> I'll happily pay you however much you let me buy of a static pile of money for under the dollar amount of the pile, as long as the difference covers transfer

> I'll happily pay you however much you let me buy of a static pile of money for under the dollar amount of the pile, as long as the difference covers transfer fees. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be the only one either. Why? What does that gain you? You lose the use of the money you put in to buying the asset. You have no access to the money backing up the asset. That underlying asset might be going up or down in value, but none of that value change is being paid out to you. > This to say that when you state "that's not how it works", that's your analysis of the market, and you're free to rationalize how you think the market arrived at a current valuation, but other people will rationalize it differently. That's the whole reason why different investment strategies exist. Most investment strategies are shit in the long run, particularly those that are rationalized (i.e., superficially reasonable and valid, but actually supported by unconscious or specious reasoning). Discounting the value of an asset you cannot directly purchase and control is not one of them.