Showing posts with label Volatility. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Volatility. Show all posts

Friday, March 2, 2018

Daniel Nevins: Economics for Independent Thinkers

This report was originally published by Adam Taggart at PeakProsperity.com



Economists are supposed to monitor and analyze the economy, warn us if risks are getting out of hand, and advise us on how to make things runs more effectively — right?


Well, even though that’s what most people expect from economists, it’s not at all how they see their role, warns CFA and and behavioral economist Daniel Nevins.


Economists, he cautions, are modelers. They pursue academic lines of thought in order to make their models more perfect. They live in a universe of equations and presumptions about equilibrium states and other chimerical mathematical perfections that don’t exist in real life.


In short, they are the wrong people to advise us, Nevins claims, as they have no clue how the imperfect world we live in actually works.


In his book Economics For Independent Thinkers, he argues that we need a new, more accurate and useful way of studying the economy:


However far you go back, you can find economists who had a more realistic approach to how humans actually behave, than the way that mainstreamers assume they behave in the models that the Fed uses to pick winners and losers.


You mentioned credit cycles, business environment, and behavioral economics. What I’ve done is to say, “Okay. We know that the modeling approach, the systems of equations approach doesn’t work. But instead of starting completely from scratch, what can we find in the economics literature that is maybe more realistic?”


And the interesting thing is that if you look at the work that was done, the state of the profession before the 1930s, before Keynesianism took hold, you can find a lot of work that was quite sensible.


I think where that points is towards this notion that when we think about economic volatility, there are really three things that we need to bring together:


One is the behavioral side. And we have to be realistic about the way that people really process information, the way that they truly make decisions.


The second has to do with the way businesses operate and all the challenges that businesses face to gain and retain profitability. That’s something that economists were intently focused on before Keynesianism and then it became kind of sidelined afterwards because all of these models assumed that businesses didn’t have any challenges.


If you pick apart the standard models that the Fed uses that are taught in PhD programs, they assume that business are always profitable, they always sell all of their output instantaneously, and they know exactly what their customers want, and businesses don’t struggle. So, that’s another thing we need to correct that you can find a lot of useful research if you know where to look (before Keynesianism and at the nontraditional schools that have continued in the older approaches).


And then the third thing is the credit side where mainstream economics is just so off-target, especially in their models that exclude any role for banks. Effectively, mainstream economists have made assumptions about the way money works and the way banks work that just flat do not match how they actually work in real life. That’s something that’s hugely critical to understanding economic volatility and understanding financial crises. But even regular business cycles have a lot to do with the ebbs and flows of bank lending. And banks just aren’t included in standard macroeconomic models(…)


Until you understand that the economic profession is really not doing anything like what I would say they should be doing—studying these things that go wrong, the recessions and depressions and crises—you might not realize that we shouldn’t really be relying on mainstream economists to tell us how policies should be crafted, to tell us what risks might be out there. We need a different approach.


Click the play button below to listen to Chris’ interview with Daniel Nevins (46m:19s).



For the transcript of this recording, please click here.

Wednesday, December 13, 2017

Think People Got Rich From Bitcoin? We Haven"t Seen Anything Yet..

Authored by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,


Recently a group of archaeologists and anthropologists published a really interesting, comprehensive study of prehistoric civilizations and their sources in wealth.



It turns out that the most prosperous people and civilizations across ancient history– and I’m talking 10,000+ years ago before any recorded history– were those who harnessed new technologies to become more productive.


Back then it was all about agriculture.


And while it all seems so simple and obvious to us now, the use of large animals like horses and oxen to plow fields was considered game-changing technology for these prehistoric tribes.


The researchers surveyed data across a number of civilizations and found a much higher level of prosperity in places that used animals, versus places where farmers plowed their fields by hand.


The use of animals was a huge multiple of human labor, so farmers could extend their fields far beyond what was ever thought possible… and hence produce a massive surplus of food.


Moreover, they soon discovered that animal manure was an effective fertilizer that only enhanced crop yields.


More volume, more efficiency, higher yields… precisely the results that great technology produces.


Quite simply, the people and civilizations which embraced and used the technology prospered. Those who didn’t got left behind.


We’ve seen this over and over again throughout history. The printing press. The advent of machinery in the Industrial Revolution. The emergence of the microchip. The Internet.


Now it’s the technology behind cryptofinance which absolutely has revolutionary power to disrupt the existing financial system.


Think about it– every single financial function that banks currently monopolize, from deposits to lending to money transfers and currency exchange, can already be done better, faster, and cheaper outside of the banking system.


Banks take days to transfer funds. Blockchain transactions take an hour, maybe minutes… sometimes seconds.


Banks charge exorbitant fees to change from one currency into another, as if they have to put a ton of work into finding a buyer for their customers’ euros and US dollars. Give me a break.


Online platforms can do it at practically no cost.


Banks also charge exorbitant fees to make loans; it’s pretty standard for borrowers to pay at least a 1% to 3% origination fee up front, before you start paying interest.


Yet Peer-to-Peer sites squash these costs down to almost nothing.


Banks no longer have a competitive advantage in finance, and it’s only going to get worse for them.


The technology is powerful and game-changing. And again, those who don’t adapt will be left behind.


On the flip side, it’s obvious that a lot of people have made a lot of money in cryptocurrency.


And that’s great. Plenty of money has been made… and there may likely be plenty more money to be made speculating in the cryptocurrencies themselves.


But the big money has always been made by the folks who were on the forefront of developing the technology and applying it to bigger and bolder uses… NOT speculating on price volatility.


Back in ancient times, once people discovered that horses and oxen could multiply the labor of human beings, there were probably plenty of traders who made money speculating in animal prices.


But the real wealth was made by people who applied that new ‘technology’ to bigger problems and fundamentally changed the way their societies did business.


This will very much be the case with crypofinance.


The real prosperity isn’t in chasing the Bitcoin price higher, and certainly not in the latest ICO craze.


The real prosperity will be for the visionaries, entrepreneurs, and investors who back them– those who develop this technology and apply it in ways that fundamentally change the way we engage in finance and commerce.


So if you feel like you ‘missed’ Bitcoin, don’t worry: we’re just at the beginning of this phase... you haven’t missed anything.


In fact we haven’t even begun to scratch the surface of those application opportunities.


And the wealth and value that will be created from them will absolutely dwarf all the gains made in crypto so far. We haven’t seen anything yet.


And to continue learning how to safely grow your wealth, I encourage you to download our free Perfect Plan B Guide.









Tuesday, December 12, 2017

Is The NFL"s Problem "Poor Product", Not "Disrespect"?

