If another fast food burger chain ends up outcompeting McDonald's $MCD, McDonald's can turn all of their properties into ghost kitchens and use their location and property ownership advantage to capitalize on the growing demand for food delivery services.

If Intel $INTC ends up losing its edge as the provider of being the provider of "value" chips for laptops, it can sell its fabless chip business to another firm and dedicate itself to becoming a pure chip foundry business like TSMC.

If EV startups like $RIVN $LCID $FSR etc. start being wildly more successful than legacy automakers, legacy automakers can stop being in the business of developing newer vehicles and instead use its factories to become a manufacturer of those EV startups. $GM $F and $STLA would essentially act as the pure manufacturers of the auto industry and EV startups will act as the designers of the auto industry.

*Side note: Foxconn is hoping to become the main manufacturing partner of the EV industry. They're already the main manufacturing partner of the electronics industry.

If fintechs start becoming the main places where people do banking, traditional banks can act as the liquidity providers of those fintech platforms.

If demand for fossil fuels goes to zero, midstream companies can use their pipelines to transport biofuels, hydrogen, and other green energy fuels.

If demand for alcohol goes to zero, breweries can be repurposed to create other beverages and foods.

If demand for cigarettes goes to zero, cigarette factories can be repurposed to produce cannabis joints, pharmaceuticals & other healthcare-related products, foods, and other consumer packaged goods.

This is a running list of ideas that I've thought of for how the assets of many big companies can be repurposed for productive purposes. If you have more ideas, I'm happy to hear them (please comment them below). Hopefully you'll look back at this memo as some of your top stock picks gets challenged by shifts in the economy, consumer preferences, etc.

When looking at this chart on the homeownership rates of different generations, we notice that Baby Boomers were big on homeownership since their younger days while Gen X was minimal in homeownership during that same age period. While Millennials did better than Gen X in terms of starting homeownership rate, Gen Z surprises people by having higher homeownership rates during these times.

From a NYT article in 1977, we learn that mobile homes were popular with young families and retired people. Disregard the retired people for the purposes of this memo because they don't belong to the baby boomer demographic. Focus on the young families. It's common knowledge that boomers started families when they were younger and with mobile home being popular among young families, we can assume that the majority of the surge in homeownership rates for boomers during their young days were because they chose to buy a mobile home and live there than rent an apartment or single family home.

Today, young people don't desire to live in a mobile home. This is because they rarely think of it as property that they can own. The idea of homeownership emphasizes the ownership of a single family home. Townhomes and condos are also visualized by people when it comes to homeownership, but those property types are secondary options as people have a single family home as their main vision. With so much competition from different generations on owning a single family home, young people are better off redirecting their homeownership efforts and acquire a mobile home than compete with their older peers in bidding wars for a single family home. That's what many boomers did and that's why they've thrived more economically than other generations.

My main takeaway is that I think that I think mobile homes played a major role in the economic success of baby boomers. If there are any professors on this platform, I hope that my memo inspired a new research topic for you.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/1977/05/22/archives/mobile-homes-growing-up-mobile-homes.html

In an interview with CBS, I was surprised to hear CEO David Risher say that he thinks Uber, Lyft, and consumers to have consumers download both the Uber and the Lyft apps. As he notes, "[L]ook, if every single person has Uber and Lyft on their phone...it's actually better for everyone because sometimes one of them is going to mess you up, I hope it's never me, but at the end of the day you want both and I think if we get both then people are going to start to use us more because people like Lyft."

While most Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and corporate executives prefer to create their walled gardens and compete for incremental revenue, David Risher's mindset is unheard of and what catches people's attention. As someone who has both the Uber and Lyft app installed, I find Lyft significantly cheaper than Uber, and I think that Risher's comment shows that he genuinely believes that Lyft will win a price war with Uber. Assuming that price is the main driver behind people choosing one rideshare app over another, having more people exposed to Lyft will help bring more riders to Lyft.

As for drivers, I assume that Risher prefers drivers to be loyal to one platform or another. That way, any drivers operating under the Lyft network will be able to add convenience to any Lyft riders demanding a ride when they need it. If drivers are allowed to provide rides for both platforms simultaneously, it can lead to a more balanced distribution of drivers between the two, potentially diluting each platform's market share and reducing their individual competitive advantage. Also, there is a risk of inconsistencies in service quality, vehicle branding, and overall customer experience, which can diminish the brand value of those rideshare giants. Plus, if drivers were allowed to work for both Uber and Lyft simultaneously, it would be challenging for each platform to gain comprehensive insights into driver performance, trip patterns, customer preferences, and other valuable data. Exclusive driver partnerships provide platforms with a more complete view of their operations and enable them to make informed decisions to optimize their services.

