Vertex Views

Tag: finance

  • Why Your Bank Is Freaking Out Right Now

    Finance used to be boring. Like, watching a snail fall asleep is boring.

    Banks were brick buildings with marble floors and men in suits pretending to be smarter than you. But then a bunch of hoodie-wearing startup kids said, “Screw it, we can do this better.” And guess what? They are.

    Welcome to the fintech revolution, where startups are bulldozing through bloated financial institutions and giving power back to the people, or at least to your phone.

    Here’s how they’re doing it, and why your wallet, investments, and maybe even your future job are about to look very different.

    1. Banking Without the Bank

    You know what sucks? Bank fees. Overdraft charges. Waiting five business days for a simple wire transfer. Fintech startups looked at all that and said, “Yeah, no thanks.”

    Enter neobanks, digital-first, fee-hating, UX-obsessed alternatives to traditional banks. Think Chime, Monzo, N26. These aren’t just apps. They’re your bank, minus the suit and the B.S.

    No branches. No tellers. Just instant alerts, no minimum balances, and actual transparency. Is it perfect? Nope. But compared to the dinosaurs? It’s like going from dial-up to fibre.

    2. Investing for the People, Not Just the Suits

    Once upon a time, investing was for guys named Chad who wore Patagonia vests and talked about “alpha” at dinner parties. But now? Thanks to apps like Robinhood, Public, and Wealthfront, investing is as simple as swiping right.

    These startups made the stock market social, mobile, and in some cases, totally free. You can buy fractional shares, copy other people’s portfolios, or just watch meme stocks explode like popcorn.

    Yes, sometimes it gets messy (looking at you, GameStop), but here’s the deal: people are learning how money works, and they’re doing it on their own terms.

    3. Payments That Don’t Make You Cry

    Remember when sending money meant writing a check or braving a Western Union branch that smelled like printer ink and despair?

    Now? Venmo, Cash App, Zelle, and Stripe have made payments instant, social, and sometimes even fun.

    Businesses? They’re using tools like Square or Revolut to run entire operations from a tablet. Even crypto payments are becoming (almost) normal.

    The point? Sending and receiving money has become frictionless. And once people get used to that, there’s no going back to 3-day processing times and “business hours.”

    4. Lending Without the Shame Spiral

    Traditional banks make you feel like you’re begging for your own money when you apply for a loan. Startups said, “Why not use actual data and treat people like adults?”

    So now we’ve got Upstart, Kabbage, SoFi, and others using AI and non-traditional metrics (like education or job history) to evaluate creditworthiness. You get faster approvals, often lower rates, and none of the financial shaming.

    It’s borrowing reinvented for people who don’t have time to dig up their pay stubs from 2016.

    5. Crypto and DeFi: The Anarchists at the Gate

    Love it or hate it, crypto isn’t going anywhere. And the fintech world is dancing on the edge of that fire.

    Platforms like Coinbase, MetaMask, and Uniswap are turning everyday users into their own banks, swapping assets, earning yield, and making global transfers without middlemen.

    Sure, the space is chaotic and full of scams. But it’s also birthing the next generation of financial tools. And if traditional finance doesn’t adapt fast? These anarchists might just eat their lunch.

    So What Does This All Mean?

    It means your money is now as mobile, personalised, and user-friendly as your Spotify playlist. You don’t need to beg a bank manager anymore. You can manage, invest, send, and grow your money on your terms.

    But there’s a flip side, too.

    • Regulation is scrambling to keep up.
    • Data privacy? Still sketchy.
    • And financial literacy is more important than ever.

    Because while fintech is levelling the playing field, it also makes it really easy to click yourself into a financial disaster.

    Final Thought: The Suits Are Losing Control—and That’s (Mostly) a Good Thing

    Startups aren’t just disrupting finance, they’re democratising it. And that’s a big freakin’ deal.

