Tag: assets

  • The “Good” Buyback vs. the “Bad” Buyback

    Imagine a successful company like Apple. It generates enormous amounts of free cash flow, far more than it needs to run its business and invest in future growth. It uses this excess profit to buy back its own shares. This reduces the number of shares outstanding, which increases Earnings Per Share (EPS) and the ownership stake of the remaining shareholders. In this scenario, shareholder equity remains robust and positive because it is constantly being replenished by massive retained earnings.

    Now, consider a company with stagnant growth, inconsistent profits, or a struggling business model. To make its financial ratios look better and to prop up its stock price, the management might decide to buy back shares. But where does the money come from if not from excess profits? It often comes from taking on new debt or draining cash reserves that are needed for operations and innovation.

    This is the “bad” buyback. The company isn’t creating new value; it’s using leverage to manipulate its financial appearance. On the balance sheet (Assets = Liabilities + Equity), liabilities (debt) go up, and assets (cash) go down to pay for the shares. This combination aggressively eats away at the equity portion of the equation. When a company buys back so many shares that the cost exceeds its retained earnings and initial capital, shareholder equity flips to negative. It means the company’s liabilities now exceed its assets, a state of technical insolvency.

    Even more concerning, is when a company does both buybacks and dilutions (selling new shares). This is a major red flag. It’s like a frantic attempt to tread water: they sell new shares to raise needed cash (diluting your ownership), and then use cash (often borrowed) to buy back other shares to support the stock price. This financial churn suggests a lack of a coherent long-term strategy, prioritizing short-term stock performance over fundamental business health.

  • Precision Doctrine: Re-evaluating Digital Assets from Peacetime Liability to Wartime Strategic Reserve

    Precision Doctrine: Re-evaluating Digital Assets from Peacetime Liability to Wartime Strategic Reserve

    David’s Note: This article was substantially revised on October 12, 2025 to incorporate new research and provide a more comprehensive analysis.

    Executive Summary

    This report argues that the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act represents a fundamental misinterpretation of digital asset technology’s strategic value. The Act integrates stablecoins into the peacetime financial system to foster innovation. However, this policy creates a significant national security liability. It strengthens a global infrastructure that adversaries exploit for illicit finance and sanctions evasion.

    The core argument is that the technology’s decisive value is not in peacetime commerce. Instead, its highest and best use is as a strategic military asset reserved for times of declared conflict. This analysis examines the GENIUS Act, the arguments of its proponents and opponents, and the extensive evidence of security threats posed by the peacetime proliferation of cryptocurrencies.

    As an alternative, this report proposes a “Wartime Digital Asset Act.” This framework would restrict the peacetime use of public cryptocurrencies. It would simultaneously develop the underlying technology as a strategic military reserve. This capability would be activated only upon a declaration of war by Congress for critical applications. These include resilient command and control, secure logistics, and wartime finance.

    The report concludes that true technological leadership requires the precise application of innovation to its most decisive purpose. In this case, that purpose is to serve as a reserved instrument of national power.

    (more…)
  • Crypto for Conflict: A Proposal to Restrict Digital Assets to Wartime Use

    Crypto for Conflict: A Proposal to Restrict Digital Assets to Wartime Use

    Many have spoken about the need for American leadership in technology and the potential of digital assets. Vice President Vance has a point about paying attention to what global competitors like China are doing in the crypto space. However, the current conversation around cryptocurrency for everyday infrastructure and investment is a distraction from its most strategic and vital use case: national security.

    Instead of trying to fit this technology into a peacetime financial system, we should be harnessing its power for when we need it most. I propose we treat the infrastructure of cryptocurrency like a strategic military asset, to be deployed only in times of war, much like war bonds. This isn’t about the coins themselves, but about the underlying technology and ASICs – a decentralized, resilient network that can be activated by the military upon a formal declaration of war.

    This approach addresses the national security risks of unregulated crypto, while giving the U.S. a powerful economic and strategic tool in a time of conflict. It’s not about stifling innovation; it’s about focusing that innovation where it can have the most decisive impact for our nation.

    Proposed Legislation: The Wartime Digital Asset Act

    A BILL

    To restrict the use of cryptocurrencies and stablecoins to times of declared war, and for other purposes.

    BE IT ENACTED BY THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED,

    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the “Wartime Digital Asset Act”.

    (more…)