Full Width [alt+shift+f] Shortcuts [alt+shift+k]
Sign Up [alt+shift+s] Log In [alt+shift+l]
17
I’m the founder and CEO of Viahart, an educational toy company. We did about $7.4 million in sales in 2020, mostly through e-commerce channels like Amazon and Walmart.com. This article is going to tell you what that was like and how things were different in 2020 than in 2019. To give you some context, let me tell you a bit about our business. We design building toys, plush animals, and active play toys. We manufacture them in Cambodia, Vietnam, China, and the USA (not as much as we’d like), and then we sell them mainly online. We operate our own warehouse in Texas, and we also use Amazon’s network of fulfillment centers to get you our products. Marketplace Breakdown of Sales in 2020 Our website (green) was 1.3% The main takeaway here is that Amazon accounted for 93.4% of our sales in 2020. For companies which sell on Amazon, this fairly typical. Two years ago, it was 98.1%. It’s risky to have so much of your sales concentrated in a single platform, but we’ve at least made progress. As...
over a year 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 Molson Hart's Blog - Molson Hart

America Underestimates the Difficulty of Bringing Manufacturing Back

On April 2nd, 2025, our president announced major new taxes on imports from foreign countries (“tariffs”), ranging from 10% to 49%. The stated goal is to bring manufacturing back to the United States and to “make America wealthy again”. These tariffs will not work. In fact, they may even do the opposite, fail to bring manufacturing back and make America poorer in the process. This article gives the 14 reasons why this is the case, how the United States could bring manufacturing back if it were serious about doing so, and what will ultimately happen with this wrongheaded policy I’ve been in the manufacturing industry for 15 years. I’ve manufactured in the USA and in China. I worked in a factory in China. I speak and read Chinese. I’ve purchased millions of dollars worth of goods from the US and China, but also Vietnam, Indonesia, Taiwan, and Cambodia. I’ve also visited many factories in Mexico and consider myself a student of how countries rise and fall. In other words, unlike many who have voiced an opinion on this topic, I know what I am talking about. And that’s why I felt compelled to write this article. I had to do it. I’m a first generation American and I love my country and it pains me to see it hurtling at high speed towards an economic brick wall. This article is an attempt to hit the brakes. The 14 Reasons Why these Tariffs Will Not Bring Manufacturing Back They’re not high enough A tariff is a tax on an imported product. For example, when Apple imports an iPhone that was made in China it declares to the United States government what it paid to make that product overseas. Let’s say it’s $100. When there is a 54% tariff, Apple pays $100 to the manufacturer in China and $54 to the US government when importing. In this simplified example, an iPhone used to cost Apple $100, but it now costs $154. For every dollar Apple spends, Apple needs to make profit. So Apple sells iPhones to stores for double what it pays for them. And stores sell iPhones to consumers like you and me for double what it pays for them, as well. Before the tariffs, prices looked like this: Apple bought iPhones it designed for $100 Apple sold iPhones for $200 to stores Stores sold iPhones to you and me for $400 After the tariffs, prices look like this: Apple bought iPhones for $154 ($100 + $54 in import taxes) Apple sells those iPhones for $308 (double what it paid) Stores sell those iPhones to you and me for $616 (double what they paid) Now that you know what a tariff is, let me tell to you why they aren’t high enough to bring manufacturing back to the United States. In short, manufacturing in the United States is so expensive and our supply chain (we’ll explain that next) is so bad that making that iPhone in the United States without that 54% tariff, would still cost more than in China with 54% tariff. Since it still costs less to make the iPhone in China, both Apple and consumers would prefer it be made there, so it will, and not in the USA. America’s industrial supply chain for many products is weak. Think of a supply chain as a company’s ability to get the components it needs to build a finished product. Suppose you wanted to build and sell wooden furniture. You’re going to need wood, nails, glue, etc. Otherwise you can’t do it. If you want to build an iPhone you need to procure a glass screen, shaped metal, and numerous internal electronic components. Now you might be thinking, “what do you mean America has a weak supply chain?” I’ve built furniture, I’ve assembled a computer. I can get everything I want at Home Depot and at Amazon. That’s because America has an amazing consumer supply chain, one of the best, if not the best in the world, but this is totally different from having an industrial supply chain. When you’re operating a furniture factory, you need an industrial quantity of wood, more wood than any Home Depot near you has in store. And you need it fast and cheap. It turns out that the United States has a good supply chain for wood, which is why, despite higher wages, we export