Anecdotes Archives

Rethinking business moats

Popularised by Warren Buffett, the idea of business moats is simply some kind of persistence or stickiness in demand that businesses have, which can keep them going. Basically it is really anything that helps to reduce competition to a business. This is important in the real world though we tend to celebrate competition in economics. Business moats are actually necessary for innovation, and avoiding a race to the bottom.

Moats are largely about maintenance of a profit margin. The stronger the moat, the higher the margin would be but having a moat itself makes a lot of difference. In fact, we tend to worry in economics about moats because we think it creates high margins. That’s not always true. You could have low margins as a moat itself – because being able to keep your costs low would keep competitors at bay. The point of moats is more about the persistence of the margin.

The most significant problem with competition is that you are in a dynamic environment that keeps you on your toes. Now you may think that is a good thing. But if we keep having to compete with competitors who are just diverting your customers easily through one-off gimmicks and popping up in different places, dislodging your margins here and there, it is not going to make a significant dent in your profits, but it certainly takes up your attention and ability to consider longer-term growth and innovation.

It is such long-term thinking that a business moat creates, which can support the maturing of a system. Yes, other institutional factors contribute to the growth and development of markets. But pure ‘perfect competition’ in the manner it is traditionally thought isn’t one of them. Many developed countries and markets have that sort of dynamism and competition. Just go to a weekday market in a mid-sized town in Africa. But that in itself does not produce the sort of progress that capitalism is touted to produce.

What underlies the success of market capitalism is ultimately the ability not just to accumulate capital but to be freed of that savage competition to engage in more medium to long-term strategic competition. And that is enabled by business moats.

Culture & Consulting

Having worked in consulting across cultures, I have begun to recognise some cultural behaviours when buying consulting across different countries and the attitudes towards consultants. Having advisors is nothing new; the monarchs of ancient times have had advisors to support them for as long as they existed. These advisors offered more than just advice, insights or knowledge that leaders did not possess (or did not think they possessed).

They offered assurances when it was scarce. Soothsaying, contrary to what people might think, actually means telling the truth; with ‘sooth’ being an old English term that meant truth, as opposed to ‘soothe’, which means to calm. And the advisors also provided perspectives that during times of wiser monarchs, could contradict the conventional wisdom or call out the folly of the leaders.

So if we distil it down to the value that consultants provide today:

Knowledge of what may not be known to the client: this is when consultants are selling their expertise, and familiarity with a topic area that clients are not familiar with
Assurance of a particular course of action, decision, or information: this is when the client needs something verified, checked, validated and confirmed. The confidence and conviction of the advisor matter here as well, compared to those who hide behind jargon and ‘expert lingo’.
Sparing partner or challenger to ideas: consultants can be valued in bringing new perspectives, especially an outside-in view of things thereby co-creating more valuable solutions or decisions with the client.

I begin to recognise that Asian firms especially with rather paternalistic leadership tend not to use consultants the way the West use them. So for example, when it comes to knowledge, the Western clients may appreciate specific subject matter expertise that comes through years of experience and in-depth research. In contrast, Eastern clients may value knowledge of implicit/unwritten local rules and norms rather than expertise in a more technical subject. The more institutionalisable the knowledge set is, the less likely an Eastern client would appreciate it as worth paying for.

Western clients see assurances from consultants as important while Eastern clients prefer to take the risks of not having check through things by themselves. This might have something to do with the way trust is formed. In Asian societies where getting things verified can be read as a sign of mistrust, it is challenging to value such independent checks and perspectives. The very deed of using independent validation can almost be an insult.

Finally, when it comes to having a sparing partner, the typical harmony-loving, and conflict-avoidant Asian culture would really struggle with the idea of paying someone to challenge you. In fact, leaders might instead assert the power of their wealth/influence over people so that they would not be questioned.

In this sense, Asian cultures tend towards getting advisors who can provide knowledge that is undocumented and unavailable in the public domain, and are often independent individuals with the specific gifts of being able to reveal ‘truth’ to the client. They also prefer that the knowledge advisors gain about the client cannot be easily disseminated. And as far as possible, they only care about knowledge that cannot be institutionalised.

This means that it is incredibly challenging for most professional, western-chain consultants to survive solely from serving a pool of Asian clients. If anything, they usually have to ‘survive’ off the big multi-nationals who are growing into new, and perhaps opaque markets, or needing more capacity support. In other words, consulting has grown out of an increasingly international market, yet not overly uncertain because surely some stability is necessary for consultants to be deemed to have accumulated enough lessons and experience to share.

Random musings as I continue to build up my knowledge and capability of managing a consulting practice.

Problem-solving or answer-finding

I am a Singaporean. And one aspect about Singapore highlighted by many stories of its growth and early leaders is the notion of pragmatism. Yet I feel that this notion probably has been overplayed.

