This voting story just about sums up the intensity of this election--click on the link to read more:
AP Story
The line that stood out the most?
"She cast a straight Democratic ballot Tuesday."
2008 will go down in history as one of the most turbulent times in America. We had a stock market collapse, more deaths in Iraq, a sitting President who lost respect domestically and abroad, Russia's invasion of Georgia, crude oil reaching $120/barrel, and a nationwide housing crisis. I don't know about you, but I will be so happy on January 1, 2009.
"And if an epitaph be my story, I'd have a short one ready for my own: I had a lover's quarrel with the world." -- Robert Frost
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Vote Today
It feels exciting to be a part of an election where both candidates are competent and respectable. I can barely remember the last time I felt genuinely happy about our presidential choices. Usually, we joke that our choices are between Tweedledee and Tweedledum, but this time, we have two honorable, dignified men in the race.
Based on my own informal survey, many young people (18 to 25 yrs) have not voted. One reason is because young people are more transient than the general population--they move for a job, for college, etc. As a result of this transience, it's harder for them to pro-actively register to vote. Without registering, a citizen cannot vote.
I predict a popular vote of 53% to 44%, with 3% voting independent/libertarian/Constitution/Green, in favor of Obama. If Obama wins, I will be very interested in whether the Democrats gain enough Congressional seats to prevent the Republicans from filibustering. As much as I like Obama, I don't want the Democrats to have unchecked power in Congress and two branches of government.
Based on my own informal survey, many young people (18 to 25 yrs) have not voted. One reason is because young people are more transient than the general population--they move for a job, for college, etc. As a result of this transience, it's harder for them to pro-actively register to vote. Without registering, a citizen cannot vote.
I predict a popular vote of 53% to 44%, with 3% voting independent/libertarian/Constitution/Green, in favor of Obama. If Obama wins, I will be very interested in whether the Democrats gain enough Congressional seats to prevent the Republicans from filibustering. As much as I like Obama, I don't want the Democrats to have unchecked power in Congress and two branches of government.
Stocks Update (November 4, 2008)
I haven't done a "Stocks Update" in a long time. To save time, I am going to list only the individual stocks I own in retirement accounts that exceed 2,000 dollars. As of today, November 4, 2008, here is the list:
Dominion Resources, Inc. (D)
EMC Corporation (EMC)
Swiss Francs ETF (FXF)
Intel Corporation (INTC)
U.S. Preferred Stock Index (PFF)
Swiss Helvetia Fund Inc. (SWZ)
Vanguard Pacific Stock ETF (VPL)
Utilities Select SPDR (XLU)
Yahoo, Inc. (YHOO)
I wish I owned more General Electric (GE) and Johnson and Johnson (JNJ). My strategy in my retirement accounts is to own stocks or ETFs with high dividend yields. So far, my biggest loser is Yahoo (YHOO). I am losing around $1,100 dollars on the stock, which isn't terrible, but certainly not ideal. I just saw a prominent Microsoft (MSFT) ad on Yahoo's front page, so perhaps Microsoft and Yahoo are on more cordial terms these days, which may lead to some form of a buyout.
Dominion Resources, Inc. (D)
EMC Corporation (EMC)
Swiss Francs ETF (FXF)
Intel Corporation (INTC)
U.S. Preferred Stock Index (PFF)
Swiss Helvetia Fund Inc. (SWZ)
Vanguard Pacific Stock ETF (VPL)
Utilities Select SPDR (XLU)
Yahoo, Inc. (YHOO)
I wish I owned more General Electric (GE) and Johnson and Johnson (JNJ). My strategy in my retirement accounts is to own stocks or ETFs with high dividend yields. So far, my biggest loser is Yahoo (YHOO). I am losing around $1,100 dollars on the stock, which isn't terrible, but certainly not ideal. I just saw a prominent Microsoft (MSFT) ad on Yahoo's front page, so perhaps Microsoft and Yahoo are on more cordial terms these days, which may lead to some form of a buyout.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Traditional Gaming Companies in Trouble
You want to know why Take Two Entertainment (TTWO) and Electronic Arts (ERTS) are going to have a harder time making money? Because smaller, more nimble companies like Zynga are moving on their turf. Here's an old TechCrunch post of Zynga--note that Bing Gordon, EA's former CEO, is involved in Zynga: Zynga Profile
Zynga is the creator of the new hit, YoVille, which is attracting fans not only worldwide, but also from more diverse groups, like college-age women. With its YoVille game attracting over 2.5 million active users on Facebook, Zynga is perfectly positioned to capture the growth in gaming, which is shifting away from major franchise hits to social networking and games that are able to get to the market faster, like Ultizen-style games: Interview with Ultizen CEO Lan Haiwen
Unfortunately, EA's and TTWO's problem lies within their business model. More specifically, their revenue projections rely on having hit franchises, like Madden NFL--meaning that revenue is dependent on very few sources--or on franchises that require large licensing fees. When you factor in the licensing fees a company like EA has to pay Hollywood studios (e.g. for EA's Harry Potter and Batman games), the NFL, and the NBA, you begin to see that EA is almost working to make money for other companies, while bearing most of the risk and the costs of failure.