    So, whether you’re a crypto-curious millennial, a small business owner with a Square reader, or just someone sick of your bank’s nonsense, welcome to the new world of money.

    It’s faster. It’s smarter. And yeah, it’s way more fun.

  • The Financial Implications Of Rising Natural Gas Prices

    The fact is that India is in dire need of petrol to fuel its clean energy future.

    Without even realising it, you depend on something necessary every day before you begin to complete your task. It helped grow the veggies on your plate, heated the water in your shower, lit the stove in your kitchen and even powered the cab you rode to work.

    We are discussing natural gas.

    We’re discussing it since it will get more expensive. The government changed how natural gas prices are calculated starting this month (April 2025), which is the first increase in two years. Let’s start at the top to understand why.

    You see, methane (CH4) makes up the majority of natural gas. It is extremely flexible and burns cleaner than other fossil fuels. It powers industries like steel and ceramics, is used in transportation, produces cooking gas, and creates fertilisers that are vital to Indian agriculture. Nevertheless, it barely makes up 6% of India’s overall energy usage. By 2030, India hopes to triple this percentage to 15%. However, because we haven’t arrived yet, we import almost half of our gas, primarily in the form of LNG. The situation becomes complex at that point. We are continuously vulnerable to fluctuations in world prices because we import LNG.

    For instance, in 2020. Even though it cost them $3.70 to extract natural gas, ONGC, the largest gas producer in India at the time, was selling it for $2.39 per MMBTU. They were essentially losing money on each item they sold. And the situation was the same for other gas producers.

    Sidebar: “million British Thermal Units” is what MMBTU stands for. It’s merely an elegant method of determining energy content. This unit is frequently used when discussing petrol pricing.

    The explanation was straightforward. Control. You see, domestic petrol prices were determined by a formula that averaged international prices from the US, Canada, the UK and Russia rather than being determined by the market. The government would calculate a new rate every six months by averaging such prices. Thus, the formula pulled Indian prices down as worldwide prices plummeted during the pandemic. For comparison, the price of domestic petrol was only $1.79 per MMBtu in October 2020.

    Then came the recovery. Demand for petrol increased when economies reopened. Additionally, prices skyrocketed in 2022 after Russia invaded Ukraine. Europe rushed to switch to LNG to replace Russian gas. The spot price of LNG in Asia suddenly skyrocketed, reaching $70 per MMBtu at one time. And once more, India got caught in the crossfire due to its growing reliance on imports. Because of the pricing mechanism, which either made it impossible for manufacturers to make ends meet or passed on excessive prices to consumers.

    To fix it, the government then summoned the Dr. Kirit Parikh panel. Additionally, the new formula made things simpler when it was adopted in April 2023. Instead of being benchmarked to faraway gas surplus countries, domestic gas prices will now be set at 10% of the Indian crude oil basket. To protect producers, there was a $4 floor price, and to protect consumers, there was a $6.50 ceiling. The cap may increase by 4% a year starting in April 2025 and continue until 2027, when petrol prices are completely deregulated. It was the ideal solution—neither too high nor too low. At last, ONGC and Oil India ceased to lose money. Price stability was granted to city gas distributors such as GAIL, IGL, and MGL. Additionally, consumers were protected against worldwide fluctuations.

    The following phase is now being demonstrated. As planned, the government increased the cap from $6.50 to $6.75 per MMBTU for the first time in two years. Furthermore, even though a 4% increase might not seem like much, it adds up.

    How?

    Well, because they make more money per unit, upstream producers like ONGC profit. However, the increased expenses could have to be passed on by city gas distributors, who provide compressed natural gas (CNG) and piped natural gas (PNG). Bills for industrial users will be higher. More subsidies will be demanded by fertiliser industries. Additionally, the government’s already limited budget will need to be adjusted to accommodate it.

    However, this walk isn’t taking place alone. The cost of petrol is also increasing globally. Additionally, a number of factors are contributing to the increase.

