51–60 of 163 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
go on morningstar (or below) and look at the chart for the entire life of the fund, you'll see that he had periods of massive outperformance http://quotes.morningstar.com/chart/fund/chart?t=HSGFX®io...
a broken clock is right twice a day
Earlier quoted context omitted.
go on morningstar (or below) and look at the chart for the entire life of the fund, you'll see that he had periods of massive outperformance http://quotes.morningstar.com/chart/fund/chart?t=HSGFX®io...
a broken clock is right twice a day
I should add Fiat currency...
Ok, so if you think the hell thing is going to hell, just go SHORT, it's one click away. How simple is that? And that's why these predictions never pan out, if it's SO EASY to make a ton of cash off a crashing market, then EVERYONE will go short, since it's so EASY to make money. And that's why markets are generally stable and it's what humans do best, we go LONG. :-)
I look beyond the “there’s a crash coming” sentiment. In that opinion, he is like all other pundits yammering on CNBC: entertaining rather than enlightening. What I like about his article is the insight — new to me — about the nature of paper wealth vs real wealth. He described it in a way that is useful and enlightening to me. The assertion that a security (stock, bond) is not an addition to net wealth — just a zero…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> Every time a block is validated, a single node in the network gets a reward, and everyone else’s computing time is completely wasted. >This is a misunderstanding of what PoW is http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/ Honest question: I tried to find the problem with that view in the link you provided, but couldn't. Can you explain it to others who may share the same belief? I think that's what the Bitcoin whi…
You need opportunity cost in order to secure the network. Without that, there is no incentive to keep the network secure. There is no cheaper solution to solve this problem, therefore there is no waste.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He may have raised funds 20 years ago and over 20 years delivered good returns. Also, underperforming S&P is not necessarily the right metric - as part of an overall portfolio that includes S&P, his funds may provide diversification benefits. To answer the question as to why can't random joe raise that money - the answer is, raising money is harder than you think.
It's not my area of expertise, but I believe it's perhaps easier to raise money now than at any time in the past. Somewhere in this video, David Einhorn talks about this in response to a question from the public: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qvz5LS9pIjs Apparantly there's match making events set up by banks, to introduce money managers to investors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You need opportunity cost in order to secure the network. Without that, there is no incentive to keep the network secure. There is no cheaper solution to solve this problem, therefore there is no waste.
Are claiming that the Bitcoin solution is the ideal solution to distributed trust? I don't know that that is not the case, but it seems unlikely that the first working solution was the best one doesn't it?
You also need to remember that bitcoin is upgradable. If in the future we find better ways of doing distributed trust, and we can prove it, that doesn't mean that bitcoin is done and gone. If the vast majority of the users of bitcoin believe a change to whatever other "distributed trust" system that is better, the network can be upgraded to take advantage of it.