Last year luxury car sales in Singapore collapsed. Sales of new Bentley, Ferrari, Jaguar and Rolls Royce models were down by as much as three quarters compared with 2023. This wasn’t caused by an economic slowdown. Singapore’s government clamped down on money laundering.

Most buyers of such cars are Chinese nationals. Car dealers are required to verify sources of financing for new buyers, following a money laundering scandal linked to the Chinese mainland. Vehicles obtained with illicit funds have been seized.

“Pig butchering” refers to a lonely victim who is befriended online and eventually persuaded to transfer money into an investment account – often crypto – at which point the online friendship or romance evaporates, along with the money. The rather graphic term dates back to 2016 or earlier in China.

The Chinese government eventually reacted aggressively, since its own citizens were usually the victims of schemes run by Chinese gangs. Today, a suspicious text message in China is often accompanied by a warning from the government to be careful. Police routinely visit recipients of phishing emails to verify that they haven’t been duped. Public information messages warn people to be vigilant.

Such is the intrusion of China’s security services into everyone’s life that they’re able to protect the vulnerable.

As a result, China has become a harder place for such scams. So, in recent years the industry has gone global. With English being so ubiquitous and America so rich you, dear reader, are the new target.

Scam Inc is an illuminating eight-episode podcast published by The Economist. Journalist Sue-Lin Wong describes a business sector that includes small towns dedicated to scam factories in lawless Myanmar. English-speaking Asians are held there after being kidnapped when applying for a job.

The series opens with the extraordinary story of the CEO of a small community bank in Kansas being duped into transferring $47 million to Bella, a woman he believed to be in Perth, Australia.

Heartland Tri-State Bank CEO Shane Hanes was eventually convicted of embezzlement and sentenced to 24 years. During the investigation and before he was charged, Hanes was so convinced he was involved in a legitimate business deal that he traveled to Australia to look for Bella, who was by now no longer responding to his calls or text messages.

The scamming industry is estimated by some to be worth several hundred billion dollars annually, which puts it in the same league as the illegal drug trade. Many scams go unreported because the victim is too embarrassed or believes pursuit to be futile.

This brings us to Bitcoin and the rest of the crypto industry, since without it a great deal of criminal activity could not exist.

I last criticized Bitcoin in July 2022 (see Bad Investment Ideas Still Flourish (Part 1)) when it was trading at around $24K. I have many friends who have remained that way because they ignored my advice on Bitcoin. They have sensibly concluded that any insights I might have are limited to energy infrastructure.

The list of profitable investments I have missed is a long one, and Bitcoin would not be at the top. Fortunately, I am not afflicted with FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out). Returns from energy have been more than satisfactory and I stick to what I understand.

Nonetheless, it must be said that none of the original supporting arguments for Bitcoin remain. It is not a store of value: it’s too volatile. It is not a medium of exchange: transactions costs are too high. It is not a haven during inflation: in 2022 it fell while US inflation reached 9%.

It is not safe – Tether was recently hacked for $1.5BN, reportedly by the North Korean government. But it’s also not safe from our government. In 2021 the ransom paid following a cyber-attack on the Colonial pipeline was partly recovered by the US Justice Department.

In fact, there is no point to Bitcoin except that it goes up more than down. That’s the only surviving investment case. Tether, anchored as it is to the US$, doesn’t even offer that.

Nonetheless, Bitcoin’s ascent has been sufficient to draw institutions such as Emory University to invest and the Rockefeller Foundation to consider an allocation. Rockefeller’s CIO Chun Lai, CFA said, “We don’t want to be left behind when their potential materializes dramatically.”

CFA course materials omit a chapter on FOMO, but Mr Lai thinks outside the box.

The scale of the industry uncovered by the Scam Inc podcast suggests that a substantial part of crypto activity supports scams and drugs. Victims often have to buy Bitcoin.

Chainalysis estimates that illicit crypto addresses received $40.9BN last year. This is up from 2023 but still only 0.14% of total transaction volume. However, their original 2023 estimate was $24.2BN which they now recalculate at $46.1BN. They eventually expect the 2024 figure to exceed this.

