Tag: Regulation

Crypto’s Political Surge: A New Frontier for Investors in the 2024 Election Landscape

Posted on by slightbourne@noblecapitalmarkets.com
Key Points:
– Political attention on cryptocurrency is growing, potentially influencing future regulations and market dynamics.
-Trump and other politicians are making pro-crypto promises, but implementation challenges remain.
– Investors should watch for policy shifts that could impact crypto markets and related investments.

As the 2024 U.S. presidential election looms, cryptocurrency has unexpectedly taken center stage, promising to reshape both the political and investment landscapes. The recent Bitcoin 2024 conference in Nashville served as a lightning rod for political attention, with figures from across the spectrum – most notably former President Donald Trump – making bold commitments to the crypto community.

Trump’s promises were sweeping: appointing a crypto Presidential Advisory Council, ousting SEC chair Gary Gensler, introducing crypto-friendly regulations, and even establishing a “strategic national bitcoin stockpile.” These pledges were echoed and amplified by other politicians, including Senator Cynthia Lummis and independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who proposed acquiring up to 4 million bitcoins for a national reserve.

For investors, this surge in political interest signals potential seismic shifts in the regulatory environment. However, it’s crucial to approach these promises with a healthy dose of skepticism. Many proposed actions face significant legislative and legal hurdles, even in a favorable political climate.

The crypto industry’s growing political clout is evident in its fundraising prowess. FairShake, the largest crypto Super PAC, has amassed over $200 million, positioning itself as a formidable force in upcoming elections. This financial muscle could translate into increased lobbying power and potentially more favorable policies for the sector.

From an investment perspective, this political momentum could lead to several outcomes:

  1. Regulatory Clarity: A pro-crypto administration could usher in clearer regulations, potentially reducing market uncertainty and attracting more institutional investors.
  2. Market Volatility: Political developments will likely trigger significant price movements, creating both opportunities and risks for traders and investors.
  3. Mainstream Adoption: Increased political legitimacy could accelerate crypto’s integration into traditional financial systems, opening new investment avenues.
  4. Sectoral Impact: Companies in blockchain technology, cybersecurity, and fintech could see increased interest as crypto gains political traction.
  5. Global Competition: A U.S. pivot towards crypto-friendly policies could influence global crypto regulations and investments.

However, investors should remain cautious. The crypto market’s notorious volatility persists, and political promises often face significant obstacles in implementation. The recent ascension of Vice President Kamala Harris as the presumptive Democratic nominee adds another layer of uncertainty, given her undeclared stance on crypto regulation.

Bitcoin’s price action following the conference – surging above $70,000 before retreating – underscores the market’s sensitivity to political developments. Year-to-date, Bitcoin has risen over 50%, buoyed by increased institutional interest following the launch of Bitcoin ETFs.

As the election approaches, savvy investors should monitor several key areas:

  1. Proposed legislation affecting crypto regulations
  2. Appointments to key regulatory positions, especially at the SEC and CFTC
  3. Statements from major political figures on crypto policy
  4. Progress on initiatives like a national bitcoin reserve
  5. International reactions and policy shifts in response to U.S. developments

While political attention on crypto is growing, it’s important to note that widespread adoption and understanding remain limited. As Trump candidly observed, “most people have no idea what the hell it is.” This gap between political rhetoric and public comprehension presents both challenges and opportunities for investors.

For those considering crypto investments, a multifaceted approach is crucial:

  1. Diversification: Balance crypto investments with traditional assets to manage risk.
  2. Due Diligence: Thoroughly research projects and platforms before investing.
  3. Regulatory Awareness: Stay informed about evolving regulations both domestically and internationally.
  4. Technology Understanding: Grasp the underlying technology and its potential applications beyond currency.
  5. Long-term Perspective: Consider the long-term potential of blockchain technology beyond short-term price fluctuations.

As the 2024 election unfolds, the interplay between politics, regulation, and crypto markets will likely intensify. For investors, this evolving landscape presents a unique set of opportunities and risks. Those who can navigate the complex intersection of technology, finance, and politics may find themselves well-positioned in this new frontier of investing.

Remember, while the potential for high returns exists, so too does the risk of significant losses. As always, it’s crucial to approach any investment, especially in the volatile crypto space, with caution and in alignment with one’s risk tolerance and financial goals.

TikTok Bill Sends Shockwaves Through Tech World

Posted on by slightbourne@noblecapitalmarkets.com

The House of Representatives has fired a major salvo in the battle over TikTok, passing legislation that could lead to a nationwide ban of the wildly popular social media app. The bill, which passed with bipartisan support by a 352-65 vote, gives ByteDance, TikTok’s Chinese parent company, a stark choice – divest its ownership of TikTok or see the app effectively prohibited from operating in the United States.

