Disney's plans to acquire most of the assets of 21st Century Fox could reshape Hollywood. Assuming the $52.4 billion deal goes through, the Mouse House will get the rights to the "Avatar" movies, full control over movies based on Marvel's X-men characters, and the rights to distribute the original "Star Wars" movie. As we can see in this chart from Statista, Disney was already the top movie studio; adding on Fox's assets should cement its lead.

But the move is about more than movies. The deal includes Fox's 30% stake in Hulu, which would make Disney the majority owner of the streaming service and put it in a good position to compete with Netflix.

SEE ALSO: E-waste is a huge and growing problem — and the US is a big reason why

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: What happens when vegetarians eat meat for the first time

• Bitcoin came into existence in 2009 in part as a response to fears about financial intermediation and banking following the financial crisis of 2008.
• Aggressive rate cuts from the Federal Reserve and other central banks sparked fears, which proved unfounded, of high inflation that would sharply devalue major currencies.
• More recently, market liquidity generated by a low interest rate environment made its way into bitcoin, some analysts say. 

It’s a testament to the ferocity of the recent rally in bitcoin that Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen was asked about it multiple times during her last press conference as central bank chair.

She said bitcoin "is a highly speculative asset" that "at this time plays a very small role in the payment system." The cryptocurrency "is not a stable store of value, and it doesn't constitute legal tender," Yellen said.

Yet for better or worse, the Federal Reserve has played an important, two-part role in the emergence of the bitcoin phenomenon.

Bitcoin came into existence in January 2009, in part as a response to fears — which proved unfounded with time — that central banks’ aggressive response to the Great Recession of 2007-2009 would generate hyperinflation and a collapse of conventional currencies.

In 2008, many of the world's marquis financial firms either went bankrupt or stood at the edge of bankruptcy until taxpayers bailed them out. Lehman Brothers' spectacular collapse in September 2008 marked the height of Wall Street's panic. 

“People were looking at what happened in 2007 and 2008 and thinking, is there a better way? These financial intermediaries turned out to be pretty risky they made terrible bets," said Martin Chorzempa, a digital payments expert and research fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics (where I used to work).

And more recently, some analysts say that the market liquidity unleashed by the Fed’s prolonged policy of low interest rates, which it has been gradually reversing with rate increases since December 2015, has helped drive the latest leg of the bitcoin rally, which has taken its price to ever mounting records now close to $18,000.

'It looks less like a currency every day'

For Chorzempa, the problem begins with calling bitcoin a digital "currency" when it is fact anything but a stable store of value. 

"It looks less like a currency every day because the price is just skyrocketing like a speculative asset," he told Business Insider. "I look at this latest addition of margin and leverage with great trepidation."

The Fed's low-interest-rate policies are aimed at stimulating investment and spending in a weak economy, but there are fears that some of the money makes its way to more speculative uses. 

"There's so much capital flowing around," Chorzempa said. "All the institutional investors are drooling over the kind of returns that you’re getting in bitcoin" even though very few understand the technology.

Chorzempa warned that a deep crash is very possible and could be self-reinforcing, because the incentives for bitcoin mining decline as the prospects for price gains decrease.

Another key concern for bitcoin holders is regulatory scrutiny. Yellen discussed bitcoin more as a risk for illegal activities than as a new paradigm that could lower the cost of funding for firms, as bitcoin evangelists tend to preach.

"The Fed doesn't really play any regulatory role with respect to bitcoin other than assuring that banking organizations that we do supervise are attentive, that they're appropriately managing any interactions they have with participants in that market and appropriately monitoring anti-money laundering bank secrecy act responsibilities that they have," Yellen said.

Then, there’s the issue of liquidity

Imagine deciding that, hey, at $18,000, it’s time to cash out. Not so fast. Turning bitcoin into cash can be difficult if not impossible.

"People overestimate their ability to cash out. If you have a million bucks in bitcoin trying to do it in an exchange you’re going to crash the price," Chorzempa said. "So you’d need to go to an old fashioned broker, do an over-the-counter negotiation.

"The hardcore people who have a lot will do 'cold storage' — a USB drive, or write the code down on a sheet of paper and store it in a bunker in Switzerland," he said.

Chorzempa does not believe a bitcoin crash would pose a threat to the financial system right now, but warned that steps to legitimize its trading, such as the introduction of a futures exchange, could ensnare more traditional banking institutions that could generate systemic risks.

"Where the problems start to emerge is where it starts to build links to the rest of the financial system. Futures build that link," he said. 

Interested in the rise of bitcoin, ether, litecoin, and all the rest? Never miss an update and sign up for Business Insider's new newsletter, Crypto Insider, and have all things crypto delivered to your inbox.

SEE ALSO: The rise of a new kind of finance is setting off alarm bells at the Fed

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's why Boeing 747s have a giant hump in the front

• The Federal Reserve raised its key interest rate 25 basis points to a range between 1.25% and 1.50% at the conclusion of Wednesday's meeting.
• At the accompanying press conference, Fed Chair Janet Yellen was asked about bitcoin.
• Yellen called the cryptocurrency a "highly speculative asset" and said the Fed is not seriously considering its own digital currency at this time. 

The Federal Reserve lifted its benchmark interest rate 25 basis points to a range between 1.25% and 1.50% at the conclusion of Wednesday's meeting and signaled it sees three rate hikes in 2018.

In the press conference accompanying the decision, Fed Chair Janet Yellen as asked about bitcoin by CNBC's Steve Liesman. Yellen noted that bitcoin is "a highly speculative asset." She added that the cryptocurrency "plays a very small role in the payments system" and that it's not a "stable store of legal tender." 

Bitcoin has been garnering attention on both Wall Street and Main Street in the latter months of 2017. The cryptocurrency has soared more than 1,500% this year.

When asked if the Fed was considering its own digital currency, Yellen suggested there had been some discussions about the topic.

"There is a discussion about adopting a digital currency," Yellen said. "There might be a central banker or two that might go in that direction. But I really want to caution that this is not something that the Federal Reserve is seriously considering at this stage."

“I doubt that the Federal Reserve will go into that direction, but it is something that central banks are looking at to see if there could be benefits.”

Wednesday's press conference was the final one for Yellen, whose term ends in February. The Federal Open Market Committee meets on January 30-31, but there's no press conference scheduled at the conclusion of that meeting.  

SEE ALSO: Bitcoin bull Tom Lee has identified 12 stocks that are perfect if you don’t want to own it

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: PAUL KRUGMAN: Bitcoin is a more obvious bubble than housing was

• BlackRock Global Chief Investment Officer of Fixed Income Rick Rieder shared his biggest market fear with Business Insider as part of a wide-ranging discussion.
• Rieder has concerns over complacency creeping into global markets.

If you ask 10 different money managers for their biggest market fear, you might get 10 different answers.

That's not necessarily because some large reckoning is on the horizon. It's more a reflection of how difficult it is to pinpoint the next big disruption.

That said, Rick Rieder, the chief investment officer of fixed income at BlackRock, who oversees $1.7 trillion, is probably someone whose advice you should heed. Having worked at the highest level of money management for multiple decades, Rieder has seen it all through tough market cycles in 1990, 1994, 1998 and 2002.

In an interview with Business Insider, Rieder shared his biggest market-related worry. He also gave his thoughts on the Federal Reserve's next steps, the GOP tax plan, the equity and bond markets, and the rise of exchange-traded funds.