Authored by Doug French via The Mises Institute,



President Trump has lambasted the NFL more than 20 times for players’ “Total Disrespect of Our Great Country.”


Ratings are down for NFL games and Trump figures it’s because some players aren’t standing, hand over heart, and mouthing the words to the national anthem.


Trump may have made some political hay out of all this, but one only has to follow the money to learn the real reason pro football ratings are down - competition from college football.


The fact is, “Their product isn’t very good these days,” Nick Bogdanovich told the Las Vegas Sun. He is the chief oddsmaker for William Hill, which operates 107 sportsbooks in Nevada.


The league that used to claim any team could win on “any given Sunday” has turned into a predictable “If you have a quarterback, you have a chance. If you don’t, you don’t,” as Ben Volin wrote of the Boston Globe at the finish of last year’s regular season. As evidence, he pointed to “the four quarterbacks remaining in the playoffs — Tom Brady, Ben Roethlisberger, Aaron Rodgers, and Matt Ryan.”


Jimmy Vaccaro has been running sports books for four decades. He says, it used to be, “Nearly $4 on the NFL for every buck on a college game.” That is no longer the case. Now it is more like 60–40 with the college betting handle gaining.


Joe Drape writes of the sportsbook legend,


And when Vaccaro says he is becoming bearish on the betting health of professional football, you lean in and listen. Last month, for three consecutive weeks, for the first time that he can remember, betting on college football at South Point surpassed betting on the NFL, by as much as $400,000.



The Wall Street Journal did a study back in 2010 and found that of the 174 minutes of an NFL broadcast there was 11 minutes of game action. The WSJ found there was about 60 minutes of commercials and “As many as 75 minutes, or about 60% of the total air time, excluding commercials, is spent on shots of players huddling, standing at the line of scrimmage or just generally milling about between snaps.”


This has only become worse with the advent of constantly replaying questionable calls. Meanwhile, many college teams have gone to the no-huddle offense to squeeze in more plays.


Making accurate point spreads on 16 pro games is much easier than getting 50 college games right.


“There’s more volatility and room for mistakes in the college game,” John Avello, a bookmaker at the Wynn Las Vegas, told the Sun. “You can find an edge there, and that is what gamblers do. We are hard to beat when it comes to the NFL.”



Professional gambler Chris Lawless wagers more on college games not only because there are flawed betting lines to take advantage of, but also because the games are more enjoyable.


“There are more momentum shifts and more exciting plays and more passion,” Lawless said.



Vaccaro believes betting on college football will continue to gain on NFL action. Overall, Nevada sports books are expected to post their eighth consecutive year of record handle, with Las Vegas taking in $5 billion in sports wagers.


September saw Nevada set a new betting handle record of $558.4 million, and the Nevada Gaming Control Board has now revealed that the handle in October came in at $522 million, the best-ever performance by Nevada sportsbooks in the month of October, as well as the third consecutive month of a betting handle in excess of $500 million.










Monday, December 11, 2017

Interactive Brokers Allows Long-Only Bitcoin Futures Trading (At 50% Margin)

Following the "successful" launch of Bitcoin futures overnight, Interactive Brokers - whose founder had been adamantly against the CME/CBOE product over risk concerns - has enabled clients to trade the crypto-craziness on its platform... but with some notable constraints.


Interactive Brokers began offering clients the ability to trade bitcoin futures at the start of trading on the Cboe Futures Exchange (CFE) on Sunday night, December 10th, 2017.








“Interactive Brokers was on the buy side of the low print of 14,710,” said Thomas Peterffy, founder, Chairman and CEO of Interactive Brokers.


 


“A Registered Investment Advisor on the Interactive Brokers platform purchased two March contracts in the first minute of trading.”



However, as Interactive Brokers explains, there are some notable constraints...








Due to the extreme volatility of cryptocurrencies, clients will be unable to assume a short position.


 


In addition, only limit orders will be accepted.


 


IBKR’s margin requirement on long positions will be at least 50%.


 


The company will continue to monitor concerns surrounding the market"s ability to process bitcoin futures risk.



Billionaire crypto fund manager Mike Novogratz was on tape this morning, speaking positively about the launch of Bitcoin futures,








“The market trades like it wants to go up, not down...We are in a speculative mania and my sense is we are still fairly early.”



For now, Bitcoin futures prices are holding their gains, outperforming spot Bitcoin and spot Gold...










Rioting Protesters Breach US Embassy Gates In Beirut, Repelled By Tear Gas And Water Cannon

Hundreds of protesters in Lebanon faced off with security forces outside the US Embassy in Beirut on Sunday over President Trump"s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. 



Protesters near the U.S. embassy in Awkar, in Beirut, Lebanon December 10, 2017.


Protesters waving Palestinian flags threw projectiles, smoke grenades, set fires in the street, and even breached a section of the gate to the US Embassy before being turned away by security forces who used tear gas and a water cannon to disperse the crowd. Several protesters were detained, according to witnesses. 



US and Israeli flags were also reportedly burned, along with an effigy of Donald Trump, according to Reuters.  



On Friday, the US Embassy in Beirut warned people to be cautious in a statement:








U.S. Embassy Beirut is aware that several groups have announced public protests following the U.S. announcement of a new policy with regard to the status of Jerusalem.  Demonstrations have the potential to become violent.  U.S. Embassy Beirut reminds U.S. citizens of the need for caution and awareness of personal security.  We urge U.S. citizens to avoid all protests. -US Embassy



The head of the Lebanese Communist Party, Hanna Gharib, addressed protesters - calling the United States "the enemy of Palestine," and the US Embassy "a symbol of imperialist aggression." 


“We came to say to the U.S. Embassy that it is an embassy of aggression and that Jerusalem is Arab and will stay Arab,” said Ahmad Mustafa, an official in the leftist Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, who was among the demonstrators.


Trump"s recognition of Jerusalem has set off a firestorm in the Arab world and upset Western allies, who have admonished the decision saying it is a blow to peace efforts and risks further volatility in the Middle East. A Sunday meeting of foreign ministers of Arab League countries called on the UN Security Council to adopt a resolution condemning Trump"s decision. 


 “We have taken a political decision not meant to reflect [what is going on in] the streets. Political work is responsible work,” stated Ahmed Aboul-Gheit, chief of the Arab League, adding “Jerusalem has been occupied for 50 years. This is an extended battle, a battle that will be escalated.”


Israel has long claimed that all of Jerusalem is its capital, while Palestinians have long planned to make East Jerusalem the capital of a future independent state. After Israel annexed the region in a 1967 war, most of the Arab world considers East Jerusalem to be occupied territory which should be granted to Palestinians in future Israeli-Palestinian talks. 


