By Shanna McEachern, Manager, Field Marketing, Americas, IPC
Forming an asset class of their own, Bitcoin – and cryptocurrencies more generally – have stolen more than a few minutes in the limelight within the past year. In February 2017, the combined cryptocurrency market capitalisation floated around £14bn; one year later the market capitalisation exploded to a volatile £337bn (which was notably down from the £619bn peak only weeks prior). Moreover, respectable investors are predicting cryptocurrencies will soar above £1.5tr by the end of 2018.
With numbers of that magnitude, can the argument still be made that cryptocurrencies are just a fad or is this the natural step in the evolution of capital markets? Do cryptocurrencies deserve a place in an institutional investment portfolio, or are they teetering with extinction?
Superimposing the innovation of Bitcoin with the evolution of species in the theory of Darwinism, it can be suggested that cryptocurrencies followed an expectedly natural introduction to the financial marketplace. Darwinism, the theory of natural selection developed by Charles Darwin in the 1800’s, states that evolution occurs through the survival of small, inheritable mutations that render a species better able to survive and flourish. The concepts describing evolution in the natural world– namely: the slowness of change, the disproportionately impactful role of initial change-makers, and the fruitfulness of frequent engagements – bear an appreciable applicability to human innovation and advancement in our constructed world. As such, we can use these concepts to explain the becoming of cryptocurrencies.
Change takes time, and tends to occur gradually rather than suddenly
Similar to evolution, human innovation tends to occur within the realm of possibility and over long periods of time, as opposed to being entirely foreign ideas conceptualised in the ‘eureka!’ moments that are so frequently cited. Though many scientists and innovators stake claim to sudden break-throughs in their research, the reality is that nearly all such progress is the consequence of significant time, effort, or research leading up to the event. We think of Newton, for example, as conceptualising his theory of gravity when an apple fell onto his head (“Eureka!”). However, even if we assume the apple story to be true, a detailed study demonstrates that Newton wouldn’t publish his first theory of gravity for another 20 years.
Similarly, Bitcoin – and the other cryptocurrencies –may appear to the masses as a sudden, out-of-nowhere creation emerging in mid-to-late2017. However, many experts support that Bitcoin has been present for almost a decade (and a handful of newly-rich, early investors would proudly concur). As is true for the theory of gravity, Bitcoin was not birthed from nothing; rather, years of development went into the production of the technology behind it – namely, the development of distributed ledger technology (DLT) and blockchain.
As a change-maker, Bitcoin introduced a platform for innovation and the evolution of the financial marketplace
In ecology, scientists distinguish a special group of species dubbed ‘ecosystem engineers.’ These change-making species play a disproportionate role within their environment as they actually create habitats for the benefit and survival of others. Examples include woodpeckers, creating holes later inhabited by a different species of bird, or beavers damming a river to diversify the habitat.
In the financial ecosystem, Bitcoin may reasonably be deemed an ecosystem engineer, fundamentally altering the environment and popularising a platform (blockchain and DLT) upon which other innovations may flourish. Spawned from the blockchain concept, we saw the formation of Ethereum in 2013, which introduced a new (some may say, enhanced) platform that allowed for the development of apps across its network. From Bitcoin, the ecosystem thus evolved to include a diversity of other species: from thousands of other cryptocurrencies to coin-based economies and blockchain technologies.
The hype is helpful, whether you like it or not
In the natural world, random encounters at the molecular level can lead to genetic mutations and the introduction of new traits. At the organismal level random encounters between species may eventually lead to symbiotic partnerships or adaptation as organisms learn to live together. At the human level, random encounters are similarly fruitful as they lead to the sharing of knowledge and ideas through the network effect.
This concept is supported in the study of big cities, where creativity and innovation has been shown to thrive disproportionately when compared to more rural towns. Physical run-ins, the internet, and thriving social media platforms are bringing more people and more ideas together and spawning partnerships in innovation like never before. The more people talking about Bitcoin, the easier it becomes for innovators to find each other and exchange ideas. You might be tired of hearing about Bitcoin on the morning news, but that hype is only accelerating progress in blockchain, DLT and cryptocurrencies for future applications that extend far, far beyond an investment vehicle. So, just as molecular and organismal interactions bring novelty in the world of genetics, our media and social interactions (even when they feel redundant) bring innovation in modern ideas and technologies.
OK – The evolution of cryptocurrencies may not be so farfetched. Should institutions invest?