It was part of a wide-ranging discussion that also included a deep dive into Rieder's hectic daily schedule, which you can read about here.

Here's what Rieder had to say (emphasis ours):

"Complacency. Some areas of the financing market are too high. Central banks flooded the system with liquidity, and now they should pull back. If you don't have that normal give and take that markets generally calibrate to, prices end up being too high for too long, or yields too low, and you get a complacency that's not good.

That's my biggest fear going forward. The longer you don't recalibrate — and build up volatility in the markets — that can create a bad outcome with real reverberations. It could adversely affect the lending dynamics in the country and shut down companies from investing.

I think what the Fed is doing now is the exact right thing, but I think the ECB and BOJ should start moving as well. Central banks need to pull back and reach some equilibrium.

Geopolitical risk also keeps me up at night, but I don't sleep much anyway, and that will always be there."

SEE ALSO: BlackRock's $1.7 trillion bond chief explains the key dynamic every investor needs to understand

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: One market expert says the financial system could collapse at any moment

• The Federal Communications Commission voted on Thursday to repeal its net neutrality rules.
• The repeal is good news for Facebook, Google, Amazon, and the other big internet companies that have deep pockets and can afford to pay any tolls put in place by the internet providers.
• The repeal could make the Big Tech companies even more powerful, because their smaller rivals will likely have less ability to afford such fees.
  

In the wake of the Federal Communications Commission's vote Thursday to dismantle its net neutrality rules, there's been a lot of talk about how the move will destroy the free and open nature of the internet.

I'm not going to dismiss such concerns. But I think they ignore a bigger problem — the biggest technology companies were already threatening the openness of the internet, and the repeal of net neutrality is only going to make the situation worse.

The internet today looks a lot different than it did in its early days. It's now dominated by a small handful of large tech companies that arguably have more power than the internet providers that the FCC regulated under its net neutrality rules. Facebook, Google, Netflix, and Amazon wield immense control over how we interact with others, get our entertainment, consume news, and shop. Chances are if you experience something online, you're likely doing it through or by way of one of those Big Tech companies.

Those companies' power has grown almost unabated, thanks in large part due to the open nature of the internet. Now, the end of regulations designed to keep the internet open are likely to cement their dominance. 

The net neutrality provisions barred broadband providers from block, slowing, or giving preferred treatment to particular sites and services. The repeal of those rules will allow the providers to do things they basically haven't been able to do before, which will likely mean fewer choices and higher prices for you and me.

But the ending of the rules likely won't just mean added costs for consumers; it's also likely to mean new fees for internet companies. In the absence of the net-neutrality provisions, one of the things broadband providers will likely attempt is to charge internet companies tolls to send their web pages or stream their videos to the providers' customers.

The repeal of net neutrality could mean added costs — but more power — for Big Tech

Ironically, this could be good news for Big Tech.

Say, for example, Comcast starts charging streaming video providers fees to send their movies, shows, and clips over its wires. Netflix and Google-owned YouTube will likely have no problem shelling out the cash. They won't like it, mind you, but with their deep pockets, they'll be able to afford it.

However, the smaller video-streaming companies — whether ones that target particular niches or nascent ones that are aiming to be the next Netflix — likely won't have things so easy. Many probably won't be able to afford such pay-to-play schemes.

And that's just in video. Imagine similar fees targeting messaging providers, e-commerce outlets, or social networking services. The post-net neutrality internet could severely weaken or kill off startup or bootstrapped companies — leaving the current giants even more powerful and much more secure.

To get another idea of how Big Tech could benefit from the repeal of the net neutrality rules, take a look at some of the countries in the developing world whose citizens are just now starting to connect to the internet. In some of those countries, Google and Facebook have signed deals with particular carriers. While the carriers often charge pricey fees for access to the broader internet, those deals — which it's likely only the Big Tech companies can afford — allow their customers to access Google and Facebook for free.

Thanks to such preferential agreements, many consumers in those countries think Google and Facebook are the internet, not realizing there is a vast universe of other sites and services online.

Big Tech's silence was deafening — and revealing

Big Tech has frequently mouthed its support for net neutrality. But if you want to get a sense of what those companies really think about the rules' repeal, take a look at their actions immediately prior to Thursday's vote. Most of them kept a safe distance from the controversy or were completely silent on the issue, only to releasestronger statements after the repeal passed.

"For the most part, the large tech companies did not engage in the protest,"the New York Times noted two days before the vote. "In the past, the companies have played a leading role in supporting the rules."

Their silence was deafening.

There are a lot of reasons to be upset over the FCC's decision to repeal the net neutrality rules. You should worry about your broadband provider or wireless carrier increasing prices, charging you more to use certain services, or doing other things that might degrade your internet experience.

But the potential that the repeal could make Facebook, Google, Amazon, and the rest of Big Tech even more powerful is equally as troubling — and deserves just as much scrutiny.

SEE ALSO: What the net neutrality repeal means for you

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: How couples improved their sex lives in one week

• The Tesla Semi has been racking up high-profile pre-orders since it was unveiled.
• Those deep-pocketed customers are going to want their trucks — they'll be less patient than Model 3 buyers.
• Tesla might want to think about prioritizing the Semi.

The Tesla Semi reveal at SpaceX headquarters near Los Angeles in November was easily the most bonkers Tesla event I've ever attended. Elon Musk jumping out of an all-electric big rig, bathed in red light, with private jets taking off in the background, crowd screaming, and then one more thing: the new Tesla Roadster rolling off the back of one of those rigs, to the thunderous strains of the Beastie Boys' "Sabotage."

For good measure, designer Franz von Holzhausen made a couple of speed runs in front of an audience of Tesla enthusiasts who, as Musk accurately predicted, had just had their minds blown out of their skulls.

So the new Roadster upstaged the big rigs. But since the unveiling, the big rigs have generated more buzz, although it's been a bit below the radar. Companies such as Walmart, Anheuser-Busch, DHL, Sysco, and Pepsi have placed notable pre-orders for the Semi, which will be priced at $150,000 to start when it eventually goes into production.

Emphasis on eventually. Tesla has minted a $50-billion market capitalization by serially overpromising and underdelivering — and that's actually OK — so we shouldn't expect the Semi to hit the road anytime soon. 

But things could be different for Tesla this time around. 

Tesla Semi customers will be completely different from Tesla car buyers

Musk is committed to overpromising and underdelivering for strategic reasons — he gains nothing from living up to expectations and everything from resetting them — but with the Semi he's trying to apply his Jobsian reality distortion field to a new set of customers.

Tesla's core business — expensive, all-electric luxury vehicles — has grown dramatically since 2013, but it remains niche in the larger scheme of the auto industry. Buyers are affluent early adopters who embrace Tesla's mission. 

With over 400,000 pre-orders booked for the cheaper Model 3 sedan, Tesla is working to extend that brand enthusiasm to the mass-market (or at least the upper end of the mass-market), with the understanding that more budget-sensitive buyers might not be as infinitely patient with Tesla's quirks.

The Semi is a whole other ball game, though. 

Semi customers are big companies that will want to see a return on investment quickly

The electric-semi value proposition is convincing enough for major freight haulers to consider Tesla as a way to outsource some risky R&D and experiment with alternative means of heavy-duty over-the-road propulsion. My view is that these folks are going to be the least enthusiastic about Tesla's overpromising and underdelivering mojo. They're going to want their trucks delivered when promised and they are going to be a lot more demanding than the Model 3 buyers. 

