3 ms·

Sorry but these two are not that great and their track record for the past decade is also not that great. They basically missed out on 10x type of opportunity

by lvl102 4y ago

Sorry but these two are not that great and their track record for the past decade is also not that great. They basically missed out on 10x type of opportunity just from 2018. They are in the money making business right? Last I checked, BTC is still 5x from 2018 low. Money is money. Return is return. Edit: from a purely financial point of view, you can make the same argument for companies that do not pay dividends/share repo. Until they actually pay you for your shares, you’re effectively invested in a ponzi scheme.

_fizz_buzz_ 4y ago
> Last I checked, BTC is still 5x from 2018 low. The video clip appears to be form may 7th, 2018 [1]. Bitcoin was around $9200 at the time. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/07/berkshires-charlie-munger-bitcoin-is-worthless-artificial-gold.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/07/berkshires-charlie-munger-bi...
unicornmama 4y ago
They are not in the trading business. You can’t make the identical argument for companies because they may return value to shareholders in the future. But there is the risk of management and governance, like we see now with Meta pissing away money on vanity projects instead of returning value to shareholders.
Eisenstein 4y ago
> Edit: from a purely financial point of view, you can make the same argument for companies that do not pay dividends/share repo. Until they actually pay you for your shares, you’re effectively invested in a ponzi scheme. A corporation still has assets you know. As a shareholder you own a share of them. That said, no one is arguing in support of non-dividend paying stocks here, so what is your point?
kennend3 4y ago
> Edit: from a purely financial point of view, you can make the same argument for companies that do not pay dividends/share repo. Until they actually pay you for your shares, you’re effectively invested in a ponzi scheme. Yes.. by redefining what "ponzi scheme" means you can say anything is a ponzi scheme. Or alternatively you can use the accepted definition: --- Pon·zi scheme /ˈpänzē ˌskēm/ Learn to pronounce noun a form of fraud in which belief in the success of a nonexistent enterprise is fostered by the payment of quick returns to the first investors from money invested by later investors. --- And when you apply this to "buying shares" you see it doesn't ring true. Probably because shares represent ownership in a business. Businesses can offer returns to investors such a price appreciation instead of dividends. Most tech/growth stocks don't pay dividends because they reinvest the free cash back into the business. There is probably a reason you are being downvoted, and your attempt to rewrite ponzi to suit your needs may be a contributing factor. While it is easy to arm-chair-critic people who many consider the best investors around, perhaps you can post your own investment history as a frame of reference? Clearly you feel they made mistakes, and that you did not? Lastly, investors have risk factors. Those who invested in Buffet/Munger did so because of their risk views and it is unlikely that those same people invested in bitcoin because of its risks. Maybe other assets beat out Buffet, but does this factor risks?
- lvl102 4y ago
  They invested in IBM and BABA. Enough said.

by lvl102 4y ago

_fizz_buzz_ 4y ago

> Last I checked, BTC is still 5x from 2018 low. The video clip appears to be form may 7th, 2018 [1]. Bitcoin was around $9200 at the time. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/07/berkshires-charlie-munger-bitcoin-is-worthless-artificial-gold.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/07/berkshires-charlie-munger-bi...

unicornmama 4y ago

They are not in the trading business. You can’t make the identical argument for companies because they may return value to shareholders in the future. But there is the risk of management and governance, like we see now with Meta pissing away money on vanity projects instead of returning value to shareholders.

Eisenstein 4y ago

> Edit: from a purely financial point of view, you can make the same argument for companies that do not pay dividends/share repo. Until they actually pay you for your shares, you’re effectively invested in a ponzi scheme. A corporation still has assets you know. As a shareholder you own a share of them. That said, no one is arguing in support of non-dividend paying stocks here, so what is your point?

kennend3 4y ago

> Edit: from a purely financial point of view, you can make the same argument for companies that do not pay dividends/share repo. Until they actually pay you for your shares, you’re effectively invested in a ponzi scheme. Yes.. by redefining what "ponzi scheme" means you can say anything is a ponzi scheme. Or alternatively you can use the accepted definition: --- Pon·zi scheme /ˈpänzē ˌskēm/ Learn to pronounce noun a form of fraud in which belief in the success of a nonexistent enterprise is fostered by the payment of quick returns to the first investors from money invested by later investors. --- And when you apply this to "buying shares" you see it doesn't ring true. Probably because shares represent ownership in a business. Businesses can offer returns to investors such a price appreciation instead of dividends. Most tech/growth stocks don't pay dividends because they reinvest the free cash back into the business. There is probably a reason you are being downvoted, and your attempt to rewrite ponzi to suit your needs may be a contributing factor. While it is easy to arm-chair-critic people who many consider the best investors around, perhaps you can post your own investment history as a frame of reference? Clearly you feel they made mistakes, and that you did not? Lastly, investors have risk factors. Those who invested in Buffet/Munger did so because of their risk views and it is unlikely that those same people invested in bitcoin because of its risks. Maybe other assets beat out Buffet, but does this factor risks?

lvl102 4y ago
They invested in IBM and BABA. Enough said.