the world’s largest automotive manufacturer by global sales. In 2021 VW reached its peak market value of €155 billion but the Ukraine war, rocketing energy prices and electric vehicle (EV) competition has wiped almost €100 billion from that valuation since then. In fact, this week the even-older arms and military vehicle manufacturer, Rheinmetall AG, surpassed VW in market value. In reality this is a 10-year story rather than a 135-year history. As recently as 2014, Rheinmetall’s 125-years of manufacturing ammunition, missiles and military transport vehicles had built a total franchise value of just €1.3 billion. The invasion of Crimea by Russia in the same year was the “butterfly wing flap” moment as the company’s valuation over the following 10 years increased exponentially to deliver a 48x return to any far-sighted Kremlin watching investors. The picture below is a graphic reminder of the defence sector resurgence opportunity and the industrial shift away from the internal combustion engine (ICE):

     

     

     

    Of course, Germany is not the only country impacted by geopolitical change. Plenty of Trump apologist commentators seem to believe “Agent Orange” is playing 4D chess and seeking an alliance with Putin to take on the growing threat of China. Well, how’s that going? About as well as Trump’s ‘day one’ defeat of inflation or the $5 trillion evaporation of the US stock markets driven by a tech-heavy “Magnificent 7” meltdown. In contrast to US investors, the Chinese are enjoying a 40% rise year-to-date for their tech sector stocks and a healthy almost-20% gain for the broader Hang Seng Index. Ironically, it’s a Chinese AI company called Butterfly Effect which is creating possibly even greater waves than the DeepSeek cost ‘shock” back in January. Butterfly’s AI digital assistant, Manus, is more powerful than DeepSeek and has automated up to 50 tasks from buying a property in New York to editing a podcast. There have also been big Chinese breakthroughs in recent weeks in quantum computing and robotics adding to a stark picture below (Source: Bloomberg) – a whopping 40% outperformance by the Chinese tech sector over the US tech sector since Trump took office in January.

     

     

     

     

    If it feels like US Big Tech is in relative retreat then the latest data from VC research house, Pitchbook, makes for interesting reading. Big Tech is playing a less prominent role in the US start-up M&A market due to regulatory pressures but big corporates seem to have been replaced by start-ups themselves as acquirors. More specifically, in 2024 more than one third of start-up acquisitions were made by VC-backed start-ups. This highlights the emergence of a new buyer profile and exit route for start-ups; VC-backed ‘unicorns’ with significant cash reserves and an appetite for growth. Indeed, Pitchbook analysts put this rather well:

     

    “Amid the trend toward ‘profitability’, it is important to remember that growth remains essential and serves as a key motivating factor for these buyers…..The high number of VC-backed companies also creates numerous opportunities for consolidation. While acquisitions by VC-backed companies may not often dominate the headlines, they are becoming an important aspect of the venture capital liquidity narrative. ”

     

    The chart below (Source: Pitchbook) shows start-ups accounting for just 20% of M&A by value as recently as 2018. So, the move above 33% today seems significant…

     

     

     

    In summary, the pictures above should be viewed as opportunities happening in real time while we are distracted by tawdry turmoil and photo-ops in Washington. More importantly, we should start to think about geopolitics as the driver of not just nation cycles, but also business cycles and new long-run structural trends.

     

  • Private Portfolios And Future Returns: Part II

    Private Portfolios And Future Returns: Part II

    Well, we promised. This is a follow-up to our last piece on expected returns for a private portfolio. This time we are going to illustrate a variety of portfolio outcomes with some numbers. However, there IS a catch. Humans are not good at forecasting the future so these returns outcomes are just a guide. A bit like a US-NATO promise to Estonia – we might send military forces to fight off an attack from Russia, but then again we might not. The good news for investors (for Estonia not so much) is that history can provide some confidence but no guarantees. History, in this instance, is the long-run return on private assets which we referenced in last week’s article. As a refresher, here is the reference table we used (Source: Pitchbook):

     

    We noted the various categories of assets and concluded that Spark investors would be mostly invested in private equity and venture capital type assets. Then we decided to use 12% as a conservative ‘base case’  annual growth hurdle (IRR) expected of a portfolio with that mix of assets and quantified that growth over 10 years:

     

    “In real terms (and compounding those rates [12%] of return) that equates to an initial investment of €10,000 growing to €31,000 over 10 years. For context, a fund with publicly listed equities would be expected (by financial planners) to generate 7% returns per annum and thus turn €10,000 into €19,600” 

     

    However, many of the Spark investment opportunities are very early-stage (higher risk) so it would be reasonable to expect something in excess of this 12% base case growth/returns scenario. Rather than use another headline number, we thought this article would be an opportunity to build a returns scenario from the bottom up. In other words, we would use illustrative portfolios of 25 investments each and explore three different mixes of outcomes. Our reasoning for using a portfolio of 25 investments is that this approximates to what many of our Private Portfolio (service) investors are currently trying to target/build as a personal portfolio over three years. The other assumptions used across the different illustrative portfolios are as follows:

     

    Total investment cost = €50,000

    Position size = €2,000 equally invested across 25 companies

    EIIS tax rebate rate = 37%* 

    Holding period = 10 years

     

    *The EIIS tax rebate rate is a ‘blend’ of the new standard rate of 35% and the higher rate of 50% applied to pre-operational businesses.