This dramatic escalation in Washington’s war on TikTok, driven by concerns over data privacy and the app’s perceived ties to the Chinese government, has sent shockwaves rippling through Silicon Valley and Wall Street. While the bill’s future remains uncertain as it heads to the Senate, the specter of losing access to one of the world’s largest markets has tech giants and investors on edge.

For the big tech behemoths like Apple and Google who control the app stores, a TikTok ban could be a double-edged sword. On one hand, removing TikTok opens up their platforms to competitors eager to fill the void. But it also sets a concerning precedent of the government dictating what apps can operate, potentially opening the door to bans on other apps down the line.

The fallout could be even more severe for ByteDance and TikTok. Analysts estimate that a forced sale of TikTok’s U.S. operations could fetch a staggering $60 billion or more given the app’s massive stateside user base and potential for future monetization. However, ByteDance may choose to remove TikTok from the U.S. entirely rather than divest it.

Such a development would be a seismic disruption not just for TikTok’s core business, but for the legions of creators, influencers, and businesses who have built audiences, brands, and revenue streams on the platform. Many are already working feverishly to diversify away from TikTok in anticipation of a potential ban.

The ripple effects could be felt across the tech sector and extend to adjacent industries like entertainment, advertising, and media that have been reshaped by the rise of TikTok and other social apps. Any mass exodus of users, creators and brands from TikTok would reshuffle the digital landscape in unpredictable ways.

On Wall Street, tech investors are scrambling to gauge the impact across portfolios. While some think established players like Meta could benefit from TikTok’s potential exit, others worry about the broader chilling effect on innovation from a precedent-setting ban of a consumer app over national security concerns.

Prominent Republican financier Keith Rabois summed up the stakes, declaring the TikTok bill an “IQ test” for lawmakers and vowing to withhold donations from those who oppose it. The tensions highlight how the issue has become a political lightning rod stretching beyond just the tech world.

As the bill moves to the Senate, the ultimate resolution remains unclear. TikTok has defiantly pushed back, framing the bill as a violation of free speech. The Biden administration has stopped short of endorsing an outright ban while reiterating data security concerns. And former President Trump, who tried to ban TikTok in 2020, expressed reservations about handing a competitive windfall to Facebook.

What is certain is that Congress has now made its opening gambit to bring the hammer down on TikTok and its Chinese ownership. The shock waves from that decision will continue reverberating across the tech industry and markets as they brace for the uncharted waters ahead.

The SEC’s Clearing Mandate: A Major Shift for the US Treasury Market

Posted on by slightbourne@noblecapitalmarkets.com

The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has implemented a major shift in the $26 trillion US Treasury market, adopting new regulations aimed at reducing systemic risk by forcing more trades through clearing houses. This overhaul, approved on December 13th, 2023, marks the most significant change to this global benchmark for assets in decades.

The Need for Reform:

In recent years, the Treasury market has experienced periods of volatility and liquidity concerns. The COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 highlighted these vulnerabilities, as liquidity all but evaporated during the initial market panic. This prompted calls for reform, with the SEC identifying the need to increase transparency and reduce counterparty risk.

Central Clearing: The Centerpiece of Reform:

The core of the SEC’s new rules revolves around central clearing. A central clearinghouse acts as the intermediary for every transaction, assuming the role of both buyer and seller. This ensures that trades are completed even if one party defaults, significantly minimizing risk.

The new regulations mandate that a broader range of Treasury transactions now be centrally cleared. This includes cash Treasury transactions as well as repurchase agreements (“repos”), which are short-term loans backed by Treasuries. Additionally, clearing houses must implement stricter risk management practices and maintain separate collateral for their members and their customers.

Phased Implementation:

Recognizing the complexity of implementing such a significant change, the SEC has provided a phased approach. Clearing houses have until March 2025 to comply with the new risk management and asset protection requirements. They will have until December 2025 to begin clearing cash market Treasury transactions and June 2026 for repo transactions. Similarly, members of clearing houses have until December 2025 and June 2026, respectively, to begin clearing these transactions.

Industry Concerns and Potential Impact:

While the SEC’s initiative aims to enhance the safety and stability of the Treasury market, some industry participants have voiced concerns. The primary concern revolves around the potential increase in costs associated with central clearing. Clearing houses charge fees for their services, which could be passed on to market participants. Additionally, the requirement for additional margin, which serves to limit risk, could also lead to higher costs.

Another concern is the potential impact on liquidity. Some critics argue that mandatory clearing could lead to a decrease in liquidity, particularly during times of market stress. This is because central clearing adds another layer of bureaucracy to the transaction process, which could discourage some market participants from trading.

