culture

All These Worries

sheldon-thompson-CXET9y0BmkE-unsplash.jpg

Good Morning,
 

Stocks rose Friday as news about a potential coronavirus treatment increased hope for an economic recovery following the outbreak. Tech stocks also continued their hot streak.

 

Gilead Sciences said its coronavirus treatment candidate, Remdesivir, showed an improvement in clinical recovery and a 62% reduction in the risk of mortality compared with standard care. The news sent Gilead shares up more than 2%. BioNTech’s CEO also told The Wall Street Journal the company’s coronavirus vaccine candidate could be ready for approval by December.

 

Shares of companies that would benefit from the economy reopening outperformed, especially the Russel 2000.



Our Take


In the short term, several of our proprietary technical indicators suggest that the market has become over-extended (especially sentiment in the NASDAQ) and thus we would not be surprised if markets pulled back as earnings season kicks off next week. However, if history is any guide, we do think that any selloff or pullback would likely be an opportunity to increase equity exposure. 

 

Looking at the second half of 2020, we won’t regurgitate the popular suggestions that the market has run too far, too fast, or that too many people own too few of the same “darling” technology stocks which COVID-19 has exposed as defensive investments/the new utilities (more on this below). These points are becoming so frequently argued that they could be considered to be the “consensus” view.

 

The same can be said for all the gloom and doom reasons which were presented in March and continue to be presented as arguments in favor of why one should be underweight equities or out of the market altogether. There are plenty of things to worry about, but these worries may be priced in as it should be stressed that in general, investors, large and small, are still in a high state of anxiety significantly underweight equities as sentiment levels remain at or near historic lows.

 

Alternatively, the more interesting story in our opinion is that interest rates are incredibly low and likely to remain so for a very long time in our low productivity/low growth world. This environment creates challenges for the trillions of dollars, institutional and otherwise, that have to be invested for one reason or another.

 

As such, if the economy continues to recover, COVID-19 cases and deaths trend in the right direction, and we get more positive vaccine/treatment news, the market is likely to continue its hot streak as cash comes off the sidelines and large institutions attempt to reach their historical median equity exposure.

 

Despite such predictions, as we hit the midpoint of 2020, we can notice that the cost of bad market timing decisions this year has been annihilation. As Vildana Hajric for Bloomberg so eloquently reminds us

 

"But for all the dizzying turbulence, it’s worth noting that the S&P 500 is nearly flat for anyone who sat tight and held through the chaos. Mistakes stand out in an environment like that -- the back-breaking costs of even a few wrong moves in a market as turbulent as this one. Maybe volatility is the time for active managers to shine, but the downside of getting it wrong has rarely been greater.

 

One stark statistic highlighting the risk focuses on the penalty an investor incurs by sitting out the biggest single-day gains. Without the best five, for instance, a tepid 2020 becomes a horrendous one: a loss of 30%."

 

Another gem from Aswath Damodaran, an expert on valuation at New York University’s Stern School of Business:

 

"The people who hate the rally are the people who are market gurus, because it makes it seem like their expertise is useless. And guess what? It is useless,” says Aswath Damodaran, an expert on valuation at New York University’s Stern School of Business. “Those people exist to make soothsayers look good.”

 

Such statistics remind us of the danger of trying to call the market’s peak, something that investors are feeling tempted to do again now with the S&P 500, DOW and NASDAQ fresh off significant rebounds, coronavirus infections rising and the worst earnings season in a decade about to kick off. Bearishness and general market timing as a strategy has a cost and 2020 is no exception to such a rule as over the long run stocks tend to go up. 

 

In a recent survey conducted by Citigroup, more than two-thirds of investors see a 20% decline in the market as more likely than a gain of a similar amount. Is the consensus view really destined to get it right as the second half of 2020 begins? Or will “staying the course” again deliver the best investment outcomes? 



Membership to Exclusive Daily Newsletter



We have launched an exclusive daily newsletter including actionable daily insights for DIY investors from Logos LP

  • Each Digest Contains the Following:

    • Key Market Technicals

    • Logos LP Watchlist Technicals

    • Macro News

    • Logos LP Update

    • Alerts

Membership will initially be limited to 1000 members. Please subscribe here.

Musings
 

When thinking about the real economy and the stock market of late - whether reading about them, observing them, or listening to friends and clients talk about their experiences - it becomes clear that there is still a lot of uncertainty and anxiety surrounding what the future holds. 

