Full Width [alt+shift+f] Shortcuts [alt+shift+k]
Sign Up [alt+shift+s] Log In [alt+shift+l]
29
These headwinds will persist for the next decade or two. The stock market is rallying hard after a brutal sell-off--not an uncommon occurrence. As we savor our winnings in the ship's first-class casino, it's not a bad idea to step out onto the deck and gauge the weather. There are headwinds. Not zephyrs, not gusts, just steady, strong headwinds. 1. Presidents Trump and Xi view each other an as existential challenge to the future prosperity of the nation they lead. Neither can afford to lose face by caving in, and each has a global strategy with no middle ground. 2. Global trade / capital flows are all over the map. Uncertainty is the word of the moment, but perhaps the more prescient description is unpredictability: if enterprises have no visibility on the future costs of trade, commodities, labor and capital, they have little choice but to avoid big bets until visibility is restored. 3. The American consumer is tapped out. Credit card charge-offs are rising, auto loan...
3 months ago

Improve your reading experience

Logged in users get linked directly to articles resulting in a better reading experience. Please login for free, it takes less than 1 minute.

More from oftwominds-Charles Hugh Smith

Tariffs Are Not Enough

The tariff sledgehammer has a role, but it's a limited one. There's an inherent tension in State-Corporate Capitalism. Proponents of the free market hold that any state Industrial Policy will fail because the State cannot pick the winners and losers as effectively as The Market. Yet Corporate Capitalism continually lobbies the State to lower interest rates and taxes, weaken the currency to make corporate products cheaper in overseas markets, erect tariff / trade barriers against mercantilist global competitors, etc. In other words, the State should butt out of the free market except when it serves our purposes. The other source of inherent tension is the State's responsibility for more than boosting private-sector profits. Enterprises have the luxury of focusing on one thing: boosting profits and "shareholder value." Governments have responsibilities far broader than boosting profits--for example, national security, which has been gutted by de-industrialization and the wholesale transfer of supply chains overseas. Steep tariffs are now being deployed to correct the corporate offshoring that boosted profits so wondrously. The problem is tariffs are not enough to reverse offshoring to reshoring. Tariffs act as a useful sledgehammer but a sledgehammer has a limited scope of utility. There are more moving parts in the decision to reshore than tariffs. What few realize is every State has a de facto Industrial Policy set by the entirety of State policies and regulations. This Industrial Policy is implicit rather than an explicit set of goals and policies, and so various pieces of this implicit Industrial Policy may actually be contradictory. Just as the State doesn't have the luxury of focusing solely on profit, corporations don't have the luxury of gambling the company's future based on one State policy that's likely to change. Enterprises must consider a great many factors before committing billions of dollars to moving supply chains and production facilities. These include: 1. Tax structures 2. Regulatory burdens 3. Environmental requirements 4. Workforce availability and cost 5. Cost of capital 6. Availability of credit 7. Cost of healthcare for the workforce 8. Automation / AI 9. Domestic and global market conditions and competition 10. Public sentiment The State's policies set many parameters that affect decisions about reshoring: the complexity of tax codes, the cost of healthcare, the cost of capital, environmental regulations, the relative ease or difficulty of doing business, the availability and skills of the workforce, and so on. The de facto Industrial Policy of the U.S. has incentivized hyper-globalization and hyper-financialization, to the detriment of the national interests and security. Wall Street, the political class and Corporate America benefited from these de facto policies while the bottom 90% lost ground. The New Cost of American Inequality: $80 Trillion Measuring the Income Gap from 1975 to 2023 (RAND) $1 Trillion of Wealth Was Created for the 19 Richest U.S. Households Last Year The richest of the rich in America control record slice of nation's wealth. (WSJ.com) These are not the result of "market forces," they're the result of State policies. The point is all of these State policies have to be changed if we as a nation are serious about reshoring critical supply chains. Tariffs are not enough. I have long advocated here for a radically simplified corporate tax structure that's a flat tax of 5% paid on whatever profits are reported pro forma quarterly. Corporate taxes could be reduced for companies that source all components and assembly of their products in North America. There many ways to incentivize reshoring that are more reliable and actionable than tariffs alone. I've advocated shifting the tax burden from workers and employers (Social Security and Medicare taxes paid by all workers and employers) to capital via transaction fees on all capital transactions and the elimination of tax giveaways / breaks for capital. Since the top 10% own / control 80% to 90% of all income-producing capital, a policy shift from labor / employers to capital would transfer the tax burden to the wealthiest Americans, those who have benefited so richly from the de facto policies of hyper-globalization and hyper-financialization. I've also noted here many times that the current healthcare system will bankrupt the nation all by itself. Radical reforms are required to improve the overall health of Americans and reduce skyrocketing costs, many of which qualify as profiteering, fraud or needless paper-shuffling. The tariff sledgehammer has a role, but it's a limited one. If we're serious about reshoring strategic supply chains, we have to tackle all the hard stuff that the wealthiest class wants to leave as-is because they've benefited so mightily from existing policies. None of these reforms will be easy. There are many competing interests and complex trade-offs that must be negotiated so whatever pain is required will be distributed primarily to those who can best afford it. These are the folks with the wealth and incentives to lobby the hardest for their exclusion from any pain, and therein lies the political challenge: do we leave the status quo intact because it favors the most powerful few, or do we put national security above private-sector spoils? New podcasts: Dismantling the Economic Divide (1 hour) (hosts Emerson and Amy) Retirement Lifestyle Advocates w/ Charles Hugh Smith (host Dennis Tubergen) My recent books: Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases originated via links to Amazon products on this site. The Mythology of Progress, Anti-Progress and a Mythology for the 21st Century print $18, (Kindle $8.95, Hardcover $24 (215 pages, 2024) Read the Introduction and first chapter for free (PDF) Self-Reliance in the 21st Century print $18, (Kindle $8.95, audiobook $13.08 (96 pages, 2022) Read the first chapter for free (PDF) The Asian Heroine Who Seduced Me (Novel) print $10.95, Kindle $6.95 Read an excerpt for free (PDF) When You Can't Go On: Burnout, Reckoning and Renewal $18 print, $8.95 Kindle ebook; audiobook Read the first section for free (PDF) Global Crisis, National Renewal: A (Revolutionary) Grand Strategy for the United States (Kindle $9.95, print $24, audiobook) Read Chapter One for free (PDF). A Hacker's Teleology: Sharing the Wealth of Our Shrinking Planet (Kindle $8.95, print $20, audiobook $17.46) Read the first section for free (PDF). Will You Be Richer or Poorer?: Profit, Power, and AI in a Traumatized World (Kindle $5, print $10, audiobook) Read the first section for free (PDF). The Adventures of the Consulting Philosopher: The Disappearance of Drake (Novel) $4.95 Kindle, $10.95 print); read the first chapters for free (PDF) Money and Work Unchained $6.95 Kindle, $15 print) Read the first section for free Become a $3/month patron of my work via patreon.com. Subscribe to my Substack for free NOTE: Contributions/subscriptions are acknowledged in the order received. Your name and email remain confidential and will not be given to any other individual, company or agency. Thank you, Mark S.C. ($70), for your wondrously generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your steadfast support and readership.   Thank you, Jeff T. ($70), for your marvelously generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership. Thank you, Tempos L. ($70), for your magnificently generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.   Thank you, Ohio Chris ($7/month), for your superbly generous contribution to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership. Go to my main site at www.oftwominds.com/blog.html for the full posts and archives.