chopsticks to China. We have abundant cheap wood in the forests of the Northern United States. But if you decided to move that chopstick factory to desert Saudi Arabia, you would not succeed, because their supply chain for wood is poor; there simply aren’t any trees for 1,000s of miles. When it comes to the iPhone, all the factories which make the needed components are in Asia, which is one reason why, even with a 54% tariff, it’s cheaper to assemble that iPhone in China than in the United States. It’s cheaper and faster to get those components from nearby factories in Asia than it is to get them from the US, which, because said factories no longer exist here, has to buy these components from Asia anyways. Supply chains sound complicated, but aren’t. If you can’t get the components you need at a reasonable price and timeline to build a finished product, it doesn’t matter what the tariffs are, you have to import it, because you can’t build it locally. We don’t know how to make it Apple knows how to build an iPhone, but may not know how to make the individual components. It may seem trivial to make that glass that separates your finger from the electronic engineering that powers your ability to access the internet, but it’s difficult. The world buys semiconductors from Taiwan, not just because its relatively expensive (but more expensive than China) labor and excellent supply chain, but because they know how to make the best semiconductors in the world. Even with infinite money, we cannot duplicate that, because we lack the knowhow. A 54% tariff does not solve that problem. We still need to buy semiconductors from Taiwan, which is perhaps why the administration put in an exception for semiconductors, because we need them and because we can’t make them without their help. This is a problem which applies to more than just semiconductors. We have forgotten how to make products people wrongly consider to be basic, too. My company makes educational toys from plastic called Brain Flakes. To make Brain Flakes, you melt plastic and force it into shaped metal molds. Were we to import the machines and molds needed to do this, it would work for a little while, but as soon as one of those molds broke, we’d be in trouble, because there are almost no moldmakers left in the United States. The people who knew how to build and repair molds have either passed away or are long retired. In the event of a problem, we’d have to order a new mold from China or send ours back, shutting down production for months. People trivialize the complexity and difficulty of manufacturing when it’s really hard. And if we don’t know how to make something, it doesn’t matter what the tariff is. It won’t get made in America. The effective cost of labor in the United States is higher than it looks Most people think that the reason why we make products in China instead of the United States is cheaper labor. That’s true, but it’s not the whole story. Frankly, the whole story is hard to read. People are not machines, they are not numbers on a spreadsheet or inputs into a manufacturing cost formula. I respect everyone who works hard and the people I have worked with over the years, and I want Americans to live better, happier lives. Chinese manufacturing labor isn’t just cheaper. It’s better. In China, there are no people who are too fat to work. The workers don’t storm off midshift, never to return to their job. You don’t have people who insist on being paid in cash so that they can keep their disability payments, while they do acrobatics on the factory floor that the non-disabled workers cannot do. Chinese workers much less likely to physically attack each other and their manager. They don’t take 30 minute bathroom breaks on company time. They don’t often quit because their out-of-state mother of their children discovered their new job and now receives 60% of their wages as child support. They don’t disappear because they’ve gone on meth benders. And they don’t fall asleep on a box midshift because their pay from yesterday got converted into pills. And they can do their times tables. To manufacture, you need to be able to consistently and accurately multiply 7 times 9 and read in English, and a disturbingly large portion of the American workforce cannot do that. Chinese workers work longer hours more happily and they’re physically faster with their hands; they can do things that American labor can’t. It’s years of accumulated skill, but it’s also a culture that is oriented around hard work and education that the United States no longer has. Sadly, what I describe above are not theoretical situations. These are things that I have experienced or seen with my own eyes. It’s fixable, but the American workforce needs great improvement in order to compete with the world’s, even with tariffs. So yes, Chinese wages are lower, but there many countries with wages lower than China’s. It’s the work ethic, knowhow, commitment, combined with top notch infrastructure, that makes China the most powerful manufacturing country in the world today. We don’t have the infrastructure to manufacture The inputs to manufacturing are not just materials, labor, and knowhow. You need infrastructure like electricity and good roads for transportation, too. Since the year 2000, US electricity