Is it better to bribe Trump by purchasing his memecoin or his stock?

Noah Smith writes a provocative article about memecoins as a novel mechanism for bribery payments. A foreign dignitary looking to gain influence over Donald Trump would like to pay him a giant bribe, but doing so directly is prohibited by all sort of laws. Luckily, Trump has just issued his own memecoin, TRUMP, of which Trump owns 80% of all coins. So why not just buy the TRUMP token, thereby pushing its price up and gifting Trump with even more wealth, in return gaining a degree of influence over policy?

The best part is that no money actually changes hands, so it's probably less risky from a legal perspective. The dignitary can just plead "I thought it would go up!", says Noah.

Now, I'm not so sure that crypto is ushering in anything unique here. Consider that Donald Trump also owns shares of Trump Media & Technology Group Corp (DJT), which are NASDAQ-listed "tradfi" shares that predate crypto. Why not just buy DJT shares, pump their price higher, and collect favors from Trump? No crypto involved. 

In fact, a year before Noah wrote his article about memecoin bribery, Robert Maguire of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), worried about precisely such a scenario. Any entity wanting to "cozy up" to Trump need only buy a bunch of DJT shares on the NASDAQ, enough that they "get Trump’s attention, but low enough that it doesn’t break the five-percent threshold that triggers SEC disclosure."

Consider that Donald Trump and family members hold a 59% ownership stake in DJT equity, which isn't too different from the 80% of TRUMP that they own. Both assets have market caps of around $7 billion. So pushing up the price of DJT will certainly enrich Trump just as much as trying to nudge TRUMP higher. So here's my question: What's the best way to bribe the current President of the United States of America, by pumping the TRUMP memecoin or pumping old-school DJT shares?

Before answering it, I want to pause for a moment to reflect. The fact that I am even writing a blog post on the topic of bribing an American president shows how far along a certain dystopian financial timeline we have gone. Back to the timeline.

I see two reasons why the memecoin probably presents a better pseudo-bribery option than the tradfi stock. 

The first reason is that it's safer to pull off. DJT is listed on just one exchange; the NASDAQ. And the NASDAQ exists in the U.S., which has the most robustly-regulated and well-trusted securities markets in the world. One duty the government requires of NASDAQ is that it surveil transactions in real-time for abusive trading behaviour, so any sketchy DJT purchases could end up being reported by NASDAQ to the authorities. Furthermore, to get access to NASDAQ-listed shares, a brokerage account is required, and that'll require the would-be briber to pass through the brokerage's identity checks.  

On top of that, systems like the Consolidated Audit Trail, a government-mandated system tracking U.S. equity and options trades, gives regulators themselves a means to monitor market activity and investigate potential misconduct.

So a foreign dignitary is taking a bit of a risk if he or she goes the DJT route.

By contrast, the TRUMP memecoin is hosted on a blockchain, basically a borderless and open decentralized database, not a carefully-guarded database confined to the U.S. The result is that TRUMP can be listed anywhere, including on shady offshore crypto exchanges like ByBit or KuCoin, which surely aren't checking customers for pumps. To boot, these offshore exchanges perform only cursory identity checks, if any.

To further protect him or herself, a would-be briber can initiate the pump by sending funds from an offshore exchange, say KuCoin, to a decentralized exchange, or DEX, and only then push the price of TRUMP higher. DEXes are even more hands-off than offshore exchanges; they don't perform any surveillance or identity checks.

The riposte to this is that all blockchain transactions are public and observable, so a bribe conducted on a DEX could be traced. Ok, sure. But while blockchain transactions are visible, they aren’t directly tied to real-world identities. Blockchains are pseudonymous. It's a bit like going to a masked ball. Everyone can see who the dancers are, but as long as everyone has their mask on a degree of anonymity is preserved.     

So to safely get away with bribing Trump, it sure seems that his memecoin is the better option than NASDAQ-listed DJT.

Now for the second reason why the memecoin is better for bribery: it packs more punch per dollar.

A memecoin lacks what equity researchers refer to as fundamental value. Its price is solely a function of Sam's expectations of what future buyers like Jill will pay for it, with Jill's expectations conditioned on what she thinks Sam will pay. They are pure bundles of speculative energy. As I've referred to them in other posts, memecoins are decentralized ponzi games, zero-sum lotteries, or Keynesian beauty contests.

By contrast, DJT is a stock, and stocks provide their owners with a claim on the underlying firm's 1) profits and 2) its assets in case it is eventually wound-up. There is a "something" that buyers and sellers can coordinate on, so that unlike a memecoin, a stock is more than a pure nested expectation games. That's not to say that stocks don't have a big "meme" component (think Gamestop), but the degree to which this guessing game is played with stocks is unlikely to ever reach that of memecoins.

The existence of fundamentals makes pumps less effective. As a pump begins to drive the price of DJT higher, the underlying fundamentals will start to give certain existing investors a reason to sell (i.e. "it's now too expensive relative to earnings"), and that selling will dull the pump. Since there are no fundamentals for TRUMP memecoin buyers to latch on to – any price is as good as another – a memecoin pump never gets throttled by fundamental sellers.

To sum up, someone who has $10 million to bribe Donald Trump will want to demonstrate to the President that their purchases drove the price of the target asset higher: it'll be far easier to demonstrate this by pumping the frictionless memecoin than the burdened-by-fundamentals stock.

Now, if you've gotten this far and think this post is actually about how to bribe Trump, it's not. It's about the often fascinating differences (or not) between crypto and traditional finance. In my view, they aren't really so different. Crypto fans may think there's a financial revolution going on, but there's nothing new under the sun.

You might wonder: is the frictionlessness of a memecoin, its lack of fundamentals, and the ensuing incredible ease by which it can be bribe-pumped a new feature that crypto has brought to the table? Not really. There's no technical hurdle preventing the NASDAQ from listing a non-blockchain version of the TRUMP memecoin on its own old-fashioned Oracle database. People could buy and sell this NASDAQ-listed meme-thingy instead of that blockchain version of TRUMP. But securities law gets in the way. Listing an unadulterated ponzi game on a national stock market has never been legal, at least not in my lifetime. Why putting one up on a blockchain is legal is beyond me, but look over there, the President just did it.

At the speed the train is leaving sanity station and heading to financial silly land, I suspect listing pure ponzis on the NASDAQ will soon be an accepted thing. Memeassets everywhere! Bribes for everyone!

After twelve years of writing about bitcoin, here's how my thinking has changed

What follows is an essay on how my thinking on bitcoin has changed since I began to write on the topic starting with my first post in October 2012. Since then I've written 109 posts on the Moneyness Blog that reference bitcoin, along with a few dozen articles at venues like CoinDesk, Breakermag, and elsewhere.

An early bitcoin optimist

I was excited by Bitcoin in the early days of my blog. The idea of a decentralized electronic payment system fascinated me. Here's an excerpt from my second post on the topic, Bitcoin (for monetary economists) - why bitcoin is great and why it's doomed, dated November 2012:

"Bitcoin is a revolutionary record-keeping system. It is incredibly fast, efficient, cheap, and safe. I can send my Bitcoin from Canada to someone in Africa, have the transaction verified and cleared in 10 minutes, and only pay a fee of a few cents. Doing the same through the SWIFT system would take days and require a $35 fee. If I were a banker, I'd be afraid." [link]

I was relatively open to Bitcoin for two reasons. First, I like to think in terms of moneyness, which means that everything is to some degree money-like, and so I welcome strange and alternative monies. "If you think of money as an adjective, then moneyness becomes the lens by which you view the problem. From this perspective, one might say that Bitcoin always was a money," I wrote in my very first post on bitcoin. Second, prior to 2012 I had read a fair amount of free banking literature—the study of private money—so I was already primed to be receptive to a stateless payments system, which is what Bitcoin's founder, Satoshi Nakamoto, originally meant his (or her) creation to be. 

