finyork.com

Tag: derivatives

  • Why the SEC will Ultimately Deny VanEck’s Third Application for a Bitcoin Spot ETF and What it Means for Digital Assets

    Late last month, August 2022, the SEC announced a 45-day delay to rule on VanEck’s third Bitcoin Spot ETF application. This comes on the heels of the SEC denying Grayscale’s GBTC – an SEC backed Bitcoin Trust – conversion to a spot ETF, as well as Bitwise Asset Management’s application for a spot ETF, on the same day in late June 2022. VanEck currently has an SEC-backed Bitcoin futures ETF, the “VanEck Bitcoin Strategy ETF” (Cboe: XBTF). Their two previous applications for a Bitcoin spot ETF were rejected first in 2017, then late in 2021. VanEck is considered somewhat of an “investment giant”, with roughly $65B currently in AUM.

    Grayscale, with roughly $20M in AUM and a digital asset manager giant themselves, a subsidiary of Digital Currency Group (DCG) – who’s also the parent company of CoinDesk – sued the SEC immediately after they rejected the GBTC’s conversion from a SEC-backed Bitcoin Trust to a SEC-backed spot ETF. A ruling from a Federal Appellate Court is expected sometime in Q4 2023 or Q1 2024.

    Why Will the SEC Reject VanEck’s Application for a Bitcoin Spot ETF a Third Time?

    A better way to phrase the question is: why wouldn’t they? Has anything dramatically changed about either the SEC’s mandates, Bitcoin, market conditions, or is VanEck’s application unique? No, for all the above. VanEck’s Bitcoin spot ETF, which they’ve proposed to list on the Cboe BZX Exchange, would still create direct Bitcoin ownership for investors who purchased it. In my opinion, the SEC’s had to issue a 45-day delay because VanEck’s argument appears to differ from Grayscale’s. VanEck isn’t relying on a futures versus spot Exchanged Traded Fund [ETF] derivative comparison. Rather, they’re urging the SEC to reconsider because investors can access Bitcoin spot ETFs through our neighbors in Canada.

    They’re not wrong. As early as February 2021, Canada became one of the first countries in the world to place a Bitcoin spot ETF on one of their national exchanges. But given that was back in February 2021, the question remains: what’s changed? It’s completely unrealistic for the SEC to admit they weren’t aware of a Bitcoin spot ETF on a Canadian exchange. Hypothetically, it would very likely give Grayscale the green light to pursue further, more substantial legal action against the SEC.

    At the time Grayscale’s GBTC was rejected, many analysts cited the heightened potential for fraud and malpractice amongst digital assets being a key reason institutional investors, who generally purchase far more spot products than futures derivatives (as part of their traditional investment strategies), should not get access to an SEC-backed Bitcoin spot ETF yet. They said digital currency exchanges needed total transparency inside their marketplaces, like the DOW and NASDAQ. While this flies in the face of many reasons investors purchase digital assets and it’s not practical, it didn’t matter. That’s what the institutional investor community who was with the SEC just two months back demanded. VanEck is not purely a digital asset manager like Grayscale and in terms of AUM, they’re over 3 times larger.

    As another interesting reference point VanEck currently has 3 CO (Commodity) ETFs. The first is XBFT (Bitcoin Strategy ETF) and the second is OUNZ (VanEck Merk Gold ETF). XBFT has $19.2M in total net assets, while OUNZ has $600.4M. Interestingly, VanEck offers 65 EFT products and only 3 fall in the Commodities Asset Class. The other 62 are split between Fixed Income (Corporate, International, & Municipal Bonds, Rates products, etc.) and Equity ETFs. VanEck’s GDX has $9.4B in total net assets, while their ITM has 1,939 holdings (September 2, 2022). The XBFT has just $19.2M in total net assets and only 8 people holding it (September 2, 2022). Of the roughly $65B VanEck has in AUM, XBFT – a Bitcoin futures ETF – represents around .002% of their investment portfolio.

    Concisely, VanEck is a bigger, more established firm that has broader appeal to institutional investors already compared to Grayscale, who owns roughly 3.5% of all of Bitcoin and is purely a digital asset manager. They have the first SEC-approved Bitcoin Trust ETF with GBTC, trading on the NASDAQ. They are doing their best to bring digital assets to institutional investors. That’s why they’ve gone all out for a Bitcoin spot ETF, whereas VanEck seems to have strategically made a push when they’ve felt they had a compelling case.

    Does the SEC’s 45-Delay Mean VanEck has a Real Chance?

