Podcasts about efficient markets

Recorded on March 7, 2025 and February 28, 2025 https://youtu.be/r7-WmGRE6zM Episode 127 of the PetroNerds podcast is another energy dense and intel rich jam packed podcast on everything you need to know to get you caught up on the oil market and the economy. This podcast is the conversation between Jason Isaac, CEO of the American Energy Institute, and Trisha Curtis, CEO of PetroNerds, recorded as a livestream on February 28th, 2025. Trisha introduces this podcast with a fresh market update talking about oscillating volatility, oil prices, the stock market, oil demand and tariff fears. She gets into the Federal Reserve's comments on the economy and the fears and nervousness in the market. Trisha spends time talking about what is going on in the stock market, in the economy, and what is happening in oil prices with supply and demand. She talks about US production at 13.5 mbd, the rig count and private companies, OPEC production increases and the Saudi nod to Trump, Saudi and Russian production, Iran sanctions, Russia and Ukraine and additional peace deal meetings and the impact on oil prices and natural gas prices. Trisha also talks about Chris Wright's comments on oil prices. One of the biggest questions the industry is asking right now is "what price does Trump want for oil?" She also addresses the SPR and refilling the SPR and how that can be used to put a floor on oil prices. And yes, she does this all in 20 minutes. The hour-long conversation between Trisha and Jason proceeds with more color and detail on all of the above and the latest economic trends in oil, natural gas, and coal, Federal energy policies, tariffs, the market, China, and the first 39 days of the Trump administration. Jason also gets into the state level. This podcast is sponsored by Efficient Markets. Reach out to PetroNerds at https://petronerds.com/. Listen on Itunes

Recorded on February 22, 2025 and November 19, 2024 https://youtu.be/IyNgLJ96GYk Episode 126 of the PetroNerds podcast is a deep dive PetroNerds special. Trisha Curtis, CEO of PetroNerds and host of the PetroNerds podcast, catches listeners up on everything happening in geopolitics and the economy before getting into her talk and presentation to a sold out crowd in Midland, Texas for the Society of Petroleum Engineers on November 19, 2024. This is an hour-long complete rip of geopolitics, oil, and the economy, post election. In the introduction of this podcast, Trisha gets into the meeting between the US and Russia, Saudi's hosting of the meeting, the Fed's comments on tariffs and immigration policies, actual inflation moving up in January 2025, and oil prices and economic jitters. In the Midland talk, Trisha walks listeners through the changes that will be seen in policy and the market by the Trump Administration on energy, gets into the geopolitics of the world and the relationship and thread China has with Russia, Iran, and North Korea. She covers power generation, emissions, LNG, global oil and gas demand, and closes with a look at US shale and what to expect under a Trump Administration. This is not a podcast you are going to want to miss folks. This PetroNerds podcast is everything you need to get you caught up on the market and a whole lot more. This podcast and the associated PetroNerds bonus episode are sponsored by Efficient Markets also known as EnergyNet. Listen on Itunes

Recorded on January 23, 2025 https://youtu.be/n4MJn2UE1w0 Episode 125 of PetroNerds podcast is your complete outlook and overview on oil prices, M&A, activity, Trump, and US shale. Trisha Curtis, CEO of PetroNerds and host of the PetroNerds podcast, is joined by Chris Atherton, the CEO of Efficient Markets, also known as EnergyNet. PetroNerds is proud to announce the first PetroNerds podcast sponsorship by Efficient Markets. This is a partnership between Efficient Markets and PetroNerds. Trisha Curtis and Chris Atherton cover everything from oil prices and M&A to changes in the regulatory landscape to infill drilling, PDP, production, and refracs. They talk about what their clients are asking them, oil price volatility, and how oil and gas prices are impacting transactions, deals, and M&A. Chris talks about the stability in oil prices in 2023 and 2024 lending itself to a good transaction environment. They talk about CAPEX and spending and the public market. Chris Atherton talks about weather in Houston and the spike in natural gas prices in 2025. They get into trends and themes and views within the industry, capital discipline, Saudi Arabia, and natural gas prices. Trisha diagress with the thought that capital will be disciplined with higher natural gas prices. She is bullish on activity in the US and the runway. She also gets into OPEC and EIA and the differing views on US shale production potential. Trisha and Chris discuss the question, will capital discipline constrain growth in the US, and at what price point? They talk about the role of private companies, deregulation, and the rig count in Wyoming and Utah reflecting the current regulatory environment and expectations under Trump. Chris talks directly about M&A under higher natural gas prices and M&A with oil price volatility. They also talk about Trump, policies, and what Trump wants for oil and gas prices and what that means for money and investment in the space. Trisha says "Hydrocarbons are back in fashion in America." Chris discusses renewables and where wind and solar now sit on the deal side. This podcast is jam-packed and covers all of this and a whole lot more. You are going to want to listen to it more than once and share it with your colleagues and friends. If you are interested in podcast sponsorship and partnering with PetroNerds, reach out contact us here. Listen on Itunes

Sind die Aktienmärkte überbewertet und Warren Buffet oder Index? Viel Spaß beim Hören,Dein Matthias Krapp(Transkript dieser Folge weiter unten) NEU!!! Hier kannst Du Dich kostenlos für meinen Minikurs registrieren und reinschauen. Es lohnt sich: https://portal.abatus-beratung.com/geldanlage-kurs/   

This episode's guest is Chris Atherton. Chris is the CEO of EnergyNet, a leading online platform for oil and gas asset transactions. The company has brokered over $10 billion in deals since it was founded in 1999. This year EnergyNet has also launched separate marketplaces for real estate, alternative energy, and other real assets under the Efficient Markets platform. In this episode, Chris shares his 25+ years of experience in the energy industry, discusses trends shaping the future of oil and gas, and dives deep into the role of technology in asset acquisition and divestiture. We cover the current oil and gas M&A market and the trends that Chris is seeing in 2024. We then pivot to discuss the rebrand to "Efficient Markets" and the new opportunities the company is chasing. Whether you're an energy professional or run a brokerage business in another industry, this episode gives some incredible insight into what it takes to get deals done at scale. Hope you enjoy the show!Efficient Markets: https://www.efficientmarkets.comTimestamps:00:00:00 - Precap00:01:22 - Chris' Background00:01:31 - EnergyNet's Business Model00:09:32 - Challenges in Building EnergyNet00:14:15 - Impact of Public Market on Valuations00:19:27 - Ideal Market Conditions00:21:29 - The Role of Relationships and Deal Size00:23:12 - The Importance of Experience and Understanding Sellers00:26:54 - The Role of Standardization and Technology00:27:42 - The Impact of Technology on Targeting Buyers00:35:57 - The Launch of Efficient Markets00:38:44 - Expanding into Other Resources00:41:53 - Comparing Business Models00:42:26 - Working with Government Entities00:50:52 - Diversification and Growth00:52:11 - Unique Deal Stories00:56:12 - Networking in the Industry

When it comes to investing, the general consensus has long been that markets are, generally speaking, pretty efficient. But… what if that's all wrong? On this week's TLDR, a look at the financial theory that's dominated for decades, and why it might be time to change our thinking when it comes to markets. Plus, the European car market is on life support — can anything save it? And, are driverless cars the way of the future? This episode was hosted by Devin Friedman, business reporter Sarah Rieger, financial educator Kyla Scanlon and former hedgefunder Matthew Karasz. Follow us on other platforms, or subscribe to our weekly newsletter: linkin.bio/tldrThe TLDR Podcast is offered by Wealthsimple Media Inc. and is for informational purposes only. The content in the TLDR Podcast is not investment advice, a recommendation to buy or sell assets or securities, and does not represent the views of Wealthsimple Financial Corp or any of its other subsidiaries or affiliates. Wealthsimple Media Inc. does not endorse any third-party views referenced in this content. More information at wealthsimple.com/tldr.

Not since the advent of the internet have people been so excited about a technological development as they are with artificial intelligence (AI). If you buy the hype, AI is the panacea for all our woes. War, inflation, politics, you name it, AI is being hailed as the antidote. To be fair, there are places where AI probably will improve our lives. But those places are where inefficiencies exist. In efficient spaces, like equity markets, can AI make a difference? Tune into this week's episode to hear Tom and Dylan's take on AI.

While the efficient market hypothesis was derived from historical studies, we firmly believe that it is still applicable to our current approach to long-term investment planning. We are once again joined by Symmetry's Brendan Kruh, Research Associate, to talk about current events such as, inflation, rising interest rates, the present war in Ukraine, political tumult, and other compounding difficulties posed by the current economy. To the surprise of exactly no one, we continue to trust that the market will endure these challenges. If you have any questions or would like more information, reach out to us at https://symmetrypartners.com/contact-us/ You can also find us on Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and LinkedIn. As always, we remain invested in your goals. Symmetry Partners, LLC, is an investment advisory firm registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The firm only transacts business in states where it is properly registered, excluded or exempted from registration requirements. Registration of an investment adviser does not imply any specific level of skill or training and does not constitute an endorsement of the firm by the Commission. No one should assume that future performance of any specific investment, investment strategy, product or non-investment related content made reference to directly or indirectly in this material will be profitable. As with any investment strategy, there is the possibility of profitability as well as loss. Due to various factors, including changing market conditions and/or applicable laws, the content may not be reflective of current opinions or positions.   Please note the material is provided for educational and background use only. Moreover, you should not assume that any discussion or information contained in this material serves as the receipt of, or as a substitute for, personalized investment advice.

Investors, and active money managers, rarely outperform capital markets on their own. The data to prove this point is both ubiquitous and vast. We believe that markets are efficient, and investors are best served with a well-diversified portfolio that owns the market for decades a time. In this episode of Unfiltered Finance, we are joined by Symmetry's Brendan Kruh, Research Associate, to discuss the efficient markets theory and how its academic basis can be used to design investors' portfolios. If you have any questions or would like more information, reach out to us at https://symmetrypartners.com/contact-us/ You can also find us on Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and LinkedIn. As always, we remain invested in your goals. Symmetry Partners, LLC, is an investment advisory firm registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The firm only transacts business in states where it is properly registered, excluded or exempted from registration requirements. Registration of an investment adviser does not imply any specific level of skill or training and does not constitute an endorsement of the firm by the Commission. No one should assume that future performance of any specific investment, investment strategy, product or non-investment related content made reference to directly or indirectly in this material will be profitable. As with any investment strategy, there is the possibility of profitability as well as loss. Due to various factors, including changing market conditions and/or applicable laws, the content may not be reflective of current opinions or positions.   Please note the material is provided for educational and background use only. Moreover, you should not assume that any discussion or information contained in this material serves as the receipt of, or as a substitute for, personalized investment advice.  