2 months ago 28 votes
It Was 20 Years Ago Today I Started this Blog: What Surprises Me

I've managed to maintain a sense of humor and curiosity--or at least the comforting delusion that I've maintained them. It was 20 years ago today--well, actually, yesterday--that I launched this blog into the swirling rapids of the Web. As we know, time flies when you're having fun. In these two decades, I've written 4,854 posts and 745 Musings Reports for my supporters / subscribers, and further amused myself by publishing a number of books and posting a number of original songs. I started with nothing and have reached a state of grace peculiar to the media realm. I am an Untouchable to the Brahmins of the mainstream media, but far from the Media Shambala of being an influencer with hundreds of thousands or millions of avid followers whose devotion generates pasha-scale incomes. Betwixt and between, I've managed to maintain a sense of humor and curiosity--or at least the comforting delusion that I've maintained them. I can relate to Emperor Norton in old San Francisco, who declared himself Emperor and was treated with amusement and respect, a heady combination. I am emperor of the Of Two Minds empire, which exists solely in the confines of my own mind and as an ephemeral dot in the Great Oort Cloud of innumerable websites www.oftwominds.com. Like Emperor Norton, I depend on the financial support of kind supporters--in my case, my subscribers. I've survived the rapids of the Web which began with a Wild West burst of freedom and a sense that anything was possible, to the present domination of a handful of corporate platforms, a peculiarly oppressive mix of Kafka and Orwell--(you have violated our community standards but we won't divulge what triggered your algorithmic trial; you are hereby sentenced to Digital Siberia)--and Huxley (we love your servitude to our platforms, and so do you). The scramble to cash in is the coin of the realm. This offers its own amusements. An attractive person on Only Fans shared the fact that her earnings exceeded $43 million. How can we not gaze in wonderment? I should be cynical enough by now to find nothing surprising, but alas, a number of things still surprise me. I'm still surprised how creating more money is all it takes to keep the status quo from falling apart, a travesty of a mockery of a sham that's been playing to full houses for 17 years. I'm surprised that so great is our fear of losing whatever we have that we accept that the vast majority of this newly created "wealth" flows upward into the hands of the wealthiest few-- $1 Trillion of Wealth Was Created for the 19 Richest U.S. Households Last Year (WSJ.com, paywalled) (Yahoo News)--while 41.7 million American workers (31.3% of the workforce) earn under $12 an hour. The average rent for an apartment in the U.S. is $1,750 per month, which exceeds the take-home pay of full-time workers earning $12 an hour. As the article notes, and I documented in The Winners and Losers in 21st Century America, the top 1% of households own 31% of the net worth and the bottom 50% of American households own 2.5%. Fear is a powerful motivator. So too is hyper-normalization: we all know the system is broken and rotten to the core, but we don't see any alternative or way to change the system, so we play-act that everything's fine as a means of not going crazy. But of course we go crazy anyway. It's just the craziness manifests in ways that are acceptable. I shouldn't be surprised, but I am still surprised at the appeal of simplistic solutions. This is of course a primary feature of hyper-normalization: now that life is so interconnected and complex, there's no way to make sense of it, much less reform it, so we cling to something that does make sense. So if we just returned to sound money, the system would automatically right itself and we'd all be good to go. This sounds reasonable except for one hitch: the system is terminally rotten and corrupt, and so sound money would serve the corrupt, just like unsound money. I'm surprised I have an audience. This is a continuing source of surprise, for I have no credentials, no institutional seal of approval, and I'm indistinguishable from the old guy in front of you in the checkout line who you hope doesn't fumble around with coins to pay the exact amount. A very dear reader in San Francisco posted on social media that he thought he saw me fumbling around in confusion with my phone by a BART subway ticket machine. He kindly went over to help. It wasn't me, though it might have been. I happened to see the post and thanked the reader for his kindness--an increasingly rare treasure--and sent him a copy of my latest book as a gesture. Though my empire-of-the-mind appears disheveled, I do manage to keep up with the technology needed not to tip over in the rapids. In the cut-throat digital media realm, a sufficient grasp of evolving technologies is necessary for our survival. There's always room on the train to Digital Siberia, and always a way to stumble off the cliff into the bottomless canyon of de-monetization. We hear your screams briefly, and then the endless scroll distracts us from your fate. I have found great truth in former Intel CEO Andy Grove's dictum that only the paranoid survive. I don't trust either the state or Corporate America, the married couple who we see feuding in the parking lot over who forgot to buy broccoli but who are absolutely committed to their power marriage. I confess to being surprised by the durability of the duct tape keeping the machinery from flying apart. The fragilities and risks are hidden, but that's not the same as saying they don't exist. It's good to be industrious. It's good to be a producer and not just a consumer. It's good to learn some useful skill, or improve a useful skill. It's good to be curious, especially as things get curiouser and curiouser. I thank you for your kind readership and indulgence. I would be honored if you consider me like the old gent in line fumbling with loose change, mumbling to himself, who suddenly turns to you and says something that you think about afterward. Onward to the next 20-- My recent books: Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases originated via links to Amazon products on this site. The Mythology of Progress, Anti-Progress and a Mythology for the 21st Century print $18, (Kindle $8.95, Hardcover $24 (215 pages, 2024) Read the Introduction and first chapter for free (PDF) Self-Reliance in the 21st Century print $18, (Kindle $8.95, audiobook $13.08 (96 pages, 2022) Read the first chapter for free (PDF) The Asian Heroine Who Seduced Me (Novel) print $10.95, Kindle $6.95 Read an excerpt for free (PDF) When You Can't Go On: Burnout, Reckoning and Renewal $18 print, $8.95 Kindle ebook; audiobook Read the first section for free (PDF) Global Crisis, National Renewal: A (Revolutionary) Grand Strategy for the United States (Kindle $9.95, print $24, audiobook) Read Chapter One for free (PDF). A Hacker's Teleology: Sharing the Wealth of Our Shrinking Planet (Kindle $8.95, print $20, audiobook $17.46) Read the first section for free (PDF). Will You Be Richer or Poorer?: Profit, Power, and AI in a Traumatized World (Kindle $5, print $10, audiobook) Read the first section for free (PDF). The Adventures of the Consulting Philosopher: The Disappearance of Drake (Novel) $4.95 Kindle, $10.95 print); read the first chapters for free (PDF) Money and Work Unchained $6.95 Kindle, $15 print) Read the first section for free Become a $3/month patron of my work via patreon.com. Subscribe to my Substack for free NOTE: Contributions/subscriptions are acknowledged in the order received. Your name and email remain confidential and will not be given to any other individual, company or agency. Thank you, John K. ($100), for your outrageouslu generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your steadfast support and readership.   Thank you, Robert B. ($32), for your marvelously generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your steadfast support and readership. Thank you, Joseph R. ($32), for your magnificently generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.   Thank you, Lucky Lizard ($32), for your superbly generous contribution to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership. Go to my main site at www.oftwominds.com/blog.html for the full posts and archives.