    I believe it means they have a better chance, but will ultimately suffer the same fate as Grayscale and Bitwise. I don’t even think it gives them much of a better chance; only if the SEC makes an unexpected blunder. Nothing has changed about their concerns related to GBTC that would warrant VanEck’s application to get approved.

    “The Commission [SEC] finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change and the issues raised therein.”
    -SEC Spokesperson, in a letter to VanEck (August 2022)
    Tweet

    The verbiage in this quote seems to be hinting that the SEC is actually considering accepting VanEck’s argument. However, the SEC issuing a delay on a ruling isn’t exactly breaking news. They’ve shot down over a dozen attempts at a Bitcoin spot ETF in the last 12-month calendar year alone. There is no new information to indicate Bitcoin is any less susceptible to fraud – thereby posting inherent investor risk – than two months ago. The SEC is buying time in hopes of making a more compelling case regarding Bitcoin spot ETF’s in Canadian markets. What’s going to make more headlines in 45 days, the macroeconomic conditions from rising rates, inflation, and other recessionary indicators, or the SEC rejected the 15th (or so) Bitcoin spot ETF in the last year? After all, the SEC isn’t completely unaware of the current dynamics in financial markets.

    If VanEck is Ultimately Denied, What Does that Mean for Cryptocurrency?

    The overall impact is unlikely to be large, unless the SEC gets unpredictable here. Assuming they stay consistent with their rationale, this matter will go back to the DC Appellate Courts. But if you’re an institutional investor of SEC-approved Bitcoin assets, you’re not going to be majorly impacted by this. Inflation and rising interest rates? That will likely negatively impact at risk assets across the board and digital assets are certainly in that category. But the long-term ramifications for Bitcoin from this latest SEC ruling are likely to be very minimal.

    Just to end with a key point we just touched on, watch out for at risk assets considering this is very likely going to be the realest felt recession since 2008. There won’t be a major economic downturn because we’ve learned our lessons from 2008, but investors will sell off at-risk assets as soon as financial markets show signs of destabilization. Digital assets in an investor’s portfolio will be one of the first to go. Combined with the seasonality of Bitcoin slumps, expect the price to drop below 15,000 and who knows how much lower. How much lower would it take for the strongest crypto asset enthusiasts to wave the red flag? Would that ever happen? Only time will tell, but again, considering we have a lot of indications a recession is coming, taking a bullish position on Bitcoin in the short-term is unwise at best.

  • Why the SEC will Ultimately Deny VanEck’s Third Application for a Bitcoin Spot ETF and What it Means for Digital Assets

    Late last month, August 2022, the SEC announced a 45-day delay to rule on VanEck’s third Bitcoin Spot ETF application. This comes on the heels of the SEC denying Grayscale’s GBTC – an SEC backed Bitcoin Trust – conversion to a spot ETF, as well as Bitwise Asset Management’s application for a spot ETF, on the same day in late June 2022. VanEck currently has an SEC-backed Bitcoin futures ETF, the “VanEck Bitcoin Strategy ETF” (Cboe: XBTF). Their two previous applications for a Bitcoin spot ETF were rejected first in 2017, then late in 2021. VanEck is considered somewhat of an “investment giant”, with roughly $65B currently in AUM.

    Grayscale, with roughly $20M in AUM and a digital asset manager giant themselves, a subsidiary of Digital Currency Group (DCG) – who’s also the parent company of CoinDesk – sued the SEC immediately after they rejected the GBTC’s conversion from a SEC-backed Bitcoin Trust to a SEC-backed spot ETF. A ruling from a Federal Appellate Court is expected sometime in Q4 2023 or Q1 2024.

    Why Will the SEC Reject VanEck’s Application for a Bitcoin Spot ETF a Third Time?

    A better way to phrase the question is: why wouldn’t they? Has anything dramatically changed about either the SEC’s mandates, Bitcoin, market conditions, or is VanEck’s application unique? No, for all the above. VanEck’s Bitcoin spot ETF, which they’ve proposed to list on the Cboe BZX Exchange, would still create direct Bitcoin ownership for investors who purchased it. In my opinion, the SEC’s had to issue a 45-day delay because VanEck’s argument appears to differ from Grayscale’s. VanEck isn’t relying on a futures versus spot Exchanged Traded Fund [ETF] derivative comparison. Rather, they’re urging the SEC to reconsider because investors can access Bitcoin spot ETFs through our neighbors in Canada.

    They’re not wrong. As early as February 2021, Canada became one of the first countries in the world to place a Bitcoin spot ETF on one of their national exchanges. But given that was back in February 2021, the question remains: what’s changed? It’s completely unrealistic for the SEC to admit they weren’t aware of a Bitcoin spot ETF on a Canadian exchange. Hypothetically, it would very likely give Grayscale the green light to pursue further, more substantial legal action against the SEC.