And that could be a good thing, putting pressure on Tesla to deliver. Except that Tesla is currently mired in what Musk has called "production hell" for the Model 3, with far fewer vehicles rolling off the assembly line than predicted (the year could finish up with just a few thousand in total, optimistically, versus thousands per week).

In the big picture, the Model 3 is driving Tesla's valuation, and failing to come through with the car on schedule could undermine the company's all-important access to easy equity capital in 2018. That's a real problem, as Tesla doesn't have enough cash on hand to ride out the coming year at its current burn rate.

Tesla's weird new reality

Here's where things get seriously weird. Tesla has on paper a solid core business with the luxury vehicles: 100,000 units annually, with a tasty profit margin of something like 15%, conservatively. That business is probably now sustainable. 

The Model 3 business is obviously up in the air, as Tesla attempts to add another 400,000 vehicles in yearly production — and sell a car with a base price of $35,000 at a profit similar to the Models S and X. The coming 12 months will be a test, or maybe even an ordeal: Can Tesla be both Ford and BMW?

Meanwhile, the Semi has exerted a powerful pull. Tesla doesn't need to manufacture 400,000 of them, either. And it can sell them for ... oh, about $120,000 more than the Model 3. If you were trying to make the most of Tesla's capital, which orders would you prioritize?

Tesla does start to look sort of like Daimler in this conundrum: a good business in large trucks and, with Mercedes-Benz, a good business in luxury cars. (AND, guess what: Daimler once owned a chunk of Tesla, back when the German company was invested in Tesla's powertrain business.)

The Semi could be Tesla's salvation

So the Model 3 is certainly cool, setting off a crazy cycle of desire that's akin to what Apple has achieved with iPhones (though not at all the same when it comes to purchasing the Tesla vehicles). But as the pre-orders roll in and Tesla gets the benefit of a rallying stock price on the news, the question arises: Why waste time on a low-margin car when you could shift to Semi production and satisfy some very deep-pocketed customers?

The question is important because it implies another: Where will Tesla build the Semi? Production is supposed to begin in 2019. And if you believe that, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Tesla will need a new factory to handle Semi manufacturing.

Or ... dial Model 3 way back, take the hit — and it would be a big hit — and go all-in on the Semi.

I don't seriously think this will happen, but that's why the Tesla Semi puts the company in dangerous territory. I used to consider it a distracting folly. But now it looks more like Tesla's salvation.

FOLLOW US on Facebook for more car and transportation content!

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Watch Elon Musk show off Tesla’s first electric semi — which can go from 0-60 mph in five seconds

2017 has been a roller coaster — both in the US and abroad, the year ends with the world in a very different place than it was 12 months ago.

However, as has become our tradition, the Business Insider Military and Defense team is going to predict the future.

In the past, we've done well. Last year we correctly identified many of the problems the world would face in 2017, including some that directly challenged the new US president — Donald Trump.

It's clear Trump will have more decisions and crises to face in the upcoming year. To be sure, other global leaders will as well, but the "America First" president has proved to be unpredictable, if nothing else.

Your guides for this year's journey are Peter Jacobs, Alex Lockie, Christopher Woody, Daniel Brown, David Choi, and Ben Brimelow.

Here's what we think will happen in 2018:

SEE ALSO: Here's what we think is going to happen in 2017

DON'T MISS: We took a rare tour of one of the US Navy's most dangerous warships — nicknamed the 'Sledgehammer of Freedom'

Trump will remain president of the United States

Impeachment papers introduced in the House. Senators calling for his resignation over sexual assault allegations. And Robert Mueller's special counsel investigation getting closer to the White House with each new revelation.

It can seem sometimes that the walls are closing in on Trump's presidency. But, in all likelihood, he'll still be standing when 2018 comes to a close.

Impeachment proceedings have been shot down by Democratic leadership. Even if "Chuck and Nancy" take up the cause, they're still the opposition party — Republicans control both houses of Congress and have no reason to usher out a president of their own party.

As a growing group of Democrats call for Trump's head over longstanding sexual assault allegations, it's becoming clearer that the charges won't stick (regardless of their potential validity). Even as a sea change takes over Washington and takes down more lawmakers, the allegations against the president didn't hobble his candidacy and, barring some new revelation, the White House will stick to its current line — deny, deny, deny.

The obvious albatross around Trump's neck is the Mueller investigation and the president's potential ties to Russia.

Everyone from his campaign chairman to his national security adviser to potentially his son and son-in-law may be caught up in it. But Trump remains the president — and will through the next year.

— Peter Jacobs, Military & Defense Editor

The US and North Korea will not enter into large scale war

As I have argued elsewhere, both the US and North Korea have too much to lose to go to war. Both sides can achieve a palatable outcome without exchanging nukes.

That said, Trump will continue his "maximum pressure" approach to North Korea and bring the world to the brink of war. North Korea will complete additional tests of nuclear devices or ballistic missiles. International diplomats will bite their fingernails to the stub but ultimately a large scale war won't break out.

This is not to say small scuffles may happen. The US may board a North Korean ship, or attempt to shoot down a missile test.

North Korea may shell a relatively uninhabited part of South Korea. It may detain more US or South Korean citizens. It may lodge a cyber offensive or emulate some of Russia's "hybrid war" tactics in the South, but the big show doesn't happen.

Remember: There is tremendous leverage in threatening to initiate the end of the world with nuclear war, but nothing to be gained by actually ending it.

— Alex Lockie, News Editor

China will flex its muscles in the Sea of Japan

China's actions in the Pacific have not exactly been warm and inviting.

China conducted a number of flying missions that made Japan rather nervous this year. These were usually with H-6 bombers and other surveillance aircraft over the Miyako Strait, an open area of water between Miyako Island and Okinawa Island.

When Japan complained about violations of its airspace and the increased activity, the Chinese responded with an abrupt statement: "Get used to it."

With China's rhetoric getting increasingly assertive, and its new aircraft carrier sailing the waters, China can be expected to flex its naval muscle in the area.

— Ben Brimelow, Military & Defense Intern

• Geopolitical risk is the biggest fear in markets right now, according to a Barclays survey of over 700 institutional clients.
• The firm says it's a combination of developments on the Korean peninsula, tensions with Russia, political turmoil in Saudi Arabia, Brexit, and less predictability in US foreign policy.

Sometimes there's no bigger fear than the unknown.

That seems to be the case in global markets right now, at least according to a survey of 700 institutional clients conducted by Barclays.

Roughly 40% of respondents named geopolitical uncertainty as the biggest risk to markets, the survey showed. It's an interesting selection, says Barclays, because there's no immediately obvious global threat looming right now, meaning that anything that transpires will be a major surprise that catches people off guard.

"The only way in which the global expansion seriously disappoints in 2018, in our view, is if the world economy faces a large exogenous shock — one that we cannot plausibly identify right now," Barclays analyst Aziz Sunderji wrote in a client note.

So which geopolitical developments are most likely to spur anxiety? Barclays says it's a combination of "developments in the Korean peninsula, tensions with Russia, political turmoil in Saudi Arabia, Brexit, and less predictability in US foreign policy."

And despite the lack of immediate clarity, it's not altogether surprising that investors are citing some big global unknown as their biggest fear, considering where volatility conditions are right now, says Barclays.