2 months ago 41 votes
The Terminal Rot in Corporate America

Corporate America took advantage of the Covid shortages and fiscal largesse to profiteer on a scale criminals could only dream of. One of humanity's most pernicious traits is the ease with which we habituate to conditions over time that we would have rejected out of hand if the transition had been sudden. This is the essence of what I term Anti-Progress: over time, what was solid melts away into thin air, what worked no longer works, but we no longer notice because wretchedness and decay have been normalized, i.e. accepted as "the way things are," or hyper-normalized: everyone knows things no longer work but we're unable to change the system, so we play-act that everything's fine as a means of not going crazy. Which brings us to the terminal rot in Corporate America, a rot so deep and pervasive that few recall that Corporate America once had some purpose other than increasing profits next quarter to boost "shareholder value." The moral rot in Corporate America goes unnoticed in a society in terminal moral decay. Why should corporate fraud, profiteering, deception and extortion attract our attention when self-service is the norm, lobbyists write regulations, legislators tell us we'll find out what's in the bill after they pass it into law, tax fraud by the wealthy is accepted practice, and so on in an endless stream of avarice and corruption? But the rot isn't just moral; it's also the rot of reducing the entirety of enterprise to one goal: increase profits by any means available. Correspondent Bruce H. neatly summarized the decay of "the business class": "This is the culture that created the McNamara fallacy (also known as the quantitative fallacy), named for Robert McNamara, the US Secretary of Defense from 1961 to 1968, that one can make policy decisions based solely on quantitative observations (or metrics) and ignoring all others. The Atlantic ran an interesting piece a few years ago, which documented the destruction of the middle class and the disparate wealth imbalance between the top 10% and the rest of the population. It began in the late 1960s with the rise of business schools and how those graduates were hoovered up by consultants who then sent these newly-minted efficiency experts out into the desperate businesses suffering from the stagflation of the '70s to help them become profitable again. Their preferred solution was to fire 'extraneous' staff. The net result of this was the elimination of the lower middle class. The foremen who managed a team of six to ten workers, the lower managers who managed four or five foremen, and so on. Skip to the 80s. The corporations had trimmed employment costs, managers now directly managed between 50 and 100 people and the formerly well-paid foremen and mangers were now unemployed and no longer part of the economy, which started to deflate. At the same time, Jack 'chainsaw' Welch was gutting General Electric and creating 15% ROI for shareholders, year after year. For his tenure, he was hailed as the ne-plus-ultra of business geniuses, regularly on the cover of business magazines and anyone who didn't follow suit was ousted from every other business. Thus the change in orientation from running a business to profit-at-all-costs. The second problem was the hiring of the chainsaw consultants by the very companies they had just cut into, directly into the upper-management level. Thus began a noxious process of business-school graduates going straight into consultancy jobs, then from there into the upper-echelons of businesses without every having worked for those businesses. Thus the people running the businesses were hired for their ability to make money, not their understanding of the purpose and goals of the businesses. My own experience was the quarterly reports stopped talking about what awesome service we were providing while making a profit to gloating over what great profits we were making, and thus it has remained largely so to this day. As a wise businessman said, if you want to make money, you can go do anything, but the business will be a hollow shell. You need to have a sense of purpose, some service to the community to exist to truly have a good business with happy employees. The result of this change can be seen in the people at the top: in the 1960s, 90% of corporate CEOs had started on the shop floor and worked their way up to the top. By the late 1990s, only 10% had done so. The ones in the middle of the 20th Century saw their roles as providing a service or product, by the end of the century, the ones at the top saw their job as making profits and the business was just a means. We don't need a new way of living, we need an old way of living." Thank you, Bruce. Well said. Here we see corporate profits, which leaped 50% (+$1.2 trillion) virtually overnight as Corporate America took advantage of the Covid shortages and fiscal largesse to profiteer on a scale criminals could only dream of. But this stripmining wasn't illegal; it was all legal, of course, as corruption isn't just legal in America, it's celebrated. Did corporate products and services improve in quantity and quality? No, they shrank in quantity and quality declined--but the price went up, and unprecedented profits resulted. "Shareholder value" increased smartly. And who are these "shareholders" who are benefiting so mightily from corporate profiteering? I know you're shocked, shocked, that the top 1% own half of all the shares, and the top 10% own around 90%. No wonder CEOs and corporate "innovators" are busy building private bunkers to protect themselves from the banquet of consequences they've laid out. To say this out loud is unacceptable, for those running the show are, well, shareholders. My recent books: Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases originated via links to Amazon products on this site. The Mythology of Progress, Anti-Progress and a Mythology for the 21st Century print $18, (Kindle $8.95, Hardcover $24 (215 pages, 2024) Read the Introduction and first chapter for free (PDF) Self-Reliance in the 21st Century print $18, (Kindle $8.95, audiobook $13.08 (96 pages, 2022) Read the first chapter for free (PDF) The Asian Heroine Who Seduced Me (Novel) print $10.95, Kindle $6.95 Read an excerpt for free (PDF) When You Can't Go On: Burnout, Reckoning and Renewal $18 print, $8.95 Kindle ebook; audiobook Read the first section for free (PDF) Global Crisis, National Renewal: A (Revolutionary) Grand Strategy for the United States (Kindle $9.95, print $24, audiobook) Read Chapter One for free (PDF). A Hacker's Teleology: Sharing the Wealth of Our Shrinking Planet (Kindle $8.95, print $20, audiobook $17.46) Read the first section for free (PDF). Will You Be Richer or Poorer?: Profit, Power, and AI in a Traumatized World (Kindle $5, print $10, audiobook) Read the first section for free (PDF). The Adventures of the Consulting Philosopher: The Disappearance of Drake (Novel) $4.95 Kindle, $10.95 print); read the first chapters for free (PDF) Money and Work Unchained $6.95 Kindle, $15 print) Read the first section for free Become a $3/month patron of my work via patreon.com. Subscribe to my Substack for free NOTE: Contributions/subscriptions are acknowledged in the order received. Your name and email remain confidential and will not be given to any other individual, company or agency. Thank you, John K. ($100), for your outrageouslu generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your steadfast support and readership.   Thank you, Robert B. ($32), for your marvelously generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your steadfast support and readership. Thank you, Joseph R. ($32), for your magnificently generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.   Thank you, Lucky Lizard ($32), for your superbly generous contribution to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership. Go to my main site at www.oftwominds.com/blog.html for the full posts and archives.