I realize my assessment may be overly pessimistic; after all, most companies would kill to have exclusive rights to the only official Batman game, which will be a guaranteed hit. At the same time, relying on one-time hits has its own problems. For instance, EA/TTWO's business model must assume a major dropoff in sales after an initial release, because almost no game creates a major source of consistent revenue three years after its release. History has shown that a new franchise, like Spore, will do very well in an initial release, but sales will dramatically decrease afterwards, absent unusual circumstances. Thus, the larger gaming companies, despite creating blockbuster gaming hits once every few years, know they cannot rely on those hits for very long. Of course, certain games, like Grand Theft Auto, may be exceptions to this rule, but there is no guarantee of consistent success, and like most retailers, Take Two probably isn't looking forward to the 2008 X-Mas season.
Now, compare gaming software with Microsoft's Office software, which most analysts assume will attract new users and have old users upgrading for another ten years or more (despite arguably better products on the market, like Corel's Wordperfect Suite). A skeptic might look at the difficulty in creating gaming software that will attract users five to ten years from an initial release and say that even if a gaming company establishes a major hit, "So what?" The competition and costs in continuing to establish blockbuster hits will continue to be fierce and never-ending, while also being based in part on luck and consumer fickleness. It's now more apparent why the X-Box, even with Microsoft's money behind it and an in-house gaming development team, has had such difficulty making a net profit. Indeed, Microsoft recently lowered the price of its console to take market share from rivals--showing that it recognizes consumers have become more cost-conscious, exposing the gaming market's reliance on discretionary consumer income: X-Box Price Cut
If social networking games and mobile gaming are the future, then smaller, more nimble companies will be more competitive because of their smaller size, which leads to lower overhead, and their focus on bringing less complex games to market, which allows games to be introduced to the public faster and with less potentially devastating financial consequences. In contrast, if EA spends two years perfecting its new Batman game, and sales are flat, it will lose millions of dollars.
When I began analyzing the gaming market in light of the aforementioned issues, I came to the conclusion that the best way for EA and TTWO to continue growing would be to use their substantial cash reserves to acquire smaller companies; in other words, to choose the route Larry Ellison took Oracle (ORCL): Oracle's Acquisitions. Despite Oracle's proven software business model of smaller acquisitions and generating (not paying) licensing fees, most large gaming companies are trying to merge or buy out other major companies, which reveals a much different business strategy--one that may be completely out of touch with the future of gaming.
Zynga is the creator of the new hit, YoVille, which is attracting fans not only worldwide, but also from more diverse groups, like college-age women. With its YoVille game attracting over 2.5 million active users on Facebook, Zynga is perfectly positioned to capture the growth in gaming, which is shifting away from major franchise hits to social networking and games that are able to get to the market faster, like Ultizen-style games: Interview with Ultizen CEO Lan Haiwen
Unfortunately, EA's and TTWO's problem lies within their business model. More specifically, their revenue projections rely on having hit franchises, like Madden NFL--meaning that revenue is dependent on very few sources--or on franchises that require large licensing fees. When you factor in the licensing fees a company like EA has to pay Hollywood studios (e.g. for EA's Harry Potter and Batman games), the NFL, and the NBA, you begin to see that EA is almost working to make money for other companies, while bearing most of the risk and the costs of failure.
I realize my assessment may be overly pessimistic; after all, most companies would kill to have exclusive rights to the only official Batman game, which will be a guaranteed hit. At the same time, relying on one-time hits has its own problems. For instance, EA/TTWO's business model must assume a major dropoff in sales after an initial release, because almost no game creates a major source of consistent revenue three years after its release. History has shown that a new franchise, like Spore, will do very well in an initial release, but sales will dramatically decrease afterwards, absent unusual circumstances. Thus, the larger gaming companies, despite creating blockbuster gaming hits once every few years, know they cannot rely on those hits for very long. Of course, certain games, like Grand Theft Auto, may be exceptions to this rule, but there is no guarantee of consistent success, and like most retailers, Take Two probably isn't looking forward to the 2008 X-Mas season.