    At the time Grayscale’s GBTC was rejected, many analysts cited the heightened potential for fraud and malpractice amongst digital assets being a key reason institutional investors, who generally purchase far more spot products than futures derivatives (as part of their traditional investment strategies), should not get access to an SEC-backed Bitcoin spot ETF yet. They said digital currency exchanges needed total transparency inside their marketplaces, like the DOW and NASDAQ. While this flies in the face of many reasons investors purchase digital assets and it’s not practical, it didn’t matter. That’s what the institutional investor community who was with the SEC just two months back demanded. VanEck is not purely a digital asset manager like Grayscale and in terms of AUM, they’re over 3 times larger.

    As another interesting reference point VanEck currently has 3 CO (Commodity) ETFs. The first is XBFT (Bitcoin Strategy ETF) and the second is OUNZ (VanEck Merk Gold ETF). XBFT has $19.2M in total net assets, while OUNZ has $600.4M. Interestingly, VanEck offers 65 EFT products and only 3 fall in the Commodities Asset Class. The other 62 are split between Fixed Income (Corporate, International, & Municipal Bonds, Rates products, etc.) and Equity ETFs. VanEck’s GDX has $9.4B in total net assets, while their ITM has 1,939 holdings (September 2, 2022). The XBFT has just $19.2M in total net assets and only 8 people holding it (September 2, 2022). Of the roughly $65B VanEck has in AUM, XBFT – a Bitcoin futures ETF – represents around .002% of their investment portfolio.

    Concisely, VanEck is a bigger, more established firm that has broader appeal to institutional investors already compared to Grayscale, who owns roughly 3.5% of all of Bitcoin and is purely a digital asset manager. They have the first SEC-approved Bitcoin Trust ETF with GBTC, trading on the NASDAQ. They are doing their best to bring digital assets to institutional investors. That’s why they’ve gone all out for a Bitcoin spot ETF, whereas VanEck seems to have strategically made a push when they’ve felt they had a compelling case.

    Does the SEC’s 45-Delay Mean VanEck has a Real Chance?

    I believe it means they have a better chance, but will ultimately suffer the same fate as Grayscale and Bitwise. I don’t even think it gives them much of a better chance; only if the SEC makes an unexpected blunder. Nothing has changed about their concerns related to GBTC that would warrant VanEck’s application to get approved.

    “The Commission [SEC] finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change and the issues raised therein.”
    -SEC Spokesperson, in a letter to VanEck (August 2022)
    Tweet

    The verbiage in this quote seems to be hinting that the SEC is actually considering accepting VanEck’s argument. However, the SEC issuing a delay on a ruling isn’t exactly breaking news. They’ve shot down over a dozen attempts at a Bitcoin spot ETF in the last 12-month calendar year alone. There is no new information to indicate Bitcoin is any less susceptible to fraud – thereby posting inherent investor risk – than two months ago. The SEC is buying time in hopes of making a more compelling case regarding Bitcoin spot ETF’s in Canadian markets. What’s going to make more headlines in 45 days, the macroeconomic conditions from rising rates, inflation, and other recessionary indicators, or the SEC rejected the 15th (or so) Bitcoin spot ETF in the last year? After all, the SEC isn’t completely unaware of the current dynamics in financial markets.

    If VanEck is Ultimately Denied, What Does that Mean for Cryptocurrency?

    The overall impact is unlikely to be large, unless the SEC gets unpredictable here. Assuming they stay consistent with their rationale, this matter will go back to the DC Appellate Courts. But if you’re an institutional investor of SEC-approved Bitcoin assets, you’re not going to be majorly impacted by this. Inflation and rising interest rates? That will likely negatively impact at risk assets across the board and digital assets are certainly in that category. But the long-term ramifications for Bitcoin from this latest SEC ruling are likely to be very minimal.

    Just to end with a key point we just touched on, watch out for at risk assets considering this is very likely going to be the realest felt recession since 2008. There won’t be a major economic downturn because we’ve learned our lessons from 2008, but investors will sell off at-risk assets as soon as financial markets show signs of destabilization. Digital assets in an investor’s portfolio will be one of the first to go. Combined with the seasonality of Bitcoin slumps, expect the price to drop below 15,000 and who knows how much lower. How much lower would it take for the strongest crypto asset enthusiasts to wave the red flag? Would that ever happen? Only time will tell, but again, considering we have a lot of indications a recession is coming, taking a bullish position on Bitcoin in the short-term is unwise at best.