    Now, let’s consider our first portfolio. According to the US Bureau of Labour Statistics, 65% of start-ups go out of business within 10 years. So let’s use that historic 65% failure rate as a future outcome for our first portfolio. In other words, 16 of our 25 portfolio companies will end up being worth zero. With the remaining 9 companies, we are going to assume that 5 of them become unspectacularly profitable and grind out a typical equity return of doubling every ten years(7% per annum). The final 4 companies are expected to be successful exits or ‘wins’ generating returns of between 7x and 15x. The table below illustrates those outcomes with an overall portfolio rate of return (IRR) of just over 13%. This equates to a multiple of 3.4x of the initial investment cost MINUS your EIIS tax rebate.

    Portfolio 1:

     

    The above example shows how important tax is to the initial cost or valuation multiple paid for your investments ie a 50% tax rebate cuts in half the valuation multiple paid. This portfolio generates a respectable 13% return but in the next example we’d like to demonstrate the importance of “winners”. So, in Portfolio 2 we raise the failure rate to 20 companies (80%) and model the impact of two big exits of 20x and 40x. This scenario delivers a superior IRR (vs Portfolio 1) of 15.4% and a multiple of 4.2x your initial cost of investment:

    Portfolio 2:

     

    Clearly, a return of 40x on a single investment would be huge but for ‘unicorn’ followers of companies reaching billion dollar valuation status this is the equivalent of a €25m company growing to €1 billion. Rare, but increasingly possible given the research team at Dealroom estimate 100 ‘unicorns’ have entered the billion dollar club every year since 2018. However, if the mention of unicorns smacks of fantasy territory let’s look at a more ‘diversified’ mix of outcomes in a portfolio. In particular, we want to model a portfolio reflecting some of the themes (including Spark’s risk management process) we touched upon in our first article of this series. Portfolio 3 is a mix of the following themes:

     

    Recovery: Failure of ‘asset lite’ businesses could actually deliver some recovery values due to the data base built, team domain expertise, customer relationship assets etc.

     

    B2B: Almost 70% of Spark investments are business-to-business (B2B) companies in a world where corporate VCs (CVC) are increasingly active eg Google has acquired more than 200 start-ups over the years.

     

    Taxation: Due to higher capital gains (CGT) and income tax (dividend taxation) regimes in Europe and particularly Ireland the ‘hurdle’ or exit/return expected of a young company must be commensurately higher to compensate institutional investors.

     

    Quality:  Start-up funding is, bluntly, more scarce in this part of the world and Spark probably turns down 9 out of every 10 investment opportunities. In theory, we are already investing in the top quality decile of opportunity.

     

    So, in Portfolio 3 the failure rate will be lower than previous examples (60%) and will also not amount to a ZERO return but include a recovery value of 20%. However, as demonstrated above, the key swing factor is the ‘winner’ category of investments. In Portfolio 3 we ‘diversify’ the outcomes of the surviving 10 companies with 6 actual exits. The following table outlines those outcomes across the portfolio:

     

    Portfolio 3:

     

    Clearly, diversification of outcomes and a higher number of more moderate exits does move the returns (IRR) dial. Any investor with a portfolio delivering 14.7% annual returns for an almost 4 X return on initial investment cost should be happy. Of course, these are merely estimates of the future anchored to historic data. We, like all forecasters, will get it wrong. However, it is reasonable to think a portfolio of mainly B2B assets with varying levels of maturity (along the start-up to private equity buy-out spectrum) operating in busy corporate VC activity sectors will achieve some exit success. You’ve read it here many times before… the future is private. But… there’s an additional Spark Private mantra to get to know – the process is portfolio. Private investors should build a sufficient opportunity set by holding multiple investments in a portfolio. As a small aside, this writer’s personal view is that exit valuations in the private asset world will surprise on the upside compared to even the multiples used in the portfolios above. Again, no promises!

    Writer’s Note: The above is just a basis for discussion and exploring the long-run drivers of portfolio returns. I would be more than happy to talk through our investment pipeline and deal-types with anyone interested in building a diversified portfolio of private assets over the next 2-3 years.

     

     

  • What Returns Can Investors Expect In A Private World?

    What Returns Can Investors Expect In A Private World?

    Well, I can’t promise you a future with a beachfront property in “Gaza Lago”. In fact, in the world of investing there are no guaranteed returns. As promised in our recent Private Portfolio Thoughts newsletter, I wanted to address expectations as to what long-run returns a private investor should be looking for in a portfolio of private assets.  First, let’s take a look at ‘industry standard’ expectations based on global historic data compiled by research house, Pitchbook. Of course, these are just averages and no doubt are ‘skewed’ by supra-normal returns for a small number of successful funds in each asset class. However, the table below gives an approximate guide to expectations over various time horizons and types of investment.

