It's Rishi

After about a year of dismissing Twitter as a fad, I realized that it seemed to be gaining more and more momentum. I am receiving more “X is now following you..” emails than ever before and Twitter is finding its way into more of my conversations — both online and offline. While I appreciate the value of Twitter as a communication medium, I recently found a Twitter-based service named StockTwits that revolutionized how I think about Twitter.

StockTwits is a community of people who follow the equity markets and exchange thoughts, via Twitter, about both single names as well as overall market movements. On StockTwits.com, any user can browse all the latest Tweets amongst the community members. Here’s the StockTwits AAPL page:

Now, this concept in and of itself is interesting but not really thought-provoking. However, what I found sort of fascinating is the mechanics of StockTwits. StockTwits users include $[Ticker] in their tweets to let StockTwits know what ticker they are microblogging about. So, for example, “long $RIMM short $AAPL has been a heck of a trade in 09″ indicates to StockTwits that the tweet is relevant to RIMM and AAPL. Because all tweets follow this convention, it is easy for StockTwits to organize the massive number of tweets into channels. In this case, the channel is a single equity name.

Let’s say you started a baseball twittering community. You might create conventions like $[LastName][Jersey#] or $[FirstName][LastName] or whatever.. in fact by applying a bit of intelligence when processing tweets, the system can probably be quite flexible and still correctly resolve player names. The bottom line is that as long as users are OK with including these inline tags in their tweets, systems can then make meaning. Sort of like tagging a post on one’s blog, but the difference being that everyone agrees to use the same set of tags.

In today’s blogosphere, tags are arbitrary. That’s the way it’s always been and this behavior is unlikely to change. The result is that the blogosphere is difficult to aggregate. The only way to create a structure out of related blog posts is through links and trackbacks. While this kind of works (Techmeme is certainly a shining example), there are tons and tons of unlinked posts about the same topic everyday in the blogosphere that, while related, cannot be aggregated.

In contrast, I think there’s a real chance for these twittering tag domains (for lack of a better name for this) to catch on. Tweets don’t really live anywhere per se. Blog posts do…they live on your blog (a web page). Thus, there’s a tendency for people to want to express their blog posts in their own individual way. That means categorizing and tagging the post in their own preferred way. However, for Twitter users to join a conversation on a specific topic, they will need to tag their tweets with a common folksonomy, like we see with StockTwits. Without this concept, a community like StockTwits would be utter chaos.

There’s definitely something interesting about structuring conversations in Twitter. Both for the purpose of making richer experiences for those involved in the same conversation and for the purpose of search/aggregation.

I had heard of the search fund concept, but beyond the obvious challenges, was always curious about how one would get started and what exactly the process entails. Luckily, HBS posted videos from panels that took place at last year’s Search Fund Entrepreneurs Conference.

For those that aren’t familiar with what a search fund is. It’s essentially entrepreneurship through acquisition. The basic steps are:

1) Small “search” team of entrepreneurs rounds up a dozen investors who will front some cash (about $25k each give or take) to cover the cost of the search team finding a great business to acquire.
2) Once the search team finds such an investment (this can take a couple of years) the original investors can invest at a discount.
3) Assuming the deal closes, the search team then takes over the operations of the company and grows it.
4) PROFIT.. =)

If you have a couple of hours, these videos are definitely worth watching even if you have no desire to be involved in a search fund. I learned countless practical lessons on how to create and manage proprietary deal flow, negotiate, deal with accountants and lawyers, obtain debt financing, and even how to successfully lead and manage a growing organization.

HBS – Search Fund Videos

Alpha, in the world of asset management, is the measure of the difference between a portfolio’s actual returns and its expected performance, given its level of risk as measured by beta (beta is basically a measure of a portfolio’s volatility as compared to the market i.e. the S&P 500 index). For alternative investment funds, such as hedge funds, alpha is how one fund is compared to another. Furthermore, a significant chunk of the fees that a fund manager earns is dependent on the alpha that his fund returns. (Let’s ignore the fact that much of the “alpha” was probably unaccounted for beta and fund managers were likely overcompensated). Thus, alpha generation, is critical to a fund manager’s success.

So..where does alpha come from? Benjamin Graham, the father of value investing, found excess returns by buying attractive stocks that were very underpriced — priced far below their tangible book value with no warning signs to justify it. Back then (in the early to mid 20th century), analyzing securities was a challenge. Access to financial statements and timely market news was difficult. Thus for people like Graham — and his disciples — who 1) put in the effort to obtain the relevant data 2) crunched the numbers (remember no Excel!) 3) had the proper analytical framework (courtesy of Graham) and 4) were patient there were bonafide bargains to be had.

