It has been fascinating to watch market attention shift following the conclusion of the Fed’s Quantitative Tightening (QT) program on December 1st.

The focus appears to have now shifted to the Fed’s upcoming purchase of T-Bills to manage liquidity.

Ah, and that still leaves the Interest on Reserve Balances (IORB) as the elephant in the room.

To me the IORB remains a structural anomaly; something that has quietly created a regulatory arbitrage for the largest banks, particularly since rate tightening began in March 2022.

The largest U.S. banks earn the IORB rate (currently approx 3.90%) on the reserves they park at the Fed.

In a parallel world, they pay the average retail saver a fraction of that on standard savings accounts (~ 0.4%)

This spread represents a vast, risk-free profit margin – a guarantee from the Fed on funds that they [the Commercial Banks] have acquired at the cheapest possible rate.

You could slice it and dice this anyway.

This is, by any definition, an ANOMALY.

It deserves far more scrutiny than it receives currently.

But first, the backstory: why did the IORB come into existence?

While politically charged (with Congress periodically seeking to abolish it), the IORB is possibly here to stay because it is the lynchpin of modern monetary policy.

The IORB’s primary function is to provide a floor for interest rates, effectively replacing the pre-2008 Inter-Bank Lending Market.

It eliminates the need for banks to lend to one another (which could and had indeed led to the notorious credit freeze of 2008), incentivizing them to park reserves with the Fed for a risk-free return, thereby guaranteeing the Fed’s control over the short-term rate.

And despite the congressional pressure on the Fed to eliminate the IORB (and go back to the zero-interest-paid-on reserves era prior to the GFC), it [IORB] is likely to remain because who would really want to take a chance with bank credit risk again?

So, what does a saver really do in a situation like this?

Well, since a savings account holder cannot open an account at the Fed to get the IORB rate, the smartest move then for cash management is to exploit the very market dynamics the Fed created:

Instead of leaving cash in low-yield savings accounts, the most rational approach is to invest them into Money Market Funds (MMFs) instead.

MMFs, in turn, invest in high-quality short-term assets (T-Bills, Treasuries, and highly liquid securities) or execute Overnight Reverse Repurchase Agreements (ON RRP) directly with the Fed.

This then allows a saver to bypass the bank’s low-paying deposit window and earn a rate much closer to the Fed Rate.

The anomaly still remains.

But this is your best bet at making the most of it.

By

Avinash Menon, CFA

Founder and CEO,

52 Seconds Capital Limited

Other New Articles

Yesterday’s news that the SEC is halting the review of proposals for extreme (3x to 5x) leveraged single-stock and broader indices ETFs is significant.

This regulatory action is a direct consequence of SEC Rule 18f-4, the comprehensive framework implemented to manage derivatives risk in registered funds.

The 18f-4 rule establishes a hard boundary on new leverage by mandating that a fund’s daily Value-at-Risk cannot exceed 200% of its benchmark index’s VAR.

In essence, 2x is the absolute legal ceiling for new leveraged products.

However, a glaring inconsistency remains: 3x leveraged ETFs, most notably ProShares UltraPro QQQ ETF.

TQQQ was launched in 2010, long before the 200% VaR limit was finalized.

The SEC allowed these pre-existing 3x funds to continue operating under their original mandates, effectively exempting them from the 200% VaR cap.

So, as of yesterday, we now have a glaring, two-tiered system where the market’s most popular 3x leveraged fund is structurally permitted to carry a level of risk the SEC deems too dangerous for any new product application.

The risk of TQQQ (or even the 2X leveraged ones) is not simply that losses are magnified three times. You must understand that the risk lies in the mathematical certainty of the daily leverage reset, which introduces two severe risks:

1. Volatility Decay / Compounding Risk: In volatile or choppy markets, the daily rebalancing causes the fund’s long-term performance to diverge drastically and negatively from 3x the index return. The fund prospectus explicitly warns that returns for periods longer than a single day will ‘likely differ significantly’ from the target due to this compounding effect (See image to see how the losses stack up, source:

https://lnkd.in/dxGjkdeF

2. Zero-Out Risk: The 3x structure mathematically exposes investors to a potential wipe out. Read that again: A WIPE OUT. The fund’s prospectus carries this stark warning: If the Index approaches a 33% loss at any point in the day, you could lose your entire investment (This line is from the summary prospectus of the ETF)

I am not taking aim at TQQQ here (or at any of the other 3x or 2x products), indeed these ETFs serves a niche function for highly sophisticated traders and for short-term tactical trades.

