Connect with us

Bitcoin Versus Gold: A Tired Debate

Bitcoin Versus Gold: A Tired Debate

Authored by Matthew Piepenburg via GoldSwitzerland.com,

Bias vs. Logic

We’ve written elsewhere about the ironic over-use of logic to justify otherwise illogical biases.

As Swiss-based precious metals…

Published

on

Bitcoin Versus Gold: A Tired Debate

Authored by Matthew Piepenburg via GoldSwitzerland.com,

Bias vs. Logic

We’ve written elsewhere about the ironic over-use of logic to justify otherwise illogical biases.

As Swiss-based precious metals professionals who see physical gold and silver as currency protection outside of an openly illogical (and dangerously fractured) banking system, it is more than fair for some to challenge our own “logic” (bias?) when it comes to precious metal ownership.

We understand such critiques.

Pandora’s Box

Such criticism, of course, strikes even more nerves (and claims of potential illogic) when precious metal professionals open the Pandora’s box of any conversation around Bitcoin, which has become, understandably, the sacred cow of many over-night millionaires and legitimately intelligent folks who, like us, distrust now obviously debased fiat currencies.

There’s also no ignoring the hysteria (as well as money flows) which support growing claims that BTC has or will replace gold as a new, modern and highly sophisticated store of value.

Needless to say, our logic (or “bias” to many Bitcoiners) strongly disagrees with this BTC claim for reasons you have all likely heard before and which we will only touch upon below.

Apples to Oranges

In many ways, however, we are not concerned with the BTC vs. Gold Debate for the simple reason that we see them as entirely separate investment classes—that is, a comparison of apples to oranges, not oranges to say… tangerines.

At the simplest level, BTC is a speculation investment, gold is a preservation asset, and thus we have no long-term interest in (as opposed to fear of) entering this “debate” nor in championing precious metals by denigrating cryptos in general or BTC in particular.

In short, one doesn’t need to attack BTC to make a case for gold, as gold’s case stands entirely—and logically– by itself.

At the same time, and regardless of one’s views (or biases) on gold, one (be they gold owners or stock pickers) should not simply ignore the growing and undeniable concerns rising around the BTC issue, even if those critiques come today from a Precious Metal enterprise.

In short, and despite the inevitable attacks I can and will receive from the BTC camp, I see objective risk in this otherwise bubbling and much loved “digital coin.”

Bitcoin Bubble? Yep.

In a world of debt-driven bubbles, be they 1) stocks with CAPE ratios at 30; 2) sovereign bonds offering negative yields; 3) corporate bonds of predominantly covenant light and junk status; 4) SPAC froth; and 5) grossly over-valued tech names—it is no surprise nor effort for me to add the word “Bitcoin” to the list of current bubbles in global economic recession made all the worse by an equally nightmarish global pandemic.

BTC: This Time is Different?

As for the profile of a bubble, the case against (or at least openly cautious of) BTC has been made before and will mean nothing to those who are already convinced that “this time it’s different.”

BTC’s true believers feel this “coin” will only rise to the moon and take over the world as a new store of value and new global currency backed by admittedly remarkable technological innovation rather than a physical commodity.

But here’s the rub: The facts as well as future possibilities portend a very different story, despite all the fun many have had riding the BTC wave.

BTC, as current data and future regulatory, geopolitical and financial trends confirm, is not a currency, nor a unit of account, and despite all the vlogs, blogs and interviews to the contrary, is certainly not a stable store of value.

Currency? Store of Value?

Even the most faithful devotes of BTC cannot deny that a “currency” or “store of value” with price moves of 20% in a single trading day is hardly finding (or justifying) its way to such designations.

As for currency status, not even BTC conferences will take it as payment, for its radical price moves can potentially wipe out (or grow) their profit margins overnight.

Others, of course, will say, Bitcoin’s time will come after gradual adoption, and “what about Tesla, you can buy that with BTC.”

Well, actually you can’t, and trusting tweet-happy front-runners like Musk, or over-valued balance sheets like Tesla, is an individual choice, and yours to enter (and hopefully exit correctly) at your own discretion and skill.

Old Tricks, New Widget

There is also no doubt that great fortunes have and can be made in such investments. I can’t count how many times I’ve traded Tesla long and short with a smile.

