Thoughtful comments - thanks!pokebowl wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2017 11:17 pmGambling, at least in the context of how its been hitting the news lately. I see the positive uses of cryptocurrencies and I do see the negatives. In terms of using them as speculation vehicles I am not opposed to it, though its nothing ground breaking in that context and I do get a tad insulted both here and on other community forums I frequent when the usual "passionate" community that surrounds cryptocurrencies attempts to up-sell these platforms as something they are not and often times coming off as snake oil salesmen (or women) in the process. During the last 50% pop in value several years ago, the comments towards cryptocurrency speculation was entirely different than it is today from those same corners of the internet.Malinois000 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2017 2:18 pm What do you think about Bitcoin and Cryptocurrencies? Investing or gambling?
Right now I'd argue several cryptocurrencies have gone mainstream and are currently in a speculation bubble and many are jumping in for a quick buck and performance chasing. I myself if I wanted to invest in cryptocurrencies, I'd look to invest with the companies developing or adapting the technology to other areas directly. Otherwise I'd use the cryptocurrencies as intended and only as a means for product exchange. In my opinion it doesnt follow the Boglehead mindset, introduces much unneeded risk, and overall is not where I want to park any large amount of my assets.
Bitcoin
-
- Posts: 183
- Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 5:08 pm
Re: Bitcoin
Re: Bitcoin
Hey I know, let's get the definition from a dictionary! That solves all these debates.Jonathan wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2017 3:17 pmHmmmm, I don't know if that's a great example of "insider trading" per se:tadamsmar wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2017 3:10 pm Two Aussies were convicted of insider trading in the currency markets:
http://www.financemagnates.com/forex/an ... margin-fx/
Hill had abused his position as a Commonwealth public official by deliberately accessing the ABS database, the judge said, copying by hand highly confidential, embargoed information and then passing it on to Kamay.
Whoops, it appears you are being intellectually dishonest.the illegal practice of trading on the stock exchange to one's own advantage through having access to confidential information.
Re: Bitcoin
HomerJ wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2017 8:46 pm Hey I know, let's get the definition from a dictionary! That solves all these debates.
Whoops, it appears you are being intellectually dishonest.the illegal practice of trading on the stock exchange to one's own advantage through having access to confidential information.
That definition refers to a stock exchange, and not a currency exchange. There's no such thing as "insider" information in a currency exchange.
More proof:
-
- Posts: 49030
- Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am
Re: Bitcoin
Actually, there is.Jonathan wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2017 11:24 pmHomerJ wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2017 8:46 pm Hey I know, let's get the definition from a dictionary! That solves all these debates.
Whoops, it appears you are being intellectually dishonest.the illegal practice of trading on the stock exchange to one's own advantage through having access to confidential information.
That definition refers to a stock exchange, and not a currency exchange. There's no such thing as "insider" information in a currency exchange.
More proof:
Forgest Investopedia. University students are not allowed to cite wikipedia-- investopedia is useful but not an authoritative source.
The question is whether it is feasible. The chief Foreign Exchange dealer of the Bank of England was suspended as part of an investigation into rigged FX dealing-- price quotes-- by traders at commercial banks.
If you know where a Central Bank is going to intervene on a currency, then you have access to inside information. And there have been plenty of cases of same.
that would also be true of knowledge of a major buyer or seller eg of the NZD (probably harder to move Cable ie GBP: USD in that way, for a private entity-- but maybe not impossible).
Last edited by Valuethinker on Thu Aug 17, 2017 2:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 49030
- Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am
Re: Bitcoin
Jonathan wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2017 3:17 pmHmmmm, I don't know if that's a great example of "insider trading" per se:tadamsmar wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2017 3:10 pm Two Aussies were convicted of insider trading in the currency markets:
http://www.financemagnates.com/forex/an ... margin-fx/
Hill had abused his position as a Commonwealth public official by deliberately accessing the ABS database, the judge said, copying by hand highly confidential, embargoed information and then passing it on to Kamay.
Actually it is a perfect example of Insider Trading.
-
- Posts: 49030
- Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am
Re: Bitcoin
When the miners cannot make profits from creating bitcoins, what will incentivize exchanges to act as such?Jonathan wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:02 pm Merchants may prefer it over credit cards because there are no fees or chargebacks. Remember, the transaction time for bitcoin may be slow compared to credit cards, but the settlement time for credit cards is around 1 month (the time after which you cannot do chargebacks).
Look at some of the larger bitcoin transactions. People are moving tens of millions of dollars in 15 minutes, for less than $1. That ability may not be useful to your average Joe, but it's definitely valuable.