Furthermore, there are concerns about the potential concentration of risk in clearing houses. If a major clearing house were to fail, it could have a devastating impact on the entire financial system. To mitigate this risk, the SEC has implemented stricter capital and risk management requirements for clearing houses.

The Road Ahead:

The implementation of these new regulations will undoubtedly impact the US Treasury market. While the long-term effects remain to be seen, the SEC’s goal is to create a safer and more resilient market for all participants. The phased approach allows for a smoother transition, giving market participants time to adjust to the new requirements.

The success of these reforms will depend on several factors, including the effectiveness of implementation by clearing houses and market participants, the ongoing monitoring and oversight by the SEC, and the overall economic environment. Only time will tell whether these changes will achieve their intended goal of enhancing the stability and efficiency of the US Treasury market.

Additional Considerations:

The SEC’s decision to exempt certain transactions, such as those between broker-dealers and hedge funds, has garnered mixed reactions. Some argue that this creates loopholes and undermines the effectiveness of the reforms. Others contend that it is a necessary concession to address industry concerns and avoid stifling market activity.

The implementation of these new rules will also require close collaboration between the SEC, clearing houses, and market participants. Clear communication and education will be essential to ensuring a smooth transition and maximizing the benefits of these reforms.

Ultimately, the success of these changes will hinge on their ability to strike a delicate balance between enhancing safety and maintaining market efficiency. Only time will tell if this major overhaul of the US Treasury market will ultimately achieve its intended objectives.

SEC Chief Gensler’s Concerns Mount Over Leverage in Treasuries Market

Posted on by slightbourne@noblecapitalmarkets.com

Securities regulators have leverage risks in the multi-trillion dollar US Treasuries market back under the microscope. Recent remarks by Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chair Gary Gensler signaled renewed urgency around curtailing destabilizing trading practices in the world’s largest bond market.

In a speech to financial executives, Gensler emphasized the systemic dangers posed by excessive leverage use among institutional government bond traders. He pointed to stresses witnessed during this year’s regional banking turmoil as a reminder of such hazards manifesting and causing wider contagion.

Regulators worry traders combining high leverage with speculative strategies in Treasuries could trigger severe market dysfunction during times of volatility. This could then spill over to wreak havoc in the broader financial system given Treasuries’ status as a global haven asset class.

Gensler advocated for SEC proposals intended to impose tighter control over leverage and trading risks. These include requiring central clearing for Treasuries transactions and designating large proprietary trading institutions as broker-dealers subject to higher regulatory standards.

The SEC chief argues such reforms are vital to counterbalance the threat of destabilizing blowups in a foundational market underpinning global finance.

Among the riskier trading plays under scrutiny is the so-called basis trade where leverage magnifies bets exploiting slight pricing variations between Treasury futures and underlying bonds. While providing liquidity, regulators fret the strategy’s extensive borrowing leaves it vulnerable to violent unwinding in turbulent markets.

Warnings around the basis trade have intensified given concentration of risks among influential bond trading heavyweights. US regulators demand greater visibility into leverage levels across systemically-important markets to be able to detect emerging hazards.

Overseas authorities are also tightening oversight of leveraged strategies. The Bank of England recently floated measures to restrain risk-taking in British government bond markets that could destabilize the financial system.

However, Wall Street defenders argue the basis trade fulfills a valuable role in greasing trading and provides resilience during crises. They point to the strategy weathering last decade’s pandemic-induced mayhem in markets without mishap.

But SEC leadership remains unconvinced current patchwork regulation provides sufficient safeguards against excessive risk-taking. They emphasize the over-the-counter nature of Treasuries trading allows huge leverage buildup outside the purview of watchdogs.

Hence the regulatory push for greater transparency from large leveraged investors to facilitate continuous monitoring for dangers to system stability. Furthermore, shorter settlement timelines being phased in are meant to curb risk accumulation in the opaque Treasury secondary market.

While largely supportive of the abbreviated settlement schedule, Gensler noted challenges still abound on the foreign exchange side that demand close tracking.

Overall, the revived warnings from America’s top securities regulator underscore enduring concerns post-2008 crisis reforms did not fully address leverage-fueled excess in Treasury markets. Keeping a tight leash on potentially destabilizing trading practices remains a clear priority for policymakers focused on securing the financial system against shocks.

Bipartisan Marijuana Banking Bill Could Pass Senate Within Weeks

Posted on by slightbourne@noblecapitalmarkets.com

A bipartisan bill that would allow cannabis businesses access to banking services could see action in the Senate within the next six weeks, according to lawmakers.

The Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act has been a priority for advocates seeking to bring the marijuana industry into the financial mainstream. Currently, most banks will not work with cannabis companies due to federal prohibition.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Sherrod Brown (D-OH) said he has discussed plans to move the bill forward soon with Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY). Schumer has also signaled marijuana banking reform is a priority issue requiring bipartisan cooperation.

“We want to get SAFE Banking. We want to do all that in the next six weeks,” Brown told reporters this week. The bill currently has 42 cosponsors split between Republicans and Democrats.

The SAFE Banking Act would protect financial institutions from federal penalties for working with state-legal marijuana businesses. Supporters say it would provide critical access to essential banking services that cannabis companies currently lack.

Take a moment to learn about Schwazze, a leading vertically integrated cannabis holding company with a portfolio spanning cultivation, manufacturing, dispensary operations and a nutrient line.
 
Click here for company information, including equity research from Noble Capital Markets.

However, some Senate Democrats want to amend Section 10 of the bill, believing it could undermine banking regulations. Republicans have resisted those changes, and it’s unclear if a compromise can be reached.

The lead GOP cosponsor, Senator Steve Daines (R-MT), believes the votes are already lined up to pass the current version of SAFE Banking if brought to the floor.

The bill’s progress has major implications for small cannabis businesses that have struggled without proper banking access. Industry leaders say the measure is urgently needed and could determine whether many companies survive or not.

Proper banking would help small marijuana firms process transactions, obtain financing, pay taxes, and gain legitimacy. This could level the playing field against larger cannabis corporations.

While the path forward contains hurdles, the increasing bipartisan momentum behind marijuana banking reform suggests historic progress could be on the horizon for the growing industry after years of being denied equal services.

New SEC Rules Could be Costly for Investors

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com

Do New SEC Rules Bubble Wrap Money Market Funds?

What if you bought a new home in what has historically been a trouble-free neighborhood? You are not one to take big risks with your family or belongings so you also pay extra for what are expected to be the best locks, install a security camera, motion detector lights, and build a state-of-the-art fence behind which sits your German shepherd named Patton. The first week after you move in, a town representative comes by and tells you that they are worried about your safety, so you and everyone else in town must also spend a little money each month on an alarm system they approve of. To you, even this small amount of money is a waste as Patton is generally always on the job, you have ample protection in other ways, and the extra money is better spent on dog food. 

This is what many investors feel the SEC has just done by changing the already extremely low-risk rules for money market funds this week. These investors believe they already had ample safety in the “cash” allocation and may have already given up return in order to secure that safety. So the forced added layer of protection to MM funds, which have in over five decades only seen two funds in the asset class inch down in value, is an example of a regulator forcing them to pay for the protection they don’t need.   

Money Market Fund Background

Money market funds are governed by the SEC under rule 2a-7 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. These rules are very specific in defining the underlying assets in the fund. The most common use of MM funds, and the restrictions governing the holdings, is to provide a very liquid alternative that can be viewed as cash among your other investments. Fund families at times use their MM funds as a funnel or gateway investment from which they hope to have investors venture beyond to other higher fee offerings.

Money market funds, typically purchased through a broker, are not insured, but the extremely high credit quality of underlying securities required by the SEC, along with the very short average maturity required by the SEC, along with the amount each fund is required by the SEC to hold in overnight investments, has provided investors with a very low-risk harbor for balances that may be used as savings, or as a parking place while waiting for more aggressive investment opportunities.

Unlike other mutual funds, where investors buy shares and over time the share price changes, money market funds shares are valued at $1.00. When the underlying investments accrue or pay interest, the non-fee portion of income is credited to account holders as a share dividend, always valued at $1.00. In this way it is designed to feel like a bank savings account. This minimal risk, savers to the tune of trillions of dollars, endure in exchange for higher returns than available in a bank passbook account, and the convenience of transferring money to purchase other investments.

What is the risk of a 2a-7 money market fund breaking the buck? You can count on two fingers. Since the first money market fund came to market in 1971, it has briefly occurred in two funds, and no investors lost money.  

The first time a MM fund broke the buck was in 1994, a fund named Community Bankers U.S. Government Money Market Fund saw it’s NAV plummet from $1.00 to $0.96. This was after financial engineers at top Wall Street investment banks created derivative instruments that were far from liquid, and stopped accruing interest if markets didn’t perform as expected. Imagine being the first MM fund manager in history to drop below $1.00 because you disregarded prudence.   

The second time was in 2008. The Reserve Primary Fund held Lehman Brothers commercial paper (very short-term notes). On September 16th of that year the fund company announced it had suffered losses in the fund to the extent that assets fell below $1.00 per share to $0.97.

