Investment Insights Podcast: Amazon announcement sending shockwaves across a few industries

Goins_Podcast
Andrew Goins
, Investment Manager

On this week’s podcast (recorded June 26, 2017), Andrew discusses the impact of Amazon’s acquisition of Whole Foods.

 

Quick hits:

  • The announcement of Amazon’s $13.7B acquisition of Whole Foods last Friday resulted in significant declines across most of the grocery retailers, as investors grapple with how this merger will impact the grocery industry.
  • Although the money managers we work with don’t make investments based on a thesis that the company will likely be acquired, Amazon’s recent purchase of Whole Foods has resulted in speculation around who their next target will be.
  • While Amazon is just one company and won’t take over the entire world, it is clearly a disruptor and shouldn’t be ignored.

For Andrew’s full insights, click here to listen to the audio recording.

This is not a recommendation for Amazon or Whole Foods, these securities are shown for illustrative purposes only.

The views expressed are those of Brinker Capital and are not intended as investment advice or recommendation. For informational purposes only. Holdings are subject to change. Brinker Capital, Inc., a Registered Investment Advisor.

Technology Watch: Investing Into The Future

Dan WilliamsDan Williams, CFP, Investment Analyst

I recently had the opportunity to attend a conference that centered on the big ideas in technology happening right now. Hearing from such people as Andrew McAfee (author of the 2012 book Race Against the Machine and his most recent The Second Machine Age), Steven Kotler (author of Abundance: The Future Is Better Than You Think), and Charles Songhurst (former Head of Corporate Strategy at Microsoft), I can make a few blanket statements.

First, these guys are humbled, awestruck, and blown away by the advances being made in technology; specifically in robotics, 3D printers, and in general computing power. Second, the individual and the consumer will be empowered by this technology. Lastly, don’t try to pick the winning company, rather win by picking the area as a whole.

3D PrintingThis last point may seem to some as a “coward’s way out”, but consider the CNN Money article from December 31, 1998, Year of the Internet Stock. In this article Amazon, eBay, AOL, TheGlobe.com, Cyberian Outpost, and a few other names that have since been lost to history, are listed as stocks that had a great year and are part of the revolution. In the 15 years (1/1/1999 to 12/31/2013) following this article, Amazon and eBay clearly have proven to be the winners among the group, returning a cumulative return of 644.81% and 445.81% respectively as the others essentially went to zero. However, if you broaden the technology space, Apple would have been the big winner with an astonishing 5,569.77% cumulative return for this 15-year period. In other words, the idea that the internet was going to be a game changer in the way we communicate and the technologies we use was right, but our clever execution by picking the few likely winners likely would have missed the boat.

Now, let’s fast forward to today as we stare upon a robotic and biotech revolution. While there are a few select names that seem to be the smart bets to land among the big winners—given the magnitude of impact these two areas will have on the way we live and the uncertainty in the specifics of the path this change will actually take—picking an individual winner involves a level of hubris, while diversification within this idea can add value.

Future of TechnologyI left the conference fully convinced that these concepts, both current and future, are going to change the world; however, I remain very cautious regarding the execution and process. Without giving any type of recommendation, there exists at least half a dozen Biotech-focused ETFs. Late last year, the first robotics-focused ETF (ROBO) was launched—and it won’t be the last. All of these are less exciting answers to investing in new technologies versus trying to pick the winner, but as the American poet Ogden Nash once wrote, “Too clever is dumb.”

An Ode to Barnes & Noble

Dan WilliamsDan Williams, CFP, Investment Analyst , Brinker Capital

On July 8, 2013 the CEO of Barnes & Noble, William Lynch, abruptly resigned. His rise and fall were tied largely in part to his belief that the future of B&N was in its NOOK digital reader. Lynch also felt that being a brick-and-mortar business would overcome the technology headwind of competing with Google, Amazon, and Apple on their turf, the tablet space. In fairness, he is likely right that people do derive a lot of benefit from being able to physically visit their book store. Still the struggle for B&N, and Borders prior to their demise, seems to be compensation for this social benefit. Now the debate is whether the physical book stores can survive in the Amazon age. In my biased opinion, I believe the answer is yes.