A lot of bitcoin-curious, bitcoin-critics and bitcoin-converts were attracted to the comments section of my blog, and we had some great conversations over the years. My bitcoin posts invariably attracted more traffic than my non-bitcoin ones, all of us scrambling to understand what seemed to be a newly emerging monetary organism.

My early thoughts on the topic were informed by having bought a few bitcoins in 2012 for the sake of experimentation, some of my earlier blog posts describing how I had played around with them. In 2013 I wrote about the first crop of bitcoin-denominated securities market (which I dabbled in)—predecessors to the ICO market of 2017. I also used my bitcoins to buy altcoins, including Litecoin, and in late 2013 wrote about my disastrous experience with Litecoin-denominated stock market speculation. In Long Chains of Monetary Barter I described using bitcoin as an exotic bridging currency for selling XRP, a new cryptocurrency that had just been airdropped into the world. I didn't notice it at the time, but in hindsight most of these were instances of bitcoin facilitating illegal activity, i.e. unregistered securities sales, which was an early use case for bitcoin.

Although Bitcoin excited me, I was also critical from the outset, and in later years my critical side would only grow, earning me a reputation among crypto fans as being a salty no-coiner. In a 2013 blog post I grumbled that playing around with my stash of bitcoins hadn't been "as exciting as I had anticipated." Unlike regular money, there just wasn't much to do with the stuff, my coins sitting there in my wallet "gathering electronic dust."

 "...the best speculative vehicles to hit the market since 1999 Internet stocks."

What my experimentation with bitcoin had taught me was that the main reason to hold "isn't because they make great exchange media—it's because they're the best speculative vehicles to hit the market since 1999 Internet stocks." But that wasn't what I was there for. What had tantalized me was Satoshi's vision of electronic cash, a revolutionary digital payments system. Not boring old speculation.

In addition to my practical complaints about bitcoin, I also had theoretical gripes with it. The "lethal" problem as I saw it back in my second post in 2012 is that "bitcoin has no intrinsic value." Over the next decade this lack of intrinsic value, or fundamental value, would underly most of my criticisms of the orange coin. Back in 2012, though, the main implication of bitcoin's lack of intrinsic value was the ease by which it might fall back to $0. As I put it in a 2013 article:

"Bitcoin is 100% moneyness. Whenever a liquidity crisis hits, the only way for the bitcoin market to accommodate everyone's demand to sell is for the price of bitcoin to hit zero—all out implosion" [link]

But if the price of bitcoin were to fall to zero then it would cease to operate as a monetary system, which would be a huge disappointment to those of us who were fascinated with Satoshi's electronic cash experiment. Adding to the danger was the influx of bitcoin lookalikes, or altcoins, like litecoin, namecoin, and sexcoin. In theory, the prices of bitcoin and its competitors could "quickly collapse in price" as arbitrageurs create new coins ad infinitum, I worried in 2012, eating away at bitcoin's premium. The alternative view, which I explored in a 2013 post entitled Milton Friedman and the mania in copy-paste cryptocoins,  was that "the earliest mover has superior features compared to late moving clones," including name brand and liquidity, and so its dominance was locked-in via network effects. Over time the latter view proved to be the correct one.

The "zero problem"

Despite my worries, I was optimistic about bitcoin, even helpful. One way to stop bitcoin from falling to zero might be a "plunge protection team," I offered in 2013, a group of avid bitcoin collectors that could anchor bitcoin's price and provide a degree of automatic stabilization. In a 2015 post entitled The zero problem, I suggested that bitcoin believers like Marc Andreessen should consider donating $21 million to a bitcoin stabilization fund, thus securing a price floor of $1 in perpetuity. 

No fan of credit cards, in a 2016 post Bitcoin, drowning in a sea of credit card rewards, I suggested that bitcoin activists encourage retailers that accept bitcoin payments to offer price discounts. This carrot would put bitcoin on an even playing field with credit card networks, which use incentives like reward points and cashback to block out competing payment systems.

My growing disillusionment

By 2014 or 2015, I no longer saw much hope for bitcoin as a mainstream payments system or generally-accepted medium-of-exchange. "For any medium of exchange to displace another as a means for buying stuff, users need come out ahead. And this isn't happening with bitcoin," I wrote in a 2015 post entitled Why bitcoin has failed to achieve liftoff as a medium of exchange, pointing to the many costs of making bitcoin payments, including commissions, setup costs, and the inconveniences of volatility.

In another 2015 post I focused specifically on the volatility problem, which stems from bitcoin's lack of intrinsic value. If an item has an unstable price, that militates against it becoming a widely used money. After all, the whole reason that people stockpile buffers of liquid instruments, or money, is that these buffers serve as a form of insurance against uncertainty. If an item's price isn't stable—which bitcoin isn't—it can't perform that role. 

Mind you, I did allow in another 2015 post, The dollarization of bitcoin, that bitcoin might continue as "an arcane niche payments system for a community of like minded consumers and retailers." I even tracked some of these arcane payments use cases, such a 2020 blog post on retailers of salvia divinorium (a legal drug in many U.S. states) falling back on bitcoin for payments after the credit card networks kicked them off, followed by a 2021 post on kratom sellers (a mostly-legal substance) doing the same. But let's face it, a niche payments system just wasn't as impressive as Satoshi's much broader vision of electronic cash that had beguiled me in 2012, when I had warned that "if I was a banker, I'd be afraid." 

The dollarization of bitcoin

By 2015 a lot of my pro-bitcoin blog commenters began to see me as a traitor. But I was just changing my thinking with the arrival of new data.

Searching for Bitcoin-inspired alternatives: Fedcoin and stablecoins

Bitcoin's deficiencies got me thinking very early on about how to create bitcoin-inspired alternatives. By late 2012 I was already thinking about stablecoins:

"What the bitcoin record-keeping mechanism needs is an already-valuable underlying asset to which it can be tethered. Rather than tracking, verifying, and recording the movement of intrinsically worthless 1s and 0s, it will track the movement of something valuable." [link]

Later, in 2013, I speculated about the emergence of "stable-value crypto-currency, not the sort that dangles and has a null value." These alternatives would "copy the best aspects" of bitcoin, like its speed and safety, but would be linked to "some intrinsically valuable item." A few months later I predicted that "Cryptocoin 2.0, or stable-value cryptocoins, is probably not too far away." This would eventually happen, but not for another few years.

My dissatisfaction with bitcoin led me to the idea of decentralized exchanges, or DEXs, in 2013, whereby equity markets would "adopt a bitcoin-style distributed ledger." That same year I imagined central banks adapting "bitcoin technology" to run its wholesale payments system in my post Why the Fed is more likely to adopt bitcoin technology than kill it off. In 2014 I developed this thought into the idea of Fedcoin, an early central bank digital currency, or CBDC, for retail users.

If not money, then what is bitcoin?

By 2017 or so, even the most ardent bitcoin advocates were being forced to acknowledge that Satoshi's electronic cash system was not panning out: the orange coin was nowhere near to becoming a popular medium-of-exchange. This was especially apparent thanks to a growing body of payments surveys (which I began to report on in 2020) showing that bitcoin users almost never used their bitcoins to make payments or transfers, preferring instead to hoard them. So the true believers pivoted and began to describe bitcoin as a store-of-value, or digital gold. It was a new narrative that glossed over Satoshi's dream of electronic cash while trying to salvage some monetary-ish parts of the story.

