This statement is worth identifying and discussing, because I suspect many share this same notion.
The value of a financial asset is not synonymous with its price, Take an extreme example. Suppose you could purchase a stock in a business with no earnings trading at $10 share. This business did, however, own marketable securities which could be readily sold at a price of $20 per share. You could purchase a share in a business with liquid assets of $20 per share for $10. Clearly, the price of $10 is not equal to the value of the share. Now, you may state that such an example is impossible and cannot exist, I’m here to tell you that these examples very well do come about, and I‘ve shared such with other board members. Ask
@SkilletHead2
No, you won’t find them in the WSJ or discussed on CNBC. But they are around, and provide strong downside protection along with plenty of upside.
And as for bitcoin. I’ve nothing against it, or anyone who purchases it. But it’s not an instrument that can be valued. Yes, it has a quoted price, but it generates no income, it has no contracted payment stream promised to its holder. It can be purchased and sold at prices in a market which are not determined by any method of valuation. In that respect, it is similar to gold, However, gold has been used by humans for thousands of years as a medium of exchange and a store of value. It is universally accepted. Bitcoin has been around for a little more than a decade, conjured with a computer program that its proponents deem impenetrable. I’m a sceptic, I could be wrong, and it may deliver spectacular returns to its holders. If it does, its because others have come along and paid a higher price for it than the selling holder paid. It’s not because it has become intrinsically more valuable, because it has no intrinsic value.