Text size
To the Editor:
Crypto changes the pattern (“Bitcoin Goes Mainstream,” Cover Story, Oct. 22). Here’s why: When the economy goes through a paradigm shift, the embodiment of capital changes—18th century capital: farmland; 19th century capital: factories, machines, government bonds; 20th century capital: urban real estate, stocks.
Remember when the internet was once dial-up, hissing and beeping? It was originally invented for communication. It had no value until services were attached. Crypto platforms are a global paradigm shift. They will become the new internet banking for services.
Cass Riese, On Barrons.com
To the Editor:
Commodity futures exchange-traded funds have several negatives, most of which come down to high fees and negative roll yield. In the case of some ETFs that are designed to track commodities, investors appropriately look past these factors because holding the physical commodity is either too costly or not practical (gold is a common example). Considerations of the impracticality of holding the underlying asset simply do not apply to Bitcoin.
Bitcoin markets are easily accessible, highly liquid, and have zero carrying costs. Secure storage is very easy with hardware wallets.
As an example of liquidity, Bitcoin can be converted into any currency in the world 24/7 and can be sent anywhere in the world in minutes at any time of any day. You can use Bitcoin to buy physical gold and have it delivered to your house with no shipping costs 24/7. Bitcoin futures ETFs don’t have anything like this kind of liquidity.
There is another thing to consider. When the investor learns about Bitcoin, he or she will also learn about other aspects of the crypto space, particularly decentralized finance. DeFi is a financial system that has actual yields.
Patrick O’Heron, On Barrons.com
To the Editor:
It’s lonely being the only person on the planet who has no idea what any of this is all about.
Ray Noack, On Barrons.com
To the Editor:
It seems like crypto is either the greatest Ponzi scheme of all time or the financial equivalent of inventing the wheel. The first will be an enormous destruction of wealth. The second, a persistent construct with great enduring value that is tweaked, modified, and improved to bring utility to the masses for centuries.
However, the volatility in value is dizzying to this old dog. Hence, I’ll stay mostly on the sidelines.
Alfred Gumbs, On Barrons.com
Metaverse Investing
To the Editor:
Jack Hough’s tongue-in-cheekiness was in overdrive as he explored the metaverse investing climate (“The Virtual Future Is Here. Here’s How to Invest in the Metaverse,” Streetwise, Oct. 22). I’ve never laughed so hard at an investment article! If Webster’s had an illustration defining a cool investing journalist, it would be Hough in Ray-Bans watching an android discover sass.
I’ll end with a discovery of mine about gaming. I believe that the VanEck Video Gaming and eSports exchange-traded fund has many of the stocks that Hough mentioned, and it has room to run. I’ve had it for a year, and it’s up 63%.
Game on!
Patty Duffy, Grand Blanc, Mich.
China’s Decoupling
To the Editor:
In “Why an Emerging Market Fund Is Sticking With Chinese Stocks” (Fund Profile, Oct. 20), Debbie Carlson suggests that the Chinese government’s crackdown on tech and education companies is directed toward reining in economic excesses. The representatives of Columbia Emerging Markets fund suggest that the goal is to expand the middle class.
I would argue that the actual motivation is for President Xi Jinping to solidify his grip on authority by cracking down on numerous threats to his power, e.g., shutting off seepage of real news entering China from the outside world, crippling private companies whose leaders are his primary political rivals, etc.
I believe he has concluded that whatever the economic consequences, his survival requires him to decouple China’s economy from that of the rest of the world. I would call this the “North Koreanization of China.”
The ramifications for investment in China should be obvious.
Lance B. Sjogren, Vancouver, Wash.
Utilities vs. Treasuries
To the Editor:
“Four Utility Stocks That Can Juice Up Your Portfolio” (Income Investing, Oct. 22) says that the 10-year U.S. Treasury note’s yield is far below the yield of many utility stocks. But dividend yields (and stock-price drops) aren’t government insured.
Ron Minarik, Mystic, Conn.
More Sinister Reason
To the Editor:
Regarding Charles R. Dreifus’ opinion in “Why Won’t the Fed Tighten?” (Market View, Oct. 22): I believe there is a more sinister reason for interest rates being kept as low as they are.
The Federal Reserve is supposed to be a nonpartisan agency, but my opinion is that it is still a government agency, and the reason for ridiculously low interest rates is to keep the government from having to pay appropriate rates on the increasing amounts of money that it is borrowing.
This will only delay the inevitable national bankruptcy that will occur unless spending policies are significantly changed.
Louis Levy, San Antonio
Send letters to: mail@barrons.com. To be considered for publication, correspondence must bear the writer’s name, address, and phone number. Letters are subject to editing.