    The first is the severe weather. Heat waves in Europe, cold snaps in the US, and droughts in China can increase demand (more heating or cooling) or severely impair the supply of wind or hydropower. And guess what steps in to fill the void left by renewables? Natural gas, indeed.

    Next is the increase in LNG shipments from major producers, including Australia, Qatar, and the United States. Indeed, since this increases the world’s supply, more LNG exports seem like a positive development. However, the spot market, where petrol is bought and sold for immediate delivery, becomes more competitive. Stable pricing benefits nations with long-term contracts or fixed-price agreements for a predetermined duration. However, because demand for LNG keeps the market competitive and tight, nations like India, which rely partly on spot market imports, face higher and more erratic pricing.

    Lastly, there is the depreciation of currency. India pays for LNG in US dollars. Even constant dollar prices lead to higher rupee costs because the dollar currently trades at about ₹85. Essentially, everything imported costs more when the currency is weak. For this reason, many petrol marketing firms are advocating for setting domestic petrol prices in rupees instead of dollars.

    When combined, these obstacles create a precarious situation for India’s aspirations regarding natural gas. Both the government and producers encounter challenges when domestic pricing does not always align with international patterns.

    So, you ask, what’s the way out?

    India is attempting to hedge its bets, to start. We’re increasing output at home. Natural gas corporations are growing their oil marketing operations. Long-term LNG contracts are being signed by businesses to steer clear of the erratic spot markets. To increase access, we are constructing additional LNG terminals, pipelines, and municipal gas networks. Additionally, we’re looking into alternatives like green hydrogen, electric cars, and blended ethanol fuel.

    However, there remains a long road ahead. While demand continues to rise, India’s gas output has remained mostly unchanged for years. By 2030, India’s demand for natural gas is expected to increase by 60%, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). Additionally, due to restricted domestic production, LNG imports will need to more than quadruple to 65 billion cubic meters (bcm) per year by the end of this decade to stay up. Furthermore, growing infrastructure requires a lot of resources and has controlled price fluctuations.

    Thus, even under ideal circumstances, we will not be able to achieve self-sufficiency very soon.

    Nevertheless, India can get knowledge from other nations. For instance, Japan, the second-largest LNG importer in the world, is shifting away from strict long-term agreements and towards pooling supply and facilitating cargo swaps with South Korea and Italy to bring about greater price flexibility. Brazil has increased the number of cars that run on ethanol. Europe is investing more in renewable energy and diversifying its LNG exports. And because of advanced shale gas exploration techniques, the United States is currently the world’s largest producer of gas.

    Although India is unable to duplicate all of these methods, we can nevertheless advance more quickly on the fundamentals, such as increasing domestic supply, improving pricing strategies, and making investments in more intelligent infrastructure.

    The fact is that India is in dire need of petrol to fuel its clean energy future. However, petrol is becoming more expensive, messy, and unreliable. In other words, controlling it better rather than simply using more of it is the true challenge.

    And this slight increase of 4% in April? Perhaps it serves as a reminder that the days of inexpensive, reliable petrol may be coming to an end.

  • The United States seeks to deduct government expenditures from GDP

    The total worth of products and services produced by a nation over a specific period is known as its gross domestic product or GDP.

    Governments, historically, have messed with GDP. They count government spending as part of GDP. So I’m going to separate those two and make it transparent… If the government buys a tank, that’s GDP. But paying 1,000 people to think about buying a tank is not GDP — that is wasted inefficiency, wasted money, and cutting that, while it shows in GDP, we’re going to get rid of that, we’re going to show you how that is

    A few days ago, it was US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. To put it simply, Lutnick thinks it’s a terrible idea to include government spending in GDP statistics. And removing it from the equation is his answer.

    He makes a straightforward argument. Real economic growth is not necessarily correlated with government spending. Therefore, wasteful spending shouldn’t be included in GDP calculations.

    It makes sense, doesn’t it? However, is this concept viable?