8.1.13_Williams_BookstoresTo say that I am a regular at my local B&N is an understatement. Over my career, I have studied for various FINRA licenses, the CFP designation, and all three levels of the CFA exams. The vast majority of this studying was done at my local B&N. On the rare occasions when I did not have anything to study for, I could not help but continue to go to B&N as it had become such a part of my life. This amounts to a total of about ten years of trips to my local B&N, usually multiple times per week. During this time, I have witnessed a lot of life from my table in the crowded B&N café.  From college interviews, job interviews, dates, people doing quasi-library research (most often on vacation destinations) and people who are clearly looking at books to purchase—of course, not at B&N, but later at a discount from Amazon.com. You can see them all at B&N. And for the most part, these people did not purchase anything from B&N outside of the food items in the cafe. It was fairly typical for me to spend three to four hours on a Saturday studying but only purchase an iced tea and a sandwich. Often, I would grab a new book off the shelf to read, and often I would end up reading a whole book without ever taking it out of the store. It is clear the store was being used less as a place for B&N to sell books and more like a community center or an improved library.

This social benefit of this institution is echoed by Lydia DePillis in her July 10, 2013 Washington Post article “Barnes & Noble’s troubles don’t show why bookstores are doomed. They show how they’ll survive” when she notes:

8.1.13_Williams_Bookstores_2“Here’s the thing: Bookstores, more so than movie rental and record stores, are oases in the middle of cities (and even in suburban malls). We go there to kill time, expose ourselves to new stuff, look for a gift without something specific in mind, and maybe pick up something on impulse while we’re there. Even Borders’ disorganized warehouses left holes in the urban fabric when they disappeared, and Barnes and Nobles would do the same–they’re a kind of public good, at a time when the public is getting less good at supporting libraries.”

However, the free-rider problem is also a known challenge as Lauren Hazard Owen in her July 9, 2013 paidContent.org article “Barnes & Noble throws out its CEO, but that won’t save the company” writes:

“While everyone likes the idea of a neighborhood bookstore, that doesn’t translate into business success. While Barnes & Noble is, in fact, the only neighborhood in a lot of areas, consumers who advocate shopping local may still think of it as a big box store, and they’re not likely to show the same loyalty to it as they might to the charming indie bookstore on Main Street. Instead, they’ll keep doing what they do now: Go in to the store to browse and for the AC, then go home and order books on Amazon.”

The clear lesson here is that providing service to society is only good business if you can be compensated for supplying it. I, however, also know that providing something that people want is a great place to start a business. Ultimately, I think that in ten years we will still have Barnes & Noble at least in some tangible form. First, as I noted above, the café part of B&N works. People who are enjoying their time here are drinking a coffee while doing it. In many ways it is an improvement on the Starbucks experience by having this attachment to the book store. Second, Amazon clearly benefits from B&N existing as an uncompensated partner in many of their transactions. Third, publishers and authors don’t want to be left with an Amazon-only world as book stores represent their physical retail outposts to host book-signings, book-release frenzies, and the like. Fourth, our society seems to value physical book stores (even though they will try to free-ride if they can) as something beyond a retail space.

8.1.13_Williams_Bookstores_3When you have this many interested parties wanting something to exist, I expect it to exist. Maybe B&N survives through a business model with a leaner book store and larger café business model. Maybe Amazon buys B&N and accepts that they will barely break even on the physical book store, but their overall profit will be improved for having B&N around. Maybe B&N, in name, does go away, but Starbucks opens a book store/coffee house location type, recognizing it as part of their positive social image campaign to improve the Starbucks experience—or maybe just the hubris that they can make it work. Some publishers may even band together to create some physical retail super store to replace B&N or cut some deals with to keep them around. The hard part is that it seems best for all parties involved to have someone else step up.

I could be delusional and perhaps thinking with my heart rather than my head as many a beloved business have been washed away by the waves of retail climate change. With that said, as long as there is a B&N,  you can find me sitting there drinking an iced tea blend known locally as “The Dan” (told you I was a regular), reading a book I am perpetually thinking of buying but never do, and watching yet another awkward college interview.

Security mentioned is shown for illustrative purposes and is not owned by Brinker Capital