Business
Column: Vanguard, one of our top investment firms, shuns crypto 'like the plague.' That's good for its customers
After Jan. 10, when the Securities and Exchange Commission approved the first bitcoin exchange-traded investment products, the biggest investment firms jumped into the pool with both feet, jostling one another to offer their clients, big or small, access to bitcoin funds.
All, that is, except the second-biggest private investment management fund on the planet, Vanguard Group.
The firm has made clear, most recently in a Jan. 24 message to its clients, that it has no plans to offer a bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF) or any other cryptocurrency-related products. Nor will it allow any such products from other firms to be offered via its brokerage arm.
While crypto has been classified as a commodity, it’s an immature asset class that has little history, no inherent economic value, no cash flow, and can create havoc within a portfolio.
— Janel Jackson, Vanguard
Vanguard spelled out precisely why it is shunning crypto despite the “headlines and buzz” the asset class generates. Put simply, it doesn’t think crypto belongs in retail investors’ portfolios.
That’s a smart and responsible policy that places the interests of Vanguard’s clientele ahead of those of the greedy promoters and scamsters infecting the entire cryptocurrency field.
Bitcoin and other crypto investments have typically spelled financial disaster for ordinary investors. Stories of life savings lost in supposedly safe crypto investments are distressingly common.
Vanguard’s executives know they’re swimming against a tide of pro-crypto propaganda from entertainment and sports stars as well as prominent authors. That doesn’t faze them.
“In Vanguard’s view, crypto is more of a speculation than an investment,” Janel Jackson, the firm’s global head of ETF capital markets, stated in the recent message, which was headlined “No bitcoin ETFs at Vanguard? Here’s why.”
Contrasting crypto with traditional asset classes, she wrote: “With equities, you own a share of a company that produces goods or services, and many also pay dividends. With bonds, you get a stream of interest payments. Commodities are real assets that meet consumption needs, [and] have inflation-hedging properties…. While crypto has been classified as a commodity, it’s an immature asset class that has little history, no inherent economic value, no cash flow, and can create havoc within a portfolio.”
These words are significant for several reasons. One is Vanguard’s size: With more than $7 trillion in assets under management as of 2023, the firm ranks as the second-largest American investment management firm, after BlackRock (more than $9 trillion). Also, more than many other such firms, Vanguard’s target market is retail investors pursuing a long-term buy-and-hold strategy.
Then there’s Vanguard’s history of viewing trendy flavor-of-the-month investment crazes skeptically and keeping them off its platform.
Before getting more deeply into Vanguard’s decision and history, a few words about the SEC’s decision to give bitcoin ETFs a green light.
Under its chairman, Gary Gensler, the agency has consistently resisted giving approval for crypto-based investing schemes. In a tweet as recently as Jan. 9, Gensler advised investors to “be cautious” about anything related to crypto assets. “There are serious risks involved,” he wrote.
The very next day, however, the SEC approved proposals from several investment firms for bitcoin ETFs after having rejected 20 applications dating back as far as 2018. What had changed, Gensler observed after the vote, was that the SEC’s hands were tied by a ruling from a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. The court found that the commission hadn’t made the legal case for turning down the latest application.
Gensler emphasized that the SEC’s vote didn’t mean that its general distaste for crypto investments had changed. The ETF it approved was limited to holding a single cryptocurrency, bitcoin, he warned, and shouldn’t be taken as a signal that the commission would look kindly on other crypto-based investment products.
Commissioner Caroline A. Crenshaw, like Gensler a member of the SEC’s Democratic Party majority, was even more blunt in dissenting from the approval. Are the crypto markets safe? she asked rhetorically. “Substantial evidence indicates that the answer is no.”
She added that the spot bitcoin trading underlying the new ETFs “is so susceptible to manipulation, so rife with fraud, so subject to volatility, and so limited in oversight that we cannot credibly say … that there are adequate investor protections in place.”
The SEC’s approval, which covered applications for 11 bitcoin ETFs developed by firms such as BlackRock, Fidelity and Invesco, inspired a rush of hyperventilating from crypto enthusiasts, who described it as a “game-changer” for the asset class. But it didn’t quell concerns from other investment watchdogs such as Dennis Kelleher, the co-founder and chief executive of Better Markets, who called it “a grievous, historic mistake” that will suck unwary investors into “a worthless product.”
