Inflation 2022 – A Modern Day Greek Tragedy

The developed world currently does not have the inflation problems of yesteryears – monetizing government debt (see article for a primer on Traditional Inflation). The current inflation episode has a multitude of drivers, a few ineffective solutions, and one very effective – a recession. I present to you:

Inflation 2022 A Play in two Acts, produced by Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin, guest star, the Federal Reserve

Act I

The first inflationary impulse was the Covid-related fiscal stimulus, particularly in the US. While other countries were targeting support for particularly badly hit sectors or individuals, the US Treasury sent out stimulus checks to every single adult, combined with other measures totaling over $4.6tn. That was almost six times more than the 2008 crisis relief package. It would appear that given the expected drastic drop in GDP, due to the lockdowns, the administration wanted to stimulate the economy. There were a few problems with that policy thought: 1. No one was going out spending so the extra money did not get channeled into the economy at the time but instead onto people’s savings accounts, 2. A lot of industries shut down, and continue to be disrupted to this day, so even if you wanted to spend, there wasn’t much to buy 3. Most people did not lose their jobs, and those who did received extra unemployment “top-ups” leading to a big cash build up in the economy. The tables below exemplify those points.

The government induced savings build up created the perfect environment for price appreciation once the economy reopened. People had a lot of money, and they were itching to spend it after a year indoors, which pushed up the prices of everything. It was very similar to the traditional model of inflation, where the government creates new money, and prices go up. That’s why US inflation even now (June 2022) is running higher than Europe’s. However, the saving grace for the US economy is that this was a one-time stimulus or a momentary monetary madness, if you wish. In retrospect, probably not a great idea. Still, this is not an inflationary spiral. People got a lot of unneeded cash, they went shopping after the reopening, prices went up, the government made an oopsie, end of story. In contrast to hyperinflation episodes, the US government will not (one should hope) go and do the same thing next year again. If that was the whole story, inflation would go up one year and prices would just stay at the new level without further increases.

In this whole affair the Fed, barely present, was asleep at the wheel, while it should have been on high alert after years of easy monetary policy. After the huge Covid-19 stimulus, the Fed could have mopped up all the extra cash created by the government but it didn’t probably because it was worried about unemployment or prolonging a recession if it tightened monetary conditions. Also, in the real world, you would not expect the US Treasury to create $4.6tn one day and the Fed to erase it next day. Even Washington is not that dysfunction, yet.

In short, mistakes were made, but nothing critical or perpetual. Much Ado About Nothing.

Act II

Enter Vladimir Putin, into Ukraine. Politics aside, Russia is the second largest exporter of oil in the world and the largest gas exporter. When Russia goes to war, oil and gas markets go haywire. Partly because there are supply disruptions in the present but to an ever bigger extent, because people anticipate there will be even more disruption down the road. Similar to the Great Toilet Paper Shortage of 2020, people panic and prices increase before there even is a real deficit.

Oil and gas are also funny commodities, in that they have an outsized impact on the economy. Compare their role versus coffee, another important highly used internationally traded commodity produced by a select few countries. If Brazil invaded Colombia, the price of coffee might skyrocket. That is unfortunate for coffee drinkers but not much will change in the world. However, if the price of energy skyrockets, everything changes. The world is incredibly energy-hungry, and exponentially so. Every sector in the economy – agriculture, manufacturing, and virtually all services require vast amount of energy to produce the goods and services we consume daily. In large part the phenomenal increase in world GDP and global living standards is due to humankind harnessing more energy to power processes that were either manual or unimaginable before the industrial revolution.

(note, any half-way decent economist will tell you correlations does not mean causation. If you plot GDP versus toilet paper use, for example, you will likely get a similar-looking graph. Directionally, I think we can probably agree large scale energy production contributed more to power our economy than TP, but I might be wrong).

In other words, the rapid rise in energy prices, caused by the war in Ukraine, both increased the direct cost of petrol and electricity but also indirectly virtually all other products you consume, because energy is an input for most products. You can see a snapshot of inflation developments in the charts below.

The Fed’s role

A charitable description of the Fed’s role here would be “background talent”, a less charitable one would be “comic relief”. They are essentially the good natured dim-witted bumbling side-kick who always falls over himself. An Olaf (Frozen) or Timon and Pumba (Lion King, if we look at the Fed and ECB in tandem). They spent much of 2021 talking about “transitory” inflation, overlooking the effect of the US stimulus, when they should have been tightening financial conditions. Now that inflation has been spurred on by energy prices, central banks look silly doing nothing, since their only job is to contain inflation. However, there is nothing monetary policy can do about oil prices. Central banks’ only option is to slow down the entire economy so much that we don’t even need the oil any more since a number of companies will go out of business, people will lose jobs, and consumption will go down. Engineering a “mild recession” or in the language of the Fed “soft-ish landing”, as people are already facing a cost of living crisis, is a fool’s errand. And fittingly so given central bankers have turned themselves into the jesters of the court, with years of inaction and lazy monetary policy. (For people less familiar with Fed’s policy over the last 10 years, they kept pumping money into financial markets, massively distorting asset prices, and were all too happy to do so, as inflation wasn’t an issue… until it was).

In short, there isn’t much central banks can do now other than let it play out… and turn down the thermostat.

“Let it go, let it go
Can’t hold it back anymore
Let it go, let it go
Turn away and slam the door
I don’t care what they’re going to say
Let the storm rage on
The cold never bothered me anyway”
(Frozen)

Epilogue

So what is the outlook?

Again, this inflationary crisis, is not created by a continuous cycle of printing money but by increasing commodity prices. The extent to which inflation can run, is only bound by the prices of inputs, largely energy. What determines prices: supply and demand.

