Wednesday, 21 August 2019

A Analysis

 If you haven't heard, we're giving out free, fully smart contracts as a 5% rebate to anyone who purchases any of our research packages above the introductory novice $50 level. This is not your Daddy's rebate! The rebate actually gets larger as DB goes down in price. For those who may be coming late to the party, we can offer a 5x long gold (or even a long gold, short DB) smart contract rebate as well. Of course, the bulk of our research targets banks and entities other than DB, but I thought we'd make DB the subject of the rebate to drive the point home. Below is an actual contract crafted off of the price of a single share of DB for about 2 weeks.

Veritaseum 5x Short DB Smart Contract

Click here to explore and subscribe to our research. You will have to be willing to fully identify yourself and comply to the terms or our program (in essence, promise not to use the package for anything other than our rebate) in order to qualify for the rebate. Once the subsciption is paid for, email us to get started.

Oh yeah, if you haven't heard...

An Analysis of Deutsche Bank's Likely Recapitalization - German Tax Payer Bailout or German Bank Depositor Bail-in?

Deutsche Bank is going to need some money, and it's going to need some quite soon. The next two or three articles that I write will focus on why there is such a need. In a concerted effort to reduce or potentially eliminated the risk of taxpayer-funded bail-outs of European banks, the EU implemented a new “bail-in” regime beginning on January 1, 2016. As such, rules which require banks and certain systemically significant market participants in EU member states will have to write-down, cancel, convert into equity or otherwise modify certain unsecured liabilities if such steps are required to recapitalize the institution. What is the most bountiful unsecured liabilities of a bank? Read more...

 

Our next article will continue to hammer home the liklhood that DB will have to recapitalize, and where they probably WONT'T be getting the money from, as well as the likelihood it will come from someone who really didn't plan on giving it up (Ahem, depositors/savers/checking account holders). For those who are not yet convinced, peruse these related items...

The research and knowledge subscription module "European Bank Contagion Assessment, Forensic Analysis & Valuation" contains a full report of a very large European Deutsche Bank counterparty that faces a full 27% downside from current levels. It appears as if no one suspects a clue. It also contains much, much more (including at least 3 to 5 suspect banks). We can break this apart a la carte, if requested.

As excerpted:

Susceptible Bank 1: Financial Modeling

 

During the financial crisis of 2008, money market funds who subjectively agreed to hold their NAV (net asset value) unit prices at $1 “broke the buck”. That is, the unit of share of the fund fell below $1 (the $62.5 billion Reserve Fund, to be specific, one of only two funds to “break the buck”), which was a significant problem for the investors who used (and considered) said money market funds as cash in the bank. All of a sudden, everyone’s cash account at the Reserve Fund just dipped in value. Uh Oh! This caused short term credit to literally freeze, worldwide, because others were concerned that their bank-like security and liquidity was no longer that secure nor liquid.

Regulators stepped in to make sure this didn’t happen again by demanding that all money funds who do not invest in sovereign securities (those entities who “should” be able to print their own monies, but we’ll get into that in a later post) allow their NAV to freely float with market prices.

The result? Money flew out of prime money funds into perceived safer vehicles.

Demand for government short term paper has increased (to the tune of hundreds of billion of dollars).

 

... and demand for private commercial paper, ie. banks, have dropped by a similar amount, materially driving costs - materially, as in doubling it!

What does this mean?