Over the course of the 20th century, access to market information improved substantially and the number of “sophisticated” investors skyrocketed. This trend continued until the point where toward the end of the century, all investors both big and small were essentially on an even playing field. Obvious bargains in the equity markets dried up. Given that classic Graham-esque bargains were sparse and that his assets under management was ever increasing, Buffett describes how his investing philosophy evolved over time to focus on concepts such as intrinsic value and economic goodwill.

Today, with ubiquitous access to real-time market information, markets are efficient. An important note here is that I define efficient to mean that the price of a security on the open market is an accurate, without-time-lag reflection of the collective sentiment of investors’ opinion on where the price should be based on news and forecasts as well as emotions/irrationalities. I am not using the word efficient to imply that market prices are always rational. Humans, for reasons that only some of which are scientifically understood, are susceptible to biases and irrational behavior. The bottom line here is that investing, even for the most disciplined strategies, has become difficult. Wouldn’t it be nice to rewind the clock a hundred years back to the Benjamin Graham’s day when access to information was difficult?

I think so.. and this leads me to wonder that maybe investors need to dig deeper to find new sources of information that aren’t obvious to other investors. As I’ve discussed many times before on this blog, there has been an explosion of news publishing because of the Web in many forms, the most obvious perhaps being blogs, both professional and personal, and the less obvious mediums such as twitter and message boards.

One concrete example that comes to mind is a blog post from January 2008 by Markus Frind (founder of plentyoffish.com, one of the largest dating web sites in the world). The post talked about how because of a subtle design change by Google, his AdSense CTR (click-thru rate) dropped by 60%. The change was that in late ‘07, Google changed AdSense so that only the link in the ad is clickable, not the whole ad area. Google had presumably done this to reduce accidental clicks. In the long term this is a good thing for everyone because it reduces click-fraud issues. However, near-term CTR drops a bit, thus # of clicks drops and thus ad revenue drops. Now, ultimately, advertisers should see a rise in their conversion rates (since the quality of clicks goes up) and thus be willing to pay more for each click, evening out the ad revenue. However, there is a lead time for that to happen. Near-term ad revenue drops and there should, in theory, be a negative impact on Google’s quarter. TechCrunch had actually reported on this change on November 11, 2007 but the post came and went without much drama.

Now, fast forward to February 26, 2008, comScore publishes a report indicating that Google’s CTR may be dropping and GOOG drops 4% to close at $471..down from the mid $600 range in January. On February 29, 2008, TechCrunch posts Google CTR Down Due to Click Area Changes referencing the ealrier post in January by Markus Frind.

I remember thinking in January that I should take a short position in GOOG. Of course, I didn’t really take myself seriously, but when the comScore report came out and GOOG dropped sharply, my jaw dropped. At that moment I realized that my idea of finding these nuggets of gold on the Web isn’t crazy. In fact, I’m not the only one with the idea. Roger Ehrenberg, a wall street veteran, had co-founded a company named Monitor110. The company has since went under, but here’s an excerpt from a TechCrunch article on the company:

Monitor110 gathers information from 40 million sources of various types (100 million by the end of next year they say), ranked by financial market knowledge through a proprietary algorithm that takes 50 factors into account – inbound links being just one reputation metric. Users can chose between top sources preselected for their market sector and subscribe to sources of their own. Static sites can be monitored for changes with good granularity. Premium subscription and other deep web sources, blogs, forums, news and regulatory filings are among the sources included.

Here’s an image that used to be on Monitor110’s homepage. It elucidates the concept very well:

Think about an engineer who blogs about how he’s working like crazy because his project at work is behind schedule. If we know that he works at THQ, this information could be valuable to an investor. That’s precisely what Monitor110’s business model was. Sell to hedge funds and other folks desperate for alpha. Is this scalable? I’m not sure. Probably? Maybe too early for it’s time?…it was for Monitor110.

People Who Read This Article Also Read… by Greg Linden of Microsoft Live Labs (and formerly of Findory.com) is a comprehensive review of the uses of recommendation systems on the Web and their implementations. Recommendation systems is a topic that I love and Greg’s descriptions of systems such as that of Google News was very educational.

I’m a huge proponent of the idea that the newspaper, with it’s one-size-fits-all news, is dead. I discussed this in my prior post, Ok, I admit it one size fits all news will die. In this prior post, I discussed the fact that I consume most of my news today using my RSS reader. I’ve added several news feeds, from many topic areas, that I respect and enjoy to my reader and I check it every few hours. I have found that over the past couple years, my awareness of current events in topic areas that I am interested in has risen considerably.

