Seeking Alpha

Sandy Lighthouse's  Instablog

Sandy Lighthouse
Send Message
Self employed for 35 years in construction. PHD from school of hard knocks. Tend to have a macro macro perspective.
View Sandy Lighthouse's Instablogs on:
  • The Size Of Apple's Electric Vehicle Ambitions Could Be Staggering
    • Competing directly with the existing automotive industry is a losing battle that doesn't play to Apple's strengths.
    • Building an on-demand transportation ecosystem that integrates hardware and software would leverage Apple's core competencies and financial might.
    • Think driver-less "cloud cars" on-demand transportation in major metropolitan areas world wide, that leverages BEV strengths and minimizes BEV weakness's. Think Uber + Google + Tesla= Apple.

    Trying to compete with the established automotive industry on their terms is a losing battle in general, but particularly when considering the weaknesses of Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV's):

    1. Range-weight trade-offs. The bigger the range increasing battery the heavier the vehicle and the greater the cost and lower the efficiency. Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) model S 60kwh weighs about 4450# compared to about 3200# curb weight for Honda (NYSE:HMC) Accords. BMW (BMW.DE) is going the smaller battery, lighter weight (about 2800#) and shorter range route with its I3.

    2. BEV costs. Tesla is having problems selling large volumes of 208 mile EPA range estimate Model S' 60KWhr cars partly because of high sales prices (about $70,000 not including some government subsidies). The 81mile EPA range estimate BMW i-3 retails for about $41,000 dollars, not including subsidies. Compare that to roughly $24,000 for a Toyota (NYSE:TM) Prius or $17,000 for a Honda Civic that have no "range anxiety" issues, and gasoline under $3/gallon.

    3. Charging infrastructure costs. Building out charging stations to cover vast geographic areas to provide comparable coverage to that of gas stations is a massively expensive proposition no matter how many partners are involved. It's also a "chicken and egg" problem. Private home charging stations cost several thousand dollars to install.

    4. BEV "refueling" time (30 minutes +) versus gasoline.

    5. Entrenched competition: GM (NYSE:GM), BMW (BMW.DE), Nissan (OTCPK:NSANY), Tesla , and miscellaneous Chinese manufacturers.

    This doesn't sound like anybody's idea of fun or trying to make a profit to me. Is Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) that desperate to find new markets? Are they that idealistic to commit massive sums of money toward an altruistic goal? Have they run out of innovative ideas?

    In 1996 Steve Jobs said " Picasso had a saying; 'good artists copy, great artists steal' - and we have been shameless about stealing great ideas." Maybe Apple is thinking of stealing Google's (NASDAQ:GOOG) self-driving car idea. Of course the devil is in the details for self-driving cars: software and sensors have to accommodate one off situations like construction zones, private driveways and garages, stop light outages, etc. Not to mention the need to accurately map every road, stop sign, and pothole in the freaking universe.

    But wait a minute. If you're going to steal, steal big. Uber and Lyft are smoking hot for a reason: they have the realistic possibility of reducing the cost of on-demand transportation to substantially below the cost of private vehicle ownership while reducing congestion, pollution, and wasted infrastructure like parking lots and garages. Current issues like labor costs will eventually be eliminated by self driving cars. The long term goal is, as Uber says, " transportation as reliable as running water, everywhere for everyone".

    So I'm Tim Cook and company looking for the next big thing, ideally even bigger than the mobile internet. I've got hundreds of millions of cash stashed around the globe, expertise second to none in managing global supply chains, and deep experience in integrating hardware and software into closed ecosystems. Nobody else can claim all these attributes. Not Google, not Uber or Lyft, not Tesla or BMW etc.

    Here's the plan. Create a worldwide urban transportation system where Apple controls the entire ecosystem. Design and contract manufacture driver-less BEV's for an on-demand transportation service. Waste not an ounce of effort or cost on building public charging stations or retail outlets. Perpetually driver-less-car-map only the urban areas you serve, while transporting the public. Build massive solar farms (as you have before) to power your transportation system as icing on the cake.

    You solve or reduce all five BEV problems listed above, the software problems associated with self-driving vehicles, and the labor problems associated with on-demand transportation. BEV range problems are solved by only serving urban areas. Your ecosystem integrates lighter vehicles with smaller batteries with high utilization rates garaged and charged in data crunched ideal locations at demand driven times, controlled by your central software and accessed by apps on smartphones.

    All aspects of vehicle design from interiors to exteriors to paint colors to battery size and chemistry to software, are optimized to serve one purpose and one purpose only: "transportation as reliable as running water, everywhere for everyone". Look out Google, Tesla, Detroit, and Uber. Look out world. Tim Cook is behind the wheel, and he's putting the pedal to the metal.

    This article is largely based on speculation, and is not investment advice. It would be crazy to base investment decisions on the speculative opinions of a nobody like me.

    Tags: AAPL, TSLA
    Feb 23 11:04 AM | Link | Comment!
  • Where Is The World Economy Headed?

    The economies of all the nations of the world are more inter-linked than they have ever been before- nothing happens in isolation. First I will state my opinion of where we have been, then where we may be headed.

    For at least the last seventy years the US economy has been the big dog of the world's economies. Whatever happened here pretty much dictated what happened in other modern western economies as well as third world economies. This is still true today. Demographic trends have been and will continue to be favorable for the US, largely because of immigration. There will be demographic bumps, such as the retirement of the baby boomers, but the longer trend is still positive.

