Capitalogix

My Thoughts On ChatGPT and the AI Revolution

Last week, I shared a post about the rise of ChatGPT. To summarize ... new AI tools (like ChatGPT) are cool, but they can be a distraction if you're not focused on your actual business goals.  Likewise, those tools seem smart, but they are not smart enough to replace you. 

Below is a video containing an edited version of my contributions about using AI in business at a recent Genius Network meeting.

 

via GeniusNetwork.

With something as powerful and game-changing as AI, smart people find a way to take advantage of it (rather than finding ways to avoid or ignore it).

If you keep your head in the dirt, you'll get left behind like Blockbuster, Kodak, or RadioShack. 

With that said, one of the key things I've noticed about new tech is that there's massive churn.  You've seen it with the blockchain and cryptocurrencies.  The companies, products, and modalities that pioneer the industry aren't always the ones who make it.  I think it's because they focus on technology instead of solving their customers' real problems.

Pioneers often end up with arrows in their backs and blood on their shoes.  Too often, this causes them to give up before they achieve real and lasting success.

You don't have to rush, even if it feels like you're falling behind.  To use a surfing metaphor, you shouldn't ignore the coming waves, but you can certainly take the time to wax your board, get in the ocean, and choose which wave you want to ride. 

You can catch the little waves and take advantage of ChatGPT or Midjourney, but as a final reminder, if everyone is doing it, it's not a competitive advantage ... it's the playing field. 

Tech Trends To Watch in 2023

Technology is on the mind of most people I have talked to recently. Even with Big Tech letting go of droves of employees, the innovation happening in the world is impressive. 

VisualCapitalist put out a list of 11 trends to look out for this year. Check it out. 

via visualcapitalist

As always, no list gets it entirely correct. Lists like this are made to spark interest and influence the direction of tech development. However, I've been impressed with what visualcapitalist has gotten right in the past. 

A lot of the trends on the list make sense. India has been a massive investment space in tech over the last few years, and it's about time for more results to show. Healthcare is a massive investment space, and we're seeing a lot of innovation go to the medical space before migrating to other industries ... on top of health monitoring, other specifics like menopausal care could see more investment, especially with an increase in women-led and women-focused companies. 

As well, Fintech has been hit hard since 2020. Many of the bulwarks of the industry have been sliced down as a result of covid-19, market turmoil, the Russia/Ukraine conflict, and more. These years haven't been without learnings. New market conditions require new approaches, but the past 2+ years have been a great opportunity for adaptation and advancement. After winter comes spring. 

What trends do you think are missing, and what trends do you think won't come to fruition?

Here Are Some Links For Your Weekly Reading - February 19th, 2023

Here are some of the posts that caught my eye recently. Hope you find something interesting.

 

Lighter Links:

• Listen to Understand, Not to Respond. (FlowResearchCollective)
• 9 Habits of Creative Genius. (WayneDyer)
• OverHyped and Never Delivered: A Brief History of Innovations that Weren't. (BigThink)
• Introducing the AI Mirror Test, Which Very Smart People Keep Failing. (TheVerge)
• OpenAI CEO Sam Altman Frets Over 'Potentially Scary A.I. Tools and How People of the Future Will View Us.' (Fortune)

 

Trading Links:

• Warren Buffett Just Sent a Subtle But Terrifying Signal to Investors. (MotleyFool)
• The Fed Minutes May Reveal a Steep Rise in Rates on the Horizon. (SeekingAlpha)
• The Stock Market Has Been Flipped Upside Down. (Markets)
• IMF: World Economic Outlook is Starting to Recover. (WEForum)
• The Metric that Shows Why the World's Three Biggest Economies Could Be in Serious Trouble. (MarketWatch)

 

The Big Mac Index: Worth Paying Attention To?

Last week, I wrote about various “indicators” for markets that just don’t make sense — like the Superbowl Indicator.  The lesson from those indicators is that we crave order and look for signs that make markets seem a little bit more predictable, even where there are none.  This is especially true in complex systems like the stock market, where so many variables and factors are at play that it can be difficult to predict or explain why things happen.

Now, it doesn't mean there aren't patterns - and benefits to watching them. Warren Buffet has proven that. In order to improve your understanding of "markets" you can focus on the fundamentals of individual companies and industries rather than broader market trends. By conducting thorough research and analysis of financials, management, and competitive landscapes of companies, you can make informed decisions about which stocks to buy or sell. Another way to improve your understanding of the market is to focus on long-term trends and avoid getting caught up in short-term fluctuations.  It's about focusing on what doesn't change - instead of what does. But, ultimately, you should realize that if you don't know what your edge is ... you don't have one. And, market movements are getting faster, more automated, and harder to predict over time, not less. 