     

    The Spark focus is probably towards the top of this table summarising 5-year and 10-year returns for private equity (PE) and early-stage investing through venture capital (VC). However, if we strip out debt and real asset products the double-digit (%) performance picture is pretty similar across the board for private assets. The annual rates of return (IRR) implied by the performance of these private assets (in aggregate) are 13.4% over 5-years and 12.5% over 10-years.

    Let’s be more conservative and suggest that portfolios of private assets after 10 years SHOULD have grown in value at a rate of 12%. In real terms (and compounding those rates of return) that equates to an initial investment of €10,000 growing to €31,000 over 10 years. For context, a fund with publicly listed equities would be expected (by financial planners) to generate 7% returns per annum and thus turn €10,000 into €19,600. Of course, the extra return earned by the private asset portfolios is the compensation required by investors for the higher risk exposure(reduced liquidity, business failure) compared to the shares of large established businesses trading every day. These return numbers (based on history) can be described as “hurdle” rates which investors are expecting to match or beat in order to justify putting their capital at risk over long periods of time. So, let’s apply some hurdles to our world of very young companies (VC) and small businesses (private equity).

    We know that the industry standard in more mature private capital investment strategies is looking to turn €10,000 into something north of €30,000 over 10 years. We might describe this as an expectation to generate 3x your initial investment amount. Arguably, for higher risk investments in our earlier-stage world, investors could expect/demand an even higher return for their portfolios. If investors wanted 4x returns or €40,000 after 10 years that equates to a 15% annual return which is what private equity strategies have achieved(see table). So, that expectation is not unreasonable. But…. how realistic is it in a high risk portfolio of mainly early-stage business failure? We should touch on the key ‘push backs’ we get from investors who are wary of investing in start-up businesses or smaller private equity deals. The following are the most common perceived wisdoms….

     

    “80-90% of start-ups fail”

    “ Exits are more difficult as IPO markets for smaller companies have struggled”

    “I can just buy publicly listed equities and earn similar returns”

     

    There is an element of historic truth to all these statements but I’m going to use the most dangerous words in the investing lexicon by stating “this time it’s different”. First, the history of start-up failure should take into account the characteristics of older vintages of businesses. Let’s think about old economy businesses investing heavily in premises, equipment, overseas expansion facilities, logistics etc. These are, in most cases, “sunk costs” in capital-heavy businesses. Inevitably, if the business gets into trouble these ‘assets’ are not just worthless but can have an actual negative value due to ongoing liabilities/leases, maintenance costs, security, insurance etc. Now, think about many of today’s “asset light” businesses leveraging digital infrastructure and building value through the experience of the founders/team, the data gathered by the business and the development of relationships with clients and partners.

    These businesses don’t have the same level of sunk costs/liabilities (as old economy businesses) which can swamp the value of the operational “franchise”. Instead, the value within a business which might not be meeting growth targets can be recognised by a third party and lead to another form of exit which doesn’t involve liquidation. In the Spark portfolio we have seen a number of businesses acquired by third parties in the same sector in exchange for shares in the acquiring company. These shares clearly have a value and also change the traditional calculations around start-up failure.

    In the world of debt/credit one of the key financial terms/metrics is historic “recovery value”. In main street terms, this is the typical expected percentage of the debt which can be recovered when a business fails in a particular sector. You will see such sector recovery data displayed as a percentage of the debt ie 20 cents, 30 cents in the dollar. So, in the world of start-ups there is normally no debt and the equity in the business is a complete ZERO in the case of struggle or failure. But, now that’s not quite the case. If an acquiring business is offering a share exchange then the “recovery value” could by 20-50% of the original investment. And, the reason for ‘value’ being found in the business is the experience of the acquired team, the database and client relationships. This is happening on a far bigger scale elsewhere.

    Ever heard of the term ‘acqui-hiring”? This refers to a situation in which a company acquires another company primarily for its talented team or employees, rather than its products, technology, or other assets. In an acqui-hire, the acquiring company may not be interested in continuing the acquired company’s business or product, but rather wants to bring the talent into its own organization. Now, here’s another bit of jargon monoxide…. ever heard of CVC? Well, you know what venture capital (VC) does but there’s a subset of the VC ecosystem called Corporate Venture Capital(CVC). This form of VC funding is in reality larger corporations investing in smaller businesses whose franchises/technology could ultimately be relevant and value-creating for the parent company.

    So, you might think Sequoia, Index Ventures, Tiger Global and Andreessen Horowitz are the kings of VC investing. Now, think again. Amazon, Google, Microsoft and Nvidia are hugely active in the VC funding space. As an illustration, Nvidia deployed $1 billion in 50 VC funding rounds in 2024 alone. Furthermore, Google has acquired a whopping 222 start-ups over the years, and in 2023 the “Magnificent 7” tech stocks participated in 208 VC deals. So, the IPO market might not be as start-up friendly as in the past but Big Tech certainly is stepping up to the plate as a new and highly active exit event option.

