Morgan Housel has penned a rather odd column to mark the new year, declaring 2013 to be the year that “long-term thinking” died, with “his last true friend, Vanguard founder Jack Bogle,” at his side.
Alexis Madrigal has a rollicking investigation into Netflix’s movie genres — all 76,897 of them, from category #1 (African-American Crime Documentaries) to category #91,307 (Visually Striking Latin American Comedies). His story is titled “How Netflix Reverse Engineered Hollywood”, and as such, it’s the latest entrant to a well-stocked category of its own: Awestruck Narratives About Netflix’s Technology and the Systematization of the Ineffable.
Ostensibly Respectable Academic Is In Fact A Hack: it’s a hardy perennial, and an enjoyable one at that. The best example is Inside Job, where big names like Ric Mishkin and Glenn Hubbard got their well-deserved comeuppance. And it’s a genre I’ve indulged in myself: last year, for instance, I spent 4,500 words on a paper by Bob Litan, showing how he lies with numbers to arrive at his paymasters’ predetermined conclusion.
The first time I ever visited New York, the bus from JFK dropped me off in front of Grand Central Terminal. I looked up, and up, and up, at the Chrysler Building towering above me, and I immediately fell in love with a city which so exuberantly celebrated its height and size and weight. Much as I love Chicago, New York will always be the home of the skyscraper for me; no other city has such spectacular examples from all eras, ranging from the Brooklyn Bridge and the Woolworth and Flatiron buildings, through Lever House and the Seagram building, all the way to the newest towers rising both downtown, at the World Trade Center site, as well as uptown, along 57th Street. One of the most awe-inspiring architectural experiences in the world is to visit the little-known but truly amazing top room of the art deco BNY Mellon building at 1 Wall Street, with its three-storey-high silver ceilings and its unrivaled views to the north, south, east, and west.
I like Matt Levine’s dry take on Facebook’s secondary offering: “Whatever else you think of Facebook,” he writes, “it is unusual among public companies in its desire and ability to sell stock at local maximums.” And really, he’s right: it makes perfect sense for a company (and its controlling shareholder) to sell stock when demand is greatest and the price is at its highest. After all, share sales are a simple transaction: you give me a one-off slug of cash today, and in return I’ll give you ownership rights in perpetuity. Anybody engaging in such a deal should at least want to maximize the amount of cash they’re getting, which is another way of saying that you should only sell stock if you think it’s overvalued.
Matt Yglesias presents the case against dividends today — and it’s a case I’m sympathetic to. But before you can determine whether stocks should be paying dividends, it’s important to understand why stocks are paying these dividends. And the answer is in the chart above.
I had lunch with Artnet’s Thierry Dumoulin last week, and we talked a bit about the classic interactive NYT chart of box-office grosses. (It’s getting on for six years old, now, but it’s still top-notch.) I wondered if it might be possible to do something similar for artists — to show how different artists have their auction peaks at different times, and how some artists fade away while others become newly fashionable.
It’s a standard part of flying, these days: the minute you touch down, you pull out your phone and get back up to speed with the world — especially if you’ve been on a long flight without wifi. And then there’s the standard exception: when you’re flying internationally, you don’t. Not unless you’re very rich, or very reckless, or someone else is paying your phone bill.
Last month the city of New York raised more than $200 million by auctioning off 200 new taxi medallions — essentially, the right to operate a yellow cab in the city. Some 2,000 such medallions are likely to be sold in all, which means $2 billion of much-needed revenue for New York, if prices remain high. But will they? It’s surprisingly easy to justify a million-dollar price tag for a medallion — but in order to do so, you need to assume that medallion owners’ income will remain constant, in real terms, over time.