But given the risks – amplified by leverage and compounding – before considering participation in TQQQ or similar grandfathered products, you must engage in a detailed discussion with your Financial Advisor (preferably a licensed and regulated one!)

By

Avinash Menon, CFA

Founder and CEO,

52 Seconds Capital Limited

Other New Articles

When I founded my firm three years ago, I reflexively merged my work and personal life related events into one single calendar.

I now mark upcoming macroeconomic events with the same fervour as, say, a big game.

So, my sense of anticipation perked up when I scanned my entries over the next few weeks.

Two entries on November 26th, written just as I see them now, stood side-by-side:

RR speaks | Stranger Things Finale

The latter is a plan for our household to binge-watch the series finale.

The former, ‘RR speaks,’ is my shorthand for the day Rachel Reeves, the UK’s Chancellor, presents her highly anticipated Autumn Budget.

And its uncanny; because what Rachel Reeves is poised to do – raise taxes – in the current global political landscape, undoubtedly qualifies as a ‘stranger thing’.

The lead-up to the Autumn Budget on Nov 26th indicates the Labour Party is preparing to break a core pre-election promise: not to raise ANY of National Insurance, Income Tax, or VAT.

While politically bruising, this pivot reveals a harsh confrontation with the UK’s fiscal reality.

If Reeves does commit to a path of fiscal discipline, the likely outcome would be a richer gilt, meaning higher gilt prices and lower yields [See image: while not the gilts, that record bid for the UK inflation-linked bonds indicate that the bond market believes Reeve’s will follow through and raise taxes]

And that matters because the lower gilt yields directly translate to a lower cost of servicing the UK’s massive public debt. A cost that currently consumes a staggering 8.3% of all public spending.

For context, that’s more than what is spent on many core public services. This debt-servicing cost is the bane of most developed nations today. (Across the channel, France, has seen five prime ministers since 2022, each facing a firestorm simply for trying to present a fiscally responsible, slimmed-down budget).

So yeah, come 26th Nov, my household will be immersed in a fictional ‘Upside Down 😀.’ Meanwhile, the UK Chancellor will be attempting to invert the UK’s own economic reality: using short-term political pain for potential long-term fiscal gain, where the very act of restoring confidence could make the debt burden itself more manageable.

One is a finale, the other feels like the start of a new, and much more difficult, season.

By

Avinash Menon, CFA

Founder and CEO,

52 Seconds Capital Limited

Other New Articles

Surely you have a favourite misnomer of your own.

You know, a name or a label that sounds wrong?

Like Greenland (which is mostly covered in ice) and Iceland (which is mostly green).

Or a Koala Bear (which is not a bear but in fact a marsupial).

But few misnomers carry as much geopolitical weight today as ‘Rare Earth’.

That is ONE. SOLID. MISNOMER.

The 17 metals that constitute Rare Earth are not actually rare; they are in fact relatively abundant in the Earth’s crust (some of them more than Gold, some more than Copper).

The true challenge, and the heart of the current standoff between China and the US, is not in locating them or owning them – it is in refining them (as Elon Musk so emphatically stated earlier this year).

The process of turning ore into usable, high-purity rare earth is complex, environmentally hazardous (and that is precisely where the shift to China occurred a few decades ago!), and incredibly expensive (if you are not operating at a massive scale).

And since then, China has strategically built an unassailable lead on this very capability. This dominance allows them to control the market for products made from Rare Earth (Think here of: Permanent Magnets, Batteries, Electromobility, Aviation).

Which brings us to the current high-stakes drama.

Talks over the weekend have reportedly yielded a temporary reprieve: a reported one-year postponement of China’s new rare-earth export restrictions, seemingly in exchange for the U.S. holding off on planned 100% tariffs. (I say ‘reported’ twice in a paragraph because China has not yet categorically confirmed the postponement)

Even if China does confirm this [postponement] later this week after the Trump-Xi meeting at the APEC summit, one thing is clear:

A one-year extension is not a win. It is a telling sign of how much leverage China holds over the US and the Rest of the World on Rare Earths.

All this underscores two uncomfortable truths for the U.S. and its allies:

1. Despite having rare earth deposits domestically, the US will continue to remain critically dependent on China’s rare earth products.

2. China’s dominance is not just about its own mines. It is about a well-tuned supply chain that now includes countries like Myanmar and Laos (See image for Largest Producers of Rare Earth Products for 2024; source www.rareearths.com)

Rest assured the aftermath of the Trump-Xi meeting at the APEC summit might well have the usual trappings of yet another ‘epic victory’ for the Trump administration, but the core point wouldn’t have budged an inch:

China continues to maintain a chokehold on all finished products from rare earths.