As Reuters reports:








The government of Lebanon, which hosts about 450,000 Palestinian refugees, has condemned Trump’s decision. Lebanese President Michel Aoun last week called the move a threat to regional stability.


 


The powerful Iran-backed Lebanese Shi‘ite group Hezbollah on Thursday said it backed calls for a new Palestinian uprising against Israel in response to the U.S. decision.


 


Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah also called for a protest against the decision in the Hezbollah-controlled southern suburbs of Beirut on Monday.



Lebanon"s Prime Minister, Saad Hariri, meanwhile tweeted that Beirut had the "utmost solidarity with the Palestinian people, as well as their "right to establish an independent state with Jerusalem as its capital.



Meanwhile in Jerusalem, a Palestinian terrorist was arrested on Sunday for reportedly stabbing a security guard over Trump"s decision, according to Israeli police. Spokesman Micky Rosenfeld tweeted that the security guard was seriously injured, and the man who did it was among over 20 people arrested in the incident. 



Thousands of people in the predominantly Muslim city of Jakarta, Indonesia protested Trump"s decision in solidarity with the Palestinians, according to AFP, while hundreds of Israeli Arabs also took to a major highway in the Wadi area of northern Israel - damaging several vehicles and leaving several people wounded, according to AP.









Sunday, December 10, 2017

Is Bitcoin Just A Brilliant Wealth Redistribution Scheme?

Authored by Valentin Schmid via The Epoch Times,


Many older, wealthy people are losing out, while younger risk takers are getting rich...



Normally, the concept of wealth redistribution involves government using force to take from some people and give to others. But the bitcoin revolution is redistributing wealth differently.


For the sake of simplicity, and to avoid confusion, we will talk about only the original bitcoin in this article and avoid the likes of cryptocurrency products such as ethereum and initial coin offerings, as well as recent duplicates of the original protocol.


On the one hand, at a price of $15,500 and a market capitalization of $277 billion at the time of writing, bitcoin has made many people rich. Most of the early bitcoin adopters who made the real money are young and entrepreneurial, and they have been put at a disadvantage by the status quo of the current financial system of fiat and bank money.


On the other hand, we have the representatives of the old money system, the Jamie Dimons and Joseph Stiglitzs of the world, who have made a fortune using the old system (Dimon) or gained prestige and recognition talking and writing about it (Stiglitz). At this moment, they are losing out. The value of their assets is getting crushed in bitcoin terms, and more people are becoming interested in the 8-year-old cryptocurrency.



People holding bitcoin become richer not only relative to U.S. dollars, or euros, or yen, but also relative to the stock market and gold.


The price of one share of JPMorgan stock was worth 0.084 bitcoin on Jan. 3, the first trading day of the year. On Dec. 1, it’s worth only 0.0096, a decline of 89 percent. We can calculate similar numbers for the S&P 500, the 10-year Treasury, and even bitcoin’s competitor for sound money, good old gold.


Bitcoin is often compared with penny stocks, but only the best can compete with bitcoin’s 1,500 percent price rise this year and with a valuation of $277 billion, bitcoin is pushing into the sphere of the heavyweights of finance. But that’s still a far cry from the $8 trillion valuation of global gold, the $20.5 trillion U.S. government debt market, or the $80 trillion of global stocks.


Sophisticated Wealth Redistribution


So what will happen if the price of bitcoin keeps going up, to $50,000, to $100,000, or even to $1 million, a value at which its market cap ($16.7 trillion) would be roughly equal to the combined balance sheets of the Fed, the European Central Bank, and the Bank of Japan (totaling $14.5 trillion)?


It’s not that the $15,500 you spend to buy one bitcoin now is sucked up by the bitcoin blockchain and disappears out of existence.


It is transferred to the person who sold you the bitcoin, and he or she can spend it on other assets or goods and services.


If the price of bitcoin keeps going higher, the relative value of it and other assets will change, similar to the example of JPMorgan stock, which became almost 90 percent cheaper in bitcoin terms this year.


Not only will the dollars in your pocket become worth less in the process (down 92 percent in bitcoin terms this year), but also any other asset that doesn’t keep pace with the rise of bitcoin will drop. People holding bitcoin become richer not only relative to U.S. dollars, or euros, or yen, but also relative to the stock market and gold.


And all this happens without a single government rule or regulation.


However, there are other mechanisms preventing people from getting into bitcoin and participating in the upside, although none of them includes the use of force.


Intellectual Hard Work


The first such barrier is how well you understand bitcoin.


In order to “buy into” bitcoin, you have to believe in the story. Bitcoin’s main value proposition is that it is digital sound money that is not centrally controlled by a government or private party, is censorship-resistant, and is outside of the banking system.


However, though the corruption of the hybrid system of fiat government money and private bank money has been thoroughly exposed, many people still do not perceive the status quo to be a problem, nor do they see the record risks baked into the booming stock market.



It takes another college course’s worth of research to understand the technology behind bitcoin and why, despite its risks, it could provide a new monetary solution and system for the digital age and digital economy.


So for them, bitcoin doesn’t solve a problem, and therefore they won’t have a reason to expose themselves to the gut-wrenching volatility as well as the technological risk still inherent to the system.


A similar argument applies to the status-quo elite, who have greatly benefited from the corrupt system and see bitcoin as a risk to that system. This group includes almost all government officials—especially central bankers—and politicians, as well as the private banking elite. They are incentivized to defend the old system at all costs, but would be smart to hedge their exposure. Some may be doing so in secret.


So these are the first intellectual hurdles to overcome: understanding that our current money system is severely flawed, and that to prosper and make progress, humanity needs an alternative.


To fully understand this, many people spend a few years researching history and economics away from mainstream educational propaganda.


The Gold Trap


Then, there is a second trap. As most of the history of sound money is rightly focused on gold and the gold standard period of the late 1900s, some people who understand the problems of the monetary system are too beholden to their golden beliefs to wrap their heads around bitcoin.


This group of people believes—and they may well be right—that gold will reset the debt-based financial system, as it has always done in history. They are also not participating in the bitcoin upside.


It takes another college course’s worth of research to understand the technology behind bitcoin and why, despite its risks, it could provide a new monetary solution and system for the digital age and digital economy.


It then requires a more nuanced and probability-based investment approach to see that while bitcoin is far riskier than gold and has some disadvantages compared to the yellow metal, it also provides far higher upside. The gold market is relatively expensive, at $8 trillion, while bitcoin is relatively cheap, at $277 billion. Bitcoin also has some striking advantages over gold, which warrant a rise in price.