    Of course, there will always be those investors who believe they can earn approximately similar returns to private asset strategies by choosing a selection of publicly listed companies. Yep, the likes of Domino’s Pizza, Paddy Power, Apple and Nvidia tick those boxes but there’s also an assumption investors will avoid the temptation of selling while on the multi-decade rocket ride. However, the more significant point is about business failure. Think it’s only start-ups?  Sixty years ago the average life-span of a company in the S&P 500 was over 50 years. Today, it’s less than 15 years! By 2027, almost 75% of companies who were quoted in the S&P 500 in 2016 will have disappeared (Source: McKinsey). Not for the first time, I’d suggest it’s worth a read of the excellent The Future is Faster Than You Think to grasp how fast business and technology leadership is changing.

    We can’t forecast the future. However, we should recognise that the world of start-ups today has changed dramatically. As a final illustration, start-up funding was traditionally populated by a majority of consumer-focused businesses – think retail, textiles, manufacturing, food, fashion etc.  The term “B2C” would be used to describe these business-to-consumer companies. Well, that’s changed too. Certainly, for Spark. A whopping 70% of funding deals completed by Spark have been business-to-business (B2B) opportunities. It should also be noted that our vetting process turns away approximately nine in every ten opportunities. Arguably, we are selecting the top decile of quality in the opportunity universe. No doubt we will get it wrong along the way, but this is still a robust risk starting point. And, it’s not the only starting point…

    The purpose of this article is to set the scene for a follow-up piece on how these structural shifts can impact the average private portfolio and future expectations using sample portfolios and outcomes. But always remember…. if I could truly forecast the future, “Gaza Lago” might personally have an entirely different meaning and location.

  • Trump Words Scare But Bonds Are The Real Bully Boys

    Trump Words Scare But Bonds Are The Real Bully Boys

    The flashbacks are coming on strong. Who thought myself and Donald Trump would be ratified for new office in the same week? Not me. Anyway, enough about me… said the Donald never. Seriously, do we really have another four years of these whining streams of consciousness, aka press conferences. As Los Angeles burns and Gaza starves, the world is still digesting The Accused’s quasi-declaration of war on Panama, Mexico, Canada and…… Denmark. Clearly, the Orange Toddler is emboldened, as Putin’s number one fan boy, to threaten the invasion of both Panama and Greenland for “national security” reasons. One could be dismissive of these attention-seeking words of intimidation but this feels different, and probably Putin derived. Hamlet this is not, but Act I of this tragedy was Ukraine. Who knows what Act II could be in a new world order of misinformation, security over-reach and sovereign destruction?  Taiwan would top most risk lists. However, Estonia or Finland might disagree, as the Baltic plays host to “infra-destructure” warfare. I might disagree too. There’s a bigger bully boy out there and possibly a reason for hope.

    We have written many times before about the perils of depending on “other people’s money”. In most cases, the most catastrophic financial implosions have involved high levels of debt or leverage. However, in certain cases catastrophe has been avoided. The phrase “my word is my bond” speaks to credibility but I’m thinking of a more threatening type of bond today. Recall the famous words of Clinton White House strategist, James Carville….

     

    “I used to think that if there was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the President or the Pope or as a .400 baseball hitter. But now I would want to come back as the bond market. You can intimidate everybody.”

     

    Liz Truss might attest to that intimidatory power. Her lettuce-life UK premiership was ended by the UK government debt markets (Gilts) going into freefall after her mini-budget ignored all rational advance warnings and almost blew up the UK pension fund system. The Bank of England saved pension funds with a swift monetary/funding intervention but there was no saving Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng or his delusional prime minister. Fast forward to 2025, and bond markets for me are the big start-of-year story. And, it’s not looking good for the UK….again. In fact, things have deteriorated since the Truss budget debacle. It appears that an election pitch along the lines of “the other lot are awful, vote for us” is failing to convince the all-powerful debt markets that the new government of Sir Keir Starmer has any credible grip on the economy. Try these bond market data points for starters…

     

    UK government long-term borrowing costs – priced in the 30-year Gilt/bond markets) – are at their highest levels since…. 1998.

     

    UK government medium-term borrowing costs – priced in the 10-year Gilt markets – are at their highest since 2008.

     

    In real terms, this means that the UK government is going to spend more on interest costs than on national education this year. Meanwhile, the politics of the country is consumed by “grooming gang” criminality which has been widely known about since at least 2015 (Jay Report). Oh, and UK Treasury Minister, Darren Jones, has just soothed House of Commons members’ fears saying “it is normal for the price of gilts to fluctuate”. Fluctuate? I can think of other “F” words being used on City financial trading floors right now. However, the ‘reality bite’ of bond markets might not be confined to the UK.