By

Avinash Menon, CFA

Founder and CEO,

52 Seconds Capital Limited

Other New Articles

For years, market watchers spoke of the ‘Powell Put’ or the ‘Fed Put’ – the implicit belief that the Fed would step in to support markets during a significant downturn.

But, as events in 2025 have shown, that ‘Put’ or a ‘Back-Stop’ has been eclipsed.

Since the ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs announcement in April, we have entered the era of the ‘Trump Put’.

The pattern is striking:

1. a market-jolting policy threat ….

2. …is followed by a swift, clarifying statement that backstops the sell-off.

Rinse and repeat.

Social media derides this as ‘TACO’ (Trump Always Chickens Out), but that misses the point.

This is not about cold feet or chickening out; it needs to be looked at for what it is:

A PUT – a price floor under the market, activated by political and policy rhetoric.

To be clear: backstops are not inherently great for equity markets (or for that matter outright bans on short-selling, as the US temporarily did in 2008. I found it difficult to understand that then and even after all these years think of that one event as a Top 5 Absurd Market Event. See image).

Equities are meant to price in risk and uncertainty freely. By their nature, they are not supposed to have price floors (except at zero).

The only legit backstops we should celebrate are those driven by corporate share buybacks (while debatable they are grounded in fundamental value and cash flow).

The jolt-and-then-provide-a-backstop, on Oct 10th, was particularly chilling: a flash crash on tariff-related anxieties, followed by an almost immediate recovery on reassuring comments.

The finesse around the execution was particularly unsettling.

There is no other way to say this except acknowledge that The Efficient Market Hypothesis, which posits that prices fully reflect all available information, is under siege.

By

Avinash Menon, CFA

Founder and CEO,

52 Seconds Capital Limited

Other New Articles

The core mandate of most Central Banks is clear: ENSURE PRICE STABILITY (A select few, like the Fed, also target maximum employment).

But their recent behaviour does raise this fundamental question: are they still solving the price stability problem? or have they conceded that fight?

This is fundamental because Central banks, the very institutions tasked with fighting inflation, are in a historic panic-driven gold rush.

Here is the data:

2022: 1,082 tonnes. That was the highest level since records began in 1950 and double the 2021 figure.

2023: 1,037 tonnes

2024: 1,045 tonnes. Marks the third consecutive year of a 1000+ purchase.

2025 (Projection): 600-700 tonnes, as de-dollarization and reserve diversification become entrenched policies.

The numbers show this is not a vague trend; it is driven by clear, repeat (but somewhat patchy) buying by Central Banks worldwide.

Why do I say, ‘somewhat patchy’?

Well, look at some of these buying patterns:

The PBOC paused its 18-month gold-buying streak in mid-2024, only to resume months later.

After a record 2022 purchase, Turkey briefly turned seller before launching a new, ongoing 27-month buying streak.

And then, there are some non-traditional buyers showing clear intent in 2025.

Which Central Bank has made the highest net purchase of Gold this year?

Russia?

No.

China?

No.

Surely Indonesia then?

No.

It’s Poland.

Next largest buyer?

China?

No.

It’s Kazakhstan.

The frenzied nature of the buying from the very fountainheads of monetary policy is unusual.

Central Banks are expected to combat inflation using interest rates and liquidity operations. Not by hoarding a ‘store of value’ themselves.

So, why the frenzied buying?

If it is to hedge themselves against the very inflation they are mandated to control, then it’s ironic!

Geopolitical concerns and the threat of confiscation of reserves are valid, but is that enough to justify this scale of buying?

1000+ tonnes? Year-after-Year?

This leads to two critical points:

1. What happens when Central Banks realize that their massive gold stockpiles generate zero cash flow? There is a massive opportunity cost there!

2. And if these are the leading moves to build a war chest to pay down ballooning public debt, then history offers a stark warning.

Look no further than the Central Bank Gold Agreement (CBGA) of the late 1990s. Coordinated selling to manage the price led to a 10+ year bear market.

Now, imagine the reverse: A coordinated gold sell-off (again!) by indebted nations could trigger an unprecedented price spiral.

Central Banks’ gold stockpiling ultimately reveals a lack of confidence in the fiat system they oversee.

In other words, Central Banks are preparing for a scenario that their own policies may have helped create.

Traditional Central Banking as we knew it appears well past its shelf life.

And that may not really be a bad thing.

By

Avinash Menon, CFA

Founder and CEO,

52 Seconds Capital Limited

Other New Articles

Kalshi surged past Polymarket in trading volumes last week.