 

Will the recovery be a V, an L, a W or perhaps some other letter? Will certain industries be forever impaired or worse, collapse? What will all of these newly unemployed people do if their old jobs never come back? 

 

I read a few paragraphs on these topics in the Washington Post the other day. The author was skeptical of the V shaped narrative:

 

United airlines announced plans to lay off more than one-third of its 95,000 workers. Brooks Brothers, which first opened for business in 1818, filed for bankruptcy. And Bed Bath and Beyond said it will close 200 stores. 

 

Welcome to the recovery. 
 

If there were still hopes of a “V-shaped” comeback from the novel coronavirus shutdown, this past week should have put an end to them. The pandemic shock, which economists once assumed would only be a temporary business interruption, appears instead to be settling into a traditional, self-perpetuating recession. 

 

One thing we can say with relative confidence as penned in the New York Times by David Leonhardt is that: 

 

the course of the virus itself will play the biggest role in the medium term. If scientific breakthroughs come quickly and the virus is largely defeated this year, there may not be many permanent changes to everyday life. On the other hand, if a vaccine remains out of reach for years, the long-term changes could be truly profound. Any industry that depends on close human contact would be at risk.

 

Large swaths of the cruise-ship and theme-park industries might go away. So could many movie theaters and minor-league baseball teams. The long-predicted demise of the traditional department store would finally come to pass. Thousands of restaurants would be wiped out (even if they would eventually be replaced by different restaurants).

 

What is lost in much of the commentary about the recovery’s shape/trajectory is that when the economy weakens, poor companies with flawed business models and/or products/services that consumers and businesses can live without and/or easily replicate, are always those that will suffer the most, if not die. 

 

Downturns are opportunities to revisit inefficiencies and can be healthy as they are part of the “creative destruction” process that economist Joseph Schumpeter famously described, allowing more efficient and innovative companies to rise. 

 

What is also lost in the commentary is that although we find ourselves in the middle of this process of creative destruction, the novel coronavirus shutdown induced recession did not begin the forces of change. It merely accelerated trends that had been blessed by the capital markets long before the pain began. 

 

In a fascinating article in a recent issue of the Economist the author cites research that the risk-adjusted returns of a high-resilience portfolio of stocks (mostly technology companies offering highly differentiated products and services that consumers and businesses simply can’t live without) were roughly 25% higher than a low-resilience portfolio of stocks (mostly cyclical companies offering non-differentiated products and services that consumers and businesses can live without and/or easily replicate) during the same period this year. 

 

The authors of the above research extend their analysis back in time and come to the rather striking conclusion that the outperformance of less vulnerable firms predates the pandemic. They detect that returns began steadily diverging in 2014, before widening further in the second half of 2019, and then exploding early this year.

 

This does not imply that markets foresaw the pandemic. It is owed, in part, to a boom in the price of technology stocks. Yet it helps illustrate why much of the reallocation now under way is very likely to stick- because it represents a continuation of trends that were long blessed by capital markets.” 

 

As such, there will likely be no turning back. No return to the pre-covid economy. Research has shown that roughly 42% of lay-offs linked to the pandemic are likely to prove permanent while options prices imply that over the next two years investors require a far higher expected return in order to accept exposure to vulnerable firms than more resilient ones. 

 

As such firms, investors, workers and perhaps most of all, politicians will have hard choices to make of whether or not to keep struggling companies, jobs and skill sets afloat. 

Each stakeholder above will need to rethink their operations, trim fat that was accumulated while the economy was growing and reallocate resources more nimbly and creatively towards skills, pursuits and innovation more suited to the future. 

Politicians should be more honest with their citizens about the power of these structural economic changes as they try and strike a delicate balance between generous support (which can discourage workers and firms from seeking new jobs and opportunities in expanding sectors) vs. too little support for those workers and firms dislocated by these changes (which can cause greater inequality and thus even greater social unrest and a prolonged slump). 

In this new paradigm, humility, flexibility and a growth mindset will separate those who thrive from those that merely survive. 