    We must first comprehend the rationale behind including government spending in GDP to determine that. Furthermore, the solution isn’t as difficult as it seems. The total worth of products and services produced by a nation over a specific period is known as its gross domestic product or GDP. Additionally, if you were to deconstruct it into a formula, it would be like this:

    GDP = Consumer Spending + Business Investment + Government Spending + Net Exports

    (Net exports = Total Exports – Total Imports)

    In other words, every component of the equation represents actual economic activity. GDP ceases to provide the complete picture if any one of them is eliminated.

    But let’s concentrate on the portion of the equation that deals with government spending. What happens if the government employs a group of individuals to do nothing? Let them fidget with their thumbs all day. Yes, in theory, GDP would increase. But will the economy benefit from that? Except for the pro-thumb-twiddlers, not really.

    This is not merely a speculative case that we thought of. Both Elon Musk and Lutnick have alluded to this possibility. The case for reducing wasteful government spending from GDP begins to make sense at this point.

    This is supported by a National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) research. It was discovered that a 1% decrease in primary spending by governments in the OECD nations included in the sample resulted in an almost instantaneous 0.16% increase in the investments to GDP ratio. This effect compounded to 0.8% during five years. Furthermore, the impact was much greater—2.77% over five years, to be exact—if the budget cuts were directed towards reducing government salaries.

    What causes this to occur? Easy. Governments frequently increase employment when they increase spending. Pay increases as a result. Businesses incur higher costs as a result of higher wages in the private sector. Profits decline as a result, and businesses make fewer investments in expansion. Additionally, this slows down the economy over time.

    This has happened to us previously. Consider the financial crisis of 2008. The US government increased expenditure by 11% to $3 trillion to stabilise the economy. This kept things afloat in the short run. However, it ultimately resulted in weaker economic development, increased debt, and higher interest rates.

    Then, keep in mind that governments do not produce all of their money on their own. Through taxes, they receive a portion from us, the businesses and consumers. They borrow money if that is insufficient to finance their plans. Therefore, when the government spends, it is only moving a portion of that money around rather than creating new revenue in its entirety.  Additionally, spending doesn’t contribute much to economic growth if it isn’t productive.

    The United States may be thinking, “Hey, inefficient government spending is a huge problem,” for that reason. So let’s just label it a fix and remove it from GDP.

    But, you wonder, does that resolve anything?

    Not exactly. Because taking government expenditure out of GDP could not enhance economic data, but rather distort it.

    To put things in perspective, 20% of the US GDP is spent by the government. Without it, it is almost hard to compare the US economy to those of other nations. Since government investment stimulates economic activity, particularly in sectors like infrastructure, healthcare, and education, every country incorporates it in its GDP calculation. These support long-term growth rather than being merely expenses. 

    Yes, certain government spending is inefficient. However, doesn’t that also apply to consumer spending? 

    Simply consider it. $100 million is spent by a film studio on a bad movie. The film fails.  However, because tickets were purchased, that money is still included in GDP statistics. An excessive number of poor films could eventually harm the business. However, that does not imply that we deduct this expenditure from GDP, does it?

    So why is government spending subject to a separate rule?

    What if we concentrated on evaluating the quality of government expenditure rather than subtracting it from GDP?

    Well, the Quality of Public Expenditure Index is an existing mechanism in India that measures expenditure efficiency.  To assess whether public spending is effective or simply wasteful, the RBI keeps track of it going back to 1991.

    This is how it operates.

    It starts by examining the expenditures, such as infrastructure development, training and education funding, R&D, and healthcare investments. A government’s spending quality improves as it makes more investments in these.

    It then calculates the amount of interest that has accrued on the obligation. Interest payments are a good measure of financial discipline even though they aren’t included in GDP. Maintaining this low indicates prudent government spending.

    Lastly, it monitors two important figures: the revenue deficit (the difference between regular income and costs) and the fiscal deficit (the amount borrowed by the government to pay for excessive spending). According to the RBI, maintaining a revenue deficit of zero and a fiscal deficit of three percent guarantees high-quality public spending.