-
- Posts: 49030
- Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am
Re: Bitcoin
The things that make it feel like gambling:
- the win-lose nature of any transaction. There's only limited societal value being created here (so far!): the ability to finance illegal or tax evasion transactions, ability to avoid exchange controls (again, illegal activities)
- the absence of any reasonable yardstick for value - the marginal cost of production of a new bitcoin doesn't do it
- the absence of any source of return for the investor (again, see win-lose) other than speculative movement in price
- the cult-like enthusiasm it generates (OK, that's a characteristic of investment markets as well, at times)
Re: Bitcoin
Miners will always be able to create Bitcoins. The 21 million Bitcoin limit as I understand it is artificially imposed by a single line of source code, which the miners can agree to increase at any time (of course, doing so now would shake confidence in the system, reduce prices, and therefore be a net negative to them - but this will not always be the case).Valuethinker wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2017 2:54 amWhen the miners cannot make profits from creating bitcoins, what will incentivize exchanges to act as such?Jonathan wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:02 pm Merchants may prefer it over credit cards because there are no fees or chargebacks. Remember, the transaction time for bitcoin may be slow compared to credit cards, but the settlement time for credit cards is around 1 month (the time after which you cannot do chargebacks).
Look at some of the larger bitcoin transactions. People are moving tens of millions of dollars in 15 minutes, for less than $1. That ability may not be useful to your average Joe, but it's definitely valuable.
Re: Bitcoin
You are misreading the article. The article is merely claiming that insider trading in FX is a not a crime. This fact is eyebrow raising and gives the impression that FX is the Wild West as the article says.
Perhaps that is true in some jurisdictions, but apparently not in Australia if that article I posted is correct, it says that the two men were charged with insider trading.
It's true that merely using inside information in sports betting is not a crime (whereas game fixing is a crime). But leaking information violates NCAA rules and can lead to termination of employment.
Bookies hate insider trading in sports betting. They can't refer it to the FBI if they detect it. There is some indications that the refer it to organized crime enforcers.
Re: Bitcoin
I don't know what to tell you guys about insider trading and currency markets. I believe that Australian situation had also to do with stealing information from a bank? You're trying to present a far-end edge case as an example of a standard, and it's not convincing. This looks like Escalation of commitment, and I don't think we'll reach consensus by further debate. Anyone wanting to know more can simply Google insider trading forex.
Again: miners are not incentivized to do anything that would lower the value of bitcoin. Valuethinker - you might want to play around with being a bitcoin miner, and buying/selling on an exchange. Yes, you're not going to make millions, but you'll get a good feel for the dynamic. You're allowed to dislike bitcoin as an investment, but still be intellectually curious about it enough to play with it.
I'm not exiting the thread, but it does look like we're going off the rails here. I do occasionally have people PM me questions about bitcoin, and anyone is welcome to do so if they don't want to jump in the thread, or would simply prefer a private conversation.
Nevertheless, at very least, we made it to 3 pages this time. Not bad!
Again: exchanges make money from trading fees, not from mining. When bitcoin is no longer mine-able, obviously, miners can't profit from mining. I'm not sure what you're saying here. You might also like the original bitcoin white paper if you're curious about the fundamentals.Valuethinker wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2017 2:54 amWhen the miners cannot make profits from creating bitcoins, what will incentivize exchanges to act as such?
Again: miners are not incentivized to do anything that would lower the value of bitcoin. Valuethinker - you might want to play around with being a bitcoin miner, and buying/selling on an exchange. Yes, you're not going to make millions, but you'll get a good feel for the dynamic. You're allowed to dislike bitcoin as an investment, but still be intellectually curious about it enough to play with it.
I'm not exiting the thread, but it does look like we're going off the rails here. I do occasionally have people PM me questions about bitcoin, and anyone is welcome to do so if they don't want to jump in the thread, or would simply prefer a private conversation.
Nevertheless, at very least, we made it to 3 pages this time. Not bad!
Re: Bitcoin
What's wrong with insider trading, if you know something that other bidders do not know, then it's a sin not to use it.
Re: Bitcoin
Not to nitpick but it's worth restating: miners can heavily influence how Bitcoin functions, and miners and exchanges together (and there seems to be much overlapping ownership) can almost totally control how Bitcoin functions; that is to say, they can (and likely will) make changes to ensure that Bitcoin is mine-able forever (e.g. raising the 21m coin cap, and preventing scheduled increases in difficulty). Given the realities of hard forks, Bitcoin (and most crypto currencies) have no immutable rules and are really just "whatever the majority of participants and stakeholders think they should be at any given moment in time". Fascinating stuff.