Once you understand the value proposition and are ready to buy in, you need to jump through some hoops to register with an exchange and safely store your bitcoin, which is another hurdle many people who do not fully understand bitcoin cannot clear.


Winners and Losers


So, by and large, and of course with the usual exceptions and caveats, the old guard of both the political and financial systems and the old guard of sound-money people are not participating in the upside of bitcoin.


This is not because they don’t have any money to invest or because the government prohibits them from doing so. It is their own intellectual inflexibility, lack of curiosity, and risk-aversion that bars them from entry.


As bitcoin becomes ever more secure and ever more mainstream, more people from these groups will hop on the gravy train, but they will be able to afford fewer bitcoin with their assets than they would have now or five years ago.


As these people bid up the price to the stratosphere, the early movers will be richly rewarded and their purchasing power will increase relative to goods and services—and relative to the very assets the old guard now owns that were previously out of reach.


So who are the people who are gaining on the status quo with their crazy cyberpunk cryptocurrency?


They are the pioneers and innovators who built the bitcoin ecosystem and keep working tirelessly to make it more secure and ever more consumer friendly.


It is the former finance professional who learned about sound money on YouTube and spent months educating himself on how bitcoin works.


It is the software developer who first looked at the bitcoin protocol out of technological interest and then learned everything about money and monetary history.


It is the sophisticated investor who understands that a zero interest policy boosts his stock holdings in the short term but exposes them to massive downside when rates start rising again. He knows that diversifying his portfolio with assets outside of the banking system actually increases his risk-adjusted return. He does not think he needs to make an either-or choice between bitcoin and gold.


It is the prudent saver who understands that spending less on frivolous consumption is worth it when he can save in a currency with a sound monetary policy.


Of course, every technology and every sector in finance has its bad apples, scammers, and speculators who have no idea about the underlying value proposition. Bitcoin does, too, but they don’t seem to go beyond the scope and proportion we have seen in banking and government.


In spite of this usual caveat, bitcoin favors risk takers, innovators, savers, and people who are curious and persistent enough to learn new technology as well as history. It favors the little people who are willing to take some risks, over the old elite fighting to maintain their privilege. By rewarding these positive qualities, the voluntary bitcoin wealth redistribution creates a positive incentive cycle, much different than the old model based on bureaucratic force.









Tuesday, December 5, 2017

JPMorgan, BofA Trading Revenues Tumble 15%; Blame Lack Of Volatility, "Excitement"

Stop us when you"ve heard this before... and you"ve heard it exactly two times in the last two quarter: both Bank of America and JPMorgan warning their revenue will be down double digits year over year because volatility is so low, and traders are so paralyzed, there is much less money to be made trading either flow or prop, or simply from collecting commissions.


Well, today marks the third time in the last three quarters when both JPMorgan and Bank of America both said - again - that there hasn’t been a rebound in the relentless slump in trading revenue.


Speaking at an investor conference in New York on Tuesday, JPMorgan CFO Marianne Lake said that revenue from trading has dropped 15% so far this quarter compared with the same period a year ago, while Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan gave the same decline for his firm. Both said the business faces a difficult comparison to last year, when activity spiked after Donald Trump’s surprising presidential election win.


Commenting on the ongoing deterioration in bank revenues, Lake said that “there hasn’t been that many catalysts, it hasn’t been that exciting,” Lake said. “Volatility sill remains pretty low across the spectrum; it’s a very competitive environment.”


Lake spoke alongside Goldman Sachs CFO Marty Chavez and BofA COO Tom Montag, who said at a conference last month that the languor that has plagued their trading businesses in the last two quarters has persisted into the fourth period. According to Bloomberg, Chavez said his bank’s commodities unit is on pace for its worst year in the firm’s history as a public company.


With traditional revenue streams clogged, banks are forced to come up with alternatives. Sure enough, JPM claimed that the lack of volatility hasn’t been a problem in the bank"s corporate and investment bank, where fees should rise in the “high single digits” as activity levels have been healthy, Lake said. And, if passed, the proposed U.S. tax changes should continue to help that business, Lake said.


Clearly markets aren"t too worried, with JPM stock soaring to all time highs, and BofA trading at pre-financial crisis levels.










Monday, December 4, 2017

Eric Peters: "Today"s Central Bank Vol Suppression Will End In Spectacular Fashion"

After his provocative admission published earlier that he now checks "Breitbart daily and InfoWars too... You can no longer understand America unless you do", One River"s CIO Eric Peters published the following anecdote revealing an earlier moment of his life, when as a currency trader, he learned a valuable lesson following the spectacular blow up of Europe"s Exchange Rate Mechanism, or ERM, and why the lesson from some 25 years ago, leads Peters to conclude that "Today’s central bank volatility suppression regime resembles it, and will end in spectacular fashion".








Anecdote:


 


“Let’s step into my office,” he said. So I did. He was my boss. “The firm’s most important client needs help.” I listened, uninterested, unconcerned about clients, their problems. Barely cared about my boss. I had a game to play, solo sport, and loved it to the exclusion of all else.


 


“They need to do a very large trade.” A twenty-six-year-old proprietary trader’s mind is rather primitive. Which is good and bad. Being young and dumb allows you to see things elders can’t. And take risks one rarely should. In 1992, I’d done both. “They need to buy three hundred million Mark/Lira.”


 


Europeans established a mechanism to lock their exchange rates into narrow ranges to reduce market volatility and promote economic convergence. In theory it worked, in practice it didn’t. Politicians named it the ERM.


 


What would you like to do?” he asked, calm. I stood there, processing. Such a sum was extraordinary even before the ERM blew up, which it just had. For months, I’d bought options in anticipation of its demise. Honestly, it was obvious.


 


The ERM encouraged speculators to build massive leveraged carry positions, discouraged corporations from hedging exchange rate risk, suppressing volatility and interest rate spreads everywhere. The process was reflexive.


 


Today’s central bank volatility suppression regime resembles it, and will end in spectacular fashion. All such things do.


 


“I want to buy more!” I answered. My foreign-exchange options left me long the exact amount our client needed to buy. No other bank would sell them such a large sum. So naturally, I wanted more.


 


“You should sell them your whole position,” he told me, firm. I couldn’t understand, it made no sense. “Big customer orders like this usually mark the highs - never forget it,” he said. I left his office angry, irate, sold my whole position. And he was right.










Saturday, December 2, 2017

VIX Futures (Don"t) Breakout: a Slinky"s Story of Epic Failure

Volatility Index Futures (VX)


 


VIX futures spiked up to 13.47 during the session before reversing 12% lower and closing back down at 11.88.  Today"s 13.47 intraday high was just:


  • 0.03 lower than the 11/15 swing high of 13.50, which is...

