DD
MM
YYYY

CATEGORIES

PAGES

DD
MM
YYYY

spot_img

CATEGORIES

PAGES

Home Blog Page 8

Morgan Stanley Files for New Spot Bitcoin ETF with Proposed Annual Fee of 0.14%

By
Paul Ugbede Godwin
-
0

Morgan Stanley has filed for a new spot Bitcoin ETF (ticker: MSBT) with a proposed annual fee of just 0.14%, which would make it the lowest-cost option in the U.S. market if approved and launched.

The filing an amended S-1 with the SEC positions the Morgan Stanley Bitcoin Trust as cheaper than current leaders. It undercuts Grayscale Bitcoin Mini Trust (0.15%) by 1 basis point. It is 11 basis points below BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) at 0.25%.

Other competitors sit higher: Franklin Templeton (0.19%), Bitwise/VanEck (0.20%), ARK 21Shares (0.21%), and Fidelity/Invesco Galaxy (0.25%). This marks the first spot Bitcoin ETF directly issued by a major traditional U.S. bank. Morgan Stanley Investment Management manages ~$1.9 trillion in assets with over 16,000 financial advisors, giving it strong internal distribution channels.

Analysts note this fee structure removes any conflict for its advisors recommending the product over rivals and could attract external flows too. The ETF is expected to launch as early as April 2026. It will track Bitcoin’s spot price using the CoinDesk Bitcoin Benchmark 4PM NY Settlement Rate. Partners include Coinbase as custodian and BNY Mellon as  administrator.

The U.S. spot Bitcoin ETF market has grown to around $83 billion in assets. Fees have already compressed since the 2024 launches, but Morgan Stanley’s aggressive pricing could spark another round of competition—potentially pressuring others to cut fees further to retain or win market share. Lower fees benefit investors directly by reducing drag on returns, especially for long-term holders.

Even small differences compound over time in a volatile asset like Bitcoin. For Morgan Stanley, this is a strategic play to capture advisory and retail allocations within its vast network while signaling mainstream institutional comfort with Bitcoin products. Bloomberg ETF analysts highlighted the move as a big or semi-shock development.

Emphasizing the distribution advantage a bank like Morgan Stanley brings. This development reflects broader maturation of crypto as an asset class, with traditional finance players competing aggressively on cost and accessibility. Whether it triggers a full fee war or significant asset shifts remains to be seen, but it clearly intensifies pressure on incumbents.

Bitcoin is currently trading around $66,000–$68,000 as of late March 2026, after pulling back from 2025 highs near $126,000. Analyst forecasts for Bitcoin’s price in 2026 show a wide range, reflecting uncertainty in macro conditions, ETF flows, regulatory developments, and the post-halving cycle.

Most serious institutional and research forecasts cluster in the $100,000–$170,000 range for the year, with some more aggressive or conservative outliers. Prediction markets like Polymarket show lower conviction for extreme upside;  only ~10% odds of hitting $150k by end-2026 in recent polling.

Spot Bitcoin ETFs: Continued inflows are a major structural tailwind. The market has already seen tens of billions in AUM; new entrants like Morgan Stanley’s low-fee MSBT ETF could unlock more advisory and retail capital through traditional wealth channels, potentially adding significant demand.

Growing allocations by pensions, corporations, and possibly nation-states. Post-2024 halving effects continue to tighten new supply, amplified if ETFs absorb more than daily issuance. Interest rate path, risk appetite, and correlation with equities/gold will play big roles. A more dovish Fed or improved liquidity generally supports risk assets like BTC.

Geopolitical tensions, regulatory delays, ETF outflows during risk-off periods, or a deeper correction some analysts flag potential tests of $50k–$60k before recovery. Bitcoin remains highly volatile. Short-term consolidation or pullbacks are possible, some technical views see near-term resistance around $68k–$72k, but longer-term structural shifts—especially from traditional finance integration—support the bullish bias held by most analysts.