The firm notes that, over the life of its survey, geopolitical risk has been a popular response during periods of low overall market uncertainty. As noted in the chart above, the CBOE Volatility Index— or VIX, otherwise known as the stock market fear gauge — has been notably subdued during such stretches in the past, sitting near 13.

"Historically, clients have cited this as the biggest risk when volatility has been low," said Sunderji.

SEE ALSO: BlackRock's $1.7 trillion bond chief tells us his biggest market fear

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's what bitcoin futures could mean for the price of bitcoin

• Apple Watch users haven't been able to listen to podcasts via the device unless they've had an iPhone nearby.
  
• That's because Apple has yet to release a podcast app for the Apple Watch, and it's limited developers' ability to create their own podcast apps.
  
• But two developers recently released new — if imperfect — apps that allow users to listen to podcasts via an Apple Watch without an iPhone around.

App developers have finally fixed one of the biggest shortcomings of the Apple Watch — its inability to play podcasts without an iPhone near by.

Unfortunately, their solutions, while welcome, aren't exactly ideal.

The big new feature on the latest version of the Apple Watch is that you can connect it to the cellular networks, allowing you to untether it completely from an iPhone. You can now connect to the internet or even place calls just from the Watch.

What you haven't been able to do with the new Watch by itself, though, is play podcasts. Apple has yet to release a podcast app of its own for the Watch. And because of certain limitations in watchOS — the operating system underlying the device — it's been difficult for developers to create their own podcast apps for the Watch.

So if you wanted to listen to a podcast during a workout or on your daily walk, you had to bring your phone along.

But you can now catch up on "This American Life" or even Business Insider's "Success! How I Did It!" on an Apple Watch with no phone nearby, thanks to two free apps released this week — Workouts++ and MiniCast. 

You can listen to podcasts Workouts++ — as long as you indicate you're exercising

Workouts++ isn't actually a podcast app. Instead, it's essentially a more fully-featured version of the Workout app that's included with the Watch. But one of those additional features just happens to be the ability to stream podcasts straight to the device.

The feature comes with some big caveats. You'll need to have cellular service for your watch to be able to stream or download podcasts to it. You also can't use any other app on your phone if you want to continue to listen to podcasts.

And you'll need to start the Workouts++ app's workout tracking feature to listen to a podcast. For podcasts to work, the app needs to think you're working out — even if you're just sitting on the couch.

"The road to get this working nicely on the Apple Watch was a bit bumpy," developer Dave Smith wrote on his blog.

He added in a tweet: "The app is given special abilities when a workout is active, which has the side-effect of making podcast playback possible."

Even with those limitations, Workouts++ is easily the better option if you want to listen to podcasts via your Apple Watch and not have to lug your iPhone along also.

Workouts++ is a free download. 

MiniCasts offers podcasts — and some frustrations

If you don't want to have to worry about starting a workout — fake or otherwise — to listen to a podcast or you want to use a different exercise app while listening to one, you should try MiniCast. The app lets you listen to podcast episodes that you've downloaded to it. 

However, MiniCast has several big limitations. Downloading episodes can be a slow process. Unlike Workout++, MiniCast doesn't allow you to stream podcasts over a cellular connection directly to your Watch. What's more, you can't adjust the volume inside the app. 

MiniCast's developers are well aware of its shortcomings and promise to fix them as soon as Apple makes it possible. 

"We know MiniCast is NOT perfect," developer Fabian Pimminger wrote. "But it’s a solution that works for us, and we think it can work for a few people who want to listen to podcasts on their Apple Watch. MiniCast is primarily made for situations where you don’t want to take a phone with you."

MiniCast is a free download. 

SEE ALSO: People in Silicon Valley are losing their minds after a famous investor said its culture is bad for startups

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Amazon has an oddly efficient way of storing stuff in its warehouses

• Stockpile is a company that sells gift cards that can be redeemed for stock.
• The company also allows users to buy fractional shares, which it says makes trading more affordable.
• These two features have led Stockpile to have a fairly young user base that is trading stocks earlier than ever.

Gift cards have come to embody the lazy gift, the one for the relatives you don't really know and the colleague you drew in Secret Santa. But, what if buying a gift card was just the start of a gift that could potentially last a lifetime?

For Avi Lele, that's exactly what his company is trying to do. Stockpile is a FINRA licensed stock broker that is bringing stock picking to the masses, in the form of gift cards.

"A few Christmases ago, I wanted to get my nieces and nephews something a little bit different than what I had been getting them every year, which was toys and clothes," Lele told Markets Insider. "I said, 'Hey what if I give them stock in their favorite companies instead.'"

Lele tried to gift them stocks, but short of getting their social security numbers and opening a traditional brokerage account in their name, there wasn't a lot he could do. Besides, the stocks they wanted were some of the hottest tech names on the market and each cost several hundred dollars per share. It was that frustration that led Lele to start Stockpile.

Seven years and $45 million of funding later, Stockpile gift cards can be found at a number of major retailers like Target and Wegman's. Turn one of the gift cards over and scratch off the lotto-like grey material to reveal a code that the recipient can enter in Stockpile's app to redeem.

Perhaps more intriguing than the gift cards, is the ability to buy fractions of a share through Stockpile. Amazon is a company everyone knows, but at around $1,200 a share, one that not everyone can afford. Stockpile allows its users to invest in fractional shares of companies. You can buy one-tenth of a share of Amazon for $120, or one-half of a share of Apple for about $85.

A fractional share more or less works like a full one would. If a full share goes up in value by 10% in a day, so does the fractional share. Dividends are paid to shareholders according to the number of shares they own. If you only own half a share, you only get half the dividend payment. You can't vote in company elections with fractional shares though, according to the company's terms of service.

To make that all possible, Stockpile will buy a full share of the desired company and hold onto the remaining fractional share until it can use it to fill another user's order.

"You don't have to bottom fish for cheap penny stocks, or other bad investments," Lele said. "Every stock is in your price range."

Lele said the lower barrier to entry has attracted a unique set of users. Stockpile has more female users than other brokerages, but is still about 60% male. Users are a lot younger than traditional investors too, according to Lele. 65% of accounts are owned by millennials.

"Our youngest investors are literally a few weeks old because their mom got a gift card for a baby shower," Lele said.

The younger demographic on Stockpile tends to lean towards tech stocks. The most popular holdings on Stockpile include names like Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Tesla and Google.

The concentration of younger users is what sparked a newer section of the app devoted to teaching stock market fundamentals. Short articles on things like market cap and the S&P 500 help users expand their knowledge of the market and invest in smarter ways. Anecdotally, Lele says he sees accounts that start with a gift of stock and eventually end up investing in more complicated products like exchange-traded funds.

"We have some young investors that have started amassing some serious money. their lawn mowing money, their babysitting money, their bar mitzvah loot, all of that adds up to a pretty significant account," he added.

Lele hopes that Stockpile can help millennials invest for their future better than he did. He said being intimidated by the process led him to invest too little, too late.

Lele declined to provide information about the number of users or disclose how well they tend to do on the app. What he did say though, was that he was a bit envious of the returns from his young users.

"The millennial generation tends to spot things early," Lele said. "The Peter Lynch principal, buy what you know. Millennials know. I think they are in the know more than we are, more than I am. I'm not a millennial, wish I was."

Read more about how bitcoin might be like a bubble from the 1600s.

