73 Reds

I'm all for being civil and polite. And on that note, fuck PC.

Yup. If anyone had the right to be deranged it was Trump supporters, who had to put up with "defund the police", wide open borders, DEI, veritable attacks on capitalism, an inability to identify one gender from the other, lawfare against a former president, endless wars and not one fresh, new idea. Rather than acting deranged, these folks simply won themselves an election.

I think the answer is rather straight forward: Folks who don't hold Fairfax believe their investments will do better. Were it not for Viking, I wouldn't own the stock; it was his analysis that tipped the scales and far outweighed commentary from all other posters that I had read here combined. Of course there may also be folks who don't believe the last 5 years of out-performance will continue or they simply don't trust Prem Watsa. The beauty of investing is every successful entrepreneur demonstrates a different way to build wealth.

Nah, got to know what you own. But I've also said that @Vish-ram's recommended portfolio for purely passive investors is not a bad idea, which I believe holds 5% BTC and the index which also holds some crypto. Nothing wrong with gambling with a small % of your net worth. I just prefer to gamble on stuff with better odds.

OK, but you have to pay in dollars.

Yes. The argument for BTC is far from compelling and I've spoken my piece.

No, but I give up, LOL.

@Dave86ch If you don't mind my asking where do you live? I can't use it for any purpose important to me or if I can, it is not necessary. As stated before, the issue is not that BTC may not ultimately have one or more widespread uses, the issue is owning it (vs. merely using it, like the internet), at what price and how that price is derived.

But, we've already discussed the difference between the Mag 7 and BTC yet you keep wanting to circle back there. To what end?

So don't post ridiculous comments. There are many lurkers here who don't post and take some of what is posted here as gospel. I call out BS when I see it.

I don't own VOO but if history is any guide you only need 10%+/- CAGR to win your bet. I'd hope many COBF members will do better.

Great, I hope to be here then and perhaps you will be correct. But without knowing what the other investor owns, the prediction is entirely baseless.

@rkbabang Exactly! The point of this entire conversation is, you don't need to invest in BTC. One or more posters here (not you) suggested those who don't own BTC will be poor, which is one of the most ridiculous comments I've read here or anywhere. Says a lot about the poster(s). In fact, last time I looked Berkshire held no BTC on the balance sheet; "poor" Mr. Buffett.

Yup. And the U.S. shares some of the blame; we allowed it to happen.

Hard to know. But it is also hard to cooperate and co-exist with a major power that is stealing you blind.

@Spooky +1 to your post. Easier said than done. Some would argue that is what Trump is trying to do despite means that are unorthodox and distasteful.

Schwab withholds the Canadian tax on my shares but I really don't mind and its not that big of a deal since the withholding is credited back at tax time. I do recall this issue came up a long time ago and when I inquired, Schwab advised that upon request it would waive the withholding but I don't know whether that still holds true.

@wachtwoord Read your own summary and then get back to me. The summary was good - what part of it don't you understand?

It is a good summary. But what if I don't invest in currencies (never have, don't plan on starting now) and payment networks don't generate anything but convenience, just like the internet. Who owns the internet? I never suggested BTC or blockchain technology are fake; but at the same time, counterparty risk with the US dollar has never been a concern. Proponents assume that because they can't envision risks with BTC today there will never be any risks associated with it. That's called predicting. From a strictly personal standpoint I stopped losing money on investments when I stopped predicting. Any new money allocated toward an investment has to make sense based on the investment today, not in the future. Today I can't spend BTC anywhere. So-called "scarcity" is entirely self-created. Therefore any comparisons to gold are misguided in that gold is a natural resource that wasn't created by humans out of thin air. The summary acknowledges that nothing backs BTC. I agree. Nothing backs gold either and aside from the last 25 years, gold's very long history has generated sub-par returns compared to great businesses and income real estate. At least gold has some utility as a shiny metal that doesn't tarnish and it has biblical and historical significance even though its real value as defined by its usefulness is way overblown. From the standpoint of a libertarian who strives for free markets perhaps BTC might eventually provide an alternative means of payment and money transfer assuming it gains sufficient overall trust but again, this is an assumption I'm not willing to make and as an alternative to money, it is simply a tool rather than an investment or asset worth owning. As a so-called store of value I'd much rather own gold or T-Bills because personally, I wouldn't own either one for their expected returns for long. The end of the summary perfectly defines my view of BTC: "A prudent person should assume Bitcoin will fail". Since there are a world of other assets out there worth owning, I take that advice to heart.

Indeed "store of value" is a concept I'll never understand. Great businesses and desirable real estate are not only stores of value they generate additional value for their owners. Why would anyone simply want to "store value"?

"better gold"? BTC doesn't have a shiny gleam to it and you can't wear it around your finger. That's petty much what gold is good for. And that's one thing you can't do with BTC.

Interesting rant. I've often wondered what North America might look like if the pilgrims had landed in Labrador or Nova Scotia rather than Plymouth Rock and the rebels who later founded Canada had gone south, rather than north.

Funny, I'd put those two statements in reverse.

Yeah, I'll buy that with one caveat: useful commodities.

Of course not, but its worth more than all the gold in Ft. Knox and likely always will be.