No, this is not a punishment. This is actually a good thing, for it forces money to have an appropriately derived price tag attached to it. Risky banks were being funded at the same risk rate as (less risky) sovereign governments. That didn’t make sense. Now the system makes more sense, and banks should be repriced according to their access to, and true cost of, capital. The true cost of capital means that banks can no longer hide behind fake LIBOR quotes to conceal their deteriorating credit metrics. Reference Wikipedia:

The Libor scandal was a series of fraudulent actions connected to the Libor (London Interbank Offered Rate) and also the resulting investigation and reaction. The Libor is an average interest rate calculated through submissions of interest rates by major banks across the world. The scandal arose when it was discovered that banks were falsely inflating or deflating their rates so as to profit from trades, or to give the impression that they were more creditworthy than they were.[3] Libor underpins approximately $350 trillion in derivatives. It is currently administered by NYSE Euronext, which took over running the Libor in January 2014.[4]

Look at what happened to LIBOR consistently after NYSE Euronext took over adminstration. Those spikes that you see previous to that takeover stem from the European sovereign debt crisis. Those numbers had been faked! No telling what the true level of stress really was. Well, this time around we may get to find out. To put this into perspective, the global money market industry is $2.6 trillion in assets. Deutsche Bank’s (a bank that is in trouble) balance sheet is almost $2 trillion dollars. JP Morgan’s balance sheet is $2.4 trillion dollars. Both of these banks have been shrinking their balance sheets.

As excerpted from Bloomberg:

With a seismic overhaul of the $2.6 trillion money-market industry weeks away from kicking in, money managers are bracing for a last-minute exodus of as much as $300 billion from funds in regulators’ cross hairs.

Prime funds, which seek higher yields by buying securities like commercial paper, are at the center of the upheaval. Their assets have already plunged by almost $700 billion since the start of 2015, to $789 billion, Investment Company Institute data show. The outflow has rippled across financial markets, shattering demand for banks’ and other companies’ short-term debt and raising their funding costs.

Interestingly enough, and as is par for the course, we see things differently from the Street, as also excerpted:

Financial firms paying higher rates to attract investors to their IOUs will push three-month Libor to about 0.95 percent by the end of September, according to JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Click here to read more about rising Libor rates.

Although bank funding costs are rising, it isn’t a signal of financial strain as in 2008, said Jerome Schneider, head of short-term portfolio management at Newport Beach, California-based Pacific Investment Management Co., which oversees about $1.5 trillion.

“This is not a credit stress event, it’s a credit repricing due to systemic and structural changes,” he said.

He’s right. It’s not a credit stress event… yet! But, the credit repricing will force a reality and discipline on an industry accustomed to near zero and negative interest rates that it is ill-fitted to handle, and thus in due time, it will likely provide at least a partial impetus for… “a credit stress event”.

NiM (net interest margin - the profit from actual old school banking businesses, ie. lending) is still quite sparse in banks. So, revenue is slim, but expenses to access said capital to conduct business are going up. That's never a good sign. Worse yet, the Fed has signalled it will, yet again, hold off on an interest rate increase - As I have been telling you since December of 2014.

The issue is, the Fed does not truly control the market, it simply manipulates it to the best of its ability. When it's ready, the market will raise rates on its own. Reference where short term rates are trending now, likely as reflection of the Fed not raising rates.

This is particularly true for the European banks...

Our next post will describe how well Deutsche Bank is prepared for such an event. Stay tuned, and if you have not already done so, subscribe to our long/short, macro and educational research (including blockchain tech) - see Corporate Valuation & Equity Research.

We have a brand new DB report out today, reference Derivative Risk Exposure of Major Banks to Deutsche Bank.

This is the 4th installment of our public service announcements on Deutsche Bank subsidiary, Xetra-Gold's gold note offerings. Since a lot has been covered already, it's advisable that you read the first 3 articles to catch up:

  1. Veritaseum Knowledge Exposes Frightening Counterparty Risk At Deutsche Bank for "Gold Investors"
  2. Is Deutsche Bank Prepping for Fraud Charges Against It's Gold Derivative Products?
  3. The Debate on the Potential of Fraudulent Actions At Deutsche Bank Subsidiary, Xetra-Gold

Now, that we have determined that Deutsche Bank subsidiary Xetra-Gold "may" not have been fraudulent, mainly because they stated in their prospectus things that contradict and befuddle the misleading things they stated in their marketing material, we are left to ponder, "Well, we know the offering was unethical, but was it illegal?" Unfortunately, I'm not a lawyer thus cannot accurately opine on such. Alas, I can speculate as a laymen. The Xetra-Gold derivatives were offered in the UK, as well as several other jurisdictions. Let's peruse the UK perspective via the FCA in the difference between clear and misleading financial advertising:

"Financial adverts and promotions can be misleading for many reasons, but there are some questions you can consider to help you spot and avoid misleading financial adverts, such as: ... Are there important points that are only shown in the small print?"