However, there are limitations to the RSS reader. “Rolling” your own news feed takes time to create and maintain. I don’t expect that many will do this. More importantly, though, the scope of the news that is available to me is bounded by the content of those news feeds which I have explicitly included. I don’t doubt that every day I miss news stories that would be of high interest to me because they originate from news sources that I am not following. A news application that can show me news from both my explicitly chosen news sources as well as news stories that come by leveraging recommendation technologies (e.g. “Story X is similar to news stories which Rishi typically reads” and “Story X is being read by many people who have similar news tastes to Rishi”) will be the ultimate solution for me. What’s exciting is that I expect such a news application to be available very soon…

Paul Buchheit, the creator of GMail, and a founder of FriendFeed (which I wrote about earlier) wrote an interesting post describing his philosophy on the development approach of innovative products (typically in startups). I found his thoughts to be very similar to those of my own. My favorite part is:

So what’s the right attitude? Humility. It doesn’t matter how smart and successful and qualified you are, you simply don’t know what you’re doing. The good news is that nobody else does either, though some are foolish enough to think that they do (and that’s why you can beat them).

What is the humble approach to product design? Pay attention. Notice which things are working and which aren’t. Experiment and iterate. Question your assumptions. Remember that you are wrong about a lot of things. Watch for the signals. Lose your technical and design snobbery. Whatever works, works.

What I tell people over and over is that one can be the most accomplished product designer/manager/engineer, but when developing a new product, you are really just making an educated guess about what will resonate with your user. Sometimes what makes so much sense on paper just doesn’t jive with users. In a sense, the design+requirements for the initial product is the hypothesis and the v1.0 of the product is the experiment that tests the hypothesis on users.

What separates the winners from the losers is the analysis of the results, which in the case of web-based products can be efficiently done by looking at specific engagement metrics. This does not just mean pouring through Google Analytics data. Instead, I’ve found it to mean combining the analytics data with database queries that measures key application engagement metrics.

The point is that the development of innovative products must be both rigorous and methodical. Use the standard scientific method. The unknown question is “What do my users want?”. Start with a hypothesis, experiment by testing your products with real users, analyze what worked and what didn’t, modify your hypothesis, test, …

For a couple of years, I’ve had this recurring thought: “What if you could apply the PageRank concept of link popularity to reputation?” In other words, let’s say person A, a marketing guy, vouches for person J as being an awesome Java engineer. That endorsement, while it may well be true, would not mean nearly as much as if person B, an engineer himself who has 10 other engineers vouching for his Java engineering skills, vouches for person J’s Java skills. Well, imagine a giant graph with edges that represent such vouches. By analyzing the graph, one could find the best (essentially the node on the graph with the most incoming Java engineer vouches…again not just quantity of vouches but quality of vouches…sort of a weighted sum) Java engineer.

Well, as a sort of experiment, Paul and Nick were kind enough to help me whip up the Vouch For Me app on Facebook. Add it and start vouching for your friends and get vouches back.

Lookery, an ad network for Facebook and other social networks with developer platforms, announced that, as part of their effort to rapidly grow their inventory, they are offering guaranteed minimum of 12.5 cents CPM for the next three months for an exclusive on the application’s traffic. 12.5 cents CPM at first glance seems awfully low but one must consider the alternatives.

Ad rates, in this case we’re talking in terms of CPM, generally correlate directly with context. Stronger context means a more focused audience. Targeted ads for this audience brings in high rates. For Facebook apps that have pages with real context, it’s likely that they can and should do much better than 12.5 cents. Depending on the content genre, it may take a bit more legwork on the part of the developers to find the right advertisers who will pay, but if the volume is there, it shouldn’t be too hard. However, for apps that have no real context (the majority of apps), 12.5 cents CPM may be about as good as they can get. Facebook itself sells its “flyer” ad space (the left column under the nav links) for not much more than this. In fact, I recently paid about 20-25 cents CPM for an ad and that was when I instructed Facebook to serve my ad only to a very precise demographic (matching only ~40k users out of the 50M+ Facebook userbase). Without such targeting, I would have gotten away with paying much less.

From my own experiences, I’ve found SocialMedia to be quite lucrative. SocialMedia advertisers, primarily developers who are buying installs for their own applications, pay 15 cents and upwards for a click. When SocialMedia first launched, when we published their ads prominently at the top of our canvas pages, we saw eCPM as high as $2 or so. Now it’s less, but still is above 50 cents eCPM. My hunch though is that applications which serve massive page views, particularly a large number of page views per user session, will see decreasing eCPM from SocialMedia. There’s only so many ads that each user is going to click in a session, no matter how many page views in length. Again, this is just a hunch though.

