digest
Short Summary
Main recommendation: Be cautious about "investing in technological revolutions" because the historical record shows that exciting new-technology companies tend to produce low returns for investors, while investing in declining industries or low-priced companies has reliably done better. The video argues this pattern appears across past revolutions, from canal mania to the dot-com bubble, and that it reflects the high prices investors pay for expected growth rather than a failure to anticipate the technology itself.
Key Points
- Carlota Perez's model describes each technological revolution as moving through an eruption, a two-to-three-decade installation period, a major technology bubble and collapse midway through, and a later deployment phase of more organic growth.
- Pastor and Veronesi show that higher uncertainty about the profitability of new-technology firms can raise prices without requiring irrational behavior, because of convexity in the Gordon growth model (Jensen's inequality).
- As a new technology is adopted by the old economy, its risk shifts from idiosyncratic to systematic, raising beta and volatility and pushing new-economy stock prices down; NASDAQ's beta doubled from 1997 to 2002.
- Stocks are claims on future profits, so returns depend on the price paid, not on growth itself. Siegel's S&P 500 example shows the original firms beat the index by more than 1% per year over 50 years, which he attributes to investors overpaying for expected growth.
- The 10 largest companies at the start of each decade trailed the market by an annualized 1.51% on average over the following decade, and picking future winners resembles playing the lottery given the skewed returns of stocks, IPOs, and venture capital.
Details Worth Noting
- Concrete instructions: The video gives no step-by-step investing instructions. Its only actionable direction is to avoid betting that a new technology will be adopted broadly on the strength of its rising price, since the video argues that such a bet is effectively a bet that prices will decline. Based on the video's evidence, the implied guidance is that investing in declining industries or low-priced companies has historically produced better outcomes than chasing new-technology winners.
- Examples cited: canal mania, railway mania, the 1880s infrastructure boom, the Roaring Twenties, the internet bubble, and the British bicycle mania, all followed by busts.
- Rail stocks fell from a 63% share of the US stock market (1900) to under 1% by 2019 yet beat the broader market, while the oil index grew a dollar to $134 versus $76 for the software index over the same era.
- Almost two-thirds of venture capital financings lose money, while a tiny number produce huge returns.
- The video notes a selection bias: revolutions are studied only after they are known to have happened, while investors living through them could not know whether a technology would scale.
Bottom Line
Excitement about a technology does not make its leading stocks good investments, because prices tend to already reflect expected growth. The historical evidence points toward skepticism about chasing the next breakthrough company.