With that said, Wall Street is still inundated with theories that attempt to predict the performance of the stock market and the economy.  More people than you would hope, or guess, attempt to forecast the market based on gut instinct, ancient wisdom, and prayers.

While hope and prayer are good things ... they aren’t good trading strategies.

It’s true that there are many indices and economic indicators that can provide valuable insights into the workings of economies and markets.  While some of these indices may seem “out there,” or even frivolous, they can often shed light on underlying economic trends and realities.

One example of this is the Big Mac Index, which is published annually by The Economist.  This index is based on the idea of purchasing power parity, which suggests that exchange rates should adjust to ensure that the price of a basket of goods is the same in different countries.  The Big Mac Index uses the price of a McDonald’s Big Mac burger as a proxy for this basket of goods.  It compares the price of a Big Mac in different countries to determine whether currencies are overvalued or undervalued.

While the Big Mac Index is not a perfect measure of purchasing power parity, it can provide valuable insights into the relative value of different currencies and the economic factors that influence exchange rates.  By looking beyond the headline numbers, and digging into the underlying data and trends, investors and economists can gain a deeper understanding of the forces shaping the global economy.

Ultimately, the key to using economic indicators like the Big Mac Index is to approach them with a critical eye and a willingness to dig deeper.  By looking beyond the surface level and using data-driven analysis to understand the underlying trends and drivers of economic performance, we can gain a more accurate picture of the economic realities shaping the world around us.

In 2020, when I last talked about the Big Mac Index, the Swiss Franc was 20.9% overvalued based on the PPP rate.  That math was based on the idea that, in Switzerland, a Big Mac costs 6.50 francs.  In the U.S., it costs $5.71.  The implied exchange rate was 1.14, and the actual exchange rate was 0.94 - thus, 20.9 was overvalued.  At the time, the most undervalued was South Africa. 

As of the end of 2022, The Swiss Franc is still the most overvalued but has now increased to a whopping 35.4%.  Meanwhile, the South African rand has “increased” to only 45.9% undervalued, making the Egyptian Pound the most undervalued currency at 65.6%.

Click the image below to see the interactive graphic.

via The Economist

One of the main limitations of the index is that the price of a Big Mac reflects non-tradable elements such as rent and labor, which can vary widely across different countries and can distort the accuracy of the index.  This means that the index is most useful when comparing countries that are at roughly the same stage of development and have similar economic structures and cost of living. Consequently, while it can provide some useful insights into exchange rates and currency values, it is important to recognize that it is only a rough guide and has some limitations when comparing countries.

Another limitation of the index is that it does not consider factors such as taxes, trade barriers, and transportation costs, which can also affect the relative value of currencies.  These factors can be especially important in countries highly dependent on imports or exports. They can lead to significant disparities in currency values that are not reflected in the Big Mac Index.

Despite these limitations, the Big Mac Index can still be useful for gaining insights into global economic trends and currency values.  By using the index in conjunction with other economic indicators and data sources, investors and economists can achieve a more comprehensive understanding of the forces shaping the global economy and make more informed decisions about how to invest their money.

Obviously, there are more factors at play if something can be significantly overvalued or undervalued for multiple years without significant consequences. 

It is not meant to be the most precise gauge, but it works as a global standard because Big Macs are global and have consistent ingredients and production methods.  It’s lighthearted enough to be a good introduction for college students learning more about economics. 

You can read more about the Big Mac index here or read the methodology behind the index here.

The Importance of the Super Bowl

Thirty years ago, the Cowboys played the Bills in the Super Bowl.  As a Cowboys fan, I wanted to watch the game, but my second son was scheduled to be born that day. 

Luckily, our doctor said, “if you want me to be the one to deliver your baby, you need to induce early.” 

So, I got to watch the Cowboys win with my youngest in hand ... while his mother shot me angry looks as I woke him up with my screaming. 

That anchors the Super Bowl as a special day for me ... but some believe it’s also a "special day" for markets. 

The theory is a Super Bowl win for a team from the AFC foretells a decline in the stock market – while a win for the NFC means the stock market will rise in the coming year.  There is one big caveat ... the history of that "indicator" counts the Pittsburgh Steelers as NFC because that’s where they got their start.  If you accept that caveat, it has been on the money 33 years out of 41 - an 80% success rate.  Sounds good, right?

Come on ... you know better!

There is no substantial evidence to suggest that the outcome of the Super Bowl has any significant impact on stock market returns. 

