Smith1776 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 22, 2025 10:13 pm
I have introduced a few coworkers to balanced investing over the past year. (In addition to Bitcoin for speculation.)
A issue for me with bitcoin is that of being passed "dirty" coins - historic trail of having been used for illicit purposes or tax avoidance ...etc - resulting in the value being lost/frozen/seized. Since having become more mainstream there's been a tendency towards bitcoin reacting like 3x QQQ (TQQQ leveraged tech stock) which might be held in a tax efficient account and isn't likely to be frozen.
Rebalance to 8% TQQQ, 8% 3x gold, 84% in treasury bills once/year
seajay wrote: ↑Thu Oct 23, 2025 4:04 am
… issue for me with bitcoin is that of being passed "dirty" coins - historic trail of having been used for illicit purposes or tax avoidance ...etc - resulting in the value being lost/frozen/seized.
I wonder if that has actually happened. So far, search results say that bitcoins are generally returned to the initial victims of the crime after they’re seized. Not too much info on unseized coins that make their way into the wide world.
ppnewbie wrote: ↑Wed Oct 22, 2025 6:32 pm
The GB is also allowed me to ease into this style of investing. It’s hard to wrap your head around 1/4 gold even though 1/5 is nearly the same.
The 25% cash can also feel weird. Imagine you had a portfolio of $100m. Would you really put $25m into T-bills? Seems doubtful - you'd prefer to invest those funds in more productive assets, while still keeping a smaller percentage around as "dry powder" in case you want to buy another Lamborghini. ;-) More prosaically, once you've set aside enough cash for, say, 5 or even 10 years of living expenses, why put more into cash?
I feel like this applies to all portfolios. Once you have a ridiculous amount of money, perhaps some amounts should be specific minimum $(Euro) amounts and not necessarily %.
Some very wealthy people purportedly keep all stocks and can live off the dividend payments.
At that point I’d rather have a lot of gold, but the purpose would be transferring it to heirs.
dualstow wrote: ↑Thu Oct 23, 2025 9:46 am
I feel like this applies to all portfolios. Once you have a ridiculous amount of money, perhaps some amounts should be specific minimum $(Euro) amounts and not necessarily %.
Some very wealthy people purportedly keep all stocks and can live off the dividend payments.
At that point I’d rather have a lot of gold, but the purpose would be transferring it to heirs.
Good points. But it doesn't seem that this forum is filled with the ultra-rich, so this might not be a constructive topic for discussion, eh?
dualstow wrote: ↑Thu Oct 23, 2025 9:46 am
I feel like this applies to all portfolios. Once you have a ridiculous amount of money, perhaps some amounts should be specific minimum $(Euro) amounts and not necessarily %.
Some very wealthy people purportedly keep all stocks and can live off the dividend payments.
At that point I’d rather have a lot of gold, but the purpose would be transferring it to heirs.
Good points. But it doesn't seem that this forum is filled with the ultra-rich, so this might not be a constructive topic for discussion, eh?
Agreed. I was just responding to your “imagine $100Mn” post. But I would like to think that Tom Cruise and Taylor Swift are anonymous pp’ers here. Personally, I think the Vinny account is Taylor Swift.
