As the first quarter of this year winds down, it appears that ‘scarcity’ has emerged as a key investment factor.

The contrast is sharper when viewed against the environment of ‘excess’ ─ characterized by federal cheques, central bank stimulus and unfunded tax breaks ─ that was being engineered by Central Banks and Govts worldwide at around this same time, four years ago.

Cut to present and you see a rare inversion in the investing environment: despite the twin backdrop of easing headline inflation and the highest Fed rate in 22 years:

1. Gold has spiked ─ up 5% YTD …

2. … and Bitcoin has shot up 60% YTD

Is it the scarcity of these asset classes that’s driving this surge? Or is there more to this than meets the eye?

(As an aside, there are some nice examples this year of ‘product scarcity’ driving up returns in some select equities as well this year, my favourite is Ferrari, up 25% YTD, sporting a monstrous 27% operating margin, but that’s a story for another day 😀)

On the face of it, scarcity does appear to be the reason for the surge.

Scarcity falls into 3 categories: demand-induced, supply-induced, and structural. Let’s stay here with the first 2 of those and map it to the two major success stories of this year.

Gold is witnessing a demand-induced scarcity.

But it did not provide for any military aid.

Central Banks worldwide bought over 1,037 tons of it in 2023. The final figure for 2023 was marginally shorter than the estimated 1,136 metric tonnes purchased in 2022 ─ a record year!

And this buying is not being led only by the G7 nations and PRC (Turkey was the biggest buyer in Jan 2024).

Gold’s supply dynamics hasn’t changed radically (See image, Source: Statista)

Bitcoin is witnessing a rare confluence though of demand-induced (spurred by the SEC largesse to approve Bitcoin ETFs early this year) and supply-induced scarcity (ahead of the halving, expected next month).

These arguments strongly corroborate the scarcity factor.

But what if there is a stronger signal here that is getting missed out?

Confiscation?

Central Banks worldwide have been wary ever since the US and EU confiscated Russian foreign reserves.

Nah, you say! That’s just extrapolating a one-off event.

Not really.

In another March, a couple of decades ago, in 2003, the then US president, George Bush Jr, issued an executive order to confiscate Iraqi assets held by U.S. financial institutions and vest them in the U.S. Treasury.

This perhaps explains the Central Banks’ frenzied purchase of Gold over the last couple of years.

What about Bitcoin then?

Central Banks haven’t bought in (at least not yet!). What then explains the retail/institutional frenzy around it? Is it only scarcity? Or is there a confiscation angle to this one as well?

Well, here is the thing.

Gold held by a Central Bank cannot be confiscated.

But Gold held by individuals can be.

No way, you say!

Well, it has happened.

Among others, the US did it in 1932. Australia in 1959.

Bitcoin isn’t confiscatable.

By

Avinash Menon, CFA

Founder and CEO,

52 Seconds Capital Limited

Other New Articles

I guess no one really enjoys reading a Red Herring Prospectus (RHP).

Those reams of paper make for dry reading and could put anyone to sleep.

In the investment management industry, however, it’s an occupational hazard 😀 There is no getting away from it.

That said, there is the occasional RHP that I look forward to reading.

In the recent past, I recall one such SEC filing that made for an interesting read: Coinbase’s RHP (some spoilers here in case you plan to revisit it : the landing page, Page 1, of the prospectus mentions Satoshi Nakamoto and his Bitcoin Address 1A1zP1eP5QGefi2DMPTfTL5SLmv7DivfNa, Page 19 of the RHP states this as a risk factor: the identification of Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous person or persons who developed Bitcoin, or the transfer of Satoshi’s Bitcoins)

The key point here is this: reading the RHP is necessary, especially if the company in question is pioneering a new paradigm.

Uber, Google, Groupon are possibly some other examples that come to mind.

So, yes, in that context, I look forward to reading SHEIN’s RHP.

The Chinese company, a pioneer in fast fashion, is stitching up a blockbuster IPO, with plans to go public this year.

The company’s business playbook relies on an immediate absorption of market demand at a response speed that makes ZARA SA (the original pioneer of the adaptive strategy in fashion) look a tad slower.

Shein is on a tear, posting revenues of $23 billion and $30 billion (expected) in 2022 and 2023.

A valuation of $70 billion to $80 billion at 2.5x sales looks a given.

The business is riding a wave of popularity among shoppers: Shein was the second most downloaded shopping app of 2023 (trailing Temu and ahead of Amazon; see image, Source: Statista)

What could be of interest then in their RHP?

Lawsuits!

Specifically, allegations that Shein counterfeits products made by its peer firms.

Plaintiffs range from firms like H&M to several small business owners.

It’s tough to surmise what might be written on this subject on those pages.

Shein might either detail their plans to counter the allegations of counterfeiting.

Or that they might just acknowledge that counterfeiting has existed for ages.

And they have just added scale to an age-old practice.

Bringing counterfeiting to the mainstream.

By

Avinash Menon, CFA

Founder and CEO,

52 Seconds Capital Limited

Other New Articles