There is a case to be made that it would be to both platforms' benefit to let drivers provide rides to both platforms. Firstly, it unlocks more supply of drivers for both platforms. Consumers get shorter wait times, drivers make more money, and the rideshare platform that has a customer waiting will be better able to provide a ride to that customer. Drivers will be better utilized as their idle time will be reduced and they can remain busy. Few people think about the increased driver satisfaction that comes with letting drivers switch between apps. When they're able to capitalize on higher prices in one platform, they're able to make more money and the satisfaction that comes with being able to advantage of an app's surcharge opportunity makes them more motivated to keep driving and provide great customer experience too. This will also allow drivers to reduce the deadhead miles problem. For context, deadhead miles refer to the distance a driver travels without a passenger. In sum, while letting drivers work for both Uber and Lyft benefits drivers more, the profit maximizing aspect of letting drivers work for both platforms allows Uber and Lyft to maximize the revenues that they can generate.

In conclusion, the surprising perspective of Lyft CEO David Risher challenges the conventional wisdom of creating exclusive walled gardens to maximize profits. While his suggestion of having consumers download both Uber and Lyft apps may seem counterintuitive, it reflects a belief that increased exposure to Lyft can ultimately benefits by having their customers be consumers of both apps. This strategy is rooted in the assumption that price plays a significant role in consumers' choice of rideshare apps, and Lyft's competitiveness in terms of affordability could position them favorably in a price war with Uber. However, when it comes to drivers, maintaining exclusive partnerships with a single platform offers advantages such as brand consistency, data insights, and operational control but it also prevents them from maximizing profits. By striking a balance between driver flexibility and platform loyalty, Uber and Lyft can maximize their revenues and operational efficiency. Ultimately, the debate surrounding whether allowing drivers to provide rides for both platforms benefits Uber and Lyft remains complex, with potential advantages and disadvantages to consider for all stakeholders involved.

If the Uber network became dependent on robotaxis and independent of human drivers overnight, $UBER management would have a less stressful time running the business.

For background, the majority of Uber's lawsuits stem from the issue of whether drivers should be considered independent contractors or employees and other disputes with drivers. All of these issues make Uber highly dependent on their HR and customer service departments, which are staffed with many people. Whenever customers have issues with drivers, Uber has to deal with the headaches of resolving those disputes and even having to ban drivers from the platform. With robotaxis, Uber doesn't need to keep a large staff for their HR and customer service departments as robotaxis would eliminate the majority of customer complaints.

For $GOOGL, their $258 million investment in Uber from 2013 looks to remain profitable as Waymo will work with Uber than work to disrupt it. According to CNBC, that stake in Uber has resulted in a 20X gain during its IPO.

Robotaxis can serve as a deflationary pressure for rideshare services. Since Waymo will be managing the robotaxi network, Uber doesn't need to worry about matching supply and demand as Waymo's robotaxis will be operating 24/7. Supply is there and demand can come and go when it wants. Also, operating a robotaxi network is cheaper than operating a fleet of drivers who act as independent contractors. No need to worry about paying minimum wage and in some states, having to pay extra taxes relating to labor. Even if Uber and Waymo will share the revenues more evenly, both parties can afford to offer rides at lower prices.

Overall, this partnership makes me highly optimistic about the long-term viability of Uber's operations. I don't see robotaxis created by the Big Tech and Big Auto firms as threats to Uber's business because of this partnership.

Tavi Costa, one of Twitter's most prominent bulls in the commodities space, notes that long-term demand for commodities will grow as industrial production in the US grows. As we can see, industrial output in the US started stagnating in the early 2000s as China entered the World Trade Organization (WTO) and companies began offshoring their manufacturing operations to China.

We can look back at those times and recognize that demand for commodities surged as China's economy fired on all cylinders. As G7 countries are starting to decouple from China, the amount of demand for commodities is expected to be bigger than ever before as those countries collectively will be investing more in increasing their industrial base. Collectively, they will be driving demand for energy, metals, and other resources to record levels.

