Paarslaars Posted January 30 Posted January 30 Maybe good for us investors but bad for europeans who are stuck with this dinosaur... as if were not falling behind enough.
james22 Posted January 30 Posted January 30 2 hours ago, Paarslaars said: Maybe good for us investors but bad for europeans who are stuck with this dinosaur... as if were not falling behind enough. A flaw in the bitcoin game theory of adoption is the assumption that players are rational.
SharperDingaan Posted January 30 Posted January 30 When the conservative portfolio allocation to crypto is 2-5% (around the world); CB's will have little choice but to follow. Thing is .... it doesn't have to ALL be in BTC; some of it could also be in national mining (ie: 'Foundry' counterparts), and key CBDC infrastructure. Adoption also ISN'T just about greater use of crypto, it's also about ensuring enough joint control over mining capacity ... such that nobody can ever get > 50% of global hash capacity. Which is why 'crypto strategic reserve' DOES NOT MEAN just a pile of BTC ... it also means a mechanism by which to immediately transfer ALL of a nations mining capacity under one roof, and a 'Blue Genie' on 'reserve' in the basement of a Central Bank. Capacity is tied to hash power, so f*** with us .... SD
TwoCitiesCapital Posted January 31 Posted January 31 (edited) 3 hours ago, Blake Hampton said: Corner of Bitcoin & Fartcoin 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. Edited January 31 by TwoCitiesCapital
Dave86ch Posted January 31 Posted January 31 13 hours ago, james22 said: The reasons behind his decision are flawed. If you dismiss something without understanding it, you will capitulate when the majority of market participants reach a sufficient level of understanding. This is the mistake many make—they try to follow the market instead of recognizing the value of the underlying assets before others do. Bitcoin is a tool; you just have to learn how it works.
Buckeye Posted January 31 Posted January 31 (edited) 9 hours ago, TwoCitiesCapital said: 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. To be fair, there are also 100’s (1000’s?) of investments that they both “missed” out on that most likely turned out to be complete dog shit. So you should give them some more credit there. Plus, where does the Apple position fit within your narrative of them “missing the value of tech”? Also, Warren Buffett has said time and time again that investing in Microsoft was off the table because of his close relationship with Bill Gates. So why dig him for that, with your five exclamation points? Edited January 31 by Buckeye
Buckeye Posted January 31 Posted January 31 (edited) 7 hours ago, james22 said: So 15 years of ZIRP haven’t been great for insurers? It’ll be interesting to see what the next 15 years bring. James, if you can find a graph of the next 15 years, please post it here! Edited January 31 by Buckeye
73 Reds Posted January 31 Posted January 31 9 hours ago, TwoCitiesCapital said: 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. @TwoCitiesCapital I think Buffett has fully addressed the reason why he didn't invest in MSFT - it had nothing to do with a mistake and everything to do with his close association with Bill Gates and the appearance of impropriety. Also, (not personal to you) anyone who suggests that any investment is not within Buffett's competence is very short-sighted. Crypto, like other investments on which Buffett/Munger took a pass does not possess the qualities and characteristics of anything they would be interested in acquiring. Have they ever made mistakes of omission? Of course, but MSFT and Crypto are not among them.
james22 Posted January 31 Posted January 31 1 hour ago, Buckeye said: So 15 years of ZIRP haven’t been great for insurers? It’ll be interesting to see what the next 15 years bring. ZIRP pales compared to nature of accelerating technology. 1 hour ago, Buckeye said: James, if you can find a graph of the next 15 years, please post it here!
james22 Posted January 31 Posted January 31 54 minutes ago, 73 Reds said: Also, (not personal to you) anyone who suggests that any investment is not within Buffett's competence is very short-sighted. We can't take his word for what is not within Buffett's competence??
73 Reds Posted January 31 Posted January 31 6 minutes ago, james22 said: We can't take his word for what is not within Buffett's competence?? Having followed Buffett for more than 45 years he is nothing if not modest. If someone suggests that their investment competency exceeds Buffett, they should probably ask themselves why Buffett likely makes more money every morning he gets out of bed than they make in a lifetime.
Paarslaars Posted January 31 Posted January 31 Well for one, he is roughly 60 years of compounding ahead of me
james22 Posted January 31 Posted January 31 9 minutes ago, 73 Reds said: Having followed Buffett for more than 45 years he is nothing if not modest. If someone suggests that their investment competency exceeds Buffett, they should probably ask themselves why Buffett likely makes more money every morning he gets out of bed than they make in a lifetime. Compounding, primarily. Not a better understanding of tech innovation and diffusion.