    This index has shown to be a helpful tool for determining whether spending is headed in the right direction. Additionally, for the past few years, the trend has been upward.

    Perhaps the United States could also learn from this example.

    Better yet, consider its own history. In the past, the US government had a structure in place to use actual data and evidence to gauge how effective its initiatives were. Political divisions may prevent the current administration from agreeing with that strategy, but that doesn’t mean they can’t create something better. They may collaborate with economists, improve on outdated frameworks, and develop a model that accurately depicts how successfully or poorly federal funds are being used.

    Because let’s face it. Not only is it misleading, but it is downright strange to exclude government spending from GDP calculations. And generating concepts that don’t make sense economically?  That could hurt the US economy.

    And the majority of economists would advise against that.

    What are your thoughts?

  • Bitcoin’s Meteoric Rise: The Policies, Promises, and Pitfalls Shaping Its Future

    One of Trump’s most ambitious crypto-related proposals is the creation of a U.S. Bitcoin Strategic Reserve.

    Bitcoin’s value has surged over 100% in 2024, fueled by significant momentum following Donald Trump’s U.S. presidential victory. From hovering around $60,000 earlier in the year, Bitcoin now trades near $90,000, with predictions that it could hit $100,000 soon. But what’s driving this meteoric rise? Let’s dive deeper into the factors contributing to Bitcoin’s recent performance, the policies shaping its future, and the challenges it faces.  

    The Trump Factor: A Shift in Tone on Crypto  

    In 2019, Donald Trump publicly dismissed Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies as volatile assets “based on thin air.” However, his presidency has marked a remarkable policy shift, with his administration now positioning the U.S. as a global leader in crypto innovation. Trump’s pro-crypto stance has reignited market confidence, signalling a more supportive regulatory environment.  

    This shift comes with practical implications. Trump has proposed making the U.S. the epicentre of Bitcoin mining, aligning it with his broader energy deregulation strategy. Crypto mining is energy-intensive, and the U.S.’s robust energy sector provides a significant advantage. Deregulated energy could lower costs, making Bitcoin mining more profitable and appealing to investors.  

    The Energy Connection: Bitcoin Mining and Trump’s Policies  

    Energy is a critical factor in Bitcoin mining, accounting for 60-70% of operational costs. Trump’s plan to deregulate the energy sector could make electricity cheaper, boosting mining profitability. The U.S. is already a net energy exporter, and reduced energy costs could attract more miners to establish operations domestically.  

    Such a move would solidify the U.S.’s leadership in Bitcoin mining and contribute to the cryptocurrency’s infrastructure. This boost in mining activity strengthens the Bitcoin network, a key reason for the enthusiasm among crypto holders.  

    A Strategic Bitcoin Reserve?  

    One of Trump’s most ambitious crypto-related proposals is the creation of a U.S. Bitcoin Strategic Reserve. Modelled after national reserves for oil or gold, this initiative could see the U.S. Treasury purchasing up to 1 million Bitcoin over five years. At today’s prices, this would represent a $90 billion investment in Bitcoin.  

    The reserve would act as a hedge against economic uncertainty in the digital age, much like gold has historically been a safeguard for national reserves. This initiative would position the U.S. as the first government to adopt Bitcoin at such a scale, setting a global precedent.  

    The potential impact is enormous. With the U.S. government absorbing 5% of Bitcoin’s total supply, the demand shock could drive prices even higher, while signaling institutional acceptance of cryptocurrency as a legitimate asset class.  

    The Macro Environment: Debt and Inflation  

    Bitcoin’s rise is also supported by broader macroeconomic trends. The U.S. national debt continues to climb, raising concerns about inflation and the stability of traditional currencies. Bitcoin, with its fixed supply of 21 million coins, offers a compelling alternative as a hedge against currency devaluation.  