2 months ago 104 votes
25 Years of Higher Interest Rates Ahead?

Interest rates are linked to inflation, but they're also linked to risk. As a result of recency bias, where we assume the recent past is a permanent state of affairs, many believe near-zero interest rates are "normal." They aren't. As the chart of 10-year US Treasury yields--a proxy for interest rates throughout the economy--illustrates, rates in the 3% or lower were an anomaly that only occurred in the relatively brief period of 2011-2022. For the five decades between 1960 and 2007, interest rates of 4% and higher were the norm. These included the glorious decades of stable growth and rising stocks / housing valuations--the 1960s, 1980s, 1990s and up to 2007, just before the financial crisis of 2008-09. For 33 of those years, interest rates of 5.75% or higher were the norm, from 1967 to 2000. No one said that the economy would collapse if interest rates didn't drop to 3%, for it was understood that super-low interest rates would ignite inflation and incentivize destructive speculative excesses. For the 25 years between 1970 and 1994, rates between 5.75% and 8% were normal. The 10-year Treasury yield is now around 4% to 4.2%--far lower than what was considered normal for 25 years. It's long been noted that interest rate cycles tend to run for decades, not years. Interest rates rose for around 25 years, and then declined for 40 years from 1981 to 2020--a period that was longer than average, thanks to the dominance of central bank monetary policies, or perhaps more accurately, the growing dependence of economies on extraordinarily low interest rates for their "growth." If history is any guide, interest rates will rise back to the historic range between 5.75% and 8% and linger there for the better part of two decades. Alternatively, rates break above that range and skyrocket into the realm of debt / inflationary crises. The return of Treasury yields to the historically "normal" range of 4% and higher has doubled the Federal interest payments on Federal debt. It was easily predictable that super-low interest rates would encourage an orgy of borrowing and spending of all that "nearly free money," which is precisely what happened. The interest paid by households has also soared for the same reason: not just because interest rates rose, but because the borrowed money (debt) being serviced exploded higher due to low interest rates. Higher debt / interest payments squeeze out other spending. Debt payments come first, or the entity defaults on its debts and enters bankruptcy--a bankruptcy that tends to bankrupt the lenders who will be lucky to collect pennies on every dollar they lent out. Households are going to have a hard time servicing debt and spending more as rates rise, for wage earners' share of the economy has been in a freefall for 50 years. Less income + higher debt service payments = lower discretionary income to spend + inability to borrow more money to spend = recession. Interest rates are linked to inflation, but they're also linked to risk. The cost of money isn't simply tied to inflation expectations--it's also tied to speculative excesses blowing credit-asset bubbles which implode, destroying the phantom wealth generated by the bubble. The lenders that survive the implosion are wary of lending money to all but the most conservative, risk-averse, creditworthy borrowers backed by ample collateral. That excludes the majority of households and enterprises. New podcast: Adaptability: The Key to Future Success, with the Contrarian Capitalist (53:40 min) New podcast: Trade, Tariffs and Globalization with Richard Bonugli (35:51 min) My recent books: Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases originated via links to Amazon products on this site. The Mythology of Progress, Anti-Progress and a Mythology for the 21st Century print $18, (Kindle $8.95, Hardcover $24 (215 pages, 2024) Read the Introduction and first chapter for free (PDF) Self-Reliance in the 21st Century print $18, (Kindle $8.95, audiobook $13.08 (96 pages, 2022) Read the first chapter for free (PDF) The Asian Heroine Who Seduced Me (Novel) print $10.95, Kindle $6.95 Read an excerpt for free (PDF) When You Can't Go On: Burnout, Reckoning and Renewal $18 print, $8.95 Kindle ebook; audiobook Read the first section for free (PDF) Global Crisis, National Renewal: A (Revolutionary) Grand Strategy for the United States (Kindle $9.95, print $24, audiobook) Read Chapter One for free (PDF). A Hacker's Teleology: Sharing the Wealth of Our Shrinking Planet (Kindle $8.95, print $20, audiobook $17.46) Read the first section for free (PDF). Will You Be Richer or Poorer?: Profit, Power, and AI in a Traumatized World (Kindle $5, print $10, audiobook) Read the first section for free (PDF). The Adventures of the Consulting Philosopher: The Disappearance of Drake (Novel) $4.95 Kindle, $10.95 print); read the first chapters for free (PDF) Money and Work Unchained $6.95 Kindle, $15 print) Read the first section for free Become a $3/month patron of my work via patreon.com. Subscribe to my Substack for free NOTE: Contributions/subscriptions are acknowledged in the order received. Your name and email remain confidential and will not be given to any other individual, company or agency. Thank you, Keith S. ($100), for your outrageously generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.   Thank you, Lar ($7/month), for your marvelously generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership. Thank you, Julius L. ($50), for your magnificently generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your steadfast support and readership.   Thank you, Daniel L. ($50), for your superbly generous contribution to this site -- I am greatly honored by your steadfast support and readership. Go to my main site at www.oftwominds.com/blog.html for the full posts and archives.

2 months ago 16 votes
The Potential Winners and Losers in Reshoring Supply Chains