Both entities are regulated by CFTC (Commodities Futures Trading Commision)

It’s a weird world we live in today when you consider that what was being traded in such record volumes by both Kalshi and Polymarket was ‘Predictions’

Is that [Prediction] even an asset class?

The regulatory vacuum here does ring a bell, right?

Remember the early days of Bitcoin?

Regulators scrambled to answer a basic question:

Is it a commodity?

Or a security?

Or a currency?

And that confusion around the choice of ‘box’ created years of uncertainty.

We now appear to be at the same inflection point with Prediction Markets (on the definition of the asset class that is; this isn’t about weighing the pros and cons of ‘Crypto-assets’ against ‘Predictions’)

The CFTC oversees Kalshi and Polymarket.

But doesn’t the CFTC govern commodity futures – like contracts on say the price of wheat or oil?

A bet on ‘Will the Fed cut rates by 25 bps or 50 bps?’ is not a ‘futures’ on an ‘asset’; it’s a wager.

This is a fundamental mismatch.

There is another obvious elephant in the room here: Insider Information.

Futures is largely about inside knowledge (a farmer hedging his wheat crop against a price change is using specialized, insider-driven knowledge. The farmer will indeed potentially know more about the future path of the price of Wheat than you or I), so what really is then the point of boxing in ‘Predictions’ with ‘Futures’?

Surely, that is as ‘light-touch’ and as ‘definition-less’ as it can get when it comes to regulation.

This lack of definition creates a massive blind spot for insider trading. (Calling it an ‘Event Contract’ instead of a ‘Prediction’ does not give it better definition)

Laws preventing a government aide from trading stock on non-public information are clear.

But the laws preventing that same aide from betting on an event contract about a policy decision are untested and murky.

The ‘asset’ they are trading is simply not defined.

Sure, the CFTC is an expert at ensuring market integrity for commodities, but policing information asymmetry in geopolitics and policy is far outside its mandate.

It’s a fundamentally different challenge.

By

Avinash Menon, CFA

Founder and CEO,

52 Seconds Capital Limited

Other New Articles

Yesterday’s FOMC meeting was billed as the Fed reclaiming its ‘independent voice and the triumphant return of consensus’

Was it an interesting exercise in Group Think? Absolutely.

But was it a reclamation of ‘Independence’ and a ‘Return of Consensus’?

Let us not kid ourselves.

Yes, the headline takeaway was that the Governors Michelle Bowman and Christopher Waller, incidentally both Trump appointees as well, who dissented in the July FOMC, fell back in line, leaving only Stephen Miran, the ‘Politician-Governor’ as the lone dissenter with a 50-bps move.

July’s double-dissent, the first in over three decades, was promptly relegated to history.

And yesterday’s outcome was billed as an excellent display of consensus.

Markets, of course, love the idea of a united Fed. Market commentators rushed to declare that Powell had successfully guided his committee back into harmony and the entire committee (except You-Know-Who) had completed a victory lap.

The Board of Governors.

Unified and independent against the Politician-Governor.

End of story?

No, it’s not.

Look closer – especially at those dot plots.

Powell framed the cut as ‘risk management’ with the Balance of Risks appearing to shift towards unemployment over inflation.

But the committee’s own projections betray him:

1) The decision on whether there will be one more cut or two this year was razor thin – 10 vs. 9. That’s not consensus, that’s as divisive as it can get.

2) And buried in those dot plots? A subtle but a real dissent nevertheless – one policymaker signalling no cuts at all in 2025!

So yes, Miran grabbed the spotlight as the ONLY dissenter (and with the blackout window ending today, he will be everywhere with his soundbites starting tomorrow); but in reality, there were 2 dissents.

So yeah, the Fed’s show of unity is more performance than reality.

(In general, we have short memories. We move on fairly quickly. Such is deluge of information hitting us. In reality, it’s only been a few weeks since Gov. Kugler stepped down (her place in the committee was taken by Miran). Strangely, there was no reason offered whatsoever for her decision to leave. See extract from the FOMC MoM July 2025)

Yesterday’s meeting wasn’t the Fed reclaiming independence. Far from it. And yes, as those dot plots show: the jury is still out on whether the Balance of Risks have shifted.

Behind the choreography, the FOMC committee appears visibly less ‘independent’ and deeply divided on the path ahead.

Yesterday, in reality, was less about ‘reclaiming independence and consensus’.

But appeared more an exercise to formally introduce market participants to The Black Sheep within the FOMC’s ‘incredibly cohesive’ Board of Governors.

So yeah, all-in-all a whole lot of curated Group Think.

