Adam Jackson

Long only, etf investing, macro, media
Adam Jackson
Long only, ETF investing, macro, media
Contributor since: 2015
Company: Seeking Alpha
The broader context to MH's woes is clearly the double losses of MH 370 and of MH 17 which damaged passenger confidence, even among people departing from Malaysia who might have continued flying their flag-carrier for patriotic reasons.
Given that, I wonder whether a code-share with another airline will even help them regain the traffic they have lost?
They may have a shot at capturing the Asian foreign worker market flying from the UAE to India (they still fly to Mumbai and Delhi), Bangladesh and Sri Lanka -- but not Pakistan, since MH don't fly there. In any case, the market for Asian migrant workers is low-yield, high-volume and not likely to be seriously profitable.
I doubt that Emiratis themselves would choose to fly on MH even under EK's code when they could fly on airlines with fancier service. And Europeans connecting from London are unlikely to choose a double connection LHR-DXB-KUL-onwards over a single-stop flight on another carrier.
This move seems to prove that Malaysia Airlines didn't have much success in attracting connecting passengers in recent years.
MH used to have connections to many other OneWorld alliance airline hubs:
CMB (UL)
HKG (CK)
JFK (AA)
LHR (BA)
MAD (IB)
NRT (JL)
SYD (QF)
They have not recently (or ever?) had flights to other OneWorld airlines' hubs:
AMM (RJ)
DOH (QR)
DMO (S7)
GRU/GIG (JJ)
HEL (AY)
SCL (LA)
They never flew to Dusseldorf, Air Berlin's hub, although they did fly to Frankfurt and Munich.
Now, the only major destinations they're keeping from that list are Heathrow (BA), Narita (JL) and Colombo (UL), which isn't a major connecting point for transfer passengers.
I suspect that this move reflects a broader approach on Malaysia Airlines' part to pulling away from close involvement in the OneWorld alliance.
Had they wanted to continue full participation in the alliance, I would have assumed the natural partner for Malaysia Airlines would be Qatar Airways, who are also members of OneWorld.
Clearly the major airlines in OneWorld have the clout and independence to be able to forge partnerships with non-alliance airlines -- as Qantas themselves did with Emirates. For a larger airline, the alliance matters less, but for a smaller airline I would assume there will be some pushback from other alliance members.
I'd be surprised if we don't see MH exiting OneWorld to focus on strengthening their partnership with EK instead.
Such a move wouldn't by itself damage OneWorld's prospects, since MH by themselves are so insignificant, but do you think it starts to seem a bigger threat to the alliance, taken together with Qantas' partnership with Emirates?
Some people are indeed talking about the Bloomberg/Twitter deal. I discussed it here just a couple of weeks ago, and would be interested in your thoughts on my article:
https://bitly.com/1NGY6z5
Does this mean Dorsey will split his time between Twitter and Square?
And what do people think this portends for Twitter's monetization efforts?
There's been a lot of consolidation in the EMS and OMS space over the past few years.
Where do people see the cost savings here?
It would interesting to know how (if at all) FactSet might plan to integrate their namesake terminal product with Portware.
An example like this illustrates the power of Twitter to move markets. I suspect it's a big opportunity for Twitter: https://bitly.com/1NGY6z5
Periscope certainly has a large current user base, which could grow significantly -- but as far as I see it, Periscope's users are generally looking for entertainment, rather than using the service as a necessary money-making tool for their business.
The Guardian has a nice summary of "the 10 types of people" on Periscope:
http://bit.ly/1KE20pS
How many of these examples or use cases do you think could create a real revenue stream for Twitter -- other than by adding advertising to the streams somehow?
By contrast, standard Twitter text feeds can be easily tagged, searched, analyzed -- and the content can be quickly recognizable as something useful for business.
@marpy:
Interesting that you note that Eikon has a better interface and curation than Bloomberg here.
However, better filtering isn't always what everyone wants:
-- For users who value Twitter for short-term trading signals, any filtering could prejudge what is valuable and what is not valuable, which could distort matters especially in an algorithmic context.
-- For fund managers making longer horizon investment decisions based on Twitter data, a curated feed might be better.
The key for all these platforms is to figure out which users need what, and provide the best user experience for those who want to use Twitter data.