A cheeky old financial markets adage goes “the cure for high oil prices is high oil prices”. Meaning, if prices are high enough, two things will likely happen:

  1. (Demand) People will use less energy – you will only heat the house when you are in, you will use more public transport instead of driving, certain energy intensive businesses will cut production
  2. (Supply) – a number of energy producing businesses that were not profitable under low prices, will now start producing energy. Those would include shale production, deep water, oil sands, biofuels. In addition, a strong policy response in the West has given renewable energy an even larger momentum by the way of expedited permitting regimes and further subsidies.

Source: Rystad Energy

As demand falls and supply increases, energy prices will invariably come down. At that point energy will be contributing to deflation, like in 2020 (see inflation charts above). It is difficult to say exactly when this will happen but likely over the next two years, possibly even next year after the winter ‘22/’23 heating season energy crunch.

It is worth noting that even when energy prices finally come down to more “normal” levels, most non-commodity prices (electronics, haircuts, vacations) will likely stick around. That’s mostly because of your salary. People don’t like working for less money, even if inflation is going down. Once a price level feeds into the economy through higher wages, we are stuck there. You can see in the charts below oil prices are constantly oscillating, however, wages only go one way – up. Therefore, any price inflation due to energy, we are likely to undo. Any price inflation due to workers making more money (nominally), will forever stay in the price level. Good news for workers, bad news for savers – just the nature of inflation.

So if you have lost purchasing power to inflation, it will likely not come back (you could however invest intelligently to claw some of it back). However, further price rises in the West post-2023 are likely to be smaller and in line with the historical 2% target in the US and Europe.

What about the overall economic growth?

I feel quite certain, that the economy is headed for a recession, pronto. On the supply side, the crude reality is that GDP is just a measure of how much we produce. Between COVID-related supply line disruptions, more expensive energy and food, rising protectionism and “on-shoring”, on a global scale we will be producing less output. Compared to pre-2019, we are now in an environment of fewer more expensive resources that we can use less efficiently. alternatively, if you want to look at it from the demand side, money is not being printed, it is actually being destroyed, while prices are rising. We can only cope with those higher prices by consuming less.

Are there any good news?

A few. For one thing, at this end of this tragedy, Europe should no longer be dependent on Russian energy, which should guarantee higher price stability and resilience to shocks in the future. We might also learn to live with less energy that is more expensive (I understand might not sound like terrific news). Still, this will be a good segue to get serious about climate change policy and finally introducing meaningful carbon prices (particularly in the US), as well as, carbon border taxes. Finally, it is still a great time to get a job or a raise, while they last. There are now more job openings than unemployed people in most major western economies, which is incredibly rare if not unprecedented, and wages are increasing rapidly.

Source: US Labour Market, St Louis Federal Reserve

When the economic cycle turns the first thing companies cut is new hiring. At the same time, the last thing they cut is existing employees (with entertainment, marketing, capex, dividends in the middle). You can still get a nice pay raise now and then stay put for the next couple of years, while the economic storm is raging. In the end, it will all be ok, but it might be a couple of lean years in the middle.

It’s the circle of life
And it moves us all
Through despair and hope
Through faith and love
‘Til we find our place
On the path unwinding
In the circle
The circle of life
(The Lion King)

Hitchhiker’s Guide to Inflation: DON’T PANIC (Part 1)

“It is said that despite its many glaring (and occasionally fatal) inaccuracies, the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy itself has outsold the Encyclopedia Galactica because it is slightly cheaper, and because it has the words ‘DON’T PANIC’ in large, friendly letters on the cover.”

Douglas Adams, Hitchhikers’ Guide to the Galaxy

I can think of nothing that summarizes this article better than the quote above from Douglas Adams. It is free to read, it has some omissions for brevity (hopefully not fatal), and it says “Don’t Panic” in friendly letters. It also gives you almost everything will ever need to know about inflation.

Inflation basics
In 1970 Milton Freedman said, “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon in the sense that it is and can be produced only by a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output”. However, you may feel about Friedman’s politics, the man knew his economics – they don’t just give away Nobel prizes for no reason. Here is how his model works in a simple economy. Imagine all there is in our economy are 100 apples and $100 cash, regardless of how it is distributed between people in the economy. You cannot save apples for next year and you cannot save money for next year. Under this setup, the market will clear at $1. If we increased the money supply to $200, then every apple will cost $2, if we cut the money supply to $50, the cost would be $0.5. It is as simple as that. You might have heard the more colloquial expression: inflation is more money chasing fewer goods, which conveys the same sentiment.

Helicopter Ben
Fast forward 40 years to 2008, the U.S. is in financial meltdown, and urgent action is needed to save the economy. Then-president of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, has to find a way to stimulate the economy quickly and decisively. He undertakes a series of unorthodox policies that aim to massively increase the money supply. Trying to explain to the world these unprecedented moves he likens them to dropping money from a helicopter. Thus, he earned himself the somewhat unflattering nickname, to say nothing of the goofy cartoons – “Helicopter Ben”. It turned out the Bernanke had actually quoted our old friend Milton Freedman who first came up with the phrase “helicopter money”, but the nickname stuck all the same.

Source: Financial Times

Corny economist trivia aside, starting in 2008 Bernanke, true to his promise, started pumping out cash like it was his job (which in all fairness it was). The Money Supply in the economy shot up from $1.37 trillion at beginning of 2008 to $2.46 trillion by the end of 2012, or c. 80% increase. Real GDP grew from $15.7 trillion to $16.2 trillion or c. 4% in the same period. See chart below.

Source: Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED)

So there was 80% more money, chasing only 4% more goods. Our simple economy example would imply prices should have increased by c. 76%. Meaning people’s savings should have devalued by three quarters over those four years. If there ever was a time to panic about losing your savings, 2008 was as good as it gets in a developed country. And many people did panic, throwing money into gold, fine art, and other gimmicky “inflation hedges”. To most people’s surprise though, nothing much happened.