But let us also recognize that Musk’s “funding secured” tweets in 2018 amounted to fraud, and as of this writing, a Tesla in fact can’t be bought with BTC despite Elon’s expected attempts to “greenwash” this crypto’s otherwise electricity-sucking mining operations as “environmentally healthy.”

But lies, front-runs and price-fixing tricks from CEOs like Musk are forgiven because, at least for now, Tesla’s stock and BTC’s valuation “prove their rightness” based on price, not truth, value or common sense.

Needless to say, no “asset” discussion of BTC is free of its short but sordid history of pump and dump, spoofing, wash trading and other front-running schemes and headlines (think BitMax) in which the big money pretends a “philosophical” interest in BTC merely to crush the little money when the time is right to buy and then sell—a near perfect nirvana for the Greater Fool Trade.

One other quick but relevant point is this: Where does BTC come from? Its genesis story, well, kinda matters, no?

Did a mystery man named Nakamoto upload some code and then vanish into thin air with no one asking why?

Who truly holds the largest controlling share of BTC? Where’s the head office, staff and the ownership ledger for this otherwise totally de-centralized, $2T asset?

I have no idea either. Just saying…

The Asset Question

As for being an asset, BTC provides no income, cash flow, dividends, or coupon interest. Everyone, knows this, and everyone also knows that the same can be said of physical gold.

Bitcoiners, of course, rightly don’t care, as the money they’ve made is the key driver behind their “logic” and trade.

Candidly, few can fault such motives—but at least be honest: The BTC trade is precisely that—a trade, not an asset, store of value or currency.

Every blunt BTC investor I know has confessed the same. In short, deep down, they recognize that BTC is a risk asset not an alternative currency, store of value, or wealth preservation vehicle.

In case that sounds unfair, just watch what BTC does rather than what it (or I) says. In short, it acts just like a (highly) risk asset—hence its real appeal as well as danger.

Rather than “hedge,” protect or buffer portfolios when markets tank (as, say, gold or other hard assets do), BTC just tanks faster with each and every market moment of “uh-oh” and “risk-off.”

In March of 2020, for example, when stocks fell by 35%, BTC fell by 50% and the larger crypto pool in general fell by more than 60%.

Whatever critics of gold can say, and they can say a lot, gold never falls that fast, that hard and that violently because gold is not a risk asset, but a risk protector. In short, gold and BTC are very different.

Again, chose your motive rather than pick your side, as we are comparing two entirely different athletes.

But as for other key distinctions, gold, unlike BTC, does have some industrial use, centuries of jewelry utility and a 5000-year track record as a store of value from the planet earth (rather than blockchain code) that has saved far-sighted investors in one “uh-oh” moment after the other with eerie consistency.

But again, all the BTC vs. Gold debaters know this too. That’s fine. Again: just pick your motive–speculation or preservation—and stop screaming at each other 

A Payment System?

Many also know that as a payment system, BTC’s heralded future (and proponents) over look other regulatory and Real Politik trends which don’t often make the debate floor or the hyped-headlines.

When it comes to future payment systems, it’s more than fair, as well as realistically cynical, to assume that governments will, when backed to a corner, get the final say of which digital currency prevails, and it’s most likely not gonna be BTC…

Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDC) will most likely (and vastly) outpace BTC and slowly, over time, find their way into ever-more commercial and private uses, including currencies like an eventual E-Euro, E-Dollar, or E-Yen which will crowd out pseudo private (yet currently trending) currencies like BTC many years down the road.

This, of course, is not a fact, but merely a realistic assumption based on power-dynamics not fair currency markets. In the meantime, BTC can continue its rise, and alas, its bubble.

As for the big, mean governmental big boys, rightly or wrongly, fairly or unfairly, their regulatory crack down on BTC has yet to really begin.

First Mnuchin, and now Yellen and others, are already telegraphing their “ethical” concerns about BTC as a financial cover for human trafficking, drug sales, terrorist funding and other unsavory uses. This may or may not be sincere, as politico’s are sadly driven by realism not moralism.

Such regulatory concerns, as well increasing AML and KYC rules on Cryptos to crackdown on their criminal uses, will eventually help “justify” the deflation of this BTC bubble, even if a Bitcoin ETF or even derivatives trade sends its price much higher in the interim.

