Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
as an investor i wouldn't put a dime in to ibm anymore .why bother . a simple index fund blew the doors off of them with no individual company risk either .
i gave them a shot last year with my fun money and got stopped out . i am done with ibm . thankfully i always sell if it falls 5% , as it just slid lower and lower from that point . one of my few losers . i think ibm and verizon were my two losers last year that i speculated with and had small losses ,out of a lot of far more profitable trades i did . .
Last edited by mathjak107; 07-18-2018 at 03:15 AM..
as an investor i wouldn't put a dime in to ibm anymore .why bother . a simple index fund blew the doors off of them with no individual company risk either .
i gave them a shot last year with my fun money and got stopped out . i am done with ibm . thankfully i always sell if it falls 5% , as it just slid lower and lower from that point . one of my few losers . i think ibm and verizon were my two losers last year that i speculated with and had small losses ,out of a lot of far more profitable trades i did . .
This not about anyone personally doing business with or investing in IBM.
When IBM became heavily involved in Linux, it helped Linux become widely adopted in the IT sector. of course other corporate involvement such as Google and Amazon's involvement were huge factors, but they came later.
IBM didn't exactly blow things out of the market with their stock performance either. But they did contribute a lot to Linux.
meh, in the end means little to me personally . so i can't get excited about it or really even care .
That's you. Particularly for people who are a lot younger than you, we have to deal with and be interested in a lot more things. Different stages in life and all.
Lots of people who were already old when the internet came out took no interest. A lot of these people are dead now. Yet the internet is now standard. Someone who can't go online is screwed.
There have been other technological changes like this, and cryptocurrencies/blockchain are one of these changes. Anyone doing business will have to keep up with this, and blockchain as a form of tracking merchandise is already starting to become common.
For foreign exchange purposes. cryptocurrencies are starting to become standard as they let users avoid high wiring fees, and this is why you're starting to see major corporate interest.
So this is not about whether YOU personally are going to deal with crytopcurrencies. You sound like the old people dismissive of the internet in the 90s.
i think crypto has a good future . but i cannot see crypto ever catching on as a currency on a wide scale until it has a stable value except for those on the fringe who will use it whether it makes sense or not . speculating in it for appreciation is one thing . utilizing it as a viable currency is quite another thing .
i think crypto has a good future . but i cannot see crypto ever catching on as a currency on a wide scale until it has a stable value except for those on the fringe who will use it whether it makes sense or not . speculating in it for appreciation is one thing . utilizing it as a viable currency is quite another thing .
Well there are already efforts on the stabilization, and there will be additional efforts as a lot more money flows into crypto. You have a variety of companies and interests working on this. IBM's stablecoin may or may not take off, but other institutions are and will work on stable cryptocurrencies. So in that since IBM is irrelevant.
Cryptocurrencies substantially lower the fees on foreign exchange.
Like anything new, there are lots of problems that have to be worked out in order for the new technology to be deployed more widely.
Just like the internet and mobile service in the 90s.
I will mention why IBM is such a crappy investment for so long. IBM had no sense of commitment. They had their own microprocessor, IBM Power. Yet IBM for years did not want to let go off it's Intel divisions, both PC and server. So they neglected to properly develop their own technology. But as cloud computing took off, no one was going to buy Intel based servers from IBM when they could easily buy them from cheap Chinese companies. IBM was forced to sell of all their Intel divisions. As for their microprocessors, IBM had to pay Globalfoundaries to take their microprocessor division (they couldn't sell it, lol). So they finally licensed out their Power microprocessors, as the big cloud computing companies like Google and Amazon wanted competitors to Amazon.
Those changes should have been made over 20 years ago. This is what happens when a company has horrible leadership.
So regardless of whether stablecoin works for them or not ,it's about time they take risky investments on new technologies. And no, I wouldn't put my own money into IBM, so I am not suggesting you do so either. I did invest in IBM a long time ago, and the company never turned it around. Sold it a long time ago.
Technological advances are not necessarily profitable. The point here is to assess whether a given innovation is a good investment, and not to embrace or reject it on cultural or scientific grounds. Thus, one could very much be an early adopter of some technology, and an avid user in one's personal life, but entirely eschew the thing from an investment viewpoint; or vice versa.
We have a tendency, advocated by the likes of Peter Lynch, to invest in companies and products that we personally find to be compelling as consumers. I think that this is a mistake, unless of course our personal tastes happen to closely cohere with that of the overall public. And even then the matter is not settled, because popular products might be sold at a loss, to build market share; or thereight be excess capacity. The latter is what happened for example with telecommunications infrastructure in the late 1990s. I have found, in a contrarian way, that things that I like and value, tend rarely to be broadly accepted, let alone profitable - and again, vice versa. By way of example, one of my favorite stocks is an insurance company, whose services I think are silly, unnecessary and oversold... But which as an investment continues to do well.
It is of course possible that in 20 years, cryptocurrencies will evolve to be just as indispensable, as the internet has become, over the past 20 years. But is this not also a cautionary tale? After it's initial surge, there was a spectacular collapse in all things internet, as far as investments are concerned. Might we not expect something similar from crypto?
Technological advances are not necessarily profitable. The point here is to assess whether a given innovation is a good investment, and not to embrace or reject it on cultural or scientific grounds. Thus, one could very much be an early adopter of some technology, and an avid user in one's personal life, but entirely eschew the thing from an investment viewpoint; or vice versa.
We have a tendency, advocated by the likes of Peter Lynch, to invest in companies and products that we personally find to be compelling as consumers. I think that this is a mistake, unless of course our personal tastes happen to closely cohere with that of the overall public. And even then the matter is not settled, because popular products might be sold at a loss, to build market share; or thereight be excess capacity. The latter is what happened for example with telecommunications infrastructure in the late 1990s. I have found, in a contrarian way, that things that I like and value, tend rarely to be broadly accepted, let alone profitable - and again, vice versa. By way of example, one of my favorite stocks is an insurance company, whose services I think are silly, unnecessary and oversold... But which as an investment continues to do well.
It is of course possible that in 20 years, cryptocurrencies will evolve to be just as indispensable, as the internet has become, over the past 20 years. But is this not also a cautionary tale? After it's initial surge, there was a spectacular collapse in all things internet, as far as investments are concerned. Might we not expect something similar from crypto?
Actually something bad is always predicted. But living your life, including making your investments and allowing fear to take over is the way to achieve absolutely nothing in the world.
As long as I make money off something, I don't really about the rest of the details.
Had I invested in Amazon or Google years ago, I would have been RICH. I didn't.
I'm not missing that kind of opportunity again.
The people who invest in the "safe" companies get little or no return on their investment. Any potential path to truly making money involves risk, if not considerable risk. Obviously don't invest money you need to pay the rent or the mortgage.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
