Currency

Do I Invest in Bitcoin?

by

Quiz!

What asset is bitcoin most similar to, and why?

  1. Dollars
  2. Bonds
  3. Gold
  4. Stocks
  5. Real estate

Do I Invest in Bitcoin?

Bitcoin was invented in 2009 as a digital currency, and exhibited phenomenal growth so far, raising the question: what growth can we expect moving forward? While it is easy to extrapolate recent growth into the future, it is not always correct. History is full of such examples. Below is an analysis of bitcoin as an investment.

Potential intrinsic long-term growth:

  1. Ongoing value creation: bitcoin doesn’t offer any product or service (unlike companies), or a place to live in (unlike real estate). It is tough to identify value creation in the long run.
  1. Ongoing value destruction: bitcoin cannot lose value through a sharp increase in supply, so not expected to lose value to inflation, unlike the dollar.

Conclusion: There is a potential for 0% very long-term growth beyond inflation.

Today’s pricing: 0% growth beyond inflation assumes that bitcoin is priced correctly today. While there are no useful measures to give it any specific value greater than $0 (it doesn’t produce anything), there is some useful information:

  1. Bitcoin is a software product, and its returns have been correlated with tech stocks (but more volatile). If this correlation sustains, we may be able to draw potential information about bitcoin’s pricing (valuations) using tech stocks.
  1. Bitcoin existed only during the current up-cycle of US tech stocks (since 2009, 15 years). This makes it risky to assume that its past returns will continue. US tech stocks have become extremely overpriced. They have extreme prices relative to intrinsic values (Price/Book). The S&P 500 developed an unusual concentration in tech stocks, as it did before prior crashes. Mid-last month, it reached record overpricing beyond the extreme of year 2000 (potentially, an all-time historic record overpricing). While tech stocks (as presented by the Nasdaq) declined by 78% after that peak, the excess volatility of bitcoin could imply a greater decline.

The future: One of the biggest stated appeals of bitcoin is the ability to avoid losing value to the high inflation created by governments, similar to the stated benefit of gold. Both aim to achieve this benefit through their limited supply (with a hard cap on the supply for bitcoin). This commonality allows us to put the benefit to the test of a very long history of gold.

  1. Recessions: History had more severe recessions under the gold standard, including The Great Depression. With inability to print more money easily, the Federal Reserve (the “Fed”) could not stimulate the economy. In contrast, without the gold standard, the Fed and government were able to stimulate the economy during recessions. As an extreme example, it helped prevent the 2008 recession from turning into a depression. Central bankers and economists are largely unanimous against the idea of returning to a gold standard. If bitcoin becomes too prevalent, the government could set regulations to make bitcoin uncompetitive, or even illegal (as China & Saudi Arabia did).
  1. Spreading recessions: The gold standard linked countries through fixed exchange rates. If a country struggled, people wanted to stop holding its currency. This would lead to a depleting stock of gold for the country. To prevent that, the country raised its interest rate, to make its currency more appealing to hold. Higher interest rates led to reduced economic activity, magnifying the country’s economic struggles.

More topics:

  1. Environmental Impact: Bitcoin mining uses an enormous amount of energy (over 100 terawatt hours last year). While it seeks to use energy at times of low demand, it is a true waste when compared to storage in batteries for later use. Until the world operates on 100% abundant renewable energy (we are far from that), bitcoin has a negative environmental impact.
  1. Limited supply is not a benefit: Bitcoin is designed to have limited supply. This does not imply any rate of growth, if it does not come along with an appeal. For example, if I can find a small rock of an uncommon shape or size, it won’t likely have much value, no matter how rare it is.

Summary: I don’t see bitcoin as an appealing investment in terms of expected returns (inflation + 0%) or risk-adjusted returns (extreme volatility, with very low expected returns). It doesn’t have theoretical reasoning as an investment – it doesn’t generate anything. It also doesn’t have a history of a full cycle, so past returns are still between irrelevant and offering a hint at a potential sharp reversal.

There are plenty of productive investments that generate value beyond inflation, including companies (stocks) & real estate. Their viability is rooted in basic human needs: the desire to get things done cheaply and efficiently (e.g. buying a car from a company instead of building it at home), and the need to have a place to live in (real estate). Of these assets, there are plenty that are priced very reasonably (including value & international stocks).

To answer the question of the title, I do not invest any of my money in bitcoin.

Quiz Answer:

What asset is bitcoin most similar to, and why?