Again, BTC can rise much higher, and BTC can make you rich (or broke).

For those who understand such risk and such reward, and for those (even better) who can trade (enter/exit) BTC carefully and intelligently, we boring gold executives in Switzerland are not mocking you.

In fact, we applaud the stories and wealth made on the BTC wave. Speculation, like preservation, each have their place in the diverse mind-sets and motives of the global investor class.

Different Uses, Different Views

But our offices do not represent nor champion wave assets or bubble markets. That’s a mind-set and choice, not a bias, criticism or attack.

In fact, may investors can share both choices, owning BTC to speculate for wealth and simultaneously holding gold to preserve it (I’ve spoken to more than one BTC millionaire looking to buy gold after their BTC sale).

For these reasons, many of us (gold and/or BTC) are all growing tired of gold bugs mocking BTC and BTC fanatics mocking gold in the way a Yankees fan mocks a Red Sox fan (or a Manchester United fan mocks an Arsenal fan).

These angry debates and participants are essentially ignoring the fact that these are two investments playing on entirely different playing fields.

In short, the “BTC vs. Gold debate” in mode today makes as much sense as measuring David Beckham’s fast ball against Mariano Rivera’s free kicks.

As for BTC, we candidly (logically?) see it as a speculative bubble asset poised to rise and then either deflate or “pop.” That’s a bias, of course, but one backed by the data, history and long-term trends we track.

Trade BTC as you will, but we personally (and without delusion) don’t believe it will be a currency, “coin,” store of value or “new gold.”

Physical gold, of course, has its own data, history and trends—each far richer, deeper and more reliable than risk assets in general and bubble assets in particular.

We ultimately see gold as a preservation asset and have written ad nauseum of its confirmed role as such over countless years, cycles and historical turning points.

For the last decade or so, BTC has made many rich, and for the next decade or so, could make others even richer. That’s a speculative bet. Fine.

But for the last 5000 years, and for many more to come, gold will do what it always does: Preserve your wealth when other assets and “currencies” can’t.

That’s not a bet.

Tyler Durden Tue, 05/18/2021 - 06:30

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Problems After COVID-19 Vaccination More Prevalent Among Naturally Immune: Study

Problems After COVID-19 Vaccination More Prevalent Among Naturally Immune: Study

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis…

Published

on

Problems After COVID-19 Vaccination More Prevalent Among Naturally Immune: Study

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

People who recovered from COVID-19 and received a COVID-19 shot were more likely to suffer adverse reactions, researchers in Europe are reporting.

A medical worker administers a dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine to a patient at a vaccination center in Ancenis-Saint-Gereon, France, on Nov. 17, 2021. (Stephane Mahe//Reuters)

Participants in the study were more likely to experience an adverse reaction after vaccination regardless of the type of shot, with one exception, the researchers found.

Across all vaccine brands, people with prior COVID-19 were 2.6 times as likely after dose one to suffer an adverse reaction, according to the new study. Such people are commonly known as having a type of protection known as natural immunity after recovery.

People with previous COVID-19 were also 1.25 times as likely after dose 2 to experience an adverse reaction.

The findings held true across all vaccine types following dose one.

Of the female participants who received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, for instance, 82 percent who had COVID-19 previously experienced an adverse reaction after their first dose, compared to 59 percent of females who did not have prior COVID-19.

The only exception to the trend was among males who received a second AstraZeneca dose. The percentage of males who suffered an adverse reaction was higher, 33 percent to 24 percent, among those without a COVID-19 history.

Participants who had a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (confirmed with a positive test) experienced at least one adverse reaction more often after the 1st dose compared to participants who did not have prior COVID-19. This pattern was observed in both men and women and across vaccine brands,” Florence van Hunsel, an epidemiologist with the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb, and her co-authors wrote.

There were only slightly higher odds of the naturally immune suffering an adverse reaction following receipt of a Pfizer or Moderna booster, the researchers also found.

The researchers performed what’s known as a cohort event monitoring study, following 29,387 participants as they received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. The participants live in a European country such as Belgium, France, or Slovakia.

Overall, three-quarters of the participants reported at least one adverse reaction, although some were minor such as injection site pain.

Adverse reactions described as serious were reported by 0.24 percent of people who received a first or second dose and 0.26 percent for people who received a booster. Different examples of serious reactions were not listed in the study.

