Unstable Foundations: Can “Stablecoins” Survive the Rise of Central Bank Digital Currencies?

January 21, 2024

What’s in a name?

Shakespeare used this line in a play to suggest that a name is irrelevant.

(His justification: that which we call a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet!)

Many centuries on, today the author of the play still casts a long shadow over the central character who relays these words.

‘What’s in a name?’ is Juliet’s line; when she is telling the people of Rome that a name is nothing but a name. There is no meaning to it. Ms. Capulet tells her country she loves the person, and not the name ‘Montague’ itself.

But alas, we know how it unraveled as the star-crossed lovers hurtled towards their doom. The names mattered eventually.

Indeed, it was the only thing that mattered.

Ok, so what does this have to do with a post on finance?

Well, as in everything else in life, naming conventions matter in the world of finance.

And with the spotlight back on Cryptos this month, it may be a good idea for the regulators to look at one specific name there: Stablecoins (SC).

It’s been roughly a decade since the launch of BitUSD, the first ‘SC’.

What was this ‘SC’ backed by? Fiat? Commodities?

No, instead it was backed by cryptos (issued on the BitShares Blockchain).

BitUSD lost parity with the USD since then and hasn’t recovered.

Surely, you ask the question: What’s stable about ‘stablecoin’?

You would have thought that BitUSD breaking its peg and experiencing a price crush should have been the end of it.

Unfortunately, no.

Stablecoins had a fresh lease of life with the rapid ascent of Tether.to, Paxos, Circle, who repaired the dented credibility of BitUSD with a ‘currency board’ kind of an arrangement.

With a marketcap of $133 billion today, SCs have become systemically important.

And yet this expansive, credible-sounding asset class remains unregulated. (The US is yet to pass federal crypto regulation; UK has expanded the regulatory remits of Banks, to include SCs)

There is another puzzling aspect to the ‘Stablecoin’ that’s not yet been deciphered.

Why have regulators permitted the pvt sector to issue SCs? And what purpose is served by private sectors issuing SCs? (Most crypto exchanges today including Coinbase, Kraken and Binance permit conversion to and from Crypto to Fiat. This could admittedly have been a use case in 2014 but not today)

What utility could a SC possibly have when Central Banks (CB) issue Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDC) to the public?

It’s common for us to think of the money held in our bank accounts as Cash, but it’s not: instead, its liabilities of the bank where we hold our accounts.

Again, if you are holding a wad of cash in your hand, that cash is not the liability of any commercial bank but of the CB. The currency note is CB’s legal tender.

What’s the fundamental premise of a CBDC?

That it would make digital cash available to the public.

What utility could a SC possibly have then?

Call it by any other name and it would be just as ‘Stable’?

Really?

Avinash Menon, CFA

Founder and CEO,

52 Seconds Capital Limited

January 14, 2024

Mainstream media is calling it ─ the projected seismic shift in spending from fossil to renewables ─ the greatest reallocation of capital in the history of mankind.

Is there a headline number to this G.O.A.T capital reallocation?

Yes, indeed. And it’s staggering.

To achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, the estimated annual average (source: McKinsey & Company, 2021) spending on physical assets is $9.2 trillion. Aggregate that annual average spend until 2050 and you have a staggering amount of $275 trillion.

Now when you see a figure like that, as a Portfolio Manager, you are hard-wired to think: Follow that staggering dollar trail. This appears to be a long-term trend straight into the orbit. What’s my allocation weight to ‘Renewables’ going to be?

And yet, I admit this is the one question that I have dreaded facing from any client over the last couple of years:

How about we open an allocation to Renewables? (and that other elephant in the room now, after the SEC’s ETF grants: Bitcoin. But that’s a story for another day!)

The space hasn’t done too badly.

The S&P Global Clean Energy Index has returned a 10-year annualized USD total return of 5.17% (no doubt aided by the eye-popping 142% return in 2020)

The allocation question occasionally sees us (the client and me) meander in the direction of a ‘nibbling weight’. And that ‘nibbling weight’ is the truth that sets us free!

All portfolio managers routinely use nibbling weights to drop anchor on a security/sector.

And why do you use a nibbling weight?

