6 ms·
> Real estate, there's no easy way to invest in it in a scalable way. Of course there is. It's called a REIT (Real Estate Investment Trust). If you want even m
by Sanzig 6y ago
> Real estate, there's no easy way to invest in it in a scalable way.
Of course there is. It's called a REIT (Real Estate Investment Trust). If you want even more diversification, you can buy ETFs and mutual funds which hold multiple REITs in multiple market segments. You don't need to physically own a property to get real estate exposure...
> So, what are you going to do put ALL your money in Equities? with no diversification. People desperately need a store of value, they can't just work until their 120 year old.
You can buy bonds specifically indexed to inflation. In the United States, these are referred to as TIPS (Treasury inflation-protected securities). There are plenty of places to get exposure to these on the secondary market, eg: via ETFs.
I find it a bit silly to claim that you're interested in a store of value while holding a highly volatile asset like Bitcoin. By definition, a store of value should have low volatility and basically track inflation. Bitcoin has behaved far more like a speculative investment: yes, it's substantially trended upwards, but it's also been highly volatile. How do you reconcile accepting Bitcoin but rejecting equities, which have historically outpaced inflation by a significant margin?
- thorwasdfasdf 6y agoTIPs I believe use the CPI, and so do other instruments like this. The CPI undercounts inflation by almost 1 to 1.5%. we've discussed this one many times: just look at bic mac index, housing prices, car prices. there are many buckets in the CPI and at least several of them don't fully count inflation, sometimes quite brazenly too: comparing beef prices to chicken prices instead of beef to beef, simply because beef has gone up faster than chicken. the appeal of bitcoin is there's a fixed supply as opposed to fiat which can increase exponentially. I never said reject equities. I want to invest in as many asset classes as possible, including equities, real estate and gold. The macro picture for equities is looking a little less rosy than it did 30 or 50 years ago. Equities are supposed to follow earnings growths, which is basically just population growth + productivity per capita increases plus dividends. if you break the 3 of those down and compare them to the last 50 years, you'll quickly see, future fundamentals are less rosy: - labor population growth has slowed to 0.5%, from 1.5% - per capita productivity growth is at all time lows - and dividends for s&p500 are now at 1.5%, down from 4.5%. Whereas the fundamentals for past growth were (4.5+1.5+2=8% real), the future fundamentals now show: (1.5+0.5+1.5=3.5%).