generation per person has been flat. In China, over the same time period, it has increased 400%. China generates over twice as much electricity person today as the United States. Why? Manufacturing. To run the machines which make the products we use, you need electricity, a lot of it. We already have electricity instability in this country. Without the construction of huge amounts of new energy infrastructure, like nuclear power plants, we cannot meaningfully increase our manufacturing output. And it would put huge stress on our roads and create lots more dangerous traffic. When we import finished goods from foreign countries, a truck delivers them from the port or the airport to distribution centers, stores, and where we live and work. When you start manufacturing, every single component, from factory to factory, needs to be moved, increasing the number of trucks on the road many times. Paving more roads, modernizing our seaports, improving our airports, speeding up our train terminals, and building power plants in the costliest nation in the world to build is a huge undertaking that people are not appreciating when they say “well, we’ll just make it in America”. Made in America will take time. We placed a $50,000 order with our supplier overseas before the election in November 2024. At the time of ordering, there were no import taxes on the goods. By the time it arrived, a 20% tariff had been applied and we had a surprise bill for $10,000. It can easily take 180 days for many products to go from order, to on your doorstep and this tariff policy seems not to understand that. It takes at least, in the most favorable of jurisdictions, 2 years (if you can get the permits) to build a factory in the United States. I know because I’ve done it. From there, it can take 6 months to a year for it to become efficient. It can take months for products to come off the assembly lines. All this ignores all the infrastructure that will need to be built (new roads, new power plants, etc.) to service the new factory. By the time “made in America” has begun, we will be electing a new president. Uncertainty and complexity around the tariffs To start manufacturing in the United States, a company needs to make a large investment. They will need to buy new machinery and if no existing building is suitable, they will need to construct a new building. These things cost money, a lot, in fact. And significantly more in the USA, than they do in other countries. In exchange for this risk, there must be some reward. If that reward is uncertain, no one will do it. Within the past month, the president put a 25% tariff on Mexico, and then got rid of it, only to apply it again, and then get rid of it a second time. Then, last week, he was expected to apply new tariffs to Mexico, but didn’t. If you’re building a new factory in the United States, your investment will alternate between maybe it will work, and catastrophic loss according to which way the tariffs and the wind blows. No one is building factories right now, and no one is renting them, because there is no certainty that any of these tariffs will last. How do I know? I built a factory in Austin, Texas in an industrial area. I cut its rent 40% two weeks ago and I can’t get a lick of interest from industrial renters. The tariffs have frozen business activity because no one wants to take a big risk dependent on a policy that may change next week. Even further, the tariffs are confusing, poorly communicated, and complex. Today, if you want to import something from China, you need to add the original import duty, plus a 20% “fentanyl tariff”, plus a 34% “reciprocal tariff”, and an additional 25% “Venezuelan oil” tariff, should it be determined that China is buying Venezualan oil. The problem is there is no list of countries which are importing Venezuelan oil provided by the White House, so you don’t know if you do or don’t need to add that 25% and you also don’t know when any of these tariffs will go into effect because of unclear language. As such, you can’t calculate your costs, either with certainty or accuracy, therefore, not only do you not build a factory in the United States, you cease all business activity, the type of thing that can cause a recession, if not worse. For the past month, as someone who runs a business in this industry, I have spent a huge portion of my time just trying to keep up with the constant changes, instead of running my business. Most Americans are going to hate manufacturing Americans want less crime, good schools for their kids, and inexpensive healthcare. They don’t want to be sewing shirts. The people most excited about this new tariff policy tend to be those who’ve never actually made anything, because if you have, you’d know how hard the work is. When I first went to China as a naive 24 year old, I told my supplier I was going to “work a day in his factory!” I lasted 4 hours. It was freezing cold, middle of winter, I had to crouch on a small stool, hunched over, assembling little parts with my fingers at 1/4 the speed of the women next to me. My back hurt, my fingers hurt. It was horrible. That’s a lot of manufacturing. And enjoy the blackouts, the dangerous trucks on the road, the additional pollution, etc. Be careful what you wish for America. Doing