Tag Archives: article

Explaining Blockchain To Traditional Investors Through Growth Capital

Note: This piece assumes some general familiarity with the blockchain technology space. If you would like an introduction to the technology that underpins Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, see this article on Re/code . Ever since launching CoinFund in July 2015, I’ve been viewing the blockchain technology space from the point of view of an engineer and a portfolio manager. I’ve been thinking, therefore, about how to explain the blockchain technology space to traditional investors in traditional terms. What makes blockchain companies unique and interesting opportunities in the investment landscape? To see the potential long-term implications of this fascinating space, one needs to take in a thirty minute primer of technical details: What is a blockchain? What’s interesting about decentralization and trustlessness? What’s the deal with smart contracts? In a semi-technical crowd, the audience is quickly lost in jargon and a technologist’s reasoning. Instead, I think the correct way to present the blockchain opportunity to traditional investors is through the lens of growth investments – yesterday, today, and tomorrow. It is a story of a technology that democratizes, opens, and optimizes a difficult investment environment. Where is the capital? For the last 15 to 20 years, startups have proliferated in the market across all verticals. You have ZocDoc (Private: ZDOC ) for doctors, UpCounsel for lawyers, Seamless for food delivery, Tinder for dating, and on and on. Just about every New York University junior one meets is trying to either be CEO to or a VC in the next “Uber (Private: UBER ) for X.” Take a look at this chart in which you can witness the staggering “unicorn density” of our time: Click to enlarge As more companies take up the startup model, there are more and more private companies and fewer and fewer public ones. Just a few metrics paint a clear picture. The number of firms on the U.S. stock market started declining in the mid-1990s from a high of about 7,300 listed companies. By 2015, after a lazy uptick, there were only 3,700 left. Startups, pumped by high valuations and VC capital and a tech entrepreneurial culture, stay private longer in a “psychological shift” which has been described as “Silicon Valley’s distaste for the IPO.” Between 1996 and 2014, the average time to IPO went up from 3.5 years to 6.9, according to the 2015 IPO report by WilmerHale . And most recently, the number of IPOs has been dropping globally, with the tech sector leading the way. A 58% drop in NYSE IPOs in 3Q15 YTD compared with the previous year was accompanied by a 77% drop in dollars raised, according to Ernst & Young . In short, there is a lot of capital moving from the public into the private markets for the world’s primary growth sector – technology. According to Rett Wallace’s assessment of the tech bubble , “27 times more primary capital has gone into U.S. technology companies privately than publicly. And if Box.com had actually gotten its IPO done on schedule last year, it would be 88 times more.” In such an environment, what does participating in the growth sector look like for investors? Growth investments, yesterday and today At the turn of this century, investing in growth would looked like this: Joe the Investor would identify tech as a growth sector. He would send some cash over to his Ameritrade account, and – this being 2004 – buy some Google (NASDAQ: GOOG ) (NASDAQ: GOOGL ) at the IPO. Then Joe would hold Google for 10 years. In the interim, Joe would know that he could dump some of his Google stock if technology took a downturn. Finally, Joe would sell Google in 2014 for a 12x return. And here is what growth investment looks like today: Spencer is a private investor. He has a top 1% salary and therefore qualifies as an accredited investor , which allows him to participate in private offerings. In 2009, Spencer would notice a company called Uber doing a funding round on AngelList. Spencer’s contacts on AngelList are investing, so he would follow suit. It’s not likely that these investors would be able to predict that Uber would take off, create a new industry, and become one of the greatest growth companies of all time. It’s not likely that Uber can predict that in 2009. Following his investment, Spencer would be stuck in Uber private equity for seven years with very limited options to take profits before a liquidity event. Perhaps next year Travis Kalanick will decide to take Uber public, but no one can be sure. If he does, Spencer will make a 12,700x return. When growth companies move into the private sector, traditional public investors are left with little access to growth and a precarious stock market. “Growth and value investing” seems now a fragment of the past. And even when startups do IPO, overvaluations often foil performance in the public markets. To cite some recent examples , Box (NYSE: BOX ) stock fell 30% shortly after trading. The beloved Etsy (NASDAQ: ETSY ) fell 70%. At the time of the IPO, it is simply too late for public investors to participate in the growth of startups. The chart below shows the returns that were left for public investors after the IPO of Etsy (source: Bloomberg). Click to enlarge It would appear that in this regime the privilege of private investments goes to affluent individuals. Yet, while accredited investors have much greater access to outsized returns, their investment landscape is far from rosy. First, there is little data, research, or