Connect with us

Uncategorized

Interview: Volatility, liquidity and what happens next for crypto – Zonda exchange

Anyone who has ventured into the cryptocurrency world will agree with one thing: the volatility is unmatched. Be it plummeting or soaring prices, crypto…

Published

on

Anyone who has ventured into the cryptocurrency world will agree with one thing: the volatility is unmatched. Be it plummeting or soaring prices, crypto markets are notorious for the pace at which they move. 

Over the last year, this has been downward, with the market absolutely ravaged as central banks around the world moved to hike interest rates. And while prices have begun to rebound in the last six months, the crypto market is still a long way off its peak from late 2021. 

Recently, liquidity in the sector has also been dropping, which means less capital is needed to move prices and hence volatility is higher again. As the regulatory climate continues to become more hostile in the US, this could worsen further. 

This all means that today, the cryptocurrency market is a shadow of it was during the heyday of the pandemic: prices, volume, liquidity and general interest from both retail and institutions has pared down massively. 

Despite this bearish climate, some within the space are still defiant that the good times will return. Stanislaw Havryliuk, COO of the European crypto exchange Zonda, is one of those believers. We interviewed him this week to get his thoughts on crypto’s volatility, current prices, and trajectory going forward. 

Interview with Stanislaw Havryliuk

Invezz (IZ): Many would agree with your assertion of the relentless volatility of crypto assets (Havryliuk provided commentary on the heightened volatility recently). Do you think this makes crypto more of a gamble than an investment?

Stanislaw Havryliuk (SH): It depends on the strategy you pick when it comes to trading crypto. If you try to jump into hype tokens and dump them after securing a short-term gain – it’s definitely a gamble. On the other hand, if you pick a dollar cost averaging strategy and go for a long-term investment strategy, you can gradually reduce risks and benefit from volatility when exiting from crypto to fiat. 

So, the short answer: yes and no, it depends on who the trader is.

IZ: Many point towards the lack of liquidity as part of the reason that crypto is so volatile. Recently, this has become more evident, with order books significantly shallower since Alameda collapsed in November. Last week also saw the news that prominent market makers Jane Street and Jump Crypto were scaling back from the space. Do you expect liquidity to return?

SH: Yes, I do believe that liquidity will return to the markets, along with price growth of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. There are quite a lot of indicators that might positively affect the price of crypto, and therefore increase the volume and liquidity. I see such factors:

  • U.S. debt is close to its ceiling and if the ceiling is not increased, the U.S. might face technical default. If that happens, most of the people in the world will start looking for an alternative store of value. According to Bloomberg’s latest survey, the top 3 alternative investment options for U.S. citizens are Gold (45.7%), Treasuries (15.1%) and Bitcoin (11.3%). This means that in case of an unfortunate event, 1 of 9 U.S. citizens could potentially put their money in Bitcoin, creating a huge liquidity boost
  • Banks are going bankrupt. Each time a big bank goes bankrupt, BTC goes up in price. Why? Because people don’t trust the banks, and they want to be in control of their own financial freedom. CreditSuisse, SVB, Silvergate, and First Republic bankruptcies have already happened, and it looks like it’s not over. 
  • 2024 halving will also positively affect the liquidity and price of Bitcoin. 

Invezz commentary: There are some provocative predictions made here, so we wanted to provide some commentary:

The US debt ceiling is certainly a big topic in the news cycle, but it is more a political game rather than an existential threat to the US economy. At least, that is the way the market views it, with minimal concern evident in prices these past couple of weeks. In fact, stocks rose Thursday as optimism increased that a deal between Democrats and Republicans was nearing. 

It remains an extremely small possibility that a default will occur imminently, and therefore, we are unlikely to see what this would do to Bitcoin. Residing outside the fiat world, it certainly would represent an interesting proposition, but in the case of an imminent default for the financial centre of the world, it is hard to imagine what would happen not only to the global economy, but society at large. 

As for Havryliuk’s point around Bitcoin rising every time a bank fails, this has not been strictly true. While Bitcoin rose originally when Silicon Valley Bank collapsed, this was more due to a flip to a more dovish expectation around the future path of interest rates rather than the bank failing itself. Interest rate expectations have been moving Bitcoin all year, and the market saw the failure of SVB as restraining the Fed’s ability to hike as quick as they otherwise could have. 