office work and selling ideas and assets is a lot easier than making actual things. The labor does not exist to make good products There are over a billion people in China making stuff. As of right now there are 12 million people looking for work in the United States (4% unemployment). Ignoring for a moment the comparative inefficiency of labor and the billions of people making products outside of China, where are the people that are going to do these jobs? Do you simply say “make America great again” 3 times and they will appear with the skills needed to do the work? And where are the managers to manage these people? One of the reasons why manufacturing has declined in the United States is a brain drain towards sectors that make more money. Are people who make money on the stock market, in real estate, in venture capital, and in startups going to start sewing shirts? It’s completely and totally unrealistic to assume that people will move from superficially high productivity sectors driven by US Dollar strength to products that are low on the value chain. The United States is trying to bring back the jobs that China doesn’t even want. They have policies to reduce low value manufacturing, yet we are applying tariffs to bring it back. It’s incomprehensible. Automation will not save us. Most people think that the reason why American manufacturing is not competitive is labor costs. Most people think this can be solved by automation. They’re wrong. First, China, on a yearly basis installs 7x as many industrial robots as we do in the United States. Second, Chinese robots are cheaper. Third, most of today’s manufacturing done by people cannot be automated. If it could, it would have already been done so, by China, which, again, has increasingly high labor costs relative to the rest of the world. The robots you see on social media doing backflips are, today, mostly for show and unreliable off camera. They are not useful in industrial environments where, if a humanoid robot can do it, an industrial machine which is specialized in the task can do it even better. For example, instead of having a humanoid robot doing a repetitive task such as carrying a boxes from one station to another, you can simply set up a cheaper, faster conveyor belt. Said another way, the printer in your office, is cheaper and more efficient than both a human and a humanoid robot with a pen, hand drawing each letter. It’s unlikely that American ingenuity will be able to counter the flood of Chinese industrial robots which is coming. The first commercially electrical vehicle was designed and built in the United States, but today China is dominating electric vehicle manufacturing across the world. Industrial robots will likely be the same story. Robots and overseas factory workers don’t file lawsuits, but Americans do I probably should not have written this article. Not only will I be attacked for being unpatriotic, but what I have written here makes me susceptible to employment lawsuits. For the record, I don’t use a person’s origin to determine whether or not they will do good work. I just look at the person and what they’re capable of. Doing otherwise is bad business because there are talented people everywhere. America has an extremely litigious business environment, both in terms of regulation and employment lawsuits. Excessive regulation and an inefficient court system will stifle those with the courage to make in this country. Enforcement of the tariffs will be uneven and manipulated Imagine two companies which import goods into the United States. One is based in China, while the other is based in the United States. They both lie about the value of their goods so that they have to pay less tariffs. What happens to the China company? Perhaps they lose a shipment when it’s seized by the US government for cheating, but they won’t pay additional fines because they’re in China, where they’re impervious to the US legal system. What happens to the USA company? Owners go to prison. Who do you think is going to cheat more on tariffs, the China or the US company? Exactly. So, in other words, paradoxically, the policies which are designed to help Americans, will hurt them more than the competition these policies are designed to punish. The tariff policies are structured in the wrong way Why didn’t the jobs come back in 2018 when we initiated our last trade war? We applied tariffs, why didn’t it work? Instead of making America great, we made Vietnam great. When the United States applied tariffs to China, it shifted huge amounts of manufacturing to Vietnam, which did not have tariffs applied to it. Vietnam, which has a labor force that is a lot more like China’s than the United States’, was able to use its proximity to China for its supply chain and over the past 7 or so years, slowly developed its own. With Vietnamese wages even lower than Chinese wages, instead of the jobs coming to the United States, they just went to Vietnam instead. We’re about to make the same mistake again, in a different way. Let’s go back to that last example, the China based and the US based companies which were importing goods into the United States. That US based importer could’ve been a manufacturer. Instead of finished iPhones, perhaps they were importing the glass screens