  1. Dollars
  2. Bonds
  3. Gold [The Correct Answer]
  4. Stocks
  5. Real estate

Explanation:

  • Both bitcoin and gold are used as an inflation hedge – the ability to store money without seeing it decline with inflation.
  • Both don’t generate anything on an ongoing basis (though gold has intrinsic value, such as for jewelry, and bitcoin doesn’t).
Disclosures Including Backtested Performance Data

What Does a High Dollar Mean for US and non-US Investments?

by

Quiz!

Since 1970, what was the impact on the 3-year return of US and non-US investments, when the dollar reached high levels like today?

  1. It helped the returns of US investments and hurt the returns of non-US investments.
  2. It hurt the returns of US investments and helped the returns of non-US investments.

What Does a High Dollar Mean for US and non-US Investments?

Recently, the dollar reached a very high level last seen in 2002 and 1986. What does this mean for US vs. non-US investments? Since 1970:

  1. Very high currencies suffered from a drag during the following 3-year returns
  2. Very low ones enjoyed a boost to the following 3-year returns.

While these past results don’t guarantee a repeat in the future, today’s conditions are encouraging for non-US investments relative to the US ones.

There are two explanations for this behavior when the dollar was unusually high:

  1. The low currencies increase the growth of non-US companies, by attracting US consumers, who get to buy more cheaply.
  2. The currencies increase back to fair value, increasing stock prices as measured in dollars.

Quiz Answer:

Since 1970, what was the impact on the 3-year return of US and non-US investments, when the dollar reached high levels like today?

  1. It helped the returns of US investments and hurt the returns of non-US investments.
  2. It hurt the returns of US investments and helped the returns of non-US investments. [Correct Answer]

Explanation: Please read the article above for an explanation.

Disclosures Including Backtested Performance Data

Does a High Dollar Lead to Poor Emerging Markets Returns?

by

Quiz!

What does a dollar far above average do to future emerging markets returns?

  1. It hurts emerging markets returns.
  2. It helps emerging markets returns.
  3. There is no correlation between a very high dollar and future emerging markets returns.

Does a High Dollar Lead to Poor Emerging Markets Returns?

I’ve seen articles explain how a high dollar hurts emerging market (EM) economies. With the dollar recently reaching the highest level since late 2002, some articles gave concerning messages related to emerging markets investments.

Historical evidence for the opposite: The history of EM investments shows opposite results. When the dollar reaches high levels, future returns of EM tend to be stronger than when the dollar is low. For example, the recent time we had such a high dollar (2002) was around the beginning of phenomenal 5 years for diversified EM stocks.

Explanations: Once the dollar is at unusually high levels, the negative effect of the dollar is priced into EM stocks, with lowered valuations (price/book and price/earnings). Given that the dollar is cyclical, at some point we got a reversal, with a declining dollar. Some of the logic of the articles can be used to explain the benefits of the declining dollar, helping EM stocks.

Caveats: This quick read shows counter evidence + logic to many articles you may read in some prominent sources. There are still big unknowns. The dollar may have just peaked, or it may go up further. The goal of this article isn’t finding the exact peak, but looking at odds for further increases vs. decreases. When a cyclical measure is above average, you would expect higher odds for the measure to go lower than higher.

Quiz Answer:

What does a dollar far above average do to future emerging markets returns?

  1. It hurts emerging markets returns.
  2. It helps emerging markets returns. [The Correct Answer, but read explanation]
  3. There is no correlation between a very high dollar and future emerging markets returns.

Explanation: A rising dollar lowers the value of emerging markets (EM) returns as measured in dollars. So, the past EM returns leading to the dollar highs are hurt. Future emerging markets returns depend on the future movement of the dollar. From a level above average, the dollar is more likely to decline in the future. That would lead to above average returns. A caveat is that this simply reflects odds, not guarantees or specific timing.

Disclosures Including Backtested Performance Data

A Great Diversifier to Hi-Tech

by

Quiz!

Which is the best diversifier for US tech stocks?

  1. Cash
  2. Bonds
  3. US Value Stocks
  4. Emerging Markets Stocks
  5. Emerging Markets Value Stocks
  6. Bitcoin

A Great Diversifier to Hi-Tech

If you work in hi-tech, your financial position could be greatly influenced by the hi-tech cycle. Your income comes from hi-tech. In addition, If you have any stock options, stock grants or actual stocks of your company, they all depend on hi-tech. Even if you do not work in hi-tech, but most of your clients do, you are very dependent on this sector. When constructing your investment portfolio, it is worth being aware of this. It may be tough to diversify, if you believe that the strong run of hi-tech in recent years will never stop. To understand how a reversal is possible, note that valuations (price/book) of tech stocks surged in the past 10 years. This means that people are paying substantially more (price) for company values (book). This is in contrast to company values (book values) improving as much as the price gains, leading the price/book to stay flat over these years.