Source: Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED)

Not only did inflation not go up, it became negative and then stayed stubbornly low at below the Fed’s target of 2% annually. Throughout the four-year period, cumulative inflation was a paltry 9% compared to the c.76% expected in our simple model. It remains a mystery to this day for many financial commentators, as to why inflation never shot up with all this extra money sloshing around the economy. Did we just prove Milton Freedman wrong? Maybe they do give away Nobel prizes for no reason!

Advanced Inflation
Not so fast. Let’s stay in the box just a little longer, before we start revolutionizing monetary theory. Turns out inflation in the real world, is a tad more complicated than our simple economy but only a tad. Inflation, as Friedman formulated it, is actually driven by the following formula:

P = (M * V) / Y

Now, in the intro to the website, I said my main goal was to make this entertaining. I bet you feel lied to right now but hear me out!
All the formula says is:
Prices = (Money Supply * Velocity of Money) / Real GDP

We already understand how prices, money and GDP (apples) are connected from our simple example. The only confusing part here is Velocity of Money. All this measures is, what do people do with their money. Do they get their paychecks and head straight to the car dealership (or shopping mall or Expedia) or do they put away their earnings, knowing they might have some tough times ahead? Unsurprisingly, as house prices were plummeting, companies were going under, and people lost jobs, the average person chose to save and the velocity of money went down dramatically as a result. See chart below.

So we now know exactly what happened to everything that is supposed to move inflation. We know that:
a) Money supply increased by 80%
b) Velocity of money cratered by c. 37%, as people tightened their belts
c) GDP initially went down but ultimately ended up about 4% higher than it started
d) Prices only increased by 9% cumulatively


So does that explain what happened to inflation:
Money supply (1+80%) * Velocity (1-37%) / Real GDP (1+4%) = 1.09 or 9% price increase – exactly how much prices moved in the real world!


There was no big mystery after all. Despite the Fed creating all that extra money, people’s reluctance to spend, meant prices did not move much. Believe it or not, this is a remarkable and still very poorly understood episode in monetary history.


However, you are well ahead of the game at this point. All you need to understand inflation is: how much money is being created in the economy, how many goods and services are being produced, and are people choosing to spend or save.


Inflation in 2021
Markets are now going through another inflation scare, and all sorts of hedge fund analysts and market commentators are talking up dubious investment strategies to avoid potential price increases (see related article (Un)stable Assets). The Fed keeps on pumping money in the economy but this time the incoming Biden cabinet is expected to supplant the Fed actions with massive fiscal stimulus. What do you think will happen with inflation? The answer is never set in stone, as policies change and people choose to act differently, but this article should give you a solid guide for interpreting economic events as they play out, and maybe even make your own forecast. I will share my own thoughts in part two of this Inflation Series.
Whatever happens, just remember: Don’t Panic!

The Yellow Bitcoin Road to Nowhere

If you are wondering if Bitcoin (BTC) is a good investment – the quick answer is no, it is a terrible investment. The value of a Bitcoin is virtually zero. The price of Bitcoin, on the other hand, can be as high as human imagination will take it. Ultimately, though Bitcoin will come crashing down, as fantasy can’t substitute for value forever, as every bubble in history taught us.

Summary of main points

Scarcity value

  1. Scarcity is not defined by the number of coins available but by the number of substitutes. Bitcoin does the same thing every other cryptocurrency does, only worse.
  2. There is no use case, or natural demand for bitcoin, making it worthless.

Bitcoin will be widely adopted

  1. More people buying Bitcoin does not mean it is more valuable
  2. Even if everyone buys Bitcoin and the price reaches $1 million, people can still wake up the next day and find their Bitcoin is worth nothing – much like investors in tulips, Enron, and Dot-com stocks

Gambling Mindset – “It is a small portion of my assets”, “It has larger upside than downside”, “It is for fun”

  • So is a lottery ticket, but you don’t invest in lottery tickets you spend on them
  • If you are looking for a life-changing event, there are other options with better payoffs

Here goes the long-form argument.

Scarcity value

Supply

Much of the investment case for Bitcoin (BTC) rests in its limited supply. There are currently 18.6m bitcoins in the market and only a total of 21m can ever be created, which will not happen until 2140, supposedly. Therefore, as GDP grows but Bitcoin supply stays relatively flat, each Bitcoin will be worth more in real terms. In theory, you should be able to purchase more goods and services with one Bitocin and thus its price should keep growing. In that regard, the cryptocurrency functions like gold, but Bitcoin is much easier to store, exchange into regular currency, or transact with.

The problem with that logic is that virtually everything in the world has limited supply – pebbles on a beach, water in the oceans, trees – but their price is still virtually zero per unit. The key on the supply side is how easily substitutable a good or an asset is.

Here is an interesting fact – Bulgaria is the fastest shrinking nation in the world, projected to decline by 22% in the next 30 years. So Bulgarian labor supply is not only limited it is shrinking! Why hasn’t my salary increased by 400% (like Bitcoin over the last year) given I am a shrinking commodity? Because my labor is just as good (or arguably worse, but don’t tell my boss) as that of the Pole, Italian, Spaniard, or Englishman who offer the same services. The service Bitcoin offers is a store of value, exchange into fiat currency, and transactions. There are more than 5,000 cryptocurrencies, many with limited supply, that offer the exact same service. In fact many are better. Since Bitcoin is by now old technology, it is slow, expensive, difficult to scale and its electricity consumption is preposterous (apparently Bitcoin consumes more electricity annually than the entire country of Austria). Many people do not realize that Bitcoin is not free, transactions take longer than some conventional money transfers, and winder adoption will make the system only clunkier.

Source: masterthecrypto.com

Therefore, while the specific currency Bitcoin might be of limited supply, the services it offers are actually of unlimited supply, since creating cryptocurrencies is incredibly easy. To give you another analogy, the supply of eggs from any one farm can be limited. However, since all eggs have the same value to consumers, the price of any egg in the store will be roughly the same. Just because your particular farm might only ever produce 21 million eggs, no one will pay $50,000 for one.