For an obvious reason. The PM has little or no idea about the underlying security and is biding time for his or her ‘information coefficient’ related to this security/sector to expand.

Thats precisely the problem with Renewables now.

There is very little information coefficient to it, with investors in renewables stymied by a combination of muddle-through governmental policies (the EU considering import tariffs of Chinese EVs) and a mainstream media that often obfuscates facts.

So while the spotlight is on the US (on the back of the IRA) and on the EU (for stepping up the tempo on Solar, Onshore and Offshore Wind), the biggest actor on the renewables stage remains China.

Here’s why:

1. The Clean Energy Index spell this out in clear terms: Chinese firms make up 31% of the index constituents, with a total market cap of $267 bio (Vs. 17% of the constituents and a total market cap of $85 bio by US).

2. The IEA projects annual global wind energy capacity additions to increase from 75 GW in 2022 to 350 GW in 2030. China alone contributed 37 GW of that 75 GW targeted increment.

3. The story is no different when it comes to Solar Energy. China now controls 90% of the world’s polysilicon capacity.

4. There is an estimated 100+ pure-play EV manufacturers in China.

So there.

Its China with its chokehold on the renewables supply chain that will decide the narrative ─ and the portfolio weights ─ from hereon.

Avinash Menon, CFA

Founder and CEO,

52 Seconds Capital Limited

January 7, 2024

The story goes like this:

IA tax advisor was narrating the Cinderella story to his little daughter. The girl listened with rapt attention as her dad droned on. Past the evil stepmother, the horrid stepsisters, the cinders and overall misery of Cinderella’s existence. The girl, who usually assailed her dad with a barrage of questions, stayed quiet all through this. And then there was a twist in the story. The little girl’s interest was piqued. It was that moment when the pumpkin turns into a golden carriage. The dad knew a kiddie question was coming his way. The kind he thought he could swat away. But he was stumped by what came next.

The girl asked, “Daddy, when the pumpkin turned into a golden carriage would that be classified as income or a long-term capital gain?”

This piece of fiction aside, taxation is clearly not terra firma; it’s at best a quagmire.

Soft and shapeshifting. To be treaded upon cautiously.

Of all the places on the planet, taxation could take an interesting turn in the EU this year.

It’s been 15 months now since the European Union announced Windfall Taxes on fossil fuel companies. The rollout appeared hasty. The implementation, chaotic.

In Sep 2022, in the aftermath of the Russia-Ukraine war and the resulting super-spikes in energy and electricity prices, the EU agreed on a temporary tax on fossil fuel companies, applied on profits exceeding 20% of a firm’s average profits over the previous four years.

I referred to taxation as a shapeshifting quagmire earlier on. And for good reason. There are many other references to taxation such as levy, surcharge, cess, and duty.

The ones that an investor into energy assets in the EU must be wary off in the current context are ‘tax’ and ‘levy’.

Why?

Because a ‘Windfall Tax’ doesn’t start out as a ‘Tax’, it starts out instead as a Levy ─ a temporary measure to raise revenues, usually in response to a crisis.

A Windfall Tax is undoubtedly populist and is music to a taxpayer’s ears, but it appears that the EU has unwittingly let the genie out of the bottle.

How do you roll back something this populist?

Not surprisingly, many countries from the EU (Czech, Hungary, Slovakia, Spain) now plan to extend the application beyond the original phaseout timeline of Dec 31, 2023.

While these Windfall Taxes took straight aim at the Energy and Electricity Producers, some countries within the EU brought in a few more industries within the scope of these taxes (Italy sandbagged the banking sector with its Aug 2023 announcement of a 40% levy; Portugal targeted food distribution).

The EU had projected a €140 bio largesse from these taxes in Sep 2022, but the initiative has only yielded a fraction ─ levies on surplus revenue earned by fossil fuel companies in the EU have generated only €17.5 bio (source: Law360 UK).

Its early days in 2024 but with energy and electricity prices having cratered from their 2022 peaks (see pic), are there any windfall gains left to be taxed?

