4 ms·

> he says never invest in tech, never ever. He's repeatedly explained that he doesn't invest in tech (well, until recently) because he doesn't understand it wi

> he says never invest in tech, never ever. He's repeatedly explained that he doesn't invest in tech (well, until recently) because he doesn't understand it will enough, but has he ever told others not to invest in tech?

nightski 4y ago
They are quite smug and judgmental in their annual meetings towards anything they don’t understand.
- marvin 4y ago
  That's good; means the good things they don't understand will be priced lower for those who do.
  - daniel-cussen 4y ago
    In the long run, like way after they're dead. I don't know. I'm in business for the dividends and raising tax funds for the State. You do both together generally, and because every businessman wants to do the total opposite, he hates paying dividends, hates giving the money he earned to investors, always saying reinvest. Or buybacks, which are strictly dividends. Buybacks are dividends. They just say they're different because they want to dodge taxes. Like there's this whole song and dance they teach in speculation schools, as if you could learn this in schools ("all those Harvard MBA's didn't add up to dogshit" -- Michael Douglas, Wall Street) well those guys, they're like no dividends no. Because then your stock goes down by the amount you paid. Like really? But who cares, if an investor reinvests the dividend his share is the same, call it by another name. Come on. Nomenclature thing. But without dividends, there's no point in investing. I talk about it and pg too, that's the end game, there is no other end game really. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=306464 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=306464
    - marvin 4y ago
      I agree with you regarding dividends, returning money to investors, of course. I was thinking more of things like how e.g. Tesla was not even a decade ago priced at $2 billion dollars when it was pretty frickin' obvious they had a very reasonable chance of growing to a globally dominant manufacturer. Lots of smart people missed that, but quite a few saw it as well.

nightski 4y ago

They are quite smug and judgmental in their annual meetings towards anything they don’t understand.

marvin 4y ago
That's good; means the good things they don't understand will be priced lower for those who do.
- daniel-cussen 4y ago
  In the long run, like way after they're dead. I don't know. I'm in business for the dividends and raising tax funds for the State. You do both together generally, and because every businessman wants to do the total opposite, he hates paying dividends, hates giving the money he earned to investors, always saying reinvest. Or buybacks, which are strictly dividends. Buybacks are dividends. They just say they're different because they want to dodge taxes. Like there's this whole song and dance they teach in speculation schools, as if you could learn this in schools ("all those Harvard MBA's didn't add up to dogshit" -- Michael Douglas, Wall Street) well those guys, they're like no dividends no. Because then your stock goes down by the amount you paid. Like really? But who cares, if an investor reinvests the dividend his share is the same, call it by another name. Come on. Nomenclature thing. But without dividends, there's no point in investing. I talk about it and pg too, that's the end game, there is no other end game really. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=306464 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=306464
  - marvin 4y ago
    I agree with you regarding dividends, returning money to investors, of course. I was thinking more of things like how e.g. Tesla was not even a decade ago priced at $2 billion dollars when it was pretty frickin' obvious they had a very reasonable chance of growing to a globally dominant manufacturer. Lots of smart people missed that, but quite a few saw it as well.