transparency in the private markets. A hedge fund trader might receive an offer to buy Lyft (Private: LYFT ) stock, but how does he judge whether it is a good one? Virtually all ridesharing competitors today are in the private sector and are thus tight-lipped about basic metrics such as revenues and customer acquisition costs – basic parameters that have been traditionally used to price stocks. Once again, this kind of uncertainty contributes to overvaluation and only when the company eventually reaches the public market do valuations start to deflate back to reality. Finally, it goes without saying that the lack of liquidity for private investors is a long-standing issue. But with the advent of efficient new trading technologies and a global market, low liquidity might become a concern of the past. Blockchain companies are models for the growth investments of the future A blockchain company is a special species of technology startup, one where its business gives it a distinct advantage in its own business operations. It’s kind of meta, but consider that Apple’s (NASDAQ: AAPL ) expenditure on its internal hardware is probably much less than Google’s – Apple manufactures computers and has vast economies of scale on hardware; or consider that it costs Twilio (Private: TWILO ) much less to send a text message compared to a startup who has to use Twilio to do the same. Just like tech startups need computers, they also need funding. And blockchain technology companies happen to be in a unique position to fund themselves because their product is highly conducive to transferring currency-like and stock-like assets between investors, entrepreneurs, and even digital organizations . In practice, the prevalent method of funding blockchain companies in recent memory has been the “crowdsale” – a fundraising model where the company sells its own cryptocurrency, cryptoequity, or cryptotoken to the public before the system is built and then uses the funds as a seed investment. When the blockchain finally launches, the stake becomes tradable and liquid and early investors stand to make a good return – in effect, the blockchain company has done an IPO that lies outside the traditional financial system. The Ethereum crowdsale is today the fifth largest crowdfunding in the history of the planet, having raised $18M against a white paper written by a gifted 20-year-old college dropout. Having used the funds to build a complex organization with tens of employees and many more on distributed projects from all over the world, and working against non-trivial negative social pressure from the established cryptocurrency community, Ethereum was released as a public blockchain a year and a half later. In March of 2016, Ethereum grew in price by a factor of 10, and became the world’s second largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization at a $750M valuation . Such an “initial cryptocurrency offering,” or ICO, has a highly favorable character for investors: First, the ICO is available globally to all investors, and in most jurisdictions there are compatible regulations that allow participation. The disparity between Joe and Spencer investors that we see in private equity on the traditional markets has been reduced, if not eliminated. It is an equity crowdfunding, so the market can potentially accommodate large raises – a boon for companies. Even in traditional markets, we have begun to recognize the value of equity crowdfunding with the JOBS Act and the proliferation of platforms like Crowdfunder and CircleUp, with this high-growth market estimated to reach nearly $100 billion ten years from now . Unlike typical private companies, blockchain projects often adopt an open source or open community model, so development and performance metrics are available and transparent. Unlike in speculative cryptocurrencies like bitcoin, cryptoequity investments often lend themselves to straightforward modeling, as they are based on a well-defined business product proposals: if the platform acquires n customers, it will generate r returns. Liquidity is one of the foremost considerations in an investment. Most ICO investments become liquid at beta, and investors only have to wait out development time (compare with Uber, above). Not only is liquidity often available over the counter during this period, but the advent of smart contracts will send the wait period to zero: you will soon be able to trade cryptoequity immediately after purchasing it at crowdsale using a decentralized exchange . Blockchains facilitate the low-cost, fast and efficient transfer of equity between stakeholders. This is a vast improvement of the stagnating, expensive, and slow process of paper deals on the private markets. It’s easy to see that with these favorable properties, ICOs have the character of the kind of high-tech and low-friction applications that we’ve become accustomed to over the last 20 years. They stand as a open and efficient model of how growth investing could be in the future. Blockchain Technology Disclosure : I hold an economic interest in CoinFund, a portfolio which invests in cryptocurrency and blockchain technology companies by way of their cryptoequity and which has a long position in Bitcoin and the cryptocurrency of Ethereum. CoinFund’s portfolio is fully transparent at http://coinfund.io . I have no formal business relationship or affiliation with any blockchain technology company or project. Disclosure: I am/we are long GOOG, AMZN. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it. I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