Until values, priorities and incentives change, "the lifestyle you ordered is currently out of stock and on back order, with no estimate of a future delivery date." The ultimate winners and losers in reshoring supply chains to North America have yet to be determined, and may change depending on the time frame. In the short-term, there are ample reasons to reckon consumers will be the losers as shortages and price-gouging ("it's the tariffs" will be the excuse given for profiteering) take their toll. Matt Stoller has posted two comprehensive essays on these topics: How Monopolies Could Exploit the Tariff Shock How to Prepare for the Coming Supply Chain Shock In the longer term, however, consumers could be winners as reshored supply chains will be more stable and predictable than globalized supply chains. Stability has a value that isn't recognized until it's absent--as do durability and quality. One set of potential winners might be large retail corporations that choose to switch from "horizontal" global supply chains to vertically integrated domestic production, in which raw materials are turned into finished products in one production facility. Ford Motor Company was an early adopter of this model, constructing the immense Ford River Rouge complex from 1917 to 1928 that turned iron ore into finished automobiles in one integrated production process. "With its own docks in the dredged Rouge River, 100 miles (160 km) of interior railroad track, its own electricity plant, and integrated steel mill, the titanic Rouge was able to turn raw materials into running vehicles within this single complex, a prime example of vertical-integration production." While it can be argued that vertical integration is less efficient in terms of cost, once again the value of complete control, stability and predictability is not included in spreadsheets, though it becomes readily apparent when long single-source global supply chains break down or are crippled by bottlenecks, artificial scarcities triggered by geopolitical blackmail or a host of other causal factors. Establishing domestic sources for materials, tooling, robotics, etc. would remove many of the uncertainties that are inherent in a global supply chain breaking down along geopolitical, regional and national lines. Were unions to regain wide public support, industrial unions might be winners should the public support unionizing new production facilities. The sustained erosion of labor's share of the nation's income over the past five decades might finally gain recognition as a core driver of wealth-income inequality and unionized labor might be understood as a necessary rebalancing of an economy that has favored finance and capital over labor for nearly three generations. Were the public to begin valuing local production and jobs over "lower prices" and equally low quality, local supply chains might become winners. Note that I've mentioned the public's values and priorities as key drivers changing economic incentives and policies. In the current zeitgeist, the public is assumed to be "rational economic robots" who respond solely to price. Once the full banquet of consequences of rampant hyper-financialization and hyper-globalization has played out, the public might begin to grasp the importance of valuing something other than low prices (and the low quality that comes with low prices). As a general rule, the public leads the private sector and government, not the other way round. For example, the public might start valuing national security, which is ultimately dependent on stable, predictable domestic production supply chains owned and controlled by domestic companies. Until values, priorities and incentives change, the lifestyle you ordered is currently out of stock and on back order, with no estimate of a future delivery date. New podcast: Adaptability: The Key to Future Success, with the Contrarian Capitalist (53:40 min) New podcast: Trade, Tariffs and Globalization with Richard Bonugli (35:51 min) My recent books: Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases originated via links to Amazon products on this site. The Mythology of Progress, Anti-Progress and a Mythology for the 21st Century print $18, (Kindle $8.95, Hardcover $24 (215 pages, 2024) Read the Introduction and first chapter for free (PDF) Self-Reliance in the 21st Century print $18, (Kindle $8.95, audiobook $13.08 (96 pages, 2022) Read the first chapter for free (PDF) The Asian Heroine Who Seduced Me (Novel) print $10.95, Kindle $6.95 Read an excerpt for free (PDF) When You Can't Go On: Burnout, Reckoning and Renewal $18 print, $8.95 Kindle ebook; audiobook Read the first section for free (PDF) Global Crisis, National Renewal: A (Revolutionary) Grand Strategy for the United States (Kindle $9.95, print $24, audiobook) Read Chapter One for free (PDF). A Hacker's Teleology: Sharing the Wealth of Our Shrinking Planet (Kindle $8.95, print $20, audiobook $17.46) Read the first section for free (PDF). Will You Be Richer or Poorer?: Profit, Power, and AI in a Traumatized World (Kindle $5, print $10, audiobook) Read the first section for free (PDF). The Adventures of the Consulting Philosopher: The Disappearance of Drake (Novel) $4.95 Kindle, $10.95 print); read the first chapters for free (PDF) Money and Work Unchained $6.95 Kindle, $15 print) Read the first section for free Become a $3/month patron of my work via patreon.com. Subscribe to my Substack for free NOTE: Contributions/subscriptions are acknowledged in the order received. Your name and email remain confidential and will not be given to any other individual, company or agency. Thank you, David E. ($7/month), for your splendidly generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your steadfast support and readership.   Thank you, Smurf77 ($7/month), for your marvelously generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership. Thank you, RemfBowHunter ($70), for your magnificently generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.   Thank you, Gabriel B. ($70), for your superbly generous contribution to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership. Go to my main site at www.oftwominds.com/blog.html for the full posts and archives.

2 months ago 16 votes

More in finance

To Bitcoin or not to Bitcoin? A Corporate Cash Question!