The future rewards those who press on. I don’t have time to feel sorry for myself. I don’t have time to complain. I’m going to press on.” -Barack Obama 

Charts of the Month

Screen Shot 2020-07-12 at 10.00.10 AM.png
Screen Shot 2020-07-12 at 10.00.24 AM.png
Screen Shot 2020-07-12 at 10.00.45 AM.png

Chart courtesy of Worldometer - Coronavirus

Screen Shot 2020-07-11 at 6.41.38 PM.png

Logos LP June 2020 Performance
 


June 2020 Return: 11.78%
 

2020 YTD (June) Return: 44.54%
 

Trailing Twelve Month Return: 58.81%
 

Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) since inception March 26, 2014: +21.34%


 

Thought of the Month


 

"When I look back on all these worries, I remember the story of the old man who said on his deathbed that he had had a lot of trouble in his life, most of which had never happened.” – Winston Churchill




Articles and Ideas of Interest

 

  • Are tech stocks the new utilities for investors? Tech stocks weren’t considered defensive investments in the past. But as the coronavirus crisis reinforces technology’s fundamental role in our lives, investors can find sources of risk reduction and growth potential in companies that have become digital utilities enabling global networks.

  • Over the past 60 years, more spending on police hasn’t necessarily meant less crime. If we look at how spending has changed relative to crime in each year since 1960, comparing spending in 2018 dollars per person to crime rates, we see that there is no correlation between the two. More spending in a year hasn’t significantly correlated to less crime or to more crime. For violent crime, in fact, the correlation between changes in crime rates and spending per person in 2018 dollars is almost zero.

 

  • A mathematician calculated how to keep fans safe at Yankee Stadium. Based on social distancing guidelines, only 11% of seats should be filled.

  • 2020's top 15 market moments according to Business Insider, from COVID-19 crashes to huge rallies. At the start of 2020, the killing of Qassam Soleimani, and the Iranian-US tensions that followed, was the biggest story in town for markets. But COVID-19 soon began to spread across the world, causing markets to tank. It's been a rollercoaster ride ever since. From oil prices turning negative in April to famed investor Warren Buffett selling his airline stocks in May, here are the top 15 market events of 2020 so far.  

  • Active fund managers trail the S&P 500 for the ninth year in a row. After 10 years, 85 percent of large cap funds underperformed the S&P 500, and after 15 years, nearly 92 percent are trailing the index.

  • We’re not likely to have a Covid-19 vaccine anytime soon. In the meantime, two scientists have developed an antibody-based shot that provides a similar level of protection. A growing number of doctors, including Anthony Fauci, think the approach is promising and readily scalable. So why do US officials and pharmaceutical companies keep refusing to mass-produce it? Emily Baumgaertner takes a look in the Los Angeles Times.

     

  • A buy everything rally beckons in a world of yield curve control. Should yield curve control go global, it would cement markets’ perception of central banks as the buyers of last resort, boosting risk appetite, lowering volatility and intensifying a broader hunt for yield. While money managers caution that such an environment could fuel reckless investment already stoked by a flood of fiscal and monetary stimulus, they nonetheless see benefits rippling across credit, equities, gold and emerging markets

  • Like a ton of bricks - Is investors’ love affair with commercial property ending? Covid-19 has upended the impression of solidity. Most immediately, it has severely impaired tenants’ ability to pay rent. It also raises questions about where shopping, work or leisure will happen once the crisis abates. Both are likely to prompt investors to become more discriminating. Some institutions may shift funds away from riskier properties; other investors, meanwhile will hunt for bargains, or seek to repurpose unfashionable stock. As it turns out, more and more people think we can work from home, and should continue to do so. For a nation long frustrated with offices, the coronavirus offers an excellent excuse to avoid them. According to McKinsey, 69% of people who now work from home are equally or more productive than they were at the office. 60% — three in five — say they would prefer to stay home — even after the pandemic is over. Guy Vardi digs into the future of work.

  • Where did my ambition go? A drive to succeed has become a drive to just get by. Why workplace ambition is flickering out in this endless limbo. Maris Kreizman writes that the tectonic shift currently shaking our culture/society feels profound. In a time when the pandemic has caused so much uncertainty about the future of so many industries, professional ambition begins to feel like misplaced energy, as helpful to achieving success as chronic anxiety. This is fascinating in light of Robert Shiller’s recent suggestion that the psychological toll from the coronavirus pandemic could completely reshape our societies. He warns that the big risk is people start thinking the setback will last forever and it impacts their willingness to take risks. That mindset could turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy, dramatically hurt demand and push more businesses to the brink. “We don’t have to keep up with the Joneses anymore,” said Shiller. “That might create a different kind of culture that would last for years that you don’t have to show the latest fashions and drive a spanking new car. We just learn that you can relax. But that is bad for the economy.”