Historical cycles suggest post-halving years can be strong, though this cycle may deviate due to institutional participation. These are speculative forecasts, not guarantees. Bitcoin prices can swing dramatically based on unpredictable events. Always do your own research and consider risk tolerance—past performance doesn’t predict future results.

US Department of Labor Proposes Rule for Easier 401(k) Plans to Include Alternative Assets 

By
Paul Ugbede Godwin
-
0

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) officially proposed a rule that would make it significantly easier for 401(k) plans to include alternative assets—such as cryptocurrencies, private equity, real estate, private credit, infrastructure, commodities, and related vehicles—in their investment menus.

The proposed regulation, titled Fiduciary Duties in Selecting Designated Investment Alternatives, focuses on process-based safe harbors for plan fiduciaries under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). It clarifies that fiduciaries have broad discretion and flexibility when selecting investment options, as long as they follow a prudent, objective process.

Fiduciaries must objectively, thoroughly, and analytically evaluate and document factors such as: Performance including risk-adjusted returns. This asset-neutral approach applies regardless of whether the asset is traditional or alternative. The rule aims to reduce regulatory burdens and litigation risks that have historically deterred plan sponsors from offering these options.

The proposal directly implements President Trump’s Democratizing Access to Alternative Assets for 401(k) Investors executive order, which directed the DOL to review and update guidance on alternative investments in retirement plans. The DOL previously rescinded Biden-era warnings that had discouraged or heightened scrutiny on these assets. The new stance is neutral—neither endorsing nor prohibiting specific alternatives, but emphasizing a sound fiduciary process.

This primarily affects participant-directed defined contribution plans like 401(k)s covering ~90–100 million Americans with trillions in assets. Exposure to alternatives could come via target-date funds, asset allocation vehicles, or direct options, rather than requiring every plan to add them immediately.

Greater diversification potential and access to asset classes traditionally limited to institutional or high-net-worth investors. Proponents argue this could improve long-term returns and help democratize alternatives. Critics highlight risks like higher fees, lower liquidity, valuation challenges, complexity, and volatility especially for crypto.

Safe harbors provide more legal protection if they follow the outlined process, potentially reducing litigation abuse. Could open a massive pool of retirement capital, though adoption depends on plan sponsors, record-keepers, and custodians. Widespread inclusion may take time due to operational, educational, and risk-management hurdles.

The DOL has opened a 60-day public comment period following publication in the Federal Register. After reviewing comments, the department will decide whether to finalize the rule possibly with changes. This is a proposed rule, not yet final or effective. Plan sponsors remain bound by ERISA’s core fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty.

This marks a clear shift from the rescinded Biden-era 2022 guidance, which urged fiduciaries to exercise extreme care with crypto due to volatility, fraud risks, custody issues, and valuation challenges. That guidance is gone, and the new proposal emphasizes that ERISA does not favor or prohibit any particular investment type.

Bitcoin exposure in 401(k)s would most likely occur through indirect vehicles rather than direct spot Bitcoin holdings or self-directed brokerage windows allowing individual crypto purchases. Common forms include: Bitcoin ETFs or Bitcoin futures ETFs.

Actively managed funds or asset allocation vehicles including target-date funds that allocate a portion to digital assets, including Bitcoin. Crypto-focused mutual funds or commingled trusts that hold Bitcoin or related instruments.

 

The proposal explicitly references holdings in actively managed investment vehicles that are investing in digital assets and provides examples of how fiduciaries can rely on audited financial statements and valuation procedures for such vehicles. Direct participant access to spot Bitcoin remains unlikely in most plans due to operational, custody, and education hurdles for plan sponsors and record-keepers.

Bitcoin and crypto vehicles can face redemption pressures or market-hour limitations, though spot Bitcoin ETFs have improved this compared to earlier crypto products. Bitcoin trades 24/7 on global exchanges; fiduciaries must ensure reliable, fair valuation procedures.

Fiduciaries must also consider participant demographics and overall plan diversification. A small allocation in a target-date or balanced fund might be easier to justify than a standalone Bitcoin option. Younger or longer-horizon participants could gain easier, tax-advantaged access to Bitcoin as a potential inflation hedge or growth asset, similar to how institutions.

