TwoCitiesCapital

I wouldn't be concerned about this. The vast majority of IPO in the U.S. can be had for cheaper within the 2-year following the IPO (i.e. most end up trading down - at least temporarily - given how rich IPOs are often priced) which I why I have a strict rule against buying shares of any company that IPOd in the last 12 months. I would expect it would be similar for most IPOs in most countries as it is similar dynamics at play (limited float, large demand, lock-ups on insiders sales to meet that demand, etc). Once supply/demand balances, you tend to get lower prices.

I mean - given that the market cap is nearing $2 trillion, this just silly. I'd take $2 trillion or assets for $25 any day - regardless of the quality - because $25 is so little to gamble and there is so much to gain! This is a weird way to look at it. It supposes all commodities arent worth anything and yet all have prices associated with them.... And are valuable long before they're outputs that generate a cash flow for a firm using the. As an input.

1) everything Buffett says is true....and was true of stocks/stock brokers/companies in the early days as well. Didn't mean you shouldn't buy - just caveat emptor and pray for regulation 2) both of these guys missed the value of tech and have made mistakes that they own up to.... including never investing in Microsoft despite being so close to Bill Gates!!!!! I expect Bitcoin will be in that "too hard" tech basket for them and will be another mistake in hindsight. Doesn't tKe away from their accomplishments - just means this is well out of their circle of competence, as they've previously admitted most tech is, and relying on them as authorities on the a tech-related subject/investment is questionable. I'm not saying Bitcoin will be the only success in the crypto industry - but if you invest in Bitcoin only, particularly through a trusted intermediary (like Blackrock/Invesco/Fidelity/etc), then you can avoid most of their concern of unscrupulous actors doing illegal stuff and avoid trading dog-shit.

Most people invested in these strategies are paying the fee to delegate - not for the tax savings. When you look at the fees for other delegated options that DONT offer the tax efficiency - the fees for tax efficiency start to make sense. Depends on timing. I work on similar strategies for my firm. Clients that started with us in 2020 had net realized losses that year that carried forward to offset/eliminate 2021 gains and then you got to re-up the loss bank in 2022 to offset/eliminate 2023. I'm sure we have some clients who have paid zero-capital gains for the last 4 years despite good performance, resetting basis on a portion of the portfolio, and rebalancing between stocks/bonds...but it's not the same story for people who started with us in 2021 or 2019. Timing is a lot do the tax game. A lot of it will come out in the wash at the end but 1) there is an enduring benefit of deferral and compounding that deferral and 2) for those that intend to pass it along as part of their estate - deferring to step-up is a value unto itself None of this is worth the 1.5% itself IMO - but, again, that's not what the fee is charged for. It's charged for the convenience of delegation and is similar to non-tax managed delegated programs in terms of price.

I can't speak for the LA fires, but there was a fire on the rooftop of my condo building last year. Destroyed the rooftop with fire and then my unit and small portion of the common areas (stairways, hallways, elevator banks) were damaged by the ensuing water from the fire department. All in all, I'd say less than 10% of the building sq footage was impacted, but was a multimillion claim. Our insurance premiums went up 40+% at renewal. I can only imagine what that is going to look like for LA home and business owners...

They all do. BTC is the "risk free" benchmark in the crypto space. Below are the top 5 crypto tokens by marketcap (lines) and they're all highly correlated with BTCs movements (candles). Basically the entire industry moves up or down together - the question is by how much and is it growing when denominated in BTC or not

It means "authorized participants" can elect to swap Bitcoin in-kind. Not 'investors' as the tweet claims.

This is such a B.S. take. The insurance premiums are not based on the intangibles of the value of a life. It's based on the cost of service. And so far - going through rehab to fix the two shoulder muscles I tore back in 2013 isn't that far removed from replacing my front suspension in the car in terms of cost. But the insurance? Not even comparable.

So a CBDC? There are plenty of reasons to do this if you're a government that needs to control its citizens - there are plenty of reasons to avoid its use as a citizen. Is my understanding that the executive order effectively prohibits this as well. There are different functions and use cases to BTC. The ability to spend/send without intermediaries is but one of them. Another is a store of value asset. For banks that are forced to buy diminishing paper by regulators, it makes sense that they might want some sort of hard-asset/long-term store of value/inflation hedge in the portfolio. Just consider, we only had ~18 months of elevated inflation and watched most of Bank of America's tangible equity disappear. This really isn't anything separate from the additional adoption/institutional adoption thesis - its just now banks can be a part of that.

My car insurance doesn't cost $10k/yr, nor does it have a $7k deductible, and I've spent way more than $7k on maintenance/expenses/repairs over the last 14 years despite only owning a car for 1/2 of them. While the insurance doesn't pay for the maintenance and no-accident related repairs, the costs of such would be substantial in the event of an accident. My home insurance for a $500k condo doesn't cost $7k/yr, doesn't have a $7k deductible, and I just made a $12k claim last year (my only claim so far). Health insurance is an entirely other realm of how little you get for how much it costs and how infrequently it gets used. There's 1000 things wrong with the system, it's not just the insurance companies at fault, but to pretend this isn't an issue and is 'affordable' and doesn't put those in less than pristine health and finances under pressure is insane.