The stock market is driven by many factors, including economic data, company earnings, and overall market sentiment, rather than the outcome of a single sporting event.

Ultimately, it’s important to recognize that the stock market is a complex system – and that no single event, such as the Super Bowl, can predict its performance.  While the Super Bowl may be a fun event and a source of excitement for many people, it’s not a reliable indicator of stock market returns.

Here are some other “fun” stock market fallacies:

• January Indicator
• Aspirin Count Theory
• Hemline Indicator
• Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Indicator
• Men’s Underwear Index
• Big Mac Index

Back to Reality

Rationally, we understand that football and the stock market have nothing in common.  And we probably intuitively understand that correlation ≠ causation.  Yet, we crave order and look for signs that make markets seem more predictable.

The problem with randomness is that it can appear meaningful. 

Wall Street is, unfortunately, inundated with theories that attempt to predict the performance of the stock market and the economy.  The only difference between this and other theories is that we openly recognize the ridiculousness of this indicator.

More people than you would hope, or guess, attempt to forecast the market based on gut, ancient wisdom, and prayers.

While hope and prayer are good things ... They aren’t good trading strategies.

As goofy as it sounds, some of these “far-fetched” theories perform better than professional money managers with immense capital, research teams, and decades of experience.

Here is something to ponder...

What percentage of active managers beat the S&P 500 in any given year?

... Now, what percentage beat the S&P 500 over 15 years?

The percentage of active managers who beat the S&P 500 in any given year can vary, but it is typically low. According to research by S&P Dow Jones Indices, the majority of active managers underperform the S&P 500 over the long term.

For example, in 2020, only 24.5% of large-cap fund managers outperformed the S&P 500. In 2019, the figure was slightly higher at 28.2%, but in 2018 it was just 17.2%. These figures are representative of a broader trend in which a relatively small percentage of active managers outperform the benchmark index in any given year.

Over 15 years, the answer is about 5% of active managers are able to beat the performance of the S&P 500 Index (and that’s in a predominantly bull market). That’s significantly worse than chance.  It means that, in general, what they’re doing is hurting, not helping. 

It's worth noting that these figures represent the average performance of active managers across all market segments and time periods. The percentage of managers who outperform the S&P 500 in any given year can be influenced by a number of factors, including the overall performance of the stock market, the specific market segment being analyzed, and the time period being considered.

In conclusion, while there are some active managers who outperform the S&P 500 in any given year, the majority of them underperform the benchmark index over the long term.

via Gaping Void

There’s simply too much information out there for us to digest, process, rank, and use appropriately.

In 2009, I wrote an article about how things aren’t always what they appear to be.  In it, I mentioned the human predisposition to find patterns in data.  At the time, I was still analyzing and marking up charts looking for patterns ... but I was also using early AI and computers to find better patterns and remove my fear, greed, and discretionary mistakes. 

I suspect that the desire to find patterns is the same element of human nature that leads people to become superstitious, read their horoscope, or go to a fortuneteller.  It is also the reason so many authors and speakers sell access to their chart patterns that supposedly work. The successes are much more startling than the failures.  So the successes stand out.
    -"Things Aren't Always What They Appear To Be"

Today, my stance is even more extreme.  Every second you spend looking at a market is a second wasted.

There are people beating the markets — not by using the Super Bowl Indicator ... they’re doing it with more algorithms and better technology. 

There will never be less data or slower markets.

Onwards.

The Heartbeat Of AI Is Still Human

I'm proud of our team.  We have a shared sense of Mission, Values, and Purpose.

Also, we understand that robots aren't coming for our jobs.  We're creating the robots, the AI, and the automation – and it's exciting!

With that said, as tech becomes more capable, some will focus on the promise ... while others will focus on the peril.

We're seeing lots of hyperbolic promise and peril in the news cycle recently because of ChatGPT. Trends in technology news appear to come in cycles, with different names and topics but similar patterns. This is because, despite the constant evolution of technology and the world, human nature remains relatively unchanged.

While browsing a library of our old content, I came across an old news story from a local news channel that discussed finding tech talent and featured Capitalogix.  Here's the article.  You can watch the video below. 

via NBC DFW

We are always hiring.

It's not enough to invest in the right ideas or technologies.  You have to invest in the right people as well. 

"Standing still is moving backward ... so you don't only need new technology, you need a new level of data scientists – a new level of professional that can think about what's possible, rather than how to do what we want to do right now."

Even though we've got an incredible edge now, I recognize that edges decay faster than ever.  The trick is to stay ahead.  

The future is bright, and the best way to predict the future is to create it.

Onwards!