because those could not be found in the USA, for final assembly. Our government applied tariffs to finished goods and components equally. I’ll say that again. They applied the same tax to the components that you need to make things in America that they did to finished goods that were made outside of America. Manufacturing works on a lag. To make and sell in America, first you must get the raw materials and components. These tariffs will bankrupt manufacturers before it multiplies them because they need to pay tariffs on the import components that they assemble into finished products. And it gets worse. They put tariffs on machines. So if you want to start a factory in the United States, all the machinery you need which is not made here, is now significantly more expensive. You may have heard that there is a chronic shortage of transformers needed for power transmission in the United States. Tariffed that too. It gets even worse. There is no duty drawback for exporting. In the past, even in the United States, if you imported something and then exported it, the tariff you paid on the import would be refunded to you. They got rid of that so we’re not even incentivizing exports to the countries that we are trying to achieve trade parity with. Tariffs are applied to the costs of the goods. The way we’ve structured these tariffs, factories in China which import into the United States will pay lower tariffs than American importers, because the Chinese factory will be able to declare the value of the goods at their cost, while the American importer will pay the cost the factory charges them, which is of course higher than the factory’s cost. Worse still. With a few exceptions like steel and semiconductors, the tariffs were applied to all products, ranging from things that we will never realistically make like our high labor Tigerhart stuffed animals to things that don’t even grow in the continental USA, like coffee. Call me crazy, but if we’re going to make products in America, we could use some really cheap coffee, but no, they tariffed it! Our educational engineering toy Brain Flakes, also got tariffed. How is the next generation supposed to build a manufacturing powerhouse if it cannot afford products that will develop its engineering ability? It’s like our goal was to make education and raising children more expensive. Not only did we put tariffs on the things that would help us make this transformation, we didn’t put higher tariffs on things that hurt us like processed food which makes us tired and fat or fentanyl precursors which kill us. The stated goal of many of our tariffs was to stop the import of fentanyl. 2 milligrams of fentanyl will kill an adult. A grain of rice is 65 milligrams. How do you stop that stuff from coming in? It’s basically microscopic. Maybe we could do what every other country has done and focus on the demand, instead of the supply, ideally starting with the fentanyl den near my house which keeps my children indoors or in our backyard instead of playing in the neighborhood. It’s frustrating to see our great country take on an unrealistic goal like transforming our economy, when so many basic problems should be fixed first. Michael Jordan sucked at baseball America is the greatest economic power of all time. We’ve got the most talented people in the world and we have a multi-century legacy of achieving what so many other countries could not. Michael Jordan is arguably the greatest basketball player of all time, perhaps even the greatest athlete of all time. He played baseball in his youth. What happened when he switched from basketball to baseball? He went from being an MVP champion to being a middling player in the minor leagues. 2 years later, he was back to playing basketball. And that’s exactly what’s going to happen to us. My prediction for what will happen with the tariffs This is probably the worst economic policy I’ve ever seen. Maybe it’s just an opening negotiating position. Maybe it’s designed to crash the economy, lower interest rates, and then refinance the debt. I don’t know. But if you take it at face value, there is no way that this policy will bring manufacturing back to the United States and “make America wealthy again”. Again, if anything, it’ll do the opposite; it’ll make us much poorer. Many are saying that this tariff policy is the “end of globalization”. I don’t think so. Unless this policy is quickly changed, this is the end of America’s participation in globalization. If we had enacted these policies in 2017 or 2018, they stood a much stronger chance of being successful. That was before Covid. China was much weaker economically and militarily then. They’ve been preparing 8 years for this moment and they are ready. China trades much less with the United States as a percent of its total exports today than it did 8 years ago, and as such is much less susceptible to punishing tariffs from the United States today than it was back then. Chinese made cars, particularly electric vehicles, are taking the world by storm, without the United States. Go to Mexico to Thailand to Germany and you will see Chinese made electric vehicles on the streets. And they’re good, sometimes even better than US made cars, and not just on a per dollar basis, but simply better quality. That is