I thought this whole salvage operation was disingenuous. In 2017 I wrote about my dissatisfaction with the new store-of-value narrative, and followed that up with a criticism of the digital gold concept in Bitcoin Isn’t Digital Gold; It’s Digital Uselesstainium. (The idea that store-of-value is a unique property of money is silly, I wrote in 2020, and we should just chuck the concept altogether.)

But if bitcoin was never going to become a generally-accepted form of money, and it wasn't a store-of-value or digital gold, then what exactly was it? 

I didn't nail this down till a 2018 post entitled A Case for Bitcoin. We all thought at the outset that bitcoin was a monetary thingamajig. But we were wrong. Of the types of assets already in existence, bitcoin was not akin to gold, cash, or bank deposits. Rather, it was most similar to an age-old category of financial games and zero-sum bets that includes poker, lotteries, and roulette. The particular sub-branch of the financial game family that bitcoin belonged to was early-bird games, which contains pyramids, ponzis, and chain letters. Here is a taxonomy:

A taxonomy showing bitcoin as a member of the early-bird game family

Early-bird games like pyramids, ponzis, and chain letters are a type of zero-sum game in which early players win at the expense of latecomers, the bet being sustained over time by a constant stream of new entrants and ending when no additional players join. Pyramids and ponzis are almost always administered by thieves who abscond with the pot. Bitcoin, by contrast, was not a scheme nor a scam. And it was not run by a scammer. It was leaderless and spontaneous, an "honest" early-bird game that hewed to pre-set rules. Here is how I described it in a later post, Bitcoin as a Novel Financial Game:

"Bitcoin introduces some neat features to the financial-game space. Firstly, everyone in the world can play it (i.e., it is censorship-resistant). Secondly, the task of managing the game has been decentralized. Lastly, Bitcoin’s rules are automated by code and fully auditable." [link] 

This ponziness of bitcoin was actually a source of its strength, I suggested in 2023, because "it's tough to shut down a million imaginations." By contrast, if bitcoin had an underlying real anchor, like gold, then that would give authorities a toe hold for decommissioning it.

Bitcoin-as-game gave me more insight into why most bitcoin owners weren't using bitcoin as a medium-of-exchange. Its value as a zero-sum bet was overriding any functionality it had for making payments. In a 2018 post entitled Can Lottery Tickets Become Money?, I worked this out more clearly:

"Like Jane's lottery ticket, a bitcoin owner's bitcoins aren't just bitcoins, they are a dream, a lambo, a ticket out of drudgery. Spending them at a retailer at mere market value would be a waste given their 'destiny' is to hit the moon." [link]

If bitcoins weren't like bank deposits or cash, how should we treat them from a personal finance perspective? Feel free to play bitcoin, I wrote in late 2018, but do so in moderation, just like you would if you went to Vegas. "Remember, it's just a game."

Bitcoin is innocuous, don't ban it

By 2020 or 2021, the commentary surrounding bitcoin seemed to be getting more polarized. As always there was a set of hardcore bitcoin zealots who thought bitcoin's destiny was to change the world, of which I had been a member for a brief time in 2012. But arrayed against them was a new group of strident opponents who though bitcoin was incredibly dangerous and were pushing to ban it.

A vandalized 'Bitcoin accepted' sign in my neighborhood

I was at odds with both sides. Each saw Bitcoin as transformative, one side for the good, the other for the bad. But I conceived of it as an innocuous gambling device, one that only seemed novel because it had been transplanted into a new kind of database technology, blockchains. We shouldn't ban bitcoin for the same reason that we've generally become more comfortable over the decades removing prohibitions on online gambling and sports betting. Better to bring these activities into the open and regulate them than leave them to exist in the shadows.

Thus began a series of relax-don't-ban-bitcoin posts. In 2022, I wrote that central bankers shouldn't be afraid that bitcoin might render them powerless. For the same reason that casinos and lotteries will ever be a credible threat to dollar's issued by the Fed or the Bank of Canada, neither will bitcoin.

Illicit usage of bitcoin was becoming an increasingly controversial subject. Just like casinos are used by money launderers, bitcoin had long become a popular tool for criminals, the most notorious of which were ransomware operators. My view was that we could use existing tools to deal with these bad actors. Instead of banning bitcoin to end the ransomware plague, for instance, I suggested in a 2021 article that we might embargo the payment of ransoms instead, thus choking off fuel to the ransomware fire. Alternatively, I argued in a later post that the U.S. could fight ransomware using an existing tool: Section 311 of the Patriot Act. Which is what eventually happened with Bitzlato and PM2BTC, two Russian exchanges popular with ransomware operators that were put on the Section 311 list.    

Nor should national security experts be afraid of enemy actors using bitcoin to evade sanctions, I wrote in 2019, since existing tools, in particular secondary sanctions, are capable of dealing with the threat. The failure of bitcoin to serve as an effective tool for funding the illegal Ottawa protests, which I documented in a March 2022 article, only underlined its low threat potential:

"Governments, whether they be democracies or dictatorships, are often fearful of crypto's censorship-resistance, leading to calls for bans. The lesson from the Ottawa trucker convoy and Russian ransomware gangs is that as long as the on-ramping and off-ramping process are regulated, these fears are overblown." [link]

Other calls to ban bitcoin were inspired by its voracious energy usage. In a 2021 blog post entitled The overconsumption theory of bitcoin, I attributed bitcoin's terrible energy footprint to market failure: end users of bitcoin don't directly pay for the huge amounts of electricity required to power their bets, so they overuse it. No need to ban bitcoin, though. The way to fix this particular market failure is to introduce a Pigouvian tax on buying and/or holding bitcoins, which I described more clearly in a 2021 blog post entitled A tax on proof of work and a 2022 article called Make bitcoin cheap again for cypherpunks! 

Lastly, whereas bitcoin's harshest critics have been advocating a "let it burn" policy approach to bitcoin and crypto more generally, which involved leaving gateways unregulated and thus toxic, I began to recommend regulating crypto exchanges under the same standards as equities exchanges in a 2021 article entitled Gary Gensler, You Should be Watching How Canada is Regulating Coinbase. Yes, regulation legitimizes a culture of gambling. But even Las Vegas has stringent regulations. A set of basic protections would reduce the odds of the betting public being hurt by fraudulent exchanges. FTX was a good test case. After the exchange collapsed, almost all FTX customers were stuck in limbo for years, but FTX Japan customers walked out unscathed thanks to Japan's regulatory framework, which I wrote about in a 2022 post Six reasons why FTX Japan survived while the rest of FTX burned.  

So when does bitcoin get dangerous?

What I've learnt after many years of writing about bitcoin is that it's a relatively innocuous phenomena, even pedestrian. When it does lead to bad outcomes, I've outlined how those can be handled with our existing tools. But here's what does have me worried. 

If you want to buy some bitcoins, go right ahead. We can even help by regulating the trading venues to make it safe. But don't force others to play.

Whoops, You Just Got Bitcoin’d! by Daniel Krawisz

Alas, that seems to be where we are headed. There is a growing effort to arm-twist the rest of society into joining in by having governments acquire bitcoins, in the U.S.'s case a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve. The U.S. government has never entered the World Series of Poker. Nor has it gone to Vegas to bet billions to tax payer funds on roulette or built a strategic Powerball ticket reserve, but it appears to be genuinely entertaining the idea of rolling the dice on Bitcoin.  

Bitcoin is an incredibly infectious early-bird game, one that after sixteen years continues to find a constant stream of new recruits. How contagious? I originally estimated in a 2022 post, Three potential paths for the price of bitcoin, that adoption wouldn't rise above 10%-15% of the global population, but I may have been underestimating its transmissibility. My worry is that calls for government support will only accelerate as more voters, government officials, and bureaucrats catch the orange coin mind virus and act on it. It begins with a small strategic reserve of a few billion dollars. It ends with the Department of Bitcoin Price Appreciation being allocated 50% of yearly tax revenues to make the number go up, to the detriment of infrastructure like roads, hospitals, and law enforcement. At that point we've entered a dystopia in which society rapidly deteriorates because we've all become obsessed on a bet.