The time period that the G7 is starting to consider decoupling its supply chains from China is fascinating. India is becoming a fast growing economic power. Latin America as a whole is benefiting from the growth in nearshoring. And the world is focused on extracting as much lithium, copper, cobalt, and all the rare earth metals that it can dig up to produce solar panels, batteries, and electric vehicles. Altogether, there are many trends at play that are driving commodity prices to higher levels.

Don't forget that as more people get lifted out of poverty thanks to the rebound in industrialization, demand for commodities will increase further. This is because more people are able to afford gas in their vehicles, buy more food, keep the lights on longer, and start wanting more discretionary products. All of those things are either made of commodities or are commodities themselves. Don't forget that those people will want to either move into better housing or upgrade their homes altogether and thus consume more commodities to do that.

_A beautiful view of Doha, Qatar, photorealistic

_

Where will all those commodities for our green energy facilities, for our factories, and for those households come from? They'll come from the nations that we see trapped in the resource curse. It's important to remember that as nations look to move their factories back home, they will still be dependent on other nations. Instead of being dependent on nations that produce commodities and that use the commodities to produce goods, reshoring will only give nations the power to now use commodities to produce the goods themselves. The G7 will remain dependent on the Middle East for energy, Africa for metals, and Latin America for agricultural commodities. Some G7 nations will choose to empower their own firms to produce more oil, mine more metals, grow more grains, etc. for their nation but from what I've observed, many of them would rather continue outsourcing commodities production to other nations.

In conclusion, the decoupling of supply chains from China by G7 countries is expected to drive a surge in demand for commodities. This trend, combined with factors like rising global industrialization and increased standards of living, will further boost the need for energy, metals, and other resources. Despite reshoring efforts, G7 nations will remain dependent on resource-rich regions for their commodity needs. The dynamics of global commodity markets will continue to play a pivotal role in shaping economic development and industrial growth in the foreseeable future.

The ever-evolving social media landscape is filled with interesting dynamics, where companies often strive to outcompete their rivals by emulating successful features. However, the outcome of such endeavors is unpredictable and can vary from success to failure.

$META has made attempts to replicate various features from its competitors, only to witness mixed results. Examples include:

While Meta has created numerous apps, many have been taken down shortly after their launch.

In the realm of online dating, companies like Match Group $MTCH and Bumble $BMBL have successfully established themselves as the go-to platforms for finding love and casual connections. On the other hand, Facebook has struggled to convert its regular users into active dating app users. Given Facebook's massive user base, one would expect their foray into online dating to be a major hit. However, it seems that Meta is more adept at acquiring startups than they are at innovating and developing things.

To be fair, Meta did find success in commercializing Stories, a feature originally popularized by Snapchat $SNAP, and in establishing IGTV as an alternative video streaming platform. Facebook and Instagram also dominate live streaming for various types of content, except in the gaming niche where Twitch remains dominant. However, these accomplishments are relatively limited when compared to the breadth of Meta's overall endeavors.

With all the failures we've seen with Meta, why would anyone think that Facebook would successfully create a clone of Twitter? People that are tired of Twitter's antics go to Mastodon, Truth Social $DWAC, GETTR, Parler, Hive, Bluesky, etc. Some are decentralized social media networks that stem from the Web 3 bubble and others are platforms created from political events. Last November, An Axios article noted that, "[f]or these companies, a Twitter-like service would bring big political, social and legal headaches with little promise of a financial payoff." Amidst fierce competition and the struggles faced by other startups in monetizing Twitter-like services, it is questionable how fruitful Meta's endeavor would be. Moreover, Meta's recent layoffs and the tightening of their capital raise doubts about their ability to achieve substantial success with a Twitter clone.

However, the appointment of Twitter's new CEO, Linda Yaccarino, brings optimism for the future of the platform. Her expertise and leadership have the potential to propel Twitter's monetization strategies to new heights. For more insights into her background, you can refer to @nathanworden's video (link). As Yaccarino's onboarding coincides with Meta's Twitter Clone announcement, her leadership could be instrumental in maintaining Twitter's dominance in its niche, rendering Meta's clone insignificant. If Elon Musk had remained as Twitter's CEO and retained the intent to lead, I would have been more bullish about Meta's prospects in creating a successful Twitter clone.