Pragmatism is used to suggest that the ends justify the means. Now within the context of school, it could mean that you can get your grades by rote memorisation as opposed to genuine learning. Or that you could simply find the right answer to copy than to solve a problem yourself on an assignment.

Same goes for the worker at work – just find the answer, don’t bother solving the problem. This may mean finding out how it was done before; or to figure out what others who had the same problem was doing. One could argue those are problem-solving heuristics. Maybe. But I call those “answer-finding”.

As a consultant, I cannot help but recall clients who are asking, “but have you done this same thing before with another client or somewhere else?” This is answer-finding, not problem-solving.

The Singapore today needs trail-blazers and problem-solvers; as it always had. But decades of overemphasizing pragmatism means we prefer to pay for answers than purchase problem-solving capacity. We desperately need to shift this culture and move towards real problem-solving than answer-finding.

Chinese translations

It’s the Easter weekend and when I do translations for church material I’d inevitably chance upon interesting ways in which the (early) Chinese believers saw things differently from the western believers or denominations. It was somewhat reflected in the manner the translations and terms showcased different aspects of the faith.

Looking into the Chinese terms also encouraged me to dig deeper into the English terms that I’ve taken for granted.

Maundy Thursday – this refers to the Thursday before Good Friday. And as it turned out, ‘maundy’ refers to the word ‘command’ in Latin and is referencing Jesus’ command to the disciples around serving one another just as He had washed their feet for them. The Chinese term was ‘濯足节’ – which focused on the feet-washing.

Good Friday – referring to the day of Christ’ crucifixion. Christians referred to it as ‘good’ as a reflection of the manner it reflected how Jesus had paid the price of death for our salvation. In Chinese however, the day is ‘耶稣受难节’ which means it’s the day of suffering for Christ. The focus was more on His suffering for us.

Easter Sunday – that is of course the day when Christ tomb appears to have been opened and his body gone. However, easter actually refers to something about spring and harvest and corresponds more to some other festival that happens to coincide with the Passover season of the Jews. In Chinese, the term is ‘复活节’ which literally means the day of resurrection, once again pointing back to the day in the gospel.

When I shared these with a church elder who was not familiar with Chinese language, nor the terms in Chinese, he was surprised and commented that the Chinese terms were pretty literal. Perhaps they are, but they are very direct and quickly points us back to the gospel too!

Trump tariffs

We live in interesting times and as an economist, I find it hard to resist commenting on the events I’m living within. I got into economics because I’ve been fascinated by trade, the amazing ability for the world to grow in production just because it is able to specialise in different things and thereby contribute to overall growth and prosperity of the world. The challenge is that being good at different things can affect how the overall increase in wealth or production is distributed. But if we care mainly about the world being able to do more together at the same time, we just want to maximise trade. On the other hand, if we care about only what we get individually, on relative terms with others, then yes, trade can get contentious, even if we are getting more on an absolute scale than if we hadn’t trade.

There is quite a couple of forces within the US economy that is generating the symptoms that we are seeing including the huge trade and budget deficits. None of them is going to be easily resolved through the use of trade tariffs. And yes indeed, there will be a need for the world system of trade, foreign reserves and financial exchanges to shift. The question of how it will shift and whether the transition is smooth or not will depend on both the actions of US and the rest of the world. Trump’s approach of bringing people to the negotiating table doesn’t make so much sense when he is simultaneously weakening his hand while trying to strike deals with multiple parties.

What that shows is a highly ego-centric or US-centric view of the world that will prove to be self-destructive. I’m not saying that the whole of US thinks or act this way but the fact that such a leader is voted into office makes things more difficult than it is. Obviously the electoral college system might need to be rethought or reformed but there’s probably too much gaming of the system that is taking place.

Back to the point about tariffs. By imposing a broad sweeping tariff system across the world, what will happen is that overall cost of living and consumption will rise in the US given how much it is dependent on imports (the deficit themselves reflect that). The goods or services where demand is more price sensitive might find themselves switching more towards domestically produced ones assuming that they exists and can be priced competitively. Otherwise, the status quo + higher tariffs will prevail. The government will maybe raise their revenue from customs but the US consumers are ultimately paying these tariffs. So on the trade front, nothing really happens, and on the government budget front, the government is probably going to get a bit more revenue to reduce their budget deficit.

If we assume that the reason for US budget deficit is that the government isn’t taxing enough relative to their spending, then it means they will have to somehow find ways to obtain more from the value that they are bringing to the markets. Perhaps it is the rule of law, or regulation of the markets, the government isn’t charging the fair amount to the beneficiaries, or allowing too much leakages (think corporates avoiding taxes or billionaires parking their returns in offshore tax havens). If we assume the richest ones are the most mobile, then applying tariffs would simply worsen the inequality situation in the US.

