Connect with us

As Money Printer Goes Brrrrr, Wall St Loses Its Fear of Bitcoin

As Money Printer Goes Brrrrr, Wall St Loses Its Fear of Bitcoin

Published

on

“I know anecdotally of several [investment managers] that have accumulated between $100 million and $500 million.”

This year will go down in infamy as one of the worst in living memory, but Wall Street veteran Jenny Q Ta says there’s been at least one bright spot — 2020 has marked a big shift in attitudes towards cryptocurrency from the Wall St. participants who once eyed the asset class with distrust.

The year began with Australia burning down, and moved into a worldwide pandemic that sparked a financial crisis and an unprecedented phase of economic stimulus — before morphing into the biggest wave of global protests in decades over racial injustice following the death of George Floyd.

And when it comes to the U.S. dollar, the apocalyptic vibe has shaken the faith of the most faithful — and turned the Bitcoin fearful into the crypto fearless.

“Ever since coronavirus hit, a lot of my friends did get into Bitcoin,” explains Ta, founder of Titan Securities, Vantage Investments and the social media and crypto commerce platform CoinLinked. She said many scooped up their first Bitcoin following the Black Thursday crash.

“They literally left finance, traditional markets selling equity and they bought Bitcoin. Many of them did. And it’s doubled — and we’ve seen Wall Street double. The difference between the two, and this is what my traditional finance friends have been telling me, is that Wall Street went up based on fake money from the Fed pumping into the market. But they know Bitcoin has a fixed 21 million tokens and it’s based on demand and supply. They now believe it could be $50,000 or even $100,000.”

Ta, author of Wall Street Cinderella, said the nationwide wave of protests and riots also focused minds on wealth preservation.

“More and more of my baby boomer friends actually called around and said ‘let’s pull money out of the bank’. Right? Because banks can shut down anytime and you can’t go and withdraw your money.They’re beginning to feel that digital currency is more effective. Peer-to-peer is more effective. Decentralization and censorship resistance is extremely important.”

Sea change on Wall Street

Nathan Montone, the co-founder of M31 Capital, lives on Wall Street “right across from the stock exchange”. The 31-year-old, who started trading Bitcoin in 2011, has also noticed a big shift in attitudes.

“It’s crazy how fast opinion is changing,” he says. “Until very recently it’s been the case that if you talk to any traditional investment banker or anyone in private equity, they’d be like ‘Get that internet money out of my face’ or ‘I remember that from 2017, isn’t it dead now?’”

“But you’d be surprised how quickly it’s changed in the face of all the money printing. There’s a lot of interest in fixed-cap, scarce assets.”

Montone believes that perhaps 15% of those working on Wall Street now have some sort of an interest in cryptocurrency.

More and more traditional finance folk have been picking up the phone to get advice about crypto from Mike Alfred, the co-founder and CEO of crypto market analytics company Digital Assets Data. He says that “literally 20 friends from outside the industry” have reached out to him in recent weeks, trying to find out how to get involved.

Alfred’s company aims to provide high-quality information about crypto assets for institutions, in much the same way that Morningstar does for traditional assets

“My cap table is full of angel investors and there’s some guys that years ago would have thought Bitcoin is like a toy or a scam. And now they’re actively reaching out and asking ‘Hey tell me more about how Bitcoin works? Can you send me a couple of research papers so I can get up to speed and understand it?’”

Part of the appeal is getting in early on an emerging asset class – like internet stocks in the ‘90s. But he agrees with Montone and Ta that a major catalyst is a loss of faith in the system.

“Everything’s overvalued: Real estate is overvalued, bonds are definitely overvalued — equities are overvalued,” Alfred says. “I think the biggest catalyst for that is … printing trillions of dollars. This feeling that people increasingly have that maybe their U.S. dollars are not as safe as they thought they were.

“That’s really driving the narrative and it’s causing people who didn’t take Bitcoin seriously, three, four or five years ago, to say maybe there’s a 1%, or 3%, or 5%, allocation mix.”  