You may be discouraged by the fact that interest rates are low and expected to go up, and inflation has spiked. Commonly discussed candidates for moderating the risk of expensive tech stocks, including bonds and cash, can get hurt by rising interest rates and inflation.

There is a solution that doesn’t require accepting the typical low returns of bonds and cash, and without giving up the liquidity of stocks. This solution is especially helpful when interest rates and inflation go up. The solution is Value stocks, especially in other countries. When US tech stocks declined for over 10 years starting in 2000, Emerging Markets Value stocks grew substantially. This occurred at a time of extreme valuations for tech stocks, just like we are experiencing today. So, while any investor should be cautious of a concentration in high-tech stocks today, if your income is tied to hi-tech, you have a good diversifier available now.

Note that diversified Emerging Markets Value funds already have an allocation to high-tech stocks (while emphasizing lower valuations than typical), so they don’t require a separate allocation to high-tech.

Quiz Answer:

Which is the best diversifier for US tech stocks?

  1. Cash
  2. Bonds
  3. US Value Stocks
  4. Emerging Markets Stocks
  5. Emerging Markets Value Stocks [Correct Answer]
  6. Bitcoin

Explanations:

  1. Cash offers zero volatility, and seems perfectly safe. The issue is that it loses money to inflation. With a modest 3% inflation rate, you lose 50% every 24 years.
  2. Bonds offer low volatility, at a price of low returns. While they may seem compelling, they can decline when interest rates go up, and they can lose value relative to inflation.
  3. US Value Stocks are a good diversifier given that they are helped by rising interest rates and inflation, while tech stocks tend to get hurt by those. They are still subject to US-specific country risks, so are not the best.
  4. Emerging Markets Stocks diversify the US-specific country risk, but there is still better!
  5. Emerging Markets Value Stocks diversify the US-specific country risk, and are also typically helped by rising interest rates and inflation, while tech stocks tend to get hurt by those.
  6. Bitcoin is a currency, with no expected positive returns. But, it is far worse than cash, because it is extremely volatile. In addition, people were drawn to it in recent years given the high past returns, similar to tech-stocks. As seen recently, they can experience declines together with tech stocks. This is opposite of what some speculated, thinking that it may be a good inflation hedge.
Disclosures Including Backtested Performance Data

Currency Risks for the Long Run?

by

You may know that diversifying your investments outside the US can significantly reduce your risks, while increasing the potential returns. This is true because the different stock markets don’t go up and down at the exact same time, allowing a globally diversified portfolio to have shorter and shallower declines than a portfolio that is concentrated in the US stock market.

Global diversification into thousands of stocks in many countries and continents limits to an acceptable level the various risks, including: country risk, political risk, regulation risk and liquidity risk.

There is one risk that should be addressed separately: currency risk. This article will offer a separate discussion for short-term and long-term currency risks.

What is the short-term currency risk of international investments?

It is the risk of a significant strengthening of the local currency (US Dollar for Americans) compared to other currencies, whether temporary or long-term.

Can this happen?

Currencies tend to be less volatile than stocks, and are not correlated with the price of stocks. As a result, they are not expected to increase the risks of a globally diversified portfolio.

In addition, by holding a portfolio that is denominated in different currencies, short-term fluctuations are diversified. Note that whenever people use more of one currency compared to another one, this currency increases in value while the other declines. By holding a globally diversified portfolio, when some of the currencies you hold go down, others should go up.

All historic measures of returns include the currency impact. Historically, the international diversification of stocks proved to be very valuable, even when considering the currency impact.

What is the long-term currency risk of international investments?

It is the risk of a significant and irreversible strengthening of the local currency (US Dollar for Americans) compared to most other currencies.

Can this happen?

Let’s try to imagine such a situation. As the dollar strengthens, goods become more expensive in the US relative to other countries. At that point, Americans and others would start buying goods in other countries. The influx of dollars into other countries would make them more widely available, weakening the dollar and breaking the long-term strengthening-streak of the dollar. Academically, this is called “Purchasing Power Parity”.

As mentioned in the section about the short-term currency risk, historic evidence shows the contained long-term risk of currencies when combined with stock investments.

To Summarize

All of the risks that are specific to any individual country, including currency risk, are reduced to acceptable levels within the context of a globally diversified portfolio. Diversifying a portfolio globally reduces the risks specific to the home country (e.g. US), without introducing other bigger risks. This is both logical and has withstood the test of time.

Disclosures Including Backtested Performance Data