Podcast: The Lunar Society (LS 30 · TOP 5% )Episode: Austin Vernon - Energy Superabundance, Starship Missiles, & Finding AlphaRelease date: 2022-09-08Austin Vernon is an engineer working on a new method for carbon capture, and he has one of the most interesting blogs on the internet, where he writes about engineering, software, economics, and investing.We discuss how energy superabundance will change the world, how Starship can be turned into a kinetic weapon, why nuclear is overrated, blockchains, batteries, flying cars, finding alpha, & much more!Watch on YouTube. Listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or any other podcast platform. Read the full transcript here.Subscribe to find out about future episodes!Follow Austin on Twitter. Follow me on Twitter for updates on future episodes.Please share if you enjoyed this episode! Helps out a ton!Timestamps(0:00:00) - Intro(0:01:53) - Starship as a Weapon(0:19:24) - Software Productivity(0:41:40) - Car Manufacturing(0:57:39) - Carbon Capture(1:16:53) - Energy Superabundance(1:25:09) - Storage for Cheap Energy(1:31:25) - Travel in Future(1:33:27) - Future Cities(1:39:58) - Flying Cars(1:43:26) - Carbon Shortage(1:48:03) - Nuclear(2:12:44) - Solar(2:14:44) - Alpha & Efficient Markets(2:22:51) - ConclusionTranscriptIntroDwarkesh Patel (00:00:00):Okay! Today, I have the pleasure of interviewing Austin Vernon who writes about engineering, software, economics, and investing on the internet, though not that much else is known about him. So Austin, do you want to give us a bit of info about your background? I know that the only thing the internet knows about you is this one little JPEG that you had to upload with your recent paper. But what about an identity reveal or I guess a little bit of a background reveal? Just to the extent that you're comfortable sharing.Austin Vernon (00:00:29):My degree is in chemical engineering and I've had a lifelong love for engineering as well as things like the Toyota Production System. I've also worked as a chemical engineer in a large processing facility where I've done a lot of petroleum engineering. I taught myself how to write software and now I'm working on more research and the early commercialization of CO2 electrolysis.Dwarkesh Patel (00:00:59):Okay yeah. I'm really interested in talking about all those things. The first question I have is from Alex Berger, who's the co-CEO of Open Philanthropy. When I asked on Twitter what I should ask you, he suggested that I should ask “Why so shady?” Famously you have kind of an anonymous personality, pseudonymous thing going on the internet. What's up with that?Austin Vernon (00:01:25):Yeah. I think he posted a tweet that said “I don't know who this guy is or if he's credible at all, but his stuff sure is interesting”. That really made me laugh. I thought that was hilarious. Fame just doesn't seem necessary, I think I'm fine with my ideas being well known and communicating, but I have less desire to be personally famous.Starship as a WeaponDwarkesh Patel (00:01:52):Gotcha, gotcha. I wanted to start off with a sexy topic, let's talk about using Starship as a kinetic weapon. I thought that was one of the more amusing posts you wrote. Do you want to talk more about how this would be possible?Austin Vernon (00:02:08):Well, I think the main thing with Starship is that you're taking a technology and you're making it about 100 times cheaper for cargo and 1000 times cheaper for people. When things like that happen that drastically, you're just looking at huge changes and it's really hard to anticipate what some of those can be when the change is that drastic. I think there's a lot of moon-based, Mars-based stuff that doesn't really catch the general public's eye. They also have trouble imagining some of the point-to-point travel that could be possible. But when you start talking about it as a weapon, then I think it lets people know they should be paying attention to this technology. And we certainly do not want to be second or third getting it. We should make sure that we're going to be first.Dwarkesh Patel (00:03:05):Yeah. I think you mentioned this in the post, but as recently as the '90s, the cost of sending one kilogram to space was around $20,000. More recently, SpaceX has brought it to $2,000. Lots of interesting questions pop up when you ask, “What will be possible once we get it down to $200 per kilogram to send into orbit?” One of them could be about how we might manufacture these weapons that are not conventional ballistics. Do you want to talk about why this might be an advancement over conventional ballistic weapons?Austin Vernon (00:03:37):Well, regular conventional ballistic weapons are extremely expensive. This is more like a bomb truck. But usually we think of B52 as the bomb truck and this could be even cheaper than the B52, delivering just mass on target. When you think about how expensive it is to fly a B52 from Barksdale in Louisiana all the way across the world.. you can do it from south Texas or Florida with the Starship and get more emissions per day and the fuel ends up being. When you go orbital, it takes a lot to get to orbit. But then once you're in orbit, your fuel consumption's pretty good. So over long distances, it has a lot of advantage. That's why the point-to-point works for longer distances.Austin Vernon (00:04:27):There's really a sweet spot with these weapons where you want it to be pretty accurate, but you also want it to be cheap. You're seeing that problem with Russia right now as they have some fancy parade style weapons that are really expensive, like multi-billion dollar cruise missiles, but they're missing that $5,000 guided artillery shell or that $20,000 JDM that you can just pit massive. Or the multiple launch rocket system, guided rockets. They're really short on all those because I think they had just had a limited amount of chips they could get from the US into Russia to make these advanced weapons.Austin Vernon (00:05:07):But yeah, so the Starship gives you just a platform to deliver. You could put JDMs in a shroud, or you could just have the iron unguided kinetic projectiles, and it just becomes impossible for a ship to launch missiles to intercept yours if your cost is so low, you can just overwhelm them.Dwarkesh Patel (00:05:29):Okay. There are a few terms there that neither I nor the audience might know. So what is JDM? What is shroud? And why are chips a bottleneck here? Why can't it just be any micro-controller?Austin Vernon (00:05:42):So JDM is Joint Direct Attack Munition. So what we did is we took all our Vietnam surplus bonds and we put this little fin-kit on it and it costs like $20,000, which is cheap for a weapon because the actual bond costs, I don't know, $3,000. And then it turns it into a guided weapon that, before you were probably lucky to get within 500 meters of a target, now you can get it in with two meters. So the number of missions you have to do with your planes and all that goes down by orders of magnitude. So it's an absolutely huge advantage in logistics and in just how much firepower you can put on a target. And we didn't even have to make new bombs, we just put these kits on all our old bombs.Austin Vernon (00:06:33):Let's see.. Yeah the chips are a problem. There's this organization called RUSI. I think they're in the UK, but they've been tearing down all these Russian weapons they found in Ukraine and they all have American chips in them. So technically, they're not supposed to be able to get these chips. And yet, Russia can't make a lot of its own chips. And especially not the specialized kinds you might want for guided weapons. So they've been somehow smuggling in chips from Americans to make their advanced weaponsDwarkesh Patel (00:07:03):What is special about these? As far as I'm aware, the trade with China is still going on and we get a lot of our chips manufactured from Taiwan or China. So why can't they do the same?Austin Vernon (00:07:14):It's the whole integration. It's not just the specific chip, but the board. They're more like PLCs where you almost have wired-in programming and they come with this ability to do the guidance and all that stuff. It all kind of has to work together. I think that's the way I understand it. I don't know. Maybe I don't have a really good answer for that one, but they're hard to replicate is what matters.Dwarkesh Patel (00:07:43):Okay that's interesting. Yeah, I guess that has a lot of interesting downstream effects, because for example, India buys a lot of its weapons from Russia. So if Russia doesn't have access to these, then other countries that buy from Russia won't have access to these either.Dwarkesh Patel (00:07:58):You had an interesting speculation in the post where you suggested that you could just keep these kinetic weapons in orbit, in a sort of Damocles state really, almost literally. That sounds like an incredibly scary and risky scenario where you could have orbital decay and you could have these kinetic weapons falling from the sky and destroying cities. Do you think this is what it will look like or could look like in 10 to 20 years?Austin Vernon (00:08:26):Well, yeah, so the advantage of having weapons on orbit is you can hit targets faster. So if you're launching the rocket from Florida, you're looking at maybe 30 minutes to get there and the target can move away in that time. Whereas if you're on orbit, you can have them spaced out to where you're hitting within a few minutes. So that's the advantage there.Austin Vernon (00:08:46):You really have to have a two stage system I think for most, because if you have a really aerodynamic rod that's going to give you really good performance in the low atmosphere, it'll end up going too fast and just burn up before it gets there. Tungsten's maybe the only thing that you could have that could go all the way through which is why I like the original concept of using these big tungsten rods the size of a telephone pole. But tungsten's pretty expensive. And the rod concept kind of limits what you can do.Austin Vernon (00:09:28):So a lot of these weapons will have, that's what I was talking about with the shroud, something that actually slows you down in the upper atmosphere. And then once you're at the velocity where you're not just going to melt, then you open it up and let it go. So if you actually had it fall from the sky, some may make it to the ground, but a lot would burn up. So a lot of the stuff that makes it to the ground is actually pretty light. It's stuff that can float and has a large surface area. Yeah, that's the whole thing with Starship. Or not Starship, but Starlink. All those satellites are meant to completely fall apart on de-orbit.Dwarkesh Patel (00:10:09):I see. One of the implications of that is that these may be less powerful than we might fear, because since kinetic energy is mass times velocity squared and there's an upper bound on the velocity (velocity being the component that grows the kinetic energy faster), then it suggests that you can upper bound the power these things will have. You know what I mean?Austin Vernon (00:10:32):Yeah, so even the tungsten rods. Sometimes people, they're not very good at physics, so they don't do the math. They think it's going to be a nuclear weapon, but it's really not. I think even the tungsten rod is like 10 tons of T&T or something. It's a big bomb, but it's not a super weapon.Austin Vernon (00:10:54):So I think I said in the post, it's about using advanced missiles where they're almost more defensive weapons so I can keep you from pitting your ship somewhere. Yeah I could try to bombard your cities, but I can't take ground with it. I can't even police sea lanes with it really. I'd still have to use regular ships if I had this air cover to go enforce the rules of the sea and stuff like that.Dwarkesh Patel (00:11:23):Yeah. You speculated in the post, I think, that you could load this up with shrapnel and then it could explode next to an incoming missile or an incoming aircraft. Could these get that accurate? Because that was surprising speculation to me.Austin Vernon (00:11:43):I think for ships, it's pretty... I was watching videos of how fast a ship can turn and stuff. If you're going to do an initial target on a ship to try to kill their radars, you'd want to do it above the ceiling of their missiles. So it's like, how much are they going to move between your release where you stop steering and that? The answer's maybe 1000 feet. So that's pretty simple because you just shrapnel the area.Austin Vernon (00:12:12):Targeting aircraft, you would be steering all the way in. I'd say it's doable, but it'd be pretty hard. You'd actually maybe want to even go slower than you would with the ship attack. You'd need a specialized package to attack the aircraft, but if you have enough synthetic aperture radar and stuff like that, you could see these aircraft using satellites and then guide the bomb in the whole way. You could even load heat seeking missiles into a package that unfurls right next to them and launch conventional missiles too, probably. It'd be pretty hard to do some of this stuff, but they're just the things you might be able to do if you put some effort into it.Dwarkesh Patel (00:12:57):Yeah. The reason I find this kind of speculation really interesting is because when you look at the modern weaponry that's used in conflicts, it just seems directly descendant from something you would've seen in World War II or something. If you think about how much warfare changed between 1900 and 1940, it's like, yeah, they're not even the same class of weapons anymore. So it's interesting to think about possibilities like these where the entire category of weapons has changed.Austin Vernon (00:13:33):You're right and that's because our physical technology hasn't changed that much. So it really has just made more sense to put better electronics in the same tanks. We haven't learned enough about tanks to build a new physical tank that's way better, so we just keep upgrading our existing tanks with better electronics. They're much more powerful, they're more accurate. A lot of times, they have longer range weapons and better sensors. So the tank looks the same, but it maybe has several times more killing power. But the Ukraine war right now, they're using a lot of 40, 50 year old weapons so that especially looks like that.Dwarkesh Patel (00:14:20):Yeah. Which kind of worries you if you think about the stockpiles our own military has. I'm not well educated on the topic, but I imagine that we don't have the newest of the new thing. We probably have maintained versions of decades old technology.Austin Vernon (00:14:35):We spend so much, we've got relatively... This kind of gets into debate about how ready our military is. For certain situations, it's more ready than others. I'd say in general, most people talking about it have the incentive to downplay our capabilities because they want more defense spending. There's lots of reasons. So I think we're probably more capable than what you might see from some editorial in The Hill or whatever. Us just sending a few weapons over to Ukraine and seeing how successful they've been at using them, I think, shows a little bit of that.Austin Vernon (00:15:18):There's so much uncertainty when it comes to fighting, especially when you're talking about a naval engagement, where we don't just don't have that many ships in general… you can have some bad luck. So I think you always want to be a little bit wary. You don't want to get overconfident.Dwarkesh Patel (00:15:37):Yeah. And if the offensive tech we sent to Ukraine is potentially better than the defensive tech, it's very possible that even a ballistic missile that China or Russia could launch would sink a battleship and then kill the 2,000 or 1,000 whatever soldiers that are on board. Or I guess, I don't know, you think this opens up avenues for defensive tech as well?Austin Vernon (00:16:03):Yeah––generally the consensus is that defensive technology has improved much more recently than offensive technology. This whole strategy China has is something they call anti-access/area denial, A2/AD. That's basically just how missiles have gotten better because the sensors on missiles have gotten better. So they can keep our ships from getting close to them but they can't really challenge us in Hawaii or something. And it really goes both ways, I think people forget that. So yeah, it's hard for us to get close to China, but Taiwan has a lot of missiles with these new sensors as well. So I think it's probably tougher for China to do it close to Taiwan than most people would say.Dwarkesh Patel (00:16:55):Oh, interesting. Yeah, can you talk more about that? Because every time I read about this, people are saying that if China wanted to, they could knock out Taiwan's defenses in a short amount of time and take it over. Yeah, so can you talk about why that's not possible?Austin Vernon (00:17:10):Well, it might be, but I think it's a guess of the uncertainty [inaudible 00:17:14]. Taiwan has actually one of the largest defense budgets in the world and they've recently been upping it. I think they spend, I don't know, $25 billion a year and they added an extra $5 billion. And they've been buying a lot of anti-ship missiles, a lot of air defense missiles.. Stuff that Ukraine could only dream of. I think Ukraine's military budget was $2 billion and they have a professional army. And then the other thing is Taiwan's an island, whereas Russia could just roll over the land border into Ukraine.Austin Vernon (00:17:44):There's just been very few successful amphibious landings in history. The most recent ones were all the Americans in World War II and Korea. So the challenge there is just... It's kind of on China to execute perfectly and do that. So if they had perfect execution, then possibly it would be feasible. But if their air defenses on their ships aren't quite as good as we think they could possibly be, then they could also end up with half their fleet underwater within 10 hours.Dwarkesh Patel (00:18:20):Interesting. And how has your view of Taiwan's defensive capabilities changed... How has the Ukraine conflict updated your opinion on what might happen?Austin Vernon (00:18:29):I didn't really know how much about it. And then I started looking at Wikipedia and stuff and all this stuff they're doing. Taiwan just has a lot of modern platforms like F16s with our anti-ship missiles. They actually have a lot of their own. They have indigenous fighter bombers, indigenous anti-ship missiles because they're worried we might not always sell them to them.Austin Vernon (00:18:54):They've even recently gotten these long range cruise missiles that could possibly target leadership in Beijing. So I think that makes it uncomfortable for the Chinese leadership. If you attack them, you're going to have to go live in a bunker. But again, I'm not a full-time military analyst or something, so there's a lot of uncertainty around what I'm saying. It's not a given that China's just going to roll over them.Software ProductivityDwarkesh Patel (00:19:22):Okay. That's comforting to hear. Let's talk about an area where I have a little bit of a point of contact. I thought your blog post about software and the inability of it to increase productivity numbers, I thought that was super fascinating. So before I ask you questions about it, do you want to lay out the thesis there?Austin Vernon (00:19:43):Yeah. So if there's one post I kind of felt like I caught lightning in a bottle on, it's that one. Everything I wanted to put in, it just fit together perfectly, which is usually not the case.Austin Vernon (00:19:55):I think the idea is that the world's so complex and we really underestimate that complexity. If you're going to digitize processes and automate them and stuff, you have to capture all that complexity basically at the bit level, and that's extremely difficult. And then you also have diminishing returns where the easily automatable stuff goes first and then it's increasing corner cases to get to the end, so you just have to go through more and more code basically. We don't see runaway productivity growth from software because we're fighting all this increasing complexity.Dwarkesh Patel (00:20:39):Yeah. Have you heard of the waterbed theory of complexity by the way?Austin Vernon (00:20:42):I don't think so.Dwarkesh Patel (00:20:44):Okay. It's something that comes up in compiler design: the idea is that there's a fixed amount of complexity in a system. If you try to reduce it, what you'll end up doing is just you'll end up migrating the complexity elsewhere. I think an example that's used of this is when they try to program languages that are not type safe, something like Python. You can say, “oh, it's a less complex language”, but really, you've added complexity when, I don't know, two different types of numbers are interacting like a float and an int. As your program grows, that complexity exponentially grows along with all the things that could go wrong when you're making two things interact in a way that you were expecting not to. So yeah, the idea is you can just choose where to have your complexity, but you can't get rid of that complexity.Austin Vernon (00:21:38):I think that's kind of an interesting thing when you start pairing it with management theory... when you add up all the factors, the most complex thing you're doing is high volume car manufacturing. And so we got a lot of innovations and organization from car manufacturers like the assembly line. Then you had Sloan at GM basically creating the way the modern corporation is run, then you have the Toyota Production System.Austin Vernon (00:22:11):But arguably now, creating software is actually the most complex thing we do. So there's all these kinds of squishy concepts that underlie things like the Toyota Production System that softwares had to learn and reimagine and adopt and you see that with Agile where, “oh, we can't have long release times. We need to be releasing every day,” which means we're limiting inventory there.Austin Vernon (00:22:42):There's a whole thing especially that's showing up in software that existed in carbon manufacturing where you're talking about reducing communication. So Jeff Bezos kind of now famously said, "I want to reduce communication," which is counterintuitive to a lot of people. This is age-old in car manufacturing where Toyota has these cards that go between workstations and they tell you what to do. So people normally think of them as limiting inventory, but it also tells the worker exactly what they're supposed to be doing at what pace, at what time. The assembly line is like that too. You just know what to do because you're standing there and there's a part here and it needs to go on there, and it comes by at the pace you're supposed to work at.Austin Vernon (00:23:29):It's so extreme that there's this famous paper, by List, Syverson and Levitt. They went to a car factory and studied how defects propagated in cars and stuff. Once a car factory gets up and running, it doesn't matter what workers you put in there, if workers are sick or you get new workers, the defect rate is the same. So all the knowledge is built into the manufacturing line.Austin Vernon (00:23:59):There's these concepts around idiot-proofing and everything that are very similar to what you'll see. You had Uncle Bob on here. So Uncle Bob says only put one input into a function and stuff like that because you'll mix them up otherwise. The Japanese call it poka-yoke. You make it where you can't mess it up. And that's another way to reduce communication, and then software, of course you have APIs.Austin Vernon (00:24:28):So I'm really interested in this overall concept of reducing communication, and reducing how much cooperation and everything we need to run the economy.Dwarkesh Patel (00:24:41):Right. Right. Speaking of the Toyota Production System, one thing they do to reduce that defect rate is if there's a problem, all the workers in that chain are forced to go to the place where the defect problem is and fix it before doing anything else. The idea there is that this will give them context to understand what the problem was and how to make sure it doesn't happen again. It also prevents a build up of inventory in a way that keeps making these defects happen or just keeps accumulating inventory before the place that can fix the defects is able to take care of them.Austin Vernon (00:25:17):Right. Yeah, yeah. Exactly.Dwarkesh Patel (00:25:19):Yeah. But I think one interesting thing about software and complexity is that software is a place where complexity is the highest in our world right now but software gives you the choice to interface with the complexity you want to interface with. I guess that's just part of specialization in general, but you could say for example that a machine learning model is really complex, but ideally, you get to a place where that's the only kind of complexity you have to deal with. You're not having to deal with the complexity of “How is this program compiled? How are the libraries that I'm using? How are they built?” You can fine tune and work on the complexity you need to work on.Dwarkesh Patel (00:26:05):It's similar to app development. Byrne Hobart has this blog post about Stripe as solid state. The basic idea is that Stripe hides all the complexity of the financial system: it charges a higher fee, but you can just treat it as an abstraction of a tithe you have to pay, and it'll just take care of that entire process so you can focus on your comparative advantage.Austin Vernon (00:26:29):It's really actually very similar in car manufacturing and the Toyota Production System if you really get into it. It's very much the same conceptual framework. There's this whole idea in Toyota Production System, everyone works at the same pace, which you kind of talked about. But also, your work content is the same. There's no room for not standardizing a way you're going to do things. So everyone gets together and they're like, “All right, we're going to do this certain part. We're going to put it together this certain way at this little micro station. And it's going to be the same way every time.” That's part of how they're reducing the defect rates. If your assembly process is longer than what your time allotment is to stay in touch with the rest of the process, then you just keep breaking it down into smaller pieces. So through this, each person only has to know a very small part of it.Austin Vernon (00:27:33):The overall engineering team has all sorts of strategies and all sorts of tools to help them break up all these processes into very small parts and make it all hold together. It's still very, very hard, but it's kind of a lot of the same ideas because you're taking away the complexity of making a $30,000 car or 30,000 part car where everyone's just focusing on their one little part and they don't care what someone else is doing.Dwarkesh Patel (00:28:06):Yeah. But the interesting thing is that it seems like you need one person who knows how everything fits together. Because from what I remember, one of the tenets of the Toyota Production System was you need to have a global view. So, in that book, was it the machine or the other one, the Toyota Production System book? But anyways, they were talking about examples where people would try to optimize for local efficiencies. I think they especially pointed to Ford and GM for trying to do this where they would try to make machines run all the time. And locally, you could say that, “oh this machine or process is super efficient. It's always outputting stuff.” But it ignores how that added inventory or that process had a bad consequence for the whole system.Dwarkesh Patel (00:28:50):And so it's interesting if you look at a company like Tesla that's able to do this really well. Tesla is run like a monarchy and this one guy has this total global view of how the entire process is supposed to run and where you have these inefficiencies.. You had some great examples of this in the blog post. I think one of the examples is this guy (the author) goes to this factory and he asks, "Is this an efficient factory?" And the guy's like, "Yeah, this is totally efficient. There's nothing we can do, adopting the Toyota way, to make this more efficient."Dwarkesh Patel (00:29:22):And so then he's like, "Okay, let me look." And he finds that they're treating steel in some way, and the main process does only take a couple of seconds, but some local manager decided that it would be more efficient to ship their parts out, to get the next stage of the process done somewhere else. So this is locally cheaper, but the result is that it takes weeks to get these parts shipped out and get them back. Which means that the actual time that the parts spend getting processed is 0.1% of the time, making the whole process super inefficient. So I don't know, it seems like the implication is you need a very monarchical structure, with one person who has a total view, in order to run such a system. Or am I getting that wrong?Austin Vernon (00:30:12):Not necessarily. I mean, you do have to make sure you're not optimizing locally, but I think it's the same. You have that same constraint in software, but I think a lot of times people are just running over it because processing has been getting so much cheaper. People are expensive, so if you could save development time, it just ends up the trade offs are different when you're talking about the tyranny of physical items and stuff like that, the constraints get a little more severe. But I think you have the same overall. You still have to fight local optimization, but the level you have to is probably different with physical goods.Austin Vernon (00:30:55):I was thinking about the smart grid situation from a software perspective, and there's this problem where, okay, I'm putting my solar farm here and it's impacting somewhere far away, and that's then creating these really high upgrade costs, that cost two or three times more than my solar farm. Well, the obvious thing would be, if you're doing software, is like you're going to break all these up into smaller sections, and then you wouldn't be impacting each other and all that, and you could work and focus on your own little thing.Austin Vernon (00:31:29):But the problem with that is if you're going to disconnect these areas of the grid, the equipment to do that is extremely expensive. It's not like I'm just going to hit a new tab and open a new file and start writing a new function. And not only that, but you still have to actually coordinate how this equipment is going to operate. So if you just let the grid flow as it does, everyone knows what's going to happen because they could just calculate the physics. If you start adding in all these checkpoints where humans are doing stuff, then you have to actually interface with the humans, and the amount of things that can happen really starts going up. So it's actually a really bad idea to try to cart all this stuff off, just because of the reality of the physical laws and the equipment you need and everything like that.Dwarkesh Patel (00:32:22):Okay. Interesting. And then I think you have a similar Coasean argument in your software post about why vertically integrating software is beneficial. Do you want to explain that thesis?Austin Vernon (00:32:34):Yeah. I think it actually gets to what we're talking about here, where it allows you to avoid the local optimization. Because a lot of times you're trying to build a software MVP, and you're tying together a few services… they don't do quite what you need, so if you try to scale that, it would just break. But if you're going to take a really complex process, like car manufacturing or retail distribution, or the home buying process or something, you really have to vertically integrate it to be able to create a decent end-to-end experience and avoid that local optimization.Austin Vernon (00:33:20):And it's just very hard otherwise, because you just can't coordinate effectively if you have 10 different vendors trying to do all the same thing. You end up in just constant vendor meetings, where you're trying to decide what the specs are or something instead of giving someone the authority, or giving a team the authority to just start building stuff. Then if you look at these companies, they have to implement these somewhat decentralized processes when they get too complex, but at least they have control over how they're interfacing