In conclusion, while Meta, formerly Facebook, has experienced both successes and failures in replicating features from its competitors, the task of creating a viable Twitter clone poses significant challenges. The competition in the social media landscape is fierce, with alternative platforms catering to dissatisfied Twitter users, and the complexities involved in navigating political, social, and legal considerations are substantial. Furthermore, Meta's recent layoffs and financial constraints cast doubt on their ability to achieve substantial success with a Twitter clone. As Twitter ushers in a new CEO and focuses on monetization strategies under Linda Yaccarino's leadership, it appears that Twitter's dominance in its niche will remain intact, rendering Meta's Twitter clone as an unlikely contender.

Take a look at the top 10 best-selling video games of all time:

$MSFT has Minecraft. $ATVI made Overwatch. $NTDOY made Mario Kart 8 and Wii Sports. $TTWO made GTA V and Red Dead Redemption 2.

Even if Take-Two Interactive ties with Nintendo for having the most spots in the Top 10 Best-Selling videogames list, when it comes to development costs, Take-Two Interactive isn't afraid to invest big in game development. For Red Dead Redemption 2, Take-Two spent more than $170 million to develop it (it clearly made a loss on that game). As for GTA V, Take-Two Interactive spent $137 million on developing the game. (Source)

While Take-Two Interactive does release multiple games each year, they ensure that each game meets a certain level of quality and craftsmanship. One example of this emphasis on quality is the development process of Rockstar Games, a subsidiary of Take-Two Interactive. Rockstar Games has gained a reputation for taking their time with game development, often allowing their titles to undergo extensive polishing and refinement before release. This approach has led to the creation of highly acclaimed and successful franchises like Grand Theft Auto and Red Dead Redemption, known for their immersive worlds, compelling narratives, and attention to detail. Part of meeting their level of quality and craftsmanship is to delay the release of games when necessary. While it's frustrating for gamers that pre-ordered the game to see a delay in the game that they highly anticipate, Take-Two isn't afraid to delay the release of the game if it's necessary for achieving their desired level of quality.

It's important to note that Take-Two also operates within the commercial realities of the industry. They aim to strike a balance between quality and financial success, as they are a publicly traded company with stakeholders and financial expectations to consider. This means they must also consider factors such as release schedules and profitability while striving to maintain a high standard of quality. So far, $TTWO is up 3,390.75% since its IPO and up by 670% since the release of GTA V. The massive sales of the videogames is one piece of the profitability of each videogame that Take-Two creates. Take-Two takes monetization to the next level through microtransactions. As management feels that they're sell their games for less than they're worth, the microtransactions make up for the discounts that they're already giving consumers.

Personally, I'm not sure what other videogame franchise is there that is successful that maximizing the revenues it can get from its customers than the GTA franchise. Call of Duty and EA has a new game released annually but interest in their games wanes after a year as another game takes the limelight. For Take-Two, their games remain popular years after release and people continue to spend on DLCs on those games. The approach that Take-Two uses in the videogame industry is unique and I think that this strategy will continue to serve $TTWO well for the long run.

The resource curse, also known as the paradox of plenty or the poverty paradox, continues to perplex economists with its enigmatic nature. This phenomenon describes the situation wherein countries rich in natural resources, such as fossil fuels and certain minerals, exhibit lower economic growth, limited democracy, or inferior development outcomes compared to nations with fewer resources. In this memo, we will explore the various factors contributing to the resource curse and examine success stories and ongoing challenges faced by resource-rich nations.

Extensive research and analysis of academic papers have revealed several common causes of the resource curse:

Norway stands as an exemplar of a nation that has successfully escaped the resource curse. Leveraging its oil fortunes, Norway diversified its economy away from fossil fuels, enabling the nation to maintain a high standard of living for its people. The establishment of a sovereign wealth fund facilitated investments in various assets, funding the government and supporting economic growth. Furthermore, Norway redirected oil and gas revenues to develop sectors such as shipping, seafood, tourism, and green energy. With a highly educated population driving advancements in technology, healthcare, finance, and other sectors, Norway offers valuable insights for managing resource wealth effectively.

Contrary to popular belief, "wealthy" Middle Eastern countries like Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, and Saudi Arabia have not escaped the middle-income trap. Despite possessing significant sovereign wealth funds, these economies remain heavily dependent on oil exports. While efforts to expand into green energy and promote industrialization are underway, their future remains uncertain. Only time will tell if these nations can emulate Norway's success or face the challenges endured by countries like Venezuela.