    While China has emerged as a major economic power, it is highly dependent on American markets to consume what it produces. China has a powerful economic pull over many countries that supply it raw materials. Demographic trends have been favorable for China up until now, but will start to deteriorate in several years. China has paid a huge environmental price for it's industrialisation. The US effectively exported the pollution costs of modern society to China, which is now at a breaking point.

    Japan's economy has been stagnant for the last thirty years, largely as a result of demographics, which will continue to deteriorate going forward.

    Europe's demographics have and will continue to dictate a stagnant economy. Socialist policy in Europe is also a major headwind for economic growth.

    Third world economies are largely based on resource extraction and cheap labor. They are completely at the mercy of the US, Europe, and China.

    Starting in about 1983, interest rates began a long term decline in the US (with the world as a whole following) that culminated in a massive worldwide credit bubble that popped in 2008.

    Also beginning in the early 1980's, the information age- tech revolution got under way, culminating in the invention and worldwide deployment of the internet. I believe the information age represents one of the last steps of the industrial revolution that began in the mid 1800's, and kicked into high gear with the advent of petroleum extraction and utilisation.

    The low hanging fruit of cheap resource extraction, rapid technological advancement, and worldwide population growth, has been picked. The going gets tougher from here. On top of that, we are in the midst of a worldwide credit contraction. The Fed's quantitative easing programs had marginal benefit, being more effective psychologically than economically. The shale oil boom had much more to do with our recent economic recovery than monetary policy. The downside of artificially low interest rates is starting to manifest itself in asset bubbles that are popping.

    Germany's more conservative monetary policy has gotten a lot of bad press for stagnating the EU, but has been sounder long term policy than the US Fed's. The EU's problems are more based on fiscal policy and demographics, and won't be solved by EU QE.

    China's period of rapid growth is ending. The structural problems of a command economy are starting to emerge.

    Third world economies had their day in the sun with the influx of capital brought on by the commodity super-cycle, but are now in the throes of low commodity prices compounded by high debt levels.

    So the crux of the matter is : can the US economy pick up enough steam to pull along the rest of the world? Tough question.

    First off, low oil prices are absolutely a plus. Cheap energy spurred on the entire industrial revolution.

    Second, technological advancement looks iffy to me. Yes, things will move forward, but not at the rate they once did. And increasingly, technology will eliminate low knowledge jobs and continue to widen the wealth gap. While the Nasdaq used to thrive by disrupting legacy industry, it will become more a matter of cannibalizing itself.

    Third, employment as a percentage of working age population is still terrible, and hasn't and won't support wage growth. That pretty much dooms the housing market, formerly one of the main drivers of the US economy.

    The Fed's economic policies were never all that effective. Fiscal policy such as massive public infrastructure investment would be beneficial, but is unlikely in a grid-locked congress. Further asset bubbles caused by low interest rates will be a big problem going forward.

    So the US economy looks sideways at best in the future to me. The worldwide economy looks poor, with populism, and social unrest being a major risk. Deflation looks like a real risk at home and abroad. Equities have milked the most that can be expected out of low interest rates. Earnings growth prospects look poor with a rising dollar and shaky economic prospects in the rest of the world.

    Disclaimer: You would be crazy to make investment decisions based on the opinions of a nobody like me.

    Feb 03 11:28 PM | Link | Comment!
  • The Fed Has It's Eye On The Wrong Ball

    First, a brief recap on the last fifteen years for the US economy and stock market, IMHO.

    The tech wreck of '01 was a speculative bubble that popped, rather than a reflection of fundamental economic weakness. It drives me crazy to this day to hear about the recession of '02. There was no recession. Unemployment might have bumped up a point when the spoiled techies went underwater on their stock options and quit throwing money into the broader economy. But the broader economy was basically fine.

    That didn't stop Greenspan from lowering interest rates unnecessarily, setting up the near worldwide depression of '08. That was a massive liquidity crisis caused by excess leverage and risk in credit markets of all kinds, but particularly in mortgage markets. The TARP programs were ugly but necessary, and worked. The EU meanwhile, pursued more conservative economic measures based on fiscal restraint.

    So which response to the crisis was more effective? Conventional thinking seems to favor the Keynesian stimulus of the US over the EU's more Austrian response. I'm not so sure they didn't both work in their own way.

    I think that shale oil and gas discoveries and development were the real game changer for the US, not fed easy money policy. Jobs were created, energy costs were stabilized, and a productive foundation was created for the economy. Meanwhile Germany was playing games with "green" energy because of the Fukishima disaster. So the US caught a break and Germany shot itself in the foot.

    But the fed embarked on quantitative easing, which in my opinion was totally unnecessary, and is creating major imbalances in credit and equity markets worldwide. "Risk on" is backstopped by the fed's policies, and is setting the stage for some nasty speculative bubbles and their inevitable bursting.

    I think the fed is grossly over estimating the need for further economic stimulus, while grossly under estimating the damage it is going to cause. The fed has it's eye on the economy ball instead of excess liquidity ball.

    The best investment opportunity I see on the horizon is to be patient and wait for bubbles to burst, and buy assets then, rather than count on improving fundamentals in the economy to push markets higher. Years of improvement are already priced into the markets.

    Aug 19 5:40 PM | Link | Comment!
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers


More »
Posts by Themes
Instablogs are Seeking Alpha's free blogging platform customized for finance, with instant set up and exposure to millions of readers interested in the financial markets. Publish your own instablog in minutes.