    The US government has been racking up monster debts too – just the $34 trillion at the last count. So, for those believing Trump is either going to buy Greenland for trillions of dollars or spend similar amounts on military invasions of US allies (I know, genius stuff), there’s a tiny bond detail which merits some attention. At this week’s US government monthly auction of 10-year bonds/debt instruments traders pushed the yields/costs to be paid by the US government to an 18-year high of 4.68%. It might not look like a particularly big cost but this is the foundation of all pricing in the US house mortgage and car finance markets. So, if the bond markets are threatening mortgage or car financing costs to rise to levels not seen in almost two decades, then be assured that the bond bully boy will trump the fantasy words of Agent Orange. This is an example of debt markets warning about spending inflation and unsustainable government budget deficits. But, there’s another type of warning which the bond markets can deliver.

    Ultra-low interest rates(bond yields) can also point to multi-year stagnation caused by a national (including government) debt crisis. Japan is the classic multi-decade example of minimal GDP growth or inflation and super-low interest rates. But, there’s a new contender for zombie debt stagnation: China. The Middle Kingdom’s $11 trillion government debt market is sending some very strong signals. The gap in costs/yields between the US and Chinese government bond markets is the highest in history. Chinese 10-year bonds are yielding just 1.6%, but the bigger story is in the long-term 30-year bond markets. Japanese 30-year bond yields are now higher than China’s which starkly signals a “Japanification” of the Chinese economy. The credibility of China’s economy is at stake but critically that of President Xi too. Interestingly, Xi’s new nickname on the Chinese internet is “the elementary school student”. Of course, an invasion of Taiwan could distract the Chinese population but there’s also a real possibility bond markets could signal Xi being toppled from power.

    As a final thought and one recently raised by David McWilliams in an excellent podcast there could also be a reality check around the tariff threats of the incoming Trump administration. Maybe it’s not quite as bad as invading your allies, but imposing tariffs on your biggest trading partners could prompt a painful bond bite-back. McWilliams makes the very good point that the Chinese and Japanese own/hold trillions of US government bonds. If these trading counterparties sell them as part of a bigger trade tariff war then US government interest costs and US consumer finance costs will painfully spike. US government interest costs already exceed $1 trillion annually which, if it were a standalone government department, would actually outspend the US Defense Department’s annual budget. My money is on financial pragmatism watering down most of the actual tariff outcomes. In fact, another part of the financial world is hinting at Trump threats not quite happening in a different market. Despite the threats to roll back cleantech and renewable initiatives of the Biden administration, it would seem the markets are not quite convinced. Indeed the latest data from Wall Street might surprise; apparently the share price performances of clean energy stocks and fossil fuel  stocks are in a statistical dead heat since Election Day (Source: Callaway Climate Insights).

    Perhaps there’s a new lesson soon to be learned in geopolitics….

    Your words are only as strong as your bonds.

     

  • Silver Linings For Finishing 2nd Almost Everywhere…

    Silver Linings For Finishing 2nd Almost Everywhere…

    I blame the Irish. Should have seen it coming. Poor immigrants once upon a time, the changed perspectives were there for all to see. A couple of Kellys, a Mulvaney, a Spicer, a McMahon and a McGahn, all key lieutenants in the Trump 1.0 cabinet of 2017, championed Muslim bans, Mexican walls and family separations. I’m being flippant and skipping through a few decades of political evolution here but political integration of immigrant communities is a good thing. Take it as a genuine US presidential election positive. Of course, there will be plenty of Democratic Party navel-gazing and gnashing of teeth in the days and years ahead, but finishing second for the first time in 20 years (last popular vote loss was 2004) will focus minds on the stunning shift of ethnic minority voters to an anti-immigrant Trump ticket.

    Things looked bad for the Harris campaign very early on Tuesday evening. Hispanic-heavy Miami-Dade County in Florida had given Hilary Clinton a 30 point winning margin in 2016. On election day, Trump obliterated that by 40 points to secure a 10 point winning margin. There were other shockers – Star County (Texas and 97% Hispanic), Suffolk County (New York) and my personal favourite, Anson County in North Carolina. Republicans have won this 45% black county only once before since…. 1870. Wowzers. The purpose of this article is not to follow most post-mortem commentary and examine where the Democrat messaging didn’t connect but rather to highlight some potentially positive developments. If anything, the change in the mix of the Republican vote is more interesting. Try the dilution of white voting power.  The ‘dilution’ phrasing might surprise readers’ perceptions of what constitutes the Republican party base vote, but the scores are in:

     

    *Trump won less of the white vote this year (55%) than 2020 or 2016. And…

     

    *Harris (43%) did better with the white vote than Hilary Clinton or Joe Biden.

     

    *Hispanic men voted for Trump 54% vs 44% for Harris.

     

    The always excellent Noah Smith in his newsletter recalled a former Irish Republican, Ronald Reagan, saying that Latinos would eventually become Republicans. The social negatives attached to that shift are for another day but Smith highlights an even more important point for a polarised US society:

     

    “This largely destroys the narrative that non-white immigration will demographically drown White Americans under a tide of imported minority votes….. At some point, Republicans are going to realize this, and hopefully become less anxious about America’s racial future. Hopefully they will also realize that any attempt to make voting harder actually hurts them in the future, because the impact would fall disproportionately on their own base”.

