73 Reds

TY @rkbabang

Not here questioning your winnings! But Wall Street and the financial industry has never shied away from promoting anything that will put money in their pockets.

Re. Metcalf's Law I am left with some initial questions: The article starts out by comparing BTC to an Italian network of telephone tokens. This seems much like today's forever stamps where people hoard them on the basis of anticipated price increases. Yet the phone tokens and stamp prices rise gradually, in contrast to the price of BTC. How can this be reconciled in terms of coming up with a fair price? The article uses Facebook as a further analogy. Facebook, as an entity clearly has value that can be measured in any number of traditional ways. I can [almost] see where BTC as a network can also be valued based on the cumulative value to users of its convenience, etc... But what I can't decipher is how each wallet or coin can be valued, at least in a monetization sense, other than via bid/ask based on ??? Logically the value is not simply a proportional value of the network as a whole because the network is not a static, cost free endeavor. The article asks (rhetorically) where value is created for traditional currencies. What I think it neglects to acknowledge is that the US dollar is effectively a legal contract between the US government and the holder of the note for the nominal value of the currency. The article goes on to say that the model is based solely on supply and demand. The author seems to take a leap of faith by stating "we expect deviations to occur but significant deviations should be subject to scrutiny". Why? The author does acknowledge that the price has been, and can be manipulated. Doesn't this defeat one of the main purposes/advantages of BTC? I'm sure when I re-read the article more questions will surface. The article is fascinating and leaves me with more questions than before (that's a good thing!). I intend to read the other authorities you and others have provided. Thanks again.

Since BTC can be "lost" how can we know for sure that the supply will always be limited?

Curious that the opening paragraph in Peterson's "Metcalf's Law for Bitcoin" states that Bitcoin has no intrinsic value. On the other thread proponents lambasted BTC skeptics for making the same suggestion.

@Jfan much appreciated. Lots of reading ahead.

Thank you @TwoCitiesCapital. Look forward to learning more.

Who suggested that valuation need be in the form of DCF? Your answer if I recall correctly was a comparison to gold. Gold has been a TERRIBLE (emphasis added) investment over time.

Do you have links to these theories? I would be interested in reading them (though am always skeptical of what Dr. Google brings up). Thanks.

@ShaperDingaan I asked a straight forward question of proponents on another thread (Trump Trades): How do you value BTC? In other words, how do you know the price you are paying is sensible? No one could provide a cohesive answer. They all tried hard to justify the future of BTC but responses ranged from "trust", "belief", comparisons to gold, and the efficient market theory (supply and demand). Personally, I'm neither for or against BTC, though I have trouble ascertaining how or why I would ever need it, and even so how any value - other than relative to other currencies can be derived. What say you?

I think folks read way more into Berkshire's cash holdings than necessary. If/when Buffett has something better to invest in, does anyone doubt that he will? Otherwise, it is pretty clear that all potential acquisitions are currently priced too high.

CNBC is the financial equivalent of The Hallmark Channel. Every episode is highly predictable no matter what the circumstances with the same story lines told by the same mouthpieces. Interviews with Buffett and formerly with Charlie Munger - the best reasons to tune in - even got stale in recent years. They had one really good on-air talent - I believe his name was Mark Haines, but he died many years ago.

I put pools and boats in the same category - nice to have friends with both but would no longer want to own either one.

There is no moral equivalency between sponsored terrorist organizations and our Middle Eastern ally. Fortunately the majority sees it that way.

Not to get off topic but I never understood the gold standard. Why not a more useful commodity, like oil or steel?

Sure, the same way the US uses human shields because the Pentagon is located in DC.

Seems like the time to cash out of the TRS is when the stock gets too expensive to repurchase. Otherwise, they can continue to support the TRS through share repurchases.

Comment was made in jest but are any of these companies truly large enough to make a difference? With regard to commodities, what benefits does Canada offer to similarly situated companies in the US and elsewhere?

Can any one of those Canadian bargains move BRK's needle? Maybe he should offer to buy a Canadian province.

I see it differently. It is incredibly easy to hold onto great businesses when you don't look at them as tradable clicks. Buffett has talked about this often. Why would it be difficult to hold onto stocks but not so difficult to hold onto all of Berkshire's subsidiary businesses?

I suppose that by the same token Berkshire is a "no moat business". When you professionally analyze companies and give no credit to superior management your analysis is worse than worthless. Unless an idiot can successfully manage Fairfax, it clearly has a moat.

My thoughts about Berkshire extend well beyond the present time. How does Buffett view the future? If investment alternatives are limited now, what about 5 and 10 years from now? How large can Berkshire grow until something needs to change? Will any such changes happen during Buffett's tenure, and if so, what will they be?

No share buybacks is not real surprising, particularly if you go back and read his last downtrodden letter to shareholders. A combination of stretched valuations and stalwart holdings with a lot more future uncertainty doesn't provide much buyback appeal.

Why are folks complaining about MW? Personally, I wish they'd come back - it provided a great opportunity. BTW, how do you measure ROI on the TRS? Has to be one of the all-time great trades/investments so far.

@cubsfan Thanks for posting.