  • Grayscale Investments, LLC Presents: Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (GBTC), Bitcoin’s First Spot ETF?

    Amongst the latest “hot topics” in the Financial Technology (FinTech) space is a cryptocurrency product aimed at changing the receptiveness of the international investment community to cryptocurrencies. Grayscale Investments, LLC has created the GBTC (Grayscale Bitcoin Trust), in an attempt to make a cryptocurrency product more marketable to institutional investors, pension funds, and other more traditional investment vehicles. Whether this approach will work in the long-term seems to be very hotly contested at the moment, for a number of reasons.

    The Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (GBTC)

    Surprisingly – though maybe not to many in the crypto community – Grayscale largely markets the GBTC for its “robust security and storage”. You would think that as an asset manager, even a crypto asset manager, Grayscale would be more excited about presenting numbers that investors are typically hungry for. However, they lead by offering the following:

    “Grayscale Bitcoin Trust’s assets are stored in offline or “cold” storage with Coinbase Custody Trust Company, LLC, as Custodian. The Custodian is a fiduciary under § 100 of the New York Banking Law and a qualified custodian for purposes of Rule 206(4)-2(d)(6) under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended.”

    Grayscale Investments, LLC (2022)

    Additional benefits, advertised by Grayscale, to purchase the GBTC include tax-advantaged account eligibility, “titled, auditable ownership [of a crypto asset] through a traditional investment vehicle”, publicly quoted price (OTCQX®: GBTC), and support from a network of trusted providers (this is where they let you know they have hired global financial services legal tycoon Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP). Why is that relevant?

    The SEC’s Ruling on Grayscale’s Bitcoin Spot ETF

    At the top of Grayscale’s website, you’ll see a banner with a hyperlink stating, “We’ve received a decision in our application to convert GBTC to an ETF”. That’s the real storyline here. It’s not the GBTC, it’s the fact that the SEC has disallowed Grayscale to convert the GBTC into a Bitcoin spot ETF. The concise version of the SEC’s 86-page decision can be captured in the following paragraph:

    “This order disapproves the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1. The Commission concludes that NYSE Arca has not met its burden under the Exchange Act and the Commission’s Rules of Practice to demonstrate that its proposal is consistent with the requirements of Exchange Act Section 6(b)(5), which requires, in relevant part, that the rules of a national securities exchange be ‘designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices’ and ‘to protect investors and the public interest.’’’

    SEC, Release No. 34-95180; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2021-90 (July 22, 2022)

    Grayscale immediately responded by hiring former U.S. Solicitor General, Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. – best known for arguing President Obama’s ACA (Affordable Care Act) successfully before the US Supreme Court – who filed an appeal of the SEC’s ruling. Grayscale says they had no choice but to escalate the matter, given the “SEC’s arbitrary and capricious actions and discriminatory treatment of issuers”. The appeal seems to be almost exclusively relying on the argument that the SEC has allowed multiple Bitcoin futures ETFs into the marketplace. Furthermore, since their treatment of futures and spots of derivatives is generally similar, they are unjustly denying investors access to a new marketplace: Bitcoin spot ETFs. GBTC has the potential to become the first Bitcoin spot ETF to be approved by the SEC.

    A High-Level Look at GBTC’s Financials

    Below you can see some basic financials on GBTC from Grayscale’s website. They include the CUSIP (389637109), where we’ll use Bloomberg to investigate GBTC’s high-level financials.

    Source: Grayscale Investments, LLC (August 2022)

    The “Key Statistics” from Bloomberg for CUSIP 389637109 as of Tuesday August 9th, 2022 (GBTC US) are below.

    Source: Bloomberg L.P. (August 2022)

    Looking at the YTD, 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year average returns, in the context of converting this Bitcoin asset to a spot ETF, is the SEC wrong when they say Grayscale is breaking an SEC rule that “requires, in relevant part, that the rules of a national securities exchange be ‘designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices’ and ‘to protect investors and the public interest’”? In other words, is introducing a Bitcoin spot ETF into the marketplace more dangerous than a Bitcoin futures ETF?

    Bitcoin Futures ETFs vs. Bitcoin Spot ETFs

    While we’re not opining on a question that’s currently an open legal issue, perhaps understanding the difference would help. A spot Bitcoin ETF brings many (almost all) of the benefits of a futures ETF. Some include investing in Bitcoin without using an exchange, paying less in fees than on a crypto exchange, and streamlining the overall process (Moeller, Cointelegraph). However, a spot ETF invests in Bitcoin on the spot.