     

    Oooooh Tucker Carlson might not like that narrative challenge to the “Great Replacement Theory”. But, there’s also another positive attached to this stunning shift in voting patterns. Harris lost so emphatically and so early that there was no dispute over electoral process. In fact, Trump improved his vote in 90% of all counties in the USA, and that includes Guam flipping to red. For those who hoped for decency, that feels like finishing 2nd just about everywhere. Many wanted democracy to prevail. It did, but with the anticipation that the “right” side probably had to win for a smooth transition, right? That caveat is for another day’s discussion too.

    Also, while we are on the topic of ‘right’, another stunner for me was that the white evangelical vote was 22% of the total vote and they voted 81-17 for Trump. Other voters who make up the remaining 78% of the electorate voted overwhelmingly for Harris by a 19 point margin (58-39). So, without white evangelicals Harris would have won the election by 20 points!  Let’s hope God is right……

    Meanwhile, for the socially agnostic financial markets, uncertainty is a wealth destroyer, paralyses decisions and kills investment activity. So, not surprisingly, there have been a few financial wins in the early days after the election. We’d highlight the following:

     

    *Banking and asset management stocks like Goldman Sachs, Blackstone, Blackrock, JP Morgan and Apollo all flew up by 10% or more.

     

    *The S&P 500 had its best day in 2 years and best ever post-election bump (+2.5%).

     

    *Elon Musk’s Tesla jumped 15%

     

    *Bitcoin’s price rise by 9% to $75,000.

     

    The Musk win is probably a struggle for some but the EV revolution is climate critical and hopefully keeps Trump tangentially on board with decarbonisation of the economy. Intriguingly, the presence of Musk as chief Trump mascot could bring a slightly contrary positive. There are some, including me, not comfortable with the billionaire “broligarchs” brazenly pushing their own commercial agendas. However, it would be a mistake to conclude that it is only the Republican party engaging billionaire promoters. The Democrats had their own, possibly glitzier line up of billionaires, influencers and celebs. And, the big strategic mistake would be to react to a Jaws-like electoral savaging by suggesting “we need a bigger boat” or better billionaires. That boat has sailed. The positive lesson from this would be to “listen” and start exerting proactive power.

    One of the critical shifts in voting patterns was urban voting. Democrats still won the big cities but the winning margins were embarrassingly small compared to double-digit history. Urban voters in the likes of New Jersey, New York, Chicago, San Francisco and Detroit have witnessed a disgraceful decline in the condition of their cities. And, other urban voters have noticed. Where Democrats have governing power, they need to deliver better city living. Security, mental healthcare, housing, crime and infrastructure are very real challenges experienced, in particular, by the lower middle and working classes. Investment and solutions to these challenges will improve urban lives and win votes.

    Commentators recently described the US voter base as one now split evenly across three cohorts: i) white college-educated, ii) white non-college educated and iii) everybody non-white. Currently, the Republican party is connecting more effectively and adding voters with two of those three. The Democratic Party should be surprised and concerned about the only one with which they are growing/connecting. The good news is that the key driver of political power in today’s America is not ideology or race. The winning factor is DELIVERY, perceived or promised. Clearly, social growth and stability are important for a nation but there’s a price for everything. In this instance, the price (inflation) – and a perception of social agenda prioritisation – was too high. Just ask Latinos, now known as “Latinx” in Democratic Party literature.

    For investors, less financial regulation, lower technology oversight(AI) and more deals (M&A, IPOs) all promise more exits and further investment cycles. All good news, until it’s not. Note, only 15 years ago the world paid a shattering economic price for deregulation of financial credit markets. Go back another two decades, and here’s a final thought for the autocracy delivery (over democracy) fans out there celebrating technology and commercial freedom…….

    The last global authoritarian empire to implode was tipped into collapse by lies and a catastrophic failure of technology .

     

    “Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later, that debt is paid”

     

    – Valery Legasov, chief of the Chernobyl disaster investigative commission.

  • Is The World Going Full Oligarch?

    Is The World Going Full Oligarch?

    The lettuces won’t be happy. It looks like the UK’s new Chancellor of The Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, and her Autumn Budget 2024 will survive a relatively benign financial market reaction. So far, government debt (Gilts) markets are stable and the domestic-focused FTSE 250 stock index has bounced slightly. Liz Truss will shake her head in delusion but the more understanding reality of today’s world is that the government of the world’s 5th biggest economy was brought down by international asset traders back in October 2022. It probably won’t be the last sovereign state to lose power to commercial interests and yes, money. Simply put, at exactly the wrong moment in time, many of the world’s governments’ ATM spending cards are about to be declined. Check out the following recent headlines:

     

    Interest payments on the national debt (US) top $1 trillion as deficit swells  –   CNBC

     

    IMF warns Japan of debt deterioration in the event of future shock   –   The Japan Times

     

    Why France’s fiscal freak out matters to the world  – Axios

     

    China’s Fiscal Package Aims To Ease Debt Woes, Property Crisis   –  Asia Financial

     

    There’s never a good time for fiscal capacity to be tight. But… literally the planet’s survival is at stake. The climate crisis is everyone’s crisis but governments are expected to lead. Indeed, according to the IEA, governments globally in 2023 spent $1.3 trillion or 1.2% of global GDP on clean energy investment. That bill will surely rise but there’s a big question mark over how the clean energy transition will be funded by stretched governments running record deficits and the highest debt burdens in history. For a clue to that question, let’s take a look at another spending race.