Alfred says sophisticated investors aren’t looking for an altcoin to moon; they want limited exposure to a risky asset as part of a structured portfolio strategy.

“My friends are reaching out because they know I can put it in context, because they don’t want to talk to somebody who just says ‘100% in Bitcoin’,” he says.

“A lot of these folk are just looking for that legitimacy … they don’t want to just hear about how great Bitcoin is, they want to understand how it makes sense as a hedge.

“They want to know how it makes sense as a diversifier in a broader portfolio.”

Hard evidence of Bitcoin acceptance

The increasing interest from the top end of town is not just anecdotal. Institution-focused crypto asset manager Grayscale Investments has seen assets under management grow by 250% this year, to $4.1 billion.

And a Fidelity survey of 774 institutional investors, including pension funds, family offices, investment consultants and hedge funds across the five months to March found that 36% already had exposure to cryptocurrency. Europe leads the way with 45% invested, while in the US the number grew from 22% last year to 27% today. Fidelity’s Tom Jessop noted: 

“These results confirm a trend we are seeing in the market towards greater interest in and acceptance of digital assets as a new investable asset class.”

In April, Renaissance Technologies’ $10 billion Medallion Fund began trading in Bitcoin futures and Andreessen Horowitz closed its second crypto fund with half a billion dollars in capital commitments. The largest bank in America, JPMorgan Chase, has also reversed course on Bitcoin from 2017, when CEO Jamie Dimon called it a “fraud” that was “worse than tulip bulbs”. These days the bank is happily approving accounts for exchanges like Coinbase and Gemini exchanges, and bank analysts released a report in June about the financial markets crash that found Bitcoin’s market structure to be more resilient than those of currencies, equities, Treasuries, and gold.

“Five years ago none of these guys were active in this market and now a bunch of them are,” says Alfred. “They are some of the most sophisticated institutional investors on the planet and they’re all buying Bitcoin.”

“I know anecdotally of several managers that have accumulated between $100 million and $500 million.”

Arrival of the King

Well-known early adopters from traditional finance — think Galaxy Digital’s Mike Novogratz, venture capitalist Tim Draper and Real Vision’s Raoul Pal — have recently been joined by Paul Tudor Jones, the founder and CEO of Tudor Investments.

The 65-year-old billionaire hedge fund manager made his fortune predicting and shorting the 1987 stock market crash, so it’s telling that in the midst of this year’s financial crash he chose to allocate 1% – 2% of his assets to Bitcoin.

“When I think of Bitcoin, I look at it as one tiny part of a portfolio. It may end up being the best performer of all of them, I kind of think it might be,” he told CNBC.

When one of the world’s top macroeconomic traders says he finds the ‘inflation hedge’ narrative of Bitcoin compelling, ears prick up. Montone says Jones’ announcement marked a coming of age for Bitcoin.

“By publicly announcing he’s buying it for himself and for clients, you know if you’re a fund manager who was thinking you’d get fired for doing this [investing in digital assets] you can now always point to Paul Tudor Jones and Renaissance Technologies buying Bitcoin,” he says.

“It’s removed career risk for traditional investors who are interested in the value drivers behind Bitcoin and scarce assets but don’t want to get fired for pitching it.”

Calling down the rabbit hole

One of the traditional finance people who picked up the phone to learn more about crypto was Michael Swensson — a former vice president at Goldman Sachs, and Chief Operating Officer, Enterprise Tech at Bridgewater Associates, with $165 billion under management. About a year ago he called up Montone to talk about inflation hedges, digital gold and crypto.

Swensson says he was fascinated by the tech and the transparency.

“There’s a couple of reasons why I started getting involved in crypto, one of them being the technology and the other the way in which transactions are very transparent, and there is not a small group of individuals setting policies on what the value of your dollar is. It’s a much more open source system,” he says.

“I could submit a transaction and I can watch it flow all the way into the blockchain. It’s pretty unique to watch it from one side to another.”

Montone says Swensson grew more and more enthusiastic.