Although I never wanted to ban Bitcoin, I can't help but wonder whether a prohibition wouldn't have been the better policy back in 2013 or 2014 given the new bitcoin-by-force path that advocates are pushing it towards. But it's probably too late for that; the coin is already out of the bag. All I can hope is that my long history of writing on the topic might persuade a few readers that forcing others to play the game you love is not fair game.

Is bitcoin getting less volatile?

I'm going to make the following claim. The price of bitcoin is inherently volatile. Even if bitcoin gets bigger, its core level of volatility is never going to fall.

Bitcoin's hyperactive price movements prevent it from becoming a popular medium of exchange. Merchants are too afraid to accept bitcoins. If they do, they could experience large losses. Consumers who hold bitcoins are loath to spend them. Many of these hodlers are trying to change their financial lives by getting exposure to the very same roller-coaster ride that merchants are trying to avoid. If they use their bitcoin to buy stuff, they risk losing out on the opportunity for life-changing returns.

Why is bitcoin's high volatility intrinsic to its nature? Bitcoin is a rare example of a pure Keynesian beauty contest. Players in a beauty contest gamble on what John Maynard Keynes described as what "average opinion expects the average opinion to be." No matter how big the game gets, the best collective guess—bitcoin's current market price—will always by hyper-volatile.

By contrast, other assets like stocks, gold, commodities, and banknotes have a fundamental value that helps to anchor price. This ensures that their prices can't travel very far as time passes.

But the standard deviation is falling!

In response to the claim I've just made, people have given me a version of the following: as bitcoin gets bigger and more popular, its volatility will inevitably fall. This eventual stabilization is one of the assumptions at the core of Vijay Boyapati's bubble theory of bitcoin. Bitcoin guru Andreas Antonopolous has also adopted this viewpoint, noting that "volatility really is an expression of size."

Manuel Polavieja provides evidence for this view by tweeting a chart of the 365-day standard deviation of bitcoin daily price changes.

That is not what the evidence is showing

365-day bitcoin volatility: pic.twitter.com/Sh21Qy8s1C

— Manuel Polavieja (@ManuelPolavieja) June 9, 2019

The general slope of the curve in the chart seems to be declining, the inevitable conclusion being that bitcoin's price isn't intrinsically frenetic. As bitcoin has become more popular, its volatility has been retreating.

Sure, but bitcoin's median absolute deviation isn't falling

Manuel has chosen to illustrate bitcoin's price dispersion with its standard deviation. But the standard deviation of an asset's daily price change isn't the only way to get a feel for its volatility. There are other measures of dispersion  that can flesh out the picture, particularly for distributions that are characterized by extremely large outliers.

One problem with standard deviation is that it amplifies the influence of extreme price changes. The calculation for standard deviation squares each day's difference from the mean day's return. By their nature, outliers will boast the largest differences. Squaring them has the effect of causing the extremes to have a disproportionate influence on the final score. The calculation further promotes outliers by taking the average of the squared deviations from the mean. But in distributions such as bitcoin daily returns, the average return will always be skewed by a few crazy daily fluctuations.

Median absolute deviation is one way to reduce the influence of outliers. It calculates the differences from the median daily return, not the mean. And rather than squaring the differences, and thus amplifying them, the calculation simply takes their absolute value (i.e. it gets rid of all negative amounts). It then locates the median of these absolute differences. The advantage of using the median difference is that—unlike standard deviation, which locates the average difference—the median can't be influenced by insane values.

Below I've recreated Manuel's chart of bitcoin's 365-day standard deviation of daily returns and overlaid it with bitcoin's 365-day median absolute deviation of daily returns. The contrast is quite striking.

Standard deviation of bitcoin returns, the blue line, has been falling since 2011. But median absolute deviation of bitcoin returns, the green line, has stayed constant. What I believe is happening here is that the craziness of bitcoin's outlier days have been steadily falling over time, and thus the standard deviation has been declining. But a typical day in the life of bitcoin—i.e. the usual price volatility experienced by bitcoin holders, its non-outliers—hasn't changed since bitcoin's inception. A regular day, as captured by the median absolute deviation, is about as frenetic today as it was back in when bitcoin was a fraction the size.

What is happening at the ends of the distribution?

We can get an even better feel for the dispersion of bitcoin's returns by splitting them into quartiles and percentiles.

Let's look at the blue line first, the 25th percentile (or first quartile). This measure gives us a feel for what a lethargic day is like in bitcoin-land. Out of a sample of 365 days of bitcoin returns, 25% of them will fall below the blue line. If bitcoin is indeed getting more stable, we'd expect the 25% most lethargic bitcoin days to be getting even more lethargic. But this isn't the case. Rather than falling, the blue trend line is flat (and even slopes up ever so slightly). It seems that lethargic days are getting a bit less lethargic as time passes.

The median (already discussed above) shows a similar pattern. The middle-most day's return shows no sign of slackening, despite bitcoin's incredible growth over the last decade.  

Let's look at the top two lines. 25% of all bitcoin daily price changes are in excess of the red line, the 75th-percentile. Unlike the median, this line has been steadily falling. This means that the 25% most frenetic bitcoin days have been getting a little less frenetic. The purple line, the 90th percentile, shows an even steeper decline. The 10% craziest bitcoin days are quickly becoming less crazy.  

The interpretation of this chart seem pretty clear. The typical bitcoin trading day is not getting more subdued. It's the outliers, those outside of the 90th percentile, that have mellowed. The softening of bitcoin's extreme price fluctuations, the purple line, explains why bitcoin's standard deviation has been trending downwards. But if we only focus on standard deviation, we'll fail to see that the typical day—i.e. the median day—is just as hyperactive as before.

What about Netflix?

It's always nice to get some context by looking at how a similar data series behaves. I've chosen Netflix. Like bitcoin, Netflix has gone from nothing to billions of dollars in market capitalization and millions of users in the space of a few short years.

As Netflix has grown, its median absolute deviation and its standard deviation have softened. So both Netflix's outliers and its regular days have been tempered over time. Compare this to bitcoin, where the typical day continues to be just as frenetic as before.

I believe that the contrast between the two assets can be explained by the fact that at its core, bitcoin is a Keynesian beauty contest. Netflix isn't. As Netflix has grown and its earnings have become more certain, Netflix's typical day-to-day price fluctuations (as captured by its median absolute deviation) have softened. But the failure of a prototypical bitcoin day to stabilize, even as the asset grows, can be explained by bitcoin's basic lack of fundamentals. Its price is permanently anchorless.  

Intrinsic vs extrinsic price fluctuations

So why has bitcoin's typical volatility stayed constant while its extremes have become more tame? If bitcoin is a Keynesian beauty contest, shouldn't both its typical volatility and extreme volatility have stayed high and constant?

Let's assume that there are two types of bitcoin price fluctuations. Intrinsic price changes are due to the nature of bitcoin itself. Extrinsic changes occur because of malfunctions in the unregulated third-parties (wallets, exchanges, investment products) that have been built around bitcoin. Mature assets like stocks and bonds that trade on well-developed and regulated market infrastructure tend not to suffer from extrinsic volatility.

Over the years, third-party catastrophes have accounted for some of the largest shocks to the bitcoin price. When Mt. Gox failed in 2014 it caused massive fluctuations in the price of bitcoin. But this was extrinsic to bitcoin, not intrinsic. It had nothing to do with bitcoin itself, but a security breach at Mt. Gox.