SEE ALSO: There's a lot to learn about bitcoin from looking at the tulip bulb bubble

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: PAUL KRUGMAN: Bitcoin is a more obvious bubble than housing was

• Citigroup's investment bank has ambitions to compete for the top spots in the league tables.
• The bank has been mid-tier since the financial crisis, but recent improvements in mergers and acquisitions and equity-capital markets suggest the bank may be on the verge of a breakthrough.
• The bank may be firing on all cylinders, but industry analysts and top executives say Citi still has work to do to climb the final few rungs.
• "It continues to be a very, very competitive landscape, so we take nothing for granted," one senior banker says.

Citigroup officially ended its long overhaul this summer, with CEO Michael Corbat declaring the firm "strong and stable" and that its "restructuring is over" at the first investor day the bank has held since the financial crisis.

While Corbat was talking about the group as a whole, he could just as easily have been talking about Citi's investment bank.

Citi has largely loomed outside of the upper ranks of the investment banking league tables since the crisis. While JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and Bank of America Merrill Lynch duked it out for league supremacy, Citi was busy cleaning up messes, shedding extraneous businesses, and generally getting its affairs in order.

But Corbat's comments this summer arrived at a telling time for Citi's investment bank, which, like the financial giant overall, is showing strong signs of progress.

"If you look at all the metrics for the latest 12 months, for a couple of years, and year to date, we have demonstrated a significant increase in our wallet share," Raymond McGuire, head of Citi's corporate and investment bank, told Business Insider.

Through the first three quarters of the year, Citi generated $3.8 billion in investment-banking fees, a 27% increase from 2016 and good enough for fourth place in the league tables, according to data from Thomson Reuters. It's the highest year-over-year gain so far of any of the top-10 investment banks.

The bank has been strong in bonds and loans for years — it maintained its third-place ranking in debt-capital markets through the first nine months of 2017 — but now its mergers-and-acquisitions advisory and equity-capital markets businesses are gaining steam as well, setting the stage for a serious challenge to the upper echelon of Wall Street's global investment banks.

Citi ranked fifth in fees from M&A, climbing 25%, to $860 million, the biggest gain in the top 10 aside from fourth-place Bank of America Merrill Lynch, which increased fees by 40%. In ECM, Citi ranked fourth with $902 million in fees, a 90% gain — the largest among the top 10.

"It seems like it's finally coming together for Citi," said a consultant who regularly works with top management at the largest investment banks on Wall Street. (The consultant declined to comment on the record because their firm doesn't authorize discussing individual clients publicly.) "They've always been ranked mid-tier. But we're seeing significant improvement."

Still, the bank hasn't reached the pinnacle yet, and it will be a hard fight surpassing the competitors ahead of them.

"It's been a mission for them probably for the last five or more years to do better in equity league tables and M&A. They fell down in the ranks during their crisis years," said David Hendler, founder of Viola Risk Advisors and a bank analyst of more than 30 years.

"They're making strides to try to penetrate it at some point, but they probably still have to work on their overall relationships and expertise."

A prime seat at the table

In early November, McGuire sent around a memo to his corporate and investment-banking division staffers praising the group's strong year. In the opening line, he highlighted Broadcom's record-breaking $130 billion takeover offer of Qualcomm, in which Citi played a leading advisory role, illustrating "the momentum that we have heading into 2018."

It hardly matters that the offer was rejected days later — Broadcom is still pursuing — as it served as a symbol of the level Citi has reached: In the largest M&A deal of the year, and the largest tech deal in history, Citi had a prime seat at the table.

It was the largest, but it was only one of a handful of megadeals Citi advised on in 2017. The bank is also defending Spanish infrastructure conglomerate Abertis Infraestructuras from takeover bids worth as much as $44 billion, advised on the $30 billion aerospace merger of Rockwell Collins and United Technologies, and advised medical devices company Becton Dickinson's $24 billion acquisition of CR Bard, taking the lead on lining up a combination of loans, bonds, and equity to finance the deal as well.

"If you look at the roster of transactions where we've been involved and been in a lead position, that roster of transactions can pull comparable to many of our competitors," McGuire recently told Business Insider.

What's changed for Citi?

According to McGuire, it's partly a result of the investments Citi has made in pulling in top-tier bankers to complement its already high-caliber roster of veterans.

"The foundation to this, the bedrock to this is talent. You have to make certain that you have the talent that is the best trained, that has the best experience, that can exercise the most refined judgment," said McGuire, who's personally involved in every major strategic hire.

Citi has hired more than 20 at the managing director level around the world for its corporate and investment-banking division this year, according to the memo. That includes a new head of M&A in EMEA, Alison Harding-Jones; a new head of the China corporate and investment bank, Guorong Jiang; and a new head of investment banking in Brazil, Eduardo Miras.

Leveraging a global presence

Structural changes have also helped the massive bank better leverage its largesse and global presence, according to McGuire.

Citi has touted its worldwide footprint often throughout its more than 200-year history. The bank repeatedly emphasized its "global network" at its investor day, referring to the company's presence serving large multinational companies in 98 markets around the world.

Most of the revenue from these large clients comes from providing traditional corporate banking services — daily financial tasks like sending and receiving money, trading financial products, using commercial credit cards, corporate lending, and exchanging currency.

Investment banking's needs are more episodic, but the global roster of clients Citi serves daily would seemingly provide an advantage in capturing these opportunities when they do arise.

"The corporate bank has historically been the foundation of how we engage with our clients and how we do this globally," McGuire said. "If we can leverage the infrastructure that we have with the corporate bank and the relationships we have there to bring in those people who have the experience and expertise and judgment on the advisory side, including equity-capital markets as well as M&A, then we can bring solutions to that client, wherever they need solutions in the world."

It's an opportunity Citigroup hasn't always been able to make the most of. The investment bankers and corporate bankers haven't historically always worked in concert to leverage these relationships, and the largest and most complex global deals have more routinely gone to competitors at the top of the league tables.

After Actavis bought Allergan for $73 billion in a highly complex deal in 2015, CEO Brett Saunders said he couldn't fathom the transaction happening without a single, universal bank with broad expertise. He was referring to JPMorgan, saying, "Very few banks could have done what they pulled off."

"There's no reason why Citi, with its presence and capabilities, shouldn't be doing these," the industry consultant said. "You never really see them on those large, mega-structured deals."

But under McGuire, Citi has taken steps to better leverage its global presence. About seven years back, the corporate and investment banks were formally combined with the clear direction to collaborate.

"In many instances where we had more senior, more client impacting corporate bankers, we coheaded them with a similar profile from the investment bank," McGuire said. The global industrials unit, for instance, is coheaded by a top investment banker and a senior corporate banker.

The integration was physical too. Corporate and investment banking teams used to be separated, but now they share facilities and many physical barriers have been eliminated. They use the same elevator banks, for instance.

"We made sure that the likelihood of interaction is high," McGuire said.

Citi's IPO bonanza

Citi's equity-capital markets team has also delivered a strong performance, with the bank's $900 million in revenues through three quarters, nearly double last year's level.

Tyler Dickson, Citi's global head of Capital Markets Origination, credits the firm's global presence with helping the ECM business generate money from several macro trends that others weren't as prepared to capitalize on, including the volatility of oil commodity prices, interests rates defying expectations, and unexpected geopolitical results, like the election of President Donald Trump.

According to Dickson, Citi is able to more quickly and effectively respond to such developments and then match companies needing capital with investors looking to deploy.

"When you're in close to 100 countries and doing business in 160, I think that's allowed us to identify market industry trends that other people may have naturally missed because they're good in a certain geography or product base."