Asset managers may develop more retirement-appropriate vehicles with Bitcoin exposure, such as diversified alternatives sleeves or funds with risk controls. The safe harbor lowers the fear of lawsuits for prudent processes, encouraging more plan sponsors to at least consider options.

Bitcoin’s price swings often 50%+ drawdowns could significantly impact retirement balances, especially for participants nearing retirement. Critics argue this makes it unsuitable as a core holding for most savers. Crypto products typically have elevated costs; fiduciaries must justify them against potential benefits.

Experts note the rule won’t open the floodgates. Plan sponsors move slowly due to record-keeper capabilities, participant education needs, potential fiduciary liability concerns, and the need to monitor evolving crypto regulation. Widespread inclusion could take years. If a Bitcoin option underperforms dramatically, participants could still sue if the process wasn’t thoroughly documented.

This proposal is not yet final. It will undergo public comments, possible revisions, and a final rulemaking process. Plan sponsors, participants, and advisors should monitor updates and consult ERISA counsel or qualified fiduciaries for plan-specific advice—individual circumstances vary widely.

 

 

 

Tether Names KPMG as First Audit Firm Since 12 Years of Operation 

By
Paul Ugbede Godwin
-
0

Tether, the issuer of the world’s largest stablecoin USDT with a market cap exceeding $184–185 billion, has taken a significant step toward greater transparency by engaging KPMG—one of the Big Four accounting firms—for its first-ever full independent financial statement audit.

Tether announced it had selected a Big Four firm through a competitive process for a comprehensive audit of its financial statements, including assets, liabilities, reserves backing USDT, digital assets, tokenized liabilities, and internal controls.

The company initially did not name the firm, describing the effort as potentially the biggest ever inaugural audit in the history of financial markets due to its scale and complexity. Reports from the Financial Times and others later identified KPMG as the auditor. Tether has also brought in PwC to help prepare its internal systems and controls ahead of the review.

This goes beyond Tether’s previous quarterly attestations; limited point-in-time confirmations of reserves, previously handled by firms like BDO Italia. A full audit involves a more rigorous, ongoing examination of the company’s overall financial health and operations. Tether has faced years of scrutiny and criticism over the quality and transparency of its reserves backing USDT; historically including questions about commercial paper, loans, and other holdings.

It was fined $41 million by U.S. regulators in 2021 for misleading claims about full backing by fiat currencies. For over a decade, it relied on narrower attestations rather than a complete Big Four financial statement audit. Tether’s new CFO, Simon McWilliams, has been credited with strengthening internal readiness for this process.

A clean full audit from KPMG could help dispel long-standing FUD about USDT’s backing and reserves. Institutional and regulatory angle: It aligns with Tether’s reported ambitions for U.S. expansion including a new GENIUS Act-compliant stablecoin, USAT, issued via Anchorage Digital and potential fundraising at a high valuation.

Setting a higher bar could pressure other stablecoin issuers to enhance disclosures. Tether has not yet disclosed a timeline for completion or publication of the audit results. As with any major audit, the final report’s details and any footnotes or qualifications will be key to assessing its implications. This development reflects broader maturation in the stablecoin sector amid growing regulatory expectations for accountability.

After 12+ years of relying on narrower quarterly attestations often criticized for being point-in-time snapshots, a clean full audit could validate reserves backing the ~$185 billion USDT supply, including U.S. Treasuries, cash equivalents, and other assets. This might dispel lingering doubts from past regulatory fines and improve trust among users and counterparties.

The process is driving internal improvements via PwC, including stronger controls, risk management, and readiness for rigorous scrutiny. Recent moves, such as parting ways with ex-HSBC gold traders amid the audit, suggest house cleaning to streamline operations and minimize risks during review.

It positions Tether better for U.S. expansion, including its GENIUS Act-compliant USAT stablecoin issued via Anchorage Digital and potential fundraising at a high valuation; reports mention $15–20 billion raise targeting ~$500 billion valuation. A positive outcome could ease institutional investor concerns tied to Tether’s regulatory history.