with each other. Walmart, as the vendors, control their own stock. They don't tell the vendor, "We need X parts." It's just like, it's on you to make sure your shelf is stocked.Dwarkesh Patel (00:34:07):Yeah. Yeah. So what was really interesting to me about this part of the post was, I don't know, I guess I had heard of this vision of we're software setting, where everybody will have a software as a service company, and they'll all be interfacing with each other in some sort of cycle where they're all just calling each other's APIs. And yeah, basically everybody and their mother would have a SAAS company. The implication here was, from your argument, that given the necessity of integrating all those complexity vertically in a coherent way, then the winners in software should end up being a few big companies, right? They compete with each other, but still...Austin Vernon (00:34:49):I think that's especially true when you're talking about combining bits and apps. Maybe less true for pure software. The physical world is just so much more complex, and so the constraints it creates are pretty extreme, compared to like... you could maybe get away with more of everyone and their mom having an API in a pure software world.Dwarkesh Patel (00:35:14):Right. Yeah. I guess, you might think that even in the physical world, given that people really need to focus on their comparative advantage, they would just try to outsource the software parts to these APIs. But is there any scenario where the learning curve for people who are not in the firm can be fast enough that they can keep up with the complexity? Because there's huge gains for specialization and competition that go away if this is the world we're forced to live in. And then I guess we have a lot of counter examples, or I guess we have a lot of examples of what you're talking about. Like Apple is the biggest market cap in the world, right? And famously they're super vertically integrated. And yeah, obviously their thing is combining hardware and software. But yeah, is there any world in which it can keep that kind of benefit, but have it be within multiple firms?Austin Vernon (00:36:10):This is a post I've got on my list I want to write. The blockchain application, which excites me personally the most, is reimagining enterprise software. Because the things you're talking about, like hard typing and APIs are just basically built into some of these protocols. So I think it just really has a lot of exciting implications for how much you can decentralize software development. But the thing is, you can still do that within the firm. So I think I mentioned this, if the government's going to place all these rules on the edge of the firm, it makes transactions with other firms expensive. So a few internal transactions can be cheaper, because they're avoiding the government reporting and taxes and all that kind of stuff. So I think you'd have to think about how these technologies can reduce transaction costs overall and decentralize that, but also what are the costs between firms?Dwarkesh Patel (00:37:22):Yeah, it's really interesting if the costs are logistic, or if they're based on the knowledge that is housed, as you were talking about, within a factory or something. Because if it is just logistical and stuff, like you had to report any outside transactions, then it does imply that those technology blockchain could help. But if it is just that you need to be in the same office, and if you're not, then you're going to have a hard time keeping up with what the new requirements for the API are, then maybe it's that, yeah, maybe the inevitability is that you'll have these big firms that are able to vertically integrate.Austin Vernon (00:37:59):Yeah, for these big firms to survive, they have to be somewhat decentralized within them. So I think you have... you're going to the same place as just how are we viewing it, what's our perception? So even if it's a giant corporation, it's going to have very independent business units as opposed to something like a 1950s corporation.Dwarkesh Patel (00:38:29):Yeah. Byrne Hobart, by the way, has this really interesting post that you might enjoy reading while you're writing that post. It's type safe communications, and it's about that Bezos thing, about his strict style for how to communicate and how little to communicate. There's many examples in Amazon protocols where you have to... the only way you can put in this report, is in this place you had to give a number. You can't just say, "This is very likely," you had to say like, "We project X percent increase," or whatever. So it has to be a percent. And there's many other cases where they're strict about what type definition you can have in written reports or something. It has kind of the same consequence that type strict languages have, which is that you can keep track of what the value is through the entire chain of the flow of control.Austin Vernon (00:39:22):You've got to keep work content standardized.Dwarkesh Patel (00:39:26):So we've been hinting at the Coasean analysis to this. I think we just talked about it indirectly, but for the people who might not know, Coase has this paper called The Theory of Firms, and he's trying to explain why we have firms at all. Why not just have everybody compete in the open market for employment, for anything? Why do we have jobs? Why not just have... you can just hire a secretary by the day or something.Dwarkesh Patel (00:39:51):And the conclusion he comes to is that by having a firm you're reducing the transaction cost. So people will have the same knowledge about what needs to get done, obviously you're reducing the transaction cost of contracting, finding labor, blah, blah, blah. And so the conclusion it comes to is the more the transaction costs are reduced within people in a firm, as compared to the transaction cost between different firms, the bigger firms will get. So I guess that's why the implication of your argument was that there should be bigger tech firms, right?Austin Vernon (00:40:27):Yes, yes, definitely. Because they can basically decrease the transaction costs faster within, and then even at the limit, if you have large transaction costs outside the firm, between other firms that are artificially imposed, then it will make firms bigger.Dwarkesh Patel (00:40:45):What does the world look like in that scenario? So would it just be these Japanese companies, these huge conglomerates who are just... you rise through the ranks, from the age of 20 until you die? Is that what software will turn into?Austin Vernon (00:40:59):It could be. I mean, I think it will be lots of very large companies, unless there's some kind of change in inner firm transaction costs. And again, that could possibly come from blockchain like technology, but you probably also need better regulation to make that cheaper, and then you would have smaller firms. But again, in the end, it doesn't really matter. You'd be working in your little unit of the big bank of corporate, or whatever. So I don't know what that would look like on a personal level.Car ManufacturingDwarkesh Patel (00:41:40):Yeah. Okay. So speaking of these Japanese companies, let's talk about car manufacturing and everything involved there. Yeah, so we kind of hinted at a few elements of the Toyota way and production earlier, but do you want to give a brief overview of what that is, so we can compare it to potentially other systems?Austin Vernon (00:42:02):I think all these kinds of lean Toyota process systems, they do have a lot of similarities, where mostly you want to even-out your production, so you're producing very consistently, and you want to break it into small steps and you want to limit the amount of inventory you have in your system. When you do this, it makes it easy to see how the process is running and limit defects. And the ultimate is you're really trying to reduce defects, because they're very expensive. It's a little bit hard to summarize. I think that's my best shot at it there, quickly off the top of my head.Dwarkesh Patel (00:42:49):Yeah. The interesting thing about the Toyota system, so at least when the machine was released, is they talk about... that book was released I think the nineties, and they went to the history of Toyota, and one of the interesting things they talked about was there was a brief time where the company ran... I think, was this after World War II? But anyways, the company ran into some troubles. They needed to layoff people to not go bankrupt. They had much more debt on books than they had assets. So yeah, they wanted to layoff people, but obviously the people were not happy about this, so there were violent protests about this. And in fact I think the US written constitution gave strong protections to labor that they hadn't had before, which gave labor an even stronger hand here.Dwarkesh Patel (00:43:42):So anyway, Toyota came to this agreement with the unions that they'd be allowed to do this one time layoff to get the company on the right track, but afterwards they could never lay somebody off. Which would mean that a person who works at Toyota works there from the time they graduate college or high school till they die. Right? I don't know, that's super intense in a culture. I mean, in software, where you have the average tenure in a company's one year, the difference is so much.Dwarkesh Patel (00:44:13):And there's so many potential benefits here, I guess a lot of drawbacks too. But one is, obviously if you're talking in a time scale of 50 years, rather than one year, the incentives are more aligned between the company and the person. Because anything you could do in one year is not going to have a huge impact on your stock options in that amount of time. But if this company's your retirement plan, then you have a much stronger incentive to make sure that things at this company run well, which means you're probably optimizing for the company's long term cash flow yourself. And also, there's obviously benefits to having that knowledge built up in the firm from people who have been there for a long time. But yeah, that was an interesting difference. One of the interesting differences, at least.Austin Vernon (00:45:00):I mean, I think there's diminishing returns to how long your tenure's going to be. Maybe one year's too short, but there's a certain extent to where, if you grow faster than your role at the company, then it's time to switch. It's going to depend on the person, but maybe five years is a good number. And so if you're not getting promoted within the firm, then your human capital's being wasted, because you could go somewhere else and have more responsibility and perform better for them. Another interesting thing about that story, is almost all lean turnarounds, where they're like, we're going to implement something like Toyota production system, they come with no layoff promises. Because if you're going to increase productivity, that's when everyone's like, "Oh gosh, I'm going to get laid off." So instead you have to increase output and take more market share, is what you do.Dwarkesh Patel (00:46:00):It's kind of like burning your bridges, right? So this is the only way.Austin Vernon (00:46:05):The process really requires complete buy-in, because a lot of your ideas for how you're going to standardize work content come from your line workers, because that's what they're doing every day. So if you don't have their buy-in, then it's going to fail. So that's why it's really necessary to have those kinds of clauses.Dwarkesh Patel (00:46:22):Yeah. Yeah, that makes sense. I think it was in your post where you said, if somebody makes their process more efficient, and therefore they're getting more work allotted to them, then obviously they're going to stop doing that. Right? Which means that, I don't know, do you ought to give more downtime to your best workers or something or the people who are most creative in your company?Austin Vernon (00:46:48):I was just going to say, if you're a worker at a plant, then a lot of times for that level of employee, actually small rewards work pretty well. A lot of people on drilling rigs used to give the guys that met certain targets $100 Walmart gift cards. So sometimes small, it's a reward, new ideas, stuff like that works.Austin Vernon (00:47:15):But because the whole system has to grow together, if you just improve one part of the process, it may not help you. You have to be improving all the right processes so normally it's much more collaborative. There's some engineer that's looking at it and like, "All right, this is where we're struggling," or "We have our defects here." And then you go get together with that supervisor and the workers in that area, then you all figure out what improvements could be together. Because usually the people already know. This is like, you see a problem at the top, and you're just now realizing it. Then you go talk to the people doing the work, and they're like, "Oh yeah, I tried to tell you about that two weeks ago, man." And then you figure out a better process from there.Dwarkesh Patel (00:47:58):Based on your recommendation, and Steven Malina's recommendation, I recently read The Goal. And after reading the book, I'm much more understanding of the value that consultants bring to companies, potentially. Because before you could think, “What does a 21 year old, who just graduated college, know about manufacturing? What are they going to tell this plant that they didn't already know? How could they possibly be adding value?” And afterwards, it occurred to me that there's so many abstract concepts that are necessary to understand in order to be able to increase your throughput. So now I guess I can see how somebody who's generically smart but doesn't have that much industry knowledge might be able to contribute to a plan and value consultants could be bringing.Austin Vernon (00:48:43):I think this applies to consultants or young engineers. A lot of times you put young engineers just right in the thick of it, working in production or process right on the line, where you're talking to the workers the most. And there's several advantages to that. One, the engineer learns faster, because they're actually seeing the real process, and the other is there's easy opportunities for them to still have a positive impact on the business, because there's $100 bills laying on the ground just from going up and talking to your workers and learning about stuff and figuring out problems they might be having and finding out things like that that could help you lower cost. I think there's a lot of consultants that... I don't know how the industry goes, but I would guess there's... I know Accenture has 600,000 employees. I don't know if that many, but it's just a large number, and a lot are doing more basic tasks and there are some people that are doing the more high level stuff, but it's probably a lot less.Dwarkesh Patel (00:49:51):Yeah. Yeah. There was a quote from one of those books that said, "At Toyota we don't consider you an engineer unless you need to wash your hands before you can have lunch." Yeah. Okay. So in your blog post about car manufacturing, you talk about Tesla. But what was really interesting is that in a footnote, I think you mentioned that you bought Tesla stocks in 2014, which also might be interesting to talk about again when we go to the market and alpha part. But anyways. Okay. And then you talk about Tesla using something called metal manufacturing. So first of all, how did you know in 2014 that Tesla was headed here? And what is metal manufacturing and how does it differ from the Toyota production system?Austin Vernon (00:50:42):Yeah. So yeah, I just was goofing around and made that up. Someone actually emailed me and they were like, "Hey, what is this metal manufacturing? I want to learn more about this." It's like, "Well, sorry, I just kind of made that up, because I thought it sounded funny." But yeah, I think it's really the idea that there's this guy, Dimming, and he found a lot of the same ideas that Toyota ended up implementing, and Toyota respected his ideas a lot. America never really got fully on board with this in manufacturing. Of course it's software people that are coming and implementing this and manufacturing now which is like the real American way of doing things.Austin Vernon (00:51:32):Because when you look at these manufacturing processes, the best place to save money and optimize is before you ever build the process or the plant. It's very early on. So I think if there's a criticism of Toyota, it's that they're optimizing too late and they're not creative enough in their production technology and stuff. They're very conservative, and that's why they have hydrogen cars and not battery cars, even though they came out with the Prius, which was the first large sales hybrid.Austin Vernon (00:52:12):So yeah, I think what Tesla's doing with really just making Dimming's ideas our own and really just Americanizing it with like, "Oh, well, we want to cast this, because that would be easier." Well, we can't, because we don't have an alloy. "We'll invent the alloy." I love it. It's great. Mostly, I love Tesla because they do such... I agree with their engineering principles. So I didn't know that the company would come to be so valuable. It's just, I was just always reading their stock reports and stuff so I was like, "Well, at least I need to buy some stock so that I have a justification for spending all this time reading their 10 Ks."Dwarkesh Patel (00:52:53):I want to get a little bit more in detail about the exact difference here. So lean production, I guess, is they're able to produce their cars without defects and with matching demand or whatever. But what is it about their system that prevents them from making the kinds of innovations that Tesla is able to make?Austin Vernon (00:53:16):It's just too incremental. It's so hard to get these processes working. So the faster you change things, it becomes very, very difficult to change the whole system. So one of the advantages Tesla has is, well, if you're making electric cars, you have just a lot less parts. So that makes it easier. And once you start doing the really hard work of basically digitizing stuff, like they don't have speed limit dials, you start just removing parts from the thing and you can actually then start increasing your rate of change even faster.Austin Vernon (00:53:55):It makes it harder to get behind if you have these old dinosaur processes. But I think there's a YouTube channel called The Limiting Factor, and he actually went into the detail of numbers on what it costs for Tesla to do their giga-casting, which saves tons of parts and deletes zillions of thousands of robots from their process. If you already have an existing stamping line and all that, where you're just changing the dyes based on your model, then it doesn't make sense to switch to the casting. But if you're building new factories, like Tesla is, well, then it makes sense to do the casting and you can build new factories very cheaply and comparatively and much easier. So there's a little bit of... they just have lots of technical data, I guess you could say, in a software sense.Dwarkesh Patel (00:54:47):Yeah. That's super interesting. The analogy is actually quite... it's like, Microsoft has probably tens of thousands of software engineers who are just basically servicing its technical debt and making sure that the old systems run properly, whereas a new company like Tesla doesn't have to deal with that. The thing that's super interesting about Tesla is like, Tesla's market cap is way over a trillion, right? And then Toyota's is 300 billion. And Tesla is such a new company. The fact that you have this Toyota, which is legendary for its production system, and this company that's less than two decades old is worth many times more, it's kind of funny.Austin Vernon (00:55:32):Yeah. I would say that, in that measure, I don't like market cap. You need to use enterprise value. These old car companies have so much debt, that if you look at enterprise value, it's not so jarring. Literally, I don't know, I can't remember what GM's worth, like 40 billion or something, and then they have $120 billion in debt. So their enterprise value is five times more than their market cap.Dwarkesh Patel (00:56:02):What is enterprise value?Austin Vernon (00:56:03):Enterprise value is basically what is the value of the actual company before you have any claims on it. It's the market cap plus your debt. But basically, if you're the equity holder and the company gets sold, you have to pay the debt first. So you only get the value of what's left over after the debt. So that's why market cap is... when Tesla has very little debt and a lot of market cap, and then these other guys have a lot of debt with less market cap, it skews the comparison.Dwarkesh Patel (00:56:34):Yeah, and one of the interesting things, it's similar to your post on software, is that it seems like one of the interesting themes across your work is automating processes often leads to decreased eventual throughput, because you're probably adding capacity in a place that you're deciding excess capacity, and you're also making the money part of your operation less efficient by have it interface with this automated part. It sounds like there's a similar story there with car manufacturing, right?Austin Vernon (00:57:08):Yeah. I think if we tie it back into what we were talking about earlier, automation promotes local optimization and premature optimization. So a lot of times it's better to figure out, instead of automating a process to make a really hard to make part, you should just figure out how to make that part easy to make. Then after you do that, then it may not even make sense to automate it anymore. Or get rid of it all together, then you just delete all those robots.Austin's Carbon Capture ProjectDwarkesh Patel (00:57:37):Yeah. Yeah, that's interesting. Okay. So let's talk about the project that you're working on right now, the CO2 electrolysis. Do you want to explain what this is, and what your current approach is? What is going on here?Austin Vernon (00:57:55):Yeah, so I think just overall, electrofuels right now are super underrated, because you're about to get hopefully some very cheap electricity from solar, or it could be, maybe, some land. If we get really lucky, possibly some nuclear, geothermal. It'll just make sense to create liquid fuels, or natural gas, or something just from electricity and air, essentially.Austin Vernon (00:58:25):There's a whole spectrum of ways to do this, so O2 electrolysis is one of those. Basically, you take water, electricity, and CO2, and a catalyst. And then, you make more complex molecules, like carbon monoxide, or formic acid, or ethylene, or ethanol, or methane or methine. Those are all options. But it's important to point out that, right now, I think if you added up all the CO2 electrolyzers in the world, you'd be measuring their output and kilograms per day. We make millions of tons per day off of the products I just mentioned. So there's a massive scale up if it's going to have a wider impact.Austin Vernon (00:59:15):So there's some debate. I think the debate for the whole electrofuels sector is: How much are you going to do in the electrolyzer? One company whose approach I really like is Terraform Industries. They want to make methane, which is the main natural gas. But they're just making hydrogen in their electrolyzer, and then they capture the CO2 and then put it into a methanation reaction. So everything they're doing is already world scale, basically.Austin Vernon (00:59:47):We've had hydrogen electrolyzers power fertilizer plants, providing them with the Hydrogen that they need. Methanation happens in all ammonia plants and several other examples. It's well known, very old. Methanation is hydrogen CO2 combined to make water and methane. So their approach is more conservative, but if you do more in the electrolyzer, like I'm going to make the methane actually in the electrolyzer instead of adding this other process, you could potentially have a much simpler process that has less CapEx and scales downward better. Traditional chemical engineering heavily favors scaling. With the more Terraform processes, they're playing as absolutely ginormous factories. These can take a long time to build.Austin Vernon (01:00:42):So one of the things they're doing is: they're having to fight the complexity that creeps into chemical engineering every step of the way. Because if they don't, they'll end up with a plant that takes 10 years to build, and that's not their goal. It takes 10 years to build a new refinery, because they're so complex. So yeah, that's where I am. I'm more on the speculative edge, and it's not clear yet which products will be favorable for which approaches.Dwarkesh Patel (01:01:15):Okay, yeah. And you're building this out of your garage, correct?Austin Vernon (01:01:19):Yeah. So that's where electrolyzers... Everything with electric chemistry is a flat plate instead of a vessel, so it scales down. So I can have a pretty good idea of what my 100 square centimeter electrolyzer is going to do, if I make it quite a bit bigger. I have to worry about how my flow might interact in the larger one and make sure the mixing's good, but it's pretty straightforward because you're just making your flat plate a larger area. Whereas the scale, it is different from scaling a traditional chemical process.Dwarkesh Patel (01:01:56):I'm curious how cheap energy has to be before this is efficient. If you're turning it into methane or something like that, presumably for fuel, is the entire process energy positive? Or how cheap would energy, electricity you need to get before that's the case?Austin Vernon (01:02:18):The different products and different methods have different crossovers. So Terraform Industries, they're shooting for $10 a megawatt hour for electricity. But again, their process is simpler, a little less efficient than a lot of the other products. They also have better premiums, just worth more per ton than methane. So your crossover happens somewhere in between $10 and $20 a megawatt hour, which is... I mean, that's pretty... Right now, solar, it's maybe like $25. Maybe it's a little higher because payment prices have gone up in the last year, but I think the expectation is they'll come back down. And so, getting down to $15 where you start having crossovers for some of these products like ethanol or ethylene or methanol, it's not science fiction.Dwarkesh Patel (01:03:08):I think in Texas where I live, that's where it's at right? The cost of energy is 20 or something dollars per megawatt hour.Austin Vernon (01:03:16):Well, not this summer! But yeah, a lot of times in Texas, the wholesale prices are around $25 to $30.Dwarkesh Patel (01:03:26):Gotcha. Okay. Yeah. So a lot of the actual details you said about how this works went over my head. So what is a flat plate? I guess before you answer that question, can you just generally describe the approach? What is it? What are you doing to convert CO2 into these other compounds?Austin Vernon (01:03:45):Well, yeah, it literally just looks like an electrolyzer. You have two sides and anode and a cathode and they're just smushed together like this because of the electrical resistance. If you put them far apart, it makes it... uses up a lot of energy. So you smush them together as close as you can. And then, you're basically just trading electrons back and forth. On one side, you're turning CO2 into a more complex molecule, and on the other side, you're taking apart water. And so, when you take apart the water, it balances out the equation, balances out your electrons and everything like that. I probably need to work on that elevator pitch there, huh?Dwarkesh Patel (01:04:31):I guess what the basic idea is, you need to put power in to convert CO2 into these other compounds.Austin Vernon (01:04:38):The inputs are electricity, water, and CO2, and the output is usually oxygen and whatever chemical you're trying to create is, along with some side reactions.Dwarkesh Patel (01:04:49):And then, these chemicals you mentioned, I think ethanol, methane, formic acid, are these all just fuels or what are the other uses for them?Austin Vernon (01:04:58):A lot of people are taking a hybrid approach with carbon monoxide. So this would be like Twelve Co… They've raised a lot of money to do this and 100 employees or something. You can take that carbon monoxide and make hydrogen, and then you have to send gas to make liquid fuels. So they want to make all sorts of chemicals, but one of the main volume ones would be like jet fuel.Austin Vernon (01:05:22):Let's see Formic acid is, it's the little fry of all these. It is an additive in a lot of things like preserving hay for animals and stuff like that. Then, ethanol there's people that want to... There's this company that makes ethylene, which goes into plastics that makes polyethylene, which is the most produced plastic. Or you can burn it in your car, although I think ethanol is a terrible vehicle fuel. But then you can also just make ethylene straight in the electrolyzer. So there's many paths. So which path wins is an interesting race to see.Dwarkesh Patel (01:06:13):The ability to produce jet fuel is really interesting, because in your energy superabundance paper, you talk about... You would think that even if we can electrify everything in solar and when it becomes super cheap, that's not going to have an impact on the prices to go to space for example. But I don't know. If a process like this is possible, then it's some way to in financial terms, add liquidity. And then turn, basically, this cheap solar and wind into jet fuel through this indirect process. So the price to send stuff to space or cheap plane flights or whatever––all of that goes down as well.Austin Vernon (01:06:52):It basically sets a price ceiling on the price of oil. Whatever you can produce this for is the ceiling now, which is maybe the way I think about it.Dwarkesh Patel (01:07:06):Yeah. So do you want to talk a little bit about how your background led into this project? This is your full-time thing, right? I don't know if I read about that, but where did you get this idea and how long have you been pursuing it? And what's the progress and so on.Austin Vernon (01:07:20):I've always loved chemical engineering, and I love working at the big processing plant because it's like being a kid in a candy store. If I had extra time, I'd just walk around and look at the plant, like it's so cool. But the plant where I worked at, their up time was 99.7%. So if you wanted to change anything or do anything new, it terrified everyone. That's how they earned their bonuses: run the plant a 100% uptime all the time. So that just wasn't a good fit for me. And also, so I always wanted my own chemical plant, but it's billions of dollars to build plants so that was a pretty big step. So I think this new technology of... there's a window where you might be able to build smaller plants until it optimizes to be hard to enter again.Dwarkesh Patel (01:08:21):And then, why will it become hard to enter again? What will happen?Austin Vernon (01:08:27):If someone figures out how to build a really cheap electrolyzer, and they just keep it as intellectual property, then it would be hard to rediscover that and compete with them.Dwarkesh Patel (01:08:38):And so, how long have you been working on this?Austin Vernon (01:08:42):Oh, not quite a year. But yeah, I actually got this idea to work on it from writing my blog. So when I wrote the heating fuel post, I didn't really know much about... There's another company in the space, Prometheus Fuels and I'm like, "Oh, this is an interesting idea." And then, I got talking to a guy named Brian Heligman, and he's like, "You should do this, but not what Prometheus is doing." And so, then I started looking at it and I liked it, so I've been working on it since.Dwarkesh Patel (01:09:08):Yeah. It's interesting because if energy does become as cheap as you suspect it might. If this process works, then yeah, this is a trillion dollar company probably, right? If you're going to get the patents and everything.Austin Vernon (01:09:22):I mean, maybe. With chemical plants, there's a certain limitation where your physical limitation is. There's only so many places that are good places for chemical plants. You start getting hit by transportation and all that. So, you can't just produce all th