Hmm... Let's take a look at the Xetra-Gold advertisement, and cross reference it to it's prospectus:

DB Xetra-Gold false advertising test

You guys tell me, is this a blatant case of false advertising, or is it not? Let me know in the comment section below. It's not as if DB is totally innocent in these matters, for they just signed a consent order admitting the manipulation of gold prices. This goes deeper than many may care to admit. Deutsche bank seems to be dumping its gold exposure, and what better way to dump it than to sell it unsuspecting gold derivative note buyers. This is how it could be going down...

Deutsche Bank, through it's Xetra-Gold subsidiary, has a guaranteed, zero premium call option.

  1. DB/Xetra-Gold accepts money from investors who are told they are buying gold, from “an economic perspective”.
  2. DB/Xetra-Gold takes money that was supposed to buy gold (at least in the eyes of many investors) and does whatever they want with it (which could include buying gold) because gold delivery on demand is not guaranteed and the investors have been disclaimed against ownership of, and rights to, the gold underlying as well as price correlation, and failure to deliver.
  3. If the price of gold goes up, DB/Xetra-Gold can fail to deliver (as disclaimed) and keep the capital gains profits. They don't even have to match the price of the gold underlying. or return the initial investment.
  4. If the price of gold goes down, DB can deliver gold on demand and keep the spread from gold spot and the price originally charged for the gold notes.

This is good work, if you can get it, no? 

This is how a company like DB can have over 90% in profitable trading days, because they never had a chance of losing in the first place. The losses belong to their clients! This is speculation, of course (wink, wink). Now, legal eagles say that we can't scream fraud, because Deutsche clearly says they have the motivation to, and the ability to, rip you off in their prospectus (but not in their marketing materials).

DB

Which leads us to the end of "The Debate on the Potential of Fraudulent Actions At Deutsche Bank Subsidiary, Xetra-Gold", where John Titus (see his videos at the end of this article at the bottom) explained to me after I queried about misleading and contradictory marketing materials:

I asked, "If marketing materials are negatively contradicted by the prospectus then the marketing materials are fraudulent and misrepresentative, no?" He replied...

Misrepresentative, yes (accepting your definition of economic), and the marketing materials probably do in fact flout any number of laws against false advertising.
 
But fraudulent, no. The essence of fraud is to falsely induce someone by words or acts into doing something against his interests that he wouldn't have done but for the dishonesty. Courts consider the totality of the circumstances. So while you would undoubtedly tear the economic investment statement to shreds, you'd still be left with the many other statements from the prospectus that are true, and herein lies the problem.
 
The UK Fraud Act of 2006 is a criminal statute. So each element of the crime has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt (or whatever the English equivalent burden of proof is). The first element of fraud by false representation under the Act is "dishonestly makes a false representation." The problem posed by the prospectus is that it would preclude a finding that DB acted dishonestly beyond a reasonable doubt. I mean, you've got one false (but arguably vague) statement vs. several clear-cut disclaimers that are accurate. The totality of the statements are perhaps half false and half true, but dishonest beyond a reasonable doubt? Fuhgetaboutit. DB played the game with all of its cards face up. Yeah, they contradicted each other, but they were damn sure visible to investors, who can claim they were misled only in a subjective (personal) sense, not in an objective way (which is how a judge would look at it).
 
Now, if--in addition to the mktg mat's and the prospectus--you've got some Goldman-like behavior where DB took out massive insurance policies on the investments it sold and concealed them from the buyer, it's a totally different story."

