China’s Online Population Explosion

Deborah Fallows:

There are now an estimated 137 million internet users in China, second in number only to the United States, where estimates of the current internet population range from 165 million to 210 million. The growth rate of China’s internet user population has been outpacing that of the U.S., and China is projected to overtake the U.S. in the total number of users within a few years.
The influx of tens of millions of new online participants each year can be expected to have far-reaching consequences for the Chinese population, for China itself and for the larger world. At the very least, the internet will offer ever greater numbers of Chinese a much more sophisticated information and communications world than the one they currently inhabit. And because the Chinese share a single written language, despite the multiplicity of spoken tongues, it could have a unifying effect on the country’s widely dispersed citizenry. An expanding internet population might also increase domestic tensions that could spill over into China’s relations with the U.S. and other countries while the difference between Chinese and Western approaches to the internet could create additional sore points over human rights and problems with restrictions on non-Chinese companies.

Sometimes the Stock Does Better Than the Investor That Buys the Stock

Hal Varian:

Stocks have been a great investment in the last 80 years, with an average return of about 10 percent a year. But have investors in the stock market done as well as stocks? Surprisingly, the answer is no. The average dollar invested in the stock market in those years has earned only about 8.6 percent a year.
The discrepancy between stock market return and investor return is examined by Ilia D. Dichev, a University of Michigan accounting professor, in a paper published in the March 2007 edition of The American Economic Review, “What Are Stock Investors’ Actual Historical Returns? Evidence From Dollar-Weighted Returns.”
To understand the difference between a stock’s return and an investor’s return, consider someone who buys 100 shares of a company at a price of $10 a share. A year later, the share price is up to $20, and the investor buys 100 more shares.
Alas, the investor’s luck has run out. By the end of the next year, the price has fallen back to $10 and the investor sells his 200 shares.
A buy-and-hold investor who bought at $10, held the stock for two years, and then sold at $10 would have had a zero return.

2006 Letter to Shareholders

Warren Buffett [pdf]:

Our gain in net worth during 2006 was $16.9 billion, which increased the per-share book value of both our Class A and Class B stock by 18.4%. Over the last 42 years (that is, since present management took over) book value has grown from $19 to $70,281, a rate of 21.4% compounded annually.*

We believe that $16.9 billion is a record for a one-year gain in net worth – more than has ever been booked by any American business, leaving aside boosts that have occurred because of mergers (e.g., AOL’s purchase of Time Warner). Of course, Exxon Mobil and other companies earn far more than Berkshire, but their earnings largely go to dividends and/or repurchases, rather than to building net worth.

All that said, a confession about our 2006 gain is in order. Our most important business, insurance, benefited from a large dose of luck: Mother Nature, bless her heart, went on vacation. After hammering us with hurricanes in 2004 and 2005 – storms that caused us to lose a bundle on super-cat insurance – she just vanished. Last year, the red ink from this activity turned black – very black.

In addition, the great majority of our 73 businesses did outstandingly well in 2006. Let me focus for a moment on one of our largest operations, GEICO. What management accomplished there was simply extraordinary.

Permanent Value: The Teachings of Warren Buffett

Warren Buffett:

Well in 1962 I learned from Ben Graham how to assess businesses. He also had the cigar butt analogy for buying businesses…you can usually get one good puff out of it and it’s free. Berkshire made a lot of money after WWII (more than Pfizer and Merck) and then it steadily went downhill. Between 1955 and 1965 Berkshire went from 12 mills to 2 mills and they bought their own stock as mills closed. We bought 100,000 shares out of 1 million in 1962 at $7 3/8 and the company had $10-11/share in working capital…I knew I wouldn’t lose money because of the working capital. It was losing money but it was also liquefying assets by closing mills. Seabury Stanton was running Berkshire at the time and I went to go visit him. We had an agreement that Berkshire would tender $11-1/2 for my shares of the company. At this point, I could not buy any stock as I had inside information. A few weeks later I received a letter from Old Colony Trust containing a tender offer of $11-3/8. Early the following week, Seabury tendered the stock at 11 3/8. As result, I began buying more Berkshire. Other family members of Seabury Stanton sold their shares to me and I gained controlling interest in the company. The family members weren’t very happy with Seabury either really. We ran the mills until 1985. .

The Sarajevo Moment

The Economist:

A PROPOS the Sarajevo moment, which might bring to an end this latest of age of globalisation.


It wouldn’t be a political killing, I imagine, since there is no one figure whose death at the hands of a deranged assassin would turn the great powers against one another. But a terrorist strike against a cluster of essential Saudi oil installations might have the necessary economic and geopolitical repercussions.


Whatever the Sarajevo moment might be, everyone seems to be talking about it. As if we know in our hearts that these asset prices are too good.

Interesting Discussion on China

Janes Pethokoukis:

When will the Chinese middle class push for greater political freedom to match growing economic freedom?

The $64,000 question. The extent of the ideological bankruptcy of the Chinese Communist Party is not widely understood in the U.S. It claims single party rule because it is the trustee of the 1949 Communist revolution governing democratically for China’s workers and peasants. Its problem is that communism is in reverse worldwide, and under the doctrine of the “Three Represents” invented by Jiang Zemin, the party now accepts that class war is over and that it must represent all Chinese society. In which case: Why no accountability? Change came in the Soviet Union with the fifth generation of leaders; the fifth generation of leaders succeeds Hu Jintao in 2012. I don’t expect any change until after then, but my guess is that sometime in the mid-to-late 2010s, the growing Chinese middle class will want to hold the Chinese official and political class to account for how they spend their taxes and for their political choices.

The Wall Street Journal posted an email interview with Friedman which included a few words on China.

Energy Market Tea Leaves

Barry Ritholtz:

BP readers correctly pointed out to the change in the Goldman Sachs Commodity Index (GSCI) (Here, here and of course, here). Tim Iacono did a nice job on the details the following month.


That mid-year halving of the gasoline weighting caught quite a few people by surprise. The timing — slashing energy futures weightings 2 months before the mid-term elections — was stunning to say the least. The GSCI changes had wide ranging impacts, leading (indirectly at the very least) to: Amaranth’s implosion, a drop in CPI / inflation rates, the market rally since the July lows, and of course, GS’s record setting Q3/Q4 profits (Hey, its nice to be the House).

The Future of the Equity Premium

Brad DeLong and Konstantin Magin:

Suppose that, at the start of some year since the beginning of the twentieth century, you had taken $1,000,000 that you had invested in bonds and believed you would not want to touch for twenty years, and invested it insteade in a diversified portfolio of equities. (Or suppose you had been able to borrow $1,000,000 at the long-term government bond rate). And suppose you had then let both legs of that investment ride for twenty years. What would have been the results in dollars (adjusted for inflation) twenty years later?

2007 Financial Market Forecasts

Business Week:

We polled 80 strategists for their 2007 predictions, and many think tech stocks will be on top. Call it a 7% year. That’s the return the 80 strategists we polled expect in 2007 for the Dow Jones industrial average and the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index. Our prognosticators overwhelmingly think technology will be the best-performing sector next year, but still come up with a forecast of only a 9% gain in the tech-heavy NASDAQ Composite. They expect the Russell 2000, an index of small-cap stocks, to lag, with just a 6% return. Strategists are listed according to their yearend Dow forecasts, from the most bullish to the most bearish