I love reading Legal and General Investment Management blog; intelligent , decisive and best of all – interesting. Here is some weirdo called Emiel who like my mate John Roe, drinks strange brews, but Emiel is Dutch – which makes him even more interesting.
Here he is giving us some not very subtle advice, though of course it isn’t advice in the financial services sense of the word, it’s guidance innit? If you want to know what Legal & General consider the difference , here’s its po-faced set if definitions. Fortunately LGIM blogs smash these fake rules and tell it like it is.
There’s clearly a lot of interest in bitcoin and my most read article of 2020 is sure to be this little beauty even though I wrote it in 2019. For the avoidance of doubt, I don’t think speculating on currency with your retirement savings is a good idea – I’m glad to see I’m not alone!
“You’ve got to ask yourself one question: do I feel lucky?” In answer to Clint Eastwood’s memorable question in Dirty Harry, crypto-currency traders are replying with a resounding ‘yes!’
Bitcoin reached a new all-time high earlier this month. Thus far, it has mostly seemed a private-investor phenomenon, but recently we have seen increased interest from institutions as well. There are many things to like: past returns have been stellar (an annualised return above 100% over the past five years, as the chart illustrates); it has offered some diversifying properties with only a slight positive correlation with risk assets such as equities; and, contrary to many currencies, it has the attraction of limited supply at a time when central banks are printing money.
However, there are also plenty of downsides. Bitcoin has no intrinsic value (at least gold has some industrial properties, and even tulip bulbs could yield a beautiful flower); they are not widely recognised or regulated; it takes the energy of a medium-sized nation to mine a bitcoin so it isn’t very environmentally friendly; and it is very expensive and slow to use in day-to-day transactions.
The first is perhaps the most existential risk: bitcoin could become worthless if a more popular or efficient alternative is found. Central banks could well develop their own crypto-currencies, especially if bitcoin and others become too big and interfere with efficient monetary policy.
It could easily be years before the next bitcoin selloff, but we know how this story is likely to end – and not just because the punks faced by Dirty Harry rarely stayed lucky for long.
At the peak of the 17th century tulip trade in Amsterdam, those paying fortunes for a single bulb were surely speculators who understood that tulip prices had no link to bulbs’ intrinsic value and just hoped to sell them to someone else at an even higher price. Many were successful in the year before the crash in 1637; their quick gains were what drew in others and excited pundits. Does that sound familiar?
Emile in a tie
Appendix: five-year performance of bitcoin