what is going to happen to the United States. Globalization will continue without us if these policies continue unchanged. That said, I think the tariffs will be changed. There’s no way we continue to place a 46% tariff on Vietnam when 8 years ago we nudged American companies to put all their production there. Most likely, this policy will continue another round of the same type of investment; rather than replacing made in China with made in the USA, we’ll replace it with made in Vietnam, Mexico, etc. Finally, in the process of doing this, regardless of whether or not we reverse the policies, we will have a recession. There isn’t time to build US factories, nor is it realistic or likely to occur, and American importers don’t have the money to pay for the goods they import. People are predicting inflation in the cost of goods, but we can just as easily have deflation from economic turmoil. The policy is a disaster, how could it be done better? And what’s the point of this anyways? The 3 reasons why we want to actually bring manufacturing back 1. It makes our country stronger. If a foreign country can cut off your supply of essentials such as food, semiconductors, or antibiotics you’re beholden to that country. The United States must have large flexible capacity in these areas. 2. It makes it easier to innovate. When the factory floor is down the hall, instead of 30 hours of travel away, it’s easier to make improvements and invent. We need to have manufacturing of high value goods, like drones, robots, and military equipment that are necessary for our economic future and safety. It will be difficult for us to apply artificial intelligence to manufacturing if we’re not doing it here. 3. People can simplistically be divided into three buckets: those of verbal intelligence, those of mathematical intelligence, and those of spatial intelligence. Without a vibrant manufacturing industry, those with the latter type of intelligence cannot fulfill their potential. This is one reason why so many men drop out, smoke weed, and play video games; they aren’t built for office jobs and would excel at manufacturing, but those jobs either don’t exist or pay poorly. How to actually bring manufacturing back Every country that has gone on a brilliant run of manufacturing first established the right conditions and then proceeded slowly. We’re doing the opposite right now, proceeding fast with the wrong conditions. First, the United States must fix basic problems which reduce the effectiveness of our labor. For example, everyone needs to be able to graduate with the ability to do basic mathematics. American healthcare is way too expensive and it needs to be fixed if the United States wants to be competitive with global labor. I’m not saying healthcare should be socialized or switched to a completely private system, but whatever we’re doing now clearly is not working, and it needs to be fixed. We need to make Americans healthy again. Many people are too obese to work. Crime and drugs. It needs to stop. And to sew, we must first repair the social fabric. From Covid lockdowns to the millions of people who streamed over our border, efforts must be made to repair society. Manufacturing and economic transformations are hard, particularly the way in which we’re doing it. Patriotism and unity are required to tolerate hardship, and we seem to be at all-time lows for those right now. Let’s focus on America’s strengths in high end manufacturing, agriculture, and innovation instead of applying tariffs to all countries and products blindly. We should be taxing automated drones for agriculture at 300% to encourage their manufacture here, instead of applying the same blanket tariff of 54% to that that we apply to t-shirts. The changes in the policies needed are obvious. Tax finished products higher than components. Let exporters refund their import duties. Enforce the tariffs against foreign companies more strenuously than we do against US importers. If American companies want to sell in China, they must incorporate their, register capital, and name a person to be a legal representative. To sell in Europe, we must register for their tax system and nominate a legal representative. For Europeans and Chinese to sell in the United States, none of this is needed, nor do federal taxes need to be paid. We can level the playing field without causing massive harm to our economy by adopting policies like these which cause foreign companies to pay the taxes domestic ones pay. And if we want to apply tariffs, do it slowly. Instead of saying that products will be tariffed at 100% tomorrow, say they’ll be 25% next year, 50% after that, 75% after that, and 100% in year four. And then make it a law instead of a presidential decree so that there is certainty so people feel comfortable taking the risks necessary to make in America. Sadly, a lot of the knowhow to make products is outside of this country. Grant manufacturing visas, not for labor, but for knowhow. Make it easy for foreign countries to teach us how they do waht they do best. Conclusion and final thoughts I care about this country and the people in it. I hope we change our mind on this policy before it’s too late. Because if we don’t, it might break the country. And, really, this country needs to be fixed.

