Walmart Gives its FinTech a Foot in the Door

 

Fintech companies such as Chime and Current face a basic problem: acquiring customers can be expensive. They must advertise, offer promotions, or form partnerships to persuade consumers to download an app and begin using their financial products. Walmart’s majority-owned fintech, OnePay, has a very different starting point. According to Semafor, most of OnePay’s roughly 7 million customers have come from Walmart’s 1.5 million employees and approximately 150 million shoppers. OnePay CEO Omer Ismail argues that these customers are effectively acquired for free: Walmart already has the stores, website, app, checkout system, customer relationships, and traffic needed to put OnePay in front of millions of potential users.

Economy of scope can occur when an input created for one product can be shared to produce another product more cheaply. Walmart’s enormous distribution network was built to sell groceries, clothing, electronics, and other merchandise, but the same network can distribute financial services. For example, OnePay is integrated directly into Walmart’s physical and digital checkout channels, where installment loans are now powered by Klarna. A standalone fintech must build both a financial product and a way to reach customers. Walmart can use an asset it already owns to do both retailing and finance. This allows diversification to create value. Both businesses using the same underlying asset creates economies of scope across the businesses.

The Cost of Going to Space

Terzi & Nicoli have a fascinating new paper analyzing over 4,400 orbital launches since 1960 to estimate "Wright's Law." This law states that a new technology's unit costs fall in proportion to cumulative experience. Essentially, it is an expression of learning-by-doing. They show:

... that the average cost of sending a kilogram to orbit has dropped from 87,023 USD in 1960 to 3,868 USD in 2025. Using a Wright's Law framework, we estimate that for each doubling of cumulative payload to orbit, the average cost of sending a kilogram to orbit decreases by 21.2% ...

This is faster than many past technologies e.g., 19th century Steam engines and recent solar photovoltaics. There is a positive feedback loop because, as launch costs fall, more stuff is launched. Their forecast is that it will cost reach $300/kg by 2040. For reference, sending a kg from LA to London by overnight express costs $5-$50/kg depending on package size. I get giddy trying to imagine all the potential new opportunities.

Specrtum Auctions Address Economies of Scope

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) auction can demonstrate economies of scope. The FCC periodically auctions off additional spectrum licenses for advanced services. It recently raised $3.5 billion from recent AWS-3 (Advanced Wireless Services) auctions and expects to raise $30-$6 billion from upcoming Upper C-Band auctions. In telecom, these frequencies are not independent assets; their value is multiplicative. This additional spectrum will allow for greater capacity to handle the exponentially growing demand for wireless data transmission.

Spectrum auctions are usually run as Simultaneous Multiple-Round Auctions (SMRAs). US coverage is divided into many distinct geographic areas that are auctioned simultaneously across many rounds. An aggregation problem arises when a bidder risks winning fragmented licenses that are less valuable without their complementary counterparts. Since transmission has origin and a destination, it is more valuable to win a license in, say, Chicago if the operator can also secure one for Dallas. SMRAs allow bidders to cobble together desired regional capacity by aggregating multiple licenses.

The cell towers, base stations, and cables that link them are huge fixed costs. The ability to defray these costs over more volume reduces average costs. Economies of scale in these fixed costs generate economies of scope across these fixed costs in different regions.

AI and the Shrinking Firm

The way that Artificial intelligence (AI) is changing worker productivity may also be changing the optimal scale of the firm itself. According to a recent Axios report, AI-powered tools are enabling entrepreneurs to launch and operate businesses with little or no staff. Tasks that once required specialists in coding, graphic design, marketing, customer support, and bookkeeping can increasingly be performed by a single entrepreneur assisted by AI. The result is a growing number of "one-person firms" capable of generating revenue levels that previously required a small team. This contrasts with the trend since the industrial revolution in which ever more mechanization generated ever greater economies of scale and ever larger enterprises.

Some aspects of AI fit nicely into theories of the firm.