Austin Vernon is an engineer working on a new method for carbon capture, and he has one of the most interesting blogs on the internet, where he writes about engineering, software, economics, and investing.We discuss how energy superabundance will change the world, how Starship can be turned into a kinetic weapon, why nuclear is overrated, blockchains, batteries, flying cars, finding alpha, & much more!Watch on YouTube. Listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or any other podcast platform. Read the full transcript here.Subscribe to find out about future episodes!Follow Austin on Twitter. Follow me on Twitter for updates on future episodes.Please share if you enjoyed this episode! Helps out a ton!Timestamps(0:00:00) - Intro(0:01:53) - Starship as a Weapon(0:19:24) - Software Productivity(0:41:40) - Car Manufacturing(0:57:39) - Carbon Capture(1:16:53) - Energy Superabundance(1:25:09) - Storage for Cheap Energy(1:31:25) - Travel in Future(1:33:27) - Future Cities(1:39:58) - Flying Cars(1:43:26) - Carbon Shortage(1:48:03) - Nuclear(2:12:44) - Solar(2:14:44) - Alpha & Efficient Markets(2:22:51) - ConclusionTranscriptIntroDwarkesh Patel (00:00:00):Okay! Today, I have the pleasure of interviewing Austin Vernon who writes about engineering, software, economics, and investing on the internet, though not that much else is known about him. So Austin, do you want to give us a bit of info about your background? I know that the only thing the internet knows about you is this one little JPEG that you had to upload with your recent paper. But what about an identity reveal or I guess a little bit of a background reveal? Just to the extent that you're comfortable sharing.Austin Vernon (00:00:29):My degree is in chemical engineering and I've had a lifelong love for engineering as well as things like the Toyota Production System. I've also worked as a chemical engineer in a large processing facility where I've done a lot of petroleum engineering. I taught myself how to write software and now I'm working on more research and the early commercialization of CO2 electrolysis.Dwarkesh Patel (00:00:59):Okay yeah. I'm really interested in talking about all those things. The first question I have is from Alex Berger, who's the co-CEO of Open Philanthropy. When I asked on Twitter what I should ask you, he suggested that I should ask “Why so shady?” Famously you have kind of an anonymous personality, pseudonymous thing going on the internet. What's up with that?Austin Vernon (00:01:25):Yeah. I think he posted a tweet that said “I don't know who this guy is or if he's credible at all, but his stuff sure is interesting”. That really made me laugh. I thought that was hilarious. Fame just doesn't seem necessary, I think I'm fine with my ideas being well known and communicating, but I have less desire to be personally famous.Starship as a WeaponDwarkesh Patel (00:01:52):Gotcha, gotcha. I wanted to start off with a sexy topic, let's talk about using Starship as a kinetic weapon. I thought that was one of the more amusing posts you wrote. Do you want to talk more about how this would be possible?Austin Vernon (00:02:08):Well, I think the main thing with Starship is that you're taking a technology and you're making it about 100 times cheaper for cargo and 1000 times cheaper for people. When things like that happen that drastically, you're just looking at huge changes and it's really hard to anticipate what some of those can be when the change is that drastic. I think there's a lot of moon-based, Mars-based stuff that doesn't really catch the general public's eye. They also have trouble imagining some of the point-to-point travel that could be possible. But when you start talking about it as a weapon, then I think it lets people know they should be paying attention to this technology. And we certainly do not want to be second or third getting it. We should make sure that we're going to be first.Dwarkesh Patel (00:03:05):Yeah. I think you mentioned this in the post, but as recently as the '90s, the cost of sending one kilogram to space was around $20,000. More recently, SpaceX has brought it to $2,000. Lots of interesting questions pop up when you ask, “What will be possible once we get it down to $200 per kilogram to send into orbit?” One of them could be about how we might manufacture these weapons that are not conventional ballistics. Do you want to talk about why this might be an advancement over conventional ballistic weapons?Austin Vernon (00:03:37):Well, regular conventional ballistic weapons are extremely expensive. This is more like a bomb truck. But usually we think of B52 as the bomb truck and this could be even cheaper than the B52, delivering just mass on target. When you think about how expensive it is to fly a B52 from Barksdale in Louisiana all the way across the world.. you can do it from south Texas or Florida with the Starship and get more emissions per day and the fuel ends up being. When you go orbital, it takes a lot to get to orbit. But then once you're in orbit, your fuel consumption's pretty good. So over long distances, it has a lot of advantage. That's why the point-to-point works for longer distances.Austin Vernon (00:04:27):There's really a sweet spot with these weapons where you want it to be pretty accurate, but you also want it to be cheap. You're seeing that problem with Russia right now as they have some fancy parade style weapons that are really expensive, like multi-billion dollar cruise missiles, but they're missing that $5,000 guided artillery shell or that $20,000 JDM that you can just pit massive. Or the multiple launch rocket system, guided rockets. They're really short on all those because I think they had just had a limited amount of chips they could get from the US into Russia to make these advanced weapons.Austin Vernon (00:05:07):But yeah, so the Starship gives you just a platform to deliver. You could put JDMs in a shroud, or you could just have the iron unguided kinetic projectiles, and it just becomes impossible for a ship to launch missiles to intercept yours if your cost is so low, you can just overwhelm them.Dwarkesh Patel (00:05:29):Okay. There are a few terms there that neither I nor the audience might know. So what is JDM? What is shroud? And why are chips a bottleneck here? Why can't it just be any micro-controller?Austin Vernon (00:05:42):So JDM is Joint Direct Attack Munition. So what we did is we took all our Vietnam surplus bonds and we put this little fin-kit on it and it costs like $20,000, which is cheap for a weapon because the actual bond costs, I don't know, $3,000. And then it turns it into a guided weapon that, before you were probably lucky to get within 500 meters of a target, now you can get it in with two meters. So the number of missions you have to do with your planes and all that goes down by orders of magnitude. So it's an absolutely huge advantage in logistics and in just how much firepower you can put on a target. And we didn't even have to make new bombs, we just put these kits on all our old bombs.Austin Vernon (00:06:33):Let's see.. Yeah the chips are a problem. There's this organization called RUSI. I think they're in the UK, but they've been tearing down all these Russian weapons they found in Ukraine and they all have American chips in them. So technically, they're not supposed to be able to get these chips. And yet, Russia can't make a lot of its own chips. And especially not the specialized kinds you might want for guided weapons. So they've been somehow smuggling in chips from Americans to make their advanced weaponsDwarkesh Patel (00:07:03):What is special about these? As far as I'm aware, the trade with China is still going on and we get a lot of our chips manufactured from Taiwan or China. So why can't they do the same?Austin Vernon (00:07:14):It's the whole integration. It's not just the specific chip, but the board. They're more like PLCs where you almost have wired-in programming and they come with this ability to do the guidance and all that stuff. It all kind of has to work together. I think that's the way I understand it. I don't know. Maybe I don't have a really good answer for that one, but they're hard to replicate is what matters.Dwarkesh Patel (00:07:43):Okay that's interesting. Yeah, I guess that has a lot of interesting downstream effects, because for example, India buys a lot of its weapons from Russia. So if Russia doesn't have access to these, then other countries that buy from Russia won't have access to these either.Dwarkesh Patel (00:07:58):You had an interesting speculation in the post where you suggested that you could just keep these kinetic weapons in orbit, in a sort of Damocles state really, almost literally. That sounds like an incredibly scary and risky scenario where you could have orbital decay and you could have these kinetic weapons falling from the sky and destroying cities. Do you think this is what it will look like or could look like in 10 to 20 years?Austin Vernon (00:08:26):Well, yeah, so the advantage of having weapons on orbit is you can hit targets faster. So if you're launching the rocket from Florida, you're looking at maybe 30 minutes to get there and the target can move away in that time. Whereas if you're on orbit, you can have them spaced out to where you're hitting within a few minutes. So that's the advantage there.Austin Vernon (00:08:46):You really have to have a two stage system I think for most, because if you have a really aerodynamic rod that's going to give you really good performance in the low atmosphere, it'll end up going too fast and just burn up before it gets there. Tungsten's maybe the only thing that you could have that could go all the way through which is why I like the original concept of using these big tungsten rods the size of a telephone pole. But tungsten's pretty expensive. And the rod concept kind of limits what you can do.Austin Vernon (00:09:28):So a lot of these weapons will have, that's what I was talking about with the shroud, something that actually slows you down in the upper atmosphere. And then once you're at the velocity where you're not just going to melt, then you open it up and let it go. So if you actually had it fall from the sky, some may make it to the ground, but a lot would burn up. So a lot of the stuff that makes it to the ground is actually pretty light. It's stuff that can float and has a large surface area. Yeah, that's the whole thing with Starship. Or not Starship, but Starlink. All those satellites are meant to completely fall apart on de-orbit.Dwarkesh Patel (00:10:09):I see. One of the implications of that is that these may be less powerful than we might fear, because since kinetic energy is mass times velocity squared and there's an upper bound on the velocity (velocity being the component that grows the kinetic energy faster), then it suggests that you can upper bound the power these things will have. You know what I mean?Austin Vernon (00:10:32):Yeah, so even the tungsten rods. Sometimes people, they're not very good at physics, so they don't do the math. They think it's going to be a nuclear weapon, but it's really not. I think even the tungsten rod is like 10 tons of T&T or something. It's a big bomb, but it's not a super weapon.Austin Vernon (00:10:54):So I think I said in the post, it's about using advanced missiles where they're almost more defensive weapons so I can keep you from pitting your ship somewhere. Yeah I could try to bombard your cities, but I can't take ground with it. I can't even police sea lanes with it really. I'd still have to use regular ships if I had this air cover to go enforce the rules of the sea and stuff like that.Dwarkesh Patel (00:11:23):Yeah. You speculated in the post, I think, that you could load this up with shrapnel and then it could explode next to an incoming missile or an incoming aircraft. Could these get that accurate? Because that was surprising speculation to me.Austin Vernon (00:11:43):I think for ships, it's pretty... I was watching videos of how fast a ship can turn and stuff. If you're going to do an initial target on a ship to try to kill their radars, you'd want to do it above the ceiling of their missiles. So it's like, how much are they going to move between your release where you stop steering and that? The answer's maybe 1000 feet. So that's pretty simple because you just shrapnel the area.Austin Vernon (00:12:12):Targeting aircraft, you would be steering all the way in. I'd say it's doable, but it'd be pretty hard. You'd actually maybe want to even go slower than you would with the ship attack. You'd need a specialized package to attack the aircraft, but if you have enough synthetic aperture radar and stuff like that, you could see these aircraft using satellites and then guide the bomb in the whole way. You could even load heat seeking missiles into a package that unfurls right next to them and launch conventional missiles too, probably. It'd be pretty hard to do some of this stuff, but they're just the things you might be able to do if you put some effort into it.Dwarkesh Patel (00:12:57):Yeah. The reason I find this kind of speculation really interesting is because when you look at the modern weaponry that's used in conflicts, it just seems directly descendant from something you would've seen in World War II or something. If you think about how much warfare changed between 1900 and 1940, it's like, yeah, they're not even the same class of weapons anymore. So it's interesting to think about possibilities like these where the entire category of weapons has changed.Austin Vernon (00:13:33):You're right and that's because our physical technology hasn't changed that much. So it really has just made more sense to put better electronics in the same tanks. We haven't learned enough about tanks to build a new physical tank that's way better, so we just keep upgrading our existing tanks with better electronics. They're much more powerful, they're more accurate. A lot of times, they have longer range weapons and better sensors. So the tank looks the same, but it maybe has several times more killing power. But the Ukraine war right now, they're using a lot of 40, 50 year old weapons so that especially looks like that.Dwarkesh Patel (00:14:20):Yeah. Which kind of worries you if you think about the stockpiles our own military has. I'm not well educated on the topic, but I imagine that we don't have the newest of the new thing. We probably have maintained versions of decades old technology.Austin Vernon (00:14:35):We spend so much, we've got relatively... This kind of gets into debate about how ready our military is. For certain situations, it's more ready than others. I'd say in general, most people talking about it have the incentive to downplay our capabilities because they want more defense spending. There's lots of reasons. So I think we're probably more capable than what you might see from some editorial in The Hill or whatever. Us just sending a few weapons over to Ukraine and seeing how successful they've been at using them, I think, shows a little bit of that.Austin Vernon (00:15:18):There's so much uncertainty when it comes to fighting, especially when you're talking about a naval engagement, where we don't just don't have that many ships in general… you can have some bad luck. So I think you always want to be a little bit wary. You don't want to get overconfident.Dwarkesh Patel (00:15:37):Yeah. And if the offensive tech we sent to Ukraine is potentially better than the defensive tech, it's very possible that even a ballistic missile that China or Russia could launch would sink a battleship and then kill the 2,000 or 1,000 whatever soldiers that are on board. Or I guess, I don't know, you think this opens up avenues for defensive tech as well?Austin Vernon (00:16:03):Yeah––generally the consensus is that defensive technology has improved much more recently than offensive technology. This whole strategy China has is something they call anti-access/area denial, A2/AD. That's basically just how missiles have gotten better because the sensors on missiles have gotten better. So they can keep our ships from getting close to them but they can't really challenge us in Hawaii or something. And it really goes both ways, I think people forget that. So yeah, it's hard for us to get close to China, but Taiwan has a lot of missiles with these new sensors as well. So I think it's probably tougher for China to do it close to Taiwan than most people would say.Dwarkesh Patel (00:16:55):Oh, interesting. Yeah, can you talk more about that? Because every time I read about this, people are saying that if China wanted to, they could knock out Taiwan's defenses in a short amount of time and take it over. Yeah, so can you talk about why that's not possible?Austin Vernon (00:17:10):Well, it might be, but I think it's a guess of the uncertainty [inaudible 00:17:14]. Taiwan has actually one of the largest defense budgets in the world and they've recently been upping it. I think they spend, I don't know, $25 billion a year and they added an extra $5 billion. And they've been buying a lot of anti-ship missiles, a lot of air defense missiles.. Stuff that Ukraine could only dream of. I think Ukraine's military budget was $2 billion and they have a professional army. And then the other thing is Taiwan's an island, whereas Russia could just roll over the land border into Ukraine.Austin Vernon (00:17:44):There's just been very few successful amphibious landings in history. The most recent ones were all the Americans in World War II and Korea. So the challenge there is just... It's kind of on China to execute perfectly and do that. So if they had perfect execution, then possibly it would be feasible. But if their air defenses on their ships aren't quite as good as we think they could possibly be, then they could also end up with half their fleet underwater within 10 hours.Dwarkesh Patel (00:18:20):Interesting. And how has your view of Taiwan's defensive capabilities changed... How has the Ukraine conflict updated your opinion on what might happen?Austin Vernon (00:18:29):I didn't really know how much about it. And then I started looking at Wikipedia and stuff and all this stuff they're doing. Taiwan just has a lot of modern platforms like F16s with our anti-ship missiles. They actually have a lot of their own. They have indigenous fighter bombers, indigenous anti-ship missiles because they're worried we might not always sell them to them.Austin Vernon (00:18:54):They've even recently gotten these long range cruise missiles that could possibly target leadership in Beijing. So I think that makes it uncomfortable for the Chinese leadership. If you attack them, you're going to have to go live in a bunker. But again, I'm not a full-time military analyst or something, so there's a lot of uncertainty around what I'm saying. It's not a given that China's just going to roll over them.Software ProductivityDwarkesh Patel (00:19:22):Okay. That's comforting to hear. Let's talk about an area where I have a little bit of a point of contact. I thought your blog post about software and the inability of it to increase productivity numbers, I thought that was super fascinating. So before I ask you questions about it, do you want to lay out the thesis there?Austin Vernon (00:19:43):Yeah. So if there's one post I kind of felt like I caught lightning in a bottle on, it's that one. Everything I wanted to put in, it just fit together perfectly, which is usually not the case.Austin Vernon (00:19:55):I think the idea is that the world's so complex and we really underestimate that complexity. If you're going to digitize processes and automate them and stuff, you have to capture all that complexity basically at the bit level, and that's extremely difficult. And then you also have diminishing returns where the easily automatable stuff goes first and then it's increasing corner cases to get to the end, so you just have to go through more and more code basically. We don't see runaway productivity growth from software because we're fighting all this increasing complexity.Dwarkesh Patel (00:20:39):Yeah. Have you heard of the waterbed theory of complexity by the way?Austin Vernon (00:20:42):I don't think so.Dwarkesh Patel (00:20:44):Okay. It's something that comes up in compiler design: the idea is that there's a fixed amount of complexity in a system. If you try to reduce it, what you'll end up doing is just you'll end up migrating the complexity elsewhere. I think an example that's used of this is when they try to program languages that are not type safe, something like Python. You can say, “oh, it's a less complex language”, but really, you've added complexity when, I don't know, two different types of numbers are interacting like a float and an int. As your program grows, that complexity exponentially grows along with all the things that could go wrong when you're making two things interact in a way that you were expecting not to. So yeah, the idea is you can just choose where to have your complexity, but you can't get rid of that complexity.Austin Vernon (00:21:38):I think that's kind of an interesting thing when you start pairing it with management theory... when you add up all the factors, the most complex thing you're doing is high volume car manufacturing. And so we got a lot of innovations and organization from car manufacturers like the assembly line. Then you had Sloan at GM basically creating the way the modern corporation is run, then you have the Toyota Production System.Austin Vernon (00:22:11):But arguably now, creating software is actually the most complex thing we do. So there's all these kinds of squishy concepts that underlie things like the Toyota Production System that softwares had to learn and reimagine and adopt and you see that with Agile where, “oh, we can't have long release times. We need to be releasing every day,” which means we're limiting inventory there.Austin Vernon (00:22:42):There's a whole thing especially that's showing up in software that existed in carbon manufacturing where you're talking about reducing communication. So Jeff Bezos kind of now famously said, "I want to reduce communication," which is counterintuitive to a lot of people. This is age-old in car manufacturing where Toyota has these cards that go between workstations and they tell you what to do. So people normally think of them as limiting inventory, but it also tells the worker exactly what they're supposed to be doing at what pace, at what time. The assembly line is like that too. You just know what to do because you're standing there and there's a part here and it needs to go on there, and it comes by at the pace you're supposed to work at.Austin Vernon (00:23:29):It's so extreme that there's this famous paper, by List, Syverson and Levitt. They went to a car factory and studied how defects propagated in cars and stuff. Once a car factory gets up and running, it doesn't matter what workers you put in there, if workers are sick or you get new workers, the defect rate is the same. So all the knowledge is built into the manufacturing line.Austin Vernon (00:23:59):There's these concepts around idiot-proofing and everything that are very similar to what you'll see. You had Uncle Bob on here. So Uncle Bob says only put one input into a function and stuff like that because you'll mix them up otherwise. The Japanese call it poka-yoke. You make it where you can't mess it up. And that's another way to reduce communication, and then software, of course you have APIs.Austin Vernon (00:24:28):So I'm really interested in this overall concept of reducing communication, and reducing how much cooperation and everything we need to run the economy.Dwarkesh Patel (00:24:41):Right. Right. Speaking of the Toyota Production System, one thing they do to reduce that defect rate is if there's a problem, all the workers in that chain are forced to go to the place where the defect problem is and fix it before doing anything else. The idea there is that this will give them context to understand what the problem was and how to make sure it doesn't happen again. It also prevents a build up of inventory in a way that keeps making these defects happen or just keeps accumulating inventory before the place that can fix the defects is able to take care of them.Austin Vernon (00:25:17):Right. Yeah, yeah. Exactly.Dwarkesh Patel (00:25:19):Yeah. But I think one interesting thing about software and complexity is that software is a place where complexity is the highest in our world right now but software gives you the choice to interface with the complexity you want to interface with. I guess that's just part of specialization in general, but you could say for example that a machine learning model is really complex, but ideally, you get to a place where that's the only kind of complexity you have to deal with. You're not having to deal with the complexity of “How is this program compiled? How are the libraries that I'm using? How are they built?” You can fine tune and work on the complexity you need to work on.Dwarkesh Patel (00:26:05):It's similar to app development. Byrne Hobart has this blog post about Stripe as solid state. The basic idea is that Stripe hides all the complexity of the financial system: it charges a higher fee, but you can just treat it as an abstraction of a tithe you have to pay, and it'll just take care of that entire process so you can focus on your comparative advantage.Austin Vernon (00:26:29):It's really actually very similar in car manufacturing and the Toyota Production System if you really get into it. It's very much the same conceptual framework. There's this whole idea in Toyota Production System, everyone works at the same pace, which you kind of talked about. But also, your work content is the same. There's no room for not standardizing a way you're going to do things. So everyone gets together and they're like, “All right, we're going to do this certain part. We're going to put it together this certain way at this little micro station. And it's going to be the same way every time.” That's part of how they're reducing the defect rates. If your assembly process is longer than what your time allotment is to stay in touch with the rest of the process, then you just keep breaking it down into smaller pieces. So through this, each person only has to know a very small part of it.Austin Vernon (00:27:33):The overall engineering team has all sorts of strategies and all sorts of tools to help them break up all these processes into very small parts and make it all hold together. It's still very, very hard, but it's kind of a lot of the same ideas because you're taking away the complexity of making a $30,000 car or 30,000 part car where everyone's just focusing on their one little part and they don't care what someone else is doing.Dwarkesh Patel (00:28:06):Yeah. But the interesting thing is that it seems like you need one person who knows how everything fits together. Because from what I remember, one of the tenets of the Toyota Production System was you need to have a global view. So, in that book, was it the machine or the other one, the Toyota Production System book? But anyways, they were talking about examples where people would try to optimize for local efficiencies. I think they especially pointed to Ford and GM for trying to do this where they would try to make machines run all the time. And locally, you could say that, “oh this machine or process is super efficient. It's always outputting stuff.” But it ignores how that added inventory or that process had a bad consequence for the whole system.Dwarkesh Patel (00:28:50):And so it's interesting if you look at a company like Tesla that's able to do this really well. Tesla is run like a monarchy and this one guy has this total global view of how the entire process is supposed to run and where you have these inefficiencies.. You had some great examples of this in the blog post. I think one of the examples is this guy (the author) goes to this factory and he asks, "Is this an efficient factory?" And the guy's like, "Yeah, this is totally efficient. There's nothing we can do, adopting the Toyota way, to make this more efficient."Dwarkesh Patel (00:29:22):And so then he's like, "Okay, let me look." And he finds that they're treating steel in some way, and the main process does only take a couple of seconds, but some local manager decided that it would be more efficient to ship their parts out, to get the next stage of the process done somewhere else. So this is locally cheaper, but the result is that it takes weeks to get these parts shipped out and get them back. Which means that the actual time that the parts spend getting processed is 0.1% of the time, making the whole process super inefficient. So I don't know, it seems like the implication is you need a very monarchical structure, with one person who has a total view, in order to run such a system. Or am I getting that wrong?Austin Vernon (00:30:12):Not necessarily. I mean, you do have to make sure you're not optimizing locally, but I think it's the same. You have that same constraint in software, but I think a lot of times people are just running over it because processing has been getting so much cheaper. People are expensive, so if you could save development time, it just ends up the trade offs are different when you're talking about the tyranny of physical items and stuff like that, the constraints get a little more severe. But I think you have the same overall. You still have to fight local optimization, but the level you have to is probably different with physical goods.Austin Vernon (00:30:55):I was thinking about the smart grid situation from a software perspective, and there's this problem where, okay, I'm putting my solar farm here and it's impacting somewhere far away, and that's then creating these really high upgrade costs, that cost two or three times more than my solar farm. Well, the obvious thing would be, if you're doing software, is like you're going to break all these up into smaller sections, and then you wouldn't be impacting each other and all that, and you could work and focus on your own little thing.Austin Vernon (00:31:29):But the problem with that is if you're going to disconnect these areas of the grid, the equipment to do that is extremely expensive. It's not like I'm just going to hit a new tab and open a new file and start writing a new function. And not only that, but you still have to actually coordinate how this equipment is going to operate. So if you just let the grid flow as it does, everyone knows what's going to happen because they could just calculate the physics. If you start adding in all these checkpoints where humans are doing stuff, then you have to actually interface with the humans, and the amount of things that can happen really starts going up. So it's actually a really bad idea to try to cart all this stuff off, just because of the reality of the physical laws and the equipment you need and everything like that.Dwarkesh Patel (00:32:22):Okay. Interesting. And then I think you have a similar Coasean argument in your software post about why vertically integrating software is beneficial. Do you want to explain that thesis?Austin Vernon (00:32:34):Yeah. I think it actually gets to what we're talking about here, where it allows you to avoid the local optimization. Because a lot of times you're trying to build a software MVP, and you're tying together a few services… they don't do quite what you need, so if you try to scale that, it would just break. But if you're going to take a really complex process, like car manufacturing or retail distribution, or the home buying process or something, you really have to vertically integrate it to be able to create a decent end-to-end experience and avoid that local optimization.Austin Vernon (00:33:20):And it's just very hard otherwise, because you just can't coordinate effectively if you have 10 different vendors trying to do all the same thing. You end up in just constant vendor meetings, where you're trying to decide what the specs are or something instead of giving someone the authority, or giving a team the authority to just start building stuff. Then if you look at these companies, they have to implement these somewhat decentralized processes when they get too complex, but at least they have control over how they're interfacing with each other. Walmart, as the vendors, control their own stock. They don't tell the vendor, "We need X parts." It's just like, it's on you to make