The company has had a bonanza of IPO assignments this year, and ranks No. 1 on the league tables in global IPOs through the first nine months, according to Thomson Reuters data. It's finished in the middle of the table in recent years.

The bank had a lead role on Altice's $1.9 billion US IPO this summer, the largest US telecom public offering in nearly two decades. It also had a lead role on the $2.4 billion IPO of South Korean gaming firm Netmarble Games in May, the largest IPO in the country in seven years.

Talent, again, has also played a crucial role. Citi set itself up for success by adding to its strong ECM roster during the lean IPO years of 2015 and 2016 when other banks retreated.

"We invested in the lower-volume period of the cycle," Dickson said. "And we did that while a number of our competitors pared back on their banking talent and pared back on their equity-capital-markets talent. And when the markets snapped back, they had to redouble their efforts in anticipation of catching up, and I think we sort of had the slow and steady wins the race strategy around that."

Dickson's team is also proactive about moving top bankers around the world to take advantage of opportunities. In 2015, for instance, Citi felt that the trends driving ECM in the US — like low interest rates and central-bank liquidity — would soon manifest in Europe as well.

Philip Drury, a longtime veteran and head of Citi’s equity-capital-markets operation for the Americas, was sent to London to capitalize on the opportunity, taking over as the head of Capital Markets Origination for Europe, the Middle East, and Africa.

"Our existing talent, plus our new talent, has given us the best banking and capital-markets team on the street, and that's translating to all of our products," Dickson said.

"I think we've had a longstanding commitment to the equity-capital-markets business, but I do think we're firing on all cylinders right now," he added. "It continues to be a very, very competitive landscape, so we take nothing for granted."

There's still some ground to cover

McGuire is clear about his goals for the investment bank: It wants to be perpetual contender for the top spot in the league tables.

Despite its recent momentum, McGuire acknowledges Citi still has "some ground to cover" to get there.

"I have confidence and conviction that we'll get there just based on the talent that we have and some of the investments that we've made and some investments that we intend to make going forward," he said.

The deal business is lumpy, and banks can move up and down the rankings year to year because of a handful of big transactions. Whether the bank can sustain its momentum will play out over the coming quarters.

In M&A and ECM, Citi still sits behind the familiar faces — JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley.

"We know they have all these historical tentacles all over the world, but maybe this time they can pull it together. But they've got stiff competition," Hendler said.

"Citi's still trying to catch up," he added. "They've had a good couple of quarters. Let's see if they can put it together for a year or two."

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The CIO of a crypto hedge fund explains the value in cryptocurrency — and why the market will explode over the next 2 years

• FAANG stocks could be a victim of their own success in 2018, says Morgan Stanley.
• The outperformance of the tech-focused group could leave it vulnerable to some trend reversals that could weigh on performance, according to the firm.

All good things must come to an end. Which is why Morgan Stanley has already started brainstorming about what could derail torrid gains for scorching-hot tech stocks.

The FAANG group — which consists of Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix and Google— has crushed the broader market in 2017, buoyed by strong earnings growth and a momentum-chasing mindset from investors looking to buy stock in proven winners.

And while Morgan Stanley isn't yet prepared to get outwardly bearish on FAANG heading into next year, it does note that there are some elements present that could slow the group's roll. They include:

1) A heavy concentration of broader market gains in FAANG

FAANG has driven 24% of the benchmark S&P 500's gains in 2017, which is the third-highest level of concentration in the last 20 years, trailing only 1999 and 2004, according to Morgan Stanley data.

Still, the firm notes that the average over the period is a 22% contribution from the market's top five stocks, so FAANG dominance isn't as overextended as it might appear on the surface. But it remains something to watch.

2) Growth stocks are beating their value counterparts — which could be due for a reversal

Growth stocks have beaten their value-based peers for 10 years running after a six-year period where the opposite was true, according to Morgan Stanley. This trend could weaken or even see an outright reversal in 2018, the firm says. And that would impact FAANG because they're among the most notable examples of successful growth stocks.

3) Market outperformers tend to slow the following year

Morgan Stanley finds that, throughout history, the top five market cap growers in a given year have only returned 3.7% over the following 12 months. What's more, those companies actually see a -0.6% median return, relative to the S&P 500.

This fits in perfectly with Morgan Stanley's bullish-but-tempered outlook. These stocks may rise in 2018, but they'll be hard-pressed to keep pace with their outstanding 2017 gains.

SEE ALSO: Big-money investors single out the biggest risk to markets over the next year

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: One type of ETF is taking over the market

• Lewis Ranieri is considered the father of the mortgage-backed security.
• His invention enabled millions of Americans to afford homes, but its distortion and manipulation also helped cause the financial crisis. 
• He told Institutional Investor he never imagined ratings agencies and regulators would fail so badly, but also accepted part of the blame.
• "It's absolutely true that many of us tried to stop it. But the fact is, it didn't stop," Ranieri said. "We, the creators, should never forget."

In the early 2000s, Lewis Ranieri was named one of the most influential Americans of the past century, before transforming a few short years later into one of the Americans who blew up the world. 

Ranieri is the father of the mortgage-backed security, the financial innovation that enabled millions of Americans to afford homes before it was twisted and abused and became a tinder box that helped set the world economy aflame in 2008.

He invented the financial product at Salomon Brothers in the 1970s, and in a recent interview with Institutional Investor for its "War Stories" series he said he never could have predicted how everything came crashing down. 

The risks, he thought, were accounted for given the scrutiny of the ratings agencies like Standard & Poor's and Moody's, as well as oversight by regulators like the Securities and Exchange Commission.

"We could never have imagined that the ratings services could be bought. That they would basically, just the money would be so important they would break all of their own rules and rate things they knew shouldn't be rated triple or double or whatever. Ok, and that was unimaginable to me," Ranieri said.

"And then it was unimaginable to me that the SEC would not intervene. They never did. They were always silent. So all this is going on and they're nowhere to be seen."

The intention — to try help those who couldn't afford a traditional home loan — was noble, Ranieri said, but "the reality becomes ignoble in so many ways."

"We've now created Frankenstein. Frankenstein has a brain, it's the one we gave him, but the body made up of everybody's whatever parts they got out of the cemetery has nothing to do with necessarily what we started," Ranieri said.

Even though he and other creators tried to stop the meltdown from occurring, Ranieri doesn't deflect blame for the tragedy that befell millions of homeowners and countless others that suffered through the financial crisis.

"It's absolutely true that many of us tried to stop it. But the fact is, it didn't stop," Ranieri said. "We, the creators, should never forget."

Watch the full interview at Institutional Investor. 

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The CIO of a crypto hedge fund reveals why you should be cautious of the ICO bubble

• AQR Capital Management, a quantitative-focused hedge fund overseeing $208 billion, seeks to dispel what it sees as the four biggest myths associated with corporate share repurchases.
• The firm argues that companies using cash to repurchase stock doesn't hinder economic growth, as has been suggested in recent weeks.
• One of the arguments against Republicans' proposed tax cuts has been that companies will use excess capital to simply buy back their own shares.

To hear detractors of Republicans' tax bill tell it, the plan as written wouldn't actually boost economic activity. These skeptics think corporations will simply use the excess capital from tax cuts to buy back their own shares.

And that's not too far-fetched of an idea. After all, buybacks have swelled during the 8-1/2-year equity bull market, and stock gains have followed in spades.