My guess is that it’s much higher, but well hidden. Bitcoin’s most valuable feature is that it’s hard to trace ownership. It was probably supporting Singapore’s luxury car market, until awkward questions were asked about source of funds.

Scams, illegal drugs and other illicit activity will probably keep increasing, along with Bitcoin. That is the investment case. Just not with my money.

We have two have funds that seek to profit from this environment:

Energy Mutual Fund

Energy ETF

A new administration took office determined to change the economy’s direction with overhauled policies. The leader and key advisers huddled, drawing up their plans in relative secrecy. Once ready, they were unveiled with great fanfare, heralding a new dawn in economic stewardship.

Markets, caught by surprise without having had the opportunity to assess them via leaks, reacted with horror as the looming hit to GDP, unanticipated by the new administration or investors, was immediately reflected in prices.

This was how the new UK government under then-Prime Minister Liz Truss began in September 2022. In her case the UK gilt market was shocked by the scale of proposed borrowing. Yields rose. Sterling fell. The government’s unrealistic plans were widely criticized, including by many in her own Conservative party.

A tabloid famously wondered whether her time in office would outlast a lettuce and helpfully posted a photo of Truss next to one, continuously broadcast via a webcam. The lettuce visibly decayed, but her time as PM was shorter still at 49 days.

The UK parliamentary system can change its PM with a speed and brutality unmatched in the US. The British Conservative party has historically shown its leaders less loyalty than the US Republican party, and our political system doesn’t offer the same flexibility. If not, Thursday’s tariff-induced $3TN loss of equity market value would be the beginning of the end.

The exit ramp could be Congress withdrawing the emergency powers which President Trump has invoked that give him the ability to impose tariffs. We have no insight into how far markets must decline to induce such. The US Senate passed a resolution, but a veto-proof two thirds majority in both chambers will be required.

There’s a scale of equity market losses that will be sufficient, but we’re not there yet. Given the unpredictability with which tariffs have been used, the president’s current autonomy over their implementation will remain in Damoclesian fashion to limit any animal spirits to the upside.

To quote my friend and former head of bond trading, in the meantime, “Down’s a long way.”

The economy, financial markets and even the president will all be better served if Congress reasserts its authority in this area. Republicans may care to recall that after Liz Truss the UK Conservatives never regained their reputation for competent economic stewardship and suffered a thumping electoral defeat to the Labour Party last year.

While investors endure more tariff trauma with its associated equity market volatility, it’s worth remembering that demand for US natural gas has historically been virtually impervious to fluctuations in GDP growth. We think this will continue, supporting volume throughput across the related infrastructure.

Since the shale revolution released enormous amounts of domestic gas, consumption has grown. The 2008 financial crisis was barely a blip. Even during the 2020 pandemic when crude oil prices briefly went negative because of lockdowns, natural gas volumes fell 1.7% but quickly recovered. Within a couple of years they were 3.7% higher. Over the past decade consumption has grown at a 2.2% compounded annual rate.

The US Energy Information Administration expects production to grow at 2% this year and next.

It’s not hard to see why.

Coal to gas switching has resulted in cheaper, cleaner power over the past fifteen years. Pennsylvania’s Homer City coal burning power plant is being converted into the natural gas Homer City Energy Campus. It’ll produce 4.5 GW, enough to power 2-3 million homes although local data centers will be the main users. That will require around 0.8 Billion Cubic Feet per Day (BCF/D) of natural gas, around 0.7% of US output. When operational in 2027 it’ll be the biggest natural gas power plant in the country.

Demand from data centers and LNG exports will continue to underpin natural gas demand growth.

In one bright spot a few days prior to Liberation Day, Vietnam announced it was cutting its import tax on LNG from 5% to 2%. The White House is assuming that our trade partners will generally not engage in rounds of reciprocal tariff hikes. We need more examples like this.

I was in London last week where I reconnected with several people from high school that I had seen once or not at all in the ensuing 45 years. We had much to catch up on. Satisfyingly, people whose company I enjoyed as a teenager remain that way today. I’ve never regretted emigrating to the US but always enjoy returning to where I grew up.