Demand

Not only is the supply of Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies unlimited on top of that there is very little real demand for them.

We all know that fiat money has no value on its own, it is just paper or worse bytes on the cloud. What makes the Dollar or the Euro valuable, is that there are goods and services that you can only buy with that currency. If you want a German car or a Pfizer vaccine, you need to hold Euros or Dollars, respectively. The value of the currency in real terms (before inflation) is directly tied to how many goods and services are produced in a certain economy.

The value of Bitcoin is similarly entirely dependent on what I will call the “Bitcoin Economy”, or the goods and services bought and sold using Bitcoin. Bitcoin is mostly used in a limited number of transactions, sometimes illegal, in an effort to circumvent regular payment channels that are closely monitored by authorities. As far as payments are concerned, Bitcoin is incredibly inefficient – as it is slow, expensive, highly volatile, and most importantly not the standard currency unit of any country. Businesses have to pay taxes, employee and suppliers and prepare financial reports in their native currencies. If they choose to accept Bitcoin as payment, they will face huge costs of constantly converting back and forth to fiat currency and experiencing massive price swings in the meantime. Also, as we discussed in the supply section, there are numerous other alternatives to Bitcoin, that are more efficient and users can easily swtich. Therefore, the Bitcoin economy is destined to stay small and even shrink. In fact, that is exactly what is already happening. Bitcoin usage peaked in late 2017, as you can see in the chart below. People then quickly realized, there is very little use value of Bitcoin as a currency.

Source: Chainalysis, Bloomberg

If Bitcoin functions as a real currency, the price should track closely the goods supplied in that currency, same as the Euro and the Dollar.

In 2019 the Bitcoin hype was largely forgotten and demand was more closely based on currency use. In that period you can see the price tracked transaction volume (the size of the economy) very closely.

Source: Chainalysis

In the absence of speculators bidding up the price of the currency, BTC’s value is largely determined by how many goods and services are being sold in Bitcoin and how many Bitcoins are available. As you can see in the chart above, the price seems to have been a little below $10,000 at the end of 2019. Note, I am not saying BTC is worth $10,000, I am convinced it is worth $0 in the long run, as no one will have use for it. However, what the chart tells us is that given how many Bitcoins there were in circulation and how many services were sold in Bitcoin, the clearing price at the time was c.$10k. So, if you need to buy guns or drugs online, by all means, convert some cash into Bitcoin and buy what you need. However, buying Bitcoin as a long-term investment is completely divorced from its real function and value.

In late 2020, in the mids of the Pandemic, after months of being stuck at home with little spending outlets, people started pouring money into Bitcoin. When money is channeled rapidly into anything, prices rise, whether substantiated or not. The more prices rose, the more hype there was in social and mainstream media fueling a massive bubble.

Source: Coindesk

I cannot forecast how high the BTC price will go or when it will crash. People have already made (and lost) fortunes playing the Bitcoin lottery so it is not always a losing bet. All I am saying is, the intrinsic value of Bitcoin is far below the market price, much like Dotcom stocks in 2000 and houses in 2008. You can always try your luck, but you have to understand the price you would be paying now, is entirely divorced from any economic value.

Wide Adoption

Seasoned financial analysts know that some of the most dangerous words in finance are “This time is different”, which people of course told themselves in the Dotcom bubble and the housing crisis. The excuse for Bitcoin this time is that the current rally is driven by wise institutional investors with long term investment horizons and not just fringe crypto enthusiasts.

Institutional Investors

To start off, it turns out institutional investors are not piling into Bitcoin. There is an excellent article on Forbes that goes into detail on who actually is buying Bitcoin. In short, no reputable institution or pension fund has a Bitcoin investment strategy. There are excentric billionaires with wide internet presence, most notably Elon Musk, who have bought Bitcoin, which people mistook for professional investor endorsement. He then very quikcly and publicly back-tracked and Tesla stopped accepting Bitcoin. Being loud in not the same as being correct.

Evolving Market

Some Bitcoin supporters recognize Bitcoin is currently extremely volatile, a poor substitute for currency, and has little use-value. However, they claim the market will stabilize eventually and everyone will end up investing a portion of their portfolio in Bitcoin, much like in gold. In fact, a JP Morgan analyst recently published a research piece with a $146,000+ BTC price target. Mind you, that is the same JP Morgan, whose CEO Jamie Dimon said regarding employees caught trading Bitcoin – “I’d fire them in a second. For two reasons: It’s against our rules, and they’re stupid. And both are dangerous.”

But back to the point, the hefty JPM price tag, mostly hinges on the idea that Bitcoin will become widely seen as a substitute for gold and claim similar size of investors’ wallets. Gold, of course, has uses – in jewelry, medicine, technology, etc., which is why gold is valuable in the first place. Bitcoin has limited-to-no unique uses, which is why it is worthless. Therefore, no one in their right mind will allocate a portion of their investment portfolio to BTC to start with. It is a non-sequitur.

Prices are set on the margin

But let’s play out the scenario where everyone allocates a portion of their assets to Bitcoin. Allegedly, there is $250 trillion of savings in the world, according to Credit Suisse’s Global Wealth Report. If even 1% of that were channeled into Bitcoin, that would mean $2.5 trillion invested into 22 million coins or a $114,000 market-clearing price. In fact, it could be higher, depending on how much supply there is for any given trade.

However, once the dust settles and everyone has their 1% invested in Bitcoin (no matter how the high buying price was), the price action is over. The only remaining use is the Bitcoin economy, and in the Bitcoin economy, BTC prices are low. Imagine you go to a charity auction drunk one night and pay $150,000 for a “I Heart NYC” T-shirt. When you wake up the next day, the T-shirt will still be only worth about $10, which is how much a tourist would buy it for, regardless of what you paid for it.

