Amidst the emergence of the banking issues, US entrepreneur and former partner at prominent Silicon Valley venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, Balaji Srinivasan made a very public bet on Twitter. He bet $2m that the price of bitcoin will go to US$1m in 90 days. Given the price of bitcoin at the time was about US$26,000, it’s an aggressive bet and it certainly gained a lot of attention. The good news is that we will know very quickly just how clever he is. The bad news is that if he is right then the world is in far more trouble than anyone is prepared for. I’ve had a few people ask me about this, so I thought I'd provide my thoughts more publicly.
Over the past decade, Balaji has amassed a huge following in tech and cryptocurrency circles. He also gained prominence over the past few years for his predictions on a range of topics including how Covid would play out. He is a smart guy and is very influential within the tech and VC space. His views on the banking system and the pace of change are extreme. His rationale for his position is his prediction of imminent hyperinflation, his concerns around the bond losses the banks hold and ultimately the collapse of the USD. He views bitcoin as the likely replacement.
For the record, I think he’s completely wrong for several reasons but it's worth exploring his rationale and the counter points. Financial markets are always a melting pot of diverse views and sometimes the most unusual perspectives prove to be right. Considering different viewpoints in a critical manner is always worthwhile even if it is especially unusual or extreme. It’s always worth understanding the rationale behind someone's position.
Firstly, in the short term, a US banking crisis is likely to be deflationary rather than inflationary. The real risk for the economy right now is if banks tighten their lending criteria and start to hoard cash for their own liquidity. That potentially starves businesses, consumers and the economy of the capital that generates economic activity. This would more likely lead to an old-fashioned credit crunch which would hammer economic growth. So, an escalation of the banking crisis he predicts is not inflationary at all and may well ‘cure’ the inflation problem.
Secondly, in anticipation of a credit crunch or recession, the impact on interest rates is more likely to change from rate rises to cuts very quickly. The bond market is already telling us rate cuts are coming with 2-year bond yields dropping from about 5.05% to 3.94% in a matter of 3 weeks. Bond markets are now pricing in several rate cuts in 2023 even though the Fed’s position is that this is unlikely. The implications are that the tightening in the banking sector is effectively acting like added interest rate hikes which will further dampen inflation. The hyperinflation argument seems extreme and unlikely.
Thirdly, any interest rate cuts would quickly erase a sizeable part of the unrealised bond losses that many institutions are carrying on their balance sheet. These unrealised bond losses are a big part of the problem at the banks, and a central part of the Balaji thesis. Whether interest rates come down due to market forces or because the Fed deliberately changes course is largely irrelevant. If interest rates do come down, it will reduce the bond losses that banks carry, which will alleviate the pressure on the bad bond investments in the banking system.
The unrealised bond losses are a significant issue for banks, but it's not necessarily the existential issue Balaji seems to fear. The US govt can simply choose a different interest rate policy. If push comes to shove and the Fed must choose between addressing a bigger issue in the banking system or inflation its likely they choose the biggest immediate threat. That would mean dropping rates due to banking issues and dealing with inflation later.
While there are not many tools at the disposal of the Fed to fight inflation, they have lots of tools to deal with bank issues. In the face of Bitcoin appearing as a threat to US hegemony, I would say that laws in the US would change rapidly. I'm not saying that’s a good thing but I'm a realist. As great as all the tech and VC gurus think bitcoin is for the future of a utopian world, if it’s a threat to the US and its dominance, they will restrict it and suffocate it, or even make it illegal if needed. I would not underestimate the US govt ability or willingness to protect itself by any means necessary if its position is threatened.
While I do think cryptocurrencies may be the future of money, I am not convinced that it will be bitcoin. Even if it should be, the control of the monetary system is far too important for governments to relinquish control. Additionally, there is a major risk in holding bitcoin that it has no intrinsic value and that its price is simply determined by the flow of money in and out. If a more technologically advanced and energy-efficient cryptocurrency ends up being adopted, then bitcoin will end up worthless as everyone moves across to the new coin.
I think that Balaji’s prediction is a combination of self-promotion combined with limited downside risk. He knows that as money moves out of banks, some will certainly find its way into bitcoin, limiting the downside risk, while all the publicity and uncertainty puts upward pressure on the price. Overall, I suspect as part of the Silicon Valley clique that is very bullish on cryptocurrencies and exposed directly to the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank that he’s just a little too close to the situation to see the forest for the trees. A little like a conspiracy theorist who goes down a rabbit hole and continually reaffirms their theories in an endless stream of combined confirmation bias and group think.
What’s certain is that you’ll increasingly hear and read these types of Armageddon predictions as the global economy head into recession. But there is an enormous difference between a recession, even a bad one, and the type of predictions the most extreme people will start to espouse. In times of uncertainty fear mongering escalates and is an easy way to grab attention and headlines.
General Advice Disclaimer: This information is of a general nature only and may not be relevant to your particular circumstances. The circumstances of each investor are different, and you should seek advice from an investment adviser who can consider if the strategies and products are right for you. Historical performance is often not a reliable indicator of future performance. You should not rely solely on historical performance to make investment decisions.