    With a Bitcoin spot ETF, you invest in Bitcoin at its spot price, meaning buyers will be holding Bitcoin within their portfolio. In practice, it’d be very much like buying a stock. Crypto enthusiasts view a spot ETF as a more legitimate method of investment, therefore Bitcoin would become more legitimized with a SEC-approved Bitcoin spot ETF product.

    Futures are defined as “derivative financial contracts that obligate parties to buy or sell an asset at a predetermined future date and price” (Investopedia, 2022). So, what’s the key difference? With a Bitcoin spot ETF, you have immediate ownership of Bitcoin. When you purchase a Bitcoin futures ETF, you’re effectively just betting on the market, depending on if you choose to take a long or short position. But purchasing a Bitcoin futures ETF by no means entails immediate ownership of Bitcoin as an asset. If you’re going to purchase a SEC-approved Bitcoin spot ETF in the future, as one does not exist today, it’s critical to understand you’ll immediately add Bitcoin to your asset portfolio.

    GBTC’s Primary Differentiator: Security

    That seems to circle back to Grayscale’s initial pitch of the GBTC having “robust security and storage”. The SEC appears to be making less of a comment on the GBTC than they are about Bitcoin in general. A Bitcoin spot ETF can only be rejected for the reasons given by the SEC if they felt that Bitcoin was too susceptible to “fraudulent and manipulative acts”. Through strategic marketing, Grayscale is looking to differentiate their potential Bitcoin spot ETF product as completely secure. Furthermore, they’ve had the longest and most hopeful petition to the SEC for a Bitcoin spot ETF, with initial efforts dating back to 2016 (Moeller, Cointelegraph). Over six years later, Grayscale remains just as committed to convert the GBTC to Bitcoin’s first SEC-approved spot ETF. Whether or not they’ll be successful is still very much an open question. It’s worth noting that Grayscale’s Bitcoin Trust (GBTC) is the world’s only SEC-approved, publicly traded “Bitcoin Trust”. A “Bitcoin Trust” can be very closely compared to a private-placement trust. It trades just like a stock over the counter. That existing confidence, along with potential first-mover market advantage, would certainly give Grayscale a huge reason to seek to overturn the SEC’s latest official ruling.

    For reference, if you want to investigate a few of the best-known Bitcoin futures ETFs, they include ProShares BITO Bitcoin futures ETF, Valkyrie Bitcoin Strategy ETF, and VanEck Bitcoin Strategy ETF. The ProShares BITO Bitcoin futures ETF currently holds around $1B in investments (Moeller, Cointelegraph). For a look closer at information and BITO’s financials, they’re listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: Arca). For additional information on Grayscale Investments or the GBTC, their website can be found here.

  • Grayscale Investments, LLC Presents: Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (GBTC), Bitcoin’s First Spot ETF?

    Amongst the latest “hot topics” in the Financial Technology (FinTech) space is a cryptocurrency product aimed at changing the receptiveness of the international investment community to cryptocurrencies. Grayscale Investments, LLC has created the GBTC (Grayscale Bitcoin Trust), in an attempt to make a cryptocurrency product more marketable to institutional investors, pension funds, and other more traditional investment vehicles. Whether this approach will work in the long-term seems to be very hotly contested at the moment, for a number of reasons.

    The Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (GBTC)

    Surprisingly – though maybe not to many in the crypto community – Grayscale largely markets the GBTC for its “robust security and storage”. You would think that as an asset manager, even a crypto asset manager, Grayscale would be more excited about presenting numbers that investors are typically hungry for. However, they lead by offering the following:

    “Grayscale Bitcoin Trust’s assets are stored in offline or “cold” storage with Coinbase Custody Trust Company, LLC, as Custodian. The Custodian is a fiduciary under § 100 of the New York Banking Law and a qualified custodian for purposes of Rule 206(4)-2(d)(6) under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended.”

    Grayscale Investments, LLC (2022)

    Additional benefits, advertised by Grayscale, to purchase the GBTC include tax-advantaged account eligibility, “titled, auditable ownership [of a crypto asset] through a traditional investment vehicle”, publicly quoted price (OTCQX®: GBTC), and support from a network of trusted providers (this is where they let you know they have hired global financial services legal tycoon Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP). Why is that relevant?

    The SEC’s Ruling on Grayscale’s Bitcoin Spot ETF

    At the top of Grayscale’s website, you’ll see a banner with a hyperlink stating, “We’ve received a decision in our application to convert GBTC to an ETF”. That’s the real storyline here. It’s not the GBTC, it’s the fact that the SEC has disallowed Grayscale to convert the GBTC into a Bitcoin spot ETF. The concise version of the SEC’s 86-page decision can be captured in the following paragraph:

    “This order disapproves the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1. The Commission concludes that NYSE Arca has not met its burden under the Exchange Act and the Commission’s Rules of Practice to demonstrate that its proposal is consistent with the requirements of Exchange Act Section 6(b)(5), which requires, in relevant part, that the rules of a national securities exchange be ‘designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices’ and ‘to protect investors and the public interest.’’’