Re: Bitcoin
"Because insider trading undermines investor confidence in the fairness and integrity of the securities markets, the SEC has treated the detection and prosecution of insider trading violations as one of its enforcement priorities."
https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/answersinsiderhtm.html
Re: Bitcoin
Miners will still be incentivised to mine blocks for the transaction fees they receive, they just won't receive any new generated Bitcoins.Valuethinker wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2017 2:54 amWhen the miners cannot make profits from creating bitcoins, what will incentivize exchanges to act as such?Jonathan wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:02 pm Merchants may prefer it over credit cards because there are no fees or chargebacks. Remember, the transaction time for bitcoin may be slow compared to credit cards, but the settlement time for credit cards is around 1 month (the time after which you cannot do chargebacks).
Look at some of the larger bitcoin transactions. People are moving tens of millions of dollars in 15 minutes, for less than $1. That ability may not be useful to your average Joe, but it's definitely valuable.
-
- Posts: 49030
- Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am
Re: Bitcoin
Ahhhtadamsmar wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2017 7:18 amYou are misreading the article. The article is merely claiming that insider trading in FX is a not a crime. This fact is eyebrow raising and gives the impression that FX is the Wild West as the article says.
Perhaps that is true in some jurisdictions, but apparently not in Australia if that article I posted is correct, it says that the two men were charged with insider trading.
It's true that merely using inside information in sports betting is not a crime (whereas game fixing is a crime). But leaking information violates NCAA rules and can lead to termination of employment.
Bookies hate insider trading in sports betting. They can't refer it to the FBI if they detect it. There is some indications that the refer it to organized crime enforcers.
The U.S. legal doctrine on insider trading arises from a failure of fiduciary duty to shareholders, e.g. by company officers.
That's not true in other countries. In the UK it is just illegal. Trading on material price sensitive non public information.
So you can b unassociated w a company and still be an insider trader.
There is a big scandal 're fx fixing in London. 40 per cent of daily world trades or about 3.1 trillion dollars a day, trade thru London. More than New York.
Re: Bitcoin
People have been predicting the demise of bitcoin for years now. I purchased a few 5-6 years back for a very small amount apiece and decided to sit on them forever. I haven't regretted it yet, to say the least.
I think the crypto trend is going to get harder and harder to ignore. I used to play individual stocks with a very tiny portion of my portfolio (and follow boglehead strategy for the other 95%+). Honestly though, I realized I was playing the individual stocks for fun and a chance of more upside. No individual stock has the upside potential of crypto though IMO. So honestly I sold all my individual stocks and am looking to get more into the crypto space. Even if its just a few dollars from each paycheck or whatever, its something. Plus its fun and interesting to me so whatever.
I think the crypto trend is going to get harder and harder to ignore. I used to play individual stocks with a very tiny portion of my portfolio (and follow boglehead strategy for the other 95%+). Honestly though, I realized I was playing the individual stocks for fun and a chance of more upside. No individual stock has the upside potential of crypto though IMO. So honestly I sold all my individual stocks and am looking to get more into the crypto space. Even if its just a few dollars from each paycheck or whatever, its something. Plus its fun and interesting to me so whatever.
Re: Bitcoin
y Gauss44 » Tue Aug 15, 2017 2:13 pm
pls show me step by step how to buy and sell the bitcoin please
pls show me step by step how to buy and sell the bitcoin please
-
- Posts: 49030
- Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am
Re: Gauss44
I set up an account at Coinbase.com and tried to do a credit card transfer to the account. The first card I tried rejected it. The second (Wells Fargo) sent me a phone alert to confirm the transaction, so I was able to buy some bitcoin that way.
That was my experience. I don't know much more about it.
Last edited by tadamsmar on Sat Aug 19, 2017 1:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Bitcoin
Cryptocurrency is the future of money. Our lives will be recorded as a series of transactions written in The Blockchain.Malinois000 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2017 2:18 pm What do you think about Bitcoin and Cryptocurrencies? Investing or gambling?
The Blockchain is public and can be read by anyone.
The Blockchain is permanent and will persist long after we are gone.
The Blockchain is an immutable Ledger, therefore the Blockchain is infallible.
It can contain proof of wrongdoing and can be used to judge people accused of crimes.
The Blockchain is de-centralized and will be everywhere and will know everything about every one of us.
All our good deeds and all our sins will be written in The Blockchain.
Re: bitcoin is crushing hard now
bitcoin is crushing now finally
Re: bitcoin is crushing hard now
And the next day (today) it's bouncing right back. The volatility in Bitcoin and Alt-coins is amazing. Seems like it could be a day traders paradise.
I still don't own any cryptos... although I have opened accounts. Some friends have made 4x in very short order. It's hard to stop listening to them. But crashes like yesterday remind me why I must tune out the noise.