Regarding your second point, I think good data analysis goes a long way to dealing with quality concerns. Dataminr managed to flag the famous fake AP tweet about the White House attack which flash crashed the market in 2013 as dubious. From a WSJ article: "In the case of Tuesday's commotion, Dataminr's computers not only flagged the event but the algorithms noticed quickly that there was no corroboration. Unlike the Boston Marathon bombing a week earlier, there were none of the telltale signs of a disaster: no sudden swell of tweets from people in the vicinity of the White House, for instance, Mr. Bailey said. The company alerted customers to another tweet, from a reporter at the White House, saying the report appeared to be a false alarm." See
http://bit.ly/1YlcRea
@Piptief:
You're right that financial news on Twitter doesn't make up a large proportion of total content.
In addition, by raw number of users, investors and traders are nothing close to a majority of Twitter's user base, or even the core users they have been trying to attract.
That said, they may be among Twitter's most profitable users, if Twitter manages to monetize them effectively.
A fund manager or trader's answer to the question "how much would you pay to know about X first" is often "a lot of money" -- proved by developments such as funds who build their own data pipelines to shave a few seconds off , data center co-location with exchanges, access to early-released data. For example: http://on.wsj.com/1Yl8VdC
In any case, it's not just financial news per se which is valuable to making investment decisions: political developments, environmental disasters, a company's behavior towards its customers -- all these can move markets.
@Arkoon,
Back in 2010, before the company was bought by Twitter, Gnip was apparently making "tens of thousands of dollars per month" selling tweet data to companies. This doesn't seem to have been the full fire hose:
http://ti.me/1Yl88ZZ
At the same time, they were selling access to 50% of Twitter's full fire hose for $360k/yr. (Twitter retained the ability to sell the full fire hose themselves. I don't know what the pricing for the "full fire hose" was then: I would assume something less than $720k/yr to account for a volume discount.)
Clearly, Twitter had many fewer users five years ago, and at that point the use cases for the fire hose in trading and investing contexts were less well known. Yet even then the price point seems too low for what it provided to the users who really value the data:
http://bit.ly/1Yl8900
Now, pricing on Gnip's website is opaque: http://bit.ly/1Yl8903
Does anyone know what Twitter+Gnip charge data clients who want full access now?
Air New Zealand has done two things in recent years which have increased revenue: they installed 10 seats in each row of their 777s and they introduced, on some planes, the SkyCouch -- which is a way of selling sets of 3 of those economy seats for a premium economy price.
By contrast, Qantas doesn't fly the 777 and they fit 3/4/3 seats into the 747 and the A380 and 2/4/2 into the A330. Luckily for passengers, they haven't (yet?) gone with 3/5/3 on the A380 which Airbus demonstrated recently: http://bit.ly/1VPX2dn
In general, one result of the industry's move to cramming more seats into "standard" economy is to increase the appeal of premium economy cabins, which more airlines now offer -- both NZ and QF have them.
Yet as long as most economy class travelers buy tickets only for the lowest price and place no specific value on the space or comfort they get, airlines will continue to pack more seats into economy class.
Unbundling has allowed airlines to increase revenue from paid seating reservations, paid checked baggage, and other amenities -- and the GDS platforms are now starting to include these "add-ons" in their search and pricing functionality. Perhaps if search engines came up with a way of allowing ticket buyers to compare the "price per square inch of space" and thereby compare the value, more economy class passengers would start to make purchase decisions based on more criteria than sticker price alone?
When you say "capitulating", do you mean that you see things falling further on Tuesday or reversing and turning upwards again?
Of course the value of AIG's 401k plan to their employees depends on the flexibility of the investments they offer inside that plan, and how fully and quickly any match they provide actually vests.
In addition, does the match occur and/or vest throughout the year or does it come in a lump sum at year end? (That kind of policy, which they ultimately reversed, got AOL a lot of flak last year.)
A bad selection of mutual funds with high fees and restrictive vesting/deposit policies might make those "larger annual contributions to employees' accounts" much less attractive in reality...
Fascinating. I wonder whether WFM will use their new Harlem location in NYC as a place to try out the new concept?
There's already a Whole Foods at 97th-100th St (which has WholeFoods' only NYC wine store next door). Further north in Manhattan, gentrification is extending into much poorer neighborhoods. The nearest large supermarket to WholeFoods planned Lenox Ave and 125th Street location is PathMark at 125th/Lexington Ave which clearly serves a much lower-income demographic.
Opening a cheaper WholeFoods on 125th St might allow them to appeal to both higher-income recently-arrived residents and more established lower-income Harlem stalwarts.
Bill's article was actually mentioned this morning on CNBC, and you can watch the clip in question on Seeking Alpha here:
http://bit.ly/1xcgkiG
The relevant video is the most recent clip (as of Monday 29th December, 11:20 eastern time) titled "What matters for Apple in 2015".