“I watched him fall down the rabbit hole and just get more and more interested and more and more excited about the potential upside because Bitcoin and gold have the same value drivers — but one of them has a much more significant potential upside,” he says.  “We talked for about a year before I pitched him on coming on as a co-founder.”

The pair launched the institutional grade crypto investment fund M31 Capital, blending Montone’s crypto native perspective with Swensson’s deep experience in traditional finance.

So why does a 40-year-old investment banker with a glittering career at the world’s largest hedge fund decide to throw it all away for the chance to work on a crypto fund with a few million to play with?

“Scale really means nothing to me,” he says. “The thing that is attractive to me, it’s the opportunity to not just invest in an asset class, but to help shape the direction of the asset class. It’s the ability to get your hands in there and actually help make crypto more accessible to the mainstream.”  

Montone says Swensson is looking to his future, not the past. “It’s exciting. All the potential upside that’s on the table,” he says. “You’re not focused on joining a five to ten million dollar fund, you’re focused on joining a future multi-billion fund.”

And it’s a good illustration of why it’s individuals, rather than institutions, that are driving the move to digital assets.

“When people talk about this wall of institutional capital coming into crypto, they’re envisioning it being the funds right? Like Bridgewater gets into crypto,” says Montone. “I don’t think they’re thinking about it as kind of this slow drip of, you know, not institutional money coming in, but institutional talent coming in, people like Michael getting sold on the space kind of one by one, until all of Wall Street’s talent is in the crypto space rather than the equity space.”

Will DeFi attract institutional investors?

Henrik Andersson spent a decade trading equities on Wall Street for Handelsbanken, one of the largest investment banks in Scandinavia. “I’ve been trading stocks since I was 12 years old,” he says. “I never imagined myself leaving traditional finance but then I discovered Bitcoin.”

Now the Chief Investment Officer for crypto fund Apollo Capital in Melbourne, Andersson believes that DeFi (decentralized finance) will play a key role in attracting institutional investors into the space.

That’s because DeFi protocols like Synthetix and Kyber Network are working products that have cash flows, unlike many tokens built on vaporware and grand promises in the ICO era. For the first time, tokens can be valued in a similar way to traditional stocks.

“I think that makes them much more appealing,” he says.  “From time to time you hear ‘these things don’t have a value’ But that’s not true anymore in the DeFi space. Most of these assets that they hold, they have some kind of on chain cash flow that you can value using traditional metrics.”

To be sure, DeFi price to earnings ratios are high — at the time of writing, 65 for Balancer, 144 for Compound, 253 for Synthetix — but they are still ‘better value’ than Tesla’s P/E of 334… and many would argue that they have similar potential for disruptive growth. Swensson is tipping a DeFi led bull run that will draw in institutional interest.

“Absolutely, I mean it’s a big focus for our fund, we have many assets in the DeFi space that are up hundreds of percent this year,” he says.

Assets Bakkt

Jennifer Ilkiw, head of Intercontinental Exchange and Bakkt business development for the Asia Pacific region, says she was one of those drawn into the space by a lone crypto enthusiast talking it up at work as the Bitcoin price went parabolic.

“I got drawn into it first because a colleague at work kept talking about it — and he was even mining it at the time,” she said. “As the prices went up most people started looking at it — I was always amazed that as the price of BTC went up more and more people would want to learn about it.”

So when former Bakkt CEO Kelly Loeffler asked if she wanted to help the team in Asia, “I said yes before she even finished her sentence.”

Steve Lee was ‘that guy’ talking up crypto and blockchain at Goldman Sachs after he became fascinated with the technology after watching Don Tapscott’s Ted Talk on blockchain in 2017. The portfolio manager and trader began devouring every piece of content he could find on blockchain, checking the crypto news sites every spare moment, reading white papers and attending crypto meetups.

“Then one day I started to notice my attention and awareness, it’s not on the desk at Goldman anymore. My attention is always on the blockchain stuff,” he recalls.

Lee joined Ari Paul’s BlockTower Capital in 2018. Trading in a high flying career for a crypto fund was seen as a risky move by some of his colleagues.