We have two have funds that seek to profit from this environment:

Energy Mutual Fund

Energy ETF

Americans did vote for tariffs when we elected Donald Trump. Many perhaps thought they’d be implemented with a clearer strategic purpose. I had hoped we’d use them to open up foreign markets such as the EU, reducing our trade deficit by exporting more not by importing less. And most voters probably weren’t voting for a recession, odds on which Goldman Sachs revised up to 35% for next year.

Among the improbable targets of tariffs on steel and aluminum imports are screws, along with bolts, nuts, coach screws, screw hooks, rivets, cotters, cotter-pins, washers (including spring washers) and similar articles, of iron or steel. These are all members of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) code 7318.

When a blunt instrument is applied with force, it will inevitably hit more than the intended target. Last year we imported $7.05BN of HTS code 7318 products and exported $5.63BN, for a trade deficit of $1.43BN.

There’s no particular trend in the series. The net balance in HTS 7318 was worse in 2022 than last year. Exports have been growing at 12% annually, faster than imports at 9%. We bought almost two thirds of our HTS 7318 imports from just three countries: Taiwan, China and Japan. The two biggest buyers of our exports were Canada and Mexico under the USMCA and no doubt including the auto sector’s integrated cross-border assembly processes.

China’s the world’s biggest exporter in this category and the US is the biggest importer. But that’s true for many traded items.

The trade deficit in 7318 doesn’t seem especially problematic. Manufacturing screws isn’t obviously in the national interest. If other countries can make them better and cheaper, go for it. The net deficit in 7318 is only 25% of our exports. There’s a lot of two-way flow in the category, as what economists call comparative advantage drives production to where it’s done relatively better.

Somebody is getting screwed with 7318 tariffs, and the market fears it might be the American worker.

Adding manufacturing jobs is always good, but US manufacturing employment is in fine shape. A decades-long decline ended when the shale revolution began to lower domestic gas prices.

During tariff turmoil, midstream energy has been showing its value as defensive sector, beating the S&P500 by 17% since the election. A Fox News poll found that 69% of Americans believe tariffs will lead to higher prices. White House trade counselor Peter Navarro claimed they’d act as a tax cut, a fringe view that’s simply wrong.

It’s not only that US energy has limited exposure to tariffs. Many pipelines are regulated by FERC which links price increases to PPI. The FOMC’s most recent Summary of Economic Projections showed policymakers had shifted their growth expectation down and inflation up, hence the stagflation headlines that accompanied its release.

Pipeline investors have little to fear from inflation given that around half the industry’s EBITDA is linked to PPI. In 2022 when inflation reached 9%, midstream returned +21% while the S&P500 was down 18%.

The market is pricing in at least two rate cuts by the end of the year, suggesting investors expect the Fed to regard tariff-linked inflation as temporary. In this scenario, midstream earnings will get a boost from the PPI linkage while maintaining relatively attractive yields.

Energy consumption is very stable (see Midstream Is About Volumes). Power generation is rising because of AI demand after two decades of being flat. Liquids (about half of which is gasoline) have been between 20 and 21 Million Barrels per Day for many years. Natural gas consumption continues to grow strongly. For fifteen years this was driven by the coal to gas switch in US power generation. Now increasing LNG exports and the growth in data centers are the drivers.

There’s little reason to expect any of these trends to change.

Morgan Stanley noted that Oklahoma’s natural gas rig count has risen from 44 to 54 this year in response to higher prices. They expect the beneficiaries to include Energy Transfer, Oneok and Targa Resources as E&P firm Anadarko pushes increased volumes through their infrastructure.

Shipping giant AP Møller-Maersk expects the EU’s proposed maritime emissions trading scheme to encourage the use of gas-powered engines, saying it was, “highly likely that fossil LNG remains the cheapest option.”

LNG stocks have sagged recently on fears that a cease-fire in Ukraine could see increased Russian gas exports to the EU. A senior coalition member in Germany’s new government recently said the sanctions regime was hurting the EU more than Russia. We continue to think the White House would not look kindly on a resumption of gas shipments through Nordstream.