You can now watch many of these CEO interview segments from CNBC on the Seeking Alpha site itself.
See the interview with Klaus here: http://bit.ly/16z2VHw
and read more about the partnership here:
http://seekingalpha.co...
Interview with Atos' CFO here about the transaction: http://bit.ly/16yYg8E
Amusing -- same thing happened with Tweeter Home Entertainment (TWTRQ) at the Twitter IPO. See http://bit.ly/1z9nBlh
Interesting interview just posted today with Nasdaq's CEO on the market quality of the US market, and some changes to Nasdaq's access fees which they are making in particular. Watch the video here: http://bit.ly/1wQdyyi
Money.net was actually mentioned in the Q&A of yesterday's earnings call from FactSet:
http://seekingalpha.co...
Do you use Money.net? Do you know people who use them -- and if so, what specific job functions do they have in the financial sector?
On the call, FactSet's COO thought Money.net would appeal to wealth managers, and Phil Hadley FactSet's CEO argued that "ultra-high-net-worth" wealth managers (I assume he meant those with larger rather than smaller AUM) were still likely to prefer FactSet.
@mkemac: Do you know about the Breaking News homepage? While most users receive our news updates by email alert or mobile notification for specific stocks, a good number of people set our Breaking News homepage as their "go-to" page for following recent market developments, and they find it a helpful resource to keep open throughout the day as they work.
Go to seekingalpha.com/news and you'll see the list of recent news items -- these update as soon as a new item is posted.
@Currant85 At the bottom of almost all articles on Seeking Alpha, above the comments section, there's a unit showing a list of headlines about that stock ticker. Above the list, there's a little orange icon next to the heading "Latest Articles on {a particular stock}". Right-click that orange icon (on a PC), or control-click it (on a Mac) and you can copy the link to the RSS feed for Seeking Alpha articles on that ticker.
@jojopuppyfish:
On the contrary! I see the following at the bottom of that article (all from July):
Latest on YHOO
Why I Believe An Alibaba Deal To Buy Yahoo Is Becoming More Likely
Thu, Jul 24
Yahoo gets a lift from Alibaba/SoftBank M&A speculation
Wed, Jul 23
Yahoo Beefs Up Its Mobile Business With Flurry's Acquisition
Wed, Jul 23
Is Yahoo's Turnaround Destined To Fail?
Tue, Jul 22
Yahoo confirms Flurry acquisition; varying reports on price
Mon, Jul 21
Report: Yahoo buying leading mobile analytics firm Flurry (updated)
Mon, Jul 21
Yahoo: Disappointing Q2 Results Suggest Turnaround Is Significantly Behind Schedule
Mon, Jul 21
Honeymoon Period Over For Marissa Mayer
Sun, Jul 20
Getting From BooHoo! Back To Yahoo Again May Not Be That Far Off
Sat, Jul 19
@jojopuppyfish:
For example, go to this article (if for some reason the link I paste below gets messed up, the try searching for the title "A Flurry Around Yahoo In Q3 2014" using Google to get there from the search results page):
http://seekingalpha.co...
At the bottom of the article, just above the comments, there's a section headed "Latest on YHOO". That is the RSS feed for just that ticker. Click on loads in your browser to add to your RSS feed reader.
@jojopuppyfish: We do actually have the RSS feeds you mention which are available for personal use. You'll find them at the bottom of any primary ticker (focus) article for a feed of items about that ticker. There's an icon to copy the RSS feed URL.
If you want to do this more easily for many tickers, the URLs are of the form: "http://bit.ly/WHb9Zx" where you can just replace the AAPL with whatever ticker symbol you want.
For commercial use, we create custom feeds for business development partners. Any company or site interested in this product should contact us at support@seekingalpha.com if that is the case.
A few thoughts:
-- This is not the first low-cost venture that has been attempted on transatlantic flights: in the economy market, there was Laker Airways back in the 1970s, flyZoom more recently. In the "low-cost" business class market carved out by MaxJet and EOS Airlines, British Airways' OpenSkies is the sole survivor (having taken over their competitor L'Avion). What makes Norwegian more likely to succeed where others have failed?
-- Are passengers really willing to consider price alone, without regard to reliability or quality of service, for long-haul flights? Small seat pitch and unbundling everything may work on short-haul, but will it work on flights of 6+ hours and be attractive to people, especially on the routes they are trying?