  • 1.15 lower than the 10/25 swing high of 14.65, which was...

  • 3.85 lower than the 9/05 intraday spike up to 18.50, which was...

  • 0.50 lower than the 8/29 intraday spike up to 19.00, which was...

  • 0.75 lower than the 8/11 swing high of 19.75, which was...

  • 0.45 lower than the 6/29 intraday spike up to 20.20, which was...

  • 1.75 lower than the 5/18 swing high of 21.95, which was...

  • 1.55 lower than the 4/17 swing high of 23.50

 



fibozachi super rsi vix


 


 


Drawing trendlines from each Lower Low provides future resistance at several levels.  After another failed breakout attempt, the only thing noteworthy for VIX bulls is that the Super RSI™ has registered consecutive bullish divergences as the RSI has made higher lows while price has made lower lows.


 



fibozachi super rsi vix daily resistance levels


 


 


A good way to get an early "heads up" that VIX futures may be ready for a true breakout is to draw the trendlines on the RSI"s plot values.  We can see that the RSI value is turned up and poised to break above the trendline from the August highs, but true confirmation of a long-term VIX bottom will require a break above the trendline connecting the two major swing highs from 4/17 and 8/11. 


 



fibozachi super rsi vix trendline levels


 


Check out Fibozachi.com to learn about modern technical analysis and trading indicators that actually work.









Thursday, November 30, 2017

"Gold is in a Bear Leg..with an $1800 Target"

originally posted by the Soren K. Group on marketslant.com


Moor Report Summary:


If the title confuses you, do not be fooled. There is a short term outlook, that can change from day to day, an intermediate outlook that can change week to week, and a long term one. This changes month to month And they are not contradictory.


  • Short Term -  refers to daily outlooks here. It is choppy with repeated failures to pierce $1300. This calls for trading counter trend with a downward bias intraday Sell rallies, buy dips.... in that order.

  • Intermediate Term- We do not like trading week to week and have no feel for this time frame. To us, if the short term makes money, then take it home and see if it continues intermediate term.

  • Long Term- Buy it, buy it again, and keep buying it unleveraged with money you do not need for current cash flow or expenses; and hold it for 12 to 18 months with a target of $1700 plus. The only thing to  consider is if you buy more on any dip above $1245 (Fund  Finder level) then $1229 (Moor Level) and $1192, (from VBS). Then decide if you add on a break  above $1338. The macro is lined up. We seek the micro to start the ball rolling to add or pare positions.

Slow Rally Kills Shorts


We are in a limbo area right now, where a short term bull leg is triggered with a decisive penetration above $1294.50. And any settlement below $1292.20 is a short term bear leg. Accumulators buy while shorters seek weakness to push lower. Physical  accumulators  do not chase. It is the shorts who will ignite this if it is to accelerate  to the upside. We"d  prefer a slow melt up to $1338 so no hot money buys, and shorts can delude themselves


Michael"s analysis echoes what we see longer  term. Specifically, in 9-12 months he sees an upward  move bringing us to $1400 minimum,  and over $1800 maximum. This all happens as long as the market withstands any pressure down to $1229.


Our own  analysis remains unviolated adn fully intact. Funds are buying dips above the  12 month moving average, Volatility in the short term is starting to percolate, and long term volatility is flatlining. The low long term volatility implies the next move in Gold is not to be faded if  accompanied by  newly expanding long term volatility.


Simply put:


  1. SKG Fund Finder: Patient Long above the 12 month MA with a sell stop on a  monthly settlement below $1245

  2. Moor Analytics: Traditional Analysis says a long bias is in order with the ability to swing trade in either direction as described in the levels below

  3. Echobay"s VBS Macro: Explosive volatility on a move above $1338 or below $1192 in either direction. implying a $200 move in either direction if triggered

SKG Fund Finder - the 12 month MA said to buy in July/August on a settlement above the yellow line. Our refinement says now is when to buy based on line slope and risk /reward


?


 


Moor Analytics Weekly


GC (G)


On a short-term basis:


I cautioned that an area of possible exhaustion for the move up from 12628 came in at 13077-81.
We rejected $43.9 from this, but this is now on hold. The trade above 12896 (-1 tic (10 cents) per/hour) put us above a small
formation that projects this upward $5.5 minimum, $14.5 (+) maximum. We have seen $9.4 of this so far. This will come in at
12881 (-1 tic (10 cents) per/hour starting at 6:00pm). If we break back below, look for profit taking to come in. The trade
above 12925 brought in $6.5 of the strength warned about above before rolling over. Decent trade below 12792 (+.3 of a tic
(3 cents) per/hour starting at 6:00pm) will project this downward $20 minimum, $24 (+) maximum; but if we break below here
decently and back above decently, look for decent short covering to come in. A maintained gap lower tomorrow will leave a
short term bearish reversal intact above that will warn of decent pressure, likely for days. Trade above 12990 is a sign of
renewed strength.


On a macro basis:


We broke above a well-formed macro line in the week of 8/7 that came in at 12629. The break above here
projects this upward $174 minimum, $493 (+) maximum—the maximum to be attained likely within 9-12 months. This line
comes in at 12294 this week, and rolls into (G).
This is off hold, or you could wait for a decent break above the 12947-54 area
mentioned below for added confirmation. Within that we rallied up to a macro resistance line on 9/11 at 13522 that I said we
are looking for a multi-week smackdown from-- we were seeing some of this as we have come off $89.4, but this is on hold.
We left a medium term bearish reversal intact above on 9/18 that also warned of continued pressure in the days/weeks ahead.
We have seen $48 so far. This too is on hold. Within the bearishness I noted that a possible area of exhaustion for this move
down from 13624 comes in at 12732-644. We basically held this, but with a $1.6 violation, and rallied to 13084 before rolling
over and rejecting from it again. Decent trade below 12682 will project this downward $31 minimum, $97 (+) maximum based
off a well-formed formation. Decent trade above 12950 will project this upward $23 minimum, $47 (+) maximum based off an
‘ok formed’ formation; but if we break above here decently and back below decently, look for decent profit taking to come in.


Email Michael for subscription info : Michael Moor



VBS MACRO


Volatility Cycles more cleanly than price. it could stay low for months, but is far less likely to give false  signals. 


?


In Gold and Silver, we use 1.5 STD on BBands and relationships not shown here between historical and implied that corroborate or negate a signal- SK


Good Luck


Dear Readers:


"Day job" obligations are making it difficult to expend resources toward writing original pieces consistently. We do not have a Soren K. site but wish to continue writing. To do so we will need to incur expenses. Marketslant is kind to post our work and the work of others here. We hope to be setting up a Soren K. Group Patreon page in the next weeks to continue giving our original work, as well as proprietary research for Precious Metals traders. Anytng offered will be greatly appreciated. 