Participants were only specifically asked to record a range of minor adverse reactions (ADRs). They could provide details of other reactions in free text form.

“The unsolicited events were manually assessed and coded, and the seriousness was classified based on international criteria,” researchers said.

The free text answers were not provided by researchers in the paper.

The authors note, ‘In this manuscript, the focus was not on serious ADRs and adverse events of special interest.’” Yet, in their highlights section they state, “The percentage of serious ADRs in the study is low for 1st and 2nd vaccination and booster.”

Dr. Joel Wallskog, co-chair of the group React19, which advocates for people who were injured by vaccines, told The Epoch Times: “It is intellectually dishonest to set out to study minor adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination then make conclusions about the frequency of serious adverse events. They also fail to provide the free text data.” He added that the paper showed “yet another study that is in my opinion, deficient by design.”

Ms. Hunsel did not respond to a request for comment.

She and other researchers listed limitations in the paper, including how they did not provide data broken down by country.

The paper was published by the journal Vaccine on March 6.

The study was funded by the European Medicines Agency and the Dutch government.

No authors declared conflicts of interest.

Some previous papers have also found that people with prior COVID-19 infection had more adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination, including a 2021 paper from French researchers. A U.S. study identified prior COVID-19 as a predictor of the severity of side effects.

Some other studies have determined COVID-19 vaccines confer little or no benefit to people with a history of infection, including those who had received a primary series.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention still recommends people who recovered from COVID-19 receive a COVID-19 vaccine, although a number of other health authorities have stopped recommending the shot for people who have prior COVID-19.

Another New Study

In another new paper, South Korean researchers outlined how they found people were more likely to report certain adverse reactions after COVID-19 vaccination than after receipt of another vaccine.

The reporting of myocarditis, a form of heart inflammation, or pericarditis, a related condition, was nearly 20 times as high among children as the reporting odds following receipt of all other vaccines, the researchers found.

The reporting odds were also much higher for multisystem inflammatory syndrome or Kawasaki disease among adolescent COVID-19 recipients.

Researchers analyzed reports made to VigiBase, which is run by the World Health Organization.

Based on our results, close monitoring for these rare but serious inflammatory reactions after COVID-19 vaccination among adolescents until definitive causal relationship can be established,” the researchers wrote.

The study was published by the Journal of Korean Medical Science in its March edition.

Limitations include VigiBase receiving reports of problems, with some reports going unconfirmed.

Funding came from the South Korean government. One author reported receiving grants from pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer.

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/15/2024 - 05:00

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Key shipping company files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy

The Illinois-based general freight trucking company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy to reorganize.

Published

on

The U.S. trucking industry has had a difficult beginning of the year for 2024 with several logistics companies filing for bankruptcy to seek either a Chapter 7 liquidation or Chapter 11 reorganization.

The Covid-19 pandemic caused a lot of supply chain issues for logistics companies and also created a shortage of truck drivers as many left the business for other occupations. Shipping companies, in the meantime, have had extreme difficulty recruiting new drivers for thousands of unfilled jobs.

Related: Tesla rival’s filing reveals Chapter 11 bankruptcy is possible

Freight forwarder company Boateng Logistics joined a growing list of shipping companies that permanently shuttered their businesses as the firm on Feb. 22 filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy with plans to liquidate.

The Carlsbad, Calif., logistics company filed its petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California listing assets up to $50,000 and and $1 million to $10 million in liabilities. Court papers said it owed millions of dollars in liabilities to trucking, logistics and factoring companies. The company filed bankruptcy before any creditors could take legal action.

Lawsuits force companies to liquidate in bankruptcy

Lawsuits, however, can force companies to file bankruptcy, which was the case for J.J. & Sons Logistics of Clint, Texas, which on Jan. 22 filed for Chapter 7 liquidation in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas. The company filed bankruptcy four days before the scheduled start of a trial for a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the family of a former company truck driver who had died from drowning in 2016.

California-based logistics company Wise Choice Trans Corp. shut down operations and filed for Chapter 7 liquidation on Jan. 4 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California, listing $1 million to $10 million in assets and liabilities.

The Hayward, Calif., third-party logistics company, founded in 2009, provided final mile, less-than-truckload and full truckload services, as well as warehouse and fulfillment services in the San Francisco Bay Area.