Just because you bought Bitcoin at an outrageous price, it does not mean someone else will come along and offer the same or higher price for it. Fundamentally, for a financial instrument to have value, it either needs to have future cash flows (like stocks and bonds) or it needs to have use-value (like gold and oil). Bitcoin has neither and therefore has no place in asset allocation. Professional institutional investors know that, and widespread adoption is not on the horizon.

Gambling Mindset

Finally, possibly the most rational investment case for Bitcoin is – “I am happy to lose my money”. This encapsulates reasoning such as – “It is only a small portion of my net worth”, “It has higher upside than downside potential” or “It is just a gamble”. Now, if you have accepted you are gambling that is fine but you have to understand that is the complete opposite of investing (see article on Investing vs Gambling).

Gambling is of course just spending money on entertainment, and I am in no position to tell anyone how to spend their money (I once bought Bluetooth-enabled shoes, so I am no authority on smart purchases). However, as far as gambling goes, Bitcoin strikes me as an unlikely crowd favorite.

It is not a life-changing event

Playing the roulette you can get 36x your money back, if you guess the right number. Someone recently won the Powerball Jackpot of $731 million with a $2 ticket, or approximately 366 million times their money back. In the most recent rally, Bitcoin went from c.$10,000 to c.$40,000 or just 4x increase. If BTC reaches the JP Morgan target price of $146,000 that is still only about 4x return from current levels. In other words, gambling, as destructive and pointless as it is, at least holds the promise that it will turn your life around. It has negative expected value but on the crazy off-chance you make it, you and your whole family are set for life. With Bitcoin, you are expected to lose money, as the intrinsic value of the asset is negligible, but on the off-chance prices rally further, your upside is actually not that impressive (for gambling standards). Again, the roulette, the lottery, and Bitcoin are value destructive, so I am firmly advising against any of them. All I am saying is, if you will lose money, wouldn’t you rather go out with a bang?

There is no prize

The second difference between BTC and scratch cards is that in the lottery there IS a prize. You might not get it, but you know someone will eventually. With Bitcoin you know in the long term, it has no value. Simple logic (or sequential games in Game Theory, which is another word for simple logic) tells you that if something will be worth nothing in 10 days, it will be worth nothing on the 9th, therefore it would be worth nothing on the 8th and then all the way back to the present. Hence, the value of Bitcoin today is virtually nothing, except for the needs of the Bitcoin economy, which are negligible. There is no “prize” at the end of the yellow brick road. Of course, irrational exuberance can push the price of Bitcoin in the stratosphere in the meantime, but there is still a big nothing at the end. If I had to throw money away, I will at least want the possibility, however small, of a big check and confetti.

Conclusion

This was a long article, you get the point – don’t put your savings in Bitcoin. If you want to gamble – do as your heart desires – but don’t say I didn’t tell you it is ultimaltey a losing bet.

Rich Dad, Poor Advice

I recently read Rich Dad Poor Dad by Robert Kiyosaki, at the recommendation of a friend. I am generally suspicious of people dolling out multimillion-dollar advice in a “tell-all” book but it does have 32 million copies sold, 4.1 rating on Goodreads, and comes with a bright sticker proclaiming it is “celebrating 20 years as the #1 personal finance books of all time!” (which frankly sounds like something Borat would say).

As expected the book is full of highly dubious accounts of events and questionable financial advice. However, it IS the number one personal finance book of all time. So if I talk one person down the financial ledge, that this book is, then the effort is worth it and it is only fair I am named the number #1 personal finance advisor of all time!

Who is really boss?

Kyosaki is clearly big on the idea of working for yourself. He has few flattering things to say about people working 9-to-5 corporate jobs and sees that “rat race” life as the way to financial ruin. In his mind, a boss is someone who does as she pleases and has no one to respond to, while employees are feeble creatures on their knees begging for their jobs (imagery he actually uses in the book).

While it is appealing to think in terms of boss and subordinate, CEOs have long understood the importance of keeping employees happy. Take for example Google. One of the most profitable companies in the world and most respected brand names. Allegedly Google’s job acceptance rate is 0.2%. For comparison, Harvard’s is c. 5%. It is 25 times easier to get into Harvard than into Google. Google had a lucrative a long-running contract with the Pentagon, which the IT giant chose to terminate last year. Why the change of heart? Google employees were upset that they were selling services to the military. But weren’t employees voiceless masses who are forever afraid to raise a hand? Turns out even when you are one of the most sought-after employers on the plant you can’t afford to neglect your employee’s desires.

On the flip side, I had a friend who ran her own business. She was providing shipping from the Ikea store in Brooklyn to residents in New York. Most young New Yorkers don’t own a car, and Ikea’s shipping offering was expensive and inconvenient. On paper, she owned the business and could do as she pleases. She leased a van and hired drivers. However, it was a low value add business. After paying the van lease and salaries she barely had anything left. She could not cut down costs, as drivers have other opportunities to ferry all kinds of goods, and the lease company would take back the van if she fell behind on payments. These companies are called “zombie companies” – not quite dead but never making enough money to pay the owner. She ended up closing the business.

In economic terms, negotiating power has nothing to do with your title but the relative elasticity of supply and demand for labor. In more layman terms, when there is high demand for software engineers and there is a limited supply of them, they can push even Google around. It is also curious to note that Cristiano Ronaldo and LeBron James are both billionaires. They are also both salaried employees working for a club owner. If my options are an Ikea delivery business owner or a billionaire athlete employee, I would stay in the “rat race”, thank you very much.

Big houses are liabilities but buy them to get rich… or was it the other way around?

Kyosaki has a funny way of talking about financial statements. It involves a lot of pictures with arrows going every which way, with grave warnings here and there for good measure. One of the points he makes early is that expensive houses are actually liabilities, as they constantly suck in your money, but then much of his investing advice is based on continuously buying more expensive houses.