 

The best of blockchain, every Sunday

Subscribe for thoughtful explorations and leisurely reads from Magazine.

 

“I talked to a lot of people and some were encouraging about my passion but some of the more senior people were ‘Why are you quitting? You have a great job here at Goldman and it’s a risky world out there, why are you trying to do it?”

“(But) the passion I had for blockchain … I was 35 years old and back then I had never been that passionate about something. That was almost the first time I just felt that no matter what other people say, I feel like I have to do it.

“I love the job, I love the people I met, I love the culture, but I should not let this passion go. I feel like I’m missing one of the lifetime chances, or opportunities, for me.

“So that’s when I decided to leave Goldman, even though I love the firm and the culture and the people.”

From fear to FOMO

Of course, it’s still early for crypto, and one of the factors working against the wholesale adoption of digital assets by traditional finance is the size of the sector. The combined market cap of all cryptocurrencies combined is $272 billion, a drop in the ocean compared to the $42.3 trillion managed by the world’s top 20 asset managers.

Lee says awareness among his traditional finance friends is high, but they’re not clamoring to get into the space just yet. For that to change he says there needs to be more education,  widespread adoption of blockchain (whether in gaming or payments), and the trading and custody infrastructure needs to be refined to make institutional investors feel more comfortable.

“Slowly, traditional business people and financial institutions are coming in and this institutional level of service infrastructure to support this crypto market is being built every day. So as time goes on, I think more and more people will become more confident in this space,” he says. “The most important thing for traditional finance people to get in, is trust.”

Swensson cites Gemini as a good example of the sort of properly regulated and insured digital asset business that traditional finance people are comfortable with. It’s regulated as a New York State Trust and was the first crypto custodian and exchange to pass Deloitte audits for SOC1 and SOC2 financial operations compliance.

“These are industry firsts and so that’s laying the paving to a lot more traditional folks,” Swensson says. He adds that most people he talks to now about the space don’t express concerns over regulations or have an issue with the concept of digital assets. The issue is simply educating them enough to take the plunge.

“Most of the people in my personal network they’re generally interested and excited about the space, but are still learning about it,” he says.

“And once people start to do research and learn more about it and get their questions asked, nine times out of ten I find that person will go down the crypto rabbit hole and think ‘Why haven’t I invested sooner?”

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Q4 Update: Delinquencies, Foreclosures and REO

Today, in the Calculated Risk Real Estate Newsletter: Q4 Update: Delinquencies, Foreclosures and REO
A brief excerpt: I’ve argued repeatedly that we would NOT see a surge in foreclosures that would significantly impact house prices (as happened followi…

Published

on

Today, in the Calculated Risk Real Estate Newsletter: Q4 Update: Delinquencies, Foreclosures and REO

A brief excerpt:
I’ve argued repeatedly that we would NOT see a surge in foreclosures that would significantly impact house prices (as happened following the housing bubble). The two key reasons are mortgage lending has been solid, and most homeowners have substantial equity in their homes..
...
And on mortgage rates, here is some data from the FHFA’s National Mortgage Database showing the distribution of interest rates on closed-end, fixed-rate 1-4 family mortgages outstanding at the end of each quarter since Q1 2013 through Q3 2023 (Q4 2023 data will be released in a two weeks).

This shows the surge in the percent of loans under 3%, and also under 4%, starting in early 2020 as mortgage rates declined sharply during the pandemic. Currently 22.6% of loans are under 3%, 59.4% are under 4%, and 78.7% are under 5%.

With substantial equity, and low mortgage rates (mostly at a fixed rates), few homeowners will have financial difficulties.
There is much more in the article. You can subscribe at https://calculatedrisk.substack.com/

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

‘Bougie Broke’ – The Financial Reality Behind The Facade

‘Bougie Broke’ – The Financial Reality Behind The Facade

Authored by Michael Lebowitz via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

Social media users claiming…

Published

on

'Bougie Broke' - The Financial Reality Behind The Facade

Authored by Michael Lebowitz via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

Social media users claiming to be Bougie Broke share pictures of their fancy cars, high-fashion clothing, and selfies in exotic locations and expensive restaurants. Yet they complain about living paycheck to paycheck and lacking the means to support their lifestyle.