The Chapter 7 filing also implemented an automatic stay against all legal proceedings, as the company listed its involvement in four legal actions that were ongoing or concluded. Court papers reportedly did not list amounts for damages.

In some cases, debtors don't have to take a drastic action, such as a liquidation, and can instead file a Chapter 11 reorganization.

Truck shipping products.

Shutterstock

Nationwide Cargo seeks to reorganize its business

Nationwide Cargo Inc., a general freight trucking company that also hauls fresh produce and meat, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois with plans to reorganize its business.

The East Dundee, Ill., shipping company listed $1 million to $10 million in assets and $10 million to $50 million in liabilities in its petition and said funds will not be available to pay unsecured creditors. The company operates with 183 trucks and 171 drivers, FreightWaves reported.

Nationwide Cargo's three largest secured creditors in the petition were Equify Financial LLC (owed about $3.5 million,) Commercial Credit Group (owed about $1.8 million) and Continental Bank NA (owed about $676,000.)

The shipping company reported gross revenue of about $34 million in 2022 and about $40 million in 2023.  From Jan. 1 until its petition date, the company generated $9.3 million in gross revenue.

Related: Veteran fund manager picks favorite stocks for 2024

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Key shipping company files Chapter 11 bankruptcy

The Illinois-based general freight trucking company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy to reorganize.

Published

on

The U.S. trucking industry has had a difficult beginning of the year for 2024 with several logistics companies filing for bankruptcy to seek either a Chapter 7 liquidation or Chapter 11 reorganization.

The Covid-19 pandemic caused a lot of supply chain issues for logistics companies and also created a shortage of truck drivers as many left the business for other occupations. Shipping companies, in the meantime, have had extreme difficulty recruiting new drivers for thousands of unfilled jobs.

Related: Tesla rival’s filing reveals Chapter 11 bankruptcy is possible

Freight forwarder company Boateng Logistics joined a growing list of shipping companies that permanently shuttered their businesses as the firm on Feb. 22 filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy with plans to liquidate.

The Carlsbad, Calif., logistics company filed its petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California listing assets up to $50,000 and and $1 million to $10 million in liabilities. Court papers said it owed millions of dollars in liabilities to trucking, logistics and factoring companies. The company filed bankruptcy before any creditors could take legal action.

Lawsuits force companies to liquidate in bankruptcy

Lawsuits, however, can force companies to file bankruptcy, which was the case for J.J. & Sons Logistics of Clint, Texas, which on Jan. 22 filed for Chapter 7 liquidation in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas. The company filed bankruptcy four days before the scheduled start of a trial for a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the family of a former company truck driver who had died from drowning in 2016.

California-based logistics company Wise Choice Trans Corp. shut down operations and filed for Chapter 7 liquidation on Jan. 4 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California, listing $1 million to $10 million in assets and liabilities.

The Hayward, Calif., third-party logistics company, founded in 2009, provided final mile, less-than-truckload and full truckload services, as well as warehouse and fulfillment services in the San Francisco Bay Area.

The Chapter 7 filing also implemented an automatic stay against all legal proceedings, as the company listed its involvement in four legal actions that were ongoing or concluded. Court papers reportedly did not list amounts for damages.

In some cases, debtors don't have to take a drastic action, such as a liquidation, and can instead file a Chapter 11 reorganization.

Truck shipping products.

Shutterstock

Nationwide Cargo seeks to reorganize its business

Nationwide Cargo Inc., a general freight trucking company that also hauls fresh produce and meat, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois with plans to reorganize its business.

The East Dundee, Ill., shipping company listed $1 million to $10 million in assets and $10 million to $50 million in liabilities in its petition and said funds will not be available to pay unsecured creditors. The company operates with 183 trucks and 171 drivers, FreightWaves reported.

Nationwide Cargo's three largest secured creditors in the petition were Equify Financial LLC (owed about $3.5 million,) Commercial Credit Group (owed about $1.8 million) and Continental Bank NA (owed about $676,000.)

The shipping company reported gross revenue of about $34 million in 2022 and about $40 million in 2023.  From Jan. 1 until its petition date, the company generated $9.3 million in gross revenue.

Related: Veteran fund manager picks favorite stocks for 2024

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending