Youtube comments of (@ThePlainBagel).
-
4800
-
4100
-
3200
-
2900
-
2300
-
2100
-
2000
-
2000
-
1700
-
1700
-
1600
-
1500
-
1500
-
1400
-
1400
-
1400
-
1300
-
1100
-
1000
-
1000
-
967
-
954
-
939
-
916
-
878
-
877
-
847
-
808
-
This was a great video, learned a few things about my country :)
Something I think is interesting to add; on the note about shale oil in Canada, another reason we haven't really seen it gain any traction is because the current conventional oil industry is facing HUGE headwinds, the biggest of which is lack of pipeline capacity. In Canada there have been a lot of protests against building pipelines from environmental and First Nations groups, and this has effectively left us with a system where we can only really export oil to the U.S. (our East coast imports oil from Saudi Arabia because we don't even have capacity to supply all our own provinces). Having (effectively) one customer for the vast majority of our oil has put us at a huge pricing disadvantage; our oil (Western Canadian Select) has been going for large discounts to WTI. In fact, with the current pricing war when WTI fell to roughly $20 a barrel , WCS fell to under $5, meaning it was cheaper to buy a barrel of oil from Canada than a pint of beer! Needless to say very few companies are looking to explore shale deposits when we already have these obstacles in the energy sector.
This is all a hot topic for Canadians, so whether it's "right" or "wrong" is not something I'd be jumping into, but certainly something worth adding!
Anyway, love to content you're putting out, just subscribed!
755
-
723
-
692
-
669
-
668
-
665
-
650
-
614
-
546
-
501
-
498
-
I agree that Meet Kevin should be able to do whatever he wants, but it's fair for viewers to also be a little pissed that he's going against the advice he shares, especially because this DOES appear to be a short-term trade call and not a personal financial decision (i.e. selling because he's wanting to take on less risk - he's looking to buy back in after a few months, plus he's now short the market). Obviously, his financial situation allows him to do whatever he wants with those sorts of calls, and people should NOT mirror his trades because, well, they aren't in Meet Kevin's shoes, but I understand where viewers are coming from.
Regardless, I appreciate you sharing some sound tips and (respectfully) disagreeing with his approach, I was admittedly worried this video was about how you were following suit.
474
-
464
-
430
-
406
-
388
-
381
-
373
-
373
-
364
-
362
-
355
-
336
-
321
-
317
-
317
-
314
-
304
-
299
-
292
-
268
-
258
-
237
-
232
-
231
-
228
-
226
-
225
-
222
-
218
-
211
-
209
-
209
-
204
-
202
-
191
-
173
-
169
-
169
-
154
-
152
-
147
-
146
-
144
-
136
-
135
-
134
-
132
-
130
-
129
-
128
-
124
-
124
-
123
-
122
-
119
-
117
-
113
-
111
-
109
-
109
-
108
-
107
-
106
-
105
-
103
-
102
-
98
-
92
-
91
-
91
-
89
-
88
-
It's funny, there are a lot of similarities in terms of supply when it comes to housing and oil. Home constructions were booming leading up to the 2008 crisis, and then as defaults rose, new supply crashed as businesses were spooked out of the area. Oil basically experienced the same thing; just before the pandemic, shale oil companies flooded the market, caused prices to fall, spooked companies out of increasing production, and since then supply has been really constrained. Even with oil at $100 a barrel, companies are really reluctant to add more capacity; it seems investors are slow to forget past pain. There are obviously fundamental differences between the sectors (housing has a brighter future than oil), but seeing the housing construction chart made me think of the comparison.
Really good video Graham, a lot of interesting data all nicely tied together. Well done!
86
-
84
-
83
-
83
-
80
-
79
-
78
-
77
-
75
-
73
-
72
-
71
-
71
-
68
-
67
-
67
-
66
-
66
-
65
-
64
-
64
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
61
-
60
-
59
-
56
-
56
-
55
-
55
-
53
-
52
-
52
-
51
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
49
-
49
-
48
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
46
-
46
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
Thanks for the constructive argument! You raise some valid points, and it is my understanding too that Bitcoin could become very efficient with coming changes. While I concur that Bitcoin is incredible from a technological standpoint, I suppose my concerns remain about its ability to compete with other currencies, as well as its lack of any financial backing.
I know people say you can't look at Bitcoin like other investments, but I think doing so at least provides you a bit of insight into Bitcoin's competitive landscape. Take Porter's 5 Forces for example, they don't really work in Bitcoin's favor:
- Bargaining Power of Suppliers: You could argue that this would be the miners of Bitcoin. Since there's so many of them, you could argue that this is low (a positive for Bitcoin)
- Bargaining Power of Buyers: I'd argue that this is very high, since buyers have many choices when it comes to cryptocurrencies.
- Threat of New Entrants: VERY HIGH (since there's no barriers to entry)
- Threat of Substitutes: also VERY HIGH (USD, other fiat currencies)
- Competitive Landscape: VERY COMPETITIVE (i.e. Ripple, Etherium, etc.)
All in all, I could be wrong, but from a financial perspective I see a lot of red flags.
Thanks again for sharing!
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
I’d have to disagree to an extent with this. Certainly, you run equity risk when you’re invested, but it’s not a greater fool situation if fundamentals support a higher value.
As a shareholder, you get percentage claim to a company’s profits. If a stock is trading very high without supporting profitability, that is speculation, but just because a company keeps their dividend doesn’t mean their stock’s value isn’t supported. You can also have a company perform share buybacks, which is almost equivalent to a dividend payment but the investor doesn’t get the cash payment, instead their share value increases by an equivalent amount. Sure, that amount is still at risk, but it’s no different than receiving a dividend and reinvesting it into the company, in fact it has a tax advantage.
On top of all of that, a share’s value is backed by the assets of a company; if the company shuts down tomorrow, you get compensated by the proceeds that come from the assets. Obviously, there’s a whole bunch of risk here, but it’s not like the shares don’t represent anything
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Share buybacks do benefit shareholders, that statement is simply not correct. For the company, it is the exact same as paying a dividend, so the firm doesn't benefit from the payout. For investors, it also offers a similar benefit, and you can simply decide to sell a portion of your share if you want cash instead. They are theoretically equivalent transactions.
I'd be interested where the 29% figure is from, and what stocks it's looking at (if it includes all start ups which many investors don't partake in, it's very misleading of average returns). Investors who hold an S&P500 position have earned remarkable PRICE returns over the past 40 years.
Again, the price of a stock is not fundamentally 0. Take a real estate company. I'm sure you agree that houses hold tangible value that should increase over time as population grows (if not, let me know, that's a core assumption here). A real estate company buys and operates real estate. As a shareholder, you have a tangible claim to a percentage value of those buildings. As they go up in value, so too does your claim. In this circumstance, it should be easy to see that the stock has fundamental value; it's equivalent to you and your friends meeting up, splitting the costs of a house, and hiring someone to manage it. Even if you and your friends never take a dividend and just use the money to buy more buildings, your shares are certainly not worthless.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Okay I understand, you're talking about expensive in terms of BALANCE, so Dave Ramsey suggests paying off low balance debt first is ideal, not that you should keep your high INTEREST debt. I understand.
I see his point, and perhaps there are behavioural forces at play that make it less likely for someone to succeed if they don't pay off their low balance debts first. But if someone came to me asking for advice between paying off a $5K, 20% interest debt or a $1K, 5% debt, I'd still recommend they pay off as much of the $5K first.
I guess it depends on the specifics: to me the difference between a 5% and 20% interest rate is huge and I would always tackle the 20% interest rate first. If it were closer (i.e. 10% and 12%) then maybe it makes sense (behaviourally) to pay off the smaller debt balance at 10%. In the video you sent, the woman is talking about a credit card balance that isn't accumulating interest in a few months; realistically even after taking into account that promotion the difference between the interest she'll pay on her two card balances probably isn't that big, so I see where he's coming from.
All that being said, I'm not an expert on debt but my bias is to still pay debt off by interest rate first rather than balance, all else held constant.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
The way I look at it is that older individuals have more "deadlines" for their investments; when they retire, they need to sell a portion of their investments to live off of. The issue with stocks is that if the deadline comes and the stock market is experiencing a downturn, the individual isn't able to "wait out" the negative performance and may actually put their income needs at risk if the downturn is bad enough. With bonds, it's pretty easy to match your income needs with different bond maturities; even if bond prices are down, you get your principal back at maturity so market fluctuations are less of a concern.
At the end of the day, age is not the only factor when it comes to risk tolerance. I'm a young guy, but if I wanted to buy a house in two years, I wouldn't put the money in the stock market because I wouldn't want to risk losing money and not being able to afford the house (short-term, stocks could be up or down 50% if not more). Likewise, a wealthy 70-year old may have a portfolio full of stocks if they don't need the funds right away (i.e. they don't have any "deadlines"). But, holding all else constant, people tend to have a lower risk tolerance the older they get because they have deadlines that will force them to sell their holdings regardless of whether things are up or down.
Hope this helps!
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Fair point, but that leads to fanaticism when you combine that with making money. In my eyes, we would really see bitcoin's potential if it was pegged to another currency. Then, all of the demand would be for its use as a currency. And while I agree that the technology could be revolutionary, it may still not be enough for mainstream adoption. Sure, fiat currency has restrictions, but its pretty darn good as it is when it comes to user convenience, so why would someone who's used USD all their life switch when they haven't noticed any issues?
And that's all without getting into my main concern that nothing backs Bitcoin. There's nothing allowing us to decide whether it should trade at $10, or $1M. There's no tangible value.
I still argue that there's a lot of fanaticism. Facebook was and continues to be revolutionary, yet people aren't raving about it in the same way. Again, perhaps its the Libertarian view that leads to the excitement about Bitcoin, but I'd argue that the majority of America, and other countries, aren't truly libertarian.
All in all, bitcoin could be the future, but so long as it's fluctuating in value, it can't really operate as a true currency. Having something meant to be spent that earns you a return if you don't spend it is paradoxical.
Thanks for the constructive counterpoint.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Just to quickly touch on it, there's no simple answer because it depends, but I find it helps to flip the ratio (earnings divided by price). This gives you a stock's "profit yield," and you can think of it like a return figure. A P/E of 30x gives a "profit yield" of 3.3%; as a return, that's not very attractive.
The trick, however, is to consider whether earnings are growing, something not captured by the P/E. If a company will perpetually have flat earnings, a 30x P/E isn't very attractive (you're only generating 3.3% "profit" on your price). Alternatively, if you pay 30x this year, but next year earnings quadruple (say because they had a low starting point from COVID), suddenly that profit yield is 13.3%. It takes context and a bit of experience to interpret P/E ratios, so you shouldn't make any decision off the figure alone, you need to compare it to the company's expected growth, history, and peers.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
So it’s all because of opportunity cost, but you are right that if you hold a bond until it matures (and it has a positive yield to maturity), you won’t lose money, assuming the company doesn’t go bankrupt. The issue is if you buy a $1,000, 5% 30-year bond, and then tomorrow that same company starts selling $1,000, 6% 30-year bonds, you wouldn’t be able to sell your bond on the market for $1,000, since another investor would just buy the 6% bond. So the market value of your bond declines; you could sell now for less than $1,000 (a loss), or just hold until maturity for a 5% annual return. Hope that helps!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I understand all of those point, and don't get me wrong those features are great. But there's still very low barriers to entry with Bitcoin as we've seen with other cryptos. And just for a second assume that the dollar gains these conveniences. Would Bitcoin still have value? The convenience of the dollar has increased dramatically over time - we now have stores that charge you automatically when you enter and exit the building with goods in your cart, so what if the dollar comes close to Bitcoin-level capabilities? That is definitely a risk.
I still believe there is fanaticism around Bitcoin - people are incredibly attached to the concept and get defensive when risks are addressed. I often analyze companies working with artificial intelligence, another truly groundbreaking technology that I believe will change everything. I've had that eureka moment with AI, and yet I still acknowledge the risks and have no problem addressing them. I don't have an attachment to AI and don't feel the need to defend it - a successful technology will prove itself over time. Someone could yell at me about how AI will fail and my response would be "yea, you could be right!" I believe in it, AND understand that there are risks, especially when it comes to individual applications of the concept. But because so many people have money tied to Bitcoin, we're left in a very dangerous environment where there really is a conflict of interest when discussing the technology.
Again, the whole point of this isn't to argue that Bitcoin won't be a thing - if Bitcoin ever replaces the USD I'll be happy to switch my money over. But I'm not going to take the chance and try to earn money on an early technology that appears to have no intrinsic value or asset backing, especially, again, when we aren't even sure if you're supposed to spend it or hodl it!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
With nearly every point you made you put some words in my mouth that weren't my own, so I'll try to clear up a number of things:
- I don't believe I ever called Tesla overvalued, but expensive and speculative yes. Risk and return are separate things, highlighting something as risky does not mean it's overvalued, and certainly doesn't mean it can't do well (1:56 - I thought the mega phone would drive this point home but I guess not...)
