Worth Wray is quickly becoming one of my favorite economists. He is a fellow "young punk, with no respect for authority" (as my mentor Charles said of me), so I suspect that we have similar philosophical underpinnings and ways of looking at the world.
The link to the original article is here: https://d21uq3hx4esec9.cloudfront.net/uploads/pdf/141130_TFTF2.pdf
By John Mauldin | Dec 01, 2014
Since that time Worth Wray and I and our entire team at Mauldin Economics have done a great deal of research on Bitcoin. We will soon release a video documentary that is one of the best productions I’ve ever been involved with and that does a good job of explaining both the controversy around Bitcoin and its considerable promise. We talked with skeptics, enthusiasts, and people willing to put up tens of millions of dollars betting on the future of Bitcoin.
Worth Wray has written this week’s letter as a summary of what we know about Bitcoin. Delving into its history and bringing us up to date, he also offers a glimpse of the future. At the end of the letter I offer a few of my own thoughts on the relationships among gold, fiat money, Bitcoin, and financial transactions.
If nothing else, Bitcoin offers a provocative way to think of the future of money. Now let me turn it over to Worth.
Is Bitcoin the Future?
By Worth Wray
“Growth demands a temporary surrender of security.”
– Gail Sheehy
“When people write the history of this thing, of bitcoin, they
are not going to write the story of 6 million to a billion. What is
truly remarkable is the story of zero to 6 million. It has already
happened! And we’re not paying attention! That’s incredible. That’s what
had one chance in a million, and it already happened.”
– Wences Casares, Founder & CEO of Xapo
“[Virtual currencies] may hold long-term promise, particularly
if the innovations promote a faster, more secure and more efficient
payment system.”
– Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, USA
Yusko’s Rule
Before I teamed up with John Mauldin in July 2013, I worked as the portfolio strategist for an $18-billion money manager in Houston that, among its other businesses, co-managed (with an elite team of investors from the university endowment world) one of the largest registered funds of funds in the United States.
I had a front-row seat for every investment decision in a multi-billion-dollar portfolio for almost five years, and for a bright-eyed kid from South Louisiana it was a life-changing experience that no graduate school in the world could have offered… an opportunity to learn from some of the most experienced minds in finance and hone the skills I would need to identify disruptive macro trends and build more balanced portfolios with those forces in mind.
That opportunity to learn, not just about investments but also how to think about emerging trends, continues to inform everything I do today; and Morgan Creek Capital Management’s Mark Yusko – a man who has built his career on incorporating investment talent and macro themes into highly diversified portfolios – continues to be one of my most important teachers.
In the course of his daily business (which involves bouncing around the world searching for new ideas and world-class talent), Yusko has evolved a rule for vetting new ideas:
If I hear something once, I remember it. If I hear it twice, I write it down. If I hear it three times, I do something about it.
It sounds simple, as the most valuable investment insights usually are; but Mark is not just talking about “new” ideas that appear on the front page of the New York Times or the opening segment of CNBC’s Squawk Box. He’s saying that in the course of tapping into a large pool of truly world-class thinkers – who range from hedge fund legends like Julian Robertson and Stanley Druckenmiller to venture capitalists like David Hornik and Marc Andreesson – it pays to pay attention.
Innovative ideas can grow into consensus views and missed investment opportunities before our very eyes in a world awash with information. With constant access to the web through our computers, tablets, and smart phones, it’s easy for investors to filter out valuable information in an effort to cut through all the noise; but even still, it’s possible to catch emerging trends early enough in their life cycles by holding to a homework rule: When an idea comes up over and over again – especially when it’s validated by experienced investors who command and influence vast sums of capital – it’s not necessarily time to buy, but it’s time to do your homework.
And when it comes to Bitcoin, I should have done my homework earlier.
Thank goodness it’s still early…
... [Edit: I cut out most of the technical stuff; You are free to read it on the link to the original article above]
Thoughts on Bitcoin from John
If you ask me whether I truly believe that in 2050 the main medium of exchange will be paper money, the very quick answer is that I don’t. I also think there is a better than reasonable chance that it won’t be a fiat currency. But will it be Bitcoin? My best guess is that it will not be Bitcoin as currently constructed but rather an evolved version.
I know the following will be somewhat controversial, but work through with me on what I hope will be a helpful way to think about money in general. The current structure of Bitcoin carries the same inherent flaw that gold does (and to some extent the euro, too): in a world of ever-increasing abundance, gold is massively deflationary and provides unreasonable “rents” to those who hold it. Even given that inherent flaw, it has been the most stable store of value for millennia.