Now, compare gaming software with Microsoft's Office software, which most analysts assume will attract new users and have old users upgrading for another ten years or more (despite arguably better products on the market, like Corel's Wordperfect Suite). A skeptic might look at the difficulty in creating gaming software that will attract users five to ten years from an initial release and say that even if a gaming company establishes a major hit, "So what?" The competition and costs in continuing to establish blockbuster hits will continue to be fierce and never-ending, while also being based in part on luck and consumer fickleness. It's now more apparent why the X-Box, even with Microsoft's money behind it and an in-house gaming development team, has had such difficulty making a net profit. Indeed, Microsoft recently lowered the price of its console to take market share from rivals--showing that it recognizes consumers have become more cost-conscious, exposing the gaming market's reliance on discretionary consumer income: X-Box Price Cut
If social networking games and mobile gaming are the future, then smaller, more nimble companies will be more competitive because of their smaller size, which leads to lower overhead, and their focus on bringing less complex games to market, which allows games to be introduced to the public faster and with less potentially devastating financial consequences. In contrast, if EA spends two years perfecting its new Batman game, and sales are flat, it will lose millions of dollars.
When I began analyzing the gaming market in light of the aforementioned issues, I came to the conclusion that the best way for EA and TTWO to continue growing would be to use their substantial cash reserves to acquire smaller companies; in other words, to choose the route Larry Ellison took Oracle (ORCL): Oracle's Acquisitions. Despite Oracle's proven software business model of smaller acquisitions and generating (not paying) licensing fees, most large gaming companies are trying to merge or buy out other major companies, which reveals a much different business strategy--one that may be completely out of touch with the future of gaming.
John Edgar Wideman
Most people who know me know I love basketball. In honor of the recent NBA regular season tip-off, I wanted to introduce readers to John Edgar Wideman. Mr. Wideman, a controversial writer, has some interesting pieces on basketball and was a former All-Ivy League forward for U of Penn. His daughter, Jamila Wideman, played in the WNBA (thanks to former Stanford star Heather Owen for giving me the heads-up on this familial connection). Here is one paragraph from an interview with Mr. Wideman, where he weaves basketball within the larger context of life:
[B]asketball and other contact sports are all about testing, pushing, within arbitrary frameworks. They are all about physicality. So it was very natural to me. I trust the body. I trust pleasure. I trust pain. You can muck around with those a little, but after a while they win. They tell you they're the boss.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2838/is_2_34/ai_64397591/pg_1
Here is my favorite paragraph from Wideman:
Well, if something terrible happens, you've got to do something about it. Your choice is either to be crushed by it or to carry on. That's a choice all the time. At this point today, and in my work so far, I have tried to suggest that it is worth carrying on. That's in fact what I am doing. I think the best thing and the worst thing about life is that you don't know what is going to happen. The best thing and the worst.
http://www.salon.com/nov96/interview2961111.html
Wideman's most popular basketball book is Hoop Roots: Basketball, Race, and Love. I have not read it but hope to start it one day--right now, I am still working through Pat Conroy's delightful book, My Losing Season.
[B]asketball and other contact sports are all about testing, pushing, within arbitrary frameworks. They are all about physicality. So it was very natural to me. I trust the body. I trust pleasure. I trust pain. You can muck around with those a little, but after a while they win. They tell you they're the boss.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2838/is_2_34/ai_64397591/pg_1
Here is my favorite paragraph from Wideman:
Well, if something terrible happens, you've got to do something about it. Your choice is either to be crushed by it or to carry on. That's a choice all the time. At this point today, and in my work so far, I have tried to suggest that it is worth carrying on. That's in fact what I am doing. I think the best thing and the worst thing about life is that you don't know what is going to happen. The best thing and the worst.
http://www.salon.com/nov96/interview2961111.html
Wideman's most popular basketball book is Hoop Roots: Basketball, Race, and Love. I have not read it but hope to start it one day--right now, I am still working through Pat Conroy's delightful book, My Losing Season.
Warren Buffett on Geeks
Today's WSJ had another gem from Warren Buffett (front page). Regarding the computer programs that financial firms relied upon to evaluate so-called safe investments and derivatives, Warren delivered another classic line:
All I can say is, beware of geeks...bearing formulas.
Oh, the obviousness, especially post-LTCM.
All I can say is, beware of geeks...bearing formulas.
Oh, the obviousness, especially post-LTCM.