Maundy Thursday 2025

Today is the night before Good Friday when we commemorate the last supper that Jesus had with His disciples. And interestingly the Chinese name for this day refers more to the washing of the disciple’s feet.

In the church I attend, the message preached focused on Jesus’ warning to Peter in Luke 22:31-34. Peter had imagined his faith in God to be much more than he eventually was able show with his actions. But the comforting words from Jesus was:

“But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren.”
‭‭Luke‬ ‭22‬:‭32‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

Peter’s faith faltered but eventually did not fail. He returned to the Lord and was restored. I thought deeply about what Peter went through that night.

He said he was ready to go to prison and even to death with Jesus in verse 33, so what went wrong? Peter was not short of courage, he trusted in Jesus’ power and might. He was ready to fight that night at Garden of Gethsemane so much so the gospel of John recorded that Peter took arms and struck the ear of the servant of the high priest.

But what was probably shocking to Peter was that Jesus called out his violent response. In John 18, it was recorded after Peter injured the servant.

So Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword into the sheath. Shall I not drink the cup which My Father has given Me?”
‭‭John‬ ‭18‬:‭11‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

And in Luke 22, Jesus reportedly said “Permit even this.”

Yes, the same Man whom the disciples marveled at when the storm was calmed at sea, now effectively says “let them have me” without putting up any fight at all. It is exactly another moment when the disciples would be thinking “Who is this? Who would respond to the treachery with such calmness? Who would respond to such corruption with love and grace? Whom have we chose to follow and what are we bringing upon ourselves?”

Peter’s thoughts about his faith in Jesus probably just vanished before him. Can he go to prison with Jesus and even death without putting up a fight? Will he submit himself to the enemies the way Jesus did?

Unlike most disciples who fled, Peter followed Jesus and his captors. Peter tried to figure out what they were doing to him and find chance to be of use or help. He actually was braver than any of them. But when confronted about being a disciple of Jesus, he denied. There was fear for sure, and he must have been so overwhelmed by the night’s event. But more significantly, he probably wasn’t so sure if he was a follower of Jesus anymore. The denial of Jesus perhaps wasn’t about a moment of weakness but a sense of loss. But it was needed for Peter to discover what he actually had been placing his faith on instead of the Lord he had thought he was following.

So when the rooster crowed and reminded Peter of what Jesus had said, he was probably jolted back to his senses but not before being filled with shame, despair and utter helplessness. He wept bitterly.

Peter would eventually return to Jesus. In John 21 when John told him Jesus was the one at the shore, Peter immediately jumped into the water to swim towards the shore. And sure enough Jesus restores him and calls him to encourage the brethren (“feed my lambs, tend my sheep, feed my sheep”).

Our faith will be tested again and again; what is the basis of what we believe and how far are we going to lead our lives premised on God’s word and promises? Only time and our lives will tell; but it is more for us to know and respond and to learn to return to God each time.

Trade-offs rather than solutions

Tom Bilyeu posted something insightful on Linkedin a few days ago that’s worth mulling over. He said, “There are no solutions, only trade-offs.”

And that the belief in a perfect solution can cap your growth as it paralysed you from making decisions as you wait for the perfect solution to come by. It may also be just because you are endlessly searching thinking that the ideal solution will emerge.

Yet when we do chance upon some things, we do recognise them as solutions. I realised that this is because we have priorities in most settings and it is the priorities that determine what we value more and what we value less. The trade-offs then allows us to exchange things that are less valued for things that are more valued. The ability to do so increases the overall value and hence becomes a ‘solution’.

There may be times when the things being traded off against are both valued – and then it takes that strategic mind, one that is able to look into different versions of the future to try and determine which elements in the trade-off is more important and would have lasting impacts.

Ultimately, there is no way one can navigate life and decision-making without the ability to prioritise things. If we see everything as equally important, we suffer from the plight of Buridan’s Donkey and never get anything done.

Strategy and the Greeks

I was watching Carl Sagan’s explanation of how the Greeks knew that the earth was spherical and how Eratosthenes (then head librarian of Alexandria) calculated the circumference of the Earth without even leaving his home country. It’s a brilliant one worth watching:

Brilliant men in the past would have mastered astronomy, geometry, and mathematics and played the role of military strategists. The ability to make observations in nature and draw interpretations were essential to determine the approach on the battlefield.

Yet, today, with technologies supporting the interpretation of observations and supplying multitude of information to leaders, there’s less of a need for the ‘strategist’. Rather, the tasks of looking and interpreting the various information is decentralised and the information comes together already processed for decision-making.

In such a world, we use resources to displace thinking. Eratosthenes will have to pit his wits against the rocket ships, satellites and scientists with funds for expedition who will say that his calculation yields a figure which is ~2.5% off the mark.

