In this week’s StockTwits for Idiot Retail Investors, I wanted to talk about postmodern investing.
Louis Menand had a great review of Donald Barthelme’s writing in a recent New Yorker. Early in the piece, Menand gives a lesson in the two meanings of postmodern. The first meaning of postmodernism comes from the belief that “modernism won” (i.e., “mission accomplished”) and that a postmodernism movement is a declaration of victory. The second meaning comes from the sense that modernism is over, and we’ve moved on to something entirely new.
I thought about these definitions quite a bit with regard to the market and the economy. In which sense does the whole investment ecosystem rising up around social utility services such as Twitter, StockTwits and disqus feel postmodern? It’s not as easy an answer as it seems.
First, we need a definition of what modernism is. I’ll define modernism in investing as the disintermediation of layers and the reduction of friction between investors and markets. It started with Schwab and the rise of the discount brokers, continued as discount brokerages drove down transaction costs, the progression in access to data from the Wall Street Journal through O’Neil’s Investor’s Business Daily and Bloomberg terminals on through to the AOL-era Motley Fool and Yahoo Finance, fueled by the market of the 1990s, cresting with the internet bubble.
Given that definition of modernism, you can think of postmodernism (in the first sense of “mission accomplished”) as what’s going on when social networks and investing intersect. Schwab began the disintermediation of the broker, the internet continued the process, reducing friction, the intersection of advertising models and the internet disintermediated access to market data, and sites like the Motley fool disintermediated the need for paid analysts and blew up the mystique around mutual funds. Modernism won, and now it’s time to see what’s next.
The second sense of the term would indicate that there’s something beyond that modernism, that what’s going on with social networks is truly something different, that it’s not just a continuation of those initial changes.
My take is that the first sense is a better fit. As transaction costs have fallen, and information has become more free, the last pillar is the demolition of the illusion of expertise.
What struck me this past week, reading the wide variety of wisdom available for free on the internet, is that the notion that anyone can charge for a newsletter or trading model or any kind of educational material for any significant period of time is over. Blogs and crowd-sourced financial services provide for free what paid portals and paid expertise did in the past.
Over on Gregor Macdonald’s site, I put it this way:
E.M. Forster: “How do I know what I think until I see what I say.” Your last sentence seems to convey the same sentiment.
I have a blog post that I’m working on that proclaims the death of the newsletter. My basic theory is that as more voices emerge, for every paying newsletter writer, there will be 10 up-and-coming analysts giving it away for free to make their marks, devaluing (in the long run) the paid analysts. This cycle will repeat, and names will continually turn over. The social filter will replace the editorial filter; there will still be value in finding the new and relevant voice instead of relying on the previously relevant established voice.
The good news is that the right voice at the right time, properly amplified, can capture value for the content creator, but only for a limited time before circumstances and competition displace it. The numbers are against any single content creator having a long run.
What may happen then, if you can’t amplify that value into other venues (e.g., books, paid media appearances), is that your last observation in the post also becomes the primary value to you, the author—that the clarity of thought of working in the open results in the production of personal clarity of action, and you end up profiting far more from the direct use of your better (and more honest) thinking than from selling it.
And that evolved into the eventual conclusion I posted the other night about the free content creators and people like Gary Vaynerchuk having to move from just producing the ideas to becoming the performers that amplify their free content.
With Cramer launching his VIP service, you see him on the wrong side of it. He’s a performer who has amplified to 11 who’s now running in the wrong direction. Instead of giving more away for free and focusing on amplification (can Cramer really go to 12, one higher than 11?), he’s attempting to cash in directly on his voice, which I guess is all a fading star can do. It’s time for some turnover. That voice has run its course.
When it comes to learning about investing and where to invest at any given point in time, cost-effectiveness for the consumer comes down to whether you can learn—and I mean actually learn—these lessons better and in less time from a course or subscription or book than you can from any of the bloggers and tweeters giving it away for free.
The challenge now is how to deliver the best stuff in a way that reduces the cost for the consumer. How do you quickly find the good stuff? We’ve got the reduction in friction on sharing ideas, we have crude tools for filtering, but how are we going to ride the wave and find the ever-changing set of experts?
StockTwits is one tool that can help…but there are others out there. If you’ve got any kind of entrepreneurial itch at all, you’ve got to be thinking about these postmodern investment problems and postmodern investment tools and opportunities that the StockTwits ecosystem is enabling.
Exciting times.
Week #8 Trades
Three trades this week. On Monday, I got averaged down on INTC July $17 calls, bringing my cost basis down to a little over 35 cents. I had a limit sell of a portion of the overall position which partially filled on Thursday at 0.50, for a 40% gain. My current INTC long position in the calls is about half the size of an average unit, and I may try to average down again as it gave back a lot of the gains this week.
On Tuesday, I established a small position in SPY September 64 puts which were up and down over the course of the week. I tried averaging down during the rallies, but didn’t get my price, so I’ll stick with the small position.
Finally, on Wednesday, I flipped FAS for 10 pennies, in a wild ride. On the short term chart, I bought in as it started to break out at 5.55, held it as it went to around 5.67, then rode it down to the low fives where I just about got stopped out, and finally settled for a 10-cent gain (even though later in the day it could have been a 50 or 60-cent gain.) Once again, messing with financials, day-trading, but learning. Unlike past failures, I did show a little more discipline here, but instead of an “F”, I’d probably grade my performance on that one as a D+.
Other Positions
I still have NDAQ and BBY puts that are slightly profitable, although I had sells in for those that didn’t fill during the week.
I should have sold my failed MA puts when the stock dropped early in the week, but didn’t. I’ll most likely punt those this week and chalk up the big loss.
Still long SRS, which I will most likely kick part of this week on any spike up. Since this has been my primary hedge (for all the wrong reasons) during January and February, I’ll need to replace it with more SPY puts once I take it off.
And finally, I still have a long-running BBY short that I’m about to give up on due to the stock’s strength during the turmoil of the last few weeks.