Of the nation’s top investment management firms, almost all are offering clients opportunities to invest in bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Some are marketing these assets more aggressively than others.
Fidelity, which ranks third in assets under management, behind BlackRock and Vanguard, started offering employers sponsoring 401(k) plans for their workers a bitcoin investment option in 2022, only a few months before Sam Bankman-Fried’s crypto scam, FTX, cratered due to fraud. (A federal jury, it may be recalled, found Bankman-Fried guilty on seven fraud counts in November.)
Fidelity’s venture raised the hackles of Democratic Sens. Richard Durbin of Illinois and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who urged the firm to back away from its 401(k) option. Fidelity plainly didn’t do so, since it still promotes bitcoin for 401(k) plans on its website.
That brings us back to Vanguard. (I’m an investor in some of its funds; since it’s a mutual — owned by its fund shareholders — technically I’m an owner of the firm, albeit a minuscule one.)
To be fair, Vanguard doesn’t promise that it will never offer bitcoin investments: “We continuously evaluate our brokerage offer and evaluate new product entries to the market,” Vanguard spokeswoman Karyn Baldwin told me by email.
But she made it plain that bitcoin ETFs will have a mountain to climb to show they belong with “asset classes such as equities, bonds, and cash, which Vanguard views as the building blocks of a well-balanced, long-term investment portfolio.”
All investment firms make a big deal about placing their clients’ interests front and center, but few were based on that principle to the extent of Vanguard.
The firm was founded in 1975 by the venerated John C. “Jack” Bogle. He built the firm around the concept of passive investing through index funds. Replicating the holdings of the major stock indexes, these funds trade relatively seldom because the components of the indexes rarely change.
That reduces commissions and other transaction costs such as taxes, which cut into clients’ returns. More important, such passive investments consistently do better than “active” fund managers, who trade frequently and pick their investment targets, hoping to capture a run-up in particular stocks or market categories.
Bogle was hostile to speculation, as opposed to investing, to the end of his life in 2019. In a 2012 book titled “The Clash of the Cultures,” he contrasted “the culture of long-term investing — the rock of the intellectual, the philosopher, and the historian — with the culture of short-term investing — the tool of the mathematician, the technician, and the alchemist.”
He lamented “the gradual but relentless rise” of the latter, “characterized by frenzied activity in our financial markets, complex and exotic financial instruments,” which came to dominate a financial system “peppered as it is with self-interest and greed.”
If you think that would make him extremely leery of bitcoin, no kidding. At an investment conference in 2017, answering a question about bitcoin, he responded: “Avoid it like the plague. Do I make myself clear?”
He explained, “Bitcoin has no underlying rate of return…. There is nothing to support bitcoin except the hope that you will sell it to someone for more than you paid for it” — in other words, the “greater fool” theory.
It’s worth noting that such skepticism doesn’t always translate into a business decision to avoid the accursed investment. After all, Jamie Dimon, the chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase & Co., expressed similar doubts about bitcoin around the same time, calling it a “fraud … worse than tulip bulbs.”
Unlike Vanguard, however, JPMorgan hasn’t followed the instincts of its leader: The firm has been giving clients access to crypto funds at least since 2021.
The roster of trendy investments that Vanguard has denied to its customers, almost invariably to their benefit, is a long one. A list compiled recently by Morningstar’s John Rekenthaler includes government-plus funds in the 1980s, internet funds in the late 1990s (“What artificial intelligence investing is today, internet funds were 25 years ago,” Rekenthaler wrote — fair warning) and “130/30 funds” of 2009 vintage, which held hedge fund-like portfolios mixing long and short positions, supposedly to goose returns without adding risk.
As Rekenthaler noted, all these ideas eventually “crashed and burned.” None was embraced by Vanguard, largely because every one ran counter to the interests of long-term investors.
Vanguard’s policy evidently has stuck in the craw of the crypto faithful. One claimed in a tweet that a Vanguard representative he reached “apologized profusely for management’s lack of vision, admitted they owned Bitcoin personally, and said that they’ve received literally thousands of calls from customers looking to move accounts.”
All we can say to that is: “Oh, sure.” Here’s a prediction, though: Vanguard, which has been around for nearly a half-century, will still be around long after crypto has been consigned to the investment craze graveyard, where it belongs.
Business
Scott Bessent, Trump’s Billionaire Treasury Pick, Will Shed Assets to Avoid Conflicts
Scott Bessent, the billionaire hedge fund manager whom President-elect Donald J. Trump picked to be his Treasury secretary, plans to divest from dozens of funds, trusts and investments in preparation to become the nation’s top economic policymaker.
Those plans were released on Saturday along with the publication of an ethics agreement and financial disclosures that Mr. Bessent submitted ahead of his Senate confirmation hearing next Thursday.
The documents show the extent of the wealth of Mr. Bessent, whose assets and investments appear to be worth in excess of $700 million. Mr. Bessent was formerly the top investor for the billionaire liberal philanthropist George Soros and has been a major Republican donor and adviser to Mr. Trump.
If confirmed as Treasury secretary, Mr. Bessent, 62, will steer Mr. Trump’s economic agenda of cutting taxes, rolling back regulations and imposing tariffs as he seeks to renegotiate trade deals. He will also play a central role in the Trump administration’s expected embrace of cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin.
Although Mr. Trump won the election by appealing to working-class voters who have been dogged by high prices, he has turned to wealthy Wall Street investors such as Mr. Bessent and Howard Lutnick, a billionaire banker whom he tapped to be commerce secretary, to lead his economic team. Linda McMahon, another billionaire, has been picked as education secretary, and Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, is leading an unofficial agency known as the Department of Government Efficiency.
In a letter to the Treasury Department’s ethics office, Mr. Bessent outlined the steps he would take to “avoid any actual or apparent conflict of interest in the event that I am confirmed for the position of secretary of the Department of Treasury.”
Mr. Bessent said he would shutter Key Square Capital Management, the investment firm that he founded, and resign from his Bessent-Freeman Family Foundation and from Rockefeller University, where he has been chairman of the investment committee.
The financial disclosure form, which provides ranges for the value of his assets, reveals that Mr. Bessent owns as much as $25 million of farmland in North Dakota, which earns an income from soybean and corn production. He also owns a property in the Bahamas that is worth as much as $25 million. Last November, Mr. Bessent put his historic pink mansion in Charleston, S.C., on the market for $22.5 million.
Mr. Bessent is selling several investments that could pose potential conflicts of interest including a Bitcoin exchange-traded fund; an account that trades the renminbi, China’s currency; and his stake in All Seasons, a conservative publisher. He also has a margin loan, or line of credit, with Goldman Sachs of more than $50 million.
As an investor, Mr. Bessent has long wagered on the rising strength of the dollar and has betted against, or “shorted,” the renminbi, according to a person familiar with Mr. Bessent’s strategy who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss his portfolio. Mr. Bessent gained notoriety in the 1990s by betting against the British pound and earning his firm, Soros Fund Management, $1 billion. He also made a high-profile bet against the Japanese yen.
Mr. Bessent, who will be overseeing the U.S. Treasury market, holds over $100 million in Treasury bills.
Cabinet officials are required to divest certain holdings and investments to avoid the potential for conflicts of interest. Although this can be an onerous process, it has some potential tax benefits.
The tax code contains a provision that allows securities to be sold and the capital gains tax on such sales deferred if the full proceeds are used to buy Treasury securities and certain money-market funds. The tax continues to be deferred until the securities or money-market funds are sold.
Even while adhering to the ethics guidelines, questions about conflicts of interest can still emerge.
Mr. Trump’s Treasury secretary during his first term, Steven Mnuchin, divested from his Hollywood film production company after joining the administration. However, as he was negotiating a trade deal in 2018 with China — an important market for the U.S. film industry — ethics watchdogs raised questions about whether Mr. Mnuchin had conflicts because he had sold his interest in the company to his wife.
Mr. Bessent was chosen for the Treasury after an internal tussle among Mr. Trump’s aides over the job. Mr. Lutnick, Mr. Trump’s transition team co-chair and the chief executive of Cantor Fitzgerald, made a late pitch to secure the Treasury secretary role for himself before Mr. Trump picked him to be Commerce secretary.
During that fight, which spilled into view, critics of Mr. Bessent circulated documents disparaging his performance as a hedge fund manager.
Mr. Bessent’s most recent hedge fund, Key Square Capital, launched to much fanfare in 2016, garnering $4.5 billion in investor money, including $2 billion from Mr. Soros, but manages much less now. A fund he ran in the early 2000s had a similarly unremarkable performance.
Business
As wildfires rage, private firefighters join the fight for the fortunate few
When devastating wildfires erupted across Los Angeles County this week, David Torgerson’s team of firefighters went to work.
The thousands of city, county and state firefighters dispatched to battle the blazes went wherever they were needed. The crews from Torgerson’s Wildfire Defense Systems, however, set out for particular addresses. Armed with hoses, fire-blocking gel and their own water supply, the Montana-based outfit contracts with insurance companies to defend the homes of customers who buy policies that include their services.
It’s a win-win if the private firefighters succeed in saving a home, said Torgerson, the company’s founder and executive chairman. The homeowner keeps their home and the insurance company doesn’t have to make a hefty payout to rebuild.
“It makes good sense,” he said. “It’s always better if the homes and businesses don’t burn.”
Torgerson’s operation, which has been contracting with insurance companies since 2008 and employs hundreds of firefighters, engineers and other staff, highlights a lesser-known component of fighting wildfires in the U.S. Along with the more than 7,500 publicly funded firefighters and emergency personnel dispatched to the current conflagrations, which have burned more than 30,000 acres and destroyed more than 9,000 structures, a smaller force of for-hire professionals is on the fire lines for insurance companies, wealthy individual property owners or government agencies in need of additional hands.
Their presence isn’t without controversy. Private firefighters hired by homeowners directly have drawn criticism for heightening class divides during disasters. This week, a Pacific Palisades homeowner received backlash for putting a call out on X, the social media site formerly named Twitter, for help finding private firefighters who could save his home.
“Does anyone have access to private firefighters to protect our home in Pacific Palisades? Need to act fast here. All neighbors houses burning,” he wrote in the since-deleted post. “Will pay any amount.”
“The epitome of nerve and tone deaf!” someone replied.
In 2018, Kim Kardashian and Kanye West credited private firefighters for saving their $60-million home in the Santa Monica mountains during a wildfire. But those who serve wealthy clients make up only a small fraction of nonpublic firefighters, according to Torgerson.
“Contract firefighters who are hired by the government are the vast majority,” he said. The federal government has been hiring private firefighters since the 1980s to support its own forces. According to the National Wildfire Suppression Assn., there are about 250 private sector fire response companies under federal contract, adding about 10,000 firefighters to U.S. efforts.
Some private firefighting companies, including Wildfire Defense Systems, are known as Qualified Insurance Resources and are paid by insurance companies to protect the homes of their customers. Wildfire Defense Systems refers to its on-the-ground forces as private sector wildfire personnel.
Wildfire Defense Systems only works with the insurance industry, but other privately held firefighting companies contract with industrial clients such as petrochemical facilities and utility providers. Wildfire Defense Systems declined to disclose company revenue or what it charges for its services.
Allied Disaster Defense, a company that has sent personnel to the fires in Los Angeles, offers services to both property owners and insurance companies. Its website says its services will “enhance the insurability of properties” and “contribute to reduced claims.”
The website also has a page dedicated to services for private clients, which include emergency response and assistance with insurance claims for “high net-worth and celebrity” customers. The company does not list prices for its services and has nondisclosure agreements with its private clients.
Several other private firefighting companies are based in California, including Mt. Adams Wildfire, which contracts with government agencies, and UrbnTek, which serves Los Angeles, Orange County and San Diego among other areas. Along with spraying fire retardant on trees and brush to stop an advancing fire, the company offers “a double layer of protection by wrapping a structure with our fire blanket system.”
Torgerson, a civil engineer with 34 years in emergency services, said he has been struck by the speed of the current wildfires. While typically it takes two to 10 minutes for a fire to sweep through a home, he said, the Palisades fire is traveling at higher speeds.
“It’s moving so fast, it’ll likely take one to two minutes for these fires to pass over the properties,” he said.
He said his company responded to all 62 of the wildfires that threatened structures in California in 2024 and didn’t lose a property.
Business
As Delta Reports Profits, Airlines Are Optimistic About 2025
This year just got started, but it is already shaping up nicely for U.S. airlines.
After several setbacks, the industry ended 2024 in a fairly strong position because of healthy demand for tickets and the ability of several airlines to control costs and raise fares, experts said. Barring any big problems, airlines — especially the largest ones — should enjoy a great year, analysts said.
“I think it’s going to be pretty blue skies,” said Tom Fitzgerald, an airline industry analyst for the investment bank TD Cowen.
In recent weeks, many major airlines upgraded forecasts for the all-important last three months of the year. And on Friday, Delta Air Lines said it collected more than $15.5 billion in revenue in the fourth quarter of 2024, a record.
