The cryptocurrency industry will continue to grow, regardless of which candidate wins the U.S. presidential election this November. This is because cryptocurrency has emerged as a major player in election funding, leading to expectations that more favorable policies will be established, according to a report released by the Upbit Investors Protection Center.

Upbit is Korea’s largest coin exchange, operated by Dunamu.

The report highlighted the cryptocurrency-related pledges and positions of each candidate, predicting that, regardless of who wins the election, the growth trajectory of the industry will remain consistent, although the pace may vary.

“If Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris, who is expected to continue President Joe Biden’s policy direction, wins, the cryptocurrency industry is expected to see gradual growth within a regulatory framework,” the report suggested.

“On the other hand, if Republican presidential candidate and former President Donald Trump wins, the volatility of cryptocurrencies could increase significantly.”

Citing data from U.S. market research firm Morning Consult, the report noted that 22 percent of Americans were investing in cryptocurrencies as of last year, making them a voter base that cannot be ignored. This is prompting each presidential candidate to show pro-cryptocurrency tendencies in an apparent effort to win over these voters.

The report underscored that one of the most notable aspects of this presidential election is the sponsorship from cryptocurrency-related companies.

According to Washington-based nonprofit research group OpenSecrets, cryptocurrency companies contributed $119 million to federal election campaigns this year, accounting for 43 percent of the total. This was a significant increase from $4.6 million in 2022.

Currently, the leading contributors are Coinbase and Ripple. These companies are backing a blockchain-focused super PAC called Fairshake, which supports candidates across the political spectrum whose positions align with the crypto industry’s interests.

Unlike regular PACs, which support or oppose specific politicians or legislation, super PACs can raise and spend unlimited funds from individuals and organizations, provided they do not directly contribute to a particular candidate or party.

Since Fairshake has emerged as one of the wealthiest super PACs in this election, it is anticipated that policies and legislation favorable to the cryptocurrency industry will be further strengthened in the future.

Source: Koreatimes

Economic Context Behind the Rate Cut

Key Takeaways from the Fed’s Statement

Projections for Future Policy Moves

What Happens Next?

Is the promise of generative AI overblown?

From a capital markets perspective, would you characterize this as a moment of investor impatience?

What happens if the application just don’t emerge, and AI proves incapable of profoundly changing businesses and the economy?

There’s also a debate about whether AI will benefit the mega-cap incumbents, or if it will displace them.

But ultimately, if AI does prove to be a massive driver of the economy, how much of that value will be captured by tech companies?

Do we generally understand the types of impacts that AI will have at this point? Or are investors and business leaders still making educated guesses?

Is there anything that investors consistently miss about the AI story?

Private credit more than doubled in size from 2019 thanks to interest rate hikes that made its floating-rate debt more attractive to investors. Now, a Federal Reserve interest-rate cut is adding to the headwinds hampering the breakneck growth of the $1.7 trillion industry.

Lower benchmark rates will make fixed income, which locks in returns, more attractive to investors than variable rate. That’s set to become a more pressing issue after the Fed projected further easing later this year.

Regulators also have the industry in their crosshairs after growing concerned about the spillover impact any crisis could have on banks, which provide loans to private credit managers to add more firepower to their pools of investor commitments. On the fundraising side, institutional capital allocations are flatlining, falling oil prices may affect inflows from the Middle East and new US measures could make it harder for insurers to invest in the asset class.

The other big potential threat is a US recession. A soft landing for the economy is the central case, but a deeper slowdown would spell trouble, squeezing the pipeline of money, reducing the appetite for deals and increasing the risk of borrowers failing to repay.

According to Patrick Dennis, co-deputy managing partner at Davidson Kempner Capital Management, defaults in private credit are about 3-5%, partly due to covenant breaches and modifications.

“Defaults are kicking up in all three areas of the market that we focus on,” he said at the Milken Institute Asia Summit Thursday. “From a severity perspective, this is the biggest risk in the market that we’re trying to evaluate.”

Oil Money

Private markets fund managers have been flocking to the Middle East in recent years in an attempt to raise additional capital to deploy. That effort could become more challenging if oil prices continue to slip lower.

“A prolonged spell of depressed oil prices would inevitably weigh on the rate at which institutional investors in the region deploy capital into private markets,” said Cameron Joyce, head of research insights at Preqin. However, he noted there will still be appetite because many private credit allocations are below long-term targets.

One upside to lower rates is that they may encourage more dealmaking, which would provide more opportunity to deploy capital, as long as that’s accompanied by a soft landing that doesn’t lead to widespread defaults.

But there’s competition for business as traditional lenders fight to steal back buyout business after private credit made inroads into that area, which had long been a lucrative source of fees for investment banks such as Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Tougher Scrutiny

In the regulatory area, the Financial Stability Board is examining how private markets interact as part of wider investigations into shadow banking. The European Central Bank is pressing top lenders for details of their exposure to private credit firms and their funds, while the Bank of Japan is also keeping an eye on the links.

“The exposure of Japan’s financial institutions to global private credit funds are increasing, with a concentration towards some big players,” Hirohide Kouguchi, an executive director at the Bank of Japan, said in an article in Eurofi magazine. “We need to remain vigilant,” he added, citing systemic implications.

In the US, new rules from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners that go into force in 2026 will give regulators more leeway to discourage insurance companies from investing in private investments and other assets viewed as excessively risky.

The measures allow the NAIC to effectively assign its own ratings to a wider range of bonds and other securities owned by insurance firms — which could mean stricter assessments. That’s a blow to insurers, which depend on those ratings in order to invest in everything from slices of corporate debt to pools of consumer loans.

To help it with the work, the NAIC plans to enlist outside expertise so it can accurately assess ratings, according to draft documents circulated last month.

The rules are “going to give insurance companies pause in investing in some of the more aggressive forms of rated note structures for private credit or asset based credit,” said Manish Valecha, head of client solutions at Angel Oak Capital Advisors.

Any pullback by insurers would be a blow to direct lenders’ growth ambitions. The average allocation by an insurance firm to private credit has doubled since 2019 to 4%, according to data compiled by Preqin.

Insurance capital has been one of the drivers of private credit markets, although the quality of triple B portfolios, which are popular with that industry, can be variable, according to Dennis.

“If you start to see defaults in those portfolios, you could risk a regulator or regulators overreacting in the other direction which could create some technical market disruption that frankly we would welcome but could create some risk of contagion a little bit more broadly,” he said.

Source: The edge markets