sure your shelf is stocked.Dwarkesh Patel (00:34:07):Yeah. Yeah. So what was really interesting to me about this part of the post was, I don't know, I guess I had heard of this vision of we're software setting, where everybody will have a software as a service company, and they'll all be interfacing with each other in some sort of cycle where they're all just calling each other's APIs. And yeah, basically everybody and their mother would have a SAAS company. The implication here was, from your argument, that given the necessity of integrating all those complexity vertically in a coherent way, then the winners in software should end up being a few big companies, right? They compete with each other, but still...Austin Vernon (00:34:49):I think that's especially true when you're talking about combining bits and apps. Maybe less true for pure software. The physical world is just so much more complex, and so the constraints it creates are pretty extreme, compared to like... you could maybe get away with more of everyone and their mom having an API in a pure software world.Dwarkesh Patel (00:35:14):Right. Yeah. I guess, you might think that even in the physical world, given that people really need to focus on their comparative advantage, they would just try to outsource the software parts to these APIs. But is there any scenario where the learning curve for people who are not in the firm can be fast enough that they can keep up with the complexity? Because there's huge gains for specialization and competition that go away if this is the world we're forced to live in. And then I guess we have a lot of counter examples, or I guess we have a lot of examples of what you're talking about. Like Apple is the biggest market cap in the world, right? And famously they're super vertically integrated. And yeah, obviously their thing is combining hardware and software. But yeah, is there any world in which it can keep that kind of benefit, but have it be within multiple firms?Austin Vernon (00:36:10):This is a post I've got on my list I want to write. The blockchain application, which excites me personally the most, is reimagining enterprise software. Because the things you're talking about, like hard typing and APIs are just basically built into some of these protocols. So I think it just really has a lot of exciting implications for how much you can decentralize software development. But the thing is, you can still do that within the firm. So I think I mentioned this, if the government's going to place all these rules on the edge of the firm, it makes transactions with other firms expensive. So a few internal transactions can be cheaper, because they're avoiding the government reporting and taxes and all that kind of stuff. So I think you'd have to think about how these technologies can reduce transaction costs overall and decentralize that, but also what are the costs between firms?Dwarkesh Patel (00:37:22):Yeah, it's really interesting if the costs are logistic, or if they're based on the knowledge that is housed, as you were talking about, within a factory or something. Because if it is just logistical and stuff, like you had to report any outside transactions, then it does imply that those technology blockchain could help. But if it is just that you need to be in the same office, and if you're not, then you're going to have a hard time keeping up with what the new requirements for the API are, then maybe it's that, yeah, maybe the inevitability is that you'll have these big firms that are able to vertically integrate.Austin Vernon (00:37:59):Yeah, for these big firms to survive, they have to be somewhat decentralized within them. So I think you have... you're going to the same place as just how are we viewing it, what's our perception? So even if it's a giant corporation, it's going to have very independent business units as opposed to something like a 1950s corporation.Dwarkesh Patel (00:38:29):Yeah. Byrne Hobart, by the way, has this really interesting post that you might enjoy reading while you're writing that post. It's type safe communications, and it's about that Bezos thing, about his strict style for how to communicate and how little to communicate. There's many examples in Amazon protocols where you have to... the only way you can put in this report, is in this place you had to give a number. You can't just say, "This is very likely," you had to say like, "We project X percent increase," or whatever. So it has to be a percent. And there's many other cases where they're strict about what type definition you can have in written reports or something. It has kind of the same consequence that type strict languages have, which is that you can keep track of what the value is through the entire chain of the flow of control.Austin Vernon (00:39:22):You've got to keep work content standardized.Dwarkesh Patel (00:39:26):So we've been hinting at the Coasean analysis to this. I think we just talked about it indirectly, but for the people who might not know, Coase has this paper called The Theory of Firms, and he's trying to explain why we have firms at all. Why not just have everybody compete in the open market for employment, for anything? Why do we have jobs? Why not just have... you can just hire a secretary by the day or something.Dwarkesh Patel (00:39:51):And the conclusion he comes to is that by having a firm you're reducing the transaction cost. So people will have the same knowledge about what needs to get done, obviously you're reducing the transaction cost of contracting, finding labor, blah, blah, blah. And so the conclusion it comes to is the more the transaction costs are reduced within people in a firm, as compared to the transaction cost between different firms, the bigger firms will get. So I guess that's why the implication of your argument was that there should be bigger tech firms, right?Austin Vernon (00:40:27):Yes, yes, definitely. Because they can basically decrease the transaction costs faster within, and then even at the limit, if you have large transaction costs outside the firm, between other firms that are artificially imposed, then it will make firms bigger.Dwarkesh Patel (00:40:45):What does the world look like in that scenario? So would it just be these Japanese companies, these huge conglomerates who are just... you rise through the ranks, from the age of 20 until you die? Is that what software will turn into?Austin Vernon (00:40:59):It could be. I mean, I think it will be lots of very large companies, unless there's some kind of change in inner firm transaction costs. And again, that could possibly come from blockchain like technology, but you probably also need better regulation to make that cheaper, and then you would have smaller firms. But again, in the end, it doesn't really matter. You'd be working in your little unit of the big bank of corporate, or whatever. So I don't know what that would look like on a personal level.Car ManufacturingDwarkesh Patel (00:41:40):Yeah. Okay. So speaking of these Japanese companies, let's talk about car manufacturing and everything involved there. Yeah, so we kind of hinted at a few elements of the Toyota way and production earlier, but do you want to give a brief overview of what that is, so we can compare it to potentially other systems?Austin Vernon (00:42:02):I think all these kinds of lean Toyota process systems, they do have a lot of similarities, where mostly you want to even-out your production, so you're producing very consistently, and you want to break it into small steps and you want to limit the amount of inventory you have in your system. When you do this, it makes it easy to see how the process is running and limit defects. And the ultimate is you're really trying to reduce defects, because they're very expensive. It's a little bit hard to summarize. I think that's my best shot at it there, quickly off the top of my head.Dwarkesh Patel (00:42:49):Yeah. The interesting thing about the Toyota system, so at least when the machine was released, is they talk about... that book was released I think the nineties, and they went to the history of Toyota, and one of the interesting things they talked about was there was a brief time where the company ran... I think, was this after World War II? But anyways, the company ran into some troubles. They needed to layoff people to not go bankrupt. They had much more debt on books than they had assets. So yeah, they wanted to layoff people, but obviously the people were not happy about this, so there were violent protests about this. And in fact I think the US written constitution gave strong protections to labor that they hadn't had before, which gave labor an even stronger hand here.Dwarkesh Patel (00:43:42):So anyway, Toyota came to this agreement with the unions that they'd be allowed to do this one time layoff to get the company on the right track, but afterwards they could never lay somebody off. Which would mean that a person who works at Toyota works there from the time they graduate college or high school till they die. Right? I don't know, that's super intense in a culture. I mean, in software, where you have the average tenure in a company's one year, the difference is so much.Dwarkesh Patel (00:44:13):And there's so many potential benefits here, I guess a lot of drawbacks too. But one is, obviously if you're talking in a time scale of 50 years, rather than one year, the incentives are more aligned between the company and the person. Because anything you could do in one year is not going to have a huge impact on your stock options in that amount of time. But if this company's your retirement plan, then you have a much stronger incentive to make sure that things at this company run well, which means you're probably optimizing for the company's long term cash flow yourself. And also, there's obviously benefits to having that knowledge built up in the firm from people who have been there for a long time. But yeah, that was an interesting difference. One of the interesting differences, at least.Austin Vernon (00:45:00):I mean, I think there's diminishing returns to how long your tenure's going to be. Maybe one year's too short, but there's a certain extent to where, if you grow faster than your role at the company, then it's time to switch. It's going to depend on the person, but maybe five years is a good number. And so if you're not getting promoted within the firm, then your human capital's being wasted, because you could go somewhere else and have more responsibility and perform better for them. Another interesting thing about that story, is almost all lean turnarounds, where they're like, we're going to implement something like Toyota production system, they come with no layoff promises. Because if you're going to increase productivity, that's when everyone's like, "Oh gosh, I'm going to get laid off." So instead you have to increase output and take more market share, is what you do.Dwarkesh Patel (00:46:00):It's kind of like burning your bridges, right? So this is the only way.Austin Vernon (00:46:05):The process really requires complete buy-in, because a lot of your ideas for how you're going to standardize work content come from your line workers, because that's what they're doing every day. So if you don't have their buy-in, then it's going to fail. So that's why it's really necessary to have those kinds of clauses.Dwarkesh Patel (00:46:22):Yeah. Yeah, that makes sense. I think it was in your post where you said, if somebody makes their process more efficient, and therefore they're getting more work allotted to them, then obviously they're going to stop doing that. Right? Which means that, I don't know, do you ought to give more downtime to your best workers or something or the people who are most creative in your company?Austin Vernon (00:46:48):I was just going to say, if you're a worker at a plant, then a lot of times for that level of employee, actually small rewards work pretty well. A lot of people on drilling rigs used to give the guys that met certain targets $100 Walmart gift cards. So sometimes small, it's a reward, new ideas, stuff like that works.Austin Vernon (00:47:15):But because the whole system has to grow together, if you just improve one part of the process, it may not help you. You have to be improving all the right processes so normally it's much more collaborative. There's some engineer that's looking at it and like, "All right, this is where we're struggling," or "We have our defects here." And then you go get together with that supervisor and the workers in that area, then you all figure out what improvements could be together. Because usually the people already know. This is like, you see a problem at the top, and you're just now realizing it. Then you go talk to the people doing the work, and they're like, "Oh yeah, I tried to tell you about that two weeks ago, man." And then you figure out a better process from there.Dwarkesh Patel (00:47:58):Based on your recommendation, and Steven Malina's recommendation, I recently read The Goal. And after reading the book, I'm much more understanding of the value that consultants bring to companies, potentially. Because before you could think, “What does a 21 year old, who just graduated college, know about manufacturing? What are they going to tell this plant that they didn't already know? How could they possibly be adding value?” And afterwards, it occurred to me that there's so many abstract concepts that are necessary to understand in order to be able to increase your throughput. So now I guess I can see how somebody who's generically smart but doesn't have that much industry knowledge might be able to contribute to a plan and value consultants could be bringing.Austin Vernon (00:48:43):I think this applies to consultants or young engineers. A lot of times you put young engineers just right in the thick of it, working in production or process right on the line, where you're talking to the workers the most. And there's several advantages to that. One, the engineer learns faster, because they're actually seeing the real process, and the other is there's easy opportunities for them to still have a positive impact on the business, because there's $100 bills laying on the ground just from going up and talking to your workers and learning about stuff and figuring out problems they might be having and finding out things like that that could help you lower cost. I think there's a lot of consultants that... I don't know how the industry goes, but I would guess there's... I know Accenture has 600,000 employees. I don't know if that many, but it's just a large number, and a lot are doing more basic tasks and there are some people that are doing the more high level stuff, but it's probably a lot less.Dwarkesh Patel (00:49:51):Yeah. Yeah. There was a quote from one of those books that said, "At Toyota we don't consider you an engineer unless you need to wash your hands before you can have lunch." Yeah. Okay. So in your blog post about car manufacturing, you talk about Tesla. But what was really interesting is that in a footnote, I think you mentioned that you bought Tesla stocks in 2014, which also might be interesting to talk about again when we go to the market and alpha part. But anyways. Okay. And then you talk about Tesla using something called metal manufacturing. So first of all, how did you know in 2014 that Tesla was headed here? And what is metal manufacturing and how does it differ from the Toyota production system?Austin Vernon (00:50:42):Yeah. So yeah, I just was goofing around and made that up. Someone actually emailed me and they were like, "Hey, what is this metal manufacturing? I want to learn more about this." It's like, "Well, sorry, I just kind of made that up, because I thought it sounded funny." But yeah, I think it's really the idea that there's this guy, Dimming, and he found a lot of the same ideas that Toyota ended up implementing, and Toyota respected his ideas a lot. America never really got fully on board with this in manufacturing. Of course it's software people that are coming and implementing this and manufacturing now which is like the real American way of doing things.Austin Vernon (00:51:32):Because when you look at these manufacturing processes, the best place to save money and optimize is before you ever build the process or the plant. It's very early on. So I think if there's a criticism of Toyota, it's that they're optimizing too late and they're not creative enough in their production technology and stuff. They're very conservative, and that's why they have hydrogen cars and not battery cars, even though they came out with the Prius, which was the first large sales hybrid.Austin Vernon (00:52:12):So yeah, I think what Tesla's doing with really just making Dimming's ideas our own and really just Americanizing it with like, "Oh, well, we want to cast this, because that would be easier." Well, we can't, because we don't have an alloy. "We'll invent the alloy." I love it. It's great. Mostly, I love Tesla because they do such... I agree with their engineering principles. So I didn't know that the company would come to be so valuable. It's just, I was just always reading their stock reports and stuff so I was like, "Well, at least I need to buy some stock so that I have a justification for spending all this time reading their 10 Ks."Dwarkesh Patel (00:52:53):I want to get a little bit more in detail about the exact difference here. So lean production, I guess, is they're able to produce their cars without defects and with matching demand or whatever. But what is it about their system that prevents them from making the kinds of innovations that Tesla is able to make?Austin Vernon (00:53:16):It's just too incremental. It's so hard to get these processes working. So the faster you change things, it becomes very, very difficult to change the whole system. So one of the advantages Tesla has is, well, if you're making electric cars, you have just a lot less parts. So that makes it easier. And once you start doing the really hard work of basically digitizing stuff, like they don't have speed limit dials, you start just removing parts from the thing and you can actually then start increasing your rate of change even faster.Austin Vernon (00:53:55):It makes it harder to get behind if you have these old dinosaur processes. But I think there's a YouTube channel called The Limiting Factor, and he actually went into the detail of numbers on what it costs for Tesla to do their giga-casting, which saves tons of parts and deletes zillions of thousands of robots from their process. If you already have an existing stamping line and all that, where you're just changing the dyes based on your model, then it doesn't make sense to switch to the casting. But if you're building new factories, like Tesla is, well, then it makes sense to do the casting and you can build new factories very cheaply and comparatively and much easier. So there's a little bit of... they just have lots of technical data, I guess you could say, in a software sense.Dwarkesh Patel (00:54:47):Yeah. That's super interesting. The analogy is actually quite... it's like, Microsoft has probably tens of thousands of software engineers who are just basically servicing its technical debt and making sure that the old systems run properly, whereas a new company like Tesla doesn't have to deal with that. The thing that's super interesting about Tesla is like, Tesla's market cap is way over a trillion, right? And then Toyota's is 300 billion. And Tesla is such a new company. The fact that you have this Toyota, which is legendary for its production system, and this company that's less than two decades old is worth many times more, it's kind of funny.Austin Vernon (00:55:32):Yeah. I would say that, in that measure, I don't like market cap. You need to use enterprise value. These old car companies have so much debt, that if you look at enterprise value, it's not so jarring. Literally, I don't know, I can't remember what GM's worth, like 40 billion or something, and then they have $120 billion in debt. So their enterprise value is five times more than their market cap.Dwarkesh Patel (00:56:02):What is enterprise value?Austin Vernon (00:56:03):Enterprise value is basically what is the value of the actual company before you have any claims on it. It's the market cap plus your debt. But basically, if you're the equity holder and the company gets sold, you have to pay the debt first. So you only get the value of what's left over after the debt. So that's why market cap is... when Tesla has very little debt and a lot of market cap, and then these other guys have a lot of debt with less market cap, it skews the comparison.Dwarkesh Patel (00:56:34):Yeah, and one of the interesting things, it's similar to your post on software, is that it seems like one of the interesting themes across your work is automating processes often leads to decreased eventual throughput, because you're probably adding capacity in a place that you're deciding excess capacity, and you're also making the money part of your operation less efficient by have it interface with this automated part. It sounds like there's a similar story there with car manufacturing, right?Austin Vernon (00:57:08):Yeah. I think if we tie it back into what we were talking about earlier, automation promotes local optimization and premature optimization. So a lot of times it's better to figure out, instead of automating a process to make a really hard to make part, you should just figure out how to make that part easy to make. Then after you do that, then it may not even make sense to automate it anymore. Or get rid of it all together, then you just delete all those robots.Austin's Carbon Capture ProjectDwarkesh Patel (00:57:37):Yeah. Yeah, that's interesting. Okay. So let's talk about the project that you're working on right now, the CO2 electrolysis. Do you want to explain what this is, and what your current approach is? What is going on here?Austin Vernon (00:57:55):Yeah, so I think just overall, electrofuels right now are super underrated, because you're about to get hopefully some very cheap electricity from solar, or it could be, maybe, some land. If we get really lucky, possibly some nuclear, geothermal. It'll just make sense to create liquid fuels, or natural gas, or something just from electricity and air, essentially.Austin Vernon (00:58:25):There's a whole spectrum of ways to do this, so O2 electrolysis is one of those. Basically, you take water, electricity, and CO2, and a catalyst. And then, you make more complex molecules, like carbon monoxide, or formic acid, or ethylene, or ethanol, or methane or methine. Those are all options. But it's important to point out that, right now, I think if you added up all the CO2 electrolyzers in the world, you'd be measuring their output and kilograms per day. We make millions of tons per day off of the products I just mentioned. So there's a massive scale up if it's going to have a wider impact.Austin Vernon (00:59:15):So there's some debate. I think the debate for the whole electrofuels sector is: How much are you going to do in the electrolyzer? One company whose approach I really like is Terraform Industries. They want to make methane, which is the main natural gas. But they're just making hydrogen in their electrolyzer, and then they capture the CO2 and then put it into a methanation reaction. So everything they're doing is already world scale, basically.Austin Vernon (00:59:47):We've had hydrogen electrolyzers power fertilizer plants, providing them with the Hydrogen that they need. Methanation happens in all ammonia plants and several other examples. It's well known, very old. Methanation is hydrogen CO2 combined to make water and methane. So their approach is more conservative, but if you do more in the electrolyzer, like I'm going to make the methane actually in the electrolyzer instead of adding this other process, you could potentially have a much simpler process that has less CapEx and scales downward better. Traditional chemical engineering heavily favors scaling. With the more Terraform processes, they're playing as absolutely ginormous factories. These can take a long time to build.Austin Vernon (01:00:42):So one of the things they're doing is: they're having to fight the complexity that creeps into chemical engineering every step of the way. Because if they don't, they'll end up with a plant that takes 10 years to build, and that's not their goal. It takes 10 years to build a new refinery, because they're so complex. So yeah, that's where I am. I'm more on the speculative edge, and it's not clear yet which products will be favorable for which approaches.Dwarkesh Patel (01:01:15):Okay, yeah. And you're building this out of your garage, correct?Austin Vernon (01:01:19):Yeah. So that's where electrolyzers... Everything with electric chemistry is a flat plate instead of a vessel, so it scales down. So I can have a pretty good idea of what my 100 square centimeter electrolyzer is going to do, if I make it quite a bit bigger. I have to worry about how my flow might interact in the larger one and make sure the mixing's good, but it's pretty straightforward because you're just making your flat plate a larger area. Whereas the scale, it is different from scaling a traditional chemical process.Dwarkesh Patel (01:01:56):I'm curious how cheap energy has to be before this is efficient. If you're turning it into methane or something like that, presumably for fuel, is the entire process energy positive? Or how cheap would energy, electricity you need to get before that's the case?Austin Vernon (01:02:18):The different products and different methods have different crossovers. So Terraform Industries, they're shooting for $10 a megawatt hour for electricity. But again, their process is simpler, a little less efficient than a lot of the other products. They also have better premiums, just worth more per ton than methane. So your crossover happens somewhere in between $10 and $20 a megawatt hour, which is... I mean, that's pretty... Right now, solar, it's maybe like $25. Maybe it's a little higher because payment prices have gone up in the last year, but I think the expectation is they'll come back down. And so, getting down to $15 where you start having crossovers for some of these products like ethanol or ethylene or methanol, it's not science fiction.Dwarkesh Patel (01:03:08):I think in Texas where I live, that's where it's at right? The cost of energy is 20 or something dollars per megawatt hour.Austin Vernon (01:03:16):Well, not this summer! But yeah, a lot of times in Texas, the wholesale prices are around $25 to $30.Dwarkesh Patel (01:03:26):Gotcha. Okay. Yeah. So a lot of the actual details you said about how this works went over my head. So what is a flat plate? I guess before you answer that question, can you just generally describe the approach? What is it? What are you doing to convert CO2 into these other compounds?Austin Vernon (01:03:45):Well, yeah, it literally just looks like an electrolyzer. You have two sides and anode and a cathode and they're just smushed together like this because of the electrical resistance. If you put them far apart, it makes it... uses up a lot of energy. So you smush them together as close as you can. And then, you're basically just trading electrons back and forth. On one side, you're turning CO2 into a more complex molecule, and on the other side, you're taking apart water. And so, when you take apart the water, it balances out the equation, balances out your electrons and everything like that. I probably need to work on that elevator pitch there, huh?Dwarkesh Patel (01:04:31):I guess what the basic idea is, you need to put power in to convert CO2 into these other compounds.Austin Vernon (01:04:38):The inputs are electricity, water, and CO2, and the output is usually oxygen and whatever chemical you're trying to create is, along with some side reactions.Dwarkesh Patel (01:04:49):And then, these chemicals you mentioned, I think ethanol, methane, formic acid, are these all just fuels or what are the other uses for them?Austin Vernon (01:04:58):A lot of people are taking a hybrid approach with carbon monoxide. So this would be like Twelve Co… They've raised a lot of money to do this and 100 employees or something. You can take that carbon monoxide and make hydrogen, and then you have to send gas to make liquid fuels. So they want to make all sorts of chemicals, but one of the main volume ones would be like jet fuel.Austin Vernon (01:05:22):Let's see Formic acid is, it's the little fry of all these. It is an additive in a lot of things like preserving hay for animals and stuff like that. Then, ethanol there's people that want to... There's this company that makes ethylene, which goes into plastics that makes polyethylene, which is the most produced plastic. Or you can burn it in your car, although I think ethanol is a terrible vehicle fuel. But then you can also just make ethylene straight in the electrolyzer. So there's many paths. So which path wins is an interesting race to see.Dwarkesh Patel (01:06:13):The ability to produce jet fuel is really interesting, because in your energy superabundance paper, you talk about... You would think that even if we can electrify everything in solar and when it becomes super cheap, that's not going to have an impact on the prices to go to space for example. But I don't know. If a process like this is possible, then it's some way to in financial terms, add liquidity. And then turn, basically, this cheap solar and wind into jet fuel through this indirect process. So the price to send stuff to space or cheap plane flights or whatever––all of that goes down as well.Austin Vernon (01:06:52):It basically sets a price ceiling on the price of oil. Whatever you can produce this for is the ceiling now, which is maybe the way I think about it.Dwarkesh Patel (01:07:06):Yeah. So do you want to talk a little bit about how your background led into this project? This is your full-time thing, right? I don't know if I read about that, but where did you get this idea and how long have you been pursuing it? And what's the progress and so on.Austin Vernon (01:07:20):I've always loved chemical engineering, and I love working at the big processing plant because it's like being a kid in a candy store. If I had extra time, I'd just walk around and look at the plant, like it's so cool. But the plant where I worked at, their up time was 99.7%. So if you wanted to change anything or do anything new, it terrified everyone. That's how they earned their bonuses: run the plant a 100% uptime all the time. So that just wasn't a good fit for me. And also, so I always wanted my own chemical plant, but it's billions of dollars to build plants so that was a pretty big step. So I think this new technology of... there's a window where you might be able to build smaller plants until it optimizes to be hard to enter again.Dwarkesh Patel (01:08:21):And then, why will it become hard to enter again? What will happen?Austin Vernon (01:08:27):If someone figures out how to build a really cheap electrolyzer, and they just keep it as intellectual property, then it would be hard to rediscover that and compete with them.Dwarkesh Patel (01:08:38):And so, how long have you been working on this?Austin Vernon (01:08:42):Oh, not quite a year. But yeah, I actually got this idea to work on it from writing my blog. So when I wrote the heating fuel post, I didn't really know much about... There's another company in the space, Prometheus Fuels and I'm like, "Oh, this is an interesting idea." And then, I got talking to a guy named Brian Heligman, and he's like, "You should do this, but not what Prometheus is doing." And so, then I started looking at it and I liked it, so I've been working on it since.Dwarkesh Patel (01:09:08):Yeah. It's interesting because if energy does become as cheap as you suspect it might. If this process works, then yeah, this is a trillion dollar company probably, right? If you're going to get the patents and everything.Austin Vernon (01:09:22):I mean, maybe. With chemical plants, there's a certain limitation where your physical limitation is. There's only so many places that are good places for chemical plants. You start getting hit by transportation and all that. So, you can't just produce all the chemical for the entire world in Texas and transport it all around. It wouldn't work. So you're talking about a full, globe-spanning thing. At that point, if y