Avinash Menon, CFA

Founder and CEO,

52 Seconds Capital Limited

December 17, 2023

There are echoes of the early 90’s in the Biden administration’s moves to thwart the American consumer from purchasing EVs manufactured by Chinese firms.

In 1991, the Big 3 from Detroit ─ General Motors, Ford Motor Company and Chrysler Motors Corp ─ filed an anti-dumping petition with the US government against Toyota Motor Corporation, Nissan Motor Corporation, Mazda Motor Corporation and Mitsubishi, accusing the Japanese groups of selling their mini vans in the US at prices that the Big 3 perceived were ‘unfairly’ low.

That petition only succeeded in riling up the American consumer who pushed back strongly against the proposed tariffs on cheaper Japanese cars. A car was then ─ as it remains even now ─ the second most valued asset on a household’s balance sheet (behind the primary home).

Unsurprisingly, a couple of years later, the Big 3 of Detroit quietly shelved their lawsuit.

And so, it’s with a sense of deja vu that I watch the recent announcements from the White House.

After passing the Climate Law last year, which included a tax incentive worth $7,500 for buying an EV manufactured in the US, the Biden Administration made some tweaks recently in the language of the legislation that bars US manufactured EVs from qualifying for the tax break if critical minerals or other battery components are made by a Chinese entity.

Now, with the battery pack making up roughly 40%-50% of an EV’s production cost it’s the early 90’s all over again for the American consumer as the significantly cheaper Chinese EVs have been walled out by the current administration.

Unlike the price variance in the 70’s/80’s (the Japanese manufacturers had priced their cars about 10-13% lower in the US than they did in Japan), this time around the price arbitrage is significant.

As per JATO Dynamics, the average retail price of an electric car available in China is now less than half the price seen in both Europe and the USA. In the first half of 2023, an electric car cost $33,000 in China, $70,700 in Europe, and $72,000 in the U.S.

The Chinese EV industry’s price onslaught on the rest of the world comes from a combination of sustained government subsidies (China has spent about $57 billion, between 2016 and 2022, to support the industry).

That and some clairvoyance.

Its telling that China has already ended it’s 11-year long purchase subsidy program last year, while the US still meanders through tax-incentive related legislations that have had a stop-start sense to them ever since the Obama administration first created the EV tax credit in 2009 to encourage adoption.

Meanwhile, the Chinese EV manufacturers, after already cornering half the global EV sales last year, are making rapid inroads into Europe with plans to expand to the Middle East, Asia, and Latin America over the next couple of years.

For the American car consumer, it’s the early 90’s all over again.

Avinash Menon, CFA

Founder and CEO,

52 Seconds Capital Limited

December 10, 2023

Both mainstream and social media would like you to believe that there are only two wars on currently.

Well, if you broaden the definition of a ‘war’ to include insurgencies, ethnic, civil conflicts and territorial feuds, then the count of ongoing wars shoots up to ~30.

None of these ~30 countries, however, is Latin American.

Which is unusual since Latin America has traditionally been a stronghold for dictators and was also witness to some of history’s bloodiest wars.

The South American continent has been quiet for a long time now (the last war was fought in 1995 ─ the Cenepa War ─ between Ecuador and Peru).

That’s changed recently after Venezualan President, Maduro, sounded the war drums.

The bone of contention ─ the oil-rich Esequiba region, a territory claimed by Venezuela but controlled by neighbouring Guyana.

History sure does rhyme.

The Venezuelan intent to annex Esequiba has echoes of the Chaco War, fought from 1932 – 1935, between Paraguay and Bolivia, for control of the northern section of the Gran Chaco region.

The cause for that war?

Bolivia and Paraguay (both equally poor nations then) perceived the Chaco region to be oil rich.

There was another interesting twist to the Chaco War: long-forgotten now, but speculation was rife in Latin America then that Gran Chaco was the battleground state not between Bolivia and Paraguay but between Standard Oil (supporting Bolivia) and Shell (supporting Paraguay).

The Chaco War ended in 1935.

Nine decades on.

You know Shell.

On Standard Oil though, you may wonder….

Well, Standard Oil doesn’t exist today. Many of its descendants do though.

You know them today as ExxonMobil, Chevron and Marathon Petroleum Corporation (and many more).

