The team, led by analyst of Morgan Stanley Bank James Fawcett, sent a note to its clients stating that the real cost of bitcoin is zero. This writes Business Insider. The document emphasizes that it is almost impossible to reason with the real value of the most popular crypto currency at the moment. The note contains Fawcett's answers to some questions related to bitcoin. In particular, he says that bitcoin is not in the full sense a currency (there is no interest rate associated with it), can not be a substitute for gold (the latter has an objective value based on industry and jewelry industry applications). The payment system in which bitcoin is involved is difficult to expand to the entire economy.
It is astonishing what nonsense some of the banks produce (also: the internal "house view" is quite often very different from the facade presented to the outside world).
1. The COST of bitcoin is at least it's production cost (i.e. cost of mining). This is different from the value. Let's assume that the argument is, then, about value not cost.
2. The requirements for something to be called a currency does not include an interest rate. The function of money as a standard for deferred payment (from which interest rates might arise), is not widely accepted. Also, taking the strict sense of "interest rate" this would mean that no islamic country could have a currency since interest rate (or riba) is strictly forbidden according to islamic law (sharia)
3. If the function in production is used as a criteria, very few commodities can substitute for gold. Sure, as a commodity, gold has production value or direct utility, as does oil, or soy beans. But with that logic, also USD is no "substitute" for gold.
4. The argument about expanding to the "entire economy" is equally flawed. No currency, aside from perhaps USD (and even there I have my doubts) can be expended to the entire economy, if by "entire economy" the world economy is referred to. I cannot use Singapore Dollars to directly purchase goods in the German markets either. That does not make the Singapore Dollar not a currency. If we restrict "entire economy" to national boundaries, then yes, BTC is not accepted everywhere and for everything. But a) that list is continuously growing and b) availability across the entire economy is not a requirement for something to be a "currency"
Although I do believe that there are cogent arguments for bitcoin value to be 0, the one from Morgan Stanley ain't one. It belongs to the category of superficial arguments some banks and institutions seem to be making because they are faced with a new paradigm which they don't yet understand, fear, and don't have control over.