5 Economic Charts Help Investors Understand Trump And Sanders

Investors should be capable of asking a very simple question: If the domestic economy is performing admirably, why are Americans fed up with established politicians on both sides of the aisle? On the Democrat side, a 74-year old white male who admires socialism has inspired more voters than the prospect of the first female president in the country’s history. In the Republican corner, an unconventional billionaire and self-proclaimed wave maker has promised to restore America to greatness – he is trouncing competition on the nationalistic notion that America has lost its five-star status. Along these lines, Real Clear Politics reports that two-thirds (66%) of the electorate believe the country is on the wrong track. Only 28% believe the country is moving in the right direction. It follows that the anti-establishment allure of socialism and nationalism tends to thrive when a country’s economy is frail. Of course, many insist that the U.S. economy is in fine shape with admirable job gains, a vibrant consumer and a healthy business segment. The problem with the assertion? The last 15 years of data portray a very different picture. For example, since 2000, fewer and fewer Americans enjoy home ownership – therefore, fewer and fewer benefited from surging real estate prices on ever-decreasing borrowing costs. Similarly, fewer Americans in the prime age demographic (25-54) are participating in the labor force. For all the “pleasant chatter” about low unemployment, millions and millions of working-aged citizens are no longer being counted or compensated. Along these lines, here are five economic charts that investors might want to consider when deciding upon their asset allocation in a contentious election year: 1. American Households Owe… Big Time . Total household debt hit $12.1 trillion in the fourth quarter of 2015. That’s only a fraction below the all-time record of $12.7 trillion reached in the third quarter of 2008. Between the first quarter of 2003 and the third quarter of 2008, debt grew at an astonishing pace of roughly 74%. That bears repeating. Total household debt rocketed 74% in just five-and-a-half years. Since the debt surge occurred at a time when the Federal Reserve was raising its overnight lending rate – since it occurred when the 30-year mortgage remained in a relatively stable range of 5.75%-6.75% – debt servicing became increasingly difficult. Debt servicing became near impossible when wages did not rise as quickly and when home prices stopped appreciating. It killed the “cash-out refi” game. And the Great Recession wasn’t far behind. One would think that a lesson had been learned about the insidious nature of debt. And yet, instead of deleveraging to reduce overall debt obligations, households have taken the Federal Reserve’s ultra-low interest rate bait. Can households service their debts better when a 30-year mortgage is closer to 4% than when its closer to 6%? All things being equal… yes. Sadly, the capacity to service mortgages and other debts is not merely a function of current rates, but also a function of future rates, household income and cost of living adjustments. It follows that when household income growth only amounts to 26% since 2003 – when real income adjusted for inflation actually declines (e.g., soaring medical costs, rising food prices, etc.) – the 66% surge in total debt since 2003 takes on unsavory dimensions. Why? The Federal Reserve may once again create circumstances where borrowing costs either rise or remain range-bound at a time when inflation-adjusted wages stagnate and home prices cease to climb. Once again, households would struggle to service their debts. 2. Americans Earn Less Than They Did In 2000 . Imagine working your tail off for the last 15 years. Your household income on a nominal basis is higher than it was back then, but your money does not buy what it did at the start of the 21st century. Are you going to feel that the country is on the right path? Are you going to believe those who trumpet 2% annualized gross domestic product (NYSE: GDP )? On an inflation-adjusted basis, middle class households today are taking home somewhere in the neighborhood of $56,746 per year. That is less than it was at the inception of the financial collapse ($57,798). Even more disturbing? Households are bringing home less real income than they did after the recession in 2001-2002 ($57,905). No growth in household income since 2000 and a whole lot of growth in household debt. Thank the powers that be for ultra-low interest rates, right? 3. Millions Priced Out Of The Home Ownership Dream . Twenty years ago, extraordinary stock market gains and genuine labor force participation growth in high quality, high paying jobs made Americans feel more wealthy. Households began trading up, while first time home-buyers flush with cash entered the real estate market. There was more. In 1995, government regulators created new rules for determining whether a bank was meeting the standards of the Community Reinvestment Act (NASDAQ: CRA ). Banks now had to prove that they were making enough loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers. Suddenly, home-ownership rates began skyrocketing. There was a minor flattening out period during the tech wreck of 2000 and the 2001-2002 recession. However, with the Fed slashing overnight lending rates to 50-year lows, the precipitous drops in mortgage rates, as well as the existence of “no documentation”/”negative amortization” loans, home-ownership rates kept right on ascending. Click to enlarge Real estate sales peaked near 2005, prices peaked by the end of 2006. And the “fit hit the ceiling fan” by 2007. Since June of 2009, however, the U.S. economy has been expanding. One might have expected home-ownership rates to rise or level out. Instead, fewer Americans own homes (on a percentage basis), whether it is attributable to stagnant inflation-adjusted income or higher property prices or unfavorable debt-to-income ratios. Keep in mind, this trend is happening alongside record-low mortgage rates. It does not require a leap of faith to suggest that millions of additional renters contribute to economic angst and a dissatisfied electorate. 