Exxon and its partners (Hess Oil, CNOOC International) have bet a whopping $45 billion on their offshore oil projects in Guyana. The oil majors expect to bring daily capacity to 1.2 million bpd by 2027. (Guyana is so epochal that it influenced Chevron’s $53 billion acquisition of Hess earlier this year)

Maduro’s sounding of the war drums appears to be done with an eye on the elections next year. It is also perhaps a bumbled attempt to invoke his political mentor’s (the late Chavez) ideals as a leader who took on the US oil majors (Chavez had pushed ConocoPhilips and Exxon out of Venezuela in 2007).

Both heavily left-leaning leaders then promptly ran Venezuela into the ground.

Oddly enough, Maduro’s sabre-rattling comes at a time when Latin American powerhouses like Brazil, Mexico and Argentina are considering privatizing their energy assets.

Apart from it being a timely investment, was the Exxon largesse towards Guyana unfiltered feedback by the US oil majors to Venezuela for Chavez’s 2007 diktat?

Only time will tell.

Meanwhile, Maduro may well hark back to the events of the Chaco War and pay heed to that old adage: Don’t beat the drums of war unless you are ready to fight!

Avinash Menon, CFA

Founder and CEO,

52 Seconds Capital Limited

November 26, 2023

The history of the modern world is filled with many examples of global policies that started out in earnest only to reach a point in time, much later on, where the sunk costs far outweighed the originally intended for benefits.

Take the UNO for example, 78 years and about half a trillion dollars in costs later, would you say it still stays true to its original mission statement? Or has it reduced itself to an expensive debating club with a fancy New York address?

Again, while not a global policy, think about the long-term ramifications in China after its One-Child Policy. The policy, enforced in 1979 and estimated to have prevented 400 million births, was ended in 2016. It was too little, too late. China’s demographics had imploded by then.

It’s not all gloom-and-doom though, some global policies, like Nuclear Non-Proliferation have turned out to be sleeper hits, after initially having met with a lot of scepticism.

In the current era, global policy frameworks around Climate Change cannot afford missteps.

There is very little room for error since the stakes are very high, running into multiple trillions.

Risks abound though. Due to policy U-turns by key actors. Due to a lack of consensus. Or, simply due to differences around the preferred choice of pathways or approaches by the various actors towards Net Zero.

These risks cannot be wished away and are also often idiosyncratic in nature and so the measures to mitigate them could lie well outside the traditional playbook for implementing policy actions.

Take the US elections of 2024 for example. It appears that Trump has zeroed in on his bugbear for Election 2024 ─ and its Climate Change!

Think about the ‘stall’ that a rollback of the Biden regime’s climate laws, tax breaks, subsidies and policies could create for the Net Zero movement?

Other factors may also emerge. Due to a lack of cohesion around approaches.

The energy watchdog, International Energy Agency (IEA), has made it clear that energy producers must allocate half of their annual investments towards renewables: a point that doesn’t appear to sit well with some large energy producers who instead prefer to invest in Carbon Capture Projects.

You only need to look at recent reports of South Korean EV battery manufacturers scaling down their investments in the US to realize how a lack of policy clarity around Climate Change befuddles the private sector around their capex decisions.

All this is indicative that policy clarity and cohesiveness among all the actors (both within the global public and private sector) is the need of the hour.

This is precisely what makes COP28 UAE significant since it marks the conclusion of the first ever Global Stocktake, which aims to take stock of global action against climate change and pave the way for further actions in the future.

Both the private sector and the investor community (wary about getting wrong-footed) will watch the events unfolding at COP28 UAE closely.

Avinash Menon, CFA

Founder and CEO,

52 Seconds Capital Limited

November 19, 2023

For a long, long time, commodity investors had touted the ‘tangibility’ of that asset class as its most important virtue.

Jim Rogers once said:

“The price of a commodity will never go to zero. When you invest in commodities futures, you’re not buying a piece of paper that says you own an intangible piece of company that can go bankrupt.”

Well, as the events of 20 April 2020 showed, a commodity could go to zero (and even tip into a negative price zone) if there is no longer any “utility” for it.