Bougie broke is like “keeping up with the Joneses,” spending beyond one’s means to impress others.

Bougie Broke gives us a glimpse into the financial condition of a growing number of consumers. Since personal consumption represents about two-thirds of economic activity, it’s worth diving into the Bougie Broke fad to appreciate if a large subset of the population can continue to consume at current rates.

The Wealth Divide Disclaimer

Forecasting personal consumption is always tricky, but it has become even more challenging in the post-pandemic era. To appreciate why we share a joke told by Mike Green.

Bill Gates and I walk into the bar…

Bartender: “Wow… a couple of billionaires on average!”

Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and other billionaires make us all much richer, on average. Unfortunately, we can’t use the average to pay our bills.

According to Wikipedia, Bill Gates is one of 756 billionaires living in the United States. Many of these billionaires became much wealthier due to the pandemic as their investment fortunes proliferated.

To appreciate the wealth divide, consider the graph below courtesy of Statista. 1% of the U.S. population holds 30% of the wealth. The wealthiest 10% of households have two-thirds of the wealth. The bottom half of the population accounts for less than 3% of the wealth.

The uber-wealthy grossly distorts consumption and savings data. And, with the sharp increase in their wealth over the past few years, the consumption and savings data are more distorted.

Furthermore, and critical to appreciate, the spending by the wealthy doesn’t fluctuate with the economy. Therefore, the spending of the lower wealth classes drives marginal changes in consumption. As such, the condition of the not-so-wealthy is most important for forecasting changes in consumption.

Revenge Spending

Deciphering personal data has also become more difficult because our spending habits have changed due to the pandemic.

A great example is revenge spending. Per the New York Times:

Ola Majekodunmi, the founder of All Things Money, a finance site for young adults, explained revenge spending as expenditures meant to make up for “lost time” after an event like the pandemic.

So, between the growing wealth divide and irregular spending habits, let’s quantify personal savings, debt usage, and real wages to appreciate better if Bougie Broke is a mass movement or a silly meme.

The Means To Consume 

Savings, debt, and wages are the three primary sources that give consumers the ability to consume.

Savings

The graph below shows the rollercoaster on which personal savings have been since the pandemic. The savings rate is hovering at the lowest rate since those seen before the 2008 recession. The total amount of personal savings is back to 2017 levels. But, on an inflation-adjusted basis, it’s at 10-year lows. On average, most consumers are drawing down their savings or less. Given that wages are increasing and unemployment is historically low, they must be consuming more.

Now, strip out the savings of the uber-wealthy, and it’s probable that the amount of personal savings for much of the population is negligible. A survey by Payroll.org estimates that 78% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck.

More on Insufficient Savings

The Fed’s latest, albeit old, Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households from June 2023 claims that over a third of households do not have enough savings to cover an unexpected $400 expense. We venture to guess that number has grown since then. To wit, the number of households with essentially no savings rose 5% from their prior report a year earlier.  

Relatively small, unexpected expenses, such as a car repair or a modest medical bill, can be a hardship for many families. When faced with a hypothetical expense of $400, 63 percent of all adults in 2022 said they would have covered it exclusively using cash, savings, or a credit card paid off at the next statement (referred to, altogether, as “cash or its equivalent”). The remainder said they would have paid by borrowing or selling something or said they would not have been able to cover the expense.

Debt

After periods where consumers drained their existing savings and/or devoted less of their paychecks to savings, they either slowed their consumption patterns or borrowed to keep them up. Currently, it seems like many are choosing the latter option. Consumer borrowing is accelerating at a quicker pace than it was before the pandemic. 

The first graph below shows outstanding credit card debt fell during the pandemic as the economy cratered. However, after multiple stimulus checks and broad-based economic recovery, consumer confidence rose, and with it, credit card balances surged.

The current trend is steeper than the pre-pandemic trend. Some may be a catch-up, but the current rate is unsustainable. Consequently, borrowing will likely slow down to its pre-pandemic trend or even below it as consumers deal with higher credit card balances and 20+% interest rates on the debt.