4. Employment Growth Is Slower Than Population Growth . U-6 Unemployment at 9.9% is far higher than the 8.5% U-6 Unemployment at the onset of the Great Recession in November of 2007 – the 9.9% unemployment rate is actually on par with how Americans felt AFTER the 2001-2002 recession, when U-6 lingered around 10%. In essence, the jobs picture has only recovered to a place that is similar to recessionary times (10%), as opposed to non-recessionary times (8.0%-8.5%). On the one hand, there’s reason to be pleased with the progress of bringing U-6 Unemployment back from 17% at the worst of the Great Recession. On the surface, then, progress is certainly progress. The difficulty in declaring victory in the jobs arena is the fact that nearly one out of five 25-54 year-olds who are actively looking for work remain unemployed. Specifically, we have an 81% participation rate in the key 25-54 demographic. This participation rate is far more dismal than it was during the 2001-2002 recession – it is not even as strong as the 83%-83.5% participation during the Great Recession. In sum, payroll growth that averages 200,000 per month can pull down an unemployment rate. Yet it is insufficient with respect to a population that is growing at a faster clip. That is, companies hire only enough to keep up with modest demand whereas discouraged workers in the labor force are stuck as “extras” in the growth of the population. They’re missing, they are not counted. Can you blame Americans for feeling that there aren’t enough job opportunities for them? 5. The Government’s Debt Is Our Burden . The national debt recently surpassed $19 trillion. Implicitly, Americans understand that there is something very wrong with the number. If it was $6 trillion at the start of the century, and it was $9 trillion near the end of 2007 when the Great Recession began, then how can the country’s economy be humming if it needed $10 trillion of stimulus to get it humming? According to U.S. Debt Clock at USdebtclock.org , the debt each citizen owes is close to $59,000. The average household – not the average person – brings in approximately $57,000. Try to imagine having a credit card balance that is larger than your income stream. (And that’s for a family of 1!) A four-person household might bring in $57,000, yet owe $236,000. Crazy, right? Well, some estimates may be a little more friendly by removing the Federal Reserve’s ownership of U.S. Treasuries from the equation. The way the graphic below presents it, each child born today has an obligation of $42,759. Straight Outta Nutsville. Naturally, you’re free to believe that the federal debt simply does not matter because low interest rates make it possible for the Federal government to service its debt obligations. And you’re free to decide that America just needs to keep paying the interest – we don’t actually have to pay the debt back in its entirety. In fact, worse case scenario, the Federal government can just print money like the Federal Reserve did with its electronic credits in quantitative easing (QE). Fair enough. Still, there comes a point when rates cannot truly be lowered much further. Even negative interest rates would have a lower bound. The implication? Lower percentages of participation in the labor force, record debt levels at the household level as well as the federal level, stagnant wages and declining home-ownership are tell-tale signs of economic trouble. Americans feel it… that’s why many have chosen to support Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump. The stock market has been feeling it too. On the one hand, investors have been breathing a sigh of relief that the S&P 500 SPDR Trust (NYSEARCA: SPY ) has come back out of correction territory. How bad can things really be if SPY is a stone’s throw from record highs? Yet most investors recognize that a pragmatic fear of higher borrowing costs, a realistic concern about the potentially toxic debts of commodity companies, a lack of wage growth for consumers and the potential for the world economy to drag on the domestic scene have combined to create volatile price swings. What’s more, these things provide perspective on the popularity of political outsiders like Sanders and Trump. Disclosure : Gary Gordon, MS, CFP is the president of Pacific Park Financial, Inc., a Registered Investment Adviser with the SEC. Gary Gordon, Pacific Park Financial, Inc, and/or its clients may hold positions in the ETFs, mutual funds, and/or any investment asset mentioned above. The commentary does not constitute individualized investment advice. The opinions offered herein are not personalized recommendations to buy, sell or hold securities. At times, issuers of exchange-traded products compensate Pacific Park Financial, Inc. or its subsidiaries for advertising at the ETF Expert web site. ETF Expert content is created independently of any advertising relationships.