We  also hope to do the following for readers


  1. weekly settlement price competition for token prizes - Silver Eagles etc.

  2. opportunity to guest post under SKG and on zerohedge where we write and  post under Vince Lanci"s Blog

  3. Ability to  place  your own editorials on Kitco if they accept as relevant to the market. 

Finally we are in the process of raising capital for a fund and are speaking to seeders in that pursuit. Between our SKG members we have  65 years trading experience in PM, Energy, and Equities. Among our group are algo writers, analysts, $BB Fund partners, lawyers, Wall Street bank executives, and other complementary minds. Trade ideas we execute when up and running will be shared with site Patrons as investors permit. 


If you have an opinion, interest or wish to write please contact us at


Sorenk@marketslant.com









Wednesday, November 29, 2017

VIX - From Fear Index To Greed Index

Authored by Peter Tchir via Forbes.com,


We have all heard the VIX or volatility index referred to as the Fear Index or Fear Gauge.  Rising VIX was meant to signal fear in the markets.  That is how most investors have historically thought about VIX and traded it (directly or through Exchange Traded Products).


I have gone back in time and combined the total assets under management of XIV and SVXY (two short VIX products) and UVXY and VXX (the two largest long VIX products).  There are others and it doesn"t account for the fact that UVXY incorporates leverage, but the point is the same.


The funds that in theory helped investors "hedge" their portfolios went from being the dominant species to those that enable investors to sell volatility.



Short VIX Funds are Larger than Long VIX Funds (source Bloomberg)


This has rarely been the case.


Typically investors had more interest in hedging their portfolios despite the evidence that the long VIX ETFs and ETNs had to continually perform reverse splits as their share prices drifted lower (some would argue "raced" lower is a more accurate description).


While the products looking to benefit on a volatility spike still attract inflows (otherwise their assets under management would be even lower), they have lost the competition to the VIX sellers.


The only other gap of similar size and duration was in late August 2015 - AFTER the market sold off and volatility spiked.


This time, it is occurring as stock markets are near all-time highs and VIX is still close to the all-time low it set just a few weeks ago (VIX is only calculated since 1990).


Whether this has finally reached a stage of complacency is anyone"s guess, but the "Golden Goose" of selling VIX that I wrote about in March of this year - is clearly not a secret.


I"m not overly concerned about complacency, it is after all, a slow and typically low vol period for domestic markets, but it is something that investors need to focus on.


A spike in volatility could be far more problematic than the market is prepared for as even a small spike could turn into a larger problem with so many people positioned the other way.









Saturday, November 25, 2017

"You Are Here": Citi"s Stunning VIX Chart

Something snapped in the VIX complex, seconds after Friday"s early close, sending it to a new record low of 8.56 at 13:00:14 ET...



... which as we showed yesterday, was less than 10% of the all time VIX high of 89.53, hit on October 24, 2008.



However, while the Friday VIX snap - which is still on the feeds and thus wasn"t a fat finger error - is yet another indication of just how broken, and/or how overrun by vol sellers the market is, below we present two even more striking, longer-term perspectives on the VIX courtesy of Citi.


As Citigroup notes, even after the recent backup, the VIX index is in its 0.5th percentile – that is, historically it has been wider than currently on 199 out of every 200 days. In other words, the "you are here" on the chart below has never been more to the left.



But it is not just a question of having reached this low level of implied volatility. As much as anything it is about the extended period of time we seem to be spending there.


Which brings us to one of the most striking VIX charts we have seen: as Citi"s strategists note, over the last six months, VIX has spent more than 40 days below 10. Putting this staggering outlier in context, the index has never managed to accumulate more than 6 days that low, measured over the same time interval, over the last 30 years. Or, as today"s central bankers would say after one look at the chart below which they have created "perfectly normal."



Commenting on the above charts, Citi, which has turned increasingly bearish on credit in recent weeks, says that "implied vol is, in other words, sailing in the same unchartered waters as corporate credit", and concludes sarcastically, "why buy vol if you believe that any selloff is impeded by a central bank backstop?"


Why indeed?


So keep selling vol until one day vol finally explodes as CBs lose control, wiping out trillions in fake wealth in the process; just please don"t use the words "market" and "price discovery" until that happens.









Tuesday, November 21, 2017

Morgan Stanley: Tesla Will Surge To $400 Before Crashing To $200

When it comes to Wall Street cheerleaders, Tesla has few closer friends than Morgan Stanley"s Adam Jonas (current price target of $379). To be sure, the relationship cuts both ways, with Jonas relentless enthusiasm "for the EV maker granting Morgan Stanley a reserved spot for any future debt, convert and equity underwriting, as well as associated IB fees.  Yet, following the recent volatility in Tesla"s business model, in which the "production hell" that is Model 3 has been quietly relegated to the latest and greatest hype involving the company"s truck (funded in turn by deposits for the new Tesla $250,000 flying roadster) as well as stock price, not even Jonas can pretend that it"s smooth sailing ahead.


And so, in his latest forecast released overnight which has the same interval of confidence as a bitcoin price prediction, Jonas previews the stock performance of Tesla over the coming year, writing that he expects "Tesla shares to be extremely volatile in 2018, divided into two stages: (1) The alleviation of production bottlenecks with strong cash inflow, and (2) mounting concerns over the sustainability of the competitive moat."



His enthusiasm is even more constrained in his thesis:








Our Equal-weight rating on Tesla expresses our view that any number of positive and negative forces influencing the stock are more or less in equilibrium. While our $379 price target offers 20% upside from current levels, we believe such upside is less interesting on a risk-adjusted basis. From a shorter-term trading perspective, we anticipate Tesla’s stock price may  reach highs in the range of $400 or more over the next few months before facing some more serious headwinds later in the year that could take the stock significantly below current levels.



While the upside forecast is hardly new for Jonas, the downside is certainly a headscratcher for the TSLA faithful, because if Musk is suddenly left without his biggest Wall Street fan, who else is left to drum up interest in a business model that would send PT Barnum in an orgasm of shivering delight.


And just in case there is some doubt about Jonas" sincerity, he provides the following five bullets to justify why even he has gotten cold feet:


  1. It is our working assumption that Tesla’s battery module production bottlenecks may be resolved in weeks. It is not possible to prove precisely when problems with zone 2 will be overcome, if they ever are at all. There is only evidence that Tesla is throwing its human and financial capital at the problem. Elon Musk stated that it is better to be late and get it right than to be early and get it wrong. We agree. Tesla is trying to make battery packs with extremely high levels of volume and unprecedented automation with bespoke high-speed robotics. In high-volume battery manufacturing, robotics is a core competency and a competitive advantage.

