Tesla, Its Techno-king, and Bitcoin

But Before You Do
Make Sure They Really Are An Expert

You will probably have seen by now that Tesla’s “Techno-king” announced that Tesla would not accept Bitcoin to purchase its cars.

It was, as I envision it, an almost a Biblical moment – a modern Saul on the road to Tarsus struck by the realization that Bitcoin was very energy intensive and thus not good for the climate.

This scenario does raise one question in my mind.

Tesla’s Technoking is a widely acknowledged genius.

Whether he is smarter than Bill Gates is I understand a matter of serious and furious debate in many quarters.

Given that, I am perplexed as to how this simple fact eluded him?

Saul’s conversion was occasioned we are told by a blinding light and the voice of Jesus.

Pretty darn hard to ignore.

Perhaps, Tesla’s Techo-king had a similar experience.  

The blinding light an exploding battery? 

The voice that of Bill Gates? In which case the debate referred to above may have been conclusively resolved.

Some but certainly not I might suspect that Mr. Musk has been having a bit of fun with the gullible out there.

Talking up Dogecoin one day, driving up the price.

Then calling it a "hustle", and driving down the price on another day.

The same with Bitcoin.

Hard to tell, but I doubt it.

What we can do is look at Tesla’s conditions for the use of Bitcoin for the purchase ot its vehicles for greater insight into its core beliefs.

Veritas may often be in vino.

But it is demonstrated more often and concretely in matters financial.

The T&C were posted on Tesla’s website, but have been removed.

Presumably, in line with the most recent decision on Bitcoin.

We can turn to electrek for what they claim are the original T&C.

Here’s the “bit” about refunds.

I’ve highlighted the pertinent text in red.

If you are entitled to a refund of your payment or to a buyback, we reserve the right to refund to you either the exact Bitcoin Price that you provided to us at the time of purchase or an amount of US Dollars that is equivalent to the US Dollar price of the product that you purchased, at our sole and absolute discretion, taking into consideration operational efficiency. The same applies to all fees and incidental costs to which you are entitled. THE PRICE OF BITCOIN CAN BE VOLATILE AND THE VALUE OF BITCOIN RELATIVE TO US DOLLARS MAY DECREASE OR INCREASE BETWEEN THE TIME THAT YOU MAKE YOUR PURCHASE AND THE TIME THAT WE PROVIDE A REFUND OR BUYBACK. IF WE REFUND YOU IN BITCOIN, THE VALUE OF SUCH AMOUNT OF BITCOIN RELATIVE TO US DOLLARS MIGHT BE SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THAN THE VALUE OF SUCH AMOUNT OF BITCOIN RELATIVE TO US DOLLARS AT THE TIME OF YOUR PURCHASE. IF WE REFUND YOU IN US DOLLARS, THE US DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT WE PROVIDE TO YOU AS A REFUND MIGHT BE SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THAN THE CURRENT US DOLLAR MARKET VALUE OF THE AMOUNT OF BITCOIN IN WHICH YOU MADE YOUR PAYMENT. YOU ASSUME THE RISK OF BITCOIN PRICE. DEPRECIATION AND APPRECIATION AND WILL HAVE NO RIGHT TO SELECT THE METHOD OF REFUND. YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO RECEIVE ANY APPRECIATION ON THE VALUE OF THE BITCOIN THAT YOU PROVIDED TO US AS PAYMENT IN CONNECTION WITH A REFUND OR BUYBACK.

Clearly, despite its once stated belief in Bitcoin—which we can presume was or should have been operative at the time the above was written--, Tesla was unwilling to accept a potential decline in the US dollar value of Bitcoin. But was glad to accept an increase in its value.

If Bitcoin is the righteous alternative to evil fiat currencies, then why would one measure one’s profit or loss in such (fiat) currencies?

And more importantly seek to retain that fiat currency profit?

Hard to square that circle, except perhaps to note that there are many "hustles" and "hustlers" out there.

But then I am neither a Master of Coin nor a Techoking.

That being said, it’s not untypical for an investor in debt or equity to look to keep the upside and shift off the downside to some “sucker”. 

There are No Second Acts in American Lives, Aber in Deutschland Gibt Es (Teil 1)

 In den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika

In der Bundesrepublik Deutschland

In der Carnaby Straße

Berlin Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Fourplay 101 Eastbound

 

Sejong Cultural Centre, Seoul, ROK

16 January 2005

Nathan East, Bass Guitar

Larry Cartlon, Guitar

Bob James, Keyboard

Harvey Mason, Drums

Colonial Pipeline: Why Do Cyber Attacks Keep Succeeding? Answer in Picture Below

 

The news media is full of reports on the Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack. 

This isn't the first case of cybersecurity failure by a business. 

Sadly it's not likely to be the last until something is done.

Why do events like this happen?

The simple answer is that companies fail to take the necessary steps to protect critical infrastructure despite warnings.

Here’s a February 2020 alert from the US’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to pipeline operators.

That warning describes:

1. the nature of the attack, tools used -- apparently an “off the rack” hacking program

2. the results of the attack

3. 19 mitigation steps -- many of which are "common sense" 

The unnamed company in this case, did not think that its BCP need include cybersecurity.

If you look at the attack results, you’ll see that the vulnerability was Microsoft software.

As my elder and wiser brother has remarked more times than I care to hear:

There is no need to worry about “microchips” in medicines. Microsoft has never developed a product that works flawlessly.

If you look at the CISA alert for Colonial Pipeline, guess what you will find?

Significant repetition from the alert above given some 15 months earlier.

And as above a lot of these recommended steps seem fairly easy to implement.

So what causes the failure to prepare?

Management and organization incompetence is no doubt responsible in some cases.