To think about what money will be in the future you have to shake off the chains of the past and your preconceived notions of what money is. Money is not just, or should I say, is more than a medium of exchange. It is also a medium of information. It tells us what the marketplace wants and the price it is willing to pay for a particular good or service. The (often fatal) flaw in fiat currencies is that they manipulate and distort the information contained within the currency, thereby damaging the information flows involved in the exchange of goods and services. For instance, the practice of quantitative easing engaged in by major central banks has encouraged money to go into certain markets (such as stocks), distorting the information reflected in the price.
Rather than looking for the information provided by the market and adjusting our investments and purchases accordingly, we are forced to focus on the information provided by the Federal Reserve and its quantitative easing. To confuse the actions of the Federal Reserve with the actions of the market is to miss the point that the Federal Reserve is actively manipulating the market for its own purposes, however positively motivated.
Advocates of gold believe that a gold-backed currency would eliminate that price distortion, and they have a point. However, if we were to decide to use gold as the sole basis for our currency, we would have to value it at some order of magnitude higher than it is today in order not to create massive deflationary instability. I’m not sure that $10,000 or even $20,000 per ounce of gold would be nearly high enough, given the massive amount of sovereign debt in the world.
But even supposing that we (as a global system) could somehow manage to deal with the logistical nightmare of moving to a single, physical, commodity-backed currency, future growth in the world would soon overwhelm the limited supply of gold, and the prices of goods and services would deflate over time, creating their own backlash. History buffs will recall William Jennings Bryan and his famous cry, “We [mostly referring to farmers] will not be crucified on a cross of gold!”
Now some might see ever-falling prices as a good thing, but they would induce a different type of instability in the system. Given the overwhelming extent of global debt, I think the chances of moving to a physical currency based on gold are slim to none, and Slim left on the morning train. Go back and read the economic history of the latter half of the 1800s in the US. From one point of view it was a golden era of growth and prosperity driven by huge leaps in technology. But it created serious problems for many of those on the lower economic rungs. If you think income inequality is a problem today, then you won’t like what happened in the late 1800s.
The leaders of that era came together to try to create a new system that could prevent the frequent panics and crashes that were inherent in the financial system of the day, and eventually we got the Federal Reserve and other ostensible improvements. But that does not mean the current system of central banks and fiat currencies does not have its own flaws. We should not limit our thinking to the economic systems of the past or present as we think about a future economic system. How do we create a truly stable, equitable, and efficient basis for exchange?
While I think that Bitcoin as currently configured has limitations, the technology of the blockchain is one of the most potentially revolutionary developments of the last century. I think we evolve to Bitcoin 2.0 or 3.0, using the same blockchain technology, but with a way to make the new currency a truly stable medium of information that can be easily exchanged for goods and services.
Why not create a currency that is backed by a number of commodities, with gold perhaps as the backbone? Why even limit ourselves to commodities? Bitcoin as currently configured could be part of the basket. Anything that can be represented in a digital form and has a reasonably stable long-term value could be considered.
All I want from my currency is to be able to buy and sell goods and services, make investments, and have a reasonable expectation as to what my currency will be worth in terms of purchasing power if I hold it for months or years.
I think that some of the clever venture capitalists who are exploring Bitcoin will join forces with one or more large international investment banks and create something along those lines. And once someone shows the way, breaking the chains of the past, we will have a period of innovation rivaling the Cambrian explosion.
The vast majority of my purchases are electronic today. I think that percentage will continue to grow. Frankly, I really don’t care what happens inside “the system” after I wave my iPhone over the new Apple Pay device (or use my credit card). I just want to walk out of the store with my purchases. (In the not too distant future there will be an extremely tiny RFID chip embedded in my hand, or at least on my person, which will also serve 100 other purposes.)
The Bitcoin blockchain technology allows for the most secure electronic transactions ever devised. Its adoption and acceptance seem inevitable to me. It will be used to validate everything we purchase: stocks, homes, investments, airplane tickets, etc. It will be a far cheaper and much more secure way to validate your ownership of anything, from your home to your stocks.
The blockchain will form the basis for the perfect medium of information exchange (at least as perfect as we humans can create), which in turn will be the basis for whatever electronic medium of financial exchange we evolve in the future. The market (that would be you and me) will move to whatever new medium serves our purposes best.
Satoshi, as technologically brilliant as he (or she or they) was, was limited in his understanding of economic exchange. He was trying to create electronic gold. To some degree, he was confusing technology with money. He was trying to overcome the flaws of our current monetary system (a very laudable goal, I might add) but limited himself to thinking within the box in which the current monetary system placed him.
The next generation of Bitcoin developers are going to crawl out of that box and create whole new realms of possibilities. Once you realize that money is just information, and all you need to do is to provide the most stable mechanism of the transfer of information, you turn thinking about money on its head.
This is going to be massive amounts of fun to watch.
No comments:
Post a Comment