An important point to note is that the US administration also stepped in to guarantee deposits at these banks. Thus far, the banking crisis is taking the form of a regional banking crisis, which is certainly a crisis in itself as a lack of competition for big banks such as JP Morgan presents problems and moral hazard dilemmas, but not a threat to the fibre of fractional reserve banking in the US – no US customer has lost any money at any of these banks. Looking at the Bitcoin price since, the price has been relatively rangebound, while correlation with the Nasdaq has risen to above 0.9 on a 60-Day basis. 

For the final point around liquidity increasing after the Bitcoin halving in 2024, I guess we will have to see! 

Stocks vs crypto

IZ: Crypto and stocks continue to be highly correlated, with the former often trading like a levered bet on the latter. Do you think the asset class can ever decouple, and if so, what needs to occur to push this decorrelation?

SH: Mass adoption is the only way to decouple crypto and stocks. Currently, they are both viewed as (risk) assets, but with wide, global adoption, crypto will become a commodity. Once that occurs, Bitcoin will compete with gold rather than stocks, which is a completely different class of asset. I would say that one of the ways that we can encourage this movement is to show how simple it is to use crypto in payments, online or offline. 

Consumers already wanted to use crypto to pay for purchases back in 2021, in industries such as travel, retail, grocery and digital media. Merchants were already well prepared even back then so considering how the popularity of crypto has increased over the past two years, it is safe to say that the group of people who are willing to pay with crypto now is even higher. 

To meet the demand, there is an increasing number of services that are ready to accommodate merchants who see this opportunity, such as zondacrypto pay.

Invezz commentary: We would agree that mass adoption is required for Bitcoin to decouple from stocks. As for other crypto, it is harder to say – many of these certainly present as extreme risk assets, regardless of adoption, so it is hard for us to make predictions here. 

On the crypto payments side, we have seen a stark dropoff in demand for everyday usage of crypto since 2021, in contrast to Havryliuk’s thoughts. Bitcoin hit $68,000 in 2021, NFT volumes have collapsed (down 97% in 2022 by some measures), and crypto as a whole has seen a massive dropoff in interest from both the general public and institutions. 

IZ: The stock market is generally viewed as highly efficient, with the EMH generally holding firm through most time periods. Do you think crypto is less efficient?

SH: According to EMH, asset price incorporates all available information, making it difficult for investors to consistently achieve abnormal returns. It’s relevant for the stock market as there is more clarity and more actors in the market. 

Crypto is still relatively young and lacks a decent regulatory framework. This creates a lot of loopholes for investors to manipulate the market and get abnormal gains. I do believe that mass adoption will resolve this issue, along with decreasing volatility and decoupling crypto from the stock market.

IZ: As a European exchange, how do you view the regulatory clampdown in the US? Do you fear it will hold the industry back, or do you think you could benefit if crypto is pushed beyond the US?

The regulatory clampdown in the U.S. is definitely affecting the crypto market. U.S.-based exchanges are moving to other jurisdictions in Asia, UAE, the Caribbean and Europe – mainly Ireland. 

Stanislaw Havryliuk

I think that the exodus of crypto companies from the U.S. will benefit the regions that will accommodate them, so it’s hard to say who will be the absolute winner here. But everyone will get a piece of the pie except the U.S.

We are also seeing regulatory movements in the EU, but they are aimed at empowering crypto industry entities rather than driving them away from the market. In further perspective, it is very possible that the EU will become a market leader due to their healthy approach to the crypto regulation that fosters the ecosystem of innovations.

How far has volume dipped?

IZ: Crypto volume fell drastically in 2022. Did you notice this at your exchange, and do you believe it can return?

SH: Yes, everyone noticed the drop in volumes. All of the CEXs lost ~40% of their volumes after November 2022. After the New Year, the volumes started coming back slowly. The defining factor for volumes to restore to peak 2021 levels is the price of BTC. If it goes up and gets mainstream media attention – more new users enter the space and volumes go up.