If you've been around as long as I have, you'll remember Pirate's Bitcoin Savings & Trust—a ponzi scheme that caught up many in the bitcoin community. When BST collapsed in 2012, it dragged the price of bitcoin down with it. Again, this was an extrinsic price fluctuation, not an intrinsic one.

The infrastructure surrounding bitcoin has grown up since those early days. Mt. Gox blow-ups and BST scams just aren't as prevalent as they used to be. There are enough robust exchanges now that the collapse of any single one won't do significant damage to bitcoin's price. And so bitcoin's price outliers have gotten less extreme. The declining influence of third-party infrastructure on bitcoin's price is reflected in bitcoin's falling standard deviation. As the infrastructure surrounding bitcoin reaches the same calibre as the infrastructure that serves more traditional assets, bitcoin's extrinsic price fluctuations will cease to occur. At that point the steady decline in bitcoin's standard deviation will have petered out.

Median absolute volatility screens out the effects of the Mt. Goxes and BSTs. And so it is the best measure for capturing bitcoin's intrinsic volatility. Think of this as the base level of volatility that emerges as people try to guess what average opinion expects average opinion to be. And as I pointed out earlier, this sort of volatility has stayed constant over many years. A Keynesian beauty contest is manic by nature, it isn't going to mellow out with time.

-------------

In sum, on a typical day bitcoin is about as volatile in 2019 (at a market cap of +$100 billion) as it was in 2013 (when its market cap was at $1 billion back in 2013). Which would seem to indicate that if and when it becomes "huge" (i.e. $10 trillion), it will continue to be just as volatile as it is now.

New recruits are being introduced to bitcoin on the premise that they are buying into tomorrow's global money at a bargain price. But shouldn't they be warned that they are playing a new sort of financial contest? Sure, bitcoin can be used for payments. But the underlying beauty contest nature of bitcoin will always interfere with its payments functionality. Which means that usage of bitcoin for paying is likely to be confined to a small niche of enthusiasts who are willing  to put up with these nuisances, and the de-banked, who have no choice. Bitcoin is risky, play responsible.

Sign Wars

Does a lowering of a central bank's interest rates create inflation or deflation? Dubbed the 'Sign Wars' by Nick Rowe, this has been a recurring debate in the economics blogosphere since at least as far back as 2010.

The conventional view of interest rate policy is that if a central bank keeps its interest rate too low, the inflation rate will steadily spiral higher. Imagine a cylinder resting on a flat plane. Tilt the plane in one direction —a motif to explain a change in interest rates—and the cylinder, or the price level, will perpetually roll in the opposite direction, at least until the plane's tilt (i.e. the interest rate) has been shifted enough in a compensatory way to halt the cylinder's roll. Without a counter-balancing shift, we get hyperinflation in one direction, or hyperdeflation in the other.

The heretical view, dubbed the Neo-Fisherian view by Noah Smith (and having nothing to do with Irving Fisher), is that in response to a tilt in the plane, the cylinder rolls... but uphill. Specifically, if the interest rate is set too low, the inflation rate will jump either instantaneously or more slowly. But after that, a steady deflation will set in, even without the help of a counter-balancing shift in the interest rate. We get neither hyperinflation nor hyperdeflation. (John Cochrane provides a great introduction to this viewpoint).

Many pixels have already been displayed on this subject, about the only value I can add is to translate a jargon-heavy academic debate into a more finance-friendly way of thinking. Let's approach the problem as an exercise in security analysis.

First, we'll have to take a detour through the bond market, then we'll return to money. Consider what happens if IBM announces that its 10-year bond will forever cease to pay interest, or a coupon. The price of the bond will quickly plunge. But not forever, nor to zero. At some much lower price, value investors will bid for the bond because they expect its price to appreciate at a rate that is competitive with other assets in the economy. These expectations will be motivated by the fact that despite the lack of coupon payments, the bond still has some residual value; specifically, IBM promises a return of principal on the bond's tenth year.

Now there's nothing controversial in what I just said, but note that we've arrived at the 'heretical' result here. A sudden setting of the interest rate at zero results in a rapid dose of inflation (a fall in the bond's purchasing power) as investors bid down the bond's price, followed by deflation (a steady expected rise in its value over the next ten years until payout) as its residual value kicks in. The bond's price does not "roll" forever down the tilted plane.

Now let's imagine an IBM-issued perpetual bond. A perpetual bond has no maturity date which means that the investor never gets their principle back. Perpetuals are not make-believe financial instruments. The most famous example of perpetual debt is the British consol. A number of these bonds float around to this day after having been issued to help pay for WWI. When our IBM perpetual bond ceases to pay interest its price will quickly plunge, just like a normal bond. But it's price won't fall to zero. At some very low level, value investors will line up to buy the bond because its price is expected to rise at a competitive rate. What drives this expectation? Though the bond promises neither a return of principal nor interest payments, it still offers a fixed residual claim on a firm's assets come bankruptcy, windup, or a takeover. This gives value investors a focal point on which they can price the instrument.

So with a non-interest paying perpetual bond, we still get the heretical result. In response to a plunge in rates, we eventually get long term deflation, or a rise in the perpetual's price, but only after an initial steep fall.  As before, the bond's price does not fall forever.

Now let's bring this back to money. Think of a central bank liability as a highly-liquid perpetual bond (a point I've made before). If a central banker decides to set the interest rate on central bank liabilities at zero forever, then the purchasing power of those liabilities will rapidly decline, much like how the cylinder rolls down the plane in the standard view. However, once investors see a profit opportunity in holding those liabilities due to some remaining residual value, that downward movement will be halted... and then it will start to roll uphill. Once again we get the heretical result.

The residual claim that tempts fundamental investors to step in and anchor the price of a 0% yielding central bank liability could be some perceived fixed claim on a central bank's assets upon the bank's future dissolution, the same feature that anchored our IBM perpetual. Or it could be a promise on the part of the government to buy those liabilities back in the future with some real quantity of resources.

However, if central bank liabilities don't offer any residual value whatsoever, then we get the conventional result. The moment that the central bank ceases to pay interest, the purchasing power of a central bank liability declines...forever. Absent some residual claim, no value investor will ever step in and set a floor. In the same way, should an IBM perpetual bond cease to pay interest and it also had all its residual claims on IBM's assets stripped away, value investors would never touch it, no matter how low it fell.

So does central bank money boast a residual claim on the issuer? Or does it lack this residual claim? The option you choose results in a heretical result or a conventional result.

-----------

What does the data tell us, specifically the many cases of hyperinflation? As David Beckworth has pointed out, the conventional explanation has no difficulties explaining the Weimar hyperinflation; the Reichsbank kept the interest rate on marks fixed at very low levels between 1921 and 1923 so that the price level spiraled ever upwards. Heretics seem to have difficulties with Weimar—the deflation they predict never set in.

Here's one way to get a heretical explanation of the Wiemar inflation. Let's return to our analogy with bonds. What would it take for the price of an IBM perpetual bond to collapse over a period of several years, even as its coupon rate remained constant? For that to happen, the quality of the bond's perceived residual value would have to be consistently deteriorating. Say IBM management invested in a series of increasingly dumb ventures, or it faced a string of unbeatable new competitors entering its markets. Each hit to potential residual value would cause fundamental investors to mark down IBM's bond price, even though the bond's coupon remained fixed.

Now assuming that German marks were like IBM perpetual bonds, it could be that from 1921 to 1923, investors consistently downgraded the value of the residual fixed claim that marks had upon the Reichsbank's assets. Alternatively, perhaps the market consistently reduced its appraisal of the government's ability to buy marks back with real resources. Either assumption would have created a consistent decline in the purchasing power of marks while the interest rate paid on marks stayed constant.