Hmmm... On that note, let's take a look at whether DB has been a net buyer or net seller of gold exposure. Remember, Goldman, sold MBS structures to clients and then took big short positions betting against their own clients, reference "Goldman 'bet against securities it sold to clients'.

The subcommittee also released four internal Goldman Sachs emails. In one, says a subcommittee statement: "Goldman employees discussed the ups and downs of securities that were underwritten and sold by Goldman and tied to mortgages issued by Washington Mutual Bank's sub-prime lender, Long Beach Mortgage Company. Reporting the 'wipe-out' of one Long Beach security and the 'imminent' collapse of another as 'bad news' that would cost the firm $2.5m, a Goldman Sachs employee then reported the 'good news' – that the failure would bring the firm $5m from a bet it had placed against the very securities it had assembled and sold."

Goldman is fighting to clear its name after the $1bn fraud charges brought by the US Securities and Exchange Commission last week, and wants the case settled in court.

The movie, "The Big Short" dramatized this rather well.

Well, guess what it looks like Deustche has been doing...

DB gold exposure expressed as VaRDeustche has been a net seller of foreign exchange risk, which includes (wait for it now, and guess....) gold! They probably were not cash sellers, but purchased swaps to reduce exposure, possibly along the parameters I mentioned above with the guaranteed, zero premium call option.

If you enjoy this free analysis, there's much more where this came from as we pick apart many other banks in our paid research and knowledge modules. WE just finished a true forensic valuation (very extensive, and detailed analysis) of a very large European bank that led to a huge short recommendation. Subscribe here and pass the word. Our bank analyses have performed very well in 2016, with Banco Popular and Banco Popular Milano doing roughly 40% to 80% in theoretical returns (contingent on how the positions were taken). We have done an excellent job historically as well, calling the fall of Bear Stearns, Lehman, Countrywide, GGP, etc. If you think the free stuff is intense, you should see the stuff that we sell!

We have forensically picked apart Deutsche Bank in a way that no other entity ever has, likely including Deutsche Bank itself. While we may not know all of its secrets, we likely now know more than almost everybody else. We will publish our findings to Veritaseum Knowledge clients early this week, but in the meantime we will put little teasers out to the public for the sake of conversation. "Why?", you may ask. Well, everybody already knows that Deutsche Bank is a basket case, but we are showing our clients that the real short opportunities and true systemic risks lie within DB's counterparties, whom have identified and are in the process of putting share price targets on. The first forensic report on the most proximal counterparty with an elevated share price is done, and the first counterparty share price target will be published to European Bank Contagion Assessment, Forensic Analysis & Valuation subscribers within 48 hours. There are several more to follow. In the meantime and in between time, let's discuss Deutsche in detail that you will find nowhere else on the web or on Wall Street.

Last week we illustrated what appears to be a slam dunk finding of Deutsche Bank fraud under the UK Fraud Act of 2006, reference "Veritaseum Knowledge Exposes Frightening Counterparty Risk At Deutsche Bank for "Gold Investors"". In said piece, we tracked down DB's alleged failure to deliver physical gold upon demand redemption of one of it's subsidiary's gold derivative instruments and superimposed it against DB's counterparty risk and blatant contradictions between it's marketing material (ie. website) and it's prospectus (which itself actually had material and confusing contradictions) - as excerpted:

  • ..."an investor is, from an economic point of view, invested in gold", but
    • "No correlation with the gold price", and 
    • and "The value of the Notes is a function of demand and supply regarding the Notes as such and not of the demand for and supply of gold", but
    • "For potential purchasers of the Notes the pricing may, apart from the gold price, also be determined by other factors (e.g., the creditworthiness of the Issuer, the evaluation of these risk factors or the liquidity of the Notes)." - keeping in mind that Deutsche Bank believes 
    • There's no movement in counterparty risks yearly, or cumulatively, due to collateralization (where said collateral is wide open to market forces and valuations) for instruments.
    • No control of genuineness or fineness of the physical Gold Neither the Issuer nor the Depositary Agent or any other agent of the Issuer will control the genuineness or fineness of the physical Gold held in custody on behalf of the Issuer by Clearstream Banking AG in its capacity as Depositary Agent.

Oh, there's more, for those of you who believed that line "an investor is, from an economic point of view, invested in gold". 

The purchasers of the Notes will only acquire the rights securitised by the Notes. The purchasers of the Notes will not acquire any title to, or security interests or beneficial ownership in, the physical Gold held in custody on behalf of the Issuer. An investment in the Notes does not constitute a purchase or other acquisition of Gold.

This comment excerpts the requirements of the UK Fraud Act of 2006, since the DB derivative issue was sold to UK investors. It clearly shows the material uncovered in our article can garner the label of fraud in the UK. There''s actually much more in the article if you click the aforereferenced link, but I believe many can get the message. So, where does this leave us? Well, it appears as if DB is prepping for a rash of fraud and litigation exposure. Looking at numbers buried deep within DB's more than 650 pages of financial reporting (just for the 2015 annual report), we find their disclosure of operational risk.

DB Operational risk 2015

'Profit and loss based operational losses increased by € 3.3 billion or 133 % compared to year-end 2014. The increase was predominantly driven by the event types “Clients, Products and Business Practices” and “Internal Fraud”, due to settlements reached and increased litigation reserves for unsettled cases. The increase in the event type “External Fraud” is caused by a provision for equity trading fraud.

As we drill down even further, we see even more damning information. From a frequency perspective. external fraud is the king. It happened more than any other type of operational loss, and for the year 2015, has almost matched the frequency of the previous 5 years combined. What is going on in a bank to cause such a dramatic uptick in fraud? 

To make matters worse, the clients, products and business practices losses (basically fraud, from our perspective) has almost doubled that of the previous 5 years - and that's just for the fiscal year 2015! The saga continues, and gets even darker. When looking at the distribution of actual losses, "Clients, Products & Business Practices" not only takes the lions share of the pie, but 2015 alone has matched the previous 5 years combined. What the hell is going on in this bank? More importantly, why is it getting so much worse?

DB Operational losses by event type 2015

 

This is how DB framed it:

"The above left pie chart “Frequency of Operational Losses” summarizes operational risk events which occurred in 2015 compared to the five-year period 2010-2014 in brackets based on the period in which a loss was first recognized for that event. For example, for a loss event that was first recognized in 2002 with an additional profit/loss event recognized in 2015, the frequency chart would not include the loss event, but the loss distribution chart would include the profit/loss recognized in the respective period. Frequencies are driven by the event type “External Fraud” with a frequency of 44 % of all observed loss events. The event types “Clients, Product and Business Practices” contribute 42 % of the events and “Execution, Delivery and Process Management” contribute 11 %. Others are stable at 2 %. The event type “Internal Fraud” has a low frequency, resulting in less than 1 % of the loss events in the period 2015. This is unchanged compared to 2010-2014. The above right pie chart “Distribution of Operational Losses” summarizes operational risk loss postings recognized in the profit/loss in 2015 compared to the five-year period 2010-2014. The event type “Clients, Product and Business Practices” dominates the operational loss distribution with a share of 63 % and is determined by outflows related to litigation, investigations and enforcement actions. “Internal Fraud” has the second highest share (23 %) which is related to regulatory events we have experienced in recent years. Finally, the event types “External Fraud” (8 %) and “Execution, Delivery and Process Management” (5 %) can be considered minor, compared to other event types."

What DB failed to point out was that although "Internal Fraud" consisted of just 1% of the occurrences, it represented 23% of the loss amount of 2015, which is ~10% more than the previous 5 years combined, which was in itself still significantly more expensive than all of the other categories. 

This bank is a  mess. As for the source of all of these numbers, let's display it in words so all can get a different perspective...

Legal Actions by the Counterparties since 2014 (that's right, this is just since 2014):

There are some incidents where Deutsche bank is defendant in various lawsuits by purchasers and counterparties who were involved in transactions relating to RMBS and their affiliates. Some of the counterparties who faced damages are:

  • Azora Bank Ltd :

Damage of US$61 million attributable to Deutsche bank

  • The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation:

They filed a lawsuit against Deutsche bank as receiver of

  • Colonial bank whose damage amount is around US$189 million

  • Franklin Bank S.S.B and Guaranty Bank; where the damage amount is almost US$901 million

  • Citizens National Bank and Strategic Capital Bank; aggregate loss is around US$66 million

  • The federal Home loan bank of San Francisco

  • Phoenix light SF Limited

  • Royal Park Investments

  • Residential Funding Company

  • Mass Mutual Life insurance company

  • The federal Home loan bank of Boston and The federal Home loan bank of Des Moines

  • RBMS Recovery Holdings 4, LLC

  • VP structured Products, LLC

  • Texas County & District Retirement system for 4 RMBS bonds underwritten by Deutsche Bank

  • Charles Schwab Corporation for purchasing countrywide- issued RMBS certificate

  • Trustee civil Litigation investors

  • Royal park Investments

  • The national credit Union Administration Board (NCUA) for investing in 121 RMBS trusts

  • Western and Southern life Insurance company and five related entities( collectively known as Western and Southern) for 18 RMBS trusts

  • Commerzbank AG for investments in 50 RMBS trusts

  • IKB (IKB International, S.A in Liquidation and IKB Deutsche Industriebank A.G.) for their collective investments in 37 RMBS trusts

To get the heavy dirt on many of the leading EU area banks, US tech companies, and real estate concerns (not to mention the latest in blockchain technology), subscribe to Veritaseum Knowledge - in depth, extremely detailed knowledge (vs information) not available anywhere else in the world.

Thursday, 25 August 2016 15:01

How Deutsche Bank Can Destroy Europe

How can Deutsche Bank destroy the EU? Capital fight and extreme, involuntary deleveraging. DB is closing nearly 200 German bank branches. Not a big deal, right? German bank's depositor base is 111% of German GDP. A run on German banks is literally a run on the German economy - the largest economy in Europe...

fredgraph 1

...not to mention a major (the major) funding source for DB's massive derivative positions.  

Current news events don't portend a positive outcome for Germany's largest bank either. Bloomberg reports: NordLB Boosts Shipping Provisions Five-Fold, Warns of High Loss

Norddeutsche Landesbank boosted provisions for bad loans nearly fivefold to 1 billion euros ($1.1 billion), as Germany’s biggest shipping lender prepares for its first full-year loss since 2009.

NordLB, controlled by the state of Lower Saxony, posted a loss of 406 million euros in the first half as it battles a prolonged slump in maritime markets, including eight years of crisis in the container segment. That compares with a profit of 290 million euros in the same period last year.

“The shipping crisis, which further intensified in the first half of the year, has necessitated impairments that were higher than planned,” Chief Executive Officer Gunter Dunkel said in a statement. The bank lowered its outlook for the year, now anticipating a “significant” loss. It had projected a “negative result” in the spring.

... NordLB’s pessimistic view highlights risks at other German banks, which hold roughly one-quarter of the about 400 billion euros in global shipping loans. Under pressure to unwind sour legacy maritime assets, banks including HSH Nordbank AG and Commerzbank AG are also trying to shrink their loan books.

 What does this have to do with Deutsche Bank? A lot! Because everybody wants to sell these assets that aren't considered very desirable, and all at the same time, we've made a bad situation worse - precisely when DB can't afford it.DB mass selling bad shiping loans

Then there's the issue of DB's somewhat questionable assumptions and characteristics in its financial reporting. Deutsche Bank addendums are quoted as saying:

"The credit risk on the securities purchased under resale agreements and securities borrowed designated under the fair value option is mitigated by the holding of collateral. The valuation of these instruments takes into account the credit enhancement in the form of the collateral received. As such there is no material movement during the year or cumulatively due to movements in counterparty credit risk on these instruments."

