This is an excellent book that goes deep on the history of investing in technology-driven businesses. Though dry, redundant, and verbose, the book more than makes up for those shortcomings with unique data on equity returns in key technological periods over the last 200 years along with an overview of key events and players in those time periods.
Investing insights are numerous, but perhaps clearest one of all is that investing in early technology businesses is fraught with risk. For example, only 5% of automobile manufactures would have provided adequate returns to an investor during the dawn of the age of automobile (and even Ford hit it big only with his third venture, after failures of two prior ones, and the third business was almost entirely self-financed). Thus, the author concludes, better returns in public markets can be obtained by avoiding investments in businesses disrupted by such technological changes -- "losers" that tend to become apparent much sooner than the real technology "winners." Alternatively, waiting for the period of excess capital to run dry, thereby revealing which companies have the technology, managerial talent, business moat, and financial wherewithal to survive in the downturn can be predictive of higher investment returns.
- "One of the first things that strikes the historian, and struck me at once in my research, was how haphazard the timing and pace of technological development often is. It also soon became clear that the process of capital-raising and the interaction between entrepreneurs, innovators, and financial markets has often followed a bumpy and convoluted path."
- "While in retrospect the winners are usually clear, there is a huge amount of survivorship bias in the data"... Winners of the competitive struggles "are not always those who have the best technology but those who can most clearly see the way that an industry or market is likely to develop [e.g. Amazon]... A company that has the capability to implement the right market strategy can overcome the disadvantage of having technology which is not necessarily superior. Microsoft is perhaps the best-known modern example."
- "Unless the companies involved have patent protection for their products, or are shielded from competition by powerful barriers to entry of another kind (such as a sustainably superior cost curve), the degree of effective competition is probably the single most critical factor in determining how profitable investment in new technologies is going to be. Above-average returns are simply competed away... as a technology company without monopoly protection, excess returns can only be retained by continually reinventing oneself, with all the risks that this involves."