For nearly 8 years, Switzerland battled its own economic success.

The CHF — a global safe-haven currency — kept rising, threatening exports and choking growth.

The SNB’s weapon of choice?

Negative interest rates!

In 2015, the SNB pushed rates below zero. Their goal was simple: weaken the franc by adding a holding cost to it. But about 8 years later, by Sep 2022, the results were clear:

1) The CHF kept rising. Investors still flocked to CHF as a safe asset, undeterred by negative yields.

2) Listed private banks like Credit Suisse bolted on more risk, doubling down on investment banking to shore up fee income.

3) Pension funds suffered. Retirees watched their bonds pay nothing.

It was clear.

Negative rates had failed to weaken the CHF.

Now, there is a sense of deja vu after the SNB cut rates to zero last week raising the spectre — once again — of negative rates.

Can the SNB use a different playbook this time around? Something that’s less distortive?

A Citizen’s Dividend is potentially an idea whose time has come

Today, Switzerland has a chance to reset by turning its massive current account surplus and reserves into a dividend for every citizen.

Why this could work:

1️⃣ Avoids distortions

Banks can keep somewhat healthy margins. Pension funds eke out mild real returns.

2️⃣ CHF weakness

Put money in people’s hands, and they will (hopefully) spend it — boosting imports, shrinking the trade surplus, and easing CHF pressure without a blunt tool like negative rates.

3️⃣ A fair deal for citizens

The surplus exists because of Swiss labour and innovation so why shouldn’t there be a dividend?

A counter point to 3️⃣ could be the results of a past referendum:

In 2016, Switzerland held the world’s first referendum on Unconditional Basic Income (UBI).

The result?

A 76.9% rejection!

Now, while you could surmise that NOBODY* actually rejects free money: the Swiss did just that!

(*You don’t have to look beyond the Americans; their government sent them Federal Cheques in 2020, which a whole lot of them promptly used to sharpen their day-trading skills 😀):

The Swiss said NO to what they perceived to be Free Money.

Why?

IMO, the UBI proposal may not have been communicated well (recall it was the Brexit year, also Gen AI hadn’t happened yet), resulting in the Swiss work ethic clashing with the perception of ‘money for nothing’.

For the Swiss perhaps, the alarm bells against developing a ‘subsidy mindset’ rang out loud and clear.

Could it have been introduced instead as the Norway Model?

If implemented this time, here is the rough-and-ready math:

1️⃣ Allocate 1-2% of the SNB’s $1 trillion foreign reserves ($10-20B/year)

2️⃣ Redirect 5-10% of annual trade surpluses (CHF 100B+ → CHF 5-10B/year)

3️⃣ With a population of 8.7 M → ~ CHF 3,000 / year / citizen

Switzerland’s choices now?

Repeat the failed model of 2015 or pioneer a new one.

One that shows a Swiss Knife-kind of versatility.

By

Avinash Menon, CFA

Founder and CEO,

52 Seconds Capital Limited

Other New Articles

In 2022, after Russia invaded Ukraine, global oil prices skyrocketed to $139/barrel.

The U.S. responded by releasing 1 M barrels/day from its Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), swiftly calming markets.

China (which has a runway of 100+days) and Japan (with 200+ days) also tapped their vast reserves.

But the UK — which had quietly dismantled its SPR by then — was defenceless.

In 2021, Britain decided strategic oil reserves were “redundant”

Ministers argued:

“The free market will provide.”

“We are transitioning to renewables anyway.”

Reality check:

When crisis hit, the UK had just 5 days of oil stocks (vs. 90+ for the U.S./China/Japan).

Paid hefty premiums.

Saw gas stations run dry and panic buying.

The cost?

An estimated £80 billion ($100B) in economic damage—all avoidable with an SPR.

Now, as Israeli-Iran tensions threaten the Strait of Hormuz (45-50% of India’s crude oil imports and 60% of its natural gas imports pass through these straits), India faces its own choices:

Option 1:

The UK path of risking it all on the premise that free markets will hold and that renewables will turn less capricious with time.

Option 2:

“We will build pipelines instead!” (But Nord Stream 2’s sabotage shows pipelines can become warzone targets).

“Tankers are enough!” (But the Houthi attacks prove shipping lanes can be weaponized).