What???!!! So, the value of collateral doesn't move now? On planet Earth, not only does the value of collateral move, it tends to move in the exact same direction as the value of the loan, borrowing or underlying, often at an exaggerated pace in the beginning (it's markets are the first to know of turmoil). Reference my podcast interview with Max Keiser at the 2:40 marker. Want some more? Read this page from our EU banking report a couple of quarters ago...

For those who don't believe me, I made this call in early 2008 - twice. Once for Bear Stearns (Is this the Breaking of the Bear?) and once for Lehman Brothers (Is Lehman really a lemming in disguise? Thursday, February 21st, 2008 | Web chatter on Lehman Brothers Sunday, March 16th, 2008). Was I right? Of course, that was then and this is now, so the banks are better prepared, right? Of course. The graphic below was taken from our Banco Popular report (click here for more info), not from 8 years ago, but from a quarter ago - yes, 2016! Hey, there's more...

Banco Popular Research teaser3

Now, just imagine that Italy's Banco Popular is the entity that DB used to hedge it's exposure, and Banco Popular (obviously) can't pay up on every(any?)thing. DB's gross exposure become's DB's net exposure as DB's notion value and market value converge near instantaneously if (or when) market shoots off in one direction (you can likely guess what direction that would be for stakeholders, and this time around that includes depositors and bondholders, not just shareholders).

What does this all mean?  Well, we went through this in explicit detail and have identified no less than 6 (and we're still actively looking) financial institutions that may have passed the EBA stress tests, but have miserably failed our examination - and that's without adding in the bank contagion factor!

To partake in this knowledge, join Veritaseum University and purchase the interactive research asset called "European Bank Contagion Assessment, Forensic Analysis & Valuation".

This is a step-by-step guide for accredited investors and high net worth individuals to make money investing in the bitcoin ecosystem guided by the lessons learned (not) from the previous paradigm shift, consequent bubble and ultimate burst. For the first time in modern history, we are experienecing a second paradigm shift within the same 100 year period. But... What is a Paradigm Shift?

To be absolutely honest, it's probably best to look at this as not two separate paradigm shifts but two separate steps to the evolution of mankind from an analog civilation to a fully digital one.

The Exponential Finance symposium has just ended, and although I didn't attend, Blythe Masters apparently had the hardest hitting presentation. For those who don't know, up until last year she was number two
or three at JP Morgan and is the creator of the credit default swap (CDS). She is now the CEO of a Digital Assets (a Bitcoin technology company). Two quotes, a) "you were the most powerful woman on Wall Street", b) "How Serious should you take this? About as serious as you should have taken the Internet in the early 1990s!"

She is accompanies by many others who are pouring money into this space:

Wednesday, 22 April 2015 00:00

The Unbundling of a Money Center Bank

FinTech investment has been increasing dramatically, and I don't mean just the last year or two...

Is the rapid ramp-up in FinTech funding the dawn of the death of a thousand cuts to the traditional banking business model?

Unbundling of a bank V2 cropped

Yesterday I penned "The Pop Media Is In Love With Goldman Again, Probably Because They Don't Read The Fine Print", illustrating how quickly the media swallows what a big name brand company throws at them. If you do a Google search in Goldman's latest quarterly earnings, it looks something like this:

Goldman earnings google search Q1 2015 -1

I pointed out what was really pertinent in the last quarter's report... Goldman had to ratchet up risk in order to hit $200 per share again):

Goldman earnings google search Q1 2015

... and recommended a very unique macro trade on Veritaseum to monetize the situation...

GS vs euro volatility chart

I offered Goldman to defend their quarter's reporting, good name and share price by taking the GS long side of this swap. It's good thing they didn't, because this is what it looks like 24 hours later with the recommended GS bear leg up nearly 50% - in JUST ONE DAY!