3 months ago 78 votes
The DECIDE Algorithm — A Simple Step-by-Step Method for Converting Idle Time into Productive Action

DECIDE D - Determine the Bottleneck E - Engage with the subject matter C - Clear distractions I - Implement mental models D - Decide how to proceed E - Execute next steps When you’re traveling or waiting for something to happen, instead of listening to a podcast or scrolling on your phone, you can use the DECIDE algorithm to convert that otherwise wasted time into a realization, a useful plan, or action. Here’s how: D - Determine the Bottleneck You can skip this step if you already know what you want to think about. If you don’t, cycle through the important things in your life (family, employees/coworkers, yourself, goals, your calendar) to seek out the single biggest problem in your life so you can solve it for a maximal increase in happiness. E - Engage with the subject matter Once you have determined what to think about, announce it to yourself using your inner monologue. “I will now think about how to solve X.” This will help you stay focussed and by verbalizing the problem succinctly, the problem will become easier to solve. C - Clear distractions The speed and quality of your thought processes improve if you can remove distractions. Go to a quiet room. Put away your phone. Go for a walk. You’re on a mission and it is not complete until you solve the problem and if you get distracted and switch to another task, you will have failed. I - Implement mental models To make good decisions you must have a repertoire of mental tools which you can apply. My favorite are thinking from first principles (something that applies to more than just problems of physics) and thinking about a problem in the context of my life’s greatest purpose. There many other useful mental models such as inversion (how would I NOT solve this problem), two way doors (can I undo this decision, if so, why overanalyze it?), the premortem (I made this decision, it failed, why?), or even asking an expert/AI. D - Decide how to proceed You’ve considered the options and have made a decision. Verbalize it to at least yourself, if not others. “I have decided to do Y to solve X because…”. If verbalizing your decision triggers a new important thought return to the previous step and reconsider. E - Execute next steps It is insufficient to reach a conclusion. What are the first steps that follow from this conclusion? Execute them. If you can’t in the moment, make a note to do so “to solve my lack of time, I will hire a cleaner, and I will write a job description on Monday to do so.” This technique will reduce analysis paralysis and ensure that you act on your hard fought realizations. Conclusion: Your standing in life is a function of the quality and quantity of decisions you make. Improving and speeding up your decision making will allow you to live a better life. Mnemonics such as the DECIDE algorithm allow you to practice your skills while reducing the chance that you forget critical considerations in deciding important matters.

4 months ago 33 votes
When People Outperform Data

People who succeed via analysis of numbers and facts need to learn that understanding of people can make that analysis unnecessary and can even outperform it. Examples: 1. Amazon did not make money between its 1994 founding through 2002. There was no financial or business fundamentals analysis that could’ve led you to buying the stock, which would launch AWS and FBA in 2006. The only way you could’ve profited from the 4000x share price growth between Dec 31 2002 and today was to figure out that Bezos was one of the greatest of all time and was pouring his best years into the company. 2. I was once doing a reference check for a new employee. You can make a quantifiable prediction of employee quality by creating a points system for traits correlated with future work quality. On paper this employee did not appear to be so great, however his reference, who was an accomplished businessman in his own right without an agenda stopped me and said “Hire this guy. Just do it. Trust me.” He was right. 3. Careers and health are complex systems. We can come up with rules of thumb like “work hard” or “exercise”, but, generally we know a lot less about what leads to good outcomes in these fields than we do in chemistry and mathematics where there are higher degrees of predictable certainty. When an older businessperson who has survived and thrived through multiple recessions tells you, someone much younger, less experienced, and successful, to do something like “call them” or “go to this event”, you just need to do it. When your grandmother tells you to stay slim, exercise, and spend time with friends, you just need to do it. There is no fact or data based analysis to support these recommendations, but decades of experience, of seeing people fail in business or die early and those who didn’t, inform these powerful inexplicable recommendations. Yes, facts and numbers are great, but they will only take you so far. Master the understanding of people and know when their recommendations outperform what we call rational analysis to go even father. And note that these two methods are even more powerful when combined. Trust me.

7 months ago 23 votes
What Do Brontosauruses Know about Uncoordinated Conspiracies?