On this episode Jonathon speaks with Raphael Haupt, Founder of Toucan Protocol - an organisation crating transparent and efficient markets for carbon by developing blockchain and web3 native protocols.

Welcome back to Efficient Markets! When asked how much people need saved up to have a comfortable retirement, the answer will often come back - $1 Million Dollars. I thought it would be fun to test this out. In this episode I break down what a $1M retirement looks like. I also run through some adjustments that can be made to boost retirement income. With our hypothetical couple, Jack and Jill, we find out how they can retire with $1M saved up.  Then, we work through some adjustments to make the plan work for them. I have detailed notes on my blog for this episode, so you can follow along - https://walhoutfinancial.ca/podcast/what-kind-of-retirement-can-i-expect-with-dollar1-million-dollars-saved-up Thank you for listening! Mark

Public markets are efficient, meaning they price in all public information almost instantaneously. This was proven once again this week when Peloton reported earnings and immediately dropped 25%. Then, Zillow reported they were exiting the house flipping business and promptly dropped 22%. These were unpredictable news events that were immediately incorporated into the stock price. Private investments do not have this same efficiency. Those with the right access to the best investments have a huge opportunity to create and sustain generational wealth with such an illiquid asset class.When it comes to the public markets, success is achieved by investing in a diversified and data driven way across the world, and always staying long-term oriented.   EPISODE HIGHLIGHTS:(0:32) News: Braves win the World Series. Payroll number beats expectations and lifts the market higher. Very good news for the US Economy, which also brought unemployment down to 4.6%. Central banks have begun pulling back some stimulus and normalizing operations.     (2:27) Earnings season is underway. Peloton, a COVID winner, dropped on weak forward guidance.   (3:45) Zillow is exiting the house flipping business after losing money and is unloading their current inventory of homes.(4:55) Efficiency of markets and news is immediately priced into the stock price.(6:30) Public markets are efficient whereas private markets are not. (7:30) Company forecasts are often wrong just as the analysts that follow the stocks are often wrong. They both cannot predict the future. (8:15) Zillow, with their large amounts of data, could not predict future home prices enough to make a profit.(09:40) Investors with access to asymmetric information, like exists in the private markets, creates an opportunity to earn higher returns. Only inefficient markets can provide that.     (10:20) Realtors almost always tell clients their homes will appreciate but they are just guessing.   (10:42) Penn National Gaming stock crashed because of one person in the company, Dave Portnoy. (11:00) The lesson at the end of the day is that for long term investors are rewarded as the world economy continues to grow. That is the bet with the highest chance of success.(11:33) Invest across the world, in a data driven and thoughtful way. If you can do that, ignoring the short term noise, you will have success. 

Welcome back to Efficient Markets! On today's episode, I review the Top 10 takeaways book "Trillions" by Robin Wigglesworth. This is the first book I have come across that provides an in depth look at the history of the people and companies that started the index fund revolution.  I hope you enjoy this brief review! Detailed notes are available on my blog at www.walhoutfinancial.ca/podcast Have a great day! Mark

Welcome back to Efficient Markets! Today, we talk about a question that I have gotten from a number of clients over the past few weeks.  When do I no longer need life insurance? We talk about the role of life insurance, the different types of life insurance, what insurance is meant to do, how much it costs, and how to think about whether or not you need it anymore. Links and show notes will be available on my blog at www.walhoutfinancial.ca/podcast Thanks for listening! Mark

Welcome back to Efficient Markets! On today's episode we look at stock returns in Canada by Prime Minister going back to 1957.   From there, we talk about intra-year declines and what they mean for full year stock returns. We finish with a discussion about the behaviour gap - which is the difference between stock market returns and the actual returns realized by the investors in the market. Charts and links can be found at www.walhoutfinancial.ca/podcast Thanks for listening! Mark

Welcome back to Efficient Markets. On today's episode, we talk about home country bias. According to Statista.com - Canadian stocks make up 2.4% of the total global equity market capitalization.  According to Vanguard, Canadians, on average, allocate about 56% of their equity portfolios to Canadian stocks. This is what is called a home country bias. We talk about the issues with allocating so much of your portfolio to Canadian stocks and some of the reasons that you may want to diversify away from Canada in your portfolios. Detailed show notes and links can be found on my blog this week at www.walhoutfinancial.ca.  Thank you for listening. Mark

Welcome back to Efficient Markets. Today we talk about high flying growth stocks being added to the S&P 500.  We compare them to the stocks that are removed from the index to make room for them. Which stocks do you think outperform going forward?  The answer might surprise you. Blog post and show notes can be found on my blog this week at www.walhoutfinancial.ca/podcast Thanks for listening! Mark

The Efficient Markets Hypothesis is key to understanding modern finance, and especially the capital markets. So let’s talk about it!

Efficient Markets If you refreshed your podcast player this morning, you may have noticed the change in the title of the show.  On today's episode I will walk through what's changing for the podcast and what you can expect going forward. Reasons for the change: Client shift many of my clients are approaching retirement, but many aren't lots of great financial planning questions that I answer that I'd like to spend more time on here Format shift I got feedback from friends and family, and to a person they encouraged me to shorten the episodes, and make them simpler So going forward, expect episodes more frequently, at least once a week but likely twice a week – on Tuesdays and Fridays, starting next week. Reflection of my day to day On a daily basis, I field a lot more investment questions than any other type of question, so I think my podcast should be a reflection of that The financial advice I give is non-controversial, BUT, still only a very small percentage of Canadians invest the way I recommend they invest – in an evidence-based way. I think I need to tell that story more. The name? Efficient Markets was a video series I did a few months back It describes the bedrock of my investing approach, which is the belief that markets are mostly efficient and we should act accordingly Efficient is also the way I would like to make these podcasts going forward – shorter, more frequent, and to the point What's not changing: It's still me, talking to you – just more frequently but for shorter periods There will still be discussion about financial planning and retirement topics, just a little bit less of those and more questions and answers about investing The music – I told my wife Sarah that I was changing the name of the show, and she said I had to keep the music, it's like my trademark – so I hope you enjoy the music! Thanks for tuning into today's episode and I will speak with you next time. Mark

Today on the show, I give an explanation of one of the most controversial theories in modern finance; The Theory of Efficient Markets. I'll explain what this theory is and how it affects you as a modern investor.   Have ideas for a future episode? Send in an email or tweet @MainStMoney to have your idea as a future show!   My Usual Links Website: www.MainStFinance.org Show Email address: Mainstfinance@gmail.com Twitter Account: @MainStMoney YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxWzLF_ZCgeDJ6PcIovg9ww

In this episode Mrs B explains market efficiency and how the government intervenes into efficient markets for reasons such as equity and fairness and how this leads to a dead weight loss

To support this ministry financially, visit: https://www.oneplace.com/donate/1085/29 Watch cable TV for awhile and you’re bound to see a program about buried treasure in the Sierra Mountains or off some Caribbean island. Ever wonder why the searchers hardly ever find anything?An even better question might be what on earth does buried treasure have to do with government bonds and your savings account? Today, Kingdom Advisors President Rob West answers those questions and more. Then it’s your calls at 800-525-7000. The Efficient Markets theory. In the stock market it means that the value of a stock always reaches its perfect selling price barring any outside factors.Now, applying it to buried treasure it works like this the bigger the treasure the more likely someoneelse has already found it. A lot of folks are passing up some buried treasure in the form of government I bonds.Right now about the best you’ll get with your savings or emergency fund in an online bank is around 0.5% interest. Brick and mortar banks are paying far less.But, right now,Series I savings bonds are currently offering 1.68% that’s more than 3 times the online bank rate, and it would pay you $118 a year for a $10,000 emergency fund. An I bond is just another type of U.S.savings bond and it’s guaranteed to keep up with inflation. As with other bonds you get a fixed rate set for the life of the bond. And right now it’s right around zero. If you own an I bond you’ll get semi-annual rateadjustments. In other words, two per year. Right now, that rate change is 0.84%. Double that because you get two of them and your annual interest is just under 1.7%. There’s your buried treasure. And of course, I bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. Also, interest on I bonds is free from state taxes and possibly federal taxes if you cash in the bond in the same year you pay for college expenses depending on your income. Theydo come with a few restrictions. You have to hang onto them for at least 12 months before you can cash them in. That means you shouldn’t put all of your emergency savings into I bonds in a single year. Also, you can’t buy I bonds through your broker or bank, you can only buy them online at TreasureDirect.gov. There’s nothing wrong with putting a portion of your savings into an I bond if you’re comfortable knowing that you can’t touch it for at least 12 months. If you can do that, you’ll earn almost $120 extra per year on $10,000, sort of like finding buried treasure. Here are a couple of questions we answered from our callers on today’s program: My daughter has been doing my taxes the past few years. She told me that I do not need to file taxes this year since social security is my only income, is that correct? I had an accident a couple years ago and I will be receiving a settlement soon. What is the wise thing to do with the money I will receive? I recently graduated from college. All of my loans are on hold because of Covid. What is the best way to pay these down? How do you know which charities are legitimate? Is it wise to refinance right now? Ask your questions at (800) 525-7000 or email them toQuestions@MoneyWise.org. Visit our website atMoneyWise.orgwhere you can connect with a MoneyWise Coach, purchase books, and even download free, helpful resources like the MoneyWise app. Like and Follow us on Facebook atMoneyWise Mediafor videos and the very latest discussion!Remember that it’s your prayerful and financial support that keeps MoneyWise on the air. Help us continue this outreach by clicking the Donate tab at the top of the page.

Following up from our discussion of financial markets and inflation from last week, in this episode we talk to a finance professional. Matt Lipps works for a quantitative hedge fund based out of Austin, Texas. Matt walks us through how index funds work, the difference between active management, enhanced index, and index funds. We also discuss the difference between value and growth stocks as well as why he gets excited when Tesla stock price goes down. We wrap up the discussion talking about expected versus unexpected inflation and whether unexpected inflation is a concern in the future.