GS vs euro volatility trade - Day 1 

I invite one and all to try what I consider to be a revolutionary method of trading value that sidesteps all of the banks, brokers and exchanges, offers you near unlimited leverage and is dramatically safer - all at once. Goldman, you're invited too :-) 

  1. Take your own high leverage positions on every soveriegn, currency, and bank mentioned in this article with Veritaseum. Learn more or download from here.
  2. Purchase our tradeable intellectual property token, Veritas - the intellectual capital commodity - and design your own high end trades and value trading/exchange platforms with our assistance.
  3. Contact Veritaseum here.

 

 

In continuing my PSA on well funded bitcoin startup valuations (reference Imy valuation estimate of Bitpay, a rapidly growing payment processor), I bring a forensic analysis and valuation of Coinbase, likely the 2nd largest money exchanger in the bitcoin business.

 Valuation Case 2- COINBASE

Revenues for Coinbase is calculated based on global monthly transaction size (US$) of the company. Annualizing the transaction resulted in Total transactions for 2014  

As per the information available, Coinbase charges 1% as transaction fee resulting in the revenue of the company.    

Table 3- Revenue Forecast, US$

 
 

2014F

2015F

2016F

 

Annual Transactions*, US$

1,085,488,973

     1,248,312,319

     1,435,559,166

 

Transaction Fee (%)

1.0%

1.0%

1.0%

 

Total Revenue

        10,854,890

    12,483,123

    14,355,592

 

*Growth assumed under moderate scenario

 

As per the news for funding in Coinbase, the valuation of Coinbase ranged between US$140 million – US$1 billion. Based on weighted average (by applying 70% weight to the lower figure in the range), the above valuation is derived at US$398 million. Applying the multiples at which Bitpay and Circle are estimated to have been funded recently (using average revenue multiple of Bitpay and Circle), the valuation based on 2015 and 2016 revenues is as shown below:

Table 4- Relative valuation

Particulars

2015F

2016F

Revenue ($)

    12,483,123

    14,355,592

Multiple Comparable- Bitpay and Circle

16.0x

13.5x

Valuation (US$mn)

                      200.31

                      194.23

 

Of course, we feel that these rapidly growing payment processor companies, although now profitable and expanding their reach like weeds, are barely touching the tip of what the Bitcoin industry will look like just two years into the future. 

Wall street, pay attention!!!

Veritaseum short summmary pic - public.docx Page 01

Veritaseum short summmary pic - public.docx Page 02Veritaseum short summmary pic - public.docx Page 03Veritaseum short summmary pic - public.docx Page 04

See also:

  1. Payment Processors, Patents and a Dollop of Healthy Paranoia
  2. Margin Compression Is Coming in the Payment Processing Space As $100 Million Pours Into Startups
  3. Bitcoin Myth Busting 101

 

My Twitter Updates

ReggieMiddleton Our response to SEC allegations has been filed and is now public. While it may appear voluminous, it should be cons… https://t.co/f3SH6jTNpo
Tuesday, 20 August 2019 10:17
ReggieMiddleton Asia Surprises With Cuts in Global Race to Monetary Bottom: New Zealand, India, Thailand cut rates today, which cau… https://t.co/bdY8cZqYqZ
Wednesday, 07 August 2019 11:05
From TweetDeck
ReggieMiddleton @fortunekr75 @venmo We have our own internal USD token. We actually use our metal tokens as private currency for transactions.
Tuesday, 06 August 2019 14:41
ReggieMiddleton @realDonaldTrump labeled china a currencymanipulator, but if one observes objectively, $CNY has held up to… https://t.co/c1XKE0s8ya
Tuesday, 06 August 2019 13:54
From TweetDeck
ReggieMiddleton @venmo Forgot to add this graphic https://t.co/vwb4pZlDmF
Tuesday, 06 August 2019 13:24

Right add

Newsletter

Tell Us What You Think

Which forensic research are you most apt to buy?
Right add (2)

Contact

Veritaseum

1-718-407-4751

info@veritaseum.com