Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Joel on Architecture Astronauts

Joel Spolsky, of Joel on Software fame, has penned a vicious indictment of my new employer's latest software offering. Because he's trashing my tribe, I feel more than a little bad calling attention to it, but there's a passage in his essay that is so perfect that I feel compelled to point it out.

At it's core, the post goes after what Joel calls architecture astronauts, high-end engineers who are so convinced of their greatness that they build what they want, without a care for what will actually move their company forward. Once he's defined terms and developed a full head of steam, he busts out the following:
What is it going to take for you to get the message that customers don't want the things that architecture astronauts just love to build. The people? They love twitter. And flickr and delicious and picasa and tripit and ebay and a million other fun things, which they do want, and this so called synchronization problem is just not an actual problem, it's a fun programming exercise that you're doing because it's just hard enough to be interesting but not so hard that you can't figure it out.

Anyone who's been face to reddened face with an architecture astronaut should, at this point, be out of their chair shouting "Amen Brother!" I certainly was.

Monday, April 28, 2008

Chaser's War

An Australian tipped me to the Australian show "Chaser's War." He describes it as "somewhere between The Daily Show and Jackass." Some of it makes me laugh.

- Their spoof of "The Secret"

- Airport security

However, a lot of it is pretty uncomfortable stuff, mostly in service of satire and taking the piss out of .. well, everybody.

- Americans who can't remember when 9/11 happened

- The "mufti muzzler"

Fathoming the Depths of JJ's Psyche

Recently it seems that I'm spending more time than I'd like lying awake in bed from 2am to 4am. Most nights I just lie there wishing I was asleep, listening to the BBC on NPR, or thinking about how tired I will be at work the next day. However, the other night I decided to get up and grab the laptop from the other room.

I decided to catch up on my Boing Boing reading. However, for some reason Firefox had lost its ability to render Flash content which means every video link stopped working. At this point, unbeknownst to me at the time, an interesting psychological experiment began -- what link would finally get me to reinstall Flash on my laptop? Here's the list of video links I passed by and the final link that got me to reinstall Flash. I'll leave it to the reader to determine what this says about me.

Videos that didn't make the cut.
Subterranean Japanese bike-parking robot
Creepy/catchy "It's not a compound" polygamists remix
Re-creation of "Who's On First routine"
Experiment: 96% of passers-by ignore famous artist's street painting
NYPD cop: videoing me breaking the law is a terrorist act
BBtv: Krach der Roboter, the circuit bending noise-bot

The video that finally caused me to reinstall Flash.
Inflatable tube man dances to Cream's "Glad"

Behind The Scenes At Telepatch

Earlier today, JJ wrote me an email complaining that he didn't understand this sentence in my Deep Purple post: "I can't tell if they're taking the piss, or if..."

The following IM conversation ensued:

me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Take_the_mickey Does that help?

Jon: Ah, didn't know you were British. I think you should assume most people will not know what the fuck you are talking about.

me: It's a bit of slang I learned from Jay, from when he was performing at the Millenium Dome.

me: I considered that problem, I even thought about linking the wikipedia article, or rewriting to avoid the obscure slang. But the thing is, that phrase means exactly what I want to say.

Jon: You should rewrite it. If you link to wikipedia people will just think you are being a snob / douche.

me: To rewrite would be wordier or less precise.

Jon: Eskimos have 14 words for snow but it turns out that we call it snow.

me: I tell you what: when you catch up to me in posts, I'll rewrite it.

Jon: Don't know if I want my posts associated with Douchy McDouche.

me:
As you wish.

me: How about I post this converstaion? That would be amusing.

Jon: Do what you want.

Jon: You can say that I think your use of language makes you a wanker (here's a wikipedia link) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wanker :-)

Jon: I am, of course, using wanker in the metaphorical way that is common in Australia.

me:
Ha

me: I'll post this later tonight. I'll send you the edited transcript before posting.

Jon: Don't edit out my cussing is all I ask.

me: Will do.

Boing Boing vs. Ford Motor Company


Earlier today Boing Boing (my favorite blog on the net) ran a story claiming that the web site for Bob Turner's Ford was the one of the worst designed sites on the Interweb. Strangely, the Bob Turner's Ford site has now reverted to some bogus boilerplate Ford type web site and the story on Boing Boing is totally gone. Google still has a cached version of the train wreck that was Bob Turner's Ford site (sadly without the Flash that really put it over the top).

Given that we know Ford has been a thug in the past when it comes to dealing with Internet savvy folks. One can only wonder what may have happened to the Boing Boing post.

SJN, you own a Ford right? How about leveraging your extensive power with the company :-)

Sunday, April 27, 2008

Graham analysis of GOOG

Note: slightly edited from first post.