    SEC, Release No. 34-95180; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2021-90 (July 22, 2022)

    Grayscale immediately responded by hiring former U.S. Solicitor General, Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. – best known for arguing President Obama’s ACA (Affordable Care Act) successfully before the US Supreme Court – who filed an appeal of the SEC’s ruling. Grayscale says they had no choice but to escalate the matter, given the “SEC’s arbitrary and capricious actions and discriminatory treatment of issuers”. The appeal seems to be almost exclusively relying on the argument that the SEC has allowed multiple Bitcoin futures ETFs into the marketplace. Furthermore, since their treatment of futures and spots of derivatives is generally similar, they are unjustly denying investors access to a new marketplace: Bitcoin spot ETFs. GBTC has the potential to become the first Bitcoin spot ETF to be approved by the SEC.

    A High-Level Look at GBTC’s Financials

    Below you can see some basic financials on GBTC from Grayscale’s website. They include the CUSIP (389637109), where we’ll use Bloomberg to investigate GBTC’s high-level financials.

    Source: Grayscale Investments, LLC (August 2022)

    The “Key Statistics” from Bloomberg for CUSIP 389637109 as of Tuesday August 9th, 2022 (GBTC US) are below.

    Source: Bloomberg L.P. (August 2022)

    Looking at the YTD, 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year average returns, in the context of converting this Bitcoin asset to a spot ETF, is the SEC wrong when they say Grayscale is breaking an SEC rule that “requires, in relevant part, that the rules of a national securities exchange be ‘designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices’ and ‘to protect investors and the public interest’”? In other words, is introducing a Bitcoin spot ETF into the marketplace more dangerous than a Bitcoin futures ETF?

    Bitcoin Futures ETFs vs. Bitcoin Spot ETFs

    While we’re not opining on a question that’s currently an open legal issue, perhaps understanding the difference would help. A spot Bitcoin ETF brings many (almost all) of the benefits of a futures ETF. Some include investing in Bitcoin without using an exchange, paying less in fees than on a crypto exchange, and streamlining the overall process (Moeller, Cointelegraph). However, a spot ETF invests in Bitcoin on the spot.

    With a Bitcoin spot ETF, you invest in Bitcoin at its spot price, meaning buyers will be holding Bitcoin within their portfolio. In practice, it’d be very much like buying a stock. Crypto enthusiasts view a spot ETF as a more legitimate method of investment, therefore Bitcoin would become more legitimized with a SEC-approved Bitcoin spot ETF product.

    Futures are defined as “derivative financial contracts that obligate parties to buy or sell an asset at a predetermined future date and price” (Investopedia, 2022). So, what’s the key difference? With a Bitcoin spot ETF, you have immediate ownership of Bitcoin. When you purchase a Bitcoin futures ETF, you’re effectively just betting on the market, depending on if you choose to take a long or short position. But purchasing a Bitcoin futures ETF by no means entails immediate ownership of Bitcoin as an asset. If you’re going to purchase a SEC-approved Bitcoin spot ETF in the future, as one does not exist today, it’s critical to understand you’ll immediately add Bitcoin to your asset portfolio.

    GBTC’s Primary Differentiator: Security

    That seems to circle back to Grayscale’s initial pitch of the GBTC having “robust security and storage”. The SEC appears to be making less of a comment on the GBTC than they are about Bitcoin in general. A Bitcoin spot ETF can only be rejected for the reasons given by the SEC if they felt that Bitcoin was too susceptible to “fraudulent and manipulative acts”. Through strategic marketing, Grayscale is looking to differentiate their potential Bitcoin spot ETF product as completely secure. Furthermore, they’ve had the longest and most hopeful petition to the SEC for a Bitcoin spot ETF, with initial efforts dating back to 2016 (Moeller, Cointelegraph). Over six years later, Grayscale remains just as committed to convert the GBTC to Bitcoin’s first SEC-approved spot ETF. Whether or not they’ll be successful is still very much an open question. It’s worth noting that Grayscale’s Bitcoin Trust (GBTC) is the world’s only SEC-approved, publicly traded “Bitcoin Trust”. A “Bitcoin Trust” can be very closely compared to a private-placement trust. It trades just like a stock over the counter. That existing confidence, along with potential first-mover market advantage, would certainly give Grayscale a huge reason to seek to overturn the SEC’s latest official ruling.