    This race depending on your perspective also has an existential angle. The race, of course, is AI and Packy McCormack’s excellent piece in his Not Boring newsletter has identified a shift in commercial goal – “companies are spending for capability as opposed to straightforward ROI”. Why the ditching of seeking returns on investment? Apparently, the first company to create the AI “Digital God” boils down to an existential pursuit. Loser companies die. Indeed, Larry Page of Google fame has reportedly said many times internally…..

     

    “I am willing to go bankrupt rather than lose this race”

     

    That feels like extremely high stakes thinking. It might explain another development in the world’s most advanced technology economy. It’s one thing for a government to depend on a private company, SpaceX, to conduct an international space rescue mission. But, it’s quite another to see SpaceX’s owner Elon Musk in the words of VP hopeful, Tim Walz, “skipping like a dipshit” at various Trump rallies. Musk may cause me involuntary eye-rolls every time I read him on X or see him on TV but he’s a super-successful builder of future technologies. In fact, he has feet in both existential races with Tesla (climate) and xAI (AI) which is about to raise funds at a $40 billion valuation. If the latter doesn’t feel like an existential race, maybe the monies will convince you. In 2023, just 4 companies – Facebook, Amazon, Google and Microsoft – spent $196 billion or 0.72% of US GDP on AI research and infrastructure. Remember, these companies are really only ‘getting ready’. Furthermore, they are arguably investing at levels which historically would have only been within the compass of sovereign governments.

    I remember reading first about social media companies becoming effectively supra-sovereign powers. At the time, Facebook had 2.5 billion people on its platform, multiples of any other country populations on the planet. Now social media steers business and moves elections, but tech money might be about to go one step further. Forget about tech companies currently rolling out nuclear power for their hyper-scaling data centres. What about a seat in government?  Well, Elon Musk is on the cusp of entering a Trump ministerial cabinet with a role brief focused on cost cutting. I will give you a clue; plenty of those cuts will be in the regulatory, business and tech governance areas. Musk is not alone. Racist rallies in Madison Square Garden or not, big business is keen to put on the Orange war paint for Trump chaos and……… commercial insurance or favour. Check out the latest Trump luvvies from the world of business:

     

    Winklevoss Twins donate $1m each to Trump as champion of cryptocurrency  – The Guardian

     

    Steve Schwarzmann says Trump would be “efficient and effective” president this time – Business Insider

     

    Silicon Valley’s Andreesson Horowitz give Millions to Trump  – Bloomberg

     

    Billionaire Ken Griffin says “expectation today is that Donald Trump will win the White House” –  Fortune

     

    Washington Post flooded by cancellations after Bezos non-endorsement decision  –  NPR

     

    Ooooohh what would Washington Post legends Katherine Graham or Ben Bradlee think in this “Fat Nixon” era? It would appear big tech and big money “broligarchs” see Trump support as commercial insurance at the very least, and possibly a route to unfettered, compliance-light opportunity. One could become dispirited about the overt involvement of big business in politics. But, in reality business was always there in the Washington background. However, it’s not just a US phenomenon.

    Europe has had its share of big business influence on policy. In the UK, they have had trade and Brexit. In Germany, it was the powerful industrial sector and its push for cheap(then) dependency on Russian energy. We will say no more on either policy disaster, except there might be an intellectual reason why US business leaders are in a different universe of wealth creation compared to their strategically inept European counterparts.

    On a final more serious note, perhaps the difference this time is that governments really do need the balance sheets, cash and spending power of big tech. Just six US technology companies – Apple, Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft and Nvidia – have a combined market value of $15 trillion. For context, that $15 trillion equates to the  GDP of China as recently as 2020. In this writer’s reluctant view, politicians have two options – tax these guys or become partners. It might seem distasteful but public-private partnership is now an existential fact of life….or death.

    Gotta dip with the dipshits.

     

  • Four Huge Trends For Your Private Portfolio

    Four Huge Trends For Your Private Portfolio

    I scared a few people last week. Apologies. Then again, you could be a public servant or journalist in the US today and be referred to as “the enemy within” by the bookie’s favourite for the Oval Office. Or, how about being a lifetime Tory party member faced with the extremist choice of “KemiKaze” Badenoch or “Honest Bob” Jenrick as your next leader? Better still, put yourself in the shoes of the Tory tactical masterminds who ‘traded’ leadership votes and eliminated their own likely winning candidate, Jimmy “Dimly” Cleverly. Breathe, just breathe slowly. We can’t promise an end any time soon to populist buffoonery but in the real world big changes are afoot. Four developments, in particular, caught the eye this week and highlighted future opportunities for those building new businesses or investment portfolios.