  • The end of tourism? The pandemic has devastated global tourism, and many will say ‘good riddance’ to overcrowded cities and rubbish-strewn natural wonders. Christopher de Bellaigue asks if there is any way to reinvent an industry that does so much damage?

Our best wishes for a month filled with discovery and contentment,

Logos LP

What Is History Telling Us About This Market?

Good Morning,

Stocks concluded a third straight week of gains Friday, climbing to new record highs a day after President Donald Trump promised to release a “phenomenal” tax plan in the near future. The man went so far as to say in a meeting with airline executives Thursday that “lowering overall tax burden on American business is big league” pleasing investors with his renewed focus on the business environment.
 

Economic data also continued to paint a mostly positive picture of the U.S. economy, after Thursday’s unexpectedly low number of Americans filing for jobless claims and as corporations added to one of the best sets of earnings since the financial crisis.
 

In addition, enthusiasm for the equity market is surging in 2017, according to a BNP Paribas SA measure of investor sentiment called the Love-Panic indicator. The index, which takes into account options positioning, equity fund flows and sentiment surveys, reached the highest since April 2014 on Monday, the last reading….
 

On the local front Canada’s economy added 48,000 jobs in January while economists were expecting job losses. Growth has exceeded expectations for 2 straight months reinforcing the message that the job market may have turned the corner. The problem is that pay gains were slowest since 2003. Furthermore, this week Fitch Ratings warned that potential U.S. protectionism puts countries like Canada at the highest risk of damage to their credit fundamentals.
 

Our Take
 

As we said last week this is a policy driven market. Investors were fretting that Trump had put tax reform on the backburner and now it appears to again be a priority. This is welcome news for markets. Last week Trump got bogged down with a series of bizarre tweets and other immigration noise and this week he appears to be back on track. Expect further volatility as he vacillates between sensible economic priorities and the sensationalist triviality.
 

As for sentiment appearing to reach levels not seen since 2014, it is important to take the temperature of the market. Was the market telling us to walk away in 2014? Were we at a top in 2014? Despite the myriad of pitfalls which could beset the market, perhaps we are just getting going. Things are always uncertain and uncomfortable when you are living in it and so obvious and sure when you are looking back. Lloyd Blankfein this week stated that:
 

“The change in the market today is from a cycle where we were of very low economic activity, consequently very low interest rates, and a very, very high level of—maybe call it pessimism about where we go. And it feels like we’re changing to one in which it’s going to get growthier. More growth out there, more opportunity and one in which we are getting a bit more optimistic.”
 

Nevertheless, other big names like George Soros, Seth Klarman and Stan Druckenmiller remain more bearish as they believe investors seem to have been lulled into a false sense of security.


Update on our Best Ideas for 2017
 

Peter Mantas
 
Huntington Ingalls Industries (NYSE: HII): +8.77% YTD
Cemex SAB de CV (NYSE: CX): +12.58% YTD
S&P 500: 3.45% YTD
 
Matthew Castel
 
Aaron Inc. (NASDAQ: AAON): +3.93% YTD
Syntel (NASDAQ: SYNT): +12.35% YTD
S&P 500: 3.45% YTD


Musings
 

I read an interesting book this week: Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business by Neil Postman. This book written in the 80s, covered the media’s effect on us suggesting that there were two key dystopian novels written by British cultural critics: Brave New World by Aldous Huxley and Nineteen Eighty Four by George Orwell – and that Americans mistakenly feared the latter. In the Orwellian future the state overtly censors what we see, hear and experience. Individuality is emaciated while movement and freedom are overtly restricted. In the Huxley version citizens are sedated by technology, conspicuous consumption and self-righteous instant gratification.
 

Postman believed that it was Huxley’s vision we should be worried about. He wrote:
 

“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture.”
     
      
Our information environment has become our entertainment environment. Facts have become blurred with opinion and public debate has degenerated into superfluous sound bites. The average person now spends roughly 74 hours in front of a screen in a given week and checks their phone over 150 times a day.
 

