Topic: rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;) - page 204. (Read 907212 times)

Assets can be classified in many ways but I would try:

- land/RE
- PMs
- businesses (that you run)
- paper investments (cash, stocks, bonds, funds, all that is correlated to fiat liquidity)
- cryptos.

I know many people that, due to mortgage, are more than 100% (in fact, often 1000% or even negative % because of negative net worth) invested in RE. No doubt RE is a good investment but not so good that you should take insane leverage. The long-term return is more like 2-5% depending on many things.

Lots of people don't have anything else but paper investments, in other words they haven't diversified at all and are 100% at the mercy of the liquidity masters. When liquidity was withdrawn from the market in late 2008, all these tanked 50-100%. They are very risky, and there is comparatively little upside.

With PM's and cryptos you cannot fail so badly as the risk of going to zero is rather small, and sane people realize that they don't need leverage because the upside is very good anyway if they hit big. Now, gold's upside is maximum 10x from now, silver's 100x and (to keep the similar probability) bitcoin's is 10,000x.

There is a claim that high volatility equals high risk, but that is fallacious. Bitcoin's volatility is so high that for every 2-year period you have always netted at least 200%. There is no security in the history of capital markets that has always shown a positive 2-year return. Therefore all the other assets have historically been of higher risk than Bitcoin (and not only lower return).

=> The upside with Bitcoin is so great and the risks so small that the only reasons to own anything at all besides them are:

* if you need the other thing
* for hedging against Bitcoin's catastrophic failure
* for short-term capital needs (because of Bitcoin's volatility).

folks, can we please move this polygomastic shit elsewhere please? perhaps the off topic board? cluttering up the thread.

It doesn't just have to be one man + several women. Could be one woman with several men, several men with several women etc. Also it doesn't have to be "forever" but temporary. Read Heinlein's "Time enough for Love" for a good elaboration on how such a society might work and why it might be desirable.

I'll just leave one thought here and stop hijacking this thread:

Right now many people think because the male/female ratio is approximately 50/50, that most people can get a partner. And once they get them, many succumb to the illusion that now they "have" them for the rest of their lives and often try to seal this illusion with silly things like marriage. This in turn gives them license to feel like they are being owed a partner by society which often results in a their lack of effort to actually try and be a good and desirable partner. In a society where romantic relationships are multiamorous a temporary the threat of your partner leaving you or yourself not being even able to get a partner at all will presumably put enormous pressure on people to actually try and be partners worth having. And let me tell you it would be hard to convince me that that's a bad thing Most monogamous relationships seem to be based on fear, insecurity and ego-driven possessiveness, whereas I'm personally much more interested in love and freedom. But I do acknowledge that my views on this matter are even more unpopular than my views on the state & the government so I'll just leave it at that

Way offtopic, but wouldn't fairness and common decency say that in a society with nearly 50% male and 50% female, everyone should have one spouse.  But in a society where 75% of the men are killed in battle, that a 1:3 or 1:4 ratio starts to make sense?

I would absolutely invest more than 5%. In fact, I have been and am continuing to increase my position further with money I've made through more traditional endeavors, such as stereotypical "work." It takes a long time to truly understand this protocol and it's market. I went in at a small position because one of my friends was so excited about it. If I had understood it like I do now, I would have gone 50% in with fresh capital.

To be clear, I would still go 50% in today with fresh capital. And to put my money where my mouth is, in the past month I have put in another 5% of my total wealth and will continue to do so over the next couple months before we see another leap in price.

However, this is a personal decision, and please don't take my words as investment advice, as I am not qualified to give it.

What was the nature of the failure?  Did your bank refuse the transaction?  If so, was it a big 5 bank (Wells, Chase, BofA, Citi, etc.) or a local bank, credit union, etc.? 

I was aware it was out topic and we could move the discussion in a new post. But I introduced my questioning here because this is the only post I follow (don't have much time) and people here seem smarter than elsewhere. Ok let me move it.

Thanks for your reply. What if you didn't invest back then and you understood all this today, looking at the past rise. Would you invest more than 5% ? Would you invest even 50% of a smaller total asset base ?

There is a lot of psychology in this. It's easy to hold a 50% total asset position if it became that much through the rise. Mostly because you have not "worked for" and gradually built your life around these 50%.

I am interested in the reasoning for a newcomer as I am one and there are many others who see the posts of Risto Pietila. Risto gave a great Bitcoin Savings Plan, but no help in determining how much should be put in. I read often : as much as you are able / willing to lose. This is a wise advise for the gambler, but not for the prudent investor : it does not say enough.

I guess multiple replies to this question would satisfy my appetite : "If you would never have invested in BTC yet and didn't experience the wealth increase provided by BTC, what % of your total assets would you consider your optimal position now ?"

I think a regular poll with this question presented to the more senior btc holders would be very interesting for newcomers.

yes, like any other asset were so safer.
ppl still believing that they 'own' their home or their bank account or gold or anything else in the western world are in for a surprise.
then they may find that bitcoins were mostly an insurance against what is coming.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/10819885/David-Cameron-Taxes-will-rise-unless-we-can-raid-bank-accounts.html

MahaRamana I hope you start a new thread for this topic.  I suggest it does not belong here, but is an interesting topic to discuss.