We have two have funds that seek to profit from this environment:

Energy Mutual Fund

Energy ETF

Which is a more important measure of an investment manager’s skill – the return on the first dollar invested at inception, or the return on the average dollar?

Return since inception is widely used because it covers the longest period. If performance is reasonably consistent, both methods should tell the same story. That this is not the case is surprisingly common.

It was the motivation behind my 2011 book The Hedge Fund Mirage: The Illusion of Big Money and Why It’s Too Good to Be True in which I showed that the average hedge fund investor would have been better off owning treasury bills, even though the industry’s since inception return was good. Although hedge funds generated substantial profits, the 2 and 20 fee structure transferred most of those gains to managers.

The Hedge Fund Mirage received coverage in my favorite magazine, twice (see The Economist Once More Writes About The Hedge Fund Mirage). Since my writing aspires to be as good as theirs while inevitably falling short, I took this as the ultimate endorsement.

Several hedge fund managers told me they fully agreed with the revealed widespread mediocrity, while noting that it didn’t apply to their hedge fund. Hedge fund consultants, who make a living promoting them, were critical (see The Hedge Fund Lobbyists Fight Back). Thus was the gulf in IQ between the two groups confirmed.

The difference between the two measures of performance is explained by the fact that early hedge fund investors did well but weren’t that numerous. As new money flowed in and hedge funds went mainstream, profit opportunities became scarce under the weight of this additional capital. During the 2008 Great Financial Crisis I estimated hedge funds lost $500BN, wiping out all the profits they’d ever made. The promised delivery of absolute returns came up short.

It can be illuminating to apply this analysis elsewhere. Three years ago, I did this for a popular $15BN fund (see ARKK’s Investors Have In Aggregate Lost Money). Equity funds can lose money because of a weak market even if their stock picks are good, so some might say this is an unfair way to look at Cathie Wood’s ARK Innovation ETF (ARKK).

More recently, a team at Morningstar found that Cathie Wood’s firm ARK Invest tops the list of value-destroying fund families at $13.36BN over the past decade. The S&P500 returned 13.1% pa over the same period, a considerable tailwind. It seems Cathie Wood isn’t very good at picking stocks.

At this point a friend of mine who ran government bond trading at JPMorgan decades ago would helpfully say, “Simon, if you had her money, you’d burn yours.” Which is to say that the failure of her investors to avoid poor manager selection hasn’t impeded Ms Woods’ ability to become rich. Her net worth is estimated at over $250 million.

The fortunes of clients and their money manager have rarely diverged so spectacularly.

Inflows to the ARK Innovation ETF (ARKK) peaked in late 2020 following an annual performance of 152.8%. Since then, ARKK has lost over half its value.

Many of those 2020 investors are deeply underwater and are hanging on, waiting for a recovery. Inducing abject hope in your clients can be a powerful asset-retention strategy.

In other news, there are signs that opposition to reliable energy in New England might be softening. A recent conversation took place between NY governor Kathy Hochul and President Trump over the Constitution pipeline.

Intended to deliver natural gas from Pennsylvania to a hub near Albany for further distribution, Williams Companies finally threw in the towel in 2020 after four years of challenging the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s 2016 denial of a key water quality permit.

New York and its neighboring New England states have some of the country’s highest energy prices. This is because renewables are expensive, and they sometimes have to import liquefied natural gas. Democrats are worried that working class voters in poor Boston communities won’t prioritize climate change as highly as the college-educated progressives who drive policy.

Much needs to be agreed upon before the construction project can be resurrected. And WMB will worry that the pipeline won’t be fully utilized for its projected 30-40 year useful life if regional policy turns back against hydrocarbons.

But it was surprising that New York’s governor could have a productive conversation with Trump about any topic. Perhaps some pragmatism is intruding.

It also highlights the enduring appeal of natural gas. While US gasoline demand may have peaked in 2019 before the pandemic, natural gas consumption continues to grow along with exports. It’s why we often remind investors that the Natural Gas Transition is the only energy shift of any consequence in the US.

We have two have funds that seek to profit from this environment:

Energy Mutual Fund

Energy ETF