Going away from the urban legends and questionable maths in the book, here are instead three pieces of advice on housing that I believe should hold true in most situations:

  1. Buying is on average better or the same as renting
  2. Buying your primary residence with debt can be advantageous, if you live in a large diversified local economy (i.e. New York, Chicago, London, Paris)
  3. Real estate portfolios are not suitable investments for most people

Buying is on average better or same as renting

Renting or buying has to be theoretically the same. If rents are cheap more people will rent, if buying is cheaper more people will buy, in the long run, it stands to reason they have to be roughly equal, if people can freely choose one of the other. However, people cannot always freely choose. If it is cheaper to rent potential buyers can move into the rental market. If it is cheaper to buy, not all renters can become buyers. The average American family has $8,863 in savings, while the average house costs $368,000. In addition, there are credit score requirements (or at least there are now after the housing crisis). Therefore, if you are lucky enough to be able to afford a house, you might be playing in a less crowded market. Of course, you might also be unlucky enough to buy in a bubble. House prices sometimes rise dramatically and unsustainably as a bunch of private equity and individual investors start flipping houses (possibly inspired by our friend Robert K) but those happy days don’t last very long, as we saw in 2008.

Buying your primary residence with debt can be advantageous, if you live in a large diversified local economy

Buying a house is a unique investment opportunity that we don’t get outside of real estate, mainly because of debt. If you go to the bank and ask them for $100,000 to start a promising app, they will laugh at you. If you say you are buying a house, they will gladly finance you, and at rock bottom interest rates, at that. Cheap debt has a peculiar property (oftentimes referred to as leverage or financial engineering), which amplifies positive (and sadly negative) returns. You can find a detailed example at the bottom of the page, but the basic intuition is the following: Because debt is very cheap these days, it can increase the return on the equity you put in the home. If you buy a house with savings for $200,000 and make $10,000 in one year in either rent or price appreciation you returned 5% on your investment. If you financed half of the purchase ($100,000) with cheap debt, say at 2%, you will pay $2,000 in interest. Then your earnings are $10,000 – $2,000 = $8,000. However, since you only needed to put up $100,000 of your own money, the rest was debt, you managed to return 8% on your investment, more than the 5% if you had financed with savings only. Note, if you lost money, the loss would also be magnified so this is not a magical money machine, although some aggressive investors often forget that. Since on average house prices go up in the long run, and rents are positive, you can expect to make an increased return. Then after retirement, you can sell off the house and live comfortably off of the proceeds. However, you need to think carefully about what market you are buying into. Some communities are entirely dependent on one big employer, for example, General Motors. When a plant closed, there were no jobs left, no one wanted to live there and houses became worthless. If you are going to buy, buy in a diversified large market, like New York, Chicago, Paris, Sydney, which are unlikely to be deserted in 20 years, should one business fail. If you happen to live in a small community, rent in your community and buy in a big market.

Real estate portfolios are not a suitable investment for most people

The trick above, even with my words of warning, might seem like easy money. You can replicate it 100 times and have that nice passive income Kiyosaki talks about. Turns out owning real estate outside of your primary residence is difficult. If you don’t live at the property, you have to manage it. You will likely pay your mortgage but tenants might not always pay rent fully or promptly. You won’t trash your own place but tenants might. Dealing with tenants can be difficult, time-consuming, and costly. You are also very invested in maintaining your own home with frequent repairs and general upkeep. Tenants are often less careful, and having to run around town fixing tenants’ apartments is not as much fun. Also, managing tenants’ whims and constantly looking for deals hardly qualifies as “passive income” – it sounds pretty hands-on to me. In addition, real estate investments are illiquid. If you need the cash for a medical emergency for example, or another great investment, you cannot exit in a day, or sometimes even a month. You also need to pay brokers, appraisers, deal with documentation, title searches, etc. Further, real estate is a very chunky investment. You can’t put away $200 at the end of a month and buy a tiny little house. You have to save up for a down-payment, which could take years. Finally, real estate is ultimately one market – houses. It is not diversified, and in a recession, all your investments will likely go down in value simultaneously, which is what happened in 2008.

For most investors, all these issues can be addressed by owning a diversified portfolio of stocks and bonds. It requires no upkeep, you can invest small sums incrementally, it can be incredibly diversified and countercyclical, and it can be cashed in at any time.

There is no free lunch

Towards the end of the book, Kiyosaki recounts a string of fantastic deals. Starting with $5,000 and making millions of dollars in just a couple of years. Those may or may not be real, but it is true that in hindsight we can find amazing investment opportunities. Monster, the energy drink, has apparently returned 70,000% over the last 20 years. In 2020 alone a Chinese company called “Future FinTech Group” (coincidentally, also something I feel Borat would come up with) is up 404%. These assets are at the time of investment incredibly risky, even if they turn out great later. The problem is, we don’t know which ones will turn out great. In general, if you take a lot of risks, some investments will be very successful and some will be a disaster. You will hear seasoned investors say “even a broken clock is right twice a day”. The question is once you account for all the wins and losses are you ahead? Venture Capital firms specialize in picking winners. They dedicate an incredible amount of resources and hire some of the smartest people around and even they broadly perform, as well as the public stock market (There are different ways of measuring but for more detail lookup Steve Kaplan’s paper)

Do I believe Robert Kiyosaki is a better investor than the best and brightest in Silicon Valley – maybe. Do I think I can repeat his alleged success following what he has written in the book – no way. Higher returns only come with higher risk. If you want more risk, invest more of your funds in a diversified stock portfolio, don’t bet the farm on a… well a house, in Kiyosaki’s case.

So is everting he says nonsense?

I think there are two important takeaways.