The resource curse presents a complex and multifaceted challenge for countries blessed with abundant natural resources. Although various factors contribute to this curse, including Dutch disease, resource-fueled corruption, lack of diversification, instability and conflict, economic dependence, and the rentier effect, it is evident that a combination of these factors often plagues resource-rich nations. Nonetheless, success stories like Norway serve as inspirations for other countries grappling with the resource curse.

Meanwhile, Middle Eastern nations face the risk of remaining trapped in dependence on oil exports, despite their substantial sovereign wealth funds and efforts to expand into green energy and promote industrialization. The path to diversification and long-term economic sustainability requires a delicate balance between embracing new sectors and reducing reliance on finite resources. Only by proactively investing in innovation, fostering entrepreneurship, and nurturing a culture of knowledge and technology transfer can these nations truly break free from the chains of the resource curse and shape a prosperous future for their people.

While $QYLD is down 31.48% since inception, the total return for the covered call ETF is 47.04%.

The latest major technology that has seen an adoption surge unlike anything before is ChatGPT Since its launch in November 2022, ChatGPT gained one million users within 5 days! This makes ChatGPT the fastest-growing user base in history for a consumer application.

I've observed that as time goes on, the adoption rates of new technologies generally accelerates. Tik Tok saw itself reaching a billion users faster than $META saw a billion users with Facebook and Instagram. There are many other examples similar to this. But for the use of crypto as a method of payment, I can't help but notice how slow adoption of it has been. $PYPL launched "checkout with crypto" in March 2021 and since then, I've never heard of it gaining significant traction. $COIN launched something similar called Coinbase Commerce in February 2018 and made $50 million in transaction volume 2019. Blockdata notes that despite "crypto winter," there's growth in the number of merchants accepting crypto as a form of payment. It's probably a reason why $MA and $V have become serious about cryptocurrencies lately.

There are other factors that hinder the adoption of crypto as a method of payment. First is economic uncertainty. People become risk averse as economic conditions incentivizes people to manage their money conservatively. They're less willing to dabble with crypo and other speculative technologies that could become the things powering the economy of the future. Even if crypto can be seen as a "store of value", the volatility of the crypto markets challenges the idea that crypto is a "store of value" and people are less willing to gamble with $BTC.X as a way to pay for groceries. Stablecoins may seem like the ideal cryptocurrencies that would boost crypto payment adoption however, the fall of Terra Luna and public skepticism over the integrity and solvency of Tether and USDC gives people another reason to stick to fiat money.

Additionally, regulatory uncertainty has become the biggest hinderance to crypto payment adoption out of all. Regulators are still figuring out how to estimate and collect on sales tax from transactions made in crypto. Coinbase and other crypto firms are waging a war with the SEC over preventing the government from labeling cryptocurrencies as securities. Laws on all levels of government create a high level of uncertainty on whether adopting crypto as a form of payment is legal. The safest thing merchants can do is to not accept crypto as a method of payment and stick to transacting in fiat. Add in economic uncertainty and merchants are less willing to deal with the value volatility of cryptocurrencies.

While the world waits for "checkout with crypto" to grow in adoption, for now, anyone can dabble with Web 3 by buying NFTs with fiat money directly on Nfty Gateway, an NFT marketplace known for letting people buy NFTs with USD. $SBUX Odyssey, the NFT customer loyalty program created by Starbucks, uses Nifty Gateway to sell their NFTs. As someone who has bought an NFT on that platform, I like that I don't need to go through the hassle of converting my dollars to a cryptocurrency and having to connect my wallet to the NFT platform and then buy the NFT. I'm not purchasing NFTs with Polygon, Ethereum, etc. but my purchases do go through the Polygon blockchain. From that experience, I can see the world adopting Web 3 faster by adopting the technologies that power it and leaving out the currencies. It's easier for people to adopt Web 3 that way on a practical level.

In conclusion, despite economic and regulatory uncertainties hindering the adoption of crypto as a method of payment, the interest from payment giants and growth in the number of merchants accepting crypto suggest potential for wider adoption. In the meantime, people can still engage with Web 3 technologies using fiat money on platforms like Nifty Gateway. As comfort with the underlying technology of crypto grows and regulatory landscape stabilizes, wider adoption of crypto as a payment method may become a reality.