Capitalogix's 23rd Anniversary

Last week I started getting “Happy Work Anniversary!” messages on LinkedIn ... and I was a bit confused because people kept mentioning 23 years. 

Twenty-three years ... That can’t be right? Can it?

For context, here’s what I looked like around that time.

 

My eldest son (who’s now married with a baby) was in middle school. I was just out of the events I described in my TEDx talk. 

However, depending on your definition, the 23rd anniversary can be true or false. Legally, the Capitalogix that exists today is distinct from the initial iteration. Additionally, the company has expanded, its direction has shifted, and what was once a one-person operation has grown into a team of over 20 individuals focused on advancing and commercializing the field of Artificial Intelligence.

It reminds me of the Ship of Theseus (also known as Theseus’ Paradox), which is a philosophical thought experiment that poses the question of whether an object that has had all of its parts replaced is still considered to be the same object. It raises issues of identity, continuity, and change over time. The concept can be applied to physical objects, living organisms, and even organizations or businesses. It challenges our understanding of what it means for something to be fundamentally the same, and if an object can remain unchanged despite undergoing significant changes over time.

The name “Capitalogix” did originate in the year 2000 ... and a surprising amount of the original North Star “purpose” still exists. Honestly, I’m surprised by how much holds up despite 20+ years of passing ... but almost all of it has needed some course correction to adjust to changing tides.  

Regardless, it’s staggering to think about how long I’ve worked in A.I. (since 1991, when it was hard to spell A.I.) and how far we’ve come. 

If I had known how difficult it was at the beginning, I probably never would have pursued it. However, knowing how difficult it is, and how challenging it is to make meaningful progress, I feel better that I did because I realize that it’s not just a competitive advantage, it’s a sustainable competitive advantage. It’s easy for people to focus on a capability, it’s another to make it industrial-grade, robust, reliable, and able to work in difficult conditions. They say that things that don’t kill you make you stronger, it’s true for people, but it’s also true for technologies.  

As we celebrate Chinese New Year, it also feels like a new beginning for Capitalogix as we chase after new possibilities and probabilities. 

We didn’t come this far — just to come this far! Onwards!

The World's Biggest Hedge Funds

Hedge Funds have seen a downtick since COVID-19. There are still 15,000 of them (amounting to $4.5 Trillion in assets under management).

Seventy percent of Hedge Funds are North American. 

Visualcapitalist put together a guide to the 20 biggest funds. It puts the consolidation of wealth into perspective. 

via visualcapitalist

Unsurprisingly, Bridgewater tops the list by a wide margin with nearly double the assets of their closest competitor. And, despite poor performance by many funds, the overall state of the market means that many funds still saw growth. 

The expansion of hedge funds may not always align with general market trends – and is not necessarily a reflection of the overall economic situation. However, studying and evaluating their growth and results can still be beneficial. 

How'd These 2022 Predictions Fair?

As we brought in 2022, I asked the question:

What's going to happen as a result of the continuing pandemic, inflation, interest rates, the ongoing supply chain issues, and the growing anxiety and unrest brewing underneath the surface of the new normal? In January, we'll get to see VC's predictions. Before that, what do you expect to happen in 2022? - How'd These 2021 Predictions Fair?

I proceeded to share visualcapitalist's 2022 predictions: 

via visualcapitalist

Well, there was undoubtedly increased volatility. 

While the whole board isn't correct, there's a surprising amount of prediction accuracy. On some level, predictions benefit from being generally vague. Also, many of the predictions that may not seem as accurate "today" seemed more accurate at some point this year. For example, we heard a lot about NFTs in the first half of the year, and while Big Tech is currently laying off employees, there was massive growth this year. 

What are you surprised they got right? In what areas were the predictions most off-base? Why?

And, of course, what are your mega-trend predictions for 2023?

Interesting stuff! 

Tech Company Layoffs

For all the drama at Twitter, they're not the only ones experiencing layoffs in the tech industry. Though, Elon is now (supposedly) trying to renege on his severance packages.  

via visualcapitalist

Meta and Amazon saw even steeper layoffs than Twitter. Is this a result of overhiring during the tech boom, or a sign of dire times? Time will tell.  

Stated reasons are economic uncertainty and poor performance, we're also seeing unsuccessful departments downsize - like Alexa. 

To help allay economic fears, payroll and wage data from the U.S. government are exceeding expectations, and the country’s unemployment rate is close to a half-century low. As well, tech jobs account for 3% of the workforce - and many of those laid off will be picked up by smaller companies. 

Even if the layoffs represent a short term reaction to what tech companies are seeing, hearing, or otherwise experiencing … they won't necessarily translate to long term bad news for our economy.