BH Contests: 23 #89 of 607 | 22 #512 of 674 | 21 #66 of 636 |20 #253/664 |19 #233/645 |18 #150/493 |17 #516/647 |16 #121/610 |15 #18/552 |14 #225/503 |13 #383/433 |12 #366/410 |11 #113/369 |10 #53/282
-
- Posts: 183
- Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 5:08 pm
Re: Bitcoin
I don't know if it's the future or not; however, I continue to accumulate both bitcoin and ethereuem. I've been and continue to be a buy and hold, dividend investor, yet investing a small portion in the cryptocurrencies is so interesting. Quite a ride and I have a sense it will pay handsomely in the future. We will see.
Re: Bitcoin
If you buy 1 share of Berkshire Hathaway , in 100 years you'll still just have 1 share of Berkshire Hathaway. Are you saying that is gambling and not investing?arcticpineapplecorp. wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2017 1:48 pm When you own companies that are profitable, those businesses grow in size. You receive dividends which when reinvested buy you more shares. If you buy 1 bitcoin, in 100 years you'll still just have 1 bitcoin. The value of that bitcoin may be more than you paid for it. But that's still gambling, not investing. Because you're receiving no earnings/dividends.
Re: Bitcoin
Mind is blown at the people who are 100% against bitcoin or cryptocurrency.
Im 27, have a 3 fund thatll make me ~7%. Thats great. Id rather take 10k, money I can always make back and put it in cryptos (which ive done). Imagine in 10 years where its at? Had you taken that 10k at 7% in 10 years its 19k. In 10 year check the crypto market. BTC ETH and LTC amongst others will be huge.
Im 27, have a 3 fund thatll make me ~7%. Thats great. Id rather take 10k, money I can always make back and put it in cryptos (which ive done). Imagine in 10 years where its at? Had you taken that 10k at 7% in 10 years its 19k. In 10 year check the crypto market. BTC ETH and LTC amongst others will be huge.
- arcticpineapplecorp.
- Posts: 15080
- Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 8:22 pm
Re: Bitcoin
A few problems with your line of questioning. Let's take the errors in your question one at a time:birdog wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2017 7:53 pmIf you buy 1 share of Berkshire Hathaway , in 100 years you'll still just have 1 share of Berkshire Hathaway. Are you saying that is gambling and not investing?arcticpineapplecorp. wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2017 1:48 pm When you own companies that are profitable, those businesses grow in size. You receive dividends which when reinvested buy you more shares. If you buy 1 bitcoin, in 100 years you'll still just have 1 bitcoin. The value of that bitcoin may be more than you paid for it. But that's still gambling, not investing. Because you're receiving no earnings/dividends.
If you own 1 share of Berkshire Hathaway today, I honestly don't know what you'll have in 100 years, nor does anyone else. The company, like most, probably won't be around in 100 years. Most companies don't stand that kind of test of time. So not really a great example to use.
That being said, your question really is "If you have 1 share now of Berkshire Hathaway, all you'll ever have is 1 share", right? Again, this may or may not be true. Not to get semantic, but it's quite possible that once Warren's no longer at the helm the next CEO/board may decide to start issuing dividends (which would result in additional shares built up over time).
O.k., let's stop being fancy and just ask, "What if Berkshire never as long as it exists ever declares a dividend? Then you'd only ever have just 1 share of Berkshire, right?" True. However, there is no denying that regardless of whether dividends are issued, a company can continue to grow. The company can be more valuable because it PRODUCES MORE STUFF than it did in the past. Or in the case of Berkshire Hathaway which technically produces nothing since it's a holding company, it can own companies that PRODUCE MORE STUFF. It can OWN MORE COMPANIES. It can continue to expand. If these businesses are well run, that's increasing profits for those businesses over time. Those profits flow to you, the shareholder...not in the case of dividends, but in the form of capital gains in the form of higher share prices (share prices tend to follow earnings. Rising earnings leads to higher share prices over time and lower earnings leads to lower share prices).
One bitcoin will never PRODUCE MORE BITCOINS over time, right? That's the difference. Businesses grow over time. They produce. They expand. Correct me if I'm wrong but unless there's some change, there will only ever be 21 million bitcoins, right? (source: https://www.google.com/search?q=how+man ... refox-b-ab) So there will never be MORE than that, right? There are no limits to growth of a company (we see companies like Apple, Saudi Aramco (once public), etc. getting to 1 trillion market cap...and still no limit to growth). Bitcoin has a limit to its growth. Satoshi Nakomoto made sure of that. The value of those coins may increase (or not). There's no way to know. It's a speculation, a gamble. Not an investment. That's the difference.