The second graph shows that since 2022, credit card balances have grown faster than our incomes. Like the first graph, the credit usage versus income trend is unsustainable, especially with current interest rates.

With many consumers maxing out their credit cards, is it any wonder buy-now-pay-later loans (BNPL) are increasing rapidly?

Insider Intelligence believes that 79 million Americans, or a quarter of those over 18 years old, use BNPL. Lending Tree claims that “nearly 1 in 3 consumers (31%) say they’re at least considering using a buy now, pay later (BNPL) loan this month.”More tellingaccording to their survey, only 52% of those asked are confident they can pay off their BNPL loan without missing a payment!

Wage Growth

Wages have been growing above trend since the pandemic. Since 2022, the average annual growth in compensation has been 6.28%. Higher incomes support more consumption, but higher prices reduce the amount of goods or services one can buy. Over the same period, real compensation has grown by less than half a percent annually. The average real compensation growth was 2.30% during the three years before the pandemic.

In other words, compensation is just keeping up with inflation instead of outpacing it and providing consumers with the ability to consume, save, or pay down debt.

It’s All About Employment

The unemployment rate is 3.9%, up slightly from recent lows but still among the lowest rates in the last seventy-five years.

The uptick in credit card usage, decline in savings, and the savings rate argue that consumers are slowly running out of room to keep consuming at their current pace.

However, the most significant means by which we consume is income. If the unemployment rate stays low, consumption may moderate. But, if the recent uptick in unemployment continues, a recession is extremely likely, as we have seen every time it turned higher.

It’s not just those losing jobs that consume less. Of greater impact is a loss of confidence by those employed when they see friends or neighbors being laid off.   

Accordingly, the labor market is probably the most important leading indicator of consumption and of the ability of the Bougie Broke to continue to be Bougie instead of flat-out broke!

Summary

There are always consumers living above their means. This is often harmless until their means decline or disappear. The Bougie Broke meme and the ability social media gives consumers to flaunt their “wealth” is a new medium for an age-old message.

Diving into the data, it argues that consumption will likely slow in the coming months. Such would allow some consumers to save and whittle down their debt. That situation would be healthy and unlikely to cause a recession.

The potential for the unemployment rate to continue higher is of much greater concern. The combination of a higher unemployment rate and strapped consumers could accentuate a recession.

Tyler Durden Wed, 03/13/2024 - 09:25

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Congress’ failure so far to deliver on promise of tens of billions in new research spending threatens America’s long-term economic competitiveness

A deal that avoided a shutdown also slashed spending for the National Science Foundation, putting it billions below a congressional target intended to…

Published

on

Science is again on the chopping block on Capitol Hill. AP Photo/Sait Serkan Gurbuz

Federal spending on fundamental scientific research is pivotal to America’s long-term economic competitiveness and growth. But less than two years after agreeing the U.S. needed to invest tens of billions of dollars more in basic research than it had been, Congress is already seriously scaling back its plans.

A package of funding bills recently passed by Congress and signed by President Joe Biden on March 9, 2024, cuts the current fiscal year budget for the National Science Foundation, America’s premier basic science research agency, by over 8% relative to last year. That puts the NSF’s current allocation US$6.6 billion below targets Congress set in 2022.

And the president’s budget blueprint for the next fiscal year, released on March 11, doesn’t look much better. Even assuming his request for the NSF is fully funded, it would still, based on my calculations, leave the agency a total of $15 billion behind the plan Congress laid out to help the U.S. keep up with countries such as China that are rapidly increasing their science budgets.

I am a sociologist who studies how research universities contribute to the public good. I’m also the executive director of the Institute for Research on Innovation and Science, a national university consortium whose members share data that helps us understand, explain and work to amplify those benefits.

Our data shows how underfunding basic research, especially in high-priority areas, poses a real threat to the United States’ role as a leader in critical technology areas, forestalls innovation and makes it harder to recruit the skilled workers that high-tech companies need to succeed.