The U.S. Treasury Department guaranteed the $1.00 share price in 2008 to prevent a run on MM funds. And in both occurrences, fund companies, in order to restore faith in their other products, made sure money fund holders were whole by redeeming shares when requested at $1.00.

SEC New Rules for Money Funds Beginning October 2023

In 2010 The SEC created new rules to enhance transparency, liquidity, and bolster the credit quality of MM funds. Despite having only experienced two brief brushes with breaking the buck.

The new rules for 2a-7 SEC-regulated money funds (any fund with “money” in the title is regulated under 2a-7) included that daily maturities must equal at least 10% of the fund. And further, each week at least 30% of the fund notes need to mature. The weighted average maturity of all holdings in any non-government MM fund can not extend longer than 60 days, down from 90 days. The rules essentially were a safe cash alternative and made it super safe, and along the way, they rduced average return to the investors.

A reminder, there has not been an incident since the new rules, but there was some concern in 2020 as the financial system took measures in response to the novel coronavirus.

On July 12, 2023 the SEC announced it has decided that investors in MM funds need to be protected even better. Or perhaps it is better protecting the fund industry by adding extra safety measures that they all have to play by, giving none a real competitive advantage, and increasing their competitiveness against FDIC insure bank money funds. Either way, it is sure to lower, once again, the interest rates paid on the average MM fund. Considering interest rate compounding and the time value of money, investors this coming October will begin “paying” more for protections than they are probably worth.

The SEC explained its reasons for the added protection.“Money market funds – nearly $6 trillion in size today – provide millions of Americans with a deposit alternative to traditional bank accounts,” said SEC Chair Gary Gensler. “Money market funds, though, have a potential structural liquidity mismatch. As a result, when markets enter times of stress, some investors – fearing dilution or illiquidity – may try to escape the bear. This can lead to large amounts of rapid redemptions. Left unchecked, such stress can undermine these critical funds. I support this adoption because it will enhance these funds’ resiliency and ability to protect against dilution. Taken together, the rules will make money market funds more resilient, liquid, and transparent, including in times of stress. That benefits investors.”

The SEC finalized the most recent amendments to Rule 2a-7 on July 12, 2023. The amendments are designed to improve the resilience and transparency of money market funds by:

  • Requiring money market funds to impose a mandatory liquidity fee of 2% when daily net redemptions exceed 5% of total assets.
  • Increasing the minimum daily liquid asset requirement from 10% to 15% of total assets
  • Increasing the minimum weekly liquid asset requirement from 30% to 35% of total asset
  • Giving money market fund boards the discretion to impose a liquidity fee if daily net redemptions exceed 2.5% of total assets.

Beginning in October 1, 2023, money market funds will also disclose more information about their liquidity risk, including the daily and weekly liquid asset requirements, the amount of liquidity fees imposed, and the reasons for imposing liquidity fees.

What Could the Impact Be?

In economics, everything has an impact. To address redemption costs and liquidity concerns, the amendments will require institutional prime and institutional tax-exempt money market funds to impose liquidity fees when a fund experiences daily net redemptions exceeding 5 percent of net assets, unless the fund’s liquidity costs are de minimis. This alone could cause investors to try to be first to the door if trouble is perceived thereby increasing the number of runs on these low-risk funds. The shorter average maturity, and higher percentage of holdings held maturing in one day and seven days will also reduce earnings in a normal sloping yield curve environment.

In addition, the amendments will require any non-government money market fund to impose a discretionary liquidity fee if the board determines that a fee is in the best interest of the fund. This could be perceived as the funds management punishing investors for expecting a MM fund to provide liquidity on demand. It could also have the impact of funds taking more chances, as the fund manager knows that if a sudden withdrawal spree occurs and a large percentage of their holdings have gone down in value, they can charge customers for wanting their money. 

Take Away

When it comes to investing, risk versus return is a top consideration. Many investors know this and are concerned that regulatory bodies try to protect investors from the downside of risk. By doing this they shield investors from the benefits of risk. It can be argued that some IPOs may not be suitable for every investor, but should ultra-safe money market funds be further shored up at an ongoing cost in return, to reduce the unlikely day when they may lose 3 cents a share? Write to me and let me know what you think.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Sources

https://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2021/ic-34441-fact-sheet.pdf

https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-basics/glossary/money-market-fund

Gensler’s Predecessor Says SEC “Regulatory Whiplash” Bad for Investors

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com
Image: Securities and Exchange Commission, March 2019 (Flickr)

Is this the Most Aggressive SEC Ever? Former Commission Head Thinks So

Gary Gensler was nominated head of the Securities and Exchange Commission just after SEC Chairman Jay Clayton stepped down on December 23, 2020. Cryptocurrency exchanges welcomed the incoming Chair’s appointment as “Gensler unites a pro-regulation history with a pro-crypto viewpoint, and could finally implement the regulatory clarity many in the industry have desired,” said an opinion piece published in Coinbase two months after. It has now been two years, and Chair Gensler’s predecessor, in his new role, shared his views and criticisms this week.