It's hard to accept the truth when the lies were exactly what you wanted to hear. Investing is simple, but not easy. Buy, hold & rebalance low cost index funds & manage taxable events. Asking Portfolio Questions |
- heathshuler
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 10:52 am
Re: Bitcoin
By the way, Bitcoin has in essence provided dividends through its growing pains. Specifically, the "forks" it has experienced have resulted in Bitcoin holders being credited with as many forked coins as the number of Bitcoins they held at the time of the fork. As far as I understand it, each fork is an attempt to introduce advanced coding, but you can't just do away with the existing blockchain data, so forked coins are added in a parallel version of it. For Example, if you had 2 Bitcoins (BTC) at the time of the "Bitcoin Cash (BCH)" fork, you now have your original 2 Bitcoins, plus you were given 2 Bitcoin Cash coins. Then there was the "Bitcoin Gold (BTG)" fork and the same crediting process applied (now you have 2 coins each of Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, and Bitcoin Gold). There was expectation of a Segwit 2x fork, but it was ultimately cancelled. Who knows how long or how many of these could occur as the technology tries to keep up with the transaction base. Fundamentally, I think this could be considered as going against the "there will never be more than 21 Million Bitcoin" creed because now there will eventually be 21 Million each of BTC, BCH, BTG, and whatever other versions are created, and that could hurt the price because the supply is now greater. For now though, the price seems to be getting boosted by increased demand to get in on Bitcoin (for whatever that individual/group/company's reasoning may be), and all the while alternative Bitcoin versions are being credited, depending on how you hold them, you can sell them at an exchange for whichever version you prefer. That is why I see this process as a dividend....because yes, you purchased 2 BTC (current market value: $16k), but if you go exchange the 2 BCH you were credited (current market value: $2.5k) and the 2 BTG you were credited (current market value: $300) for more BTC, now you have 2.35 BTC (current market value: $18.8k)--- a 17.5% dividend.
Its technology, its press, its adoption, its price speculation, the regulations it is subject to, etc. are changing so rapidly, and there are so many levels of understanding what Bitcoin is and how it works and why I need or want it, it's impossible for anyone to state with certainty what is going to happen to the technology and its associated value.
For now, I am enjoying the ride and have invested only what I'm willing to completely lose. If you have interest in buying even a fraction of BTC (yes, you can buy less than 1.0 Bitcoin), the easiest way is:
1. Purchase at the Coinbase website
With this step, you now have Bitcoin in your name. You can stop with this step and probably be ok, but there are a couple more steps to increase your control and security...
2. Transfer coins to GDAX. This is is the online exchange run by Coinbase. Once you have Bitcoin on Coinbase, you can transfer it over to GDAX instantly without any fees. With this step, you are basically minimizing the fees associated with sending your coins in Step 3....
3. Send your coins from GDAX to the hardware wallet (small handheld device) you've purchased directly from its manufacturer (e.g., Ledger Nano S, Trezor). Now you are the only one that owns your coins because you (through having them on your hardware wallet, not sitting on the GDAX online exchange owned by Coinbase) are the only person with the "Private Key" to use those coins.
Its technology, its press, its adoption, its price speculation, the regulations it is subject to, etc. are changing so rapidly, and there are so many levels of understanding what Bitcoin is and how it works and why I need or want it, it's impossible for anyone to state with certainty what is going to happen to the technology and its associated value.
For now, I am enjoying the ride and have invested only what I'm willing to completely lose. If you have interest in buying even a fraction of BTC (yes, you can buy less than 1.0 Bitcoin), the easiest way is:
1. Purchase at the Coinbase website
With this step, you now have Bitcoin in your name. You can stop with this step and probably be ok, but there are a couple more steps to increase your control and security...
2. Transfer coins to GDAX. This is is the online exchange run by Coinbase. Once you have Bitcoin on Coinbase, you can transfer it over to GDAX instantly without any fees. With this step, you are basically minimizing the fees associated with sending your coins in Step 3....
3. Send your coins from GDAX to the hardware wallet (small handheld device) you've purchased directly from its manufacturer (e.g., Ledger Nano S, Trezor). Now you are the only one that owns your coins because you (through having them on your hardware wallet, not sitting on the GDAX online exchange owned by Coinbase) are the only person with the "Private Key" to use those coins.