Compounding each hit to residual value would have been a decline in the mark's liquidity premium. When the price of a highly-liquid item begins to fluctuate, people ditch that item for competing liquid items with more stable values. With less people dealing in that item, it becomes less liquid, which reduces the liquidity premium it previously enjoyed. This causes the item's purchasing power to fall even more, forcing people to once again turn to alternatives, thus making it less liquid and igniting another round of cuts to its liquidity premium and therefore its price, etcetera etcetera. In Weimar's case, marks would have been increasingly replaced by dollars and notgeld.

So consistent declines in the mark's perceived residual value, twinned with a shrinking in its liquidity premium, might have been capable of creating a Weimar-like inflation, all while the Reichsbank kept its interest rate constant.

-----------

That's not to say that central bank liabilities do have a residual value and that the heretical result is necessarily the right one. Both possibilities make sense, and both can explain hyperinflations. But to determine which is right, we need to go in and do some gritty security analysis to isolate whether central bank money possesses a fixed residual claim on either central bank assets or future government resources. Parsing the fine print in central bank acts and government documents to tease out this data is the task of lawyers, bankers, historians, fixed income analysts, and accountants. And they would have to do a separate analysis for each of the world's 150 or so central banks and currencies, since each central bank has its own unique constituting documents. In the end we might find that some currencies are conventional and others are heretic, so that some central banks should be running conventional monetary policies, and others heretic policies. 

In closing, a few links. I've taken a shot at a security analysis of central bank liabilities in a number of posts (here | here | here), but I don't think that's the final word. And if you're curious how the Weimar inflation ended, go here.

Fama vs Shiller on the 1987 stock market crash

Tomorrow marks the twenty-sixth anniversary of the 1987 stock market crash. On October 19, 1987 the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 22.6%, the largest one-day decline in stock market history. The best explanation for the decline, and the least well-known one, was put forth by economist Robert Shiller. This post gives a quick rundown of Shiller's work on understanding crash phenomena, in particular the famous 1987 event.

Eugene Fama, who along with Shiller and Lars Hansen shared the Nobel Prize this week, had very different reaction to the event than Shiller. In an essay penned not long after the crash, Fama, a true believer in the efficient market hypothesis, did his best to square the event with theory. The crash, wrote Fama,

has the look of an adjustment to a change in fundamental values. In this view, the market moved with breathtaking quickness to its new equilibrium, and its performance during this period of hyperactive trading is to be applauded. [Perspectives on October 1987, or What Did We Learn From the Crash? 1988]

Fama's effort to justify the crash as a rational response to economic news falls flat. A 22.6% decline requires something cataclysmic, but no significant events preceded the crash. Sure, there was a skirmish in the Persian Gulf with an Iranian oil station, a new tax proposal in the House, and a sell signal from guru Robert Prechter, but none of these events were capable of moving markets more than a few points.

Robert Shiller, on the other hand, gathered data. The day after the crash, he sent out questionnaires to hundreds of investors. Among other questions, Shiller asked: "Which of the following best describes your theory about the decline: a theory about investor psychology, or a theory about fundamentals such as profits or interest rates?" 67.5% of individual investors and 64% of institutional investors said the crash was about market psychology. When Shiller asked what major news stories people in his survey were reacting to during the day of the crash, the most popular stories were those about past price declines themselves, not fundamental news. Noted Shiller:

It would thus be wrong to say, as many have done, that the market drop on October 19, 1987 ought to be interpreted as a statement of public opinion about some fundamental economic factor, e.g., that there is a lack of confidence in the White House or Congress. At best, any such opinions probably played a role in the crash mainly as they affected the vague intuitive assessments people under great stress made about the tendency of prices to continue or reverse, or about how other investors will react to the current situation.

Put differently, the crash was a purely psychological phenomena.  When it comes to explaining the 1987 stock market panic, Fama and Shiller couldn't have been further apart.

 -----
Let me take this post on a personal tangent and then I'll circle back to Shiller. I first got interested in the 1987 crash back in the late 1990s when I was a student. Fearing that equity markets were getting overextended, I started to mine 1980s price data for clues about what might happen. I discovered that the visual overlay of movements in market indexes in the late 90s was eerily similar to that of the 80s. In October 1999 I went short, sure that we were on the verge of repeating the 1987 crash. At first the markets moved a bit lower. But a week or two later prices found their footing. I didn't know it then, but the bull move that followed would be the last spurt higher before tech mania would be pricked in early 2000. Unable to stomach the losses, I covered my shorts and went back to my studies.

Though I lost money in the debacle, I did gain what I thought was an interesting idea. If enough traders like myself drew analogies to a historical crash, our combined trades -- executed on the same day -- might result in the self-realization of that crash, even though nothing had fundamentally changed about the economy. This idea jived with an observation that many market watchers had made about the 1987 crash: it was eerily similar to the 1929 crash. Wrote George Soros:

Technically, the crash of 1987 bears an uncanny resemblance to the crash of 1929. The shape and extent of the decline and even the day-to-day movements of stock prices track very closely. -The Alchemy of Finance

Both crashes were preceded by multi-year bull markets. They each occurred on a Monday near the end of October, the first crash hitting 55 days after its bull market peak, the second 54 days. In addition to similar timing, the breadth of their declines were almost the same. The 1929 crash resulted in a 23% fall over two days, the 1987 in a 22.6% fall. I append a chart below:

Could it be that the 1987 crash occurred because traders were using the same backward-looking strategy I had when I went short in 1999? The process might have worked something like this, I reasoned: the peaks and troughs in 1987 began to randomly align with those in 1929. Backward-looking traders began to notice this alignment. A feedback loop may have emerged in which scattered fears of a recurrence of 1929 resulted in trades that pushed prices down, in turn rendering the analogy between the two periods ever more clear. A final trigger, say an anniversary date, might have been sufficient to complete the loop, resulting in a realization of the 1929 crash in 1987.

Reading through accounts of the 1987 crash, I found ample evidence of traders basing their strategies on 1929 analog models. In a famous but hard-to-come-by documentary filmed prior to the crash, 1980s wunderkind Paul Tudor Jones explained how he was using a 1929 analog model developed by his research director Peter Borish to put on a large short position in October 1987. The documentary is here, for now at least.* The Friday before the crash, hedge fund giant George Soros received a copy of Tudor Jones's study and showed it to Stanley Druckenmiller, manager of Soros's famous Quantum Fund.** On the morning of the crash, the Wall Street Journal published a chart of stock price in 1987 superimposed on stock prices leading up to the crash of 1929. News of the analog was spreading across Wall Street, and by Monday, October 19, enough momentum may have built for the analog to self-realize itself.

Paul Tudor Jones circa 1987

The 1929-87 event taught me that investor's minds don't react passively to underlying fundamental phenomena. Investors create stories that, when acted upon by enough people, actually shape the fundamentals. In 1987, a psychological "worm-hole" linked to an event fifty-eight years prior seems to have emerged, leading to the greatest one-day drop in market history. It was a mistake, a mental glitch, or a wrinkle in time.

 -----
Back to Shiller. I later found out that all of this had been anticipated by Shiller long before I was even old enough to buy and sell stock. In his post-1987 survey, Shiller found that 35% of individual investors and 53.2% of institutional investors reported talking of events of 1929 on the few days before October 19, 1987. Memories of 1929 were therefore "integral" in creating the 1987 crash, wrote Shiller:

Investors had expectations before the 1987 crash that something like a 1929 crash was a possibility, and comparisons with 1929 were an integral part of the phenomenon. It would be wrong to think that the crash could be understood without reference to the expectations engendered by this historical comparison. In a sense many people were playing out an event again that they knew well.