Certified Financial Planner David Elder, Vince’s personal Retirement Advisor, is back with him on CFO at Home. This time around they discuss the GameStop trading craze and what it means for the average investor, Efficient Markets, when shorting stocks can be bad for the stock market in general, and more. Key Takeaways GameStop trading frenzy A number of Hedge Funds were “shorting” GameStop stock Shorting a stock is when you are loaned shares of stock by a brokerage company (with interest), you sell the stock, buy it back (hopefully at a lower price) in order to return the loaned shares. The difference between your sell and repurchase prices is your profit.     Reddit users started buying significant numbers of shares of the stock, driving the price up. With the stock price started going up instead of down, the Hedge Funds started buying shares as well i order to  limit their losses (a “Short Cover”) This same activity was also taking place with others stocks such as AMC Theatres  S&P 500 started to drop during all of this, possibly driven by Hedge Funds selling shares in other stocks to raise money to buy GameStop stock and cover their Short positions.      Efficient Market Theory The theory that the collective intelligence of all investors is smarter than a single individual. If you just own the entire market you’ll benefit from that collective intelligence in a free sort of way While trading like what happened with GameStop may not be “efficient”, not only is it not necessarily bad for long-term investors, it could actually work in their favor.  Market inefficiency creates opportunity for unique opportunities to make profits (arbitrage opportunities) “Shorting Stocks” can be bad for the market - Shorting stocks can results in dips in the broad market that can panic individual investors into selling at the wrong time Be careful in your consumption of financial media - Like any other media, their priority is to get viewers/readers, not to provide accurate unbiased information   Ways to contact/follow Meritfa.com David Elder Merit Financial - LinkedIn Delder@meritfa.com 678-867-7050 Contact the Host - vince@thecfoathome.com

In this show Jason and Alex present what investors should do amidst all that is happening in the world, in these uncharted waters.They begin by sharing the purpose of the show, which is to advocate for consumers by providing financial education free from any conflicts of interest. Jason brings to light that most financial radio shows’ purpose is to sell commission based, high profit products. IDA does not any sell products, as they are full time all the time fiduciaries who objectively build comprehensive financial plans that optimize their clients’ financial lives.Jason and Alex discuss how relevant Jason’s book, written multiple years ago, is to the present crisis, as it lays out a plan for how investors can successfully navigate uncharted waters amidst crisis. They discuss how important it is for investors to have a financial plan and make intelligent and disciplined decisions with their life savings in uncertain times. Alex educates listeners by suggesting investors block out all noise and focus on the basics of what they need to do to get through the crises successfully. Jason offers a free book to listeners, to help them avoid making common mistakes with their life savings, especially as mistakes are so common during crises.Next Jason and Alex answer a listener’s question: “Why should I continue to invest globally, as international investments have performed dismally over the past 5 years?” They answer the question by sharing the data, that shows trying to time which asset class is going to perform best next is a recipe for failure. Investors are more successful when they diversify in a way that matches their personal financial situation – their financial plan. Chasing performance does not work, as different asset classes perform better in different times and there is no way to predict which will do best at a given time.Jason shares an example of how chasing performance does not work. Most 401k participants pick their investments within the plan by looking at short term performance (1 to 3 years). Alex points out that we are all trained as consumers to do this, i.e. read recent reviews, although it is detrimental to success in investing. Investors succeed rather by investing in a globally diversified portfolio and having, and sticking to, a financial plan that works to achieve personal goals.They close the show with beautiful fact that sticking to basics, your long-term financial plan, in unchartered water not only yields financial success but importantly, peace of mind during stressful crises.In this show you will learn about:- IDA’s mission to provide objective, non-biased financial education to consumers- How important a personal financial plan and discipline are to investor success in uncertain times amidst crises- Why investors should diversify their invested assets globally- Why selecting investments based on how they have performed short-term is a mistake

In this show Jason and Alex present what investors should do amidst all that is happening in the world, in these uncharted waters.They begin by sharing the purpose of the show, which is to advocate for consumers by providing financial education free from any conflicts of interest. Jason brings to light that most financial radio shows’ purpose is to sell commission based, high profit products. IDA does not any sell products, as they are full time all the time fiduciaries who objectively build comprehensive financial plans that optimize their clients’ financial lives.Jason and Alex discuss how relevant Jason’s book, written multiple years ago, is to the present crisis, as it lays out a plan for how investors can successfully navigate uncharted waters amidst crisis. They discuss how important it is for investors to have a financial plan and make intelligent and disciplined decisions with their life savings in uncertain times. Alex educates listeners by suggesting investors block out all noise and focus on the basics of what they need to do to get through the crises successfully. Jason offers a free book to listeners, to help them avoid making common mistakes with their life savings, especially as mistakes are so common during crises.Next Jason and Alex answer a listener’s question: “Why should I continue to invest globally, as international investments have performed dismally over the past 5 years?” They answer the question by sharing the data, that shows trying to time which asset class is going to perform best next is a recipe for failure. Investors are more successful when they diversify in a way that matches their personal financial situation – their financial plan. Chasing performance does not work, as different asset classes perform better in different times and there is no way to predict which will do best at a given time.Jason shares an example of how chasing performance does not work. Most 401k participants pick their investments within the plan by looking at short term performance (1 to 3 years). Alex points out that we are all trained as consumers to do this, i.e. read recent reviews, although it is detrimental to success in investing. Investors succeed rather by investing in a globally diversified portfolio and having, and sticking to, a financial plan that works to achieve personal goals.They close the show with beautiful fact that sticking to basics, your long-term financial plan, in unchartered water not only yields financial success but importantly, peace of mind during stressful crises.In this show you will learn about:- IDA’s mission to provide objective, non-biased financial education to consumers- How important a personal financial plan and discipline are to investor success in uncertain times amidst crises- Why investors should diversify their invested assets globally- Why selecting investments based on how they have performed short-term is a mistake

Read our related TEK2day article here: https://tek2day.com/2020/05/21/passive-investing-makes-for-less-efficient-markets/

Welcome to Episode 17 of Retire Me. Today, we discuss Larry Swedroe's new book "Your Complete Guide to a Successful and Secure Retirement".  Larry is a prolific author and practitioner in the investment and retirement space.  We talk about the key elements to a successful retirement.   This list has nothing to to with numbers and figures.  It has everything to do with your passions, your purpose, and your growth.  It applies to retirees, and to anyone who wants to build a purpose-driven life. I also introduce a 9 part series entitled "Key Questions for Long Term Investors" where I lay out my investment philosophy.  This will dovetail into a longer series I'm going to do on factor investing, and form the foundation for a weekly segment I will do on investments going forward. Detailed links and show notes will be posted to my blog at www.walhoutfinancial.ca/retire-me shortly. Thanks for listening, Mark

Show Description: In today’s show Jason and Alex start by reminding listeners that in this time of Easter and Passover many people find themselves in a very strange situation. Holidays like these are ones that many of us are accustomed to being together for, and unfortunately many of us can’t this year. One of the positive things that we hope to come away from this with is a much stronger sense of appreciation for sharing these kinds of experiences with one another. We will not take them for granted in the future. On January 11th China state media reported the first known death from what was then an unknown new virus. On January 30th the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a global health emergency. Since then investors have been on the rollercoaster ride of market swings in the double-digits. Daily! On February 19th the S&P 500 hit an all time high of 3386, dropping by 34% to the most recent bottom on March 23rd. A mere 14 (market) days later (April 9th) it’s up over 25%. Other major indices like the Dow Jones and MSCI All World index were right in line with similar numbers. Jason shares with listeners what The Financial Detox Team at Intelligence Driven Advisers (IDA) was doing before, during and after these major milestone dates. As history unfolds it is more important than ever to have an evidenced based investment philosophy backed by a consistent, measurable process to implement, monitor and execute upon. The team’s mission is “To Steward True Financial Peace of Mind For All”. In this vein IDA is making a bold offer; free investment management and financial planning to all new clients for six months. More details on this offer can be found here. If there was ever a time to evaluate your financial plan and investment strategy, it is now!In this show you will learn about:- What the IDA Client Experience is like (Free for six months!)- What our team was doing for investors before and during COVID-19- What we will be doing for investors after COVID-19- How quick markets swing; 28% in 14 days!

Show Description: In today’s show Jason and Alex start by reminding listeners that in this time of Easter and Passover many people find themselves in a very strange situation. Holidays like these are ones that many of us are accustomed to being together for, and unfortunately many of us can’t this year. One of the positive things that we hope to come away from this with is a much stronger sense of appreciation for sharing these kinds of experiences with one another. We will not take them for granted in the future. On January 11th China state media reported the first known death from what was then an unknown new virus. On January 30th the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a global health emergency. Since then investors have been on the rollercoaster ride of market swings in the double-digits. Daily! On February 19th the S&P 500 hit an all time high of 3386, dropping by 34% to the most recent bottom on March 23rd. A mere 14 (market) days later (April 9th) it’s up over 25%. Other major indices like the Dow Jones and MSCI All World index were right in line with similar numbers. Jason shares with listeners what The Financial Detox Team at Intelligence Driven Advisers (IDA) was doing before, during and after these major milestone dates. As history unfolds it is more important than ever to have an evidenced based investment philosophy backed by a consistent, measurable process to implement, monitor and execute upon. The team’s mission is “To Steward True Financial Peace of Mind For All”. In this vein IDA is making a bold offer; free investment management and financial planning to all new clients for six months. More details on this offer can be found here. If there was ever a time to evaluate your financial plan and investment strategy, it is now!In this show you will learn about:- What the IDA Client Experience is like (Free for six months!)- What our team was doing for investors before and during COVID-19- What we will be doing for investors after COVID-19- How quick markets swing; 28% in 14 days!

Show Description:On this show Jason and Alex discuss the massive stimulus program called the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. One of the components of the Act allocated $350 billion to help small businesses keep workers employed amid the pandemic and economic downturn. Known as the Paycheck Protection Program, the initiative provides 100% federally guaranteed loans to small businesses. Another component that peaked the interest of many is the provision to send most Americans direct payments of $1,200, or $2,400 for joint filers, plus $500 for each child. The amount of the payments will be reduced for those with higher incomes. For individuals filing taxes as singles, the reduced amount begins at an adjusted gross income (AGI) of $75,000 per year and is completely phased out at $99,000. For joint filers, the reduced amount begins at $150,000 and payment is eliminated at $198,000. Your AGI will be determined by your 2019 tax filing (or 2018, if 2019 is unavailable). Yet another component that many people have started asking questions about are the provisions that have relaxed some of the retirement account rules. Jason cautions listeners to consider this as a last resort because the impact of using retirement money could have major negative affects on long term financial success. The show is simply not long enough to cover the numerous provisions to the stimulus and Jason and Alex remind listeners that the Financial Detox team at Intelligence Driven Advisers has a network of specialists dedicated to being a resource to any individual or business that has questions or needs guidance on the program.In this show you will learn about:- The CARES Act and a few of the provisions that might impact you- How the Act aims to help small businesses- How the Act aims to help most Americans via direct payments- Some of the retirement account changes that have relaxed some of the rules

Show Description:On this show Jason and Alex discuss the massive stimulus program called the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. One of the components of the Act allocated $350 billion to help small businesses keep workers employed amid the pandemic and economic downturn. Known as the Paycheck Protection Program, the initiative provides 100% federally guaranteed loans to small businesses. Another component that peaked the interest of many is the provision to send most Americans direct payments of $1,200, or $2,400 for joint filers, plus $500 for each child. The amount of the payments will be reduced for those with higher incomes. For individuals filing taxes as singles, the reduced amount begins at an adjusted gross income (AGI) of $75,000 per year and is completely phased out at $99,000. For joint filers, the reduced amount begins at $150,000 and payment is eliminated at $198,000. Your AGI will be determined by your 2019 tax filing (or 2018, if 2019 is unavailable). Yet another component that many people have started asking questions about are the provisions that have relaxed some of the retirement account rules. Jason cautions listeners to consider this as a last resort because the impact of using retirement money could have major negative affects on long term financial success. The show is simply not long enough to cover the numerous provisions to the stimulus and Jason and Alex remind listeners that the Financial Detox team at Intelligence Driven Advisers has a network of specialists dedicated to being a resource to any individual or business that has questions or needs guidance on the program.In this show you will learn about:- The CARES Act and a few of the provisions that might impact you- How the Act aims to help small businesses- How the Act aims to help most Americans via direct payments- Some of the retirement account changes that have relaxed some of the rules

Show Description: This week has brought so much uncertainty and even panic for the American public. In today’s show Jason Labrum and Alex Klingensmith hope to bring some reality to the situation with regards to the financial markets and what this means going forward for investors. During this time the advantages of free market capitalism and the American public’s opportunity to make an action plan have become a huge asset to every American. Although the markets are shaky and declining history shows us, they WILL recover. Even more important if an investor misses the best days of the market, which history shows come during the Bear Markets and the recovery, the returns are so much lower. Getting in and out of the market/ timing the market will harm investors returns. The goal of this show is reinforcing the principles of proper investing. -What to do before major markets events: Have a Financial Plan with a Fiduciary Adviser-What to do during major market events: Don’t panic and make sure you have a fiduciary adviser. Revisit principles of investing and how markets work- Talk with your Adviser-What to do after major market event: Stay the course with your financial planIn this show you will learn about:What should investors do with their portfolios when markets dramatically decline?Why its so important to have a financial plan?"A rear view mirror is only good when you turn it on yourself to evaluate how you behaved during volatile markets"- Liz Ann Sonders- Chief Investment Strategist - Charles Schwab

Show Description: This week has brought so much uncertainty and even panic for the American public. In today’s show Jason Labrum and Alex Klingensmith hope to bring some reality to the situation with regards to the financial markets and what this means going forward for investors. During this time the advantages of free market capitalism and the American public’s opportunity to make an action plan have become a huge asset to every American. Although the markets are shaky and declining history shows us, they WILL recover. Even more important if an investor misses the best days of the market, which history shows come during the Bear Markets and the recovery, the returns are so much lower. Getting in and out of the market/ timing the market will harm investors returns. The goal of this show is reinforcing the principles of proper investing. -What to do before major markets events: Have a Financial Plan with a Fiduciary Adviser-What to do during major market events: Don’t panic and make sure you have a fiduciary adviser. Revisit principles of investing and how markets work- Talk with your Adviser-What to do after major market event: Stay the course with your financial planIn this show you will learn about:What should investors do with their portfolios when markets dramatically decline?Why its so important to have a financial plan?"A rear view mirror is only good when you turn it on yourself to evaluate how you behaved during volatile markets"- Liz Ann Sonders- Chief Investment Strategist - Charles Schwab

"What's noteworthy about this point is that, upon this particular halving, Bitcoin “inflating” at a roughly 1.8 percent rate annually will nominally — and by then, quite possibly in real terms — be “inflating” at a rate lower than both the Federal Reserve target of 2 percent per year and current, CPI-based estimates of real U.S. inflation of 1.9 percent annually." - Peter C Earle Another great piece from Bitcoin Magazine written by Peter C. Earle, detailing the reasons why this next halving will make Bitcoin a true contender in the world of monetary policy. In a very short span, Bitcoin will become the most scarce & strictly defined financial asset on Earth... are you ready? Check out the original article and follow Peter at the links below: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/the-kindest-cut-why-the-2020-bitcoin-halvening-is-the-most-important-yet https://twitter.com/L1KNB Other episodes & links to dive deeper into the discussion from the show: • Stop Calling Bitcoin Deflationary [Conner Brown] https://anchor.fm/thecryptoconomy/episodes/CryptoQuikRead_314---Stop-Calling-Bitcoin-Deflationary-Conner-Brown-e8p1o3 • Bitcoin Obsoletes All Other Money [Parker Lewis] https://anchor.fm/thecryptoconomy/episodes/CryptoQuikRead_345---Bitcoin-Obsoletes-All-Other-Money--Parker-Lewis-eahce1 • Efficient Markets & Bitcoin's Stock-to-Flow [PlanB] https://anchor.fm/thecryptoconomy/episodes/CryptoQuikRead_344---Efficient-Markets--Bitcoins-Stock-to-Flow-PlanB-eaco0i • Guy's Take 26 - The Halving Is Not Priced In https://anchor.fm/thecryptoconomy/episodes/GuysTake_026---The-Halving-is-Not-Priced-in--Heres-Why-eagkrd • Article - The Illusions of Hedonics [Antony P. Mueller] https://mises.org/library/illusions-hedonics --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/bitcoinaudible/message

"What’s noteworthy about this point is that, upon this particular halving, Bitcoin “inflating” at a roughly 1.8 percent rate annually will nominally — and by then, quite possibly in real terms — be “inflating” at a rate lower than both the Federal Reserve target of 2 percent per year and current, CPI-based estimates of real U.S. inflation of 1.9 percent annually." - Peter C Earle Another great piece from Bitcoin Magazine written by Peter C. Earle, detailing the reasons why this next halving will make Bitcoin a true contender in the world of monetary policy. In a very short span, Bitcoin will become the most scarce & strictly defined financial asset on Earth... are you ready? Check out the original article and follow Peter at the links below: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/the-kindest-cut-why-the-2020-bitcoin-halvening-is-the-most-important-yet https://twitter.com/L1KNB Other episodes & links to dive deeper into the discussion from the show: • Stop Calling Bitcoin Deflationary [Conner Brown] https://anchor.fm/thecryptoconomy/episodes/CryptoQuikRead_314---Stop-Calling-Bitcoin-Deflationary-Conner-Brown-e8p1o3 • Bitcoin Obsoletes All Other Money [Parker Lewis] https://anchor.fm/thecryptoconomy/episodes/CryptoQuikRead_345---Bitcoin-Obsoletes-All-Other-Money--Parker-Lewis-eahce1 • Efficient Markets & Bitcoin's Stock-to-Flow [PlanB] https://anchor.fm/thecryptoconomy/episodes/CryptoQuikRead_344---Efficient-Markets--Bitcoins-Stock-to-Flow-PlanB-eaco0i • Guy's Take 26 - The Halving Is Not Priced In https://anchor.fm/thecryptoconomy/episodes/GuysTake_026---The-Halving-is-Not-Priced-in--Heres-Why-eagkrd • Article - The Illusions of Hedonics [Antony P. Mueller] https://mises.org/library/illusions-hedonics --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/thecryptoconomy/message

As a follow up to Nic Carter's excellent breakdown of the efficient market hypothesis, and PlanB's piece addressing the market's evaluation of the risks in Bitcoin, I go through the reasons I feel the market both is very unwilling and unconfident about the consequences of the halving, and therefore sees it not as "known information," but more a blind gamble. For diving deeper into the many topics and works that I brought up, here are the links of all those I remembered: • Nic Carter's "Introduction to the Efficient Market Hypothesis" https://anchor.fm/thecryptoconomy/episodes/CryptoQuikRead_343---Introduction-to-the-Efficient-Market-Hypothesis-for-Bitcoiners-Nic-Carter-eac03b • PlanB's "Efficient Markets and Bitcoin's Stock-to-Flow" https://anchor.fm/thecryptoconomy/episodes/CryptoQuikRead_344---Efficient-Markets--Bitcoins-Stock-to-Flow-PlanB-eaco0i • Hayek's "Use of Knowledge in Society" [Part 1 & 2] https://anchor.fm/thecryptoconomy/episodes/CryptoQuikRead_250---Use-of-Knowledge-in-Society-Part-1---F--A--Hayek-e43pfj https://anchor.fm/thecryptoconomy/episodes/CryptoQuikRead_251---Use-of-Knowledge-in-Society-Part-2---F--A--Hayek-e444k0 • Parker Lewis's "Bitcoin is Not Backed by Nothing" https://anchor.fm/thecryptoconomy/episodes/CryptoQuikRead_335---Bitcoin-is-Not-Backed-by-Nothing-Parker-Lewis-e9v1rs • Hoppe's "Yield From Money Held Reconsidered" https://anchor.fm/thecryptoconomy/episodes/CryptoQuikRead_122---The-Yield-From-Money-Held-Reconsidered-e2ndqn • Conner Brown's "Bitcoin Has No Intrinsic Value, & That's Great!" https://anchor.fm/thecryptoconomy/episodes/CryptoQuikRead_249---Bitcoin-Has-No-Intrinsic-Value---Thats-Great--Conner-Brown-e43bcm Don't forget to grab your tickets to BitBlockBoom and use the offer code CC for a 30% discount! https://bitblockboom.com/ --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/bitcoinaudible/message

As a follow up to Nic Carter's excellent breakdown of the efficient market hypothesis, and PlanB's piece addressing the market's evaluation of the risks in Bitcoin, I go through the reasons I feel the market both is very unwilling and unconfident about the consequences of the halving, and therefore sees it not as "known information," but more a blind gamble. For diving deeper into the many topics and works that I brought up, here are the links of all those I remembered: • Nic Carter's "Introduction to the Efficient Market Hypothesis" https://anchor.fm/thecryptoconomy/episodes/CryptoQuikRead_343---Introduction-to-the-Efficient-Market-Hypothesis-for-Bitcoiners-Nic-Carter-eac03b • PlanB's "Efficient Markets and Bitcoin's Stock-to-Flow" https://anchor.fm/thecryptoconomy/episodes/CryptoQuikRead_344---Efficient-Markets--Bitcoins-Stock-to-Flow-PlanB-eaco0i • Hayek's "Use of Knowledge in Society" [Part 1 & 2] https://anchor.fm/thecryptoconomy/episodes/CryptoQuikRead_250---Use-of-Knowledge-in-Society-Part-1---F--A--Hayek-e43pfj https://anchor.fm/thecryptoconomy/episodes/CryptoQuikRead_251---Use-of-Knowledge-in-Society-Part-2---F--A--Hayek-e444k0 • Parker Lewis's "Bitcoin is Not Backed by Nothing" https://anchor.fm/thecryptoconomy/episodes/CryptoQuikRead_335---Bitcoin-is-Not-Backed-by-Nothing-Parker-Lewis-e9v1rs • Hoppe's "Yield From Money Held Reconsidered" https://anchor.fm/thecryptoconomy/episodes/CryptoQuikRead_122---The-Yield-From-Money-Held-Reconsidered-e2ndqn • Conner Brown's "Bitcoin Has No Intrinsic Value, & That's Great!" https://anchor.fm/thecryptoconomy/episodes/CryptoQuikRead_249---Bitcoin-Has-No-Intrinsic-Value---Thats-Great--Conner-Brown-e43bcm Don't forget to grab your tickets to BitBlockBoom and use the offer code CC for a 30% discount! https://bitblockboom.com/ --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/thecryptoconomy/message