Re: Bitcoin
Got it. So no dividends doesn't actually equal gambling as your previously asserted.arcticpineapplecorp. wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:16 pmA few problems with your line of questioning. Let's take the errors in your question one at a time:birdog wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2017 7:53 pmIf you buy 1 share of Berkshire Hathaway , in 100 years you'll still just have 1 share of Berkshire Hathaway. Are you saying that is gambling and not investing?arcticpineapplecorp. wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2017 1:48 pm When you own companies that are profitable, those businesses grow in size. You receive dividends which when reinvested buy you more shares. If you buy 1 bitcoin, in 100 years you'll still just have 1 bitcoin. The value of that bitcoin may be more than you paid for it. But that's still gambling, not investing. Because you're receiving no earnings/dividends.
If you own 1 share of Berkshire Hathaway today, I honestly don't know what you'll have in 100 years, nor does anyone else. The company, like most, probably won't be around in 100 years. Most companies don't stand that kind of test of time. So not really a great example to use.
That being said, your question really is "If you have 1 share now of Berkshire Hathaway, all you'll ever have is 1 share", right? Again, this may or may not be true. Not to get semantic, but it's quite possible that once Warren's no longer at the helm the next CEO/board may decide to start issuing dividends (which would result in additional shares built up over time).
O.k., let's stop being fancy and just ask, "What if Berkshire never as long as it exists ever declares a dividend? Then you'd only ever have just 1 share of Berkshire, right?" True. However, there is no denying that regardless of whether dividends are issued, a company can continue to grow. The company can be more valuable because it PRODUCES MORE STUFF than it did in the past. Or in the case of Berkshire Hathaway which technically produces nothing since it's a holding company, it can own companies that PRODUCE MORE STUFF. It can OWN MORE COMPANIES. It can continue to expand. If these businesses are well run, that's increasing profits for those businesses over time. Those profits flow to you, the shareholder...not in the case of dividends, but in the form of capital gains in the form of higher share prices (share prices tend to follow earnings. Rising earnings leads to higher share prices over time and lower earnings leads to lower share prices).
One bitcoin will never PRODUCE MORE BITCOINS over time, right? That's the difference. Businesses grow over time. They produce. They expand. Correct me if I'm wrong but unless there's some change, there will only ever be 21 million bitcoins, right? (source: https://www.google.com/search?q=how+man ... refox-b-ab) So there will never be MORE than that, right? There are no limits to growth of a company (we see companies like Apple, Saudi Aramco (once public), etc. getting to 1 trillion market cap...and still no limit to growth). Bitcoin has a limit to its growth. Satoshi Nakomoto made sure of that. The value of those coins may increase (or not). There's no way to know. It's a speculation, a gamble. Not an investment. That's the difference.
-
- Posts: 49030
- Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am
Re: Bitcoin
The point with BH is they buy back shares.arcticpineapplecorp. wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:16 pmA few problems with your line of questioning. Let's take the errors in your question one at a time:birdog wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2017 7:53 pmIf you buy 1 share of Berkshire Hathaway , in 100 years you'll still just have 1 share of Berkshire Hathaway. Are you saying that is gambling and not investing?arcticpineapplecorp. wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2017 1:48 pm When you own companies that are profitable, those businesses grow in size. You receive dividends which when reinvested buy you more shares. If you buy 1 bitcoin, in 100 years you'll still just have 1 bitcoin. The value of that bitcoin may be more than you paid for it. But that's still gambling, not investing. Because you're receiving no earnings/dividends.
If you own 1 share of Berkshire Hathaway today, I honestly don't know what you'll have in 100 years, nor does anyone else. The company, like most, probably won't be around in 100 years. Most companies don't stand that kind of test of time. So not really a great example to use.
That being said, your question really is "If you have 1 share now of Berkshire Hathaway, all you'll ever have is 1 share", right? Again, this may or may not be true. Not to get semantic, but it's quite possible that once Warren's no longer at the helm the next CEO/board may decide to start issuing dividends (which would result in additional shares built up over time).
O.k., let's stop being fancy and just ask, "What if Berkshire never as long as it exists ever declares a dividend? Then you'd only ever have just 1 share of Berkshire, right?" True. However, there is no denying that regardless of whether dividends are issued, a company can continue to grow. The company can be more valuable because it PRODUCES MORE STUFF than it did in the past. Or in the case of Berkshire Hathaway which technically produces nothing since it's a holding company, it can own companies that PRODUCE MORE STUFF. It can OWN MORE COMPANIES. It can continue to expand. If these businesses are well run, that's increasing profits for those businesses over time. Those profits flow to you, the shareholder...not in the case of dividends, but in the form of capital gains in the form of higher share prices (share prices tend to follow earnings. Rising earnings leads to higher share prices over time and lower earnings leads to lower share prices).