But on its website, Colonial Pipeline states that it is “Committed to Excellence”.

It is a private company reportedly owned by Shell, Koch Industries, KKR with a Korean pension fund, and several other pension funds and financial firms.

You would expect that it has first class management.

And the financial, technical, and human resources to take appropriate measures. 

It was quite a profitable enterprise based on its 1Q2019 financials.

It has demonstrated security “awareness” in other areas.

CP’s website has a “captcha gate" to keep out undesirables. I was, however, allowed entrance after performing a few Turing tests.

I don’t know whether this is a new feature installed after the ransomware attack (closing the proverbial barn door) or has been there for a long time.

Even stricter is the security for access to investor information.

You have to submit a request to CP’s Investor Relations Department with personal details and a justification of your need to know.

And they note they just might refuse your request!

Talk about cybersecurity! 

At least with respect to financial and corporate information.

Because the ransomware attack was successful, one might infer that similar security measures were not in place to protect pipeline operations.

Improving cybersecurity requires expenditure.

Sometimes management are unwilling to spend the money.

So what is to be done?

Repeated failures in cybersecurity suggest that faith in companies properly managing their affairs is more often than not misplaced.

As well, the invisible hand of the market appears to not only be invisible but also consistently absent in these cases. 

If Hometown Deli in New Jersey is shut down by a cyber attack, it’s one thing.

If a major pipeline is shut down, it’s another.

In one case it causes inconvenience. 

In the other it harms national security.

In the latter case -- a failure of the market -- the prudent approach is strict regulation along with substantial fines and other penalties.

If a critical infrastructure company cannot figure out on its own that cybersecurity is critical,  a statute will make it a requirement and penalize a company financially and otherwise, e.g, revoke its license to operate critical infrastructure, if it fails to develop and implement one.

Related post here.

Market Commentary: Manifest Absurdity

 

Greensill

Today’s FT reported on Lex Greensill’s testimony to Parliament’s “Treasury Committee” as follows:

He insisted that his company’s lending was supported by real assets, although he admitted that up to 20 per cent of the group’s lending last year was based on “future receivables”.

If you’re like me, you probably had to stifle a guffaw on the conflation of “future receivables” with “real assets”.

But if you think a bit more, perhaps in the current environment it’s not so far fetched.

Even sober financial analysts and commentators, including some at the FT, have identified crypto currencies as a new “investable asset class”.

In terms of “real assets” are future receivables any less real than Bitcoin, Dogecoin, or their like? 

I think not.

If that isn’t a sign of irrational exuberance, I’m not sure if there is any sign.

Fairness impels me--note the choice of that verb—to mention that today Jemima Kelly did opine in those very same salmon-colored pages that crypto currencies were a “joke” and shouldn’t be taken “seriously”.

Ark Innovation – Springs a Leak

The FT reported that Ark had lost one-third of its value since its February “high”.

I’d make the same comment I did regarding Tesla’s loss of value.

More accurately, the price is down by one-third.

Value is intrinsic. Price is a market phenomenon.

Also a shout out to Lex, for noting that:

Data from Morningstar illustrate the pitfalls. More than two-thirds of thematic funds outperformed the broad MSCI ACWI index in the year to end March. But go back five years and that drops to below a third. One-fifth of thematic funds did not even survive. Over a decade, just 4 per cent outperformed. As themes go, this one does not inspire much confidence.

Middle Eastern Democracy – Kurdistan Style

Today’s FT “Long Read”--as its actual length discloses it is apparently designed for those with ADD--discussed authoritarianism in Kurdistan.

Not only was I was surprised and deeply shocked to learn that Jeffersonian democracy was not flourishing in Kurdistan. 

But also that corruption was rampant indeed.

Who would ever have thought?

As pointed out in the article, much of the silence on these two topics has to do with geopolitical “considerations”.

So much for making the world safe for democracy or fighting corruption.

At least I suppose one can take comfort that no one has proposed Kuridstan for NATO membership. 

 At least not yet!

“Muddy Waters” on Actual versus Nominal Losses

 

Often there is confusion in media reports on losses

So today I’m here with Muddy Waters to set the record straight.

Manufactured returns can overstate the actual loss investors have incurred.

Early reports were that investors in BLMIS (Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, LLC) potentially lost some US$ 65 billion based on the nominal value of their accounts.

Similarly, Wirecard was reported to have “lost” some Euros 1.9 billion in deposits.

In both cases, a lot of the initial speculation focused on alleged theft of the amounts.

But in both cases, the losses were overstated by the amount of manufactured returns.

In the case of Madoff, roughly US$ 19 billion df the US$65 billion was the original investment amount.

The rest US$ 46 billion was fictitious “profit”.

In the case of Wirecard, the Euros 1.9 billion in deposits arose because income was “fiddled” to a corresponding amount.

As Professor Waters (above) has rightly said:

Well, you know, you can't spend what you ain't got

You can't lose what you ain't never had

That doesn’t mean that investors in Madoff’s funds did not have a real loss.

Their loss was opportunity cost of not earning a return on their original investment.

No doubt lower than the US$ 46 billion, but still significant.

Adding insult to injury, the courts ruled that any Madoff investor who received a profit distribution (any amount in excess of the investor’s original investment) had to return it because it was “fictitious”. 

Here’s the US Court of Appeals Second District’s decision.

The US Supreme Court refused to hear the defendants’ appeal on 3 May 2020 (20-1382).

At stake was US$ 41 million.

You are capable of doing the math.

Not many of BLMIS “wise” investors were withdrawing their “profits”.

For Wirecard, the losses were to those lenders and stock investors that extended credit or bought Wirecard stock based on manufactured earnings. 

Unlike the BLMIS investors, the Wirecard "punters" are going to lose a much greater percentage of their original investment.