The concerning part is that unlike the Orwellian world in which control is overt, it is more difficult to resist in a world in which we are lead to believe we occupy the center of….


Thought of the Week

 

"That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all lessons that history has to teach.” –Aldous Huxley



Stories and Ideas of Interest

 

  • Snapchat destroys value and thus its IPO is pre-mature. We keep getting questions about the impending Snap IPO and based on our reading of the S-1 IPO filing it is too early for such a move. Tim Connors puts together a compelling account as to why Snap has not proven that they have a great business (not a single dollar of gross margin). Going public now as a business that loses more money the more users they get isn’t fair to the founders, those who would buy the IPO (not the 1% but the retirement savings of American workers) and those founders who have created value-generating ventures. Perhaps Snap should take notice of Twitter’s dismal earnings report this week (Twitter has been losing around $100 million a quarter for the past three years, and its user growth has been essentially flat) in order to see what may be in store if glaring business-model questions are not addressed. Quartz digs in and asks whether Snap will be the next Facebook, a humble startup turned massive, revenue-generating cash cow? Or will it be the next Twitter, a company that can’t seem to grow or make money? Not a company we would invest in but important to watch as a barometer for the "growth at all costs" model.


     

  • Seth Klarman speaks in a private letter to his investors. This famed value investor who has lost money in only 3 of the last 34 years weighed in on Trump suggesting that investors have become hypnotized by all the talk of pro-growth policies, without considering the full ramifications. He worries, for example, that Mr. Trump’s stimulus efforts “could prove quite inflationary, which would likely shock investors.” He also finds that “The big picture for investors is this: Trump is high volatility, and investors generally abhor volatility and shun uncertainty,” he wrote. “Not only is Trump shockingly unpredictable, he’s apparently deliberately so; he says it’s part of his plan.” He also had an interesting perspective on the many hedge funds that have underperformed over the last 5 years: “With any asset class, when substantial new money flows in, the returns go down.” He also sounded the alarm on ETFs suggesting that “stocks outside the indices may be cast adrift, no longer attached to the valuation grid but increasingly off of it.” “This should give long-term value investors a distinct advantage,” he wrote. “The inherent irony of the efficient market theory is that the more people believe in it and correspondingly shun active management, the more inefficient the market is likely to become.”

 

  • The United States is coming to resemble two countries, one rural and one urban. What happens when they go to war? Although I’m not a fan of dividing groups of people, I found this description of America in The Atlantic to be quite interesting. Perhaps dividing people between red states and blue states is no longer that helpful when one is attempting to understand the fault lines of American politics. Perhaps instead the gulf between urban and nonurban voters is wider than it ever has been. David Graham writes: “An important lesson of last year’s presidential election is that American political norms are much weaker than they had appeared, allowing a scandal-plagued, unpopular candidate to triumph—in part because voters outside of cities objected to the pace of cultural change. Another lesson is that the United States is coming to resemble two separate countries, one rural and one urban. Only one of them, at present, appears entitled to self-determination.”

 

  • The term “fake news” is officially meaningless. Once upon a time the term was used to refer to completely fabricated stories about politicians. Today the term has been hijacked to mean any news someone doesn’t like.

 

  • Donald Trump might be more popular than you think. Once again there is evidence suggesting
    that traditional polls are not accurately measuring support for the president and his policies. Support appears to increase when the poll is conducted using more anonymous methodologies…Could there be a difference between what one believes and what one will say publicly. Could their be a “social desirability bias”?

 

  • Could coding be the next blue-collar job? Provocative piece in Wired suggesting that for decades, pop culture has overpromoted the “lone genius” coder. “We’ve cooed over the billionaire programmers of The Social Network and the Anonymized, emo, leather-clad hackers of Mr. Robot. But the real heroes are people who go to work every day and turn out good stuff—whether it’s cars, coal, or code.”

 

  • Sex doesn’t sell any more, activism does. And don’t the big brands know it. From Starbucks supporting refugees to Kenco taking on gangs, big businesses are falling over themselves to do good – and to let us know about it. Great piece in the Guardian outlining how political business has become. There is no room for humility when a brand does a good deed and sadly brands are allowing people to pat themselves on the back without them personally having to sacrifice anything.

 

All the best for a productive week,


Logos LP

Is There Really Such A Thing As The "Good Old days"?