One bitcoin will never PRODUCE MORE BITCOINS over time, right? That's the difference. Businesses grow over time. They produce. They expand. Correct me if I'm wrong but unless there's some change, there will only ever be 21 million bitcoins, right? (source: https://www.google.com/search?q=how+man ... refox-b-ab) So there will never be MORE than that, right? There are no limits to growth of a company (we see companies like Apple, Saudi Aramco (once public), etc. getting to 1 trillion market cap...and still no limit to growth). Bitcoin has a limit to its growth. Satoshi Nakomoto made sure of that. The value of those coins may increase (or not). There's no way to know. It's a speculation, a gamble. Not an investment. That's the difference.
Thus 1 share is an increasing share in the future profits stream.
Buffet explained this in a letter to shareholders: buybacks v dividends are equivalent.
What matters is long term profits growth.
- arcticpineapplecorp.
- Posts: 15080
- Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 8:22 pm
Re: Bitcoin
yes. and thank you valuethinker for saying what i tried to say in a much more succinct way.
It's hard to accept the truth when the lies were exactly what you wanted to hear. Investing is simple, but not easy. Buy, hold & rebalance low cost index funds & manage taxable events. Asking Portfolio Questions |
Re: Bitcoin
BH Contests: 23 #89 of 607 | 22 #512 of 674 | 21 #66 of 636 |20 #253/664 |19 #233/645 |18 #150/493 |17 #516/647 |16 #121/610 |15 #18/552 |14 #225/503 |13 #383/433 |12 #366/410 |11 #113/369 |10 #53/282
Re: Bitcoin
Yes I posted about this in another forum. This is not an etf or mutual fund that’s traded on markets but an internal instrument created by this company? Seems like there is potential for dishonest or company failure.sperry8 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:09 am A crypto index fund has arrived:
http://www.etf.com/sections/features-an ... currencies?
- arcticpineapplecorp.
- Posts: 15080
- Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 8:22 pm
Re: Bitcoin
from that link:sperry8 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:09 am A crypto index fund has arrived:
http://www.etf.com/sections/features-an ... currencies?
so sorry. It's not for you.Hunter Horsley: This first vehicle is a private fund, so it is limited to accredited investors. We want to make investing in cryptocurrency possible for anyone and easier for anyone, so we don't want to have that limitation, but that’s the case until we can introduce a public version of the fund.
how very generous of you.Hunter Horsley: A lot of actively managed crypto funds are charging 2/20, but we’re only charging a flat 2.5% management fee.
not there yet.We want to play a role similar to Vanguard for cryptocurrency. Our model is low cost, inclusive, high volume. We want to provide market access vehicles, not hedge funds.
so there's no way to value it? How do I know if I'm getting a good value? Simple. I don't.Horsley: We're optimistic about the long-term potential of cryptocurrency, but don't have a short-term price target to share. There’s currently no agreement or consensus around how the industry’s going to do fundamental analysis on cryptocurrencies. Any price targets you hear are coming from people who’re using different logic or rationales for arriving at those targets.
Watch out people. Those tooting the bitcoin horn may just be doing it to get you to buy in and drive the price higher...which benefits those tooting the bitcoin horn.It’s also very important to understand if the person who’s giving a price target has a financial incentive. So often in cryptocurrency, people who’re speculating about the future have an incentive that may or may not be disclosed.
so are hatchimals, but that doesn't make them a good investment.That being said, cryptocurrency isn’t just a U.S. phenomenon; it's a global phenomenon, so the opportunity is larger.
small as in 1%-2% of your portfolio. Is that going to make you rich as rich?What you often hear from financial advisors right now is, be very cautious and expect to lose your money. But if you’re going to do it, make sure it's a small allocation.
Back to boring old total stock market index funds now.
It's hard to accept the truth when the lies were exactly what you wanted to hear. Investing is simple, but not easy. Buy, hold & rebalance low cost index funds & manage taxable events. Asking Portfolio Questions |
- arcticpineapplecorp.
- Posts: 15080
- Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 8:22 pm
Re: Bitcoin
in other news, famed Bill Miller has half, that's right you read that right folks..HALF of his hedge fund in...wait for it...BITCOIN!
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/18/bill-mi ... tcoin.html
guess he didn't read the article that said he should only have 1% to 2% in bitcoin. No wait:
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/18/bill-mi ... tcoin.html
guess he didn't read the article that said he should only have 1% to 2% in bitcoin. No wait:
So he only puts 1% of HIS OWN money in bitcoin, but having more than that for his hedge fund invetors is acceptable? See how most fund managers don't eat their own cooking?Forbes reported in July that Miller put 1 percent of his net worth into bitcoin in 2014.