Jim Rogers also once said: Commodities tend to zig when the equity markets zag. (I could never figure out that one either. DM me if you have).

Apart from their “tangibility” one of the other points that The Commodity Fan Club (TCFC) makes is around their limited supply.

This argument takes the form that, unlike Currencies or Stocks, commodities do not face the threat of devaluation ─ like currencies due to Quantitative Easing for example ─ simply because they cannot be ‘printed’. This theory started to gain ground especially in the aftermath of the Russia-Ukraine War as nations scrambled to make ‘Food Security’ and ‘Energy Security’ their top priorities; and export bans were enforced on everything ranging from Non-basmati rice (India) to Nickel (Indonesia).

Well, nothing could be further than the truth.

Supply shocks do move up prices temporarily, but the high prices eventually attract new entrants into production, creating a supply glut which eventually drives prices down again. (Wheat prices which had spiked up to $12.94 per bushel last year are now averaging closer to their prices in 2021)

There is another point which TCFC rarely factor in: the role of technology in decimating a commodity.

Anyone from TCFC who underestimates the impact of technology on a commodity’s very ability to exist only needs to make a trip to Surat, in India, where 90% of the world’s rough diamonds are cut and polished, to understand this better.

Surat is grappling with a major slump in demand for diamond over the last few years!

Reason? ─ The emergence of lab-grown diamonds!

Mind you, these aren’t ‘fake diamonds’ (which are usually Cubic Zirconia), these are as real as a diamond could get. Made in a lab. At a fraction of the cost of a natural diamond!

And while on diamond, who would have imagined that a material stronger than diamond could exist?

Yet, in 2004, Messrs. Andre Geim and Kostya Novoselov, announced the discovery of ‘a material that is stronger and stiffer than diamond, yet can be stretched by a quarter of its length, like rubber’.

They called it Graphene. And Graphene (being the tough guy that he is) is probably going to crowd out Kevlar soon.

Just goes on to show that commodities aren’t that docile an asset class as they are made out to be.

So, what’s next?

Lab-made Gold? (most definitely not, but that’s a story for a different day

Avinash Menon, CFA

Founder and CEO,

52 Seconds Capital Limited

November 5, 2023

Earlier this week, The Wall Street Journal reported that WeWork is expected to file for bankruptcy next week.

Surely that news must have created pangs of pain in the venture capital industry.

WeWork was after all a $47 billion colossus at its peak, in early 2019, before the pandemic sand-bagged the firm. This post is neither about WeWork’s peak valuation (the WSJ report described it as ‘astronomical’) nor its widely anticipated Chapter 11. This isn’t also about what-could-have-been if it weren’t for the pandemic. Or its founder’s various transgressions.

This post is about the problem WeWork was trying to solve. There would be very little disagreement over that. Co-working spaces remains as elegant a solution as ever. And WeWork ─ present in 777 locations in 39 countries across the world ─ checked the right boxes on scale and adoption as well.

So, yeah, that is the context here: what kind of problem do you pick to solve when capital is cheap?

Co-working WeWork? Bed and Breakfast @ Airbnb?

Or….

A dog walking app @ Wag! Group Co. or 10-minute grocery delivery apps?

There is a sub-context here, a parallel: the profligate spending of the private sector over the last half-a-decade on some inane ideas must serve as a stark reminder to the public sector ─ especially since we are now in an era where capital is no longer cheap ─ that capital must be rationed out only to ‘problems’ that need solving.

Else, any excess of ‘Revenues’ over ‘Government Expenditures’ is best directed to paying down ‘External Debt’ (A quick look at IMF’s Fiscal Monitor shows some remarkable stories ─ Oman, for example, has moved from a deficit of 15.67% in FY 2020 to a surplus of 6.25% in 2023!)

So, what would be public sector equivalent of spends into 10-minute grocery delivery apps?

Unfunded tax-cuts. Populist, vote-bank driven schemes. Unsustainable Subsidies.

2024 will witness general elections in India, Indonesia, Mexico and the US.

Fiscal prudence will be tested.

Avinash Menon, CFA

Founder and CEO,

52 Seconds Capital Limited

October 29, 2023

The International Energy Agency (IEA) released its Annual World Energy Outlook Report this month.