- I did not assume bitcoin has no intrinsic value, I said the intrinsic value can't be measured. If it can, please show me the math!
- 7:29 I clearly highlight that money printing could be an issue, so I don't know where you got the idea that I'm assuming inflation can't get out of hand. And the simple math around inflation (price inflation anyway) is not that simple. Printing money doesn't inherently cause price inflation, just look to Japan for an example of why an economy can see deflation despite M2 rising over time.
- On the dumb money point... 9:27...
- My advice on bitcoin is that I don't know which way it's going to go, and that I'm not going to hold it just because! Didn't know that would be so controversial :o
If you're going to call someone arrogant, I encourage you to not to misrepresent someone's arguments; you risk looking arrogant yourself!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@tomcads1604 I agree, but diversification is different from hedging. Buying something with 0 correlation doesn't hedge something; buying something with -1 correlation does.
If you were an airline company that wanted to hedge jet fuel prices, you could go long an oil future (which, theoretically, offers a -1 correlation to your current oil exposure). If oil prices go up, your future gains value, and your business loses value (jet fuel becomes more expensive). Your hedge therefore offsets the effect of rising or falling prices, removing the risk.
If the airline wanted 0 correlation, they would buy something unrelated to jet fuel prices (it's difficult to find something with NO correlation, but they could buy something like stock in a local-sourcing art supplies company). This clearly wouldn't offset jet fuel prices (i.e. it would not hedge), but it would have little to no correlation (i.e. it WOULD diversify)!
So hedging does typically come with a cost, but diversification may not necessarily if you believe the art supplies company will also do well.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@NapalmXD So yes, leverage from borrowing money is as you defined, but when it specifically comes to leveraged ETFs, they often use a combination of loans and derivatives to structure themselves in a way that multiples the return they experience. As an example, you can see on the page for UPRO that in the first line, the objective is to multiply the return, not the capital: https://www.proshares.com/funds/upro.html
The short of it is that derivatives involve "indirectly" borrowing money, and this sort of changes the payoff dynamics. You aren't really taking out a loan, you're just agreeing with someone that if something goes up, they'll pay you 3x the return, and if it goes down, you'll pay them 3x the return. The leverage comes from the fact that you don't need a deposit equal to the possible amount you'll have to pay in the end; so while you may end up owing, idk, $1000 because markets go down, perhaps you only had to deposit $500 to begin with.
Hopefully that makes sense
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So with your example, if you thought the stock would be $5 higher within a month, but you wanted to limit your downside, you could buy a call option for, say, $2 that has a strike price of $50. If the stock goes up to $55, you pay the $50 for the stock, and while you lose the $2 premium you stay make $3. If the stock falls to $45, $35, or even $0, you are only down the $2 you paid for the stock option. Hope that clears things up!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GainsGoblin Right, bitcoin does generate money for miners, but you don't get that by owning bitcoin; to be cash generating (or money generating, wealth generating, however you put it) for the holder, someone needs to be paying you for holding the asset. Amazon is paid by its customers/merchants for selling products, and the amount they are paid every year has increased, which has led to their stellar growth. Bitcoin does not have a similar operation; you could argue that a bitcoin mining company IS cash generating (which, if they are successful, is true), but people who hold bitcoin do not benefit from a miner's profitability, those that hold the stock in the mining operation do (i.e. the stock is the cash-generating asset in question).
This isn't to say bitcoin doesn't have any use (Venezuela is a good example, although the USD is also a popular currency there), but to your original question, I hardly believe it will perform like an Amazon investment post-2000; the two are simply not comparable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hi Quinn, unfortunately I'm unable to give any direct advice, but a rule of thumb in the industry for your split between equity and fixed income (bonds) is 100 - your age. The younger you are, the more your typically able to invest in stocks.
As to your mix between ETFs, Mutual funds and individual stocks, that's a harder question to answer, but you just need to find a balance that works for you. If you have the time to research stocks and the money available to properly diversify, individual stocks are certainly viable. ETFs are very popular for investors of all sizes, but they are useful for first-timers since they take away a lot of the work; same goes for mutual funds, although you need to keep an eye on fees.
Sorry I can't be more direct, but I hope this helps! Thanks for the comment!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1