Notes From All Over -- February 6, 2022

ISO NE, Sunday brunch:

• demand, a paltry 14,640 MW
• earlier this a.m., pricing in the 8th decile, the highest decile it will ever get;
• now, back down to 7th decile, back down to only $150 / MWh which is a bargain compared to the $280 spike earlier this a.m.
• and, again, it's wind that is the problem:
• renewables contributing 7% earlier this morning, now 8%
• of the renewable sources, wind is at the bottom (below refuse, wood, solar) at 11%
• wind contributing 0.7% of supply
• but solar, 20% of renewables? Wow. I would never guess that solar beats wind in Boston.

Meta: see this post.

The most obvious question was not asked / not addressed by The New York Times.

There are actually two questions that were not asked / not addressed by The New Times. 

First, how did analysts miss this? 

Why was the market so spooked when the numbers came out? Why was this a surprise? In the conference call, Meta even said that such things as Apple's "cost" was in-line with their (Meta's) expectations. Everyone knew about the lockdowns. Everyone knew about inflation. Everyone knew about Facebook's pivot to spending large sums of money on the metaverse so how was this a surprise?

But this is the obvious question that struck me initially: why now? Why this quarter? Why 4Q21? 

Why not last quarter or the quarter before? Why not next quarter or 2Q22? Why this quarter? The only unknown -- and trust me on this -- was the subscriber growth, or, in this case, the lack of subscriber growth. But that doesn't happen overnight, does it? What was the trend? Why did folks not see this coming? Why was it this quarter? Why not the previous quarter or the next quarter? 

Now that the question has been asked, everyone will opine, but to the best of my knowledge, this is the first time the question has been asked. And if one can answer it (correctly), then Meta's 4Q21 earnings / earnings call should not have been a surprise.

Meta:

Was Meta way oversold? Without a doubt, yes. We'll come back to this later. 

Canada: when the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. Link here. 

Pentagon: Kyiv (Kiev, Ukraine) could fall in 72 hours if Russia invades.

• two things on which we all agree:
• Kyiv will fall if Russia invades; and,
• it will only take 72 hours.
• Comments:
• if Kyiv falls in 72 hours, there would be minimal casualties on both sides;
• essentially it would be a 3-day drive from the border to Kyiv; and,
• it would be over.
• But now, with the US (and others) pouring defensive arms into Ukraine, the conflict will likely last two months;
• the end result:
• Kyiv will fall if Russia invades; and,
• it will take two months.
• if the conflict last two months, there will be horrendous casualties on both sides.
• two questions:
• why does the Pentagon care how long the conflict will last if the outcome is the same?
• why would the Pentagon want a longer conflict if the outcome is going to be the same? Does the Pentagon / US want to see a lot of casualties?
  
• does the Pentagon think Ukraine will "hold" out like the Taliban did in Afghanistan in the 1970s?

Apple: product placement is what it's all about:

10:1 odds he's on Facebook, Twitter, or LinkedIn. Or watching Baghdad Bob reruns.

By the way, that's Hunter's computer should anyone ask.