Nor was this the end to Shiller's work on crashes. The memory-of-crashes effect would reappear two years later. On Friday, October 13, 1989, a mini-crash occurred, the Dow falling 6.9%. Once again Shiller sent out a questionnaire. The most likely reason for the mini-crash, wrote Shiller, was the fact that the coming Monday was to have been the second anniversary of the 1987 crash.*** The mental image of the two biggest crashes in history possibly happening that Monday would have been sufficient to amplify any random price decline into an all-out panic. Wrote Shiller:

It may be a silly notion, but silly thoughts may have come to the minds of people trying to decide whether to sell as prices plummeted in the last hour of trading. They did not then have all of the reassuring commentary that came later, and they had to act then or risk having to sell on the following Monday. - Fear of the Crash Caused the Crash, NYT, 1989

 -----
In sum, Shiller long ago provided the world with what is probably the best explanation for why the 1987 crash happened when it did, and why it fell so far. Because Fama was so closely wedded to the EMH, his only option was to stay mute on the causes. "What caused this shift in expectations? I do not know" he wrote. Fama gives us a good-enough framework for understanding 99% of market moves. But for the remaining 1%, we really do need Shiller.

---

* The documentary has an interesting history. See Ritholtz, the WSJ, and Business Insider, among others. Apparently Tudor Jones threatens to sue anyone who puts it up, so getting ones hands on it is challenging. While the documentary is the best place to learn about the 1929 analog model, it also appears in the first edition of Jack Schwager's Market Wizards. But do try to watch the video, it's quite fascinating in its own right.


** Said Druckenmiller: "That Friday after the close, I happened to speak to Soros. He said that he had a study done by Paul Tudor Jones that he wanted to show me. I went over to his office, and he pulled out this analysis that Paul had done about a month or two earlier. The study demonstrated the historical tendency for the stock market to accelerate on the downside whenever an upward-sloping parabolic curve had been broken – as had recently occurred. The analysis also illustrated the extremely close correlation in the price action between the 1987 stock market and the 1929 stock market, with the implicit conclusion that we were now at the brink of a collapse. I was sick to my stomach when I went home that evening. I realized that I had blown it and that the market was about to crash." - Market Wizards, Jack Schwager (1988)

*** The 1929-87 analog revisited markets once again in 1997. On Monday, October 29, 1997, the Dow went into a freefall, eventually tumbling 7% . See my explanation of the 1987-1997 analog here. 

PS: If market's plunge this coming Monday, you know why.  ;) 

Market monetarists and "buying up everything"

Market monetarists have a reductio ad absurdum that they like to throw in the face of anyone who doubts the ability of central banks to create inflation. It goes like this; "So, buddy, you deny that central bank purchases can have an affect on the price level? What if a central bank were to buy up every asset in the world? Wouldn't that create inflation?" Since it would be absurd to disagree with their point, the buying up everything gambit usually carries the day.

In this post I'll bite. I'm going to show how a money issuer can buy up all of an economy's assets without having much of an effect on the price level.

Let's return to my Google parable from last week. You don't have to read it, but you should. If you don't have the time, here's a brief summary. In an alternate world, Google stock has become the world's most popular exchange media and all prices are expressed in terms of Google shares. Google conducts monetary policy by changing the return it offers shareholders, thereby ensuring the price level is stable. The reason I'm using a Google monetary world rather than our own is that it cuts through all the accumulated baggage associated with our central bank-dominated monetary discussion. A new set of lenses may let us see a bit more clearly.

Say that financial assets trade at or near fundamental value, where fundamental value is the present value of returns to which assets are a claim. Deviations from fundamental value are fleeting since investors will either buy undervalued assets or short overvalued ones.

Google announces that it wants to double the price level, or, alternatively, to cut the value of Google shares in half. It will go about this by purchasing financial assets until this target has been met. [One niggling detail here is that Google's charter prevents it from consciously overpaying for assets. More on this later]

Google starts printing huge amounts of new shares and injecting them into the economy by buying stocks, bonds, commercial paper, derivatives, and whatnot. Their wallets flush with new Google cash, individuals start to spend away unneeded cash balances, putting downward pressure on Google's share price, and upward pressure on prices. Google's mandated doubling of the price level seems well on its way to being fulfilled.

But something halts the decline. The moment that anxious sellers push Google shares below fundamental value, investors step in and buy all shares offered. No matter how long Google's buying rampage continues, and how large the supply of Google cash in the economy, these investors mop up all unwanted shares. This has the effect of putting a floor under the price of the stock, and vice versa places a ceiling on the amount of inflation that can be created. Thanks to the investment demand for its shares, Google can buy up all the world's assets while hardly causing an increase in the price level.

The reason that investors willingly set a floor beneath Google's stock price is that Google is buying up assets at market prices, as stipulated by its charter. In buying at these prices, Google's fundamental value will never change, no matter how many shares it prints. Say that equity in our Google universe tends to trade at a risk-adjusted multiple of 10x earnings (i.e. a share is worth ten times current per-share earnings). Since Google is prohibited from paying more than 10x risk-adjusted earnings for the assets it acquires, and is itself valued at the same 10x earnings multiple, its fundamental value after each acquisition remains the same. In other words, Google has the same per-share earnings throughout its purchasing campaign. When anxious transactors try to rid their wallets of the excess exchange media created by Google "printing", -- say they drive Google shares towards 9x earnings -- savvy investors will immediately jump in and buy the undervalued stock, enjoying a free lunch until they've pushed Google's price back up to its fundamental value of 10x earnings.

So contra the market monetarist claim, the economy's reigning monetary superpower can print and buy up all the world's financial assets -- yet not cause inflation.

There are a few simplifications I've made here. Acquirers incur transaction costs. Commissions must be paid to investment bankers, for one. Secondly, there really is no such thing as "one market price". Financial assets trade in a range called the bid-ask spread. If Google always buys at the higher ask price rather than patiently waiting to be filled at the lower bid price, then it will consistently lose small amounts on each transaction. This means that after each acquisition, Google's fundamental value will have declined by a few beeps, and investors will bid Google shares down a bit. But this transaction effect is small, nor is it equivalent to the effect that market monetarists are talking about when they refer to central bank power over the price level.

Now back to the real world. Whatever general rules of finance that apply to Google's highly liquid financial media apply just as ably to the Fed's highly liquid financial media. See my previous post on this. So take out every mention of Google share in the above text and substitute it with Fed deposit and the same conclusions can be drawn.

Lastly, just like Google's charter prevents it from overpaying, the Federal Reserve Act specifies that the Fed must buy all assets in the open and liquid market, effectively preventing the Fed from overpaying for assets. So our analogy is more appropriate than one might initially assume.

---

PS. I'm not saying that central banks can never push up the price level via mass purchases. I'm saying that given a certain set of constraints, a central banker can buy up every single asset in the economy without having much of an effect on the price level. It is interesting that this constraint, embodied in our hypothetical Google's charter, approximates to the rules that actually govern the Fed and other central banks -- namely that assets must be bought at market prices. Remove this constraint and it would be very easy for either Google or a central bank to push up the price level, as my previous post showed.

Bitcoin's plunge protection team

I see that the mainstream bloggers are starting to flog the bitcoin story, which means I'll be moving on to greener blogging pastures for the time being. I've had some great discussions in my last few posts with my commenters. As always, this blog is meant to be learning tool, both for me to absorb things from others and hopefully vice versa. In this post I'm going to discuss the idea of a plunge protection team made up of avid bitcoin collectors that could potentially anchors bitcoin's price and provide a degree of automatic stabilization.

In all my bitcoin posts I've been emphasizing that bitcoin lacks a fundamental, or intrinsic, value. Regular commenter Peter Surda disagrees, pointing out that despite their intangibility, virtual goods should not be seen as inferior to so-called real assets. I completely agree with him. 0s and 1s can be valuable. When I bandy around the term fundamental value, I'm not talking about physicality or solidity. What I'm referring to is an asset's non-monetary value.