When posed the question of Bitcoin’s institutional investment viability many industry experts and investors are split. On the one hand, proponents for institutional investment in Bitcoin suggest that, bar the bubble of January 2018, it feels hard to testify that Bitcoin will fade to extinction when it has consistently bounced back from every momentary stumble thus far. And let’s not forget – the housing bubble certainly didn’t eradicate or invalidate real estate investment.
Further, proponents emphasised the enormous opportunity for returns in Bitcoin and other leading cryptocurrencies whilst the volatility runs high – which is expected behaviour for such a new asset class. In this regard, cryptocurrencies may favourably diversify the portfolio of the (highly) risk-friendly.
Conversely, not all financial institutions adhere to the same risk allowances and the combination of both internal policy and regulatory governance may render some shops simply unable to accept the risk. For those who can, the decision still has to be made on whether they want to, and how that investment will bode with their clientele. What’s more, any pro-crypto firm would almost certainly need to implement new infrastructure, source new liquidity, and integrate new systems for ordering, executing, clearing and settling.
The decision to then acknowledge cryptocurrencies as a viable asset class and incorporate them into an institutional investment portfolio rests entirely with the institution themselves, where one size does not fit all. There is a wide range of opinion amongst financial market participants, and the response from the CIO of a prop trading firm likely differs from a wealth manager at a large sell-sidebank.
In conclusion, when viewed through the lens of Darwinism, Bitcoin (and other cryptocurrencies) are more the consequence of gradual, natural evolution in the financial marketplace than of sudden, radical change. Both Bitcoin and beavers are accomplished change-makers within their own rights, both disrupting their environments to enable a wealth of other down-stream developments. However, whilst Bitcoin has brought tremendous value by way of a platform for new innovation, institutional investment decisions are, for now, still on a case-by-case basis.
Chinese fintech platforms expected to meet capital requirements within two years – regulator
BEIJING (Reuters) – China’s financial technology companies are expected to meet capital adequacy requirements within a maximum of two years, said Guo Shuqing, head of the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission (CBIRC) on Tuesday.
Micro lenders, consumer finance firms and banks operated by internet platforms should all have adequate capital like other financial institutions, Guo said at a news conference.
Chinese financial regulators have rolled out a slew of measures since last year to tighten the oversight of online lending practices in the country, particularly of technology firms looking to expand into the financial space, moving away from its once laissez-faire approach.
The drive scuppered Ant Group’s $37 billion initial public offering last year and has seen Alibaba’s fintech affiliate formulate plans to shift to a financial holding company structure.
“Starting a business needs capital, so does starting a financial business,” Guo said.
“As long as internet platforms conduct financial operations, the requirement of capital adequacy ratio on them should be the same as financial institutions.”
Financial regulators have set various grace periods for different internet platforms, according to Guo. Some have until the end of 2020 and others until the middle of 2021 to meet capital adequacy requirements, he said.
“But by a maximum of two years, (the capital adequacy of) all platforms should be back on track,” Guo added.
With regards to Ant Group’s restructuring, Guo said there were no restrictions on the financial business it develops but that all of its financial activities should to be regulated by laws.
Ant Group is in talks with other shareholders in its new consumer finance unit to bolster the firm’s capital as the fintech giant prepares to fold in its lucrative micro-lending businesses, Reuters reported last week.
It would need an additional capital of 30 billion yuan ($4.64 billion) to meet regulatory requirements, according to the report.
($1 = 6.4714 Chinese yuan)
(Reporting by Tina Qiao, Cheng Leng and Ryan Woo in Beijing; Se Young Lee in Washington; Editing by Christian Schmollinger and Ana Nicolaci da Costa)
Oil rises as vaccine and U.S. stimulus boost demand outlook
By Laila Kearney
NEW YORK (Reuters) – Oil prices were up on Monday on rising optimism about COVID-19 vaccinations, a U.S. economic stimulus package and growing factory activity in Europe despite coronavirus restrictions.
Signs that Chinese oil demand is slowing kept prices from moving higher.
Brent crude rose 51 cents, or 0.8%, at $64.93 a barrel by 11:29 a.m. EST (1629 GMT), and U.S. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude gained 28 cents, or 0.5%, to $61.78 a barrel.
Both contracts finished February 18% higher.