Brontosaurus skeleton at the Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History (allegedly) Let’s pretend for a moment that brontosauruses are made up, despite them being accepted by the public and scientific community, having ample evidence for their existence, and appearing in museums all over the world. Let me show you how this could come to be: Smart, but young, naive, and generally conformist people enter academia to study paleontology (the study of fossils) They learn about brontosauruses: They were up to 7 stories tall They weighed up to 70 tons They have no back teeth and swallowed all their food whole They would eat rocks to help with their digestion Their long necks were to "reach marshy vegetation some distance away or to reach leaves higher up in trees" (Encyclopedia Britannica) No skull has ever been found The bones you see in museums are mostly not real. They're casted. They get a PhD about how their poop is the size of a 737 Then one day they have a thought “you know…there’s a lot of stuff about brontosauruses which is pretty unbelievable” and they make a list They write a paper and submit it to a paleontology journal. If the paper is right, the journal must disband and all the people who work for it will lose their life’s work, so it gets turned down. The skeptical paleontologist turns to the press, but all the more senior paleontologists say that the skeptical guy is crazy, so now our skeptic’s reputation is ruined The skeptic can’t attract funding because they can’t get published and they’re a kook according respected paleontologists No museum will air the possibility that brontosauruses are fake because it’s one of the main reasons why people go to museums If the skeptical paleontologist is smart at all, they will see all this and they won’t say anything. They want to keep their PhD, their role in the group, and their prestige. It takes a unique and rare person to go against the flow and call something out like this and even if they do, their views mostly won’t be heard. Of course, I’m just joking around. Brontosauruses are real. But if they weren’t, the brontosaurus would be an uncoordinated conspiracy.

10 months ago 21 votes
The Fiacracy; A Mental Model for Modern Government

This article will explain the following: 1. What is a Fiacracy 2. How do Fiacracies NOT work 3. How Fiacracies work 4. Are Fiacracies sustainable 5. Why Fiacracies matter 1. What is a fiacracy? It’s government by fiat (money). The driving mechanism by which it works is not voting (democracy), a royal family (monarchy), or even a stable ruling elite (aristocracy, oligarchy). It’s a government driven mainly by the creation and movement of currency, fiat. 2. How do fiacracies NOT work? In school you were probably taught that your government works like this: A. People vote for politicians B. The politicians use tax revenue to provide services for voters C. If taxes get too high or services too bad, voters substitute the politicians responsible for new ones who will be better Fiacracies have voting, politicians, and taxes, but this is NOT how they work. 3. How do fiacracies work? A. People vote for politicians B. Politicians allocate money for services C. A central bank creates new money to pay for these services D. If voters do not like the politicians or what they are doing, they change them out for new ones What’s different between between this system and the last one? This system has only one check on government action, voting, whereas the other has two, voting and taxes. A concrete example: It’s much easier for fiacracies to go to war because taxpayers don’t need to pay for it, they just need to vote for it. And it’s also much easier for fiacracies to do handouts, whether it be for the rich, the poor, or the companies’ shareholders which benefit from war. Why is it so much easier? Because no one has to pay for it. All it requires is votes. An uncoordinated consensus exists between politicians, the central bank, and voters to keep the system going. If politicians don’t spend they don’t have political support and they get voted out. If the central banks don’t finance the spending they know the system collapses resulting in chaos. The voters are subjected to propaganda (oftentimes paid for by the government itself), don’t know what is happening, and if they do, why end the system and face chaos? Uncoordinated consensus. 4. Are fiacracies sustainable? Let’s answer the question in reverse: What would make a fiacracy unsustainable? A. People must be willing accept the newly created money, otherwise government cannot provide services nor effective handouts. B. People must believe in the system and its fairness or they will revolt C. It cannot be too easy to convert the newly created money into other currencies that are perceived to be more stable D. If money is created too fast, handouts will overtake the creation of value as peoples’ focus and people will stop working causing system collapse E. Handouts must be allocated fairly to system participants or the system will face instability from groups who feel shortchanged F. Greed. If a powerful group makes too much money for itself without acknowledging the delicate balance between the participants in the fiacracy, the system will destabilize and die. G. Immigration/emigration. Countries mostly are not closed systems and the arrival of new voters or their departure can cause violent swings how new money is allocated, which is the main determinant whether people continue to support the fiacracy system. We can see from how many different ways they can go wrong that individual fiacracies are generally unstable, but with proper management and the right general conditions they can last for a long time, particularly if culture, education, or propaganda (which can be paid for with fiat) are conducive to the maintenance of the fiacracy. 5. Why Fiacracies matter? They matter because of how ubiquitous they are and how increasingly large government spending is relative to the overall economy. Politics in a fiacracy is, at its core, a fight over access to the newly created money enabled by achieving a voter majority. Once you understand that and how fiacracies work at large, you can both benefit yourself, but also predict and maintain your country’s stability. The fiacracy is a useful mental model that explains better how things actually work than what we were taught in school and told by media.

11 months ago 26 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

yesterday 4 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 10 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 15 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