The role of strategic thinking has diminished in importance in the societies which are highly developed and well-resourced. Every now and then, someone comes from seemingly nowhere and overcome an incumbent with all the position, and the resources. A David and Goliath story. In many ways, DeepSeek is an example of that; especially when put in contrast with Sam Altman’s response to a question from an audience at a talk where he said that any worthy competitor to OpenAI will have to invest massive resources and datasets to train another LLM to achieve the prowess of ChatGPT.

I think we need to go back to a culture that appreciates strategic thinking and this sort of brilliance. And believe once again that it isn’t just about resources and overwhelming others with abundance. For those who feels limited by their resources, let the ability to think strategically provide a channel and means to defeat the giants.

Innovation and commercialisation

How should research funding be assessed? What makes good spending on research? Should it be about patents filed? Or about the number of significant breakthroughs per dollar spent? How about revenues generated from licensing a technology? Or royalties on the patent? Is that really the best way?

What if a drug that could save many lives was discovered? But then it would take much more investment to get the drug tested and so on? What if the research funding itself wasn’t able to get innovation through to the stage where commercialisation would be successful?

The original question was really hard. And one of the things that my research into intellectual property rights regime revealed is that it never was about the patents system or the risk capital that drove innovations. Often, it’s merely the ability to disclose and disseminate information, especially knowledge that would otherwise have been kept a secret, that would have helped push an overall system towards being more innovative.

After all, the Industrial Revolution happened in Britain during a period when their intellectual property rights were terrible, and a patent was mainly used as a form of marketing rather than a way to achieve a monopoly.

So when National Research Foundation or even our A*STAR tries to properly steward taxpayers money by trying to figure out how to spend research funding wisely, they might want to take note that true innovation is the goal of the spending, and not so much the commercialisation value. The need to enforce some kind of ‘commercialisation’ target could very well destroy the very foundation and philosophical underpinnings of research and discovery. The reason government funding is needed is precisely because the market is unable to offer that same kind of funding directed to those activity – so to demand ‘market discipline’ from those activities will bring us back to square one. The underprovision of innovation and hence market failure. Only this time, it is the government who fails.

Capital’s bargaining power

Recently a friend and I was working on some business ideas. We were thinking through scenarios where smart people come up with great business ideas or business models that can generate impressive returns but require capital to do. If the capital markets work perfectly for the specific risk profile of the business (assume that it can be assessed correctly), then all capital should only be able to demand the market rate of return on capital.

We ran some simulations on this. To simplify the whole business and risk, we assume it is a very low-risk infrastructure project that returns constant cashflow across 10 years, one year after the initial cash injection. A project that can bring in >27%, when raising all of its funds from a capital owner, should be split 60-40 if the market hurdle rate is at ~12% for that risk and tenure. This means that though the capital holder is financing 100% of the project, he needs to give up 40% share of the returns to the ones who structured and pulled the project together.

Now, when the project returns rises to 33% over 10 years; and the market hurdle rate remains at 12%, then the capital holder needs to give up 49% share. This means that if the project that the smart guys are able to put together can return more than 33%, then the capital owner needs to give up more than 50% of the returns even though he is contributing 100% of the upfront capital. This is a hard bargain for the ‘entrepreneurs’ organising the resources to strike with capital holders.

This is perhaps how the Thomas Piketty argument about the relative bargaining power of capital gets played out. At the same time, capital can afford to be more patient because the cost of upkeeping capital isn’t as high as trying to upkeep a living person with the wits and capabilities to develop all the ideas and organise the resources. And because capital is more ‘tangible’ and ‘calculative’, it can keep forcing all kinds of cost upon labour side of the equation. In this blog post, labour basically includes the ‘entrepreneurial’ elements as well that is typically somewhat associated with capital.

This is where debt comes in. Instead of getting a co-investor, the project entrepreneur should be able to borrow to finance the project. And the debt tenure can be shorter. A simple solution could be to take out a 4-year debt at 7% interest; this would require the entrepreneur to sacrifice 85% of the project cashflow for the first 4 years, in exchange for the rest of the project’s cashflow. Technically, when structured as a debt, the market interest rate should be lower than the market hurdle rate. Yet because the ‘project’ is new and may not have a sufficient track record, financiers may demand collateral and other risk-management tools to enhance the credit standing. Technically, when structured as a debt, the market interest rate should be lower than the market hurdle rate. Yet because the ‘project’ is new and may not have a sufficient track record, financiers may demand collateral and other risk-management tools to enhance the credit standing. This means that the entrepreneur would have to give out more than he needs to reduce the risks of the capital holder further despite the risk profile of the project.

So, the entrepreneur who does not have any capital to contribute will be seen as having a mouth-watering return since there isn’t any ‘capital at risk’ for the entrepreneur, but the reality is that there is some opportunity cost. Yet if the entrepreneur’s salary is built into the project returns, then he doesn’t have the ‘opportunity cost’. The extra upside would be his ‘supernormal return’.