By

Avinash Menon, CFA

Founder and CEO,

52 Seconds Capital Limited

Other New Articles

Oracle’s stock is set for its biggest post earnings pop in years.

The trigger for that?

A single, staggering metric: Remaining Performance Obligations (RPO) soaring to $455 Billion.

That nearly half a trillion dollars!

And this number highlights one specific facet of AI.

And it’s not ‘training’.

It’s a vote of confidence (from some of Oracle’s biggest clients) that ‘inferencing’ will draw some of the largest AI-related spends over this decade.

Since early-2023, we have all been captivated by the AI-trained LLMs (Chat GPT, Gemini, Grok, Llama).

Larry Ellison, on the earnings call, was pretty clear about why inferencing could be a bigger deal for long-term AI evolution.

Here is what he said:

“Training AI models is a gigantic multi-trillion-dollar market. It’s hard to conceive of a technology market as large as that one. If you look closely, you can find one that’s even larger. It’s the market for AI inferencing. Millions of customers using those AI models to run businesses and governments.

In fact, the AI inferencing market will be much, much larger than the AI training market”

And why is inferencing bigger?

A simple way to look at this would be:

The training phase is when you show an AI model thousands of pictures of cats and dogs. The AI model studies them, learn the patterns (ears, whiskers, paws), and eventually figure it out. This phase is undeniably expensive and time-consuming.

Inferencing is when you want to use AI, and so it’s that moment when you ask, “Is that a cat or a dog?”

This is the entire point of the training (and of AI)

Inference happens every time …

– Every time you ask ChatGPT a question

– Every time Netflix recommends a show

– Every time your phone unlocks with face ID

That explains the post earnings pop because Oracle, by virtue of being the world’s largest custodian of high-value private enterprise data, is undeniably in pole position to corner inferencing capacity.

Ps: There is no word in the English language for the opposite of ‘Oracle’.

Maybe there is.

‘Jim Cramer’ perhaps?

But hang on … who do you see taking a victory lap today?

By

Avinash Menon, CFA

Founder and CEO,

52 Seconds Capital Limited

Other New Articles

The Trump administration’s relentless attack on the Federal Reserve is the symptom of a deeper desperation: of an administration rapidly running out of options to manage the country’s gargantuan and growing debt pile. (Currently at $37T)

The DOGE dissolution earlier this year was a critical moment.

It proved conclusively that those ‘third rails’ of fiscal policy — raising taxes and cutting entitlement spending — cannot be touched.

Attacking the Fed, Tariffs, and ad-hoc interventions into Corporate America (like the Intel stake and the revenue share with NVDIA and AMD) are anyway piecemeal approaches and do not really address the scale of the problem.

(What do you make of the fact that, the country, with unarguably the most powerful military on the planet, already spends more on interest payments to service debt than on Defence?)

All three approaches are marginal tools, not an outcome focused strategy. They merely chip at the edges of a towering pile of debt.

So, what then could be a more serious, effective option?

Think about it.

When households are in a similar situation, saddled with a truckload of debt and if the interest payments really start to crowd out all other spends, what would you do?

You would do the ONE thing that can truly alter the situation meaningfully.

Asset Sales.

The US government is one of the world’s largest landowners and asset holders, with over 640 million acres (that about 30% of total land acres), vast energy rights, infrastructure, and IP.

Asset sales or Asset Recycling initiatives isn’t without a precedent.

Facing similar political constraints, Australia incentivized its states to sell mature, public assets (like ports and power networks) and used the proceeds to fund new, productivity-boosting infrastructure.

The federal government contributed 15% of the funding for new projects, creating a powerful ‘two-fer’: unlocking investment for the future while recycling capital from the past.

The logic is compelling:

✅ Politically palatable: Easier for voters to buy-in than cuts to entitlements or tax hikes.

✅ Fiscally pragmatic: Generates a massive, one-time revenue infusion to pay down debt.

✅ Forward looking: Can be designed, as in Australia, to fund critical new investment in national infrastructure.

So, while the US has never done this before; asset sales, may soon move from the fringe to the center of the debt debate.

It appears inevitable.

Granted, governments, unlike households, get to binge on potentially infinite debt.

But there are finite limits to interest payments. (Assuming that we do not descend into the Kafkaesque zero or negative rate world! 😀)

And when you can’t raise revenue or cut spending to service those rising interest payments, you will eventually — whether you are a government or household — have to look at your balance sheet.

And establish a pecking order for the sale of your assets.

By

Avinash Menon, CFA

Founder and CEO,

52 Seconds Capital Limited

Other New Articles