In a clear break from its past reports (in which timelines estimating peak demand were never referenced), the International Energy Agency (IEA) has, in this year’s report, projected that the demand for fossil fuels (oil, natural gas and coal) will peak well before the end of this decade.

It is ironical then that this very month also saw two of the biggest oil deals: ExxonMobil and Chevron, both using their pricey shares as currency, acquired Pioneer Natural Resources Company and Hess Corporation, in one fell swoop, for $60 billion and $53 billion respectively.

That’s an incredible $113 billion bet by the American energy giants that global consumption will remain well above the current 100 million bpd and peak demand is still many decades out.

Further, in a sign of how widely dispersed energy demand forecasts could get, OPEC, earlier this month, released a forecast projecting oil demand to reach 116 million bpd by 2045!

So, what gives?

By doubling down on investments into hydrocarbons, are the American oil companies’ doing a volte face on their Climate Change commitments? Was Engine No. 1’s activist stance at Exxon just a smokescreen? A mere attempt at greenwashing?

Not really.

On the contrary, I believe, the massive size of these acquisitions creates some clarity ─ for investors in stocks of US Oil firms ─ on how the American Oil Industry intends to deliver upon its climate change goals while balancing shareholders expectations around investment returns over the long term.

The American Oil Industry is, from hereon, more likely to continue to seek mega-oil deals to improve efficiency, while expanding acreage.

while European Oil majors like Shell, bp and TotalEnergies, hemmed in by their governments, are tilting their balance-sheet investments towards renewables and reducing their revenue exposures to fossil fuels, the US oil industry appears to have made their intent clear to hold onto their fossil fuel portfolios, while investing in ‘carbon capture and storage related technologies’ alongside.

As a technology, ‘carbon capture and storage’ is still in a nascent phase, but over the next few years, Financial Market Participants may expect the [Oil + Carbon Capture Tech] to be a constant buzzword in the earnings calls and management commentaries from US Oil Majors.

Avinash Menon, CFA

Founder and CEO,

52 Seconds Capital Limited

October 22, 2023

The VIX, trading at 21.71 currently, has spiked up 26% during the last 30 days.

Considering its still down 5.2% when viewed on a YTD basis, that 26% spike appears to be nothing more than mean-reversion when viewed relative to its long-run average of 20.

Yet, the current levels of VIX when viewed against its Sep 14 low of 12.82 translates to a stunning 70% spike!

Speaking metaphorically, a 70% spike in the VIX (also referred to as a Fear Gauge) is akin to the markets tracing an icy finger down an investor’s spine.

Well, despite that spike in VIX, there aren’t any visible shivers in the US Equity Markets (the US-matched-cash-equity-volumes has not spiked up substantially, its unlikely to top 42 billion shares by close of this month, and could be well below the record high of 49.79 billion shares traded in March during the banking crisis when the VIX spiked to 26.52, its highest ever this year, unless of course the markets experience an extraordinary break in these last few days of October).

One possible explanation for this muted dread appears to be the investor’s fascination with a newly discovered pocket of uncertainty: the whipsawing treasury yields and a budding interest (forgive the pun!) in VIX’s nondescript forgotten sibling – The MOVE Index.

In simple terms, what the VIX is to stock price volatility, the MOVE is to interest rate volatility.

The MOVE index calculates the implied volatility of U.S. Treasury options using a weighted average of option prices on Treasury futures across the 2-, 5-, 10-, and 30-year maturities.

While MOVE isn’t as mainstream as VIX (which is puzzling since the US stock market sizes up to $46 trillion in market cap while the global bond market sizes up to $133 trillion) it’s emerged from a really long winter – a winter characterized by Central Banks worldwide guiding ‘interest rate certainty’, negative real yields and unlimited QE to supress long term yields.

Invert those long-term Central Bank moves and you realize why we are perhaps witnessing the very beginning of spasmodic moves (what is with the puns today 😃) in the MOVE index.

The MOVE index trades at 135.45 currently, its highest level since late 2008.