To achieve that, among others, regulations are necessary in order to create a safer space for trading that will encourage new users to join the industry. Even now, crypto remains a mysterious topic for many. Official, healthy regulatory movements should be critical in convincing the unconvinced that this technology is not a mere fad but a critical component of our future economy.

Invezz commentary:

For crypto, this remains the most exhilarating and perilous point: companies in the industry are tied to the ever-so-volatile Bitcoin price. As Haryliuk points out, as the price goes up, media attention rises, new users enter the space, volumes rise and, ultimately, revenue increases for crypto companies. 

The problem, as we have seen in this bear market, is that the price can also go down, too. This means for companies in the space, it is a rollercoaster ride. 

The post Interview: Volatility, liquidity and what happens next for crypto – Zonda exchange appeared first on Invezz.

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

February Employment Situation

By Paul Gomme and Peter Rupert The establishment data from the BLS showed a 275,000 increase in payroll employment for February, outpacing the 230,000…

Published

on

By Paul Gomme and Peter Rupert

The establishment data from the BLS showed a 275,000 increase in payroll employment for February, outpacing the 230,000 average over the previous 12 months. The payroll data for January and December were revised down by a total of 167,000. The private sector added 223,000 new jobs, the largest gain since May of last year.

Temporary help services employment continues a steep decline after a sharp post-pandemic rise.

Average hours of work increased from 34.2 to 34.3. The increase, along with the 223,000 private employment increase led to a hefty increase in total hours of 5.6% at an annualized rate, also the largest increase since May of last year.

The establishment report, once again, beat “expectations;” the WSJ survey of economists was 198,000. Other than the downward revisions, mentioned above, another bit of negative news was a smallish increase in wage growth, from $34.52 to $34.57.

The household survey shows that the labor force increased 150,000, a drop in employment of 184,000 and an increase in the number of unemployed persons of 334,000. The labor force participation rate held steady at 62.5, the employment to population ratio decreased from 60.2 to 60.1 and the unemployment rate increased from 3.66 to 3.86. Remember that the unemployment rate is the number of unemployed relative to the labor force (the number employed plus the number unemployed). Consequently, the unemployment rate can go up if the number of unemployed rises holding fixed the labor force, or if the labor force shrinks holding the number unemployed unchanged. An increase in the unemployment rate is not necessarily a bad thing: it may reflect a strong labor market drawing “marginally attached” individuals from outside the labor force. Indeed, there was a 96,000 decline in those workers.

Earlier in the week, the BLS announced JOLTS (Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey) data for January. There isn’t much to report here as the job openings changed little at 8.9 million, the number of hires and total separations were little changed at 5.7 million and 5.3 million, respectively.

As has been the case for the last couple of years, the number of job openings remains higher than the number of unemployed persons.

Also earlier in the week the BLS announced that productivity increased 3.2% in the 4th quarter with output rising 3.5% and hours of work rising 0.3%.

The bottom line is that the labor market continues its surprisingly (to some) strong performance, once again proving stronger than many had expected. This strength makes it difficult to justify any interest rate cuts soon, particularly given the recent inflation spike.

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Mortgage rates fall as labor market normalizes

Jobless claims show an expanding economy. We will only be in a recession once jobless claims exceed 323,000 on a four-week moving average.

Published

on

Everyone was waiting to see if this week’s jobs report would send mortgage rates higher, which is what happened last month. Instead, the 10-year yield had a muted response after the headline number beat estimates, but we have negative job revisions from previous months. The Federal Reserve’s fear of wage growth spiraling out of control hasn’t materialized for over two years now and the unemployment rate ticked up to 3.9%. For now, we can say the labor market isn’t tight anymore, but it’s also not breaking.

The key labor data line in this expansion is the weekly jobless claims report. Jobless claims show an expanding economy that has not lost jobs yet. We will only be in a recession once jobless claims exceed 323,000 on a four-week moving average.

From the Fed: In the week ended March 2, initial claims for unemployment insurance benefits were flat, at 217,000. The four-week moving average declined slightly by 750, to 212,250


Below is an explanation of how we got here with the labor market, which all started during COVID-19.