  2. We believe that Tesla baked in flexibility to allow for a highly unpredictable production ramp. Tesla’s Model launch timeline was always seen as extremely aggressive. When the July 2017 launch date was originally communicated to the market, we had seen it as a stretch goal and a form of supply chain management to increase the probability of a successful volume ramp in 2018. Given Tesla’s experience with the Model S and X launches and the unprecedented level of vertical integration and automation of the battery assembly, we believe Tesla had negotiated unusual levels of flexibility with its supply base compared to its prior launches and the industry standard.

  3. The motivation of the Tier 1 and Tier 2 supplier base to be involved with the Model 3 project is a relevant factor in de-risking the ramp. It is our understanding that the Model 3 has been seen as a ‘trophy contract’ for the supply base. For any Tier 1 supplier wanting to be associated with the cutting edge of automotive technology (electric, autonomous) the Model 3 was a ‘must win.’ Tesla’s early success with Model S had a profound impact on its image in the supplier community. Where suppliers previously viewed Tesla with high degrees of  skepticism/trepidation, many of the same suppliers were willing to prioritize supply of key systems and even to colocate key production facilities near Tesla’s factory. We believe flexibility on working capital during the sensitive early ramp phase could have reasonably been a part of the negotiation process.

  4. The Model 3 working capital arrangement may be highly favorable to Tesla, at least in the short term, during the inflection of the ramp… substantially alleviating concerns over near term liquidity. Like many auto OEMs, Tesla pays its suppliers over many weeks (as long as 60 to 90 days depending on the supplier) while it collects from its customers far faster, particularly given Tesla’s ownership of its distribution channel. Tesla’s own financials bear this out as it collects on its receivables 10 to 20x faster than it pays its suppliers. During times of fast production growth (as we’d expect through 1Q/2Q18), this can pull forward significant amounts of cash which can serve to address much of the market’s concerns over near-term liquidity.

  5. Following a hypothetical 1H18 pop in the share price, we could see scope for longer-term risks in the story to come to the fore. The key drivers of our downgrade last May are 2-fold: (1) our view that the global addressable market may not be as accessible as the market expects, and (2) increasing encroachment from consumer electrics and mega-tech firms who are planning comprehensive strategies focused on shared, electric and autonomous transport systems in direct competition with Tesla. We expect a steady and increasing amount of evidence to hit the market as 2018 develops that could stunt the enthusiasm of surmounting the Model 3 production hurdles. Admittedly, we cannot be precise with the timing of positive (1H) and negative (2H) catalysts that could move the stock significantly in the quarters ahead, leaving us EW on the stock.

As a result of the above, Jonas now assumes only 1,000 Model 3 deliveries in 4Q, down from 10,000 deliveries previously. That said, he leaves his 2018 forecast of 120,000 Model 3  deliveries unchanged, and some more details: 








We took 2018 GAAP operating profit from ($688) to ($1,001). Our 2018 GAAP EPS (ex stock comp) estimates went from ($3.66) to ($6.17) and our US GAAP EPS estimate went from ($6.58) to ($9.00). From 2018 through 2020, our average GAAP OP forecast moved from positive $280mm to negative $70mm. From 2021 through 2025, our average GAAP OP forecast moved from $4,491 to $4,242…. A 5% cut. The cuts are even smaller in the out-years. Our Tesla Mobility forecasts remain unchanged. We roll forward our DCF start date to December 1st, and our price target remains unchanged at $379



As of this moment, investors appear just as confused about Tesla"s future as its former biggest fanboy, located almost exactly halfway betwen the two stated extremes...










Monday, November 20, 2017

Before You Book That Vacation, JPM Warns Multiple Spoilers Are Converging In November

One week ago, Jan Loeys - the person who wrote "The JPMorgan View" for 15 years - announced his exit, as he transitioned from tactical asset allocation to longer-term strategy, and that he would be handing over the authorship to John Normand, and soon Nikos Panigirtzoglou and Marko Kolanovic, but not before summarizing what he has learned in 30 years of investing in a must-read bulletin which he published last week.


In any case, this weekend it was Normand"s turn to regale JPM"s countless retail and institutional clients with a preview of the upcoming key "spoilers" which according to Normand boil down to 3: a reality check on US tax reform, weaker-than-expected China data, and a Russian rethink on extending oil cuts. Not surprisingly, JPM focuses on the first issue, because as Norman writes, "tax overhaul seems the most complicated market driver given its fluid composition and tortuous legislative process."








By contrast, China’s slowdown looks familiar and was already part of our economists’ baseline; hence, our neutral recommendation on base metals ex aluminum. The November 30th oil producers’ summit is not a drop-dead date for extending their year-old agreement, but we took profits anyway on a long Brent trade last week because oil’s geopolitical premium looked excessive.



For those curious what the largest US bank thinks will be dominant events over the balance of the month, here it is straight from the horse"s mouth.








How much tax reform is priced?


 


Readers of The J.P. Morgan View may realize that this edition is the first in 15 years without Jan Loeys as lead author. Jan has transitioned from tactical asset allocation to longer-term strategy. The View will now be authored by a different team, which hopefully maintains Jan’s succinctness and relevance while introducing complementary approaches to cross-asset strategy.


 


The growth trade that has dominated markets since late summer – higher yields, equities and commodities; tighter credit spreads and lower volatility – has stalled for a third-consecutive week, depending on one’s benchmark. US small cap stocks, probably the best barometer of US tax reform hopes, peaked in early October. Base metals began moving lower a week later. Most major stock indices are flat-to-down over the past week while credit spreads have widened (US high-grade +5bp, US high yield +20bp) and volatility has rallied (VIX +2%, VXY +0.5%) To be sure, these retracements are trivial relative to what risky markets have delivered year-to-date: returns are still running at least twice their long-term average for most equity markets, and in some EM sectors (local bonds, FX carry).


 


Multiple spoilers are converging in November, such as a reality check on US tax reform, weaker-than-expected China data, a Russian rethink on extending oil cuts. We’ll focus on the first issue, because tax overhaul seems the most complicated market driver given its fluid composition and tortuous legislative process. By contrast, China’s slowdown looks familiar and was already part of our economists’ baseline; hence, our neutral recommendation on base metals ex aluminum. The November 30th oil producers’ summit is not a drop-dead date for extending their year-old agreement, but we took profits anyway on a long Brent trade last week because oil’s geopolitical premium looked excessive.