In this post, I will bring together two disparate and very different topics that I have written about in the past. The first is the role that cash holdings play in a business, an extension of the dividend policy question, with an examination of why businesses often should not pay out what they have available to shareholders. In my classes and writing on corporate finance, I look at the motives for businesses retaining cash, as well as how much cash is too much cash. The second is bitcoin, which can be viewed as either a currency or a collectible, and in a series of posts, I argued that bitcoin can only be priced, not valued, making debates about whether to buy or not to buy entirely a function of perception. In fact, I have steered away from saying much about bitcoin in recent years, though I did mention it in my post on alternative investments as a collectible (like gold) that can be added to the choice mix. While there may be little that seemingly connects the two topics (cash and bitcoin), I was drawn to write this post because of a debate that seems to be heating up on whether companies should put some or a large portion of their cash balances into bitcoin, with the success of MicroStrategy, a high-profile beneficiary of this action, driving some of this push. I believe that it is a terrible idea for most companies, and before Bitcoin believers get riled up, my reasoning has absolutely nothing to do with what I think of bitcoin as an investment and more to do with how little I trust corporate managers to time trades right. That said, I do see a small subset of companies, where the holding bitcoin strategy makes sense, as long as there are guardrails on disclosure and governance. Cash in a Going Concern     In a world where businesses can raise capital (equity or debt) at fair prices and in a timely manner, there is little need to hold cash, but that is not the world we live in. For a variety of reasons, some internal and some external, companies are often unable or unwilling to raise capital from markets, and with that constraint in place, it is logical to hold cash to meet unforeseen needs. In this section, I will start by laying out the role that cash holdings play in any business, and examine how much cash is held by companies, broken down by groupings (regional, size, industry).  A Financial Balance Sheet     To understand the place of cash in a business, I will start with a  financial balance sheet, a structure for breaking down a business, public or private: On the asset side of the balance sheet, you start with the operating business or businesses that a company is in, with a bifurcation of value into value from investments already made (assets-in-place) and value from investments that the company expects to make in the future (growth assets). The second asset grouping, non-operating assets, includes a range of investments that a company may make, sometimes to augment its core businesses (strategic investments), and sometimes as side investments, and thus include minority holdings in other companies (cross holdings) and even investments in financial assets. Sometimes, as is the case with family group companies, these cross holdings may be a reflection of the company's history as part of the group, with investments in other group companies for either capital or corporate control reasons. The third grouping is for cash and marketable securities, and this is meant specifically for investments that share two common characteristics - they are riskless or close to riskless insofar as holding their value over time and they are liquid in the sense that they can be converted to cash quickly and with no penalty. For most companies, this has meant investing cash in short-term bonds or bills, issued by either governments (assuming that they have little default risk) or by large, safe companies (in the form of commercial paper issued by highly rated firms).      Note that there are two sources of capital for any business, debt or equity, and in assessing how levered a firm is, investors look at the proportion of the capital that comes from each: Debt to Equity = Debt/ Equity Debt to Capital = Debt/ (Debt + Equity) In fact, there are many analysts and investors who estimate these debt ratios, using net debt, where they net the cash holdings of a company against the debt, with the rationale, merited or not, that cash can be used to pay down debt. Net Debt to Equity = (Debt-Cash)/ Equity Debt to Capital = (Debt-Cash)/ (Debt + Equity) All of these ratios can be computed using accounting book value numbers for debt and equity or with market value numbers for both.  The Motives for holding Cash     In my introductory finance classes, there was little discussion of cash holdings in companies, outside of the sessions on working capital. In those sessions, cash was introduced as a lubricant for businesses, necessary for day-to-day operations. Thus, a retail store that had scores of cash customers, it was argued, needed to hold more cash, often in the form of currency, to meet its transactional needs, than a company with corporate suppliers and business customers, with predictable patterns in operations. In fact, there were rules of thumb that were developed on how much cash a company needed to have for its operations. As the world shifts away from cash to digital and online payments, this need for cash has decreased, but clearly not disappeared. The one carve out is the financial services sector, where the nature of the business (banking, trading, brokerage) requires companies in the sector to hold cash and marketable securities as part of their operating businesses.     If the only reason for holding cash was to cover operating needs, there would be no way to justify the tens of billions of dollars that many companies hold; Apple alone has often had cash balances that exceeded $200 billion, and the other tech giants are not far behind. For some companies, at least, the rationale for holding far more cash than justified by their operating needs is that it can operate as a shock absorber, something that they can fall back on during periods of crisis or to cover unexpected expenses. That is the reason that cyclical and commodity firms have often offered for holding large cash balances (as a percent of their overall firm value), since a recession or a commodity price downturn can quickly turn profits to losses.    Using the corporate life cycle structure can also provide insight into how the motives for holding cash can change as a company ages.   For start-ups, that are either pre-revenue or have very low revenues, cash is needed to keep the business operating, since employees have to be paid and expenses covered. Young firms that are money-losing and with large negative cash flows, hold cash to cover future cash flow needs and to fend off the risk of failure. In effect, these firms are using cash as life preservers, where they can make it through periods where external capital (venture capital, in particular) dries up, without having to sell their growth potential at bargain basement prices. As firms start to make money, and enter high growth, cash has use as a business scalar, for firms that want to scale up quickly. In mature growth, cash acquires optionality, useful in allowing the business to find new markets for its products or product extensions.  Mature firms sometimes hold cash as youth serum, hoping that  it can be used to make once-in-a-lifetime investments that may take them back to their growth days, and for declining firms, cash becomes a liquidation manager, allowing for the orderly repayment of debt and sale of assets.     There is a final rationale for holding cash that is rooted in corporate governance and the control and power that comes from holding cash. I have long argued that absent pressure from shareholders, managers at most publicly traded firms would choose to return very little of the cash that they generate, since that cash balance not only makes them more sought after (by bankers and consultants who are endlessly inventive about uses that the cash can be put to) but also gives them the power to build corporate empires and create personal legacies. Corporate Cash Holdings     Given the multitude of reasons for holding cash, it should come as no surprise that publicly traded companies around the world have significant cash balances. Leading into July 2025, for instance, global non-financial-service firms held almost $11.4 trillion in cash and marketable securities; financial service firms held even more in cash and marketable securities, but those holdings, as we noted earlier, can represent their business needs. Using our earlier breakdown of the asset side of the balance sheet into cash, non-operating and operating assets, this is what non-financial service firms in the aggregate looked like in book value terms (global and just US firms): Note that cash is about 11% of the book value of total assets, in the aggregate, for global firms, and about 9% of the book value of total assets, for US firms. Global firms do hold a higher percentage of their value in non-operating assets, but US firms are more active on the acquisition front, explaining why goodwill (which is triggered almost entirely by acquisitions) is greater at US firms.     The typical publicly traded firm holds a large cash balance, but there are significant differences in cash holdings, by sector. In the table below, I look at cash as a percent of total assets, a book value measure, as well as cash as a percent of firm value, computed by aggregating market values: As you can see, technology firms, which presumably face more uncertainty about their future hold far more cash as a percent of book value, but the value that the market attaches to their growth brings down cash as a percent of firm value. Utilities, regulated and often stable businesses, tend to hold the least cash, both in book and market terms.      