Last edited by arcticpineapplecorp. on Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
It's hard to accept the truth when the lies were exactly what you wanted to hear. Investing is simple, but not easy. Buy, hold & rebalance low cost index funds & manage taxable events. Asking Portfolio Questions |
Re: Bitcoin
I agree this investment vehicle is not good. But could it be that we are wrong about bitcoin? How about comparison to the art market: https://www.forbes.com/sites/petertchir ... nt-either/
To me it screams bubble of epic proportions, but those valuing and buying bitcoin and cryptos are for the most part not bogleheads, and there are a lot more non bogleheads than there are conservative smart Bogleheads. Perhaps some worthwhile investments don’t fit our mold of a worthwhile investment? After all there are billions of potential buyers of cryptos worldwide, some of whom actually have a good use for it.
To me it screams bubble of epic proportions, but those valuing and buying bitcoin and cryptos are for the most part not bogleheads, and there are a lot more non bogleheads than there are conservative smart Bogleheads. Perhaps some worthwhile investments don’t fit our mold of a worthwhile investment? After all there are billions of potential buyers of cryptos worldwide, some of whom actually have a good use for it.
- arcticpineapplecorp.
- Posts: 15080
- Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 8:22 pm
Re: Bitcoin
art? I love when articles talk about how much money someone made for selling a painting but never compare it to a more diversified portfolio or diversified market. Like this article about Oprah Winfrey's selling a Klimt earlier this year:am wrote: ↑Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:28 am I agree this investment vehicle is not good. But could it be that we are wrong about bitcoin? How about comparison to the art market: https://www.forbes.com/sites/petertchir ... nt-either/
To me it screams bubble of epic proportions, but those valuing and buying bitcoin and cryptos are for the most part not bogleheads, and there are a lot more non bogleheads than there are conservative smart Bogleheads. Perhaps some worthwhile investments don’t fit our mold of a worthwhile investment? After all there are billions of potential buyers of cryptos worldwide, some of whom actually have a good use for it.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... nese-buyer
Was that a good rate of return? Depends on what else she could have invested her money in. How did that compare to Vanguard's total stock market index fund (using dates in the article roughly, purchased in 2006 so used 1/1/06 and article reported 2/8/17 (she would have made 138.42% instead...almost twice as much with far less risk (diversified) and far fewer costs, as in no storage or insurance costs for the VTSAX like her painting). See below. By the way that return INCLUDED the downturn (GREAT RECESSION).Winfrey, chief executive officer of the television channel Oprah Winfrey Network, bought “Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer II” for $87.9 million in 2006 at Christie’s in New York -- still an auction record for the Austrian artist. Since then, its value has risen about 71 percent.
http://quotes.morningstar.com/chart/fun ... A%5B%5D%7D
It's hard to accept the truth when the lies were exactly what you wanted to hear. Investing is simple, but not easy. Buy, hold & rebalance low cost index funds & manage taxable events. Asking Portfolio Questions |
-
- Posts: 1237
- Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2016 5:28 pm
Re: Bitcoin
I'm amused. I wish my problem was whether I was getting adequate ROI on my $87.9M art purchase...arcticpineapplecorp. wrote: ↑Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:38 amart? I love when articles talk about how much money someone made for selling a painting but never compare it to a more diversified portfolio or diversified market. Like this article about Oprah Winfrey's selling a Klimt earlier this year:am wrote: ↑Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:28 am I agree this investment vehicle is not good. But could it be that we are wrong about bitcoin? How about comparison to the art market: https://www.forbes.com/sites/petertchir ... nt-either/
To me it screams bubble of epic proportions, but those valuing and buying bitcoin and cryptos are for the most part not bogleheads, and there are a lot more non bogleheads than there are conservative smart Bogleheads. Perhaps some worthwhile investments don’t fit our mold of a worthwhile investment? After all there are billions of potential buyers of cryptos worldwide, some of whom actually have a good use for it.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... nese-buyer
Was that a good rate of return? Depends on what else she could have invested her money in. How did that compare to Vanguard's total stock market index fund (using dates in the article roughly, purchased in 2006 so used 1/1/06 and article reported 2/8/17 (she would have made 138.42% instead...almost twice as much with far less risk (diversified) and far fewer costs, as in no storage or insurance costs for the VTSAX like her painting). See below. By the way that return INCLUDED the downturn (GREAT RECESSION).Winfrey, chief executive officer of the television channel Oprah Winfrey Network, bought “Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer II” for $87.9 million in 2006 at Christie’s in New York -- still an auction record for the Austrian artist. Since then, its value has risen about 71 percent.
http://quotes.morningstar.com/chart/fun ... A%5B%5D%7D
Pardon typos, I'm probably using my fat thumbs on a tiny phone.