  1. Save and invest – don’t live beyond your means. Try to save from your earnings, wherever they come from (boss or employee). Invest in your pension fund, or through your brokerage account, or have someone invest for you, who you trust.
  2. Sell – You cannot overstate the importance of selling yourself. Case in point: Robert Kiyosaki wrote a 300-page book. After each chapter, there is a summary of what he just wrote. And after the summary, there are quotes of what he just wrote. He literary repeats himself thrice. Of that actual “original” content of the book, half is an old man’s rant against taxes. Yet, he managed to sell 32 million copies! He then goes on to write: Rich Dad’s Cashflow Quadrant, Rich Dad’s Guide to Investing, Rich Dad Poor Dad for Teens, Retire Rich Retire Young. I mean the guy is a marketing genius! How many times can you write the exact same book and sell it! I am firmly convinced he earned way more selling himself to the readers than buying any bargain price property.

Hats off to you Robert K! That being said, I got my $5 for your book refunded from the Kindle store. I think you are rich enough, I will invest my money instead, my own way…


Detailed Example of How Leverage Works

Imagine you buy a house for $200,000 with $100,000 equity (own money) and $100,000 debt. Imagine you can rent out the house for 3% of its value a year ($6,000) and it also appreciates in value by 2% a year ($4,000) or a total of $10,000. That is a total return of the house is 5% a year ($10,000 / $200,000). That is pretty standard, even conservative by real estate standards. Imagine your debt costs 2%. You need to pay 2% interest on $100,000 or $2,000. The house generated $10,000 of return and you paid $2,000 to the bank in interest, so you have $8,000 left, which is an 8% return on your $100,000 of own capital. So the house returned 5%, but because it is partly funded with cheap debt, you realized 8% on your own investment. Note, what often confuses people is that they don’t only pay interest to the bank, they also pay down the principal, so they see more than $2,000 go out of their bank accounts. Imagine the principal repayment was an additional $1,000. What happens is that you pay $1,000 of cash to the bank, but now the bank owns $1,000 less of your house, (i.e. you increased the equity in your house). Therefore, while it stings you had to hand over your cash to the bank, your wealth did not change – you now just own “more house” and less cash. Your return on investment continues to be your earnings ($10,000) minus your cost of funding ($2,000), which is an 8% return, as we previously outlined.

(Un)stable Assets

With inflation expectations rising, we are seeing renewed interest in stable real (and virtual) assets. Unfortunately, they are anything but.

Why are inflation expectations rising?
Central banks have been pumping money in the world’s largest economies ever since the financial crisis of 2008-2009. This is no news at this point, but they doubled down on the efforts to supports their virus stricken economies. Most importantly, as Democrats took control of the US presidency and both houses of Congress, expectations are that the new administration will push even more stimulus, including direct support (e.g. stimulus checks in the mail) and large spending programs such as infrastructure and energy transition.

The Case for Stable Real Assets
Cash has no intrinsic value, so if there is a rapid increase in inflation, the money in your bank can become worthless overnight. If you buy a house, however, it will still have value tomorrow as it provides a service: housing. So does gold, it can be turned into jewelry, which has value. And so does… well no, bitcoin doesn’t really have any value (but some people like to think it does, which I guess is worth something in and of itself). Once the inflation episode is over, people can then convert their real assets into cash and keep their same purchasing power. Presumably, if one house bought you ten cars before, it will still be worth that many cars today, even if the price of houses and cars has increased hundred-fold in the meantime.

The theory makes a lot of sense and stable assets were probably incredibly valuable in the economies of Hungary in 1945-1946 (4.19% x 1016 inflation), Zimbabwe in 2007-2008 (7.96% x 1010 inflation) and Venezuela in 2018 with its modest inflation of 65,000%.

Why stable assets don’t make sense now?

The problem is not that big
Hyperinflation is a huge problem, just not for modern developed democracies. Inflation has been incredibly stable in G7 economies with independent central banks. Central banks’ only job is to keep inflation low and they have been doing a pretty good job at it (see chart below). In addition, current inflation expectation about the future are fairly benign around and mostly below 2%, which not coincidentally is most central banks’ target. People and markets might be worried about inflation, but there is little reason to, based on historical data and current expectations.

Source: IMF

In short, if you live in Venezuela and are afraid you will lose 90% of your wealth, it makes sense to start getting creative with asset allocation. Trying to safeguard against 1-2% unexpected inflation – you are just looking for trouble.

The solution is not that great
So how much comfort do the traditional real stable assets provide then? Not much. You can see in the chart below the change in the price of houses, gold, bitcoin, and inflation level in the US over the last 20 years. Inflation is by far the most stable assets of the four! Meaning, if you are trying to retain value you are much better off keeping your money in cash, which is only subject to inflation, instead of investing in all sorts of “real products” that are so volatile, you never know how much value you will be able to realize, once you sell.

(As you can see in the main graph Bitcoin is literary off the charts . For scale, see the smaller chart, which lacks some of the detail, but it makes obvious that Bitcoin volatility dwarfs any other asset on the chart.)

This is a classical case of the cure being worse than the disease. Inflation is a pain in the neck – no one likes to see hard-earned money evaporate. However, riding wild assets bubbles is no way to save either.

Note, I am not making a judgment on how good of an investment houses, gold, or Bitcoin is. I am saying they are very poor inflation hedges. If you are trying to park your money temporarily until inflation subsidies, these are suboptimal. As far as investment is concerned though, I do think Bitcoin is terrible (see article), gold is pointless, as its only investment value is an inflation hedge and it is a poor one, and houses could go either way depending on circumstances (see section on housing in this article).

So is there no way to protect your savings?
There are plenty of ways, which admittedly are less sexy than Bitcoin but also are not going to make you lose your hair, so that’s one trade-off worth considering.

Long term investors – stocks. If you already have your savings in the stock market – good news, there is nothing else you need to do. Stocks provide a natural hedge against inflation. If prices in stores rise, so will the price of products your portfolio companies sell. Of course, stocks themselves are a volatile asset class, so if you are looking to park your money for a year, it would not be my first choice. But if you are a long-term buy and hold investor, stocks are the easiest way to avoid inflation eating away your savings, while getting a healthy premium on top.

