Michael Profile picture
27 Dec, 8 tweets, 2 min read
1/n As requested, the TLDR. There are many complaints about the ability of the US govt (via Fed and/or fiscal) to “debase” the dollar and bailout corporate interests. This is a complaint about the choice of how to use this power, but the crypto solutions that supposedly
2/n prevent the ability to debase are fundamentally flawed. Gold-backed and other “hard” money systems were designed to attract users to nascent systems, but WJBryan was right about the crucifixion that occurs when the backing is confused for the social good of a standard of
3/n account. A flexible currency allows forgiveness — a crucial ingredient in risk taking. The 17th-19th century was a uniquely fruitful period in human social progress as the opening of the “new” world created a legitimate check on the power of the elite to permanently impair
4/n an individual who tried and failed. Horace Greeley’s “Go West” was augmented by the introduction of personal bankruptcy and limited liability. As the ability to emigrate deteriorated, the power of the totalitarian state re-emerged and the 20th century began the process of
5/n rolling back these risk encouraging innovations and the 21st century has seen these restrictions blossom under a narrative of “moral hazard” and “small government”. As unregulated private players step in, facilitated by capture of what little true regulation exists, we have
6/n increasingly ceded control to private actors undercutting the costs of regulated players (eg Uber in transport, AirBnB in lodging, Starbucks in payment, Vanguard in pensions) with the objective of becoming “too big to fail” (some might refer to it as Zero to One) and
7/n encouraging the “privatization of gains and socialization of losses.” Crypto, and especially “stable coins” are simply the most extreme version of this movement predicated on a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between a system with public participation and
8/8 a system designed to protect and encourage a social contract that protects risk-taking citizens from the depredations of the most powerful in our society.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Michael

Michael Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @profplum99

28 Nov
1/n Yes, @LawrenceLepard chart is misleading. (1) datasets are not comparable. Substantive devaluations of the USD vs gold occurred in 1932 and 1971. These were political and not Fed. Debatable whether post-2000 is CB related or whether gold is really expensive.
2/n The UNIQUE inflation of the 1960s and 1970s is largely misunderstood. From my perspective, the story of "stagflation" in this period is false. There was no "slow growth" in the 1970s -- fastest growth rates for housing and jobs in US history.
3/n This becomes relevant as we think about what Fed has "actually" been doing -- staving off rampant DEFLATION. Were we still on the gold std, we'd be facing events of deflation similar to Great Depression since 2000. Instead, a "flexible" currency has encouraged "stability"
Read 4 tweets
24 Nov
1/n It's looking pretty good for the "I told you so" value crowd (and my DMs have been full of "I told you so"). However, there is a big difference between "Value" and "Anti-Momentum". The "value" factor has not actually done anything when adjusted for the anti-momentum dynamic
2/n When we look at the Value factor alone (Value longs vs Value shorts), it's interesting that it looks exactly like economic recoveries in 2002-3 and 2009-10. In contrast, in 2000, a VERY different dynamic occurred
3/n And when we look at market neutral momentum, we have unwound virtually ALL of the momentum outperformance YTD and are now below the 5y moving average and almost at the post GFC trendline that has sustained prior "corrections".
Read 7 tweets
2 Oct
@jam_croissant @mre2all 1/n Thanks for this. While I actually agree with some of the fundamentals here, I'm a bit skeptical of the mechanics. Companies like AMZN, AAPL, MSFT, etc have remarkably strong cash flows and have not had to tap capital markets except to subsidize employee compensation
@jam_croissant @mre2all 2/n While we can argue Fed support helped these corps, it seems more likely that the Fed has net hurt these corporations by keeping funding flowing to their weaker competitors. In fact, highly rated corp debt growth has been restrained while lower quality debt has grown rapidly
@jam_croissant @mre2all 3/n I'd go further and note that the holders of "value" stocks continue to be active managers. @choffstein recent piece does a good job of illustrating this. Unless you can create a mechanism for passive funds to flow into actively managed vehicles, I don't see how this reverses
Read 5 tweets
7 Jul
@KennyDegu @SuperMugatu @CioEnd @MarkGutman9 1/n Millenials are too old for college and largely too old for advice, so splitting this response. One of the best pieces of advice I ever received was from Mary Modahl (@marymodahl). People are either horses or mules. A horse will work themselves to death given encouragement
@KennyDegu @SuperMugatu @CioEnd @MarkGutman9 @marymodahl 2/n while a mule will work at their own pace regardless. Know which one you are. I was a horse and worked myself until I burned out, convinced I was changing the world. In your 20s, you will almost never change the world. Pace yourself.
@KennyDegu @SuperMugatu @CioEnd @MarkGutman9 @marymodahl 3/n Your 20s are a time of self-discovery. Learning curves are steep and you rarely have time to question convention. Develop excellence in execution. Work hard, but learn how to work SMART. Take vacations. Not to exotic locales, but quiet spaces that let you examine assumptions.
Read 6 tweets
11 Jun
1/n This is an interesting question we've tried to calibrate. The challenge is the term "valuation". Makes sense when money resides with discretionary investors where cash is base asset and securities are purchased based on forward expected return. Presumably, a scenario
2/n exists where a discretionary manager finds nothing priced for positive expected return and sits 100% in cash. Obviously restrictions on portfolio construction reduce the proportion of cash allowed. Rodriguez at FPA was last I remember with 50% cash and he caught huge flack
3/n This ability to “flex” cash levels is largely what determines valuations. Ultimately if I buy and you sell, “cash levels” don’t change. The urgency which I get rid of my securities relative to your urgency to sell cash determines price which changes cash % of market
Read 8 tweets
14 Mar
1/n This is why this game is hard. @ValueStockGeek should be applauded for putting himself out there. However, I have to highlight a few salient points from his post valuestockgeek.com/2020/03/14/im-… which should be read
2/n @ValueStockGeek highlights depths of previous drawdowns in small value, but its worth pointing out that we have ALREADY exceeded two of these events (1990 and 2000) in Russell 2000 Value. From Aug 18 peak VBR fell 38% both in price and NAV
3/n This pales in comparison to the drawdown in “pure” value (RZV) which eliminates overlap between growth and value embedded in VBR. Down a “staggering” 56% over same period
Read 10 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!