A promised investment

Less than two years ago, in August 2022, university researchers like me had reason to celebrate.

Congress had just passed the bipartisan CHIPS and Science Act. The science part of the law promised one of the biggest federal investments in the National Science Foundation in its 74-year history.

The CHIPS act authorized US$81 billion for the agency, promised to double its budget by 2027 and directed it to “address societal, national, and geostrategic challenges for the benefit of all Americans” by investing in research.

But there was one very big snag. The money still has to be appropriated by Congress every year. Lawmakers haven’t been good at doing that recently. As lawmakers struggle to keep the lights on, fundamental research is quickly becoming a casualty of political dysfunction.

Research’s critical impact

That’s bad because fundamental research matters in more ways than you might expect.

For instance, the basic discoveries that made the COVID-19 vaccine possible stretch back to the early 1960s. Such research investments contribute to the health, wealth and well-being of society, support jobs and regional economies and are vital to the U.S. economy and national security.

Lagging research investment will hurt U.S. leadership in critical technologies such as artificial intelligence, advanced communications, clean energy and biotechnology. Less support means less new research work gets done, fewer new researchers are trained and important new discoveries are made elsewhere.

But disrupting federal research funding also directly affects people’s jobs, lives and the economy.

Businesses nationwide thrive by selling the goods and services – everything from pipettes and biological specimens to notebooks and plane tickets – that are necessary for research. Those vendors include high-tech startups, manufacturers, contractors and even Main Street businesses like your local hardware store. They employ your neighbors and friends and contribute to the economic health of your hometown and the nation.

Nearly a third of the $10 billion in federal research funds that 26 of the universities in our consortium used in 2022 directly supported U.S. employers, including:

  • A Detroit welding shop that sells gases many labs use in experiments funded by the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Department of Defense and Department of Energy.

  • A Dallas-based construction company that is building an advanced vaccine and drug development facility paid for by the Department of Health and Human Services.

  • More than a dozen Utah businesses, including surveyors, engineers and construction and trucking companies, working on a Department of Energy project to develop breakthroughs in geothermal energy.

When Congress shortchanges basic research, it also damages businesses like these and people you might not usually associate with academic science and engineering. Construction and manufacturing companies earn more than $2 billion each year from federally funded research done by our consortium’s members.

A lag or cut in federal research funding would harm U.S. competitiveness in critical advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence and robotics. Hispanolistic/E+ via Getty Images

Jobs and innovation

Disrupting or decreasing research funding also slows the flow of STEM – science, technology, engineering and math – talent from universities to American businesses. Highly trained people are essential to corporate innovation and to U.S. leadership in key fields, such as AI, where companies depend on hiring to secure research expertise.

In 2022, federal research grants paid wages for about 122,500 people at universities that shared data with my institute. More than half of them were students or trainees. Our data shows that they go on to many types of jobs but are particularly important for leading tech companies such as Google, Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Intel.

That same data lets me estimate that over 300,000 people who worked at U.S. universities in 2022 were paid by federal research funds. Threats to federal research investments put academic jobs at risk. They also hurt private sector innovation because even the most successful companies need to hire people with expert research skills. Most people learn those skills by working on university research projects, and most of those projects are federally funded.

High stakes

If Congress doesn’t move to fund fundamental science research to meet CHIPS and Science Act targets – and make up for the $11.6 billion it’s already behind schedule – the long-term consequences for American competitiveness could be serious.

Over time, companies would see fewer skilled job candidates, and academic and corporate researchers would produce fewer discoveries. Fewer high-tech startups would mean slower economic growth. America would become less competitive in the age of AI. This would turn one of the fears that led lawmakers to pass the CHIPS and Science Act into a reality.

Ultimately, it’s up to lawmakers to decide whether to fulfill their promise to invest more in the research that supports jobs across the economy and in American innovation, competitiveness and economic growth. So far, that promise is looking pretty fragile.

This is an updated version of an article originally published on Jan. 16, 2024.

Jason Owen-Smith receives research support from the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and Wellcome Leap.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending