JP Morgan once again trying to spread prevent mainstream adoption of Bitcoin

[Sithara007]

A few days back, there was a statement from some of the JPM executives.

https://www.coindesk.com/teslas-bitcoin-buy-may-not-trigger-wave-of-corporate-demand-says-jpmorgan

“Corporate treasury portfolios are typically stuffed with bank deposits, money market funds, and short-dated bonds, meaning that annualized volatility – or the range of swings during the course of a year – hovers around 1%,” JPMorgan wrote, adding that a 1% bitcoin exposure would cause a significant increase in a portfolio’s volatility to as much as 8%.

Here they are trying to dissuade corporations from converting some of their cash reserves to Bitcoin, claiming that it will increase the volatility. According to JPM, corporate treasury portfolios typically have a volatility of less than 1% per year, and the addition of Bitcoin can increase the volatility from 1% to 8%. Let's examine both parts of the statement.

The first part claims that corporate treasury portfolios are comprised of low-volatile assets and the typical volatility range is 0% to 1% per year. Is this true? Obviously not. The M1 supply within the United States have risen by almost 50% during the last 12 months. Along with that, we can expect a proportional decrease in the purchasing power of the US Dollar. So these corporate portfolios are actually witnessing an erosion in their net worth, although they are hidden because only the USD value is being considered. I would say that after taking these factors in to consideration, the depreciation of the portfolio can be -10% per year or even higher.

Now let's examine the second part of their claim. According to JP Morgan, if Bitcoin comprises 1% of the portfolio, then the volatility can jump from 1% to 8%. Do you know how ridiculous this sounds? Let's assume that a company decides to keep 1% of its treasury portfolio in Bitcoin. Even in the unlikely scenario of Bitcoin becoming completely worthless, that would mean that the net worth of the portfolio decreasing to 99% from the existing 100%. Add in the volatility for the remaining 99% of the assets, and we get a figure of 1.99% per year and not 8%.

Nikolaos Panigirtzoglou and the other JP Morgan executives think that ordinary people are complete idiots and they will be able to fool them with their lies and deceit. I am afraid that it no longer works that way.

As Mark Twain once famously said: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics"

Here these people are trying to twist statistics to spread their own bunch of lies.

[1714788850]

1714788850

[1714788850]

1714788850

[1714788850]

1714788850

[DapanasFruit]

The people in JP Morgan has lost their credibility in my eyes a long time ago when they attacked Bitcoin years ago that caused the market back then to crash many times. Unfortunately, at that time people seemed to be giving these people some space in their thinking and so these people grab the opportunity to be relevant in the world of cryptocurrency. Right now, whatever they can be saying are worth nothing. We better listen to other more credible people like Elon Musk.

[Broly46]

They want people to use their crypto products, think of them behaving just like ripple team, ripple has always been very critical on bitcoin.

[Tytanowy Janusz]

The first part claims that corporate treasury portfolios are comprised of low-volatile assets and the typical volatility range is 0% to 1% per year. Is this true? Obviously not. The M1 supply within the United States have risen by almost 50% during the last 12 months. Along with that, we can expect a proportional decrease in the purchasing power of the US Dollar. So these corporate portfolios are actually witnessing an erosion in their net worth, although they are hidden because only the USD value is being considered. I would say that after taking these factors in to consideration, the depreciation of the portfolio can be -10% per year or even higher.

Being a bit of a devil's advocate, I decided to correct this piece of OP. JP morgan is a bank that manages people's money. People deposit $$ and JP morgan own them $$, not bread. So they don't care about value of money they store (AKA purchasing power). Its poeple that have thier money in JP Morgan problem not JP morgan's. So I would not take inflation into such calculation.

Now let's examine the second part of their claim. According to JP Morgan, if Bitcoin comprises 1% of the portfolio, then the volatility can jump from 1% to 8%. Do you know how ridiculous this sounds? Let's assume that a company decides to keep 1% of its treasury portfolio in Bitcoin. Even in the unlikely scenario of Bitcoin becoming completely worthless, that would mean that the net worth of the portfolio decreasing to 99% from the existing 100%. Add in the volatility for the remaining 99% of the assets, and we get a figure of 1.99% per year and not 8%.

Fair point. 100% lie from JP morgan.

[hd49728]

JP Morgan successfully spred Fuds and played with bitcoin price in the years of bear market from 2018 to end of 2019. Since 2020 and now, the bitcoin adoption has been risen with institutional investments and they as institutes will make their decisions on their investigations. They don't rely or will be affected by fuds from JP Morgan. Retails have more good than bad to follow general trend of institutes and skip fuds from JP Morgan.

Bitcoin adoption won't be prevented by JP Morgan and the bull run of bitcoin won't be halted or stopped by JP Morgan.

[lovesmayfamilis]

JP Morgan remains in his style. But this is just his opinion. Time will put everything in its place. You can look positively at another oldest bank, Bank of New York Mello, which will start working with cryptocurrencies, thereby proving that bitcoin is gaining more and more recognition. https://www.wsj.com/articles/bitcoin-to-come-to-america-s-oldest-bank-bny-mellon-11613044810

[Fundamentals Of]

For all we know, JPMorgan might already be stuffing themselves up with Bitcoin. That's one technique of the whales. They spread FUD hoping that the price will be affected and dips and then they buy. Let's not be fooled by this and commit the mistake of selling our Bitcoin to them.

Or perhaps they are just trying their best in their last efforts to bring down Bitcoin. They are now shaking in the face of huge companies embracing Bitcoin. But it cannot be avoided that they will one day also join Bitcoin.

[Sithara007]

For all we know, JPMorgan might already be stuffing themselves up with Bitcoin. That's one technique of the whales. They spread FUD hoping that the price will be affected and dips and then they buy. Let's not be fooled by this and commit the mistake of selling our Bitcoin to them.

Or perhaps they are just trying their best in their last efforts to bring down Bitcoin. They are now shaking in the face of huge companies embracing Bitcoin. But it cannot be avoided that they will one day also join Bitcoin.

This is not the first time they are trying to spread FUD about Bitcoin and the other cryptocurrencies. Jamie Dimon (CEO of JPMorgan) once called Bitcoin as a "fraud" and warned the users that it is only a matter of time before the governments would "crush" them. A few months later, he was trying to promote his own shitcoin called "JPM Coin". All this happened in September 2017, just months before the bull run.

And let me explain how their predictions and warnings have worked out till now. Here is another statement from JP Morgan, which was issued three weeks ago:

https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/364066

Bitcoin May Never Go Above $ 40,000 Again, JP Morgan Alerts

The vertiginous rise that the price of Bitcoin experienced in December and early January, made many investors pin their hopes on the cryptocurrency . However, analysts at the financial JP Morgan Chase doubt that the electronic currency can be traded above $ 40,000 again .

They claimed that BTC will never go above the 40K level. We reached 48K a few days after they made this statement.

And here is another piece of news:

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/12/bitcoin-banks-closer-accepting-cryptocurrency-asset-class.html

Feeling the heat from employees, Wall Street banks get closer to adopting bitcoin

The banking industry is being forced to contend with bitcoin as its latest dizzying ascent and increased adoption among investors, corporations and fintech competitors spark fears of being left behind.

And finally this one:

https://www.theblockcrypto.com/linked/94750/jpmorgan-bitcoin-btc-trading-client-demand-coo-comments

JPMorgan will offer bitcoin trading if there is client demand, says COO

JPMorgan co-president and COO Daniel Pinto has said that the banking giant will support bitcoin trading if there is client demand for it. "If over time an asset class develops that is going to be used by different asset managers and investors, we will have to be involved," Pinto told CNBC in an interview published Friday. "The demand isn't there yet, but I'm sure it will be at some point."

Their own clients are forcing them to accept BTC, and these people are warning us not to use cryptocurrency.

[pooya87]

Here they are trying to dissuade corporations from converting some of their cash reserves to Bitcoin,

Then they are doing bitcoin a big favor!
We don't want big corporations buying billions of dollars worth of bitcoin and stash it somewhere as an investment shooting the price to the moon. We want regular people to easily buy bitcoin at lower prices and use it as a currency.

[torrantz]

I mean, if your investment in anyway not connected to JP Morgan whatsoever it's better to just ignore them altogether,because honestly we all know that in every of their "published opinion" in media there's always motive behind it and this one seems to exist just to spread FUD. Never once I followed or consider JP morgan opinion in my investment portfolio and so far so good.

[Lorence.xD]

What can we expect from a bank that is the nemesis of bitcoin ever since its inception? I mean what volatility exactly are they trying to blame? If they are blaming the bitcoin market then they do have some grounds, bitcoin is volatile but I don't think that in an overview of the economy, bitcoin is just a blip on the radar, obviously there are a lot of things in play in the economy and with bitcoin still in the lower numbers because there are still not that much users worldwide, I think that what JP Morgan is doing is not helping the case.

[amishmanish]

Now let's examine the second part of their claim. According to JP Morgan, if Bitcoin comprises 1% of the portfolio, then the volatility can jump from 1% to 8%. Do you know how ridiculous this sounds? Let's assume that a company decides to keep 1% of its treasury portfolio in Bitcoin. Even in the unlikely scenario of Bitcoin becoming completely worthless, that would mean that the net worth of the portfolio decreasing to 99% from the existing 100%. Add in the volatility for the remaining 99% of the assets, and we get a figure of 1.99% per year and not 8%.

Suppose the portfolio comprises of 99$ + 1 dollar worth of Bitcoin.

Considering that Bitcoin price has seen a low of 4000 and a high of 40000 (a factor of 10) within a span of less than a year, that 1 dollar of bitcoin can be worth 0.1 or 10 dollars. If the rest of the portfolio remains same, the total portfolio value can range from 99.01 to 109 dollars. So they are not wrong about the "volatility" percentage.
The question is, would it be such a bad decision for a corporate to have a downside of the value becoming 99.01 and a growth to 109 as the upside. I don't know how corporates see "volatility". It'd seem that putting just 1% could be a bet with massive upside and little downside.

Although we all fool ourselves with such back of the hand calculations, its clear that we aren't gonna see so much volatility anymore with a lot of main players jumping in to have BTC as part of their portfolios.

[Tytanowy Janusz]

Considering that Bitcoin price has seen a low of 4000 and a high of 40000 (a factor of 10) within a span of less than a year, that 1 dollar of bitcoin can be worth 0.1 or 10 dollars. If the rest of the portfolio remains same, the total portfolio value can range from 99.01 to 109 dollars. So they are not wrong about the "volatility" percentage.
The question is, would it be such a bad decision for a corporate to have a downside of the value becoming 99.01 and a growth to 109 as the upside. I don't know how corporates see "volatility". It'd seem that putting just 1% could be a bet with massive upside and little downside.

Although we all fool ourselves with such back of the hand calculations, its clear that we aren't gonna see so much volatility anymore with a lot of main players jumping in to have BTC as part of their portfolios.

Fair point. So they say not the full truth and not a 100% lie.

But its easy fix. Just don't let it grow 10 times with all your bag if you value statistics more than money. They could rebalance wallet dumping 10% of bitcoins each time bitcoin pump 10%.

[Sithara007]

Suppose the portfolio comprises of 99$ + 1 dollar worth of Bitcoin.

Considering that Bitcoin price has seen a low of 4000 and a high of 40000 (a factor of 10) within a span of less than a year, that 1 dollar of bitcoin can be worth 0.1 or 10 dollars. If the rest of the portfolio remains same, the total portfolio value can range from 99.01 to 109 dollars. So they are not wrong about the "volatility" percentage.
The question is, would it be such a bad decision for a corporate to have a downside of the value becoming 99.01 and a growth to 109 as the upside. I don't know how corporates see "volatility". It'd seem that putting just 1% could be a bet with massive upside and little downside.

Although we all fool ourselves with such back of the hand calculations, its clear that we aren't gonna see so much volatility anymore with a lot of main players jumping in to have BTC as part of their portfolios.

In case the maximum potential for downside is 0.99%, and the same for upside is 9%, then they should make it clear. The institutions that are investing in Bitcoin will be overjoyed. Which other asset can give you that sort of returns? But I agree with your statement that we may no longer witness such volatility anymore. We are well past the "early adopter" stage, as the institutions have moved in. Now the potential upside/downside will be more moderate and I don't expect annual volatility of several times that we had witnessed in the past.

[tinopener]

Haven't had time to ponder this yet, but they might be twisting things, when it is actually the 1% that is being increased by 8%.

Therefore volatility is being increased from 1% to 1.125%.

[oHnK]

Now let's examine the second part of their claim. According to JP Morgan, if Bitcoin comprises 1% of the portfolio, then the volatility can jump from 1% to 8%. Do you know how ridiculous this sounds? Let's assume that a company decides to keep 1% of its treasury portfolio in Bitcoin. Even in the unlikely scenario of Bitcoin becoming completely worthless, that would mean that the net worth of the portfolio decreasing to 99% from the existing 100%. Add in the volatility for the remaining 99% of the assets, and we get a figure of 1.99% per year and not 8%.

Suppose the portfolio comprises of 99$ + 1 dollar worth of Bitcoin.

Considering that Bitcoin price has seen a low of 4000 and a high of 40000 (a factor of 10) within a span of less than a year, that 1 dollar of bitcoin can be worth 0.1 or 10 dollars. If the rest of the portfolio remains same, the total portfolio value can range from 99.01 to 109 dollars. So they are not wrong about the "volatility" percentage.
The question is, would it be such a bad decision for a corporate to have a downside of the value becoming 99.01 and a growth to 109 as the upside. I don't know how corporates see "volatility". It'd seem that putting just 1% could be a bet with massive upside and little downside.

Although we all fool ourselves with such back of the hand calculations, its clear that we aren't gonna see so much volatility anymore with a lot of main players jumping in to have BTC as part of their portfolios.

If we talk about volatility in corporates, they will see from what is factor that influenced volatility. Bitcoin and any other cryptos only have supply and demand factor for their volatility and its too risk for corporate's portfolios. We can't guess what the market want in the future, and We can't take the lowest conclusion of the price range in a year, we have to take a bigger sample.  Because the smaller the sample price range you use, the greater the probability of error.  Companies need an even better fundamental reason to make Bitcoin a part of their portfolio.  Because 1% of the company's portfolio can be worth billions of dollars.  They must be very careful in choosing it.  And what I've read that "The company portfolio is a secret that must be kept".

[Sithara007]

If we talk about volatility in corporates, they will see from what is factor that influenced volatility. Bitcoin and any other cryptos only have supply and demand factor for their volatility and its too risk for corporate's portfolios. We can't guess what the market want in the future, and We can't take the lowest conclusion of the price range in a year, we have to take a bigger sample.  Because the smaller the sample price range you use, the greater the probability of error.  Companies need an even better fundamental reason to make Bitcoin a part of their portfolio.  Because 1% of the company's portfolio can be worth billions of dollars.  They must be very careful in choosing it.  And what I've read that "The company portfolio is a secret that must be kept".

Fundamental reason is already there. The purchasing power of US Dollar is going down very fast. In 2020 itself, the M1 monetary supply of USD went up by more than 60%. With a series of stimulus measures planned for 2021, it is going to be even worse this year. Although the impact won't be visible overnight, eventually the oversupply of banknotes will result in hyperinflation. I guess this is a good reason for corporations to move at least a part of their reserves from fiat cash to more trustworthy assets such as gold and Bitcoin.