1) per capital GDP is NOT the calculation to use, but rather median household income, (or an adjusted median income figure to account for employer's share) because we know a disproportionate amount of GDP is skewed to the top 1% while health expenses are not. 2) I would HOPE I'm below average in cost. I'm below average in age, above average in health, AND insuring a significantly larger portion of my own cost-risk myself with the $7k deductible . Those should all meaningfully reduce my cost-share. The fact that it's still at 11% of your bogus $80k figure is the travesty (and a significantly higher % of median income). What other service are you happy to pay $10k a year when you don't use it and have to front another $7k when you DO want to use it? Oh, and we punish you for it if you don't buy it?

Yes. But you still have go the hospital when you take an EpiPen. You don't just go about life as normal. And they still give you hospital grade epinephrine when you get there. And then you get to replace the pen.

The travesty is the $9k/yr in insurance it costs to cover the sub-$7k over 14 years. I don't have many medical expenses because I'm healthy with no allergies/pre-existing conditions and have largely been able to avoid doctors visits. Somehow it still costs $9k/yr for me to have the privilege of fronting the first $7k of any of my own expenses. My first girlfriend was diagnosed with leukemia at the age of 20. That would've bankrupted her. My second girlfriend had tree nut allergies. Despite mentioning these allergens at food places, you still often get cross contamination from less-than-attentive staff. She went to the hospital twice in the 4 years we dated to prevent her airways from closing. A few thousands dollars a piece per visit. Maybe wouldn't have bankrupted her, but would've left her hard up and behind on credit card/rent/car payments had she not been living with me and me covering her expenses. Why are you pretending this is something it isn't?

It quite regularly is....and I live in the US +1 I pay something like $1,200/yr for my personal medical premiums. My employer pays the remaining $8-9k. It is a high deductible plan with a $7k deductible. I'm 35 and haven't spent $7k on total medical expenses over the last 14 years combined. And yet somehow it costs $8-9k/yr to insure me even after I've agreed to cover the first $7k. The US medical system is f*cking bogus...

We knew that after Hawk Tuah girl. I don't understand hte appeal of memecoins, or Trump, but as long as people are willing to be so easily parted from their money, I'll be able to buy Bitcoin for less than I should be able to....

Maybe he'll make a strategic reserve of Trump coin!!! This is hyper mega bullish! Bitcoin is so yesterday!

Knock on wood. Cage free brown eggs were $4ish/dozen here two days ago and are now $5.49 as of the evening.

Lol I've had this exact thought before To be fair though - Aug 2011 was pretty damn close a to what was a top that wouldn't be passed until 2-years later.

+1 The lack of real wage growth over the last 40 years had been problematic. As has all of the running in place to just make back the value the $ has lost. An anecdote that I think encompasses our environment - Amazon stopped using FedEx to deliver packages a few years back in my area. Instead, they started using local contractors who are lacking in the same professionalism that FedEx used as well as lacking in infrastructure/systems like getting access to multi-unit buildings. Packages are regularly marked as delivered, but don't show up for days... probably because the driver is waiting for a time to opportunistically tailgate in behind someone during the day. Or, some of the lazier drivers simply leave the packages outside on the sidewalk or mark them as undeliverable and return the order. Multiple complaints to Amazon's customer service for my packages resulted in me being defaulted back to FedEx for my deliveries. But not the rest of the building for some reason (~110+ units). So a few nights ago, I was called by a member of the building about a theft in the lobby (I sit on the board of my HOA). Evidently, the Amazon delivery driver left three crates of packages out in the lobby, unattended, and they were stolen by someone. The complaint was that the board needed to do something about building security and to give the delivery drivers somewhere secure to deliver to. For some reason, in 2025, our HOA board is expected to subsidize Amazon's loss and/or the cost of an effective delivery as a result of Amazon intentionally defaulting on quality. We don't have this issue with UPS, USPS, or FedEx. Amazon is owned by one of the richest men in the world. Amazon pioneered this business model. There is no reason that Amazon can't do right. But they don't want to do it right - they want do it it cheaply. The end result is consumers lose out by having expectations of an appropriate delivery that is regularly not met. No two day delivery and sometimes no delivery at all. The HOA board loses out as we're the ones expected to pick up the slack that Amazon left for some reason - but in a way that doesn't raise HOA fees. The employees lose because there are fewer high quality jobs with high quality standards and high quality pay and just a bunch of shit-tier work/pay positions who aren't held accountable to anything other than # of deliveries "made" in an hour. And Amazon makes more money by keeping an extra 0.1% of margin. For all of the b*thing I see about Europe being uninvestable because lawmakers stifling innovation - I think America could use a bit more of it. Lol The answer has got to be somewhere in the middle and not in letting people with hundreds of billions of dollars make a few billion by fucking over communities, workers, and consumers to clip the penny on margins.

All of this left-right talk on the Nazis seems to assume that the political spectrum is a straight line. I tend to view it as a circle. And radical socialism on the left is NOT far removed from radical fascism on the right.

Not sure why it would be? Whomever the counterparties are were already hedged if they wanted to be. With a roll, there is no discontinuation of exposure for the counterparties to need to sell and then rebuy, right?

First purchased in 2010. Sold in 2018/2019. Repurchased in size in 2021. Unfortunately, there's not a 3-4 year option on the poll so not sure what to answer for 'continuous' ownership

Sure - but you're t-bills you're paying 20-30% on the income generated. It's not any different.

I agree the tax is an impediment, but I disagree it stops it from being used at all. No different than if I were to buy stocks with excess savings and then decide I need to spend some of it. I'm currently considering selling some taxable investments, or margining them, to buy a new car. If I'm willing to sell stocks and pay taxes to buy a car, why wouldn't one also be willing to sell Bitcoin if its what they have available to them?