Or

Option 3: A tempered Option 2 + executing towards becoming an SPR behemoth

India — though behind schedule — has a great opportunity to learn from the UK’s blunder; by creating a hybrid SPR system which incorporates the best elements from other SPRs:

1. U.S.-style speed

✔ Store oil in salt caverns (like Texas) for instant release.

✔Target 3-4M bpd surge capacity (enough to offset temporary price shocks). Incidentally, the U.S. SPR’s 4.4 million bpd surge capacity is unmatched. (The US released 1 M bpd from its reserves with ease over a 6-month window in 2022. That kind of reserve capacity has Energy Security written all over it)

(The pic, from the DOE website, serves as a reminder of how even the largest oil producer in the world today was not immune to energy-related insecurities in the past)

2. China-scale stockpiling

✔Buy cheap during crashes (like China’s 2020 $30/barrel purchase spree).

✔Mandate private refiners to hold reserves (adding 30M barrels overnight).

3. Japan-level resilience

✔A 200-day runway. That’s gold-standard insurance.

Chokepoint risks are elevated now:

A Hormuz blockade could triple India’s import costs overnight. Without a 90-day SPR, India could face energy rationing and inflation super spikes.

But with a 90-day SPR by 2030, India could:

✔ Absorb price shocks

✔ Neutralize China’s 500+ stockpile that gives it leverage during a crisis

The choice is clear

The UK gambled on markets — and lost $100B.

India, learning from this, can now build the world’s smartest SPR — one that’s too fast to outflank, too big to intimidate, and too resilient to fail.

By

Avinash Menon, CFA

Founder and CEO,

52 Seconds Capital Limited

Other New Articles

As oil prices experience a super-spike, energy investors often wonder: “Should I bet on Oxy, ExxonMobil, or Chevron?”

Well, the answer really depends on your goals – because it is a fallacy to think that all three stocks react in a similar manner to oil price volatility; they tell three distinct stories.

In effect, don’t expect their price action to be similar in the current backdrop.

(And that is the ONLY purpose of this post; not to recommend one over the other)

You could think of these stories as:

1. A leveraged play

2. A blue-chip anchor and,

3. A balanced play

Here’s what moves them and why the differences matter:

Oxy: The Levered Play

Strengths:

Pure-play Permian exposure and high debt make it the top performer in sharp oil rallies (e.g., +120% in 2022 vs. XOM’s +80%).

Risks: Crashes harder in downturns (e.g., -60% in 2020). Buffett’s 28% stake admittedly creates a price floor. Also, the stock’s tech-like beta could cut both ways.

Catalyst Watch: Once debt falls below $15B, share buybacks could ignite a new rally.

ExxonMobil: The Blue-Chip Anchor

Strengths: Integrated operations (refining, chemicals) smooth out volatility. $50B buyback powers steady returns.

Risks: Less upside in oil spikes (long-cycle projects delay cash flow bumps).

Dividend Safety: 41 straight years of hikes – this is better suited for income investors.

Chevron: A balanced play

Strengths: Stronger upstream focus than XOM = slightly more oil leverage. $75B buyback (2023-25) supports EPS growth.

Risks: Less diversified than XOM (e.g., smaller chemical division)

Dividend Growth: 38 consecutive annual hikes – nearly matching XOM’s reliability.

By

Avinash Menon, CFA

Founder and CEO,

52 Seconds Capital Limited

Other New Articles

Disclaimer:

I am neither a Sharia scholar nor an authority on Islamic finance. But as someone involved in security selection, and therefore sometimes sukuk evaluation (strictly in consultation with Islamic scholars), I follow sukuks with both professional interest and personal curiosity.

Now, if you are also a sukuk enthusiast you must have guessed by now that the elephant in the room is the draft form of AAOIFI Shariah Standard 62 (62). The draft, released in Nov 2023, is expected to be issued this year, but the exact timeline remains unclear.

Ever since its release, the draft has been the subject of contentious debates.

Critics have panned it as operationally rigid, impractical for sovereigns, and even reductionist in its true sale requirements.

Proponents of the draft like the clear tilt towards Asset-Backed Sukuks (and away from Asset-Based ones).

From a professional viewpoint, I believe, 62’s emphasis on ‘True Sale’, in itself, is commendable.

IMO, it tackles the gradual mission creep in sukuks.

Sukuks were starting to mimic conventional bonds.