Breaking down the sample by region, I look at cash holdings, as a percent of total assets and firms, across the globe: The differences across the globe can be explained by a mix of market access, with countries in parts of the world where it can be difficult to access capital (Latin America, Eastern Europe, Africa) holding more cash. In addition, and corporate governance, with cash holdings being greater in parts of the world (China, Russia) where shareholders have less power over managers.      Given the earlier discussion of how the motives for holding cash can vary across the life cycle, I broke the sample down by age decile, with age measured from the year of founding, and looked at cash holdings, by decile: The results are mixed, with cash holdings as a percent of total assets being higher for the younger half of the sample (the top five deciles) than for the older half, but the is no discernible pattern, when cash is measured as a percent of firm value (market). Put simple, companies across the life cycle hold cash, though with different motives, with the youngest firms holding on to cash as lifesavers (and for survival) and the older firms keeping cash in the hopes that they can use it to rediscover their youth. The Magic of Bitcoin     I have been teaching and working with investments now for four decades, and there has been no investment that has received as much attention from both investors and the financial press, relative to its actual value, as has bitcoin. Some of the draw has come from its connections to the digital age, but much of it has come from its rapid rise in price that has made many rich, with intermittent collapses that have made just as many poor. I am a novice when it comes to crypto, and while I have been open about the fact that it is not my investment preference, I understand its draw, especially for younger investors. The Short, Eventful History of Bitcoin     The origin story for Bitcoin matters since it helps us understand both its appeal and its structure. It was born in November 2008, two months into one of the worst financial crises of the last century, with banks and governments viewed as largely responsible for the mess. Not surprisingly, Bitcoin was built on the presumption that you cannot trust these institutions, and its biggest innovation was the blockchain, designed as a way of crowd-checking transactions and preserving transaction integrity. I have long described Bitcoin as a currency designed by the paranoid for the paranoid, and I have never meant that as a critique, since in the  untrustworthy world that we live in, paranoia is a justifiable posture.     From its humble beginnings, where only a few (mostly tech geeks) were aware of its existence, Bitcoin has accumulated evangelists, who argue that it is the currency of the future, and speculators who have used its wild price swings to make and lose tens of millions of dollars. In the chart below, I look at the price of bitcoin over the last decade, as its price has increased from less than $400 in September 2014 to more than $110,000 in June 2025: Along the way, Bitcoin has also found some acceptance as a currency, first for illegal activities (drugs on the Silk Road) and then as the currency for countries with failed fiat currencies (like El Salvador), but even Bitcoin advocates will agree that its use in transactions (as the medium of exchange) has not kept pace with its growth as a speculative trade.  Pricing Bitcoin     In a post in 2017,  I divided investments into four groups - assets that generate cash flows (stocks, bonds, private businesses), commodities that can be used to produce other goods  (oil, iron ore etc), currencies that act as mediums of exchange and stores of value and collectibles that are priced based on demand and supply: You may disagree with my categorization, and there are shades of gray, where an investment can be in more than one grouping. Gold, for instance, is both a collectible of long standing and a commodity that has specific uses, but the former dominates the latter, when it comes to pricing. In the same vein, crypto has a diverse array of players, with a few meeting the asset test and some (like ethereum) having commodity features. The contrast between the different investment classes also allows for a contrast between investing, where you buy (sell) an investment if it is under (over) valued, and trading, where you buy (sell) an investment if you expect its price to go up (down). The former is a choice, though not a requirement, with an asset (stocks, bonds or private businesses), though there may be others who still trade that asset. With currencies and collectibles, you can only trade, making judgments on price direction, which, in turn, requires assessments of mood and momentum, rather than fundamentals.      With bitcoin, this classification allows us to cut through the many distractions that pop up during discussions of its pricing level, since it can be framed either as a currency or a collectible, and thus only priced, not valued. Seventeen years into its existence, Bitcoin has struggled on the currency front, and while there are pockets where it has gained acceptance, its design makes it inefficient and its volatility has impeded its adoption as a medium of exchange. As a collectible, Bitcoin starts with the advantage of scarcity, restricted as it is to 21 million units, but it has not quite measured up, at least so far, when it comes to holding its value (or increasing it) when financial assets are in meltdown mode. In every crisis since 2008, Bitcoin has behaved more like risky stock, falling far more than the average stock, when stocks are down, and rising more, when they recover. I noted this in my posts looking at the performance of investments in both the first quarter of 2020, when COVID laid waste to markets, and in 2022, when inflation ravaged stock and bond markets. That said, it is still early in its life, and it is entirely possible that it may change its behavior as it matures and draws in a wider investor base. The bottom line is that discussions of whether Bitcoin is cheap or expensive are often pointless and sometimes frustrating, since it depends almost entirely on your perspective on how the demand for Bitcoin will shift over time. If you believe that its appeal will fade, and that it will be displaced by other collectibles, perhaps even in the crypto space, you will be in the short selling camp. If you are convinced that its appeal will not just endure but also reach fresh segments of the market, you are on solid ground in assuming that its price will continue to rise. It behooves both groups to admit that neither has a monopoly on the truth, and this is a disagreement about trading and not an argument about fundamentals. The MicroStrategy Story     It is undeniable that one company, MicroStrategy, has done more to advance the corporate holding of Bitcoin than any other, and that has come from four factors; A stock market winner: The company's stock price has surged over the last decade, making it one of the best performing stocks on the US exchanges:  It is worth noting that almost all of the outperformance has occurred in this decade, with the winnings concentrated into the last two years.  With the rise (increasingly) tied to Bitcoin: Almost all of MicroStrategy’s outperformance has come from its holdings of bitcoin, and not come from improvements in business operations. That comes through in the graph below, where I look at the prices of MicroStrategy and Bitcoin since 2014:   Note that MicroStrategy’s stock price has gone from being slightly negatively correlated with Bitcoin’s price between 2014-2018 to tracking Bitcoin in more recent years. And disconnected from operations: In 2014, MicroStrategy was viewed and priced as a software/services tech company, albeit a small one with promise. In the last decade, its operating numbers have stagnated, with both revenues and gross profits declining, but during the same period, its enterprise value has soared from $1 billion in 2014 to more than more than $100 billion in July 2025: It is clear now that anyone investing in MicroStrategy at its current market cap (>$100 billion) is making a bitcoin play. With a high-profile "bitcoin evangelist" as CEO:  MicroStrategy’s CEO, Michael Saylor, has been a vocal and highly visible promoter of bitcoin, and has converted many of his shareholders into fellow-evangelists and convinced at least some of them that he is prescient in detecting price movements. In recent years, he has been public in his plans to issue increasing amounts of stock and using the proceeds to buy more bitcoin. In sum, MicroStrategy is now less a software company and more a Bitcoin SPAC or closed-end fund, where investors are trusting Saylor to make the right trading judgments on when to buy (and sell) bitcoin, and hoping to benefit from the profits.  