 


The central question around tax reform should be What’s priced? Obviously the higher the expectations, the less upside on stocks and maybe bond yields and the dollar into year-end if Congress meets its somewhat unprecedented timetable of passage by Christmas. Conversely, another stalemate as befell healthcare reform could trigger a decent correction. We call Congress"s schedule somewhat unprecedented because proper tax overhaul like Reagan"s involving both lower rates and simplification required over 10 months to agree, as measured from the first House vote to Presidential signature. Just cutting taxes has been easier: Clinton’s initiatives in 1997 and Bush"s in 2001 and 2003 only required two months.


 


The Trump Administration has proposed Reagan-like reform, but our economists’ view has been that Congress will probably only manage Bush-like cuts. This means $1.5trn of gross unfunded tax reductions over 10 years, but more like $1trn net due to expiring provisions. These sums translate into little growth impulse once considered in annual increments, then discounted further to account for household and corporate tendencies to save some portion of tax givebacks. JPM Economics didn"t raise 2017 or long-term growth estimates after Trump"s election, nor after his tax proposal emerged in October. We’re still at 2.2% yoy for 2018.


 



 


Strangely given surging news trends around the tax topic, most survey and market-based measures suggest limited optimism. For example, consensus growth expectations (Blue Chip survey) have barely moved since the election. In January 2017, forecasters expected 2018 US growth of about 2.4%; that projection only risen to 2.5% since. It’s true that the S&P500’s forward P/E multiple has risen by about two points since the election, but EPS projections for 2018 (IBES basis) have not – they’ve been in a $146-$148/share range since November 2016. The implied 10% year-on-year growth in earnings next year would match 2017’s pace, even next year should deliver stimulus. By contrast, our Equity strategists think that just lowering the statutory corporate tax rate from 35% to 20% would add $12/share boost to any baseline.










Tuesday, November 14, 2017

World Largest Reseller Of Virtual "Skins" Raises $40M With An ICO

ICO Investors are about to experience something that’s almost never happened in the brief history of the $3 billion market: An offering by a company with an actual product.


Bloomberg Businessweek has managed to find the one ICO being launched to solve the rare problem that could actually benefit from decentralized, monetized tokens. The company is called OPSkins, and it’s the largest skins site in the $50 billion market. The company has raised $41 million in an ICO it launched last month, and hopes to raise another $7 million before the sale ends on Nov. 28. For those readers who aren’t avid gamers, Bloomberg explains that a “skin” is a decoration for the virtual guns and knives found in video games like CounterStrike: Global Offensive. While the concept of building a company around these products might seem silly, some buyers will pay thousands of dollars for the rarest skins.



The two-year-old company has raised about $41 million by selling what it calls WAX tokens, a virtual currency that will become the default way to buy and sell skins on its intercompany skins exchange, the Worldwide Asset eXchange, which will allow buyers to connect to dozens of disparate marketplaces. The idea is to simplify purchases for gamers from different countries and give everyone a clearer sense of what a particular item is worth, using the same kind of digital-ledger system as the cryptocurrency bitcoin.



Previously, the market for these virtual items was highly fragmented, and wealthy buyers would often play intermediaries a premium to root out the best deals on their behalf.


The company bets that making its exchange accessible to rivals, who can then make a broader catalog available to customers, will expand its audience beyond the limitations of an individual website, says Chief Information Officer Malcolm CasSelle, who’s helping lead the WAX effort. In theory, there’s lots of room for new skins buyers, says Chris Grove, managing director at researcher Eilers & Krejcik Gaming LLC. About 200,000 new people buy virtual items through OPSkins each month, but the site sells gear for online games with more than 125 million regular players.


 


“This could be the perfect on-ramp,” says investor Scott Walker, who helped fund the “initial coin offering,” or ICO. Early investors are getting more WAX tokens for their money, but their value will become another variable once the exchange goes live in December.


 


OPSkins doesn’t disclose its financials, but its revenue is growing at double digits annually, says CasSelle, previously chief technology officer at Tronc Inc., the former Tribune Co. Partly, he says, the WAX token strategy is a way to stave off competitors. Over the past few months, rivals including DMarket, KyberNetwork, and SkinCoin have held ICOs to launch or expand their services. So far, though, no other trader has the muscle to create the kind of intercompany exchange OPSkins is building. Starting next year, websites that install the WAX widget will get as-yet-undetermined fees for resulting sales.



However, before you rush out and buy WAX tokens purely for the sake of speculating, It’s worth considering the fact that OPSkins entire business is essentially at the mercy of the giant video game studio that produces many of the games whose wares Skins sells on the secondary market.


The volatility of the WAX token price may make it a poor place to hold money not being used for short-term item buying and selling. But OPSkins’ biggest potential roadblock is the maker of the games. Industry leader Valve Corp., which publishes Counter-Strike: Global Offensive and the other big hits OPSkins exploits, has the power to ban sites from trading skins. Last year, Valve sent cease-and-desist letters to 23 online gambling sites to prevent them from using skins as collateral, a move aimed at reducing teenage gambling on professional video game matches. “Valve has certainly left the door open to an action in the future,” says Grove, the Eilers researcher.



However, the company’s technology chief says it doesn’t need Valve Corp.’s cooperation to build a successful business.


CasSelle says that the new exchange can work without Valve’s help, including as a way to acquire other virtual goods, and that OPSkins is looking to raise an additional $7 million in WAX tokens before it finishes its ICO on Nov. 28. (The company initially sought a total of $63 million but lowered that goal because the flurry of interest around bitcoin and its spiking value has diverted attention from ICOs.) Alexander, the personal shopper for virtual goods, says he thinks the exchange will be good for people like him in the short term, swelling the overall market for skins. “It makes the entire process effortless,” he says. “It is a massive pain dealing with the payment methods available at the moment.” But he’s hedging his bets, having returned to college to finish his degree in economics. He says he eventually wants to get a job in finance or start his own business.



OPSkins doesn’t disclose its financials, but its chief technology officer - who was previously the CTO at Tronc Inc. - explained that the WAX token strategy is a way to stave off competitors. Over the past few months, some of OPSkins rivals, including DMarket, KyberNetwork, and SkinCoin have held ICOs to launch or expand their services. So far, though, no other company has the muscle to create the kind of intercompany exchange OPSkins is building.


If it succeeds in being the first platform to capture a dedicated customer base, maybe - just maybe - the WAX token might have a future.


Unfortunately for investors, most of the other 799 tokens trading on one of hundreds of exchanges scattered across the Earth, probably won’t.