Former SEC chairman Jay Clayton, who is now working in the private sector, said he believes government regulators could do a much better job serving investors and the broader financial markets. The comments came during an address (June 7) in Orlando as he spoke at the BNY Mellon Pershing Insite 23 Conference. In his talk, Clayton highlighted big differences between the SEC under the Biden administration in comparison to the Trump presidency.

“I think it’s pretty clear we’re in a very highly business-skeptical and commercial-skeptical regulatory environment,” he said. “Any time you go to extremes, either way, you get more bad than good.”

Clayton, is now the nonexecutive chair at Apollo Global Management, a large alternative asset manager. He held the position of SEC chairman from May 2017 through December 2020. He believes the regulatory whiplash leaves anyone participating in the financial markets with more questions than answers.

“People don’t know what is really happening, how long it is going to last, and what they should do about it,” he said in reference to what has been described as the most aggressive SEC ever.

Clayton acknowledged that his business is with an alternative investment house, and that he might be accused of “talking his book” as a representative of a firm that manages private investments, but explained that he believes retail class investors are being locked out of suitable investments. He believes there should be a democratization of alternative investments, which has been an SEC focus. The accredited investor policies may not be best for the average person planning for the future.

“Capital formation these days largely comes from outside the public markets, yet the investing public is largely held outside those private markets,” he said. “All investors should have access to a portfolio that looks like a well-managed pension fund. With the help of a lot of the people in this room, I think we’re going to be able to do it,” he optimistically said addressing the large group from the wealth management industry.

He called on investment management firms to do their part to help regulators by making an effort to create products that are more broadly suited to the full universe of investors. Clayton took particular issue with the current accreditation rules. Saying the 40-year-old accredited investor rule doesn’t jive with today’s reality, an environment where individual investors are largely responsible for their own retirement income.

The former SEC head pointed out what he thought to be absurd, mentioning qualified retirement accounts (401k, 403b, IRAs) that give retail investors access to highly liquid mutual funds and perhaps ETFs, but not less liquid investments that would be better suited for long-term investing objectives.

“You’re paying for liquidity that you don’t need and can’t access,” Clayton said. “Pick a target-date fund, for example, why wouldn’t there be a sliver of privates or alternatives in there? If I’m a 401(k) investor, I should be able to get something that looks like a Calpers portfolio. Why wouldn’t you have a 10% slice of privates in your retirement portfolio when you’re 50 years old?” He said referring to the large institution managing the California teachers retirement portfolio.

Take Away

The former SEC head Jay Clayton believes that the sharp move from lowering  regulatoryinvestment  hurdles, to erecting the most aggressive in history under the current leadership of Gary Gensler, is bad for investors. He doesn’t argue strongly for either side, as much as he is against sudden changes and the impact it has on investors.

Clayton also supports alternative funds for the average retail investor, especially as it relates to long-term savings such as retirement accounts.

Insite23, the investor conference Jay Clayton was addressing in Orlando, FL, draws wealth management professionals from across the US. This coming December, the Channelchek-sponsored investor conference, NobleCon19 will be held in Boca Raton, Fl. This annual conference, in its 19th year, draws institutional and self-directed investors from beyond the US, who wish to attend presentations, breakout sessions, and panel discussions with CEOs, and even former government leaders. Those attending this year’s NobleCon will get to assess lesser-known investment opportunities along with the current investment climate. Attendees can look forward to two days filled with actionable opportunities explained by those with direct knowledge at the company’s helm.

For information on attending Nobecon19, sponsoring, or presenting, click here.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Sources

State of Crypto: How SEC Chair Gary Gensler Could Differ From Predecessor Jay Clayton

Apollo Capital

Former SEC Chair Clayton makes case for democratizing alternative investments

BNY Mellon Insite

Will Three Bank Regulators Kill Cryptocurrency in 2023?

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com
Image Credit: Fredrik Klintberg (Flickr)

Lack of Crypto Governance, Oversight, Standards, and Risk Management Frightens Feds

Three Federal Agencies have warned banks about the dangers of dealing with digital assets. On the first banking day of the new year, the Federal Reserve (Fed), the FDIC, and the Office of the Controller of the Currency (OCC), the three banking regulators in the US, issued a three-page joint warning to banks. It points to eight risks that banking organizations should not let migrate to the US banking system. And highlights processes to mitigate these risks while the three agencies develop frameworks to oversee the ever-changing asset class.