•          Transactions costs can be reduced by engaging with AI rather than an employee.
• AIs eliminate employee principal/agent issues.
• However, a more personalized AI may represent a relationship-specific sunk cost that can lead to holdup.

(Lack of) Economies of Scale in Home Building

Brian Potter at Construction Physics takes a deep dive into economies of scale in construction. There are enough homes being built to observe economies of scale ... if they existed. But even manufactured homes don't seem to exhibit economies of scale. He marshals a lot of evidence to document where costs are incurred and how these compare to other industries. The lack of scale economies imply that the industry is rather unconcentrated. There are thousands of home builders with the five largest nationally having less than 25% of the market.

He concludes by trying to answer why there appears to be almost no economies of scale. One answer seems to be that that materials and labor home building costs represent 97% of costs with equipment costs being only 3%. Auto manufacturing, in contrast, is extremely capital intensive and hence firms are large. Home construction Fixed Costs (FC) are just not big enough for declining Average Fixed Costs (AFC) with scale to be too important. In contrast, high rise construction might require high cost excavators, cranes, pavers, pile drivers, etc. driving up the equipment cost share. Consequently, the five largest contractors for these projects have closer to 45% market share. The cost structure determines the market structure.

Hat tip: Marginal Revolution 

Selling Mattresses on Memorial Day

A nagging thought kept creeping into my more somber thoughts this Memorial Day. Why did retailers turn a day of remembrance into an opportunity to sell large consumer goods?

Wikipedia provide a nice history of the holiday but a short piece by McNutt & Partners explains some retailing aspects. For generations after the Civil War, it was called "Decoration Day" during which acknowledgement for the sacrifices of the dead were paired with commemorations meant to instill pride for country. It was renamed "Memorial Day" after WWII but a more significant change occurred in 1971 when it was moved from May 30 to create a three-day weekend. This made possible quick vacations and more time to consider large irregular purchases. 

In economic terms, it concentrated demand for mattresses, and similar big-ticket items, into a single weekend (and then two weeks around the date). This is efficient if there are economies of scale so that retail costs fall with sales volume. This may also permit some price discrimination as those who are more demand elastic seek out these deals and schmucks like me pay higher prices the rest of the year.

Economies of scope between SpaceX and xAI

Link:

The merging of what is arguably Musk’s most successful company, SpaceX, with the more speculative xAI venture is a risk. Founded in 2023, xAI’s main products are the generative AI chatbot Grok and the social media site X, formerly known as Twitter. The company aims to compete with OpenAI and other artificial intelligence firms.

...

With this merger, he plans to use SpaceX’s deep expertise in rapid launch and satellite manufacturing and management to deploy a constellation of up to 1 million orbital data centers. This will provide the backbone of computing power needed to support xAI’s operations.

HT: MarginalRevolution

VPPs Change the Scale of Energy Production

 

Advances in Virtual Power Plants (VPPs) illustrate how changes in Minimum Efficient Scale (MES) can reshape industry structure. Traditionally, electricity generation exhibited a high MES: firms needed large, capital-intensive plants to achieve low average costs, reinforcing concentration. VPPs lower MES by allowing thousands of small, distributed assets, such as rooftop solar, batteries, smart appliances, and EVs, to be aggregated through software and operated as a single, dispatchable resource. Because efficiency now comes from coordination and data rather than plant size, firms can enter electricity markets without owning large-scale generation assets. When MES falls relative to market demand, entry becomes easier and market structure shifts toward greater competition and fragmentation.

Not only are VPPs an example of how lower MES in physical assets reduces market power, they also relocate it. While generation-scale economies decline, new scale economies emerge in aggregation, customer acquisition, data analytics, and platform integration. As a result, competition increasingly resembles a platform market, where firms that control large networks of enrolled devices or superior optimization software can achieve cost and reliability advantages even without owning physical capacity. Declining MES at the asset level intensifies entry and rivalry, while increasing MES at the coordination layer may create strategic bottlenecks that generate a potential winner-take-most outcome.