This article, from Wired, is a good read on the privacy implications of targeted advertising. While the headline is somewhat sensationalist, similar privacy measures (to a certain extent) are currently in place in parts of Europe. In this piece, the author examines the micro-targeting practices of the internet advertising giants like Facebook and Google (as well as The Trade Desk, not mentioned) and outlines the dangers associated with hoovering up highly personal information as well as selling it to third parties. The vast sums of money being made by these advertising firms has others jumping into the market, and this is what scares me more as surveillance may become omnipresent: "The behavioral advertising business model has given rise to a teeming ecosystem of adtech firms, including data brokers, that pass user information through each step of the chain between publishers and advertisers. It's all perfectly legal and very profitable, which explains why established companies like Adobe, Comcast, and Amazon have been getting in on the action...the practice of mining and monetizing user data has migrated to sectors like insurance, finance, and even automobiles—not to mention law enforcement, as the revelations about the facial recognition company Clearview AI remind us." Restricting targeted ads is a clear negative for advertising companies' business models, so I wonder what the catalyst will be for more stringent privacy controls in the US, if any.

This was as fun interview from Stratechery, in which Ben Thompson chats with Eugene Wei. In their discussion, Ben and Eugene cover the shelf-life of information, but more specifically, they focus on the digital content of the large "streaming" players: Netflix, Disney, Hulu, and YouTube. The basic idea is that the shift to ever-available digital information/entertainment as well as the proliferation of content has resulted in shorter-lived content relevance or "half-life." One point that I found particularly insightful was how media companies will manage the half-life of their content and what implications this has for their business models: "The other factor here that matters is that I don't think any one of these companies completely controls that amortization or half-life period because it is context dependent. You're always competing with other forms of media and companies; you don't operate in a vacuum. That is the crux of the question and it'll be really interesting to monitor the amortization schedule of Netflix moving forward. But also I think that for all other media companies, it will be very curious to see if they are fighting in an overall zero sum game." The idea here is not only that IP must be relevant for a long time, but also that all entertainment competes against itself. This means that Fortnite competes with Netflix just as much as Disney does.

Another good article from Matthew Ball, this one about COIVD-19's impact on the TV world. There are a lot of interesting thoughts here - the basic ideas are that 1) COVID-19 will accelerate cord-cutting and the general increase in OTT relevance over the traditional TV bundle and 2) some changes, especially in sports, are likely to occur solely thanks to COIVD-19. I particularly enjoyed Matthew's comparisons to changes that occurred during the GFC. Here is one example: "During the Great Recession, for example, digital ad spend saw both the smallest decline and fastest recovery. By 2010, total spend was up by even more than 25% from 2007. This stemmed from the fact that, unlike television or print, digital ad spend was the easiest to analyze, measure, and justify on an ROI basis. TV remains a black box. And while there's still some radio, print, and outdoor ad spend left, TV will likely suffer the greatest rationalization." And while history may not repeat itself, it often rhymes. One other interesting point that Matthew makes is how COVID-19 will actually accelerate the existing divergences in OTT providers: "the gaps between today's OTT streaming leaders and the legacy players now entering the market is likely to expand or exacerbate, as is the gap between the 'leading' legacy players, such as Disney+ and AT&T's HBO, and the laggards, such as NBCUniversal and ViacomCBS." One might expect Netflix to be the biggest beneficiary as a result, but Matthew has his reservations here.

Given the moves in markets, this article from Morningstar could already be dated. But I doubt it: in the piece, the author points out that wide-moat businesses have fared best in the recent volatility. While ascribing a value to a company's moat is inherently partly qualitative, it is pretty cool to see that this analysis works as intended. Importantly, for Morningstar, this is not solely an allocation benefit: "performance relative to the market can be explained more by individual stock positions than sector exposures." The author also points out that wide-moat companies benefit most in downturns, while lower quality companies can excel in good times: "In difficult years for the U.S equity market, the Wide Moat Index has proved the most resilient. The trend was most pronounced in 2008, when wide-moat stocks lost 28.2%—painful in absolute terms, but a far cry from the near-50% loss sustained by the No Moat Index. In the sovereign debt crisis of 2011, and the difficult years of 2015 and the 2018, wide-moat stocks held up best. On the flip side, in big up years for the market, the rising tide lifted No Moat stocks highest. This was the case in 2007, 2009-10, 2012-13, and 2016."

This podcast was a timely recording, wherein Patrick O'Shaughnessy interviews Dan Rasmussen about investing through market volatility. I thought one of the more interesting parts of the podcast was about positioning into and out of a market downturn. Around the 25 minute mark, the two talk about value and what could potentially be wrong with it coming out of a downturn. According to Dan, the best argument against value is that the quality of growth businesses today is different than in the past. Obviously the valuation here matters, but it is an interesting argument. It was also somewhat endearing to hear the reality of the new work from home life: there are definitely some children playing in the background. This podcast isn't too long, so if you want some perspective on positioning during volatility, give it a listen.

Some required reading for the couples out there. This article, from The Atlantic, gives some tips on how to survive being with your partner 24x7. Here is the conclusion: "This is going to be a period of great growth for relationships,' says the anthropologist Helen Fisher, who has studied romance around the world. 'Couples are either going to grow together or grow apart.' Therapists love to advise couples to create quality time for themselves, and now we have more of it than ever. Use it wisely—and positively." Let's all try to grow together rather than apart when stuck with others.

This long-form article, from The New Yorker, is a great read about nature, science, and human foibles. In it, the author gives the history and current science around avalanche mitigation. Today, mountain-goers are often safe thanks to close weather monitoring, knowledgeable experts, and even artificially created avalanches. One of my favorite lessons from the article, that I think is applicable to investing, concerns those that tend to go back-country at mountains. These individuals are more at risk of avalanche; however, there are sensible precautions that can be taken to minimize the hazard. However, many ignore the risks. This is where the distinctly human element comes into play: "In the early two-thousands, when no amount of snow science seemed to be improving outcomes [of avalanches], the study of 'human factors' that contributed to avalanche accidents became popular. Tremper lists six common 'heuristic traps' that lead to avalanche fatalities: doing what is familiar; being committed to a goal, identity, or belief; following an 'expert'; showing off when others are watching; competing for fresh powder; and seeking to be accepted by a group. The Swiss pocket guide for backcountry skiers is full of technical information about slabs and slope angles, but it also includes the advice 'Don't give in to temptation!" Sound familiar?

Disclaimer: To the extent that Beach Reads discusses general market activity, industry or sector trends or other broad based economic or political conditions, it should not be construed as research or investment advice. The companies and or securities referenced and discussed do not constitute an offer nor recommendation to buy, sell or hold such security, and the information may not be current. The companies identified and described do not represent all of the securities purchased, sold or recommended for client accounts. The reader should not assume that an investment in the companies identified was or will be profitable. Beach Reads does not constitute a recommendation or a statement of opinion, or a report of either of those things and does not, and is not intended, to take into account the particular investment objectives, financial conditions, or needs of individual clients.