1. I wrote the COVID-19 recovery model on April 7, 2020, and retired it on Dec. 9, 2020. By that time, the upfront recovery phase was done, and I needed to model out when we would get the jobs lost back.

2. Early in the labor market recovery, when we saw weaker job reports, I doubled and tripled down on my assertion that job openings would get to 10 million in this recovery. Job openings rose as high as to 12 million and are currently over 9 million. Even with the massive miss on a job report in May 2021, I didn’t waver.

Currently, the jobs openings, quit percentage and hires data are below pre-COVID-19 levels, which means the labor market isn’t as tight as it once was, and this is why the employment cost index has been slowing data to move along the quits percentage.  

2-US_Job_Quits_Rate-1-2

3. I wrote that we should get back all the jobs lost to COVID-19 by September of 2022. At the time this would be a speedy labor market recovery, and it happened on schedule, too

Total employment data

4. This is the key one for right now: If COVID-19 hadn’t happened, we would have between 157 million and 159 million jobs today, which would have been in line with the job growth rate in February 2020. Today, we are at 157,808,000. This is important because job growth should be cooling down now. We are more in line with where the labor market should be when averaging 140K-165K monthly. So for now, the fact that we aren’t trending between 140K-165K means we still have a bit more recovery kick left before we get down to those levels. 




From BLS: Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 275,000 in February, and the unemployment rate increased to 3.9 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Job gains occurred in health care, in government, in food services and drinking places, in social assistance, and in transportation and warehousing.

Here are the jobs that were created and lost in the previous month:

IMG_5092

In this jobs report, the unemployment rate for education levels looks like this:

  • Less than a high school diploma: 6.1%
  • High school graduate and no college: 4.2%
  • Some college or associate degree: 3.1%
  • Bachelor’s degree or higher: 2.2%
IMG_5093_320f22

Today’s report has continued the trend of the labor data beating my expectations, only because I am looking for the jobs data to slow down to a level of 140K-165K, which hasn’t happened yet. I wouldn’t categorize the labor market as being tight anymore because of the quits ratio and the hires data in the job openings report. This also shows itself in the employment cost index as well. These are key data lines for the Fed and the reason we are going to see three rate cuts this year.

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In History: Record 1.2 Million Immigrant Jobs Added In One Month

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In History: Record 1.2 Million Immigrant Jobs Added In One Month

Last month we though that the January…

Published

on

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In History: Record 1.2 Million Immigrant Jobs Added In One Month

Last month we though that the January jobs report was the "most ridiculous in recent history" but, boy, were we wrong because this morning the Biden department of goalseeked propaganda (aka BLS) published the February jobs report, and holy crap was that something else. Even Goebbels would blush. 

What happened? Let's take a closer look.

On the surface, it was (almost) another blockbuster jobs report, certainly one which nobody expected, or rather just one bank out of 76 expected. Starting at the top, the BLS reported that in February the US unexpectedly added 275K jobs, with just one research analyst (from Dai-Ichi Research) expecting a higher number.

Some context: after last month's record 4-sigma beat, today's print was "only" 3 sigma higher than estimates. Needless to say, two multiple sigma beats in a row used to only happen in the USSR... and now in the US, apparently.

Before we go any further, a quick note on what last month we said was "the most ridiculous jobs report in recent history": it appears the BLS read our comments and decided to stop beclowing itself. It did that by slashing last month's ridiculous print by over a third, and revising what was originally reported as a massive 353K beat to just 229K,  a 124K revision, which was the biggest one-month negative revision in two years!

Of course, that does not mean that this month's jobs print won't be revised lower: it will be, and not just that month but every other month until the November election because that's the only tool left in the Biden admin's box: pretend the economic and jobs are strong, then revise them sharply lower the next month, something we pointed out first last summer and which has not failed to disappoint once.

To be fair, not every aspect of the jobs report was stellar (after all, the BLS had to give it some vague credibility). Take the unemployment rate, after flatlining between 3.4% and 3.8% for two years - and thus denying expectations from Sahm's Rule that a recession may have already started - in February the unemployment rate unexpectedly jumped to 3.9%, the highest since February 2022 (with Black unemployment spiking by 0.3% to 5.6%, an indicator which the Biden admin will quickly slam as widespread economic racism or something).