This is a very reasonable view point. I have about 50% of my total assets in BTC, but I don't own much and when I originally started buying, I think I had put in about 5%. Anybody who puts in 50% up front has an incredible appetite for risk and is probably a heavy gambler. Yet, if you have a true understanding of how revolutionary this technology is, pitted against the archaic methods it will replace, coupled with the dominance of its first mover advantage that has secured an unsurpassable hashing power, consistently increasing investment in infrastructure, and the recent sidechain revelation, it almost seems foolish not to take an otherwise extreme position. I know I wish I had understood all of this better when I first started trading. You can bet I would have put in much more than 5% of my assets.

this raises the interesting question of the optimal % of total net worth to invest in BTC.
I believe this is a much more important question than determining exactly when to buy. Yet most of the discussion goes in timing, not wealth allocation.

Of course it is a question that each person has to reply for himself depending on his circumstances. But most people lack the framework that would help them to make a rational decision based on their investment profile.

It is useful to help people assess the value of bitcoin against the trendline to optimise timing. But it would be even more useful if we could help people understand for themselves how much BTC they should own relative to their wealth.

I am saying this because I am asking this question for myself. When I see the terms "moderately invested" for a BTC position of less than 50%, I am a bit jumping on my chair. Do you really believe that someone entering today and taking a position of 33-49% of his total assets would be only moderately invested ? I see it as very heavily invested.

If you saw BTC rise 100X or more while holding it, and BTC went from being 5% of your assets to 90% and you diversify away from BTC, it feels like getting down to "only" 50% BTC is a moderate position. But when you initially enter BTC, it is a very different thing.

Take someone who has for exemple 1 million USD in total assets and 100K yearly income. He has a house valued 600K fully paid. He has a car valued 40K. He has precious metals for 150K. He has other real-estate investments for 100K. He has liquid investments and cash for 110K.

What you are basically saying is that the guy would have to sell everything he has including metals, and take a partial mortgage on his house, and put everything in BTC, to be more than moderately invested in BTC ? This sounds way too much, don't you think ? I mean, it's maybe more than a winning bet, but is it a reasonable, responsible one ?

My personal view is : 0-1% of net worth being a small position, 2-5% moderate, 6-10% big position, 11-25% very big, 26-50% huge position, 51+% extreme position.

I would be interested to hear what people here think is a good % of total assets to hold in BTC today.

The moving average of adjusted quantity of bitcoin transactions is on track to surpass an April peak this week. To me this indicates that the long term downtrend in the price series from last November may indeed break within the next four weeks on Bitstamp, and perhaps in two weeks on Huobi.

Not sure re fail on 40K. I think they had no 50K limit in december, rather it was 50BTC if I remember correctly.
I think that the warning sign for a bank is when you send money to coinbase, then sell on localbitcoins, then send cash back to the bank.
There is a reddit thread on this. This looks like money laundering and, perhaps, it might  be construed as such from a point of view of a bank.
Selling from Coinbase to your bank account should be fine, otherwise coinbase is screwed. Not sure about their 50K limit, though (never tried). In any case, it is probably not prudent to jerk large $$ values to and from bitcoin.
I mostly buy it in smaller BTC ##. I think that considering everything, you should allocate 5-10% of your assets to bitcoin. If it tanks, your loss is limited. If it goes to 1mil in 10 years or so, then you can buy a few real estate properties and travel from one to another during your "golden" years  .
edit: I am really looking forward to bitcoin ETF as it would be a perfect hedge to holding "raw" BTC.

What do you think? We are still in a downtrend, but it is becoming sticky around this price. A few weeks ago I called 435 never again, and so far it has been wrong by 15 only. A practically insignificant amount for a long-term investor. Even now we are higher.

Wasn't this supposed to be a quality TA thread?

Yes, animals do kill other animals, so do humans to survive - we eat chickens, dogs, cats, cows, pigs, fishes.....there is a difference between killing other animals and cannibalism tho. It has to do a lot with how we were raised too, then again, its not about what someone chooses, i dont care how others live their life, this is about claiming what is natural and what is not. Many people claim monogamy is natural for us because they were raised to think so, they are wrong.


Back on topic: log downtrend resistance line seems to be working, crashes are getting smaller and smaller, i might consider investing in Bitcoin once its in the 100-200 level, i can use it to pay for things on the internet without paypal and cards anonymously, this is where i see Bitcoins real added value today.

It was just a joke!    

Or is a woman with a sense of humor too difficult to understand? 

Well, it's also "natural" for animals to kill other animals in order to eat them or for some other reason. I won't kill you nonetheless, because I chose to use my brain and my empathy. Human beings are the only creatures on this planet who can truly think in advance and choose an option that is not the most convenient one. So, everyone is free to choose between polygamy and monogamy, but deep inside the heart this has nothing to do with how you were raised, but how you feel. You're just full of prejudice as it seems.

But anyhow, as others have already stated, this is not the quality wife observer thread, so let's continue sticking to the topic from now on, okay?

People think that monogamy is the right way of doing things because they are blind naive folks who grew up among christians or other religious nuts who think monogamy is the right way of life. Polygamy is natural for us but keep telling to fools that monogamy is the right way and that polygamy is evil and you will go to hell and all sorts of bad things will happen to you there.  Repeat this 500 times and it becomes "truth".

Repeat 500 times:
Evil middle east terrorists did 9/11 because YOLO
Iraq REALLY HAD weapons of mass destruction, our invasion was therefore legal.
Russians eat children, Ukraine nazi unelected government are the good guys.
USA government are the good guys.
Monogamy is natural, polygamy is for mentally ill people, terrorists and russians.
If you eat your vegetables, you will get an icecream later.
God is real because this piece of paper says so.
Flying spaghetti monster god with meatballs is not real because my piece of paper doesnt mention it.
Assad really used chemicals on civilians, our videos are not staged.
We really dont know where flight M370 crashed, honest.
Russians have secret underground bases below Washington, for sure.
We are not spying on anybody.




Some long living parrot species and budgies are monogamous tho....