     

    Electricity: If $150 billion of hurricane damage in Florida doesn’t focus climate crisis minds I’m not sure what will. Indeed, there is an encouraging reality check beginning to filter into financial discussions. Just this week the Washington Post ran a story about the cost of extreme weather exerting further strain on an already challenged Federal government’s fiscal position($35 trillion debt). Of course, moving away from fossil fuels to electricity is already set to be the greatest financial shift ever experienced by the global economy – $275 trillion to be invested in the transition by 2050(Source: McKinsey). So, the following statistics really hit home. They are sourced from the International Energy Agency (IEA) and flag the recent growth of electricity use being twice as fast as the growth of energy demand. However, the future is about to turbo charge that relationship. Between now and 2035 electricity usage will outpace energy demand growth by a factor of 6x. Yep, that’s electric vehicles (EVs), AI chips, data centres all doing their future thing. Another way of looking at this shift is that this 6x electricity acceleration equates to the entire energy demands of Japan (4th biggest GDP in world) being added EACH year to global electricity usage.

     

    Banking: In the old days it was banks that provided loans, or credit. Now, every second ‘growth’ headline in investment markets is referencing “private credit”. So, what is it? It is quite simply lending by private pools of capital(not banks), usually sitting within large investment firms. The original “Barbarians at the Gate” were private equity firms who used debt to buy out big companies. Today you might read about Blackstone buying software Smartsheet for $8 bilion. Back in 1988 it was KKR buying RJR Nabisco for $25 billion. Historically, the debt part of the ‘leveraged’ buy-out came from banks. Now the Barbarians (private equity) want to do the banking (debt) too. In the last 12 months there have been 14 different partnerships announced between banks and private credit(debt) firms. Most recently, Citibank announced a partnership with private equity/credit giant, Apollo Global. Amazingly, this relationship turns banking orthodoxy on its head – Citibank’s investment bank will source the deals and Apollo will provide the money/debt. Bankers turned deal makers, deal makers turned bankers. Wowzers. Note, if the Barbarians are now keen to provide debt funding to companies, then they must see opportunity and excellent returns. Current estimates of the size of the market indicate private lending assets (AUM) currently at $1.5 trillion growing to $2.7 trillion by 2027 (Source: Prequin).

     

    Life Sciences: Despite the anti-elite denial of science prevalent in the social media and political spheres, the incredible speed-to-discovery of vaccines seen during Covid-19 is set to continue. However, with a little AI twist. Arguably, AI won its first Nobel Prize in recent days. From The Japan Times….

     

    “The recent awarding of the Nobel Prize in chemistry is an incredible vote of confidence in the potential for artificial intelligence to transform the way medicines are invented by using AI to illuminate and manipulate proteins, life’s most basic building blocks. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences honoured University of Washington professor David Baker and two scientists from Google DeepMind, CEO Demis Hassabis and senior research scientist John Jumper.”

     

    Yep, AI machine-learning cracked the code to predicting protein structures with Google scientists right in the middle of it all. Meanwhile the Nobel Prize for Physics went to the “Godfathers of AI”, Geoffrey Hinton and John Hopfield, who developed the tools which power the neural networks underpinning today’s AI boom. Now, think about the Nobel tradition of rewarding decades of research and recognition. Then think about chemistry protein discovery work barely 2 years old and not one, but two, Nobel prizes. Simply astonishing.

    Nuclear Power: It’s not just gold hitting all-time highs. Uranium mining stocks are flying too. Let’s face it, the news flow in nuclear power has been hard to miss. Japan has just re-started a 47 year old nuclear reactor at the Takahama nuclear power station. Amazon is pumping $500 million into nuclear capabilities, and Google has entered an interesting deal with Califormia start-up, Kairos Power. Google has committed to buying nuclear power generated by multiple small modular reactors(SMRs) built by Kairos. And, one for the nuclear history buffs – the infamous Three Mile Island nuclear power station will be restarted in a $1.6 billion deal struck between Microsoft and the energy utility, Constellation. Again, AI is the power demand trigger for these moves. And, mining stocks sitting on uranium reserves might just be the wrong price (low) if a Big Tech AI race goes nuclear on many levels.

    So, there’s four thoughts or trends which are very much part of our future. You might spot AI as the common factor across a lot of these developments but that’s possibly not the only private opportunity. There seems to be some enormous shifts happening in traditional sectors like infrastructure, materials, banking, power and chemistry. The good news is that there are lots of private companies plugged into these transition sectors right now and many will need funding (debt or equity) in the years to come. If that sounds like a private portfolio-building strategy then you’d be right. It’s time to take a private dip. Even better, we might be able to help you very soon…..