This sets a new standard, potentially pressuring other issuers including competitors to pursue similar full audits rather than limited attestations. It could accelerate maturation of the industry amid growing regulatory expectations.

Circle; USDC issuer saw its stock drop sharply ~17–20% around the initial Big Four audit announcement, with some analysts attributing part of the reaction to fears that a strengthened Tether could challenge USDC’s position in regulated U.S. markets. However, outcomes depend heavily on the final audit details.

Bitcoin Trading Within An Ascending Channel Since February

By
Paul Ugbede Godwin
-
0

Bitcoin (BTC) has been trading within an ascending channel since early February 2026, following a sharp correction from highs near $98,000 down to around $60,000. This pattern—defined by higher lows and higher highs—initially suggested a recovery phase with bullish structure.

However, recent price action has triggered multiple warning signs of a potential breakdown. BTC has been fluctuating in the $65,000–$72,000 range, recently trading around $66,000–$67,000 after dropping from local highs near $73,000–$76,000 earlier in the month. It has tested or broken below the lower boundary of the ascending channel around $66,400–$71,500 depending on the timeframe and exact drawing.

A notable drop on/around March 27, including closes below the channel’s lower trendline on shorter timeframes. Head-and-shoulders patterns and other bearish formations have been noted on daily/12-hour charts, with breakdowns below necklines around $67,700.

The channel formed after a ~40% decline from January highs, and such post-correction ascending channels can sometimes act as continuation patterns i.e., bearish resolution lower rather than a full reversal higher. Price has slipped below the median or lower parallel line multiple times recently, with some analysts calling a structural breakdown or fracture.

A confirmed daily close below the lower trendline around $66,400 in recent views would validate a bearish shift. Failure to reach upper boundary: Repeated rejection at resistance near $71,500–$73,000+, with diminishing momentum on rallies. Hidden bearish divergence on indicators like RSI, suggesting weakening upside momentum despite the channel.

Fading HODLer conviction, spikes in long liquidations; over $3B potentially at risk below certain levels, and contrary indicators like high bullish bets on platforms such as Bitfinex. Geopolitical tensions, thin order books, and absorption of buyers at key levels have added pressure. Some see this as a danger zone with risks of a 15%+ correction.

If the breakdown holds, common targets discussed include: Near-term: $64,000–$62,000 (Fibonacci levels, demand zones, or channel projection). Retest of $60,000 or lower e.g., $56,000–$58,000 in more bearish scenarios, which could trigger cascading liquidations.

Not everyone is fully bearish—channels can produce false breakdowns, and BTC has shown resilience with bounces from lower boundaries or key supports like the 200-day MA around $69,000 recently, though it’s been tested.

A decisive daily close below the lower channel boundary; recently tested around $66,400–$68,000 depending on exact drawing often projects a move toward the channel’s measured downside or key support zones. Common levels discussed include $62,000–$64,000 (demand/liquidity zones, Fibonacci retracements) as an initial flush, with deeper risk toward $60,000 (psychological and prior accumulation area) or even $56,000–$58,000 in more aggressive scenarios.

Over $3.5 billion in leveraged long positions sit vulnerable below ~$64,100. A breakdown could trigger forced selling, amplifying volatility and accelerating the drop through thin order books. Post-correction ascending channels frequently act as bearish continuation patterns rather than bullish reversals.

The recent hidden bearish RSI divergence and failure to sustain above the median and upper lines reinforce this view for many analysts. A reclaim above $71,500 could invalidate the breakdown and target higher channel resistance or $73,000–$75,000. Longer-term cycle views still see potential for new highs later in 2026, depending on macro liquidity and adoption.

The ascending channel’s integrity is under serious pressure, and the recent downside breach has shifted short-term structure bearish for many traders. Volatility remains high, so risk management like stops, position sizing is key—crypto often sees quick reversals on news or liquidity shifts. This is not financial advice; always do your own analysis and consider multiple timeframes. Markets can change rapidly.