Good Morning,

U.S. stocks closed lower on Friday, with utilities dropping more than 1 percent, as investors digested hawkish rhetoric from Federal Reserve officials and kept an eye on oil prices.
 
Investors continue to watch for hints regarding when the Fed will raise interest rates but more fundamentally there is a lot of cash on the sidelines and no strong conviction that stocks are cheap. Does this really signal a top or rather a directionless market?
 
Market expectations for a rate hike in September were just 18 percent Friday and 43 percent for December, according to the CME Group's FedWatch tool. Bear in mind that the markets and the Fed have consistently overestimated the timetable for rate hikes…
 
More interestingly, this week I read a fascinating article by Alan Jay Levinovitz and I’ve been reflecting on whether there really is such a thing as “the good old days”. Is there really some period of time or cultural state that we can each point to and look back upon with joy, comfort and longing? Or does nostalgia have a dark side?  
 
“Make America great again!” yells Donald Trump to a raucous crowd that hangs on his every word. Is there anything new here? Playing on people’s fantasies and their need to believe is as old as the rising sun. Prophets both secular and religious alike have been doing it for centuries. But it's important to make a crucial distinction between harmless nostalgia aka. remembering that sunny day on the beach in Jamaica vs. the belief in a past societal perfection.
 
The former represents harmless sentimentality, the latter form of nostalgia represents the ideological foundation for political movements such as Greece’s Golden Dawn, which calls for a return to Hellenic glory via radical right wing nationalism, and ISIS, which waxes rhapsodic about a distorted Islamic golden age. “The good old days” isn’t a joke. The fairy tale isn’t something to be taken lightly.
 
As Levinovitz explains it “is a virulent falsehood that infects those whose intellectual defences have been weakened by fear and insecurity. It is easily weaponised by power-hungry propagandists who seek to replace nuanced discourse with patriotic platitudes, and diverse ideologies with homogenous tribal nationalism: Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, the Ku Klux Klan. In its endless incarnations this myth has shackled people’s thoughts and actions to the promise of a fiction, facilitating evil on all scales, from everyday racism to the greatest human rights catastrophes of the 20th century.”
 
There is no doubt that there are lessons to be gleaned from the past. Perhaps certain lessons in simplicity or commitment, yet looking back must be done responsibly.  People have an overwhelming need to believe in something. Life is distressing and thus those who can manufacture romance or conjure up pleasant fantasy are like oases in the desert: people flock to them. This isn’t to say that the present is perfect but it is to say that letting go of a romanticized and often fabricated version of the past is necessary if we want a chance at building a better future.

 

Thought of the Week

"Things ain’t what they used to be and probably never was.” – Will Rogers

 

Stories and Ideas of Interest

  • Howard Marks of Oaktree Capital has released a new memo on political reality. He does not disappoint diving deeply into the oxymoron of “political reality”. The world of politics has its own altered reality, in which economic reality often seems not to impinge. No choices need to be made: candidates can promise it all. And there are no consequences. If something might have negative consequences in the real word, politicians seem to feel free to ignore them. If a pesky journalist asks about consequences of a policy statement the politician can simply ignore them.

 

  • Could the best stock market indicator be the Financial Media’s competition for clicks? Price action blog suggests that the frequency of articles in the financial media and blogosphere with calls for a stock market collapse is often a good indicator of a bullish market. No wonder Marc Faber who again recently announced that the stock market would soon crash 50% has basically never been right. Sex sells!

 

  • Morgan Housel offers some a few big ideas. 2 of my favorite:
     
    Recessions and bear markets are very easy to predict, except for the timing, cause, magnitude, duration, location, and policy response. 
     
    Bubbles occur because confidence rises as fast as asset prices. People don't just get excited about making money; they feel brilliant, and intellectually justified to play harder in the next round. (Sound like the average Toronto real estate enthusiast?)

 

  • Leonid Bershidsky for Bloomberg explores how the most successful technology companies are platforms. What makes a platform successful? Could the technology industry be more socially focused than technology focused?

 

  • Some of the smartest minds in finance tell Business Insider how Wall Street is going to change – This is what they said. Spoiler: Blockchain and Automation.

 

 

  • A new report from credit agency Equifax shows debt delinquencies continue to soar in Canada's oil-producing regions, but it also shows a troubling new trend: Canada's youngest debtors are increasingly having a hard time managing their debt.

 

All the best for a productive week,

Logos LP