The conventional explanation for the strength has been as follows: Companies artificially boost their share prices by reducing the number of units outstanding while simultaneously signaling to the market a belief that their shares are attractively priced.

But AQR Capital Management, the quantitative hedge fund that manages $208 billion, doesn't buy it. The firm thinks buybacks are misunderstood — and don't directly drive much share appreciation at all.

AQR has even gone as far as to compile what it sees as the four main myths of share repurchases, which the firm published in a recent research paper titled "The Premature Demonization of Stock Repurchases." And while the study doesn't specifically mention the GOP tax plan, it does address worries specifically related to it.

"A common critique is that each dollar used to buy back a share is a dollar that is not spent on business activities that would stimulate economic growth," a team led by AQR's managing and founding principal, Cliff Asness, wrote in the study. "Oh, if only it were that simple."

Here are the four myths:

Myth No. 1: Companies are self-liquidating using share repurchases at a historically high rate

AQR acknowledges that the total dollar amount spent on buybacks is higher than in the past, but it says this "muddles changes in the scale of the economy and changes in the typical balance sheet of firms throughout time."

The firm points out that the total money spent on buybacks, relative to aggregate market cap, is not at a record. In fact, the measure is far below where it was during the latest financial crisis. AQR also says that, when properly normalized, there hasn't even been an upward trend in buybacks over the past five years.

Myth No. 2: Share repurchases have come at the expense of profitable investment

AQR says this assertion is "not consistent with either finance theory or an empirical examination of the sources and uses of capital among US corporates."

The firm stresses that there's no apparent negative relationship between normalized investment and stock-buyback activity. It also highlights that the two readings have actually been positively correlated lately, with both rising since the financial crisis.

Myth No. 3: The recent increase in stock prices is the result of share repurchases

To disprove this one, AQR computed a rough estimate of cumulative index-level returns using stock buybacks as the only input. The firm found that if every member of the gauge bought back shares in a given year at historically normal sizes, it would account for 1% to 2% of index-level price appreciation. That's a far cry from the gain of more than 15% for the Russell 3000 index.

Perhaps an important nuance to this point is that while buybacks can't be fully responsible for the large gains seen in the stock market, they are accretive to a degree.

Myth No. 4: Companies that repurchase shares do so only to increase earnings and thereby 'price'

For this one, AQR points out that while buybacks reduce share count, the depletion of cash to buy back those shares is negative for earnings. "Only if the cash that is used for share repurchases is truly idle (sitting in the chairman's desk drawer) would we agree that share repurchases increase EPS," Asness wrote.

Going off AQR's logic, investors shouldn't be worried about the tax plan's massive windfall being misused. Assuming companies realize that buybacks aren't directly responsible for share gains, they'll theoretically be more likely to spend money on capital expenditures, or capex, and corporate reinvestment — the activities most closely tied to economic growth.

And based on recent equity-market performance, companies should already be favoring reinvestment to share repurchases anyway.

From the beginning of 2016 through October, a Goldman Sachs-curated basket of stocks spending the most on capex and research and development has beaten a similarly constructed index of companies offering high dividends and buybacks by a whopping 21 percentage points. That outperformance totaled 11 percentage points in 2017 alone, according to the firm's data.

Goldman's data-backed argument that companies should be reinvesting, combined with AQR's myth-busting around the use of buybacks, should give corporations all the information they need to use tax cuts in a way that would help the overall economy.

But will they? That's another discussion entirely.

SEE ALSO: Why BlackRock's $1.7 trillion bond chief gets up at 3:30 a.m.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: One market expert says the financial system could collapse at any moment

• A penthouse in Miami is selling for the equivalent of about $547,000. 
• The seller is only accepting bitcoin. 
• Bitcoin has surged more than 1,500% this year. 

For 33 bitcoins, this "spectacular" penthouse in Miami could be yours.

That was the equivalent of about $547,000 on Wednesday. 

The one bedroom, 1.5 bathroom apartment is listed on a number of real estate portals including Redfin, Remax, and Coldwell Banker.

"PRICE? ONLY ACEPTING (sic.) BITCOIN," the listing said. Since Redfin doesn't yet list properties in bitcoin, the $33 listing price fell below its minimum-price threshold, and the apartment was not available for a tour. 

According to public records on Redfin, it was last sold in January 2016 for $315,000 and gained 7.4% annually since then. Justino Ferret, the agent on the property, told Business Insider that this seller is only accepting bitcoin. 

The cryptocurrency has surged more than 1,500% this year against the US dollar as it gained popularity with Wall Street and retail investors. 

On Tuesday, Joseph Borg, a securities regulator, told CNBC that he had seen mortgages being taken out to buy bitcoin. Borg likely was specifically referring to a home-equity line of credit, which allows homeowners to loan from their property's value for other purposes. The idea of using a house as an ATM machine grew in popularity as the housing bubble peaked in the mid-2000's.

Converting home equity to bitcoins is not advisable, said Nela Richardson, the chief economist at Redfin.

"You're taking money out of an asset class that is highly regulated and putting it into something whose value is based on no regulations," she told Business Insider. 

"We think this home for sale is more of a rare event than the start of a larger trend," she added. 

SEE ALSO: Bitcoin bull Tom Lee has identified 12 stocks that are perfect if you don’t want to own it

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: One market expert says the financial system could collapse at any moment

Bitcoin is still too risky for many investors with a lot of money at stake.  

But there's a handful of stocks that stand to benefit from bitcoin and the underlying blockchain technology, according to Tom Lee, a strategist at Fundstrat and one of the most prominent advocates for the cryptocurrency.

The basket of 12 stocks he recommended in a note Friday has gained 136% this year. That's more than the S&P 500's 18% rally, but is dwarfed by bitcoin's 1,588% rise.  

"We believe investors should have exposure to blockchain, particularly given bitcoin has essentially zero correlation to equities, bonds and commodities — hence, as a portfolio strategy, bitcoin is a good diversification tool," Lee said. He sees one bitcoin costing $25,000 by the end of 2022. 

The stocks Lee recommends offer "three types of leverage—  (i) price gains of bitcoin/tokens; (ii) transaction activity (either wallets or exchanges); and (iii) mining based on proof of work or proof of stake." 

Here they are, in ascending order of how much exposure Lee estimates they have to bitcoin:

Square

Ticker: SQ

Market cap: $14.8 billion

Year-to-date performance: 179% 

Comment: Allows bitcoin to be bought and sold, accepts bitcoin.

Source: Fundstrat

Goldman Sachs

Ticker: GS

Market cap: $94.4 billion

Year-to-date performance: 4.5% 

Comment: Likely "first mover" investment bank in bitcoin. 

Source: Fundstrat

Overstock

Ticker: OSTK

Market cap: $1.13 billion

Year-to-date performance: 158% 

Comment: Accepts bitcoin and owns Medici Ventures, its blockchain subsidiary.

Source: Fundstrat

• The NFIB's measure of small business optimism reached its highest level in 34 years in November.
• A handful of more specific indexes also climbed to record or near-record levels.

A measure of US small business optimism hit its highest level since 1983 last month, according to a National Federation of Independent Business survey released Tuesday.

The index gained 3.7 points in November, a big jump from the near-record performance seen in the previous month, NFIB data showed. In addition, eight of 10 components posted gains, including a rare 16-point increase in a reading of expected better business conditions.

"Not since the roaring Reagan economy has small business optimism been as high as it was in November," NFIB wrote in its release.