In its original form, Sukuks represent ownership, not debt.

62, while contentious, cannot be faulted for lacking in clarity.

By drawing an uncompromising line under Asset Ownership …

… it gets the market to confront a critical question:

Have Sukuks drifted too far away from their original identify and mission statement?

I see another powerful benefit coming through:

Implementation might result in a fork: with Sovereigns issuing Wakalas (predicated on the premise that 62 might make concessions, in its final standard, for sovereigns) and Corporates issuing Ijaras.

The market benefits and everybody wins.

How?

For Sovereigns:

62’s emphasis on ‘true asset transfer’ might cramp sovereigns who often have commingled assets; but that makes Sukuk Wakalas the preferred choice for sovereigns (Wakala means Trustee) and its flexibility with pooled assets (utilities, energy revenues) makes it a great toolkit for scalable, Sharia-compliant funding.

For Corporates:

62 returns the sukuk to its original form ─ turning the spotlight back on Beneficial Owners (instead of Creditors).

That can reroute capital flows into Corporate Sukuks and keep it sticky.

Why?

Because corporations might get a beeline of Buy-And-Hold investors (as investors in Sukuks often are) if they start issuing true asset-backed securities.

So, 62, if implemented, could:

1. Draw the curtain on the “anything goes” era of hybrid structures (While not strictly a Hybrid, you have got to think of Dana Gas here ─ an issuer that infamously defaulted by stating their sukuk had turned Sharia non-compliant)

2. Create a fork: with Sovereigns optimizing Wakalas; corporates perfecting Ijara.

Admittedly, Standard 62 isn’t perfect.

But perfection isn’t possibly the goal.

Clarity is ─ and in that, it has already succeeded

By

Avinash Menon, CFA

Founder and CEO,

52 Seconds Capital Limited

Other New Articles

Many decades later, market enthusiasts will reminisce about this great gold bull run.

Of how Central Banks worldwide backed up their trucks onto the yellow metal.

And how the largest of them even proposed an audit of their reserves.

In the context of that, this post might strike a jarring tone; for it’s about:

(1) the burgeoning gold reserves at Central Banks;

(2) an upcoming gold audit at Fort Knox and gold repatriations; but it is also about ….

(3) a conspicuously empty gold vault.

#1, we leave this point as is because it’s so in your face

#2 is indicative of a heightened global gold anxiety ─ from the US Bill proposing a Fort Knox audit to countries like Germany, Poland, Hungary, and The Netherlands actively seeking to repatriate their gold held abroad.

It’s clear that most countries, not unlike Scrooge McDuck, want the comfort of lolling about in their massive gold vaults.

#3 One country, however, shows no signs of gold anxiety.

And no, it’s neither an Emerging nor a Frontier Market.

Its AAA rated, is a member of both the G7 and G20 group of nations, and … it has a gold vault that’s empty.

Canada holds virtually ZERO gold. (Image Source: Government of Canada)

Why?

(1) Gold earns zero yield. It’s at best a store of value (and the idea of Central Banks holding a store of value sure does appear contradictory when viewed in the context of their chief role as inflation-dampeners)

(2) Offloading large blocks is complex and expensive

(3) Canada’s stability comes from its credible institutions, conservative regulatory frameworks, rule of law, and ─ to use a nifty turn of phrase ─ its ‘gold-standard’ AAA credit rating.

(4) Lastly, the ZERO gold decision creates a strategic advantage for Canada over other G20 nations: the costs for securing bullion (think Security, Insurance, Vaulting, and now Audits) are soaring. Also, storing gold abroad (in the NY Fed, for example) creates vulnerability (Germany has been considering repatriating its massive stockpile of gold, currently held in the NY Fed over worries stemming from Trump’s caprices)

So, while the US braces itself for an exhaustive audit ─ and this one could be a lot more than a peek-a-boo glance at the gold ─ of its gold reserves, Canada’s absence of gold reserves reflects a modern calculus:

High costs, rising anxiety, poor liquidity, and the escalating storage burdens outweighs symbolic value.

Also, Canada, by virtue of being the 4th largest producer of gold, probably has the safest vault on the planet anyway ─ its bedrock and placer deposits.

By

Avinash Menon, CFA

Founder and CEO,

52 Seconds Capital Limited

Other New Articles