73 Reds Posted January 31 Posted January 31 Just now, james22 said: Compounding, primarily. Not a better understanding of tech innovation and diffusion. Isn't all investment success about compounding? If you know of a more successful investor than Buffett, please do share - we'd all be interested. Knowing what to avoid is just as important, if not more so than what to invest in. Mistakes of omission are really a misnomer; no different than making a "mistake" by not betting on a winning black bet at the roulette table. Besides, who was it that coined the phrase "Investing is like riding a bus; if you miss one there's always one on the way".
james22 Posted January 31 Posted January 31 49 minutes ago, 73 Reds said: Isn't all investment success about compounding? If you know of a more successful investor than Buffett, please do share - we'd all be interested. How many investors have compounded as long as Buffett? If he'd been hit by a bus at 48 we wouldn't know his name. 49 minutes ago, 73 Reds said: Knowing what to avoid is just as important, if not more so than what to invest in. You're conflating avoiding bad investments with good. 49 minutes ago, 73 Reds said: Mistakes of omission are really a misnomer; no different than making a "mistake" by not betting on a winning black bet at the roulette table. And conflating betting with good opportunities. 49 minutes ago, 73 Reds said: Besides, who was it that coined the phrase "Investing is like riding a bus; if you miss one there's always one on the way". Sure. Again, you can't take anything away from Buffett. He did great investing the way he did. But you also can't give him credit for things he didn't do. He missed tech.
SharperDingaan Posted January 31 Posted January 31 All recognise that WEB/Munger were very good, but they made their money way back in the last century in the rebuilding after the devastation of WWII; and thereafter have compounded that success over decades. And as time has moved on, their market risk has progressively declined, as evidenced via the growing pile of treasuries. Masters at work; but much like a Leonardo Da Vinci, masters from a different time. Today's world of advanced technology is an industrial revolution, that is rebuilding much of what was there before (ie: tech vs bomb devastation). Hence, many of the old metrics just aren't as effective anymore. The problem is that if history often rhymes; 2029 is 4-years from now, and the end of the Trump 2.0 term. The Great Crash was 1929, the decade leading up to it was the 'Gatsby' era, and the fallout laid the economic ground work that contributed to WWII a decade later. SD
73 Reds Posted January 31 Posted January 31 (edited) 2 hours ago, james22 said: How many investors have compounded as long as Buffett? If he'd been hit by a bus at 48 we wouldn't know his name. You're conflating avoiding bad investments with good. And conflating betting with good opportunities. Sure. Again, you can't take anything away from Buffett. He did great investing the way he did. But you also can't give him credit for things he didn't do. He missed tech. He has given away more than anyone here will ever make and he's not done. There is no conflating anything and he didn't "miss" tech just like you didn't "miss" the best 5 or 10 (or name your number) investments in history. Half a lifetime ago he was already compounding wealth at an astonishing rate and unlike many one-hit wonders, his success has continued for an entire lifetime. How anyone can excuse success for duration is simply incomprehensible. And to suggest that he "missed" anything is equally baffling. We all should hope to "miss" as much as he did. Edited January 31 by 73 Reds word
Vish_ram Posted January 31 Posted January 31 If you compare BRK and QQQ since Jan 2000, Buffett outperforms. So timing matters. I can confidently say that in the next 25 years, QQQ will outperform BRK.
73 Reds Posted January 31 Posted January 31 2 minutes ago, Vish_ram said: If you compare BRK and QQQ since Jan 2000, Buffett outperforms. So timing matters. I can confidently say that in the next 25 years, QQQ will outperform BRK. Buffett won't be here for the next 25 years. He also never felt the need to predict anything.
james22 Posted January 31 Posted January 31 2 hours ago, 73 Reds said: There is no conflating anything . . . Avoiding bad investments is good, avoiding good investments is bad. They are not the same. Avoiding betting is good, avoiding investing opportunities is bad. They are not the same. 2 hours ago, 73 Reds said: And to suggest that he "missed" anything is equally baffling. How many times has he himself admitted he missed tech opportunities? Warren Buffett: I was wrong on Google and ‘too dumb’ to appreciate Amazon The Oracle of Omaha also professed ignorance on other big technology stocks, whose rallies he missed because he didn’t quite appreciate their value proposition at first glance. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/06/warren-buffett-admits-he-made-a-mistake-on-google.html Take it up with him.
73 Reds Posted January 31 Posted January 31 (edited) 7 minutes ago, james22 said: Avoiding bad investments is good, avoiding good investments is bad. They are not the same. Avoiding betting is good, avoiding investing opportunities is bad. They are not the same. How many times has he himself admitted he missed tech opportunities? Warren Buffett: I was wrong on Google and ‘too dumb’ to appreciate Amazon The Oracle of Omaha also professed ignorance on other big technology stocks, whose rallies he missed because he didn’t quite appreciate their value proposition at first glance. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/06/warren-buffett-admits-he-made-a-mistake-on-google.html Take it up with him. Don't need to. What he doesn't say that is if he had it to do all over again (same time, knowledge, etc..) he wouldn't change anything because it is his process that matters. And last I checked AMZN is hardly a tech company though AAPL, his best stock investment EVER fits squarely into the category of big tech. Edited January 31 by 73 Reds words
james22 Posted January 31 Posted January 31 2 hours ago, 73 Reds said: . . . he didn't "miss" tech just like you didn't "miss" the best 5 or 10 (or name your number) investments in history. I didn't miss Monster or any number of other-than-tech investments, no. That's forgivable. But I did miss tech from 2010 to 2020. That's not. There's no excuse for missing what should have been obvious at the time. After one company digitizes something, every company after that that doing something similar and "crosses the chasm," should have been a no-brainer.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now