The Joint Statement on Crypto-Asset Risks to Banking Organizations is for the consumption of banks of all types and sizes through the US that have or may adopt policies. It warns the events of 2022 have “been marked by significant volatility,” and that vulnerabilities in the crypto-asset sector have surfaced.

Source: Federal Reserve

The joint statement explains that banking organizations that have in the past seeked to engage in activities that involve crypto-assets. Have been taken on a case-by-case basis. “The agencies continue to build knowledge, expertise, and understanding of the risks crypto-assets may pose to banking organizations, their customers, and the broader U.S. financial system.”  The statement says that the  significant risks “highlighted by recent failures of several large crypto-asset companies,” will cause the three agencies to take a careful and cautious approach.

The agencies highlighted eight risks that they wanted banking organizations engaged in crypto-assets to understand may not be in accordance with safe and sound banking practices:

  • Risk of fraud and scams among crypto-asset sector participants.
  • Legal uncertainties related to custody practices, redemptions, and ownership rights, some of which are currently the subject of legal processes and proceedings.
  • Inaccurate or misleading representations and disclosures by crypto-asset companies, including misrepresentations regarding federal deposit insurance, and other practices that may be unfair, deceptive, or abusive, contributing to significant harm to retail and institutional investors, customers, and counterparties.
  • Significant volatility in crypto-asset markets, the effects of which include potential impacts on deposit flows associated with crypto-asset companies.
  • Susceptibility of stablecoins to run risk, creating potential deposit outflows for banking organizations that hold stablecoin reserves.
  • Contagion risk within the crypto-assetsector resulting from interconnections among certain crypto-asset participants, including through opaque lending, investing, funding, service, and operational arrangements. These interconnections may also present concentration risks for banking organizations with exposures to the crypto-asset sector.
  • Risk management and governance practices in the crypto-asset sector exhibiting a lack of maturity and robustness.
  • Heightened risks associated with open, public, and/or decentralized networks, or similar systems, including, but not limited to, the lack of governance mechanisms establishing oversight of the system; the absence of contracts or standards to clearly establish roles, responsibilities, and liabilities; and vulnerabilities related to cyber-attacks, outages, lost or trapped assets, and illicit finance.

Take Away

In 2022 the young crypto asset class took a beating similar to high-tech stocks. There is a reason banks are limited to their stock market activity. It seems that these three federal agencies, which do not include work being done by the SEC (or CFTC), are now working hard to regulate what banks can do involving these assets; in the meantime, they want to let banking organizations know that crypto-assets need to be dealt with extreme caution, perhaps moderation, and know that as far as the regulators are concerned, if they still want to serve crypto customers, they should discuss all planned activities with the appropriate regulator prior to filing an application and should ensure that risk management, including board oversight, policies, procedures, risk assessments, controls, gates and guardrails, and monitoring, are in place to effectively identify and manage risks.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Source

Joint Statement on Crypto-Asset Risks to Banking Organizations

Could Cryptocurrency Become a Catalyst for Renewable Energy Projects?

Posted on by cpatches
Image Credit: Kecko (Flickr)

Crypto Mining can Retire Fossil Fuels for Good. Here’s How

To many, cryptocurrency may be considered the antithesis to ESG. Bitcoin, for instance, it consumes more energy per year than countries such as Finland and Belgium. However, new regulations and approaches to cryptocurrency and cryptocurrency mining could reduce carbon emissions as the industry turns to renewable energy and innovative solutions. Karen Jones, a Space Economist at The Center for Space Policy and Strategy, examines how ESG concerns from investors, the financial sector and governments are changing cryptocurrency and how, in turn, cryptocurrency could become a catalyst for renewable energy projects.

The future of blockchain is bright, but first we need to bring our expectations back to earth. To realize its full potential, the decentralized finance (DeFi) market must operate within regulatory guard rails — to protect both investors and the planet.

  • Cryptocurrency mining using proof of work calculations is very energy-intensive, but it isn’t the only option.
  • New regulations and new approaches to mining cryptocurrencies could also see reduced carbon emissions as the crypto industry turns to renewable energy and innovative solutions.
  • And looking long term, could space-based solar power one day fuel a space-based blockchain revolution?

Since the great cryptocurrency meltdown of May 2022, DeFi has been in the spotlight. Regulators are considering new ways to protect investors and discourage fraudulent activities after hundreds of billions of dollars in value were wiped out and entire currencies became essentially worthless, nearly overnight.