“The three major supportive factors are the prevalent vaccine rollouts, the optimism about economic growth and the view that the oil balance will get tighter as a result of the first two points,” PVM Oil Associates analyst Tamas Varga said.
Support also came from a $1.9 trillion coronavirus-related relief package passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on Saturday.
If approved by the Senate, the stimulus package would pay for vaccines and medical supplies, and send a new round of emergency financial aid to households and small businesses, which will have a direct impact on energy demand.
The approval of Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 shot also buoyed the economic outlook.
Manufacturing data from around the world was mixed.
China’s factory activity growth slipped to a nine-month low in February, sounding alarms over Chinese crude buying and pressuring oil prices.
“One negative is more and more talk about Chinese oil demand maybe faltering, that they bought all the oil that they’re going to need for a while,” said Phil Flynn, senior analyst at Price Futures Group in Chicago. “There’s some talk that their strategic reserves are filled up and so some people are betting against the Chinese continuing to drive oil prices.”
German activity, on the other hand, hit its highest level in more than three years and Euro zone factory activity raced along, driven by rising demand.
OPEC oil output fell in February as a voluntary cut by Saudi Arabia added to agreed reductions under a pact with allies, a Reuters survey found, ending a run of seven consecutive monthly increases.
The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and its allies, a group known as OPEC+, meet on Thursday and could discuss allowing as much as 1.5 million barrels per day of crude back into the market.
(Additional reporting by Bozorgmehr Sharafedin in London, Jessica Jaganathan and Florence Tan in Singapore; Editing by Jason Neely, Edmund Blair, Barbara Lewis, David Evans and Will Dunham)
EU auditors warn over 5 billion euro emergency Brexit spending
BRUSSELS (Reuters) – The European Union lacks tight oversight of 5 billion euros in emergency Brexit aid, the bloc’s auditors said on Monday, warning over governance risks regarding quick cash injections as Brussels prepares to disburse massive amounts of COVID-19-related stimulus.
The European Court of Auditors (ECA) said member states are due to get 4 billion euros, or most of the funding from the so-called Brexit Adjustment Reserve this year, without the usual requirement to agree with the bloc’s executive in advance what exactly they plan to spend it on.
“We therefore raise concerns that this proposed timing and structure creates a lack of certainty where member states may choose suboptimal or ineligible measures,” said Tony Murphy, a member of the ECA, an agency set up to ensure EU funds are spent properly.
Murphy said EU countries would only report on their completed spending in September 2023 and would need to pay back money that would not be deemed eligible.
“We would like to see changes,” to improve financial management and ensure the overall effectiveness of the Brexit emergency fund, Murphy said, though he said the ECA realised those most affected by Brexit needed the money swiftly.
Based on the size of trade ties with now-departed Britain and the share of fish catch in UK waters, Ireland is due to get a quarter of the Brexit emergency allocation, followed by the Netherlands, Germany and France.
As the EU moved from a protracted Brexit crisis to grappling with the coronavirus pandemic, last year it designed another unprecedented spending plan – economic stimulus worth 750 billion euros to pull member states out of a record recession.
While EU countries need to pre-agree with the Brussels-based European Commission their spending plans to receive recovery money, Murphy said trade-offs between swift and diligent spending were on the auditors’ minds.
“What we’d be striving at is a good balance between flexibility and appropriate control structures,” he said. “They are emergency measures, we can’t wait around for years for the plans to be drafted. It’s a matter of getting the balance right.”
(Reporting by Gabriela Baczynska; Editing by Hugh Lawson)
Why the future of VC investment will be more about ‘venture building’ than equity share
By Shawn Tan, CEO of Skymind We all know that historically the VC industry has been based on the belief...
Mining magnets – Arctic island finds green power can be a curse
By Jacob Gronholt-Pedersen and Eric Onstad COPENHAGEN (Reuters) – In the tenth century, Erik the Red, a Viking from Iceland,...
Senior leaders call on UK businesses not to fail young people
Leaders across major businesses including Barclays, M&S and BAE Systems call for more businesses to join Movement to Work The number of 16 to...
Chinese fintech platforms expected to meet capital requirements within two years – regulator
BEIJING (Reuters) – China’s financial technology companies are expected to meet capital adequacy requirements within a maximum of two years,...
Betting on death of petrol cars, Volvo to go all electric by 2030
By Nick Carey and Helena Soderpalm LONDON (Reuters) – Volvo’s entire car line-up will be fully electric by 2030, the...