Trump’s Iran Exit Timeline Leaves Markets in Uncertainty as White House Sends Mixed Signals

By
Samuel Nwite
-
0

President Donald Trump’s latest declaration that U.S. forces could leave Iran within “two or three weeks” has added a new layer of uncertainty to an already volatile geopolitical and market environment, with investors now forced to price not peace, but ambiguity.

Speaking at the White House on Tuesday, Trump said: “We leave because there’s no reason for us to do this.”

He added, “We’ll be leaving very soon.”

The remarks marked his most definitive public indication yet that Washington may be preparing to wind down direct military operations after more than a month of conflict. Yet the statement has done little to provide clarity on what exactly happens within that two-to-three-week window.

That is the central issue confronting markets.

There is, at this stage, no clear roadmap for whether the timeline points to a full troop withdrawal, a reduction in air operations, a transition to regional allies, or a renewed diplomatic push with Tehran.

Instead, the White House has continued to project two sharply different messages: one of imminent de-escalation and another of sustained military pressure.

On Tuesday, even as Trump spoke of a near-term exit, he also underscored the intensity of ongoing strikes.

“Look what’s happening in Iran,” he said. “I mean, we’re totally unchecked. Everything’s been bombed out.”

He added, “We’re hitting them very hard. Last night, we knocked out tremendous amounts of missile-making facilities.”

That language sits uneasily beside the withdrawal timeline. Over the past several weeks, Trump has repeatedly oscillated between signals of peace and escalation. Earlier this month, he said operations could continue for “four to five weeks” and even warned that the United States had the capacity “to go far longer than that.”

At another point, he hinted that the war was “winding down,” only for additional U.S. Marines to be deployed to the region shortly afterward.

In separate remarks, he threatened fresh strikes on critical Iranian infrastructure, including oil assets and power facilities, while simultaneously saying Washington was in serious discussions with Iranian officials.

This pattern of contradictory messaging is precisely why financial markets, especially energy markets, are likely to remain trapped in uncertainty.

For oil traders, the issue is not simply whether U.S. forces leave Iran. The more immediate question is what happens to the Strait of Hormuz.

Even if Washington begins withdrawing troops within weeks, the physical disruption to shipping routes and the risk of further attacks on Gulf energy infrastructure remain unresolved. Trump himself has added to the uncertainty by saying that securing the Strait is “not for us,” effectively suggesting that other nations may need to shoulder the responsibility for protecting maritime flows.

“All of those countries that can’t get jet fuel because of the Strait of Hormuz, like the United Kingdom, which refused to get involved in the decapitation of Iran, I have a suggestion for you: Number 1, buy from the U.S., we have plenty, and Number 2, build up some delayed courage, go to the Strait, and just TAKE IT,” he wrote on Truth Social Tuesday.

That creates a dangerous disconnect between political rhetoric and market fundamentals. Oil does not respond to withdrawal headlines alone. It responds to whether tankers can move safely, whether insurers are willing to underwrite shipments, and whether producers in the Gulf can restore normal export operations.

Until those questions are answered, crude markets are likely to continue pricing in a substantial geopolitical risk premium. Even on days when Trump’s rhetoric appeared to soften, oil prices have remained elevated because traders are not yet convinced that a military wind-down automatically means restored supply.

This uncertainty is spilling into broader markets as well. Higher crude prices are feeding inflation expectations, complicating the outlook for interest rates and increasing concerns about stagflation risks across major economies.

Equities may welcome any sign of de-escalation, but as long as the White House continues to alternate between peace signals and threats of further strikes, relief rallies are likely to remain fragile.

In effect, Trump’s latest statement may have offered a timeline, but not a strategy. A stated exit in two to three weeks without clarity on the conditions for withdrawal, the status of Hormuz, or the shape of any diplomatic settlement means uncertainty remains the defining market theme.

For now, oil traders are likely to remain focused less on what Trump says about leaving and more on whether the region’s energy arteries can reopen without fresh disruption.

1...789...8,436Page 8 of 8,436

© Tekedia. All rights reserved.

Term & Privacy

© Tekedia. All rights reserved.

Term & Privacy