So, if you are one of the application developers that has a massively popular application which offers no meaningful context, then Lookery’s offer is probably pretty attractive. And this type of developer is exactly who Lookery wants in order to achieve their goal of adding a billion page views of inventory a month for the next few months.

PRN (Paul, Rishi, Nick) just launched a new Facebook app called My Apple Life. It allows users to share the Apple products that they have and want on their Facebook profile. Also, users can find others that have the same products that they do and engage in discussions like “What’s the best waterproof case for my iPod Nano?” Check it out…

Seeqpod is a music search engine that crawls the web and finds music files. I have used it a few times recently and was pleasantly surprised with the results. Many of the songs that I was looking for were found. Full DRM-free mp3s. Where does Seeqpod find these files? From what’s often called “open directories”. Open directories are typically user directories on web servers that have inadvertently been made public. They often aren’t publicly available for long since once they are found, they are leeched like crazy by users, which drives up bandwidth usage on the user account (which eventually leads to the account being suspended).

Savvy users have been finding open directories for years. With the right search parameters, Google is a great tool for finding such open directories. However, Seeqpod is an ideal tool for this. Not only is it laser focused on finding music, it mashes up relevant discography data and can even stream the search results so you can listen before you download.

The problem is that Seeqpod is essentially a Napster for the Web. Whereas the real Napster searched people’s own local computers for music, Seeqpod searches the Web for music that people have uploaded to servers. While there may be some legitimate content that Seeqpod is crawling, I think it will be very difficult for the Company to defent itself against a new lawsuit from Warner Music which claims that Seeqpod directly contributes to copyright infringement by helping people locate pirated content.

As usual, I think the record labels are picking the wrong battles and need to focus their resources on figuring out how they can add value, and build closer relationships, with music listeners. The recent developments at Last.FM makes me hopeful that the record labels are in fact seeing the light.

I have to admit that I was excited to go to MacWorld today. Looking back, I’m not sure what I was expecting to see, but I do know that I was not expecting to be so incredibly underwhelmed. Few booths stimulated my interest. Even Apple’s own floor was pretty pathetic. Apple focused on two products: MacBook Air and iTunes rentals playable on the updated AppleTV. Of course there were the obligatory iPods and iPhones available for showgoers to play with, but I was shocked that Apple didn’t even bother to have any of their other computer products available. It’s possible that I missed it but I didn’t even see any of the new Apple Pro models. I guess it’s Apple’s way of telling owners of their existing products that they are no longer a part of the family unless they upgrade to the new latest-and-greatest.

As for the new products, here’s my take:

MacBook Air – When I saw it in person, I couldn’t help but marvel at the tremendous achievement in packaging that it represents. It’s amazingly thin and light. However, you do make compromises on connectivity and performance (opting for the ultra-expensive SSD option mitigates much of the performance sacrifice but it’s an option that few can afford for now). Since Apple already makes amongst the most svelte laptops on the market, I don’t think the Air is going to expand Apple’s market share. Instead, most sales will come from jetsetters and the tech-savviest who would otherwise be using a MB or MBP.

Time Capsule – No RAID, no care. It’s as simple as that for me. I want to backup and be all but certain that the data will be there if I need it. If the Time Capsule’s HD fails, you’re SOL. That’s not what I consider reliable storage. Come on Apple, give me an Internet-based backup onto storage in a robust datacenter. Until this happens, I’ll stick with Mozy.

iTunes Movie Rentals – I’m impressed. The prices are reasonable and selection strong. Will this finally convert the NetFlix/BlockBuster userbase into believers? I’m not sure. Will this sell more Apple TV’s? I think so.

iPhone updates – The addition of location via tower triangulation turns iPhone GMaps into a truly killer app. I am really looking forward to February to see what Apple is going to unlock to developers when the SDK launches.

Lowest moment at the show: Four people earnestly shooting photos of an unremarkable MacBook Air decoration that hung from the ceiling. What were they all using to snap the photos? iPhones! I couldn’t help but feel nauseous.

Finally, I’d love for someone to do a study of Apple’s market share in San Francisco. At every coffee shop I have been to in the city, at least 50% of the laptops in use are MacBooks. In fact, after leaving MacWorld today, Nick, Paul & I were doing some brainstorming at a coffee shop out near my place in the richmond and in between thoughts, I noticed that about 75% of the laptops in the shop were Macs. Of course, my observation is biased since I’m only considering people who live in SF and compute at coffee shops. For the most part, this is the college-age to young professional age. So right there, Apple’s market share is going to be higher than their overall market average.