The Cost to the Planet

Now the market faces another challenge. Regulators and Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) motivated investors are applying pressure to reduce carbon footprints across many industries — especially the relatively new cryptocurrency market.

Even after this year’s major hit to the market, the global market capitalization for cryptocurrency is still approximately $1.04 trillion. And these companies — this technology, as it stands — is built on the mass consumption of energy.

Senior US politicians have warned that the seven largest crypto companies expect to increase their computing capacity to 2.4 gigawatts. That is a 230 percent increase from current levels, and enough energy to power 1.9 million homes. They called the miners’ energy consumption “disturbing.”

In early May this year, researchers at Columbia University estimated that global mining for Bitcoin alone, just the most popular among hundreds of cryptocurrencies, consumed more energy than the entirety of Argentina and emitted roughly 65 megatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year.

Cryptocurrency Legislation is Ramping Up

Blockchain-based currency is still in its wild west days, but policymakers are taking notice.

United States legislators have proposed a bill that aims to establish a framework for regulating cryptocurrency, including provisions directing the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to study the energy impact of the cryptocurrency industry.

The crypto market currently involves energy-intensive mining to solve cryptographic problems, a key component of the blockchain for proof of work, the calculation computers complete to create a new Bitcoin. To reduce power needs, many blockchain applications are shifting from the energy-intensive proof of work consensus to proof of stake, which still validates entries onto the shared ledger, but emits far fewer greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in doing so.

Despite the huge emissions caused by parts of the industry, not all crypto mining efforts have such large carbon footprints, even when they use proof of work. Mining can rely upon solar, wind, hydroelectric and geothermal renewable energy systems. To discourage carbon-intensive crypto mining operations, New York legislators have proposed a moratorium to partially limit cryptocurrency mining operations that use proof of work authentication methods to validate blockchain transactions. The moratorium would not apply to mining operations that utilize renewable energy.

The Paris Climate Agreement’s goal of Net Zero 2050 is ushering in an era of self-scrutiny, as industries examine their own industrial processes and carbon footprints. One way to do this is to evaluate the cradle to grave lifecycle assessment of a crypto transaction. Sometimes referred to as an environmental lifecycle analysis (E-LCA), this framework provides a structure for conducting an inventory and assessment of a product’s environmental footprint.

Moving towards a lifecycle assessment will also help companies produce data driven ESG statements. As ESG standards guide investors to green products and services, more industries, including crypto companies, will conduct a self-analysis of their own carbon footprints and environmental lifecycles. And good actors will be motivated to assess and broadcast their virtuous carbon-free lifecycles.

Although most environmental lifecycle-related disclosures are currently voluntary, this could change. The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has proposed rules for registrant companies to conduct Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions inventories. If these proposed rules become law, publicly traded cryptocurrencies would need to understand their life cycle emissions intensity, from direct operations (Scope 1), electricity purchases (Scope 2), and indirect upstream and downstream activities (Scope 3) emissions.

Crypto Mining as a Catalyst for Renewable Energy Projects

While there is always a fear that conducting an environmental assessment might reveal “inconvenient details,” it also represents a unique opportunity.

Crypto mining companies are often located near power sources to feed their power-hungry computers. As a result, crypto mining can be a catalyst or market driver for new renewable energy projects. For instance, Digital Power Optimization, in New York, now runs 400 mining computers from spare electricity produced by a hydroelectric dam in Hatfield, Wisconsin. There are many remote geographic areas where the energy demand market is not large enough to support a utility scale renewable energy site.

It is this symbiosis of crypto computer farms and remote green energy projects which offers the potential for mutual benefits — and it may not stop with rural projects.

Many cryptocurrency stakeholders and enthusiasts expect the DeFi market to expand its reach into near space, the moon and beyond — and this idea is not far from being realized. A range of distributed ledger technologies are already being considered for the space domain.

A multi-signature Bitcoin transaction has been demonstrated on the International Space Station. Other companies are moving forward with various space applications, including fundraising, smart contracts, autonomous satellite communications and blockchain applications for managing a range of satellite assets in a decentralized and accountable way.

Perhaps one day in the future an orbiting space-based solar power plant could generate several gigawatts of clean energy and power a range of blockchain applications in space.

Opportunities for consensus-based protocols across the space value chain
Image: The Center for Space Policy and Strategy

Several countries, including China, India and the UK are seriously considering space based solar power. As the world seeks decentralized, accountable and carbon free technical solutions, it is this type of cooperative partnership between clean energy providers and blockchain applications that can answer the call.

About the Author:

Karen L. Jones is a Space Economist at The Center for Space Policy and Strategy.

This article first appeared on the World Economic Forum website in August 2022.