The “Put your cash in bitcoin” movement      For investors in other publicly traded companies that have struggled delivering value in their operating businesses, MicroStrategy’s success with its bitcoin holdings seems to indicate a lost opportunity, and one that can be remedied by jumping on the bandwagon now. In recent months, even high profile companies, like Microsoft, have seen shareholder proposals pushing them to abandon their conventional practice of holding cash in liquid and close-to-riskless investments and buying Bitcoin instead. Microsoft’s shareholders soundly rejected the proposal, and I will start by arguing that they were right, and that for most companies, investing cash in bitcoin does not make sense, but in the second part, I will carve out the exceptions to this rule. The General Principle: No to Bitcoin     As a general rule, I think it is not only a bad idea for most companies to invest their cash in bitcoin, but I would go further and also argue that they should banned from doing so. Let me hasten to add that I would make this assertion even if I was bullish on Bitcoin, and my argument would apply just as strongly to companies considering moving their cash into gold, Picassos or sports franchises, for five reasons: Bitcoin does not meet the cash motives: Earlier in this post, I noted the reasons why a company  holds cash, and, in particular, as a shock absorber, steadying a firm through bad times. Replacing low-volatility cash with high-volatility bitcoin would undercut this objective, analogous to replacing your shock absorbers with pogo sticks. In fact, given the history of moving with stock prices, the value of bitcoin on a company's balance sheet will dip at exactly the times where you would need it most for stability. The argument that bitcoin would have made a lot higher returns for companies than holding cash is a non-starter, since companies should hold cash for safety. Bitcoin can step on your operating business narrative: I have long argued that successful businesses are built around narratives that incorporate their competitive advantages. When companies that are in good businesses put their cash in bitcoin, they risk muddying the waters on two fronts. First, it creates confusion about why a company with a solid business narrative from which it can derive value would seek to make money on a side game. Second, the ebbs and flows of bitcoin can affect financial statements, making it more difficult to connect operating results to story lines.  Managers as traders? When companies are given the license to move their cash into bitcoin or other non-operating investments, you are trusting managers to get the timing right, in terms of when to buy and sell these investments. That trust is misplaced, since top managers (CEOs and CFOs) are for the most part terrible traders, often buying at the market highs and selling at lows. Leave it to shareholders: Even if you are unconvinced by the first three reasons, and you are a bitcoin advocate or enthusiast, you will be better served pushing companies that you are a shareholder in, to return their cash to you, to invest in bitcoin, gold or any other investment at your chosen time. Put simply, if you believe that Bitcoin is the place to put your money, why would you trust corporate managers to do it for you? License for abuse: I am a skeptic when it comes to corporate governance, believing that managerial interests are often at odds with what's good for shareholders. Giving managers the permission to trade crypto tokens, bitcoin or other collectibles can open the door for self dealing and worse.  While I am a fan of letting shareholders determine the limits on what managers can or cannot do, I believe that the SEC (and other stock market regulators around the world) may need to become more explicit in their rules on what companies can (and cannot) do with cash. The Carveouts     I do believe that there are cases when you, as a shareholder, may be at peace with the company not only investing cash in bitcoin, but doing so actively and aggressively. Here are four of my carveouts to the general rule on bitcoin: The Bitcoin Savant: In my earlier description of MicroStrategy, I argued that shareholders in MicroStrategy have not only gained immensely from its bitcoin holdings, but also trust Michael Saylor to trade bitcoin for them. In short, the perception, rightly or wrongly, is that Saylor is a bitcoin savant, understanding the mood and momentum swings better than the rest of us. Generalizing, if a company has a leader (usually a CEO or CFO) who is viewed as someone who is good at gauging bitcoin price direction, it is possible that shareholders in the company may be willing to grant him or her the license to trade bitcoin on their behalf.  This is, of course, not unique to bitcoin, and you can argue that investors in Berkshire Hathaway have paid a premium for its stock, and allowed it leeway to hold and deploy immense amounts of cash because they trusted Warren Buffett to make the right investment judgments.  The Bitcoin Business: For some companies, holding bitcoin may be part and parcel of their business operations, less a substitute for cash and more akin to inventory. PayPal and Coinbase, both of which hold large amounts of bitcoin, would fall into this carveout, since both companies have business that requires that holding. The Bitcoin Escape Artist: As some of you may be aware, I noted that Mercado Libre, a Latin American online retail firm, is on my buy list, and it is a company with a fairly substantial bitcoin holding. While part of that holding may relate to the operating needs of their fintech business, it is worth noting that Mercado Libre is an Argentine company, and the Argentine peso has been a perilous currency to hold on to, making bitcoin a viable option for cash holdings. Generalizing, companies in countries with failed currencies may conclude that holding their cash in bitcoin is less risky than holding it in the fiat currencies of the locations they operate in. The Bitcoin Meme: There is a final grouping of companies that I would put in the meme stock category, with AMC and Gamestop heading that list. These companies have operating business models that have broken down or have declining value, but they have become, by design or through accident, trading plays, where the price bears no resemblance to operating fundamentals and is instead driven by mood and momentum. If that is the case, it may make sense for these companies to throw in the towel on operating businesses entirely and instead make themselves even more into trading vehicles by moving into bitcoin, with the increased volatility adding to their "meme" allure. Even with these exceptions, though, I think that you need guardrails before signing off on opening the door to letting companies hold bitcoin. Shareholder buy-in: If you are a publicly traded company considering investing some or much of the company's cash in bitcoin, it behooves you to get shareholder approval for that move, since it is shareholder cash that is being deployed.  Transparency about Bitcoin transactions/holdings: Once a company invests in bitcoin, it is imperative that there be full and clear disclosure not only on those holdings but also on trading (buying and selling) that occurs. After all, if it is a company's claim that it can time its bitcoin trades better than the average investor, it should reveal the prices at which it bought and sold its bitcoin.  Clear mark-to-market rules: If a company invests its cash in bitcoin, I will assume that the value of that bitcoin will be volatile, and accounting rules have to clearly specify how that bitcoin gets marked to market, and where the profits and losses from that marking to market will show up in the financial statements.  As bitcoin prices rise to all time highs, there is the danger that regulators and rule-writers will be lax in their rule-writing, opening the door to corporate scandals in the future. Cui Bono?     Bitcoin advocates have been aggressively pushing both institutional investors and companies to include Bitcoin in their investment choices, and it is true that at least first sight, they will benefit from that inclusion. Expanding the demand for bitcoin, an investment with a fixed supply, will drive the price upwards, and existing bitcoin holders will benefit. In fact, much of the rise of bitcoin since the Trump election in November 2024 can be attributed to the perception that this administration will ease the way for companies and investors to join in the crypto bonanza.     For bitcoin holders, increasing institutional and corporate buy-in to bitcoin may seem like an unmixed blessing, but there will be costs that, in the long run, may lead at least some of them to regret this push: Different investor base: Drawing in institutional investors and companies into the bitcoin market will not only change its characteristics, but put traders who may know how to play the market now at a disadvantage, as it shifts dynamics. Here today, gone tomorrow? Bitcoin may be in vogue now, but what will the consequences be if it halves in price over the next six months? Institutions and companies are notoriously ”sheep like” in their behavior, and what is in vogue today may be abandoned tomorrow. If you believe that bitcoin is volatile now, adding these investors to the mix will put that volatility on steroids. Change asset characteristics: Every investment class that has been securitized and brought into institutional investing has started behaving like a financial asset, moving more with stocks and bonds than it has historically. This happened with real estate in the 1980s and 1990s, with mortgage backed securities and other tradable versions of real estate, making it far more correlated with stock and bonds, and less of a stand alone asset.  If the end game for bitcoin is to make it millennial gold, an alternative or worthy add-on to financial assets, the better course would be steer away from establishment buy-in and build it up with an alternative investor base, driven by different forces and motives than stock and bond markets.  YouTube Video

7 hours ago 2 votes
Google’s New AI Summaries in Discover: The Next Blow to Publishers?

If you work in media or publishing, brace yourself — another platform update from Google is quietly shifting the ground beneath us.

4 days ago 9 votes
Announcing Speedrunning the Idea Maze

A live course, limited to 30 people. Applications close 21st July.

5 days ago 9 votes
June 2025: Show times

I really want to stop mentioning Trump. Even when he sends troops into LA, one of my favourite cities. But when he launches 30kt bombs on Iran, it is very hard to avoid talking about him. In the context of what Trump’s been up to, the welfare reform screw-ups by the Labour government seem almost… Continue reading June 2025: Show times →

a week ago 14 votes
What I’ve Been Reading

This post is a list of books that I read in the second quarter of 2025, including The Snowball, The Haywire Heart, Plato's Republic, and the King James Bible

a week ago 15 votes