    For reference, if you want to investigate a few of the best-known Bitcoin futures ETFs, they include ProShares BITO Bitcoin futures ETF, Valkyrie Bitcoin Strategy ETF, and VanEck Bitcoin Strategy ETF. The ProShares BITO Bitcoin futures ETF currently holds around $1B in investments (Moeller, Cointelegraph). For a look closer at information and BITO’s financials, they’re listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: Arca). For additional information on Grayscale Investments or the GBTC, their website can be found here.

  • What is a Tri-Party Repo (TREPS)and How Did the Market Operate?

    What is a Tri-Party Repo (TREPS)and How Did the Market Operate?

    The simplest way to understand a tri-party repo (TREPS) is to think of it as a simple repurchase agreement between two parties, where a third-party – historically a very large and reputable bank (only JPM Chase or BNY Mellon, during the time these transactions were widely common) – processes administrative work and even guarantees the cash provided by Company A to Company B and the collateral Company B secures the cash from Company A with. These third parties, commonly referred to as clearing banks, also performed valuation services to ensure the collateral put up by Company B was within the approximate fair market value of the cash lent by Company A.

    Tri-Party Repos in the Derivative Era

    These transactions actually became popular at the “boom” of the derivative trading era – even though they had a comparatively low-yield percentage for both companies – mainly because of mechanics of how these transactions occurred. They were typically cleared and settled overnight, so the investment banker would have the cash available in the morning when the trading day began. The “unwinding” process of this repo would also happen after the trading day was complete; the dealer (Company B) would finance the broker (Company A) with cash and the third-party clearing bank would take care of the rest for a small fee.

    To be clear, the responsibilities of the clearing banks weren’t minuscule, they were tasked with: taking custody of the securities involved in the repo, valuing the securities and making sure that the specified margin is applied, settling the transaction on their books, and offer services to help dealers optimize the use of their collateral. However as mentioned, to give dealers access to their securities during the day, the clearing banks settle all repos very early each day, returning cash to cash investors and collateral to dealers. This would lead to a delay in real-time settlement, therefore in reality the clearing banks wind up extending hundreds of billions of intraday credit to the dealers until new repos are settled in the evening.

    Role in 2008 Financial Crisis

    It’s argued by many to have played an underscored role in the 2008 US Financial Crisis, primarily because between 2007-2009 these repurchase agreements became a common daily routine for almost all of the largest brokers and dealers in the world. This was for several logical reasons. Firstly, it made sense for securities brokers to engage in because they have access to cash immediately, the second the daily trading day begins.

    It equally makes sense for dealers. They are receiving a profit from lending cash and they have the comfort of knowing their cash is backed by collateral that was signed off on by either JPMC or BNYM. Finally, it makes sense for the clearing bank to use their economies of scale and human resources to make a couple percentage points. At the time this was thought to be routine administrative clearing bank procedure. However, it turned out to be a much bigger nightmare than ever imagined.

    The nightmare catch is best described by the following scenario. Contemplate what happens if you have a very large and highly levered broker, like Bear Sterns as the famous example. You then encounter a situation where financial markets they have heavy exposure in drop sharply. The collateral a broker like Bear Sterns would put up would be in the form of a portfolio of securities. They wouldn’t contribute any physical assets, or guaranteed/risk-less investments (like T-Notes).

    Where Systemic Financial Fragility and Potential Crisis Begins

    Now you have a situation where the dealer (Company B) may not feel as comfortable providing liquid cash financing to Bear Sterns anymore. Then you essentially have the clearing bank – JPM Chase or BNY Mellon – incurring the loss because the process was done so hastily. They almost certainly never took the time to deeply look into whether the collateral put up by Bear Sterns was equal in liquid valuation to the cash provided by their various dealers (who by the way would usually be institutions like secondary education private schools, or institutions in a medical (or other) field with a surplus of cash), so the settlement process only occurred on paper for them.

    When things went south, even though the clearing banks do not match dealers with cash investors. Nor do they play the role of broker in that market. They had to settle disproportionately valued securities with the most liquid form of financial currency: cash. Looking at Bear Sterns, they would’ve used dozens of cash lenders to diversify. Even more so the clearing banks would be incentivized to not look too closely at their spotted collateral. Picture what happens if you have Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley incurring the same scenarios. The same day, as well. Of course Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are two of the most prestigious investment banks in the world. Likely not enough of their total portfolio was invested in the tri-party repo market to cause them to fail.

