Fresh off the presses, our latest Quarterly Commentary offers a deep dive into everything from localized inflation plays to limiting-factor beneficiaries of continued AI/data center growth: https://t.co/6yKt1d23PH

(4 of 4) This has greatly increased electric power needs, which for this purpose must be continuous—a significant change. Historically, industrial production stopped on nights/weekends, allowing for power plant maintenance; 24/7 data centers need redundant facilities.

(3 of 4) Most resource needs can be—and have been—satisfied by increased international trade when local supplies are inadequate. The most recent significant technological change is the development of high-order computation and artificial intelligence.

(2 of 4) Nations could build large fleets of vehicles even without vast domestic reserves of oil, as it could be imported. One example: Japan's automobile industry and the creation of the country’s vehicle fleet. The same phenomenon occurred later—and is still occurring—in China.

Technological advances and large-scale industrial production have generally—but not always—created strong demand for natural resources. For instance, the invention of the internal combustion engine obviously induced a need for petroleum.

The U.S. wants to enact Most-Favored-Nation drug pricing—any drugs purchased by the U.S. must be sold for the best price offered to any other government. That would negatively impact drug companies’ profits. It’s likely to happen, which is why drug companies are under pressure.

In 2018, we had 35.3 million cryptocurrency users worldwide. By the end of 2024, there were 922.6 million cryptocurrency users. That is about one ninth of the population of the world.

The 25-year annualized return of gold since October 2000 is approx 11.1%. No index configuration, even at the regional level, has been able to outperform simply holding metal in a fund for two-plus decades. This calls into question the long-dominant index-based passive management

No Bitcoin treasury company has yet exhibited this faculty.

To merit a premium, a Bitcoin treasury company must increase its Bitcoin per share organically without recourse to the capital markets, and also replace its rapidly depreciating equipment from internal sources of earned and not previously raised capital.

A conventional Bitcoin ETF should outperform a Bitcoin treasury company if it has no other functions than to simply hold Bitcoin or issue shares with a view toward using the cash proceeds to purchase yet more Bitcoin.

Moreover, that net asset value should include allowance for any tax liabilities due to Bitcoin’s appreciation.

It is impossible to predict how many shares of common stock might be issued by Bitcoin treasury companies to be used for purchasing Bitcoin. Nevertheless, unless these firms can grow the Bitcoin per share, they should logically trade at net asset value.

This is feasible because the premium to NAV is what enables the continual share issuance in a manner that is anti-dilutive to existing shareholders—by increasing their per-share Bitcoin holdings—despite being dilutive to the new shareholders.

A further complication is that Bitcoin treasury companies trade at very high premiums to the value of their Bitcoin holdings, on the order of 50% or more, despite the existence of Bitcoin ETFs, which trade at NAV.

The possibility exists that such investors might refuse to use the S&P 500 if it were to include Bitcoin treasury companies. Of course, others might avoid the index if it did *not* include the Bitcoin treasury companies.

This circumstance would be further complicated by the realization that many investors still do not consider cryptocurrency a separate asset class—or even a legitimate asset class. They believe it is merely an artificial construction that has no inherent value.

In one sense, cryptocurrency is considered a separate asset class from conventional equity. However, if Bitcoin is included in an equity index via a treasury company, it would have penetrated the equity asset class, thereby ending the purity of separate asset classes.

Consequently, in principle, if the market capitalization and float were sufficiently large, it is quite conceivable that these companies would be included in an equity index, possibly the S&P 500. This is an interesting theoretical circumstance.

The market capitalization of Bitcoin treasury companies keeps increasing—if for no other reason than a continuation of share issuance. Though the primary asset held by these firms is Bitcoin, they're still classified as equities.