To try to remember some principles of The Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham, I thought I would apply some of the analyses to Google. I own some Google stock (GOOG) because I used to work there. When Graham says "the defensive investor" he is talking about someone who is not willing to spend the equivalent of a full-time job (whether professional or amateur) tracking stocks.

Page 159: "For the defensive investor we suggested an upper limit of purchase price at 25 times average earnings of the past seven years." Google has only been public since 2004, so it does not have seven years of history.

Page 259: Simplified formula for valuation of growth stocks:

value = (current (normal) earnings) * (8.5% + (2 * (expected growth rate)))

or

P = E * (8.5 + 2*G)

or

P/E = 8.5 + 2*G

On the flip side, given the price/earnings ratio, one can calculate what the market is predicting for the expected growth rate by solving backwards:

G = (P/E - 8.5)/2

GOOG has a P/E of 38.25, which corresponds to an annual growth rate of ~14.9% or 401% in ten years. Wow!

Page 290:

Factors affecting capitalization:

1. General long-term prospects.

GOOG does not seem to be taking huge special charges or borrowing lots of money, and it has lots of different customers, although only one real source of revenue (ads make up 99%). The company has a very strong brand, and somewhat of a "moat" (people won't switch search engines quickly, especially if they are tied to other apps). The company has a famously long-term focus, and spends 10% of money on 'crazy' R&D.

2. Management.

I think the management team has been executing pretty well, through boom and bust times for the market.

3. Financial strength and capital structure.

Strong. No debt, few liabilities, a building up of cash.

4. Dividend record. "Continuous dividend payments for the last 20 years or more."

It's never paid a dividend.

5. Current dividend rate.

Again, no dividend. Note in chapter 19 (page 506), they make strong claims that often companies building up cash don't actually know how to make lots of money from it. They cite studies showing earnings growth is actually higher when dividends were higher, and companies that "..raise their dividend not only have better stock returns but that 'dividend increases are associated with [higher] future profitability for at least four years after the dividend change."

Most of the information is in Jason Zweig's commentary in the latest edition of Graham's book.
Jason claims a company keeping cash helps management of a company weather downturns, but not the stockholders because it relieves pressure on management to seek highest-yield returns. Moreover, Jason claims big cash allows management to make dumb bets like the AOL/Time Warner merger. Finally, Jason also claims stock buybacks (as an alternative to dividends) just inflate executive compensation (through options for example).

Page 348: Stock screening criteria.

1. Adequate size. Updated commentary (2003) says total market value of >= $2 billion. GOOG has $171B. Check.

2. Strong financial condition. Current assets at least twice current liabilities. GOOG has $27.6B in assets and $3.3B in liabilities (2008 Q1). Check.

3. Earnings stability. Some earnings for common stock in each of past 10 years. FAIL. GOOG common stock is only 4 years old. It's not obvious where to look to see if GOOG has had earnings each year without digging through all the annual reports. I suspect it has.

4. Dividend record. Uninterrupted payments for at least the past 20 years. FAIL. GOOG common stock is only 4 years old and has never paid a dividend.

5. Earnings growth. A minimum increase of at least one-third in per-share earnings in the past ten years using three-year averages at the beginning and end. FAIL. Again, GOOG too new.

6. Moderate price/earnings ratio. Current price <= 15 times average earnings of the past three years. FAIL. GOOG price is $540/share, earnings/share (EPS) is $13.52, $9.94, $5.02 over the last three years (see here), or $9.40 average earnings, so P/avgE is 540/9.40 = 57.4. Note Graham does not believe in forward-looking price/earnings ratio (F P/E) at all.

7. Moderate ratio of price to assets. Current price <= 1.5 times book value last reported or (p/e) * (price/book) <= 22.5. FAIL. Book value is total assets minus intangible assets and liabilities such as debt. Total assets $27.6B, intangible assets $1.2B, goodwill assets $4.7B (not sure if I should subtract that but I will), debt 0, total liabilities $2.4B. So, book is $19.3B and 313.7M shares outstanding would lead to book value/share of $61.5. Current price is 8.8 times book. Am I doing this calculation correctly??

Looking at all the above, I believe Graham would never have bought the stock, and clearly would never hold it.

For fun, here is a link to a Google stock screener that embodies as many of the above criteria as I could find: #1, #5, modified #6, #7. There are only 5 companies on it, and I've never heard of any of them.

Japanese arrangement of Deep Purple's Smoke On The Water

This video made me happy.

The measured pace at which elements are added makes it especially delicious. By the time they were going full bore, I was nearly out of my chair with laughter.

I can't tell if they're taking the piss, or if this is somehow representative of what a traditionally trained Japanese musician perceives when they hear Deep Purple.

Via reddit. Further reading, and viewing.