The best way to think about non-monetary value is by reference its counterpart—monetary value. A good or asset has monetary value when a subset of the people who hold it do so solely for its moneyness, or its ability to be exchanged in the future. Perhaps these people are driven by a transactions motive. They plan to hold the asset for a day or a month before exchanging it on for another good. Alternatively they may be driven by the speculative motive. They intend to temporarily hold the asset, always with the goal of passing it on at a higher price. Transactors and speculators alike value their inventory of gold, cash, bitcoin, or whatever, for its ability to be exchanged, and not for any other reason.

Strip out an asset's monetary value, and you're left with the remainder: pure non-monetary value. This is the fundamental core of an asset, or its intrinsic value. One way to think about this is to imagine what would happen to an asset upon the sudden flight of all transactors and speculators from the market. The remaining holders of the asset will be those who value it on a purely fundamental basis. They have no intention of ever selling out of their position and are perfectly content to sit on their holdings and "consume" them.

I've made the claim that a bitcoin has no fundamental value because it's mere ledger space. If all the bitcoin speculators were to suddenly split, no one would be left to holding the bag. But doesn't this apply to other assets? Jon Matonis brings up the idea that central bank instruments could also be viewed as blank ledger space. Adam Love points to gold as a potential analogy.

Let's run through how other assets evolve when speculators and exchangers panic and bolt.

Stocks: When all speculators try to sell, a stock's price quickly plunges. Because the firm's earnings power hasn't changed, at some lower price the CFO realizes that capital should be directed to retiring the firm's own shares from the secondary market rather than investing in projects. At this price, the firm will buy up every share offered till all speculative selling is exhausted.

Central bank cash and reserves: If all transactors and speculators try to flee a currency then inflation emerges. To meet its inflation targets, a central bank will start to conduct massive open market sales. Blowfish-like, it sucks in all unwanted currency and reserves until panic-selling by transactors and speculators has subsided.

Gold: If all transactors and speculators try to sell their gold then its price collapses. Jewelers, dentists, and manufacturers begin to withdraw gold from the market at these advantageous prices because they can use the metal to displace more expensive alternative materials. All unwanted monetary gold will be removed into the inventories of jewelers, dentists, and manufactures, or into their finished product.

My incessant concern with a speculator-driven collapse in monetary value isn't just me being ornery. Any given asset faces a daily threat of liquidity flight. These sorts of runs can quickly become self fulfilling phenomena. If one speculator causes an asset's price to fall by selling it off, more speculators might bolt, thereby causing yet another fall in price, causing more speculator flight, ad infinitum. Similarly, as transactors make less use of an asset, that asset loses liquidity, causing transactors to use it even less, causing it to lose liquidity, and so on and so forth. The moneyness of an asset can quickly implode, blackhole-like.

Gold, stocks, and central bank reserves/cash all have fundamental mechanisms for ensuring that this sort of flight is dampened. In the case of bitcoin though, if transactors and speculators get spooked there is no central bank to suck bitcoin back in, nor a CFO to conduct buy backs, nor dentists or jewelers to re-purpose it for alternative uses. Bitcoin is 100% moneyness. Whenever a liquidity crisis hits, the only way for the bitcoin market to accommodate everyone's demand to sell is for the price of bitcoin to hit zero—all out implosion.

Commenter Arvicco points out that there is a non-monetary core at the heart of bitcoin. People value bitcoin as a collectible. Mike Sproul has also brought up this possibility, comparing bitcoin to baseball cards. In my first bitcoin post, I hypothesized that bitcoin might be an indicator of geek cred, a badge of sorts. Does bitcoin actually have a fundamental value? Let's assume for the moment that this view is right. This means that come the next liquidity crisis, bitcoin won't collapse to zero but will bottom out at whatever price so-called bitcoin collectors are willing (and able) to set. Just like jewelers and dentists act as safety valves in the gold market, cushioning panic-driven speculative declines in the gold price through their purchases, the bitcoin collector community will step in as buyer of last resort to ensure that BTC never falls to 0.

Who might these collectors be? They are bitcoin's true believers, the ones who have been there from the start (or wish they had). Out of pure admiration for bitcoin, they'd willingly buy it at any positive value, even though the rest of the world couldn't care less about bitcoin's unique properties. Collectors hold bitcoin  not because they plan to exchange it on for a better price, but as a permanent consumption good. These folks joins other rare birds like stamp collectors and crocheted doily collectors in setting the fundamental value of an item that the rest of the world neither understands nor values for its own sake.

This is different from the gold market. Jewelers, manufacturers, and dentists take gold out of the market during panics not because they collect the metal, nor because they're loyal to it. They do so because their profit and loss calculation tells them that it makes sense to do so.

I'm not able to appraise how big the core collector community is and how determined its member are, but I am skeptical of their ability to absorb a mass exodus of bitcoin speculators and transactors. After all, there's a tremendous amount of speculation in the market, surely far more speculators than transactors. So for now I'll remain a seller of bitcoin, since I'm worried about instability. But let's ignore my outlook. Here are some thoughts about bitcoin true believers as a potential plunge protection team.

First, there needs to be a lot of collectors if they're going to successfully anchor bitcoin's price against massive and inevitable monetary panics. They should be firm in their commitment to bitcoin. There needs to be a steady recruitment of new people to the collecting cause. A mythology is a great tool for inspiring collectors and potential collectors. The story of bitcoin founder Satoshi Nakamoto or the techno-anarchist narratives of bitcoin-as-destroyer-of-government-money and liberator-of-society are powerful coordination devices. When bitcoin crashes $40 in ten minutes, it'll take waves of devoted believers to put in plunge protection buy orders. If Bitcoin's cultural motifs are sufficient to motivate the requisite desire to hold and consume bitcoin as collector's items, then perhaps a future liquidity panic won't cause bitcoin to implode.

Secondly, the bitcoin collector community should be selling into every bitcoin price rise so that they have the ammunition to reinforce plunge protection efforts when the market inevitably experiences a speculative run. By selling high, bitcoin collectors will have sufficient reserves of USD, pounds, yen etc to repurchase bitcoin from speculators when the latter eventually flee. Just as buying into falls should help halt plunges, the process of selling into a rise will have the side benefit of softening the rise, thereby reducing speculative excess.

There are a lot of interesting catch-22s here. Too much speculation is dangerous since a speculative buyer represents a future panic-seller for whom collectors will have to budget resources to purchase unwanted coin. But at the same time, as more collectors are drawn to the bitcoin mythology, they push prices up, attracting the very same speculative elements that threaten to destabilize bitcoin. Speculators, after all, love fast-moving unidirectional markets. Here's another irony. Even as the plunge protection team anchors bitcoin's price to the downside, in doing so it creates a Greenspan put of sorts, insuring speculators that they'll never lose more than a fixed amount of their capital. This only inspires more speculation. The last catch-22 is this. A plunge protection team of loyal collectors needs to keep a store of central bank media-of- exchange to repurchase bitcoin from fleeing speculators and prevent the zero value problem—but owning fiat instruments clashes with the whole anti-fiat mythology of bitcoin.

I'm skeptical of the ability of collectors to act as the necessary automatic stabilizer to counterbalance mass speculative exit. I'm not convinced that they can ensure that bitcoin will be around 10 years from now. I still think some sort of blockchain-style ledger will be in use 10 years from now, but it won't be the bitcoin ledger. But who knows, odder things have happened.


PS: Notice that I haven't used the word "money" once. I challenge commenters to avoid the word too. Trying to define something as money or not causes all sorts of distractions.