    As investors look for safe havens, Bitcoin’s unique characteristics—its limited supply and decentralized nature—have made it increasingly attractive. This narrative has gained traction among both retail and institutional investors, contributing to the cryptocurrency’s sustained rally.  

    Challenges Ahead  

    While the current momentum is strong, Bitcoin remains a highly volatile asset. Sharp corrections have followed past rallies, and this pattern could repeat. Bitcoin’s price history shows that it is susceptible to external factors like regulatory crackdowns, geopolitical events, and technological issues. 

    For example, in 2021, China’s ban on crypto mining triggered a significant slump in Bitcoin prices. Similarly, any changes in Trump’s policies or unforeseen regulatory challenges could dampen market enthusiasm.  

    Another potential inflexion point is Bitcoin’s upcoming halving event. Halving reduces the rewards miners receive for validating transactions, effectively tightening Bitcoin’s supply. Historically, these events have led to price surges followed by corrections, adding another layer of unpredictability.  

    The Broader Impact: Companies and Technologies  

    Bitcoin’s rise is also benefiting companies involved in crypto mining and energy production. Stocks of firms providing power for Bitcoin mining have surged, reflecting investor optimism about the sector’s growth potential. For those wary of Bitcoin’s volatility, these companies offer an alternative way to capitalize on the crypto boom.  

    Additionally, advancements in Bitcoin technology and infrastructure are likely to continue. As the network evolves, innovations in security, scalability, and usability could enhance Bitcoin’s appeal, attracting even more participants to the ecosystem.  

    Conclusion: A Promising but Uncertain Future  

    Bitcoin’s 2024 rally underscores its resilience and growing relevance in the financial world. Driven by favourable policies, macroeconomic conditions, and technological advancements, cryptocurrency is experiencing a new wave of adoption and interest.  

    However, challenges remain. Volatility, regulatory risks, and geopolitical uncertainties could temper Bitcoin’s growth. As always, investors must navigate these complexities with caution.  

    Still, Bitcoin’s story is far from over. Its current trajectory suggests a transformative role in the global economy, making it a topic worth watching closely in the years to come. Whether it’s through mining, national reserves, or technological breakthroughs, Bitcoin is shaping the future of finance in ways that few could have imagined just a decade ago.

  • Does Banking Culture Promote Cheating?

    Experts believe the banking sector may be promoting dishonesty by focusing too much on profit

    Is there anything about banking that encourages dishonest behaviour? Yes, according to Swiss researchers. 

    They found that the banking culture, which focuses on financial gain, can lead to dishonesty. Nature magazine surveyed 128 employees from a large international bank and 80 others from various lenders. The bankers were split into two groups and asked to answer a short quiz about their work and personal lives.

    The participants were split into two groups. One group answered questions about their banking jobs, while the other group was asked about their TV-watching habits, which was the control group. Both groups then performed coin flips, which were unmonitored. The bankers were told they could earn money based on the number of heads they flipped, with a maximum reward of $200 for a full sequence of heads. This setup aimed to observe any differences in honesty between the two groups.

    The control group had a 52% success rate in the coin tosses. The first group, which answered questions about their banking jobs, reported a 58% success rate. Researchers concluded that 26% of the first group cheated. The 58% success rate was significantly higher than that of the control group and above what would be expected by chance.

    In a follow-up study with non-bankers, dishonesty didn’t increase when participants were asked about their professions before the coin tosses. Unlike the bankers, workers in other industries didn’t show more cheating when reminded of their professional roles. This suggests that banking’s focus on profit might be a unique factor encouraging dishonesty.

    The same was true for students — they didn’t cheat more when given financial prompts.

    So, what’s going on? Experts believe the banking sector may be promoting dishonesty by focusing too much on profit.

    This raises concerns about the values of banking culture. If integrity keeps taking a back seat to profit, it could damage public trust. A shift in the industry’s culture might be necessary to promote ethical behaviour in finance.