Genetic Ancestry
National Geographic is building an ancestry database. It's called the Genographic Project, and it's cheaper but much less specific than the 23andme/ genetic test:
https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/
For $99.95, you will get a kit in the mail where you provide some DNA for analysis. This is accomplished by scraping the inside of your cheek and then placing the samples in a watery solution to ship to National Geographic. My first sample didn't work, probably because I ate food too close to the scraping, but my second sample had enough DNA for analysis. It turns out I am a member of the Haplogroup J and J2. Wikipedia has a good entry on this haplogroup:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J2_(Y-DNA)
Apparently, my particular haplogroup is shared by everyone from Greeks to Italians to Iranians to Sephardic Jews. Here is the particular breakdown of shared ancestry, from Wikipedia and National Geographic:
Iraqis 29.7%, Lebanese 29.5%, Syrians 29%, Sephardic Jews 29%, Kurds 28.4% , Turks 27.9%, Georgians 26.7%, Iranians 23.3%, Ashkenazi Jews 23.2%, Greeks 22.8%, Italians 19.3%, Tajiks 18.4%, and southern Spaniards 10%.
Wikipedia had a more expansive list than the National Geographic results, so after you receive your haplogroup results, you should view the relevant Wikipedia entry for more information.
I'm not sure what these results really show. Much of it is probably based on the program's original ancestry database. For example, if not enough Persians are in the original database, then fewer samples will be classified as Iranian. I'd be very interested in seeing how National Geographic set up its original ancestry database before it cross-compared new DNA samples.
My sister also did the test and her haplogroup is found disproportionately among the Finnish in Finland. So it appears she and I are a combination of Mediterranean and Scandinavian ancestry. What does it all mean? Who knows? My Mediterranean side prefers warmer weather, so maybe I will stay put in California. On the other hand, perhaps this will convince me to go to Finland one day and visit. I've always liked Matt Damon's character in Good Will Hunting, and Damon is Finnish-American. On the other hand, apparently Aileen Carol Wuornos (a serial killer) is Finnish-American, too. It just goes to show you there's not much you can glean from genetic data.
Even so, if some government official from Finland sees this post and wants to offer me a free trip to the Motherland, I'd happily accept--I mean, there's nothing wrong with a country taking care of one of their long-lost emigrants, right? I'll go brush up on my Finnish--especially these two phrases: Minä en ymmärrä suomea, and Puhutteko englantia?
https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/
For $99.95, you will get a kit in the mail where you provide some DNA for analysis. This is accomplished by scraping the inside of your cheek and then placing the samples in a watery solution to ship to National Geographic. My first sample didn't work, probably because I ate food too close to the scraping, but my second sample had enough DNA for analysis. It turns out I am a member of the Haplogroup J and J2. Wikipedia has a good entry on this haplogroup:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J2_(Y-DNA)
Apparently, my particular haplogroup is shared by everyone from Greeks to Italians to Iranians to Sephardic Jews. Here is the particular breakdown of shared ancestry, from Wikipedia and National Geographic:
Iraqis 29.7%, Lebanese 29.5%, Syrians 29%, Sephardic Jews 29%, Kurds 28.4% , Turks 27.9%, Georgians 26.7%, Iranians 23.3%, Ashkenazi Jews 23.2%, Greeks 22.8%, Italians 19.3%, Tajiks 18.4%, and southern Spaniards 10%.
Wikipedia had a more expansive list than the National Geographic results, so after you receive your haplogroup results, you should view the relevant Wikipedia entry for more information.
I'm not sure what these results really show. Much of it is probably based on the program's original ancestry database. For example, if not enough Persians are in the original database, then fewer samples will be classified as Iranian. I'd be very interested in seeing how National Geographic set up its original ancestry database before it cross-compared new DNA samples.
My sister also did the test and her haplogroup is found disproportionately among the Finnish in Finland. So it appears she and I are a combination of Mediterranean and Scandinavian ancestry. What does it all mean? Who knows? My Mediterranean side prefers warmer weather, so maybe I will stay put in California. On the other hand, perhaps this will convince me to go to Finland one day and visit. I've always liked Matt Damon's character in Good Will Hunting, and Damon is Finnish-American. On the other hand, apparently Aileen Carol Wuornos (a serial killer) is Finnish-American, too. It just goes to show you there's not much you can glean from genetic data.
Even so, if some government official from Finland sees this post and wants to offer me a free trip to the Motherland, I'd happily accept--I mean, there's nothing wrong with a country taking care of one of their long-lost emigrants, right? I'll go brush up on my Finnish--especially these two phrases: Minä en ymmärrä suomea, and Puhutteko englantia?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)