Scathing Rebuke Of Bitcoin

Larry Swedroe went off on Bitcoin. His substack post reads like he's angry. There are some points I agree with and some points I do not. 

The most recent decline, Larry says, proves that Bitcoin is not an inflation hedge in a time when reported price inflation is running above target and while gold is doing so well. 

The table only goes back five years and it takes in the recent crash through yesterday. Since Bitcoin's inception it has compounded at 137% versus 9.8% for gold and 14.8% for the S&P 500 while inflation has gone up by 2.58% annualized. 

There's nugget about Berkshire Hathaway that if it fell 99% it would still have outperformed the S&P 500 since Warren Buffett took over. Applying a similar thought to the price of Bitcoin, I asked Copilot how far would it have to fall in order to have merely doubled the rate of inflation since its (Bitcoin's) inception. Copilot said Bitcoin started at a nickel and that if the price fell to ten cents, "yes ten cents," it would still have doubled the rate of inflation. Based on the testfol.io data to Bitcoin's inception, that tracks but let's assume Copilot is off by a magnitude of 1000, it could drop to $100 and still be far ahead of inflation. 

Point conceded that holding it since inception is not realistic but I believe the five year table is realistic. 

Larry says it's not a haven. I can probably get on board with that because it certainly is not reliable. In 2022, testfol.io has inflation running at 7.04% and Bitcoin up 57% that year. The next year, inflation clocked in at 6.46% while Bitcoin fell 63%. The latest decline doesn't prove anything in terms of it being an inflation hedge. A four month spell doesn't prove or disprove anything. What if four months from now Bitcoin is at $130,000? 

He's correct about the relative lack of history. Fifteen years is not nothing but pretty much is nothing compared to gold. He also talks about the touts constantly reinventing the narrative which they do, I think implying charlatanism. I don't know how you observe Michael Saylor and not conclude he's a charlatan. All of the negatives can be true but it still can protect against inflation. Is the current decline in Bitcoin much different from gold's decline starting in late 2012 when GLD fell from $170 down to $106, 39 months later?

Inflation compounded at just 78 basis points in that period while gold negatively compounded at 13%. How about the period from August 2020 to October 2023? Inflation ran at 5.61% annualized while gold negatively compounded at 2.86%.

I agree with Larry on most of his points but not the big point. For my money, Bitcoin has never been anything but asymmetric opportunity but it clearly has protected against inflation even if it never does so again and four bad months proves absolutely nothing (repeated for emphasis). 

A pivot to a very academic article from the ReturnStacked guys taking the other side from me about adding duration to a portfolio. The conclusions rely on how things should work in a manner that I am not comfortable doing. It starts out acknowledging that in the current "flat term structure" it is "tempting to see duration as uncompensated risk." We've obviously been using that phrase for quite a while. 

This is rebutted by saying "misses a crucial point: bond yields act like gravity for long-run returns" and then that idea is defined in detail. "As yields rise, they drag present returns down but simultaneously lift forward-looking expectations. In many ways, all changing yields really do is push and pull returns across time." Cool if you agree and it is academically correct but I think of that as being pretty oblivious to having money already exposed if yields continue to rise. If you buy a ten year bond yielding 4% and then prevailing rates move up to 5%, the price of the bond will drop about 9%. For a 20 year bond, it will drop about 14%. 

There was then a long discourse about the role of inflation expectations in bond pricing. Academically important but how wrong did that turn out to be from the late 2010's on? 

The paper delved into the folly of trying to predict what interest rates will do. Agreed. But back to the idea of adequate compensation for the risk taken. Believing that 4% is not adequate for ten years is not an attempt to predict interest rates. I have no idea if ten year yields will ever get to a point where the compensation is adequate but 4% is not for me. If that is adequate for you, then you should take it. 

Reading through, there is a tremendous reliance on bond markets doing what they should as I would phrase it which is not a bet I would make with my money or client money. 

I'll close this out with the paper's shift to implying that bonds are the only diversifier versus equities. They obviously don't believe that but the paper took a very binary approach, bonds or nothing to diversify. They say there is a need for different return streams which yes, we have found many to blog about and that I use for clients with volatility profiles that I think people want from bonds as well as yields (in some cases) and total returns (in other cases). 

I've been using bond substitutes for a very long time which does not make the process infallible but long term readers have seen the thought process come together and then get implemented. There's probably not much of an academic rebuttal to what ReturnStacked is arguing but I've been at the very least, grossly underweight duration for 20 years, avoiding it entirely along the way. Twenty years is a long time in relation to a normal retirement span and even a normal career span for a portfolio manager. 

Yes there are certain functions and attributes bonds should provide but I would not tunnel vision on how things are supposed to work. 

The information, analysis and opinions expressed herein reflect our judgment and opinions as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time without notice. They are not intended to constitute legal, tax, securities or investment advice or a recommended course of action in any given situation.