"A first reaction could be that it is a great investment opportunity. A better reaction (from an EMH and non arbitrage point of view) would be that it is too good to be true." - PlanB If the efficient market hypothesis requires that known events be priced in, then how could the S2F be a model for Bitcoin's price? When such an obvious and unchanging piece of information is available, shouldn't the market price it in? Continuing with the foundation laid from yesterday's article, we read Plan B's piece on what a risk & return model might tell us about the market's pricing of Bitcoin ahead of the halving. Drop some applause on the original article at the link below and don't forget to follow @100TrillionUSD (PlanB) if you haven't already! https://medium.com/@100trillionUSD/efficient-market-hypothesis-and-bitcoin-stock-to-flow-model-db17f40e6107 --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/bitcoinaudible/message

"A first reaction could be that it is a great investment opportunity. A better reaction (from an EMH and non arbitrage point of view) would be that it is too good to be true." - PlanB If the efficient market hypothesis requires that known events be priced in, then how could the S2F be a model for Bitcoin's price? When such an obvious and unchanging piece of information is available, shouldn't the market price it in? Continuing with the foundation laid from yesterday's article, we read Plan B's piece on what a risk & return model might tell us about the market's pricing of Bitcoin ahead of the halving. Drop some applause on the original article at the link below and don't forget to follow @100TrillionUSD (PlanB) if you haven't already! https://medium.com/@100trillionUSD/efficient-market-hypothesis-and-bitcoin-stock-to-flow-model-db17f40e6107 --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/thecryptoconomy/message

BackgroundGus Sauter bio  Gus Sauter retirement announcement Fast Facts About Vanguard  Council on University of Chicago Booth School of BusinessJack Bogle bio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._BogleJack Brennan bio Search for Alpha “Alpha and the Paradox of Skill” by Michael J. Mauboussin and Dan Callahan. Credit Suisse, July 15, 2013.  Growth, and Limits, of IndexingCharles Ellis bio  Charles Ellis books  Burton Malkiel bio  Burton Malkiel books  Indexing and Price Discovery“Setting the Record Straight: Truths About Indexing” by James J. Rowley, Joshua M. Hirt, and Haifeng Wang. The Vanguard Group, January 2018. Indexing and Corporate Governance“Vanguard CEO Jack Brennan Makes His Demands Heard” by Aaron Lucchetti. The Wall Street Journal, February 2003. Private Markets and AlternativesDavid Swensen bio David Swensen books  The Case for IndexingWilliam Sharpe bio“The Arithmetic of Active Management” by William Sharpe; The Financial Analysts Journal, Volume 47, No. 1; January/February 1991. Innovation“Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness” by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein, February 2009. 

On this episode on the Unhashed Podcast: We switch things up a bit and have on Joshua Unseth (aka Junseth) of Bitcoin Uncensored fame. We discuss the merits of the Efficient Markets Hypothesis, the stereotype of the Florida man, and how to include bitcoin in an indexed portfolio. (preview: should you index scams?)

In this episode I get into the details of Pareto Network with co-founder Eric Lamison-White. We cover what it does, what plans they have in place and how it can help you the listener. We also touch on what crypto market fundamentals might look like. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Data accessibility conference call with Reonomy's Richard Sarkis and Estated's Josh Fraser

In this episode, we had a discussion with Ori Brafman about decentralization and how our brains respond to cash and cocaine. Ori is a multiple New York Times bestselling author and is the founder and president of Starfish Leadership as well as the co-founder of the Fully Charged Institute with Tom Rath. He is a Distinguished Teaching Fellow at UC Berkeley’s Haas School of Business and his specialties range from organizational culture, employee engagement, business transformation, leadership, to emerging technologies. More than many of our guests, our talk with Ori touched on a very wide range of topics. We rambled from from distributed trust, gaining power through ceding control in decentralized industries, making a new blockchain currency – called Groove Coins (which would be cool!) – to how being born in Israel and growing up in El Paso, Texas impacted his life, how communities and tribes impact us, how we do or do not imply intent, and to how we use technology, in many ways, is a huge behavioral science experiment. We also discussed a new podcast that Ori has launched with his brother Rom called “Psychological Mysteries” and how they’re attempting to wrap up some loose ends in the world of psychology. Sort of a fraternal myth-busters approach to solving some common misconceptions of our minds. Of course, we discussed music and how Ori’s love for serious music (classical and baroque) became evident at an early age, but he didn’t find enough traction to pursue it professionally. Ironically, he discovered some of his baroque heroes at Burning Man while EDM music (EDM = electronic dance music) played in the background. Burning Man, if you are not familiar, is an annual festival of sorts, that attracts nearly 80,000 people to a playa in the middle of the desert near Reno, Nevada in the western United States. Burning Man promotes principles such as radical inclusion, radical self-expression, radical self-reliance and gifting among their top 10. These make for a unique experience according to friends who have attended the week-long cultural experience. Our time with Ori passed quickly and was filled with lots and lots of laughter. We found that his intellectual rigor lifted us up with new ideas and fresh perspectives and we are grateful to have had a chat with him. In our grooving session, we started out discussing Richard Mowday’s book, Employee – Organization Linkages: The Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism, and Turnover, published by Academic Press in 1982.  We also discussed the Psychometrics of Decentralization, from an article in Psychology Today, from June 14, 2018 and some of Rachel Botsman’s interesting work on trust. Before you listen, we would like your help.  Stars and written reviews help move us up in Apple’s (and other pod services) algorithms for ratings and rankings.  On Apple, all you have to do is click on “Shows” find Behavioral Grooves, scroll down to the bottom (past all our episodes) to rate us AND write a review.  We would greatly appreciate it. Please enjoy our discussion with Ori Brafman. Ori’s Books include: Radical Inclusion: What the Post–9/11 World Should Have Taught Us About Leadership The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior Click: The Forces Behind How We Fully Engage with People, Work, and Everything We Do The Chaos Imperative: How Chance and Disruption Increase Innovation, Effectiveness, and Success   Ori & Rom’s Podcast “Psychological Mysteries” can be found at https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/psychological-mysteries/id1434160105?mt=2 To subscribe to Behavioral Grooves, you can do so at any major podcatcher or at Podbean: https://behavioralgrooves.podbean.com/

Investing Fundas with Aditya Shrimankar is a weekly podcast that will help keep you abreast with investment ideas/economic data/business news etc. from India and abroad. The information is presented in a succinct manner helping you to get the essence of all the important bits in just a few minutes. This episode features the following: - Growing concerns with Family Offices - Features of companies with Moats - Burton Malkiel on Efficient Markets - Start-up idea of the week - Mutual Fund Tip of the week

Mar.22nd Class – Efficient Markets – In this class we examine the idea of efficient markets and their implication for expected return. Advertisements

How financial markets work has long been the subject of debate between two academic camps: the efficient markets theorists and the behavioral economists. Into the breach stepped finance professor and author Andrew Lo, who joins Matt to discuss his efforts to bridge this ideological divide. Instead of viewing financial markets as “a physical system like a mechanical clock,” says Lo, “we really need to look at it as an ecosystem with particular organic agents that are acting with each other.” The implications of Lo’s work extend far beyond the ivory tower, to regular investors and society at large. Andrew W. Lo is the Charles E. and Susan T. Harris Professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management and director of the MIT Laboratory for Financial Engineering. Your host, Matt Miller, is the policy and communications advisor for Capital Group. An author and former Washington Post columnist, Matt was co-host of the public radio program Left, Right & Center. Do you have any topics for Capital Ideas? Please contact our editorial team at CapitalIdeas@capgroup.com. Related: (In U.S.) 4 Behavioral Tips to Help Investors Avoid Emotional Self-Sabotage In Europe: https://www.capitalgroup.com/europe/capitalideas/article/behavioral-economics-tips.html In Asia and Australia: https://www.capitalgroup.com/apac/capitalideas/article/behavioral-economics-tips.html The Capital Ideas websites are not intended for use by Canadian audiences. In Canada, please visit thecapitalgroup.com/ca for Capital Group insights.

This lecture explores behavioral finance, why people avoid uncertainty, the link between rationality and human emotion, and human preferences for decision-making. Discussion and simulations frame the adaptive markets hypothesis and its implications.

This lecture presents the limitations of CAPM and the practical implications of the adaptive markets hypothesis. The latter part of lecture is a summary of the entire course and a recap of key concepts.

This lecture presents applications of the NPV rule and project financing, as well as alternatives to NPV. In the latter half, an overview of the theory of market efficiency and the example of the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster are presented.

Talking about the UCLA shooter who shot his professor, why Support Dad is a feline lover more than canine lover, & a creepy rehoming/rescue dog scam from a friend of a friend. We also talk about the pros and cons of paying kids for chores, helping our friends and the pros and cons of having comic friends, an unstable bunch at best. We also yak about the Cincinnati Zoo tragedy where Harambe was shot after the parent was paying attention, the death threats that came afterwards and what goofus Glen Beck had to say about it. Finally we close comparing two Texas originals, Ross Perot and Ron Paul, can the market really fix everything, and why Comic Mom hates the minimum wage.

Show Notes: http://optionalpha.com/show50One of the foundational elements of my personal trading style with options is the belief that the stock market is random. Random meaning that we can't gain an edge picking a direction. And for years, this assumption has been more or less accepted by the public and academia. In the last couple months, the theory or hypothesis around random financial markets has repeatedly been challenged, which is a good thing. A countless number of people have tackled the issue and published their findings on random market behavior. I wish I could link them all up here, but it's just not possible nor realistic. Therefore, my goal on today's show is simply to present what I believe to be the best research on the topic of market efficiency and predictability.Admittedly, I scheduled this show as a follow-up to Show 49 where we backtested 15 different option buying strategies during the last market crash. And the reason is that I wanted you to recognize how much "perfect timing" had an impact on the results of that case study. In Show 49, we only backtested the put buying strategies for two years assuming you were 100% right in calling the impending market crash.If you expanded the timeline out to 3 years on either end - i.e. you're not a market wizard and can't time the crash precisely, then each and every scenario lost money. In fact, each backtested put buying strategy only made money during Sep & Oct of 2008 at the height of the collapse. During all of 2007, you would have lost on average 56% of your capital waiting for the crash to happen.Be honest with me now; how likely is it that you would have actually held through a 56% drop in your account balance before you called it quits? And that was assuming you had near perfect market timing! Still, the traders who sold options didn't try to time the market, eventually won. Sure, they may have experienced a draw down in 2008 if there were not positioned correctly, but even still they would have made money trading through the crash.As you listen to the show, I want to challenge you to ask yourself the following pressing questions about investing; Is the stock market random? If it is, why should we care so much about picking a random direction? If it isn't, and indicators are present to predict future moves, can I even uncover the non-random patterns? How much time or money would it take to profit under the assumption of randomness vs. non-randomness? What trading strategies fit my personal style the best?

The talk explores the efficient markets hypothesis (EMH) and its effects on today's financial markets http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/the-efficient-markets-hypothesis The essence of financial prices is that they should reflect all publicly available information. This means that they should have no predictive power for future financial prices. But learning, fads, fashions and herds tend to throw up anomalies for this position. And the role of incomplete or asymmetric information should not be overlooked after the crisis. Can the hypothesis be rescued?The transcript and downloadable versions of the lecture are available from the Gresham College website: http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/the-efficient-markets-hypothesis Gresham College has been giving free public lectures since 1597. This tradition continues today with all of our five or so public lectures a week being made available for free download from our website. There are currently over 1,900 lectures free to access or download from the website.Website: http://www.gresham.ac.uk Twitter: http://twitter.com/GreshamCollege Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/greshamcollege Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/greshamcollege

Noah Smith is Assistant Professor of Finance at Stony Brook University, New York where he is also a member of the Center for Behavioral Finance research team. Noah’s research Interests include Experimental Finance, Behavioral Finance and Macroeconomics. Noah was panel discussant for the Institute for New Economic Thinking Task Force and has received numerous research awards and fellowships. Noah is a regular contributor to Bloomberg View where he writes extensively on economics and finance related topics. He also writes at his fantastic economics blog Noahpinion. Noah received his PhD in economics from the University of Michigan, graduating in 2012. His dissertation examined expectation formation in financial markets.    Noah majored in physics as an undergraduate at Stanford University, and spent three years working in Japan, where he still returns from time to time to do research. Find out: whether economists suffer from ‘Physics Envy’. if we should remove mathematics from economics. how math took over economics. if there is a connection between economics and physics. how economics is becoming a more data-driven field. about the micro foundations to macro theory and why these models don’t work. why theory and math-focused economics papers are waning in the academic publishing field. how to approach teaching micro and macro when the theoretical models may not explain much. about whether Economics is moving away from the orthodox method of teaching toward a heterodox method. about the difference between Heterodox and Orthodox Teaching in Economics. why Noah considers Austrian Economics to be a bad joke. where Noah falls within the economic spectrum. why Noah believes that heterodox economics is not the future. Noah’s recommended economics blogs to follow. why the Efficient Market Hypothesis is a good starting model for finance students to understand. and much, much more. Check out the shownotes page and all the links, books and blogs mentioned in this episode at www.economicrockstar.com/noahsmith

In recent years, concerns have been raised about the potential market risks associated with high frequency trading and algorithmic trading in general. Proponents of high frequency trading suggest the practice is a contemporary tool that facilitates informational market efficiency and is capable of being regulated by the market and market participants. Opponents have argued that these practices create risk and require aggressive regulation. This discussion takes place against a backdrop of heightened regulatory scrutiny given the recent push by the Securities and Exchange Commission to monitor high-frequency trading and related practices, such as the creation of dark pools, more closely. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Between 1980 and 2000, the wealth of our nation grew enormously. Interest rates dropped, dot com businesses grew, and then the housing market was rocketing. We then went into a tricky period where overall net worth grew a bit until the dot com crash; the middle class was sustained to some degree by the housing boom, and then dropped sharply with the housing crash. Dr. H. Woody Brock, President and Founder of Strategic Economic Decisions and author of American Gridlock, joins Jason Hartman for an in-depth explanation of the financial health of our nation across social classes. Dr. Brock discusses the nation overall and then breaks it down into the rich, the middle class, and the poor. The distribution of wealth have left the poor worse off and the rich very well off, as well as shrinking the middle class, but as Dr. Brock explains, looking at the distribution of consumption, the poor and middle classes are in a better position than when looking at the distribution of income. Dr. Brock also expounds on QE3, the Federal Reserve actions, bank reserves, de-leveraging, and more. He wraps up on the subject of his book, American Gridlock: Why the Right and Left are Both Wrong.Founder of Strategic Economic Decisions (SED), Inc., Dr. Horace “Woody” Brock specializes in applications of the modern Economics of Uncertainty (originally developed and championed by Kenneth J. Arrow of Stanford University) to forecasting and risk assessment in the international economy and its asset markets. Holder of five academic degrees, Dr. Brock earned his B.A., M.B.A., and M.S. (mathematics) from Harvard University, and his M.A. and Ph.D. from Princeton University (mathematical economics and political philosophy). He was elected an Andrew Mellon Foundation Bicentennial Fellow of the Aspen Institute in 1976. Dr. Brock studied under Kenneth J. Arrow, Professor of Economics, and John C. Harsanyi, Professor of Economics, University of California, Berkeley, both winners of the Nobel Prize in Economics. Dr. Brock founded SED in 1985, and in doing so was sponsored by Fidelity, GE Capital, IBM Pension Fund, and twenty other institutions looking for a much deeper level of analysis of interest rates and the economy. In its research, SED has focused on apprehending ongoing structural changes in the economy and markets to help clients avoid the pitfalls of illegitimately extrapolating the past into the future. In this regard, Dr. Brock has worked closely with Professor Mordecai Kurz of Stanford University in developing the new theory of Rational Beliefs that is now replacing the classical theory of “Efficient Markets”. This new theory explains for the first time the way in which history rhymes but does not repeat itself.

Initially, Professor Shiller looks back at David Swensen’s guest lecture, in particular with respect to the Sharpe ratio as a performance measure for investment strategies. He emphasizes the empirical difficulty to measure the standard deviation, specifically for illiquid asset classes, and elaborates on investment strategies that manipulate the Sharpe ratio. Subsequently, he focuses on the Efficient Markets Hypothesis. This theory states that markets efficiently incorporate all public information, which consequently renders beating the market impossible. For example, technical analysis fails to provide powerful, short-run profit opportunities. A consequence of the Efficient Markets Hypothesis is that stock prices follow a Random Walk, as innovations to the stock price must be solely attributable to news. Professor Shiller contrasts the behavior of a Random Walk with that of a First-Order Autoregressive Process, and concludes that the latter statistical process matches the reality of the stock market more closely. This conclusion, combined with the evidence that investment managers like David Swensen are capable of consistently outperforming the market leads Professor Shiller to the conclusion that the Efficient Markets Hypothesis is a half-truth. Complete course materials are available at the Open Yale Courses website: http://oyc.yale.edu This course was recorded in Spring 2011.

Eugene Fama of the University of Chicago talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the evolution of finance, the efficient market hypothesis, the current crisis, the economics of stimulus, and the role of empirical work in finance and economics.

Eugene Fama of the University of Chicago talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the evolution of finance, the efficient market hypothesis, the current crisis, the economics of stimulus, and the role of empirical work in finance and economics.

Eugene Fama of the University of Chicago talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the evolution of finance, the efficient market hypothesis, the current crisis, the economics of stimulus, and the role of empirical work in finance and economics.

In episode #085, Christopher Malloy contrasts the efficient market hypothesis and behavioral finance and discusses how investors can think about an inefficient market.

John Quiggin of Crooked Timber and the author of Zombie Economics talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about ideas in economics that should stay dead and buried. Quiggin argues that many economic theories such as the Great Moderation, the efficient markets hypothesis and others have been discredited by recent events and should be relegated to the graveyard. Roberts challenges some of Quiggin's claims and wonders whether proposed alternatives might do even worse than the policies Quiggin is criticizing. Much of the conversation focuses on the role of government in the financial sector and how that might be improved going forward.

John Quiggin of Crooked Timber and the author of Zombie Economics talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about ideas in economics that should stay dead and buried. Quiggin argues that many economic theories such as the Great Moderation, the efficient markets hypothesis and others have been discredited by recent events and should be relegated to the graveyard. Roberts challenges some of Quiggin's claims and wonders whether proposed alternatives might do even worse than the policies Quiggin is criticizing. Much of the conversation focuses on the role of government in the financial sector and how that might be improved going forward.

John Quiggin of Crooked Timber and the author of Zombie Economics talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about ideas in economics that should stay dead and buried. Quiggin argues that many economic theories such as the Great Moderation, the efficient markets hypothesis and others have been discredited by recent events and should be relegated to the graveyard. Roberts challenges some of Quiggin's claims and wonders whether proposed alternatives might do even worse than the policies Quiggin is criticizing. Much of the conversation focuses on the role of government in the financial sector and how that might be improved going forward.

Several theories in finance relate to stock price analysis and prediction. The efficient markets hypothesis states that stock prices for publicly-traded companies reflect all available information. Prices adjust to new information instantaneously, so it is impossible to "beat the market." Furthermore, the random walk theory asserts that changes in stock prices arise only from unanticipated new information, and so it is impossible to predict the direction of stock prices. Using statistical tools, we can attempt to test the hypotheses and to predict future stock prices. These tests show that efficient markets theory is a half-truth: it is difficult but not impossible for some people to beat the market.

Several theories in finance relate to stock price analysis and prediction. The efficient markets hypothesis states that stock prices for publicly-traded companies reflect all available information. Prices adjust to new information instantaneously, so it is impossible to "beat the market." Furthermore, the random walk theory asserts that changes in stock prices arise only from unanticipated new information, and so it is impossible to predict the direction of stock prices. Using statistical tools, we can attempt to test the hypotheses and to predict future stock prices. These tests show that efficient markets theory is a half-truth: it is difficult but not impossible for some people to beat the market.

LMU CBA FNCE