Avinash Menon, CFA

Founder and CEO,

52 Seconds Capital Limited

Unstable Foundations: Can “Stablecoins” Survive the Rise of Central Bank Digital Currencies?

January 21, 2024

Other New Articles

Apple’s Veblen Gambit: $1,999 Foldable Pushes Tech into Necessary Luxury

Anthropic’s Invisible Brake: Severing Profit From Corporate Control

The Gold Backflip: How Fringe Gold-Embedded Notes Are Quietly Reshaping Monetary Experiments

Forget Nibbling, Go Big on Renewables?

January 14, 2024

Other New Articles

Apple’s Veblen Gambit: $1,999 Foldable Pushes Tech into Necessary Luxury

Anthropic’s Invisible Brake: Severing Profit From Corporate Control

The Gold Backflip: How Fringe Gold-Embedded Notes Are Quietly Reshaping Monetary Experiments

Windfall Whimper? EU Energy Profits Slump, Tax Grab Loses Fizz

January 7, 2024

Other New Articles

Apple’s Veblen Gambit: $1,999 Foldable Pushes Tech into Necessary Luxury

Anthropic’s Invisible Brake: Severing Profit From Corporate Control

The Gold Backflip: How Fringe Gold-Embedded Notes Are Quietly Reshaping Monetary Experiments

Chinese EVs Locked Out: Biden’s Anti-China Push Walls Out Consumers

December 17, 2023

Other New Articles

Apple’s Veblen Gambit: $1,999 Foldable Pushes Tech into Necessary Luxury

Anthropic’s Invisible Brake: Severing Profit From Corporate Control

The Gold Backflip: How Fringe Gold-Embedded Notes Are Quietly Reshaping Monetary Experiments

Latin America Takes Divergent Path: Privatization vs Resource Nationalism

December 10, 2023

Other New Articles

Apple’s Veblen Gambit: $1,999 Foldable Pushes Tech into Necessary Luxury

Anthropic’s Invisible Brake: Severing Profit From Corporate Control

The Gold Backflip: How Fringe Gold-Embedded Notes Are Quietly Reshaping Monetary Experiments

Appeal for Climate Policy Clarity as COP28 Looms

November 26, 2023

Other New Articles

Apple’s Veblen Gambit: $1,999 Foldable Pushes Tech into Necessary Luxury

Anthropic’s Invisible Brake: Severing Profit From Corporate Control

The Gold Backflip: How Fringe Gold-Embedded Notes Are Quietly Reshaping Monetary Experiments

Commodities: Not as Tangible as You Think? Lab Diamonds, Graphene Show Supply and Technology Can Disrupt

November 19, 2023

Other New Articles

Apple’s Veblen Gambit: $1,999 Foldable Pushes Tech into Necessary Luxury

Anthropic’s Invisible Brake: Severing Profit From Corporate Control

The Gold Backflip: How Fringe Gold-Embedded Notes Are Quietly Reshaping Monetary Experiments

WeWork declared Bankruptcy yet again, Rationing Capital to Solve Real Problems

November 5, 2023

Other New Articles

Apple’s Veblen Gambit: $1,999 Foldable Pushes Tech into Necessary Luxury

Anthropic’s Invisible Brake: Severing Profit From Corporate Control

The Gold Backflip: How Fringe Gold-Embedded Notes Are Quietly Reshaping Monetary Experiments

US Oil Majors Split Paths with European Rivals, Betting on Mega-Deals and Carbon Capture to Avert Climate Catastrophe

October 29, 2023

Other New Articles

Apple’s Veblen Gambit: $1,999 Foldable Pushes Tech into Necessary Luxury

Anthropic’s Invisible Brake: Severing Profit From Corporate Control

The Gold Backflip: How Fringe Gold-Embedded Notes Are Quietly Reshaping Monetary Experiments

MOVE Index Spikes to Highest Level Since 2008, Despite a calm US Equity Market

October 22, 2023

Other New Articles

Apple’s Veblen Gambit: $1,999 Foldable Pushes Tech into Necessary Luxury

Anthropic’s Invisible Brake: Severing Profit From Corporate Control

The Gold Backflip: How Fringe Gold-Embedded Notes Are Quietly Reshaping Monetary Experiments