-- Norwegian Air doesn't have an excellent record for on-time operation or in-flight service. See this for more details of delays and spoiled food: http://bit.ly/LBP5JQ
To what extent do the prospects for this particular restaurant group mirror the overall prospects in the sector?
@TBill: Your concern about "organizations that will pay basement dwellers to seek out successful lists with good audiences and post the party line" is a valid one.
We, too, would like people to be able to trust discussion (at least to have a good chance of assessing who a commenter is, if they have a specific bias that would cast what they say in a different light).
For that reason, we ask IR and PR firms and anyone with a connection to a company they're posting about to disclose that: http://bit.ly/S99OoL
@D_Virginia: Comment replies which are nested underneath a comment which gets deleted do sometimes get removed because the moderators have to explicitly de-thread the discussion. It's a technical issue which we are working to rectify and improve upon.
We do try as far as we can not to remove threaded material if it is not offensive. Human beings do make mistakes sometimes, though.
To give you an idea of comment volume on SA:
In January there were almost 125,000 comments posted on the site: tens of thousands of these were approved by the moderators. I estimate another few thousand were deleted.
@spald_fr: Optimistic rather than naive: I and my team are fully aware of the range of human behavior and activity in an online community. :-)
The following comments are the best of it, though:
http://bit.ly/YWn7Hr
http://bit.ly/XjKd18
http://bit.ly/YWn7Hv
http://bit.ly/YWn7XP
Rich in Quebec posted around 8am EDT on this thread and he's not in moderation which might delay his comments from appearing immediately, so it seems that it's just that he hasn't submitted any comments since then.
It's touching to see when people in the community notice and comment on the absence of a regular participant in discussion on Seeking Alpha: we've seen a similar thing among the most passionate and regular StockTalkers.
Along with expressions of congratulation or condolence that users and contributors post on the site when other users or contributors have happy or sad events in their lives, it's one of the most gratifying things I've seen during the time I've been working with the user community here.
@gggl: Actually we do have Author's Picks -- when an author takes the time to choose them, they appear in a separate tab next to the main comment stream. They just haven't been embraced and regularly used by all authors yet, so I encourage you to send a private message to any author whose article generates a long comment stream to encourage them to pick some of their favorite pro and con comments. Obviously, this feature will be of most value if authors have the courage to highlight the best critical comments rather than using it merely to pick out those commenters who agree with their article.
@gggl and Joseph Stuber:
You both note that you'd prefer if Seeking Alpha did not remove comments which were offensive -- gggl argues that offensive comments are a price to be paid for "free speech" and Joseph wonders whether we are trying "to protect the sensibilites of authors and commentors".
Other message boards where you can discuss finance online are totally unfiltered. When you look in practice at the effects of unlimited free speech online in this context, you find that the most insightful and intelligent participants in the discussion get driven away by the volume of noise and stop contributing to the conversation.
One of the reasons why our readers find Seeking Alpha valuable is precisely because our editorial team, in the context of choosing articles to post and creating the content we generate ourselves (Market Currents and WSB itself, for example), does a significant amount of filtering. They wade through large quantities of material so they can provide the most useful parts for the community. If Seeking Alpha were merely a "free speech" platform for any contributor to post any article, I suspect that most of you would not find it nearly as attractive to participate in resulting discussion here.
Comments are different of course, since they are not filtered in this way by an editorial team. However, for discussion in comments to be valuable at all to people who have limited time to participate as readers or commenters, they need to be an intelligent stream of discourse that is focused on the relevant financial issues.
Why do we believe so passionately in excluding attacks, even if they are not obscene, from discourse on Seeking Alpha?
We don't see it as our responsibility to protect contributors on Seeking Alpha (and certainly not to protect our own editors) from criticism. Anyone who expresses an opinion should be ready to defend it by backing up their arguments with data in response to a criticism.
One might assume that an occasional insulting comment in a discussion which is otherwise generally respectful would have little effect on the tone of exchange.
But we do this kind of moderation because insulting comments create an atmosphere (especially when they start to become numerous) in which the people who shout loudest -- rather than those who make the most convincing arguments -- get most attention.
Even more seriously, though, research just released in the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
http://bit.ly/Whu49f
shows that insulting comments do not just polarize a debate: they actually have a profound effect on people's perception of the facts. The research showed that readers of an article discussing a scientific innovation and its benefits and risks ended up assessing the risks as much more significant if they were exposed to comments attacking the author.
I hope that helps people understand why we believe this to be such an important issue.