Here are some other key takeaways from the report:

• Job creation plans increased six points in November, "providing more evidence of a strong labor market," said the NFIB
• The number of owners who said it’s a "good time to expand" rose 4 points
• A net 24% of respondents said they plan to create new jobs, up 6 points to a record reading

"We haven’t seen this kind of optimism in 34 years, and we’ve seen it only once in the 44 years that NFIB has been conducting this research," Juanita Duggan, the organization's president and chief executive officer, said in a statement. "Small business owners are exuberant about the economy, and they are ready to lead the U.S. economy in a period of robust growth."

SEE ALSO: A $200 billion quant fund says one of the biggest market concerns over GOP tax reform is a myth

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The stock market is flashing warning signs

Citigroup just announced a new class of 120 managing directors in its Institutional Clients Group.

"A promotion to Managing Director is a career-defining accomplishment and each of these individuals makes a remarkable, differentiated contribution to Citi, fulfills our Leadership Standards and embodies our Mission of Progress," Jamie Forese, CEO of the Institutional Clients Group at Citigroup, said in a memo.

The Institutional Clients Group includes, among other operations, Citi's investment banking and trading teams.

Citi's Global Consumer Group, which houses its retail and commercial banking departments, promoted another 58 to managing director, bringing the firm-wide total to 178, a company spokesman confirmed. 

The promotions take effect January 1, 2018. 

Here are the names from the Institutional Clients Group memo: 

Corporate and investment banking

Nicholas Blach-Petersen

Marina Donskaya Bronstein

Jonathan Cain

Rob Chisholm

Billy Cho

Katrina Efthim

Morten Eikebu

Fernando Fleury

Amulya Goyal

Israel Halpert

Richard Hawwa

Patti Guerra Heh

Bob Jackey

James Jackson

Martijn Jansen

Ward Jones

Rob Jurd

Matt Kenney

Dan Kim

Hiroki Kondo

Rebecca Kruger

Lydia Liu

Vassilios Maroulis

Alex Mulley

Matt Musa

Sam Norton

Louise O'Mara

Ayan Raichaudhuri

Roberto Severin

Mike Shelly

Cathy Shepherd

Milos Stefanovic

Rizwan Velji

Capital markets origination

Shane Azzara

Chris Chung

Lawrence Cyrlin

Marzena Fick

Christopher Herzog

Malte Hopp

Harish Raman

Markets and Securities Services

Alex Altmann

Bouhari Arouna

Saquib Ayub

Sam Baig

Antonella Bianchessi

Helen Brookes

Jia Chen

Laura Coady

Zack Comey

Mbar Diop

Madlen Dorosh

Omar El Glaoui

Paul Favila

Ross Goldstein

David Gonzalez

Chris Gooch

Meng Gu

Adam Halvorsen

Alex Knight

Nikhil Kohli

Hubert Lanne

Lorenzo Leccesi

Norman Leung

Aida Mastura

Jabaz Mathai

Sid Mathur

Prach Mishra

David Mitchell

Joe Narens

Jeffrey Oh

Cameron Parks

Matt Passante

Nikheel Patel

Cristina Paviglianiti

Harry Peng

Brandt Portugal

Joe Reel

Al S'Aeed

Marcus Satha

Alec Schoeman

Scott Secor

Vikram Soni

Larissa Sototskaya

Rafael Souza

Nate Stone

Jim Suva

Christopher Tedeschi

James Teoh

Sonali Das Theisen

David Ji Um

Johny Vlachakis

Hsiao Chi Wang

Matt Watson

Xiaopo Wei

Matt Zhang

Private bank

Dimitri Andreadakis

Nancy Bertrand

George Cherry

Garcia Froome

Hui Gao

Fred Hess

Ray Ho

Steve Kwei

Laurence Mandrile-Aguirre

John Mitchell

Bola Oyesanya

Heather Rich

Treasury and Trade Solutions

Rachel Brown

Esther Chibesa

James Lee

Magdalena Mielcarz

Deven Somaya

ICG Operations & Technology

Hirokimi Hidaka

Gulrez Jamada

Carey Ryan

Vanderlei Silva

Venkat Vajipeyajula

International Franchise Management

Ahmed Bozai

Pablo Del Valle

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The CIO of a crypto hedge fund reveals why you should be cautious of the ICO bubble

• Japanese men in their 30s and 40s are driving the cryptocurrency market. 
• They overtook their Chinese counterparts after regulators started to shut down exchanges. 
• Many Japanese retail traders are engaged in leveraged trading, using borrowed funds, and a survey showed that they are generally less financially literate than their US counterparts.

Japanese men in their 30s and 40s are the biggest drivers of the bitcoin boom. 

Forty percent of bitcoin trading between October and November was conducted in yen, according to a Nikkei report cited in a note by Masao Muraki, a global financial strategist at Deutsche Bank. 

Japanese investors, mostly men, came to dominate trading after regulators started to shut down cryptocurrency exchanges in China.

"More than a few Japanese investors positively value volatility," Muraki said in a note on Thursday. He continued: "Japan’s investment style is typified by a combination of low-risk, low-return deposits and high-risk, high-return investments."

Bitcoin, the world's largest cryptocurrency, leapt 127% between October and November. In December, it has taken out six $1,000 milestones and continues to grow in popularity as more people try to profit. On Sunday, CME Group will be the second trading venue to launch futures trading, one week after Cboe Options Exchange. 

Many Japanese investors are engaged in leveraged trading, using borrowed funds. 

"We think that retail investors are shifting from leveraged FX trading to leveraged cryptocurrency trading," Muraki said. "Japan accounts for a high 54% of global foreign exchange margin trading (leveraged FX trading), so Japanese retail investors are major players in FX markets."

However, many retail investors could use the help of professional brokers. Muraki cited a survey by Japan's Central Council for Financial Services Information which showed that retail investors in the country are less financially literate than their US counterparts. 

SEE ALSO: Someone is selling a 'spectacular' penthouse in Miami — but they're only accepting bitcoin

DON'T MISS: Bitcoin bull Tom Lee has identified 12 stocks that are perfect if you don’t want to own it

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The 5 issues to consider before trading bitcoin futures

• Disney is buying Fox's film studio and a large chunk of its television production assets for $52.4 billion.
• Bankers orchestrating the megadeal could earn more than $150 million.

After months of intrigue and rumors, Disney announced Thursday it has a deal to buy 21st Century Fox's film and TV assets for $52.4 billion, the latest in a flurry of megadeals in the back half of the year. 

Bankers representing the two media conglomerates are set to earn another giant payday of as much as $155 million in deal fees, according to Jeffrey Nassof, director of consulting firm Freeman & Co. 

JPMorgan  and Guggenheim Partners will split $60 million to $70 million for representing Disney on the deal, while Centerview Partners, Deutsche Bank, and Goldman Sachs will split $70 million to $85 million for advising Fox. 

Goldman Sachs will earn another $15 million to $25 million for arranging the $9 billion bridge loan on the deal. 

It's shaping up to be a very lucrative month for dealmakers at Goldman Sachs and Centerview Partners. The two firms also advised on opposite sides of the $69 billion CVS-Aetna deal announced last week — a transaction that could produce as much as $600 million in advisory and financing fees when it's all said and done. 

SEE ALSO: Disney has struck an industry-changing deal, and now 'everybody is talking to everybody'

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Cryptocurrency is the next step in the digitization of everything — 'It’s sort of inevitable'