And then there were average hourly earnings, which after surging 0.6% MoM in January (since revised to 0.5%) and spooking markets that wage growth is so hot, the Fed will have no choice but to delay cuts, in February the number tumbled to just 0.1%, the lowest in two years...

... for one simple reason: last month's average wage surge had nothing to do with actual wages, and everything to do with the BLS estimate of hours worked (which is the denominator in the average wage calculation) which last month tumbled to just 34.1 (we were led to believe) the lowest since the covid pandemic...

... but has since been revised higher while the February print rose even more, to 34.3, hence why the latest average wage data was once again a product not of wages going up, but of how long Americans worked in any weekly period, in this case higher from 34.1 to 34.3, an increase which has a major impact on the average calculation.

While the above data points were examples of some latent weakness in the latest report, perhaps meant to give it a sheen of veracity, it was everything else in the report that was a problem starting with the BLS's latest choice of seasonal adjustments (after last month's wholesale revision), which have gone from merely laughable to full clownshow, as the following comparison between the monthly change in BLS and ADP payrolls shows. The trend is clear: the Biden admin numbers are now clearly rising even as the impartial ADP (which directly logs employment numbers at the company level and is far more accurate), shows an accelerating slowdown.

But it's more than just the Biden admin hanging its "success" on seasonal adjustments: when one digs deeper inside the jobs report, all sorts of ugly things emerge... such as the growing unprecedented divergence between the Establishment (payrolls) survey and much more accurate Household (actual employment) survey. To wit, while in January the BLS claims 275K payrolls were added, the Household survey found that the number of actually employed workers dropped for the third straight month (and 4 in the past 5), this time by 184K (from 161.152K to 160.968K).

This means that while the Payrolls series hits new all time highs every month since December 2020 (when according to the BLS the US had its last month of payrolls losses), the level of Employment has not budged in the past year. Worse, as shown in the chart below, such a gaping divergence has opened between the two series in the past 4 years, that the number of Employed workers would need to soar by 9 million (!) to catch up to what Payrolls claims is the employment situation.

There's more: shifting from a quantitative to a qualitative assessment, reveals just how ugly the composition of "new jobs" has been. Consider this: the BLS reports that in February 2024, the US had 132.9 million full-time jobs and 27.9 million part-time jobs. Well, that's great... until you look back one year and find that in February 2023 the US had 133.2 million full-time jobs, or more than it does one year later! And yes, all the job growth since then has been in part-time jobs, which have increased by 921K since February 2023 (from 27.020 million to 27.941 million).

Here is a summary of the labor composition in the past year: all the new jobs have been part-time jobs!

But wait there's even more, because now that the primary season is over and we enter the heart of election season and political talking points will be thrown around left and right, especially in the context of the immigration crisis created intentionally by the Biden administration which is hoping to import millions of new Democratic voters (maybe the US can hold the presidential election in Honduras or Guatemala, after all it is their citizens that will be illegally casting the key votes in November), what we find is that in February, the number of native-born workers tumbled again, sliding by a massive 560K to just 129.807 million. Add to this the December data, and we get a near-record 2.4 million plunge in native-born workers in just the past 3 months (only the covid crash was worse)!

The offset? A record 1.2 million foreign-born (read immigrants, both legal and illegal but mostly illegal) workers added in February!

Said otherwise, not only has all job creation in the past 6 years has been exclusively for foreign-born workers...

Source: St Louis Fed FRED Native Born and Foreign Born

... but there has been zero job-creation for native born workers since June 2018!

This is a huge issue - especially at a time of an illegal alien flood at the southwest border...

... and is about to become a huge political scandal, because once the inevitable recession finally hits, there will be millions of furious unemployed Americans demanding a more accurate explanation for what happened - i.e., the illegal immigration floodgates that were opened by the Biden admin.

Which is also why Biden's handlers will do everything in their power to insure there is no official recession before November... and why after the election is over, all economic hell will finally break loose. Until then, however, expect the jobs numbers to get even more ridiculous.

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/08/2024 - 13:30

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending