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
Read Nick Bilton’s Letter to Scott Pelley
Dear Mr. Pelley:
I meant what I said in my letter last week to the 60 Minutes team: joining 60 Minutes is the honor of my career and I am grateful to be working alongside the people who have contributed to the most important television journalism brand this country has ever produced. While I’m new to 60 Minutes, I’ve devoted my career to investigative journalism and storytelling. I started this job excited to collaborate and to benefit from the wisdom and experience of the 60 Minutes veterans, with you among them. For that reason, one of the first things I did in my new role was call you to talk and invite you to dinner. It is a profound disappointment that you rejected that overture and chose ambush instead. Yesterday, you hijacked my first meeting with staff to disparage me, my qualifications, and my intentions with remarkable incivility and contempt. I welcome a diversity of viewpoints and respectful debate among the team, but this was nothing of the sort. Yesterday’s performative display of hostility enacted in front of the staff instead of in a civil, private conversation-demonstrated that you have no interest in contributing to the future success of the show, or approaching my new tenure with a mind open to collaboration and progress. I am here to deliver first-in-class news programming, not to make headlines about newsroom drama. I am eager to work alongside those who share this goal.
Despite yesterday’s misconduct, I had hoped that in sitting down with you today we could find a path forward together. You made clear that you are not interested in such a path.
Your antipathy to the future of the show has come through loud and clear. And I have heard you. I therefore write on behalf of CBS News, Inc. (“CBS”) to inform you that your employment with CBS is terminated for cause effective immediately. Enclosed is your formal termination letter.
Sincerely,
Nick Bilton
Executive Producer, 60 Minutes
Business
Aspiration co-founder sentenced to 14 years for fraud
The co-founder of Aspiration, Joseph Sanberg, was sentenced to 14 years in prison on Monday after defrauding investors and lenders of over $248 million.
The startup, an eco-friendly digital banking company boasting fossil fuel-free investments, carbon offsets for gas purchases, and a debit card with cash-back benefits for shopping at clean companies, was founded by Sanberg and Andrei Cherny. Cherny left the company in 2022 and has not been charged.
Sanberg, an Orange County native, pleaded guilty to wire fraud in October after being arrested in March last year. Aspiration subsequently filed for bankruptcy and liquidated all of its assets by July.
Sanberg and venture capitalist Ibrahim AlHusseini, who also faces charges, together forged a series of bank statements in order to obtain loans. From 2020 to 2021, the pair forged AlHusseini’s bank statements to show millions of dollars in assets in order to obtain millions of dollars from lenders.
Additionally, they forged a letter from their audit committee stating that $250 million in funds were available, when in reality Aspiration had less than $1 million. The amount of loans defrauded exceeded $248 million.
In 2021, Sanberg artificially inflated Aspiration’s 2021 revenue by $44 million by recruiting 27 fake customers to sign letters of intent pledging tens of thousands of dollars per month for tree planting services. Sanberg himself funded the contracts and used the inflated revenue numbers to obtain more loans.
The charges sparked an NBA investigation into salary cap allegations due to Aspiration’s connections with Clippers owner Steve Ballmer.
Ballmer personally invested $60 million in Aspiration, all of which was lost. He is now the target of a civil lawsuit alleging his participation in the scheme. Ballmer denies the allegations.
The team announced a $300-million sponsorship deal with Aspiration, and Clippers player Kawhi Leonard signed a four-year, $28-million marketing contract with the company, which reportedly performed no duties. The issue has raised concerns about how players are circumventing the NBA’s salary cap.
The team lost the $300-million sponsorship deal and an additional $20 million paid for carbon offset purchases.
Business
Monterey Park takes landmark vote on banning data centers
Residents in the city of Monterey Park will be the first in the nation to vote on a permanent ban on data centers Tuesday.
If approved, Measure NDC would prohibit data centers within the city limits and could only be overturned by another vote.
Yard signs saying “No Data Center” in English and Chinese with images of dragons line sidewalks in the San Gabriel Valley city.
As a wave of data center opposition sweeps the country, numerous towns and counties across the U.S. have instituted temporary moratoria and other restrictions on the facilities. But only a handful have instituted indefinite bans, and just four other towns have sent related matters to the ballot.
Supporters are hoping the vote will set a precedent for the rest of the region, where residents are fighting proposals in Vernon and City of Industry.
“This is about as permanent a ban as we can get,” said Steven Kung, co-founder of the group No Data Center Monterey Park. “Winning Measure NDC would send a huge message to the rest of the San Gabriel Valley about how residents don’t want data centers.”
The ballot measure emerged from the fight against a 247,000-square-foot center proposed in 2024 by the Australian-owned investment firm HMC StratCap for a residential area in Monterey Park.
The facility would have sat less than 500 feet away from the nearest home and used three times the electricity of the 60,000-person, predominantly Asian American city.
While the developer touted the potential for jobs and tax revenue, residents expressed concerns about noise and air pollution, rising electricity rates and a potential to lower property values.
The company pulled its plans in late March following public outcry and a March 4 city council vote to extend a temporary data center moratorium and place a ban on Tuesday’s ballot.
In a letter to the city council, HMC StratCap said it would pursue a different use for the land and would not engage in a ballot measure fight.
The city council later banned data centers indefinitely, the first in California to do so, said Mayor Elizabeth Yang. But she’s still been out campaigning for the measure with all four other council members.
“If a council puts in an ordinance, a future council can reverse it too,” said Yang. “With the ballot measure, unbanning it is a lot harder because you need the entire city to vote on it.”
The measure proposes the ban “to protect air quality, drinking water resources, and public health” and “prevent impacts to electricity and water rates.”
While California places third in the country for existing data centers with about 300 facilities, it hasn’t been a hot spot in the recent AI-driven data center boom. High electricity rates, expensive land and regulatory hurdles mean that fewer, and smaller, facilities are currently planned than in Virginia, Texas, Georgia, Illinois or Arizona.
“Most of California’s data centers are small by today’s standards,” said Shaolei Ren, an engineering professor at UC Riverside who studies how to reduce the environmental impacts of data centers. “Ten years ago, they would be medium-sized, but the power demand for new AI data centers has increased a lot.”
The average operating data center demands 45 megawatts, according to the Washington Post, while the average planned one would draw 430 MW. The one proposed for Monterey Park would have required about 50 MW at peak demand.
As proposals crop up in SoCal, they’re met with fierce opposition. Montebello, El Monte and Baldwin Park have all enacted temporary moratoria, and Alhambra recently banned data centers as part of a zoning code update. City of Industry, Vernon, City of Commerce and Santa Fe Springs are moving in the other direction, trying to court developers and streamline data center approvals. Community groups are fighting that.
Outside the San Gabriel Valley, residents of Coachella and Imperial County are showing up in droves to protest local proposals.
Matthew Shaw, a volunteer with the Coalition for Responsible Data Center Development, who recently published a report on opposition to AI data centers, said a vote to ban them in Monterey Park “would lead to copycats, partially because so many groups are just opposed to any data center development at all.”
While there is no formal opposition to Measure NDC, some building trades like Ironworker Local 433 supported the Monterey Park data center when it was still live before city council. Those in the data center industry are lamenting the state of public opinion.
“These are multi-billion-dollar assets that are built by multi-trillion-dollar companies. These things will get done,” said Mehdi Paryavi, chairman of the International Data Center Authority. “My biggest problem is that our industry does not invest enough in community engagement.”
Paryavi said towns that seek to limit data centers are missing out on thousands of jobs generated by data center construction, operations and customers, as well as faster artificial intelligence speeds and better performance.
Kung said local community organizers are “looking at the empirical evidence” and seeing a ban as a win.
“We’ve never seen a city that embraces a data center and is like, ‘Look how our quality of life has increased, look how all the revenue has gone into citywide improvements,’” he said. “That just doesn’t exist.”
-
Kentucky6 minutes ago
UK Healthcare prepares to become Kentucky’s only Level 2 special pathogen treatment center
-
Louisiana9 minutes agoHeart of Louisiana: Civilian Conservation Corps
-
Maine14 minutes agoOpinion: Owen McCarthy offers Maine Republicans real change
-
Maryland21 minutes agoMaryland Dem lawmaker runs taxpayer-funded nonprofit with audit struggles
-
Michigan24 minutes agoResidents in Taylor, Michigan, fight against possible rezoning
-
Massachusetts29 minutes agoMassachusetts high school under investigation after teachers diagnosed with breast cancer
-
Minnesota36 minutes agoMedical services in limbo for thousands of providers amid Minnesota fraud crisis
-
Mississippi39 minutes agoMississippi Lottery Mississippi Match 5, Cash 3 results for June 2, 2026