Typography

Mavrodi "biletov" In this post I'm going to outline a case for bitcoin. I still think bitcoin is a bad medium of exchange and a rubbish store of value . It's just too volatile and unhinged, and it'll always be that way. But bitcoin still has an important role to play... just not the role that most people assume. Sara Hess and Eugene Soltas recently published a fascinating article on the life of Russian ponzi-scheme architect Sergei Mavrodi, who passed away last month. I found it interesting that in the latter part of his career, Mavrodi openly advertised that his schemes were pyramids, yet people still bought in. Ponzi-schemer Sergei Mavrodi clearly advertised MMM's risks and promised nothing in return, yet still people bought in. If he didn't trick people into joining, maybe society genuinely needed him to manage ponzis? https://t.co/5RAzDFvTgx pic.twitter.com/pUghQJQB00 — JP Koning (@jp_koning) April 26, 2018 This got me thinking. I've always sor...

Berkshire Hathaway annual general meeting When you purchase a share you're not only getting the opportunity to make some extra cash. You're also buying a vote. Put differently, a share offers two different features: a) a claim on earnings and b) the right to exercise partial control over the corporation.* Why not separate the two features and put each of them up for sale? Let's have one market for corporate votes, and a separate one for corporate returns. Here's how it would work. Imagine you want to buy some Microsoft shares but don't care to participate in the governance of Microsoft. The quoted price on the market, $44.93, is for a whole share of Microsoft, both its attached voting rights and its capitalized return. So you buy 500 whole shares for $27,465. Next you turn to the parallel public voting market. Microsoft votes are trading for around 25 cents each, say. You 'detach' each of the 500 votes from the shares you've just bought and sell those vo...

[This is a continuation of my post on liquidity adjusted equity valuation .] If your favorite holding period is forever, then today's stock markets just aren't meant for you. As I pointed out in my previous post on stocks and liquidity, stocks can do more money-ish and cashlike things than in times past. For most people, the ability of stock (or any other good or asset) to be easily-exchanged is desirable since it ensures that come some unforeseen event, that stock can quickly be swapped for more suitable items. We can think of easily-exchangeable stock as insurance against uncertainty. Investors estimate the stream of 'expected comfort' or 'uncertainty alleviation' that a stock's degree of exchangeability will provide, discount these streams into the present, and arrive at some value for the liquidity return provided by a stock. The more moneylike or liquid a stock, the higher its liquidity return . A stock's liquidity return makes up but one bit of a ...

One of the ironies of the stock market is the emphasis on activity. Brokers, using terms such as "marketability" and "liquidity," sing the praises of companies with high share turnover . . . but investors should understand that what is good for the croupier is not good for the customer. A hyperactive stock market is the pick pocket of enterprise. - Buffett Our favorite holding period is forever - Buffett While Warren Buffett may not be fond of marketability , liquidity or short holding periods, the fact that stocks have moneyness—that they have varying degrees of liquidity—is vital to understanding stock prices. In this post I'll show why analysts can't ignore the liquidity factor when they try to evaluate whether today's S&P500 is over or undervalued. With equity markets setting new highs by the day, the chorus of fundamental analysts shrieking "overvalued" is deafening. These analysts often buttress their point by an appeal to some sort ...

Noah Smith has an interesting post in which he asks: "Is money fundamentally worth nothing more than the paper it's printed on?" He goes into some soul searching on the definition of "fundamental." His concern with definitions is helpful. The recent debt super-debate was largely blown out proportion due to definitional differences, in my opinion . If anyone is worthy of describing the word fundamental , it's the sage of Omaha. In deciding whether to purchase a stock or not, Warren Buffett conceptualizes the problem by imagining that he'll never be able to sell it again. He's stuck with it forever. If you abstract from an asset's ability to be exchanged onwards, what you're left with is pure fundamental value. This applies to commodities and consumer goods as well as it does to financial assets. The definition of fundamental having been dealt with, we're left with a thorny problem. The word money is still undefined. As Neil Wallace poin...