    Conclusion

    However when that market did ultimately fail, things went that route for Lehman and Bear Sterns. Concisely, while on the surface a tri-party repo is a simple repurchase agreement where a third party provides administrative surfaces at a small fee for the two companies engaged in the repo, understanding the mechanics of it are invaluable to appreciating how some financial markets collapsed so rapidly in late 2008.

  • What is a Tri-Party Repo (TREPS)and How Did the Market Operate?

    What is a Tri-Party Repo (TREPS)and How Did the Market Operate?

    The simplest way to understand a tri-party repo (TREPS) is to think of it as a simple repurchase agreement between two parties, where a third-party – historically a very large and reputable bank (only JPM Chase or BNY Mellon, during the time these transactions were widely common) – processes administrative work and even guarantees the cash provided by Company A to Company B and the collateral Company B secures the cash from Company A with. These third parties, commonly referred to as clearing banks, also performed valuation services to ensure the collateral put up by Company B was within the approximate fair market value of the cash lent by Company A.

    Tri-Party Repos in the Derivative Era

    These transactions actually became popular at the “boom” of the derivative trading era – even though they had a comparatively low-yield percentage for both companies – mainly because of mechanics of how these transactions occurred. They were typically cleared and settled overnight, so the investment banker would have the cash available in the morning when the trading day began. The “unwinding” process of this repo would also happen after the trading day was complete; the dealer (Company B) would finance the broker (Company A) with cash and the third-party clearing bank would take care of the rest for a small fee.

    To be clear, the responsibilities of the clearing banks weren’t minuscule, they were tasked with: taking custody of the securities involved in the repo, valuing the securities and making sure that the specified margin is applied, settling the transaction on their books, and offer services to help dealers optimize the use of their collateral. However as mentioned, to give dealers access to their securities during the day, the clearing banks settle all repos very early each day, returning cash to cash investors and collateral to dealers. This would lead to a delay in real-time settlement, therefore in reality the clearing banks wind up extending hundreds of billions of intraday credit to the dealers until new repos are settled in the evening.

    Role in 2008 Financial Crisis

    It’s argued by many to have played an underscored role in the 2008 US Financial Crisis, primarily because between 2007-2009 these repurchase agreements became a common daily routine for almost all of the largest brokers and dealers in the world. This was for several logical reasons. Firstly, it made sense for securities brokers to engage in because they have access to cash immediately, the second the daily trading day begins.

    It equally makes sense for dealers. They are receiving a profit from lending cash and they have the comfort of knowing their cash is backed by collateral that was signed off on by either JPMC or BNYM. Finally, it makes sense for the clearing bank to use their economies of scale and human resources to make a couple percentage points. At the time this was thought to be routine administrative clearing bank procedure. However, it turned out to be a much bigger nightmare than ever imagined.

    The nightmare catch is best described by the following scenario. Contemplate what happens if you have a very large and highly levered broker, like Bear Sterns as the famous example. You then encounter a situation where financial markets they have heavy exposure in drop sharply. The collateral a broker like Bear Sterns would put up would be in the form of a portfolio of securities. They wouldn’t contribute any physical assets, or guaranteed/risk-less investments (like T-Notes).

    Where Systemic Financial Fragility and Potential Crisis Begins

    Now you have a situation where the dealer (Company B) may not feel as comfortable providing liquid cash financing to Bear Sterns anymore. Then you essentially have the clearing bank – JPM Chase or BNY Mellon – incurring the loss because the process was done so hastily. They almost certainly never took the time to deeply look into whether the collateral put up by Bear Sterns was equal in liquid valuation to the cash provided by their various dealers (who by the way would usually be institutions like secondary education private schools, or institutions in a medical (or other) field with a surplus of cash), so the settlement process only occurred on paper for them.

    When things went south, even though the clearing banks do not match dealers with cash investors. Nor do they play the role of broker in that market. They had to settle disproportionately valued securities with the most liquid form of financial currency: cash. Looking at Bear Sterns, they would’ve used dozens of cash lenders to diversify. Even more so the clearing banks would be incentivized to not look too closely at their spotted collateral. Picture what happens if you have Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley incurring the same scenarios. The same day, as well. Of course Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are two of the most prestigious investment banks in the world. Likely not enough of their total portfolio was invested in the tri-party repo market to cause them to fail.

    Conclusion

    However when that market did ultimately fail, things went that route for Lehman and Bear Sterns. Concisely, while on the surface a tri-party repo is a simple repurchase agreement where a third party provides administrative surfaces at a small fee for the two companies engaged in the repo, understanding the mechanics of it are invaluable to appreciating how some financial markets collapsed so rapidly in late 2008.