A recent Wall Street Journal editorial highlighted the stiff competition for the “dumbest economic policy” proposed during the current U.S. Presidential campaign. High on the list are tariffs, food price controls, and opposition to the acquisition of U.S. Steel by a Japanese firm. We suggest adding to this list the recent proposals to establish a national stockpile, or even a strategic reserve, of Bitcoin. Rather than accumulating Bitcoin, we urge policymakers to quickly sell whatever they have or receive.
In the past, we argued that, rather than elaborating a regulatory framework that helps legitimize crypto, authorities should simply let it burn (see here and here). However, now that the SEC has granted U.S. asset managers the authority to offer spot Bitcoin exchange-traded products (ETPs) and the Europeans have a articulated a full set of rules (MiCA), it is no longer feasible for authorities to simply ignore crypto. Even so, the fact that we now need to regulate crypto is surely not a justification for the U.S. government to hoard Bitcoin.
The first U.S. exchange-traded fund (ETF)—the SPY based on the S&P500—began trading in 1993. Since then, the number of such funds has grown dramatically, so that by mid-2016 there were more than 1,600 ETFs on U.S. exchanges valued at roughly $2.2 trillion. This means that ETFs are now roughly one-sixth the size of open-end mutual funds. And, with this ETF growth has come a broadening in their scope and character. Today, there are ETFs that include less liquid assets such as corporate bonds and emerging market equities, and there are funds that provide inverse or leveraged exposure to the underlying assets.
Given these trends, it is no surprise that ETFs have attracted regulators’ attention (see, for example, here and here). Should they be concerned? Is this a consumer protection issue? Do ETFs contribute to systemic risk? Or, is their design stabilizing? Might financial stability even be served by the conversion of all open-end mutual funds into ETFs? ...