Short term investors – floating rate notes and loans. If you think you will need the money soon-ish but do not want to leave it in the bank at 0%, you can invest in floating-rate notes and loans. Their interest rate traditionally resets every 3 months, and it tracks inflation closely. They are not very high yielding products, especially these days, but should at least cover inflation and give you some interest on top.

Very risk-averse investor – Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS). These are essentially US government debt instruments, which are risk-free and they adjust for inflation. Given you bear effectively no risk (from default or inflation) these have extremely low yields but they do protect you from inflation, somewhat unsurprisingly given the name.

In emerging markets, where inflation plagues economies for years, people are unfortunately forced to think outside the box to preserve what little they have saved. In the West, however, between central banks and standard investment products, the risk can largely be mitigated. Investing in real (and virtual) assets to avoid a non-existing issue is an adventure most people can probably do without. The simple answer is usually the correct one – please say inside the box, if you can!

“Tesla Is A Technology Company”

Let me save you a 5 minutes of reading and potentially some sizable investment losses – it is not.

A technology company

Telsa Inc. has recently reached the astronomical market valuation of $834 billion. Much of the argument in support of that number, if there is any, is that Telsa is not in fact a car company but a technology company.

To set the record straight, Tesla mostly sells vehicles with four wheels and a steering wheel. You don’t get much closer than that to a car company. Sure they have innovative technology – modern batteries, superchargers, computer-assisted driving, remote performance optimization, and most importantly, Netflix available on the dashboard. They also, somewhat disappointingly, sell cars. Virtually every company in the world uses innovative technology in their manufacturing processes, design, marketing, and final products, it does not mean they are all technology companies.

Even if it was a technology company (however you choose to define that), contrary to popular belief, tapping your heels three times and whispering “technology” into the wind, does not summon unlimited returns. Any company, tech or not, is worth the present value sum of all future free cash flow. Labeling a company as “technology” doesn’t make math disappear.

A leader

“But Tesla is so far ahead of everyone else”. True, they have high performing vehicles on the road and rapidly scaling mass production sites, while competitors are still spending heavily on R&D with little to show for. GM’s answer is not exactly screaming “sexy!”, although it apparently has pretty good uptake in China.

Hongguang Mini EV produced by a SAIC-GM-Wuling joint venture in China

It is also worth noting that Telsa did release its patents to the public so the technology is not even proprietary. Even if they had not, Ford was a market leader at one time, and so was Nokia, Yahoo, Toys “R” Us, Enron, and a lot of other companies, which were ahead of the competition until they weren’t. Unless you have a defensible long term competitive advantage (like a unique resource or patents… ops), it does not matter how innovative you are. Competitors will enter the industry, you will lose market share and margins will go down.

Growth story

For any company with sky-high valuations, optimists say, it will “grow into its value”. Meaning, yes, it is not worth that much, based on what it produces today, but it will in the future, as it grows. Fair enough, markets are forward-looking and in general pretty good at pricing what will happen in the future. Historical data is largely irrelevant.

Source: Yahoo Finance

Currently, Telsa is 20% more valuable than the Top 10 Automakers combined. This is eye-popping in its own right but let’s see what assumptions are being made about Tesla’s future to warrant that.

Source: Finbox.com

Source: oica.net, yahoo finance, finbox.com

There are a few take-aways from the charts above. We know that the value of any auto company is about 0.8x its annual revenue. Therefore, we can approximate that the value of the entire auto industry (regardless of who has what share) is c. $1,600 billion. At $834 billion Tesla is expected to represent 52% of the entire industry, in perpetuity. How realistic is that?

Source: emarketer,com, statista.com, oica.net, yahoo finance

Tesla currently has 1% of the world auto market. The largest carmaker in the world currently, Toyota, has 12%. For comparison, Apple, the highest-valued company in the world and an iconic brand has 13% of the global smartphone market. Walmart and Amazon, which are ubiquitous in their markets, only achieve 26% and 38%, respectively in their domestic market, let alone global. In short, getting to 50% global market share is virtually impossible, for any company, in any industry, tech or not. Holding on to 50% market share forever is just crazy talk.

Should I short Tesla then?

I wouldn’t! As unfortunately we have seen time and again, Tesla and all sorts of other hype-stocks, are almost impossible to short. Short sounds like the opposite of owning a stock long, but it is not.

Expensive –  you pay to borrow the shares you sell short, and if the short is open for years, until people realize you were right all along, you will still pay the borrow cost for years. On top of that, you have to pay, to the stock lender, the dividends the company distributes in the meantime, out of your own pocket.

Margin calls – if you own a stock and it goes down to $0, it is unfortunate and you have lost your investment but that is the most you can ever lose. You even have some option value, if the stock miraculously rebounding after bankruptcy. With a short, the price can keep rising theoretically forever, prompting margin calls from your broker. Essentially you lose your entire investment and you need to put in more money to cover further losses. You might be absolutely right and the price could eventually go down, but unless you have unlimited money in the meantime, you might lose your shirt, waiting for the market to finally wake up to reality.

Unfortunately, there are some wrongs we just cannot right.

Ok, so I can’t short Tesla, but it is still a bad company and it will go bankrupt?

Hard to tell, most companies ultimately go bankrupt, but there is no reason Tesla will any time soon. All I am saying is that the market price is completely divorced from any reasonable best-case scenario about the company. My guess is both the company and the electric vehicles market will mature over the next 5-10 years and hit a plateau of growth and sales like any other market. In that more stable environment, people will reprice the shares down, realizing it cannot achieve, much less hold 50% market share in perpetuity. Until that time – the sky is the limit! But remember what happened to Icarus when he flew too close to the sun.