“As we move into 2025, we expect strong demand for travel to continue,” Delta’s chief executive, Ed Bastian, said in a statement. That put the airline on track to “deliver the best financial year in Delta’s 100-year history,” he said.
The airline also beat analysts’ profit estimates and said it expected earnings per share, a measure of profitability, to rise more than 10 percent this year.
Delta’s upbeat report offers a preview of what are expected to be similarly rosy updates from other carriers that will report earnings in the next few weeks. That should come as welcome news to an industry that has been stifled by various challenges even as demand for travel has rocketed back after the pandemic.
“For the last five years, it’s felt like every bird in the sky was a black swan,” said Ravi Shanker, an analyst focused on airlines at Morgan Stanley. “But it appears that this industry does have its ducks in a row.”
That is, of course, if everything goes according to plan, which it rarely does. Geopolitics, terrorist attacks, air safety problems and, perhaps most important, an economic downturn could tank demand for travel. Rising costs, particularly for jet fuel, could erode profits. Or the industry could face problems like a supply chain disruption that limits availability of new planes or makes it harder to repair older ones.
Early last year, a panel blew off a Boeing 737 Max during an Alaska Airlines flight, resurfacing concerns about the safety of the manufacturer’s planes, which are used on most flights operated by U.S. airlines, according to Cirium, an aviation data firm.
The incident forced Boeing to slow production and delay deliveries of jets. That disrupted the plans of some airlines that had hoped to carry more passengers. And there was little airlines could do to adjust because the world’s largest jet manufacturer, Airbus, didn’t have the capacity to pick up the slack — both it and Boeing have long order backlogs. In addition, some Airbus planes were afflicted by an engine problem that has forced carriers to pull the jets out of service for inspections.
There was other tumult, too. Spirit Airlines filed for bankruptcy. A brief technology outage wreaked havoc on many airlines, disrupting travel and resulting in thousands of canceled flights in the heart of the busy summer season. And during the summer, smaller airlines flooded popular domestic routes with seats, squeezing profits during what is normally the most lucrative time of year.
But the industry’s financial position started improving when airlines reduced the number of flights and seats. While that was bad for travelers, it lifted fares and profits for airlines.
“You’re in a demand-over-supply imbalance, which gives the industry pricing power,” said Andrew Didora, an analyst at the Bank of America.
At the same time, airlines have been trying to improve their businesses. American Airlines overhauled a sales strategy that had frustrated corporate customers, helping it win back some travelers. Southwest Airlines made changes aimed at lowering costs and increasing profits after a push by the hedge fund Elliott Management. And JetBlue Airways unveiled a strategy with similar aims, after a less contentious battle with the investor Carl C. Icahn.
Those improvements and industry trends, along with the stabilization of fuel, labor and other costs, have created the conditions for what could be a banner 2025. “All of this is the best setup we’ve had in decades,” Mr. Shanker said.
That won’t materialize right away, though. Travel demand tends to be subdued in the winter. But business trips pick up somewhat, driven by events like this week’s Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas.
The positive outlook for 2025 is probably strongest for the largest U.S. airlines — Delta, United and American. All three are well positioned to take advantage of buoyant trends, including steadily rebounding business travel and customers who are eager to spend more on better seats and international flights.
But some smaller airlines may do well, too. JetBlue, Alaska Airlines and others have been adding more premium seats, which should help lift profits.
While he is optimistic overall, Mr. Shanker acknowledged that the industry was vulnerable to a host of potential problems.
“I mean, this time last year you were talking about doors falling off planes,” he said. “So who knows what might happen.”
-
Politics1 week ago
New Orleans attacker had 'remote detonator' for explosives in French Quarter, Biden says
-
Politics1 week ago
Carter's judicial picks reshaped the federal bench across the country
-
Politics1 week ago
Who Are the Recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom?
-
Health6 days ago
Ozempic ‘microdosing’ is the new weight-loss trend: Should you try it?
-
World1 week ago
South Korea extends Boeing 737-800 inspections as Jeju Air wreckage lifted
-
Technology3 days ago
Meta is highlighting a splintering global approach to online speech
-
World1 week ago
Weather warnings as freezing temperatures hit United Kingdom
-
News1 week ago
Seeking to heal the country, Jimmy Carter pardoned men who evaded the Vietnam War draft