jakiro
When driving in the morning, I am dazed while driving. When I am dazed, my mind will be empty and I will let my thoughts fly.So from driving to changing a car, from changing a car, from changing a car, the actual cost of buying a car should be much higher than the price paid when buying a car. The reason is of course the reverse application of the cash flow discount model of financial asset valuation.
The cash flow discount model says that the money you earn next year will be discounted to the value of this year, and the money you earned next year will be discounted to the value of this year. … The longer the time, the lower the value of the discount.So a convergent sequence is obtained.By summing this sequence, you can get a finite value.This is the valuation of the asset.
The consumption problem is the opposite.
Ten years ago, I spent 300,000 yuan to buy a car. If I had to change a car after driving for ten years, it would be the average equivalent to spending 30,000 yuan a year to buy a car.
But this problem is not as simple as it seems.The actual purchasing power of 30,000 yuan ten years ago may be a world of difference from the 30,000 yuan today.
Assuming that the average annual statistical inflation rate in the past decade is 5%, it is equivalent to:
I spent 30,000 yuan in the first year.
The second year spent 3 * (1 + 5%) = 31,500 yuan.
I spent 3 * (1 + 5%)^2 = 33,000 yuan in the third year.
The fourth year spent 3 * (1 + 5%)^3 = 34,700 yuan.
……
The tenth year spent 3 * (1 + 5%)^10 = 48,900 yuan.
By substituting the summing formula of the equal ratio sequence, we can see that the total cost in ten years is:
S10 = 3 * (1 – 1.05^10)/(1 – 1.05) = 377,300 yuan.
This number is more than another commonly used estimation method, that is, directly assessing how much money 300,000 yuan ten years ago is equivalent to today’s money, 30 * 1.05^10 = 488,700 yuan, which is smaller.
The problem is that revalued 300,000 ten years ago does not have much practical significance.There was a need for driving ten years ago, so it was destined to be impossible to invest money in other places to hedge inflation, achieving the goal of increasing the value of 488,700 yuan in ten years.
However, if this is an interest-free installment, compared to paying 300,000 yuan in one lump sum, assuming that the car buyer can sign a ten-year payment contract, he only needs to pay 30,000 yuan a year, so he does not need to sell off his anti-inflation assets (such as BTC) in one lump sum, but instead cashes a little every year to pay the installment, then he may eventually achieve a better financial effect.
It is important to note that there is a very easy place to misunderstand here.What we are talking about here is that the car buyer has enough realizable assets, but for the purpose of financial planning, he deliberately does not pay in one lump sum.This is completely different from the fact that many people, who obviously have no money, have to pay installments or even take out loans to buy luxury cars and houses that exceed their ability to pay. They are completely different operations. Don’t confuse them!
Installment is just a financial instrument.Different usages, different effects.It’s like a kitchen knife. Some people can make a good table of good dishes when they use it, while others can only cut off their fingers.
In the above example, the core difference is that the former’s assets are anti-inflation and will outperform inflation over time; the latter can only repay the expected wage income in the future, while their wage increases are often rubbed against the ground by inflation.
Statistics on inflation are not enough to reveal the truth.Perhaps we should look at the growth rate of broad money in society.In the past 20 years, our broad money growth rate has basically been above 10% per year.
Replace 5% of the above equation with 10%, and we can get another data:
S10(M2) = 3 * (1 – 1.1^10)/(1 – 1.1) = 478,100 yuan.
For direct evaluation, it is 30 * 1.1^10 = 778,100 yuan.
Good guy.In other words, if an asset you held ten years ago was for the purpose of preserving and increasing its value (such as real estate), and today’s market price does not increase by 1.6 times than ten years ago, it is nothing like a loss-making transaction.
This means that if the house I bought for 10 million ten years ago cannot be sold for 26 million today, it will be considered a floating loss.
But when you open your eyes and look at it, it seems that housing prices have returned to the level ten years ago?
Let’s take a look at the BTC price in September 2015, it’s about $250.Today is $111,000.Increased 443 times.The annual compound growth rate is 84%, far exceeding the growth rate of broad money by 10%.
So we further thought of the shelf life.
Usually we will learn that one of the most important abilities of money, as a store of value, is that it is not perishable compared to other commodities.(And the currency issuance is precisely a kind of corruption)
In other words, it can be stored for a long time and has a long shelf life. It is even nearly infinitely long compared to the limited life of human beings.
But the teaching chain thinks of another meaning of shelf life from cars.Not only will it rot if it is produced like food and it will rot if it is left for a few days, it will have a shelf life rush. Even if it does not break things like cars and even houses, it will have better products to replace the old generation of products, thereby achieving the effect of accelerating expiration.
Just like the new energy vehicle I bought ten years ago, compared with the latest mainstream styles launched today, it is simply something that should be thrown into the recycling bin.
Suddenly, I seemed to understand better why Buffett has never dared to touch technology stocks for many years.
From the perspective of user thinking, it is really cool and awesome to update every year and launch new products frequently.
But from the perspective of investment thinking, it is a disaster to introduce new products every year to accelerate the expiration of old products.
This means that once the value of “storage” on old products cannot be successfully transferred to new products, it will be a cliff-like catastrophe.
From the perspective of storage-of-value, a blockchain digital token that is keen on continuously hard forks, constantly upgrading and even changing the core economic model, and the frequent narratives of various technologies and tricks are often interpreted by the media and KOLs as exciting major benefits, but it is hard to call it a good thing, but it is a bad thing.
On the contrary, digital assets like BTC, which are clearly positioned as the new value store of the digital age, are from the beginning, as Satoshi Nakamoto said, “Once version 0.1 is released, its core design will remain unchanged throughout its entire life cycle.” The super stable ability of core design to fight changes is the most trustworthy store of value.
Digital will not corrupt like physical objects, but digital assets also have a shelf life.The shelf life of a digital asset lies precisely in the length of time it can remain unchanged.
Only when it remains unchanged can it have an infinite shelf life.
The biggest misunderstanding is to regard BTC as software.Therefore, other blockchains that are easier to improve and introduce cooler functions will be mistakenly regarded as better software than BTC.
BTC is not software at all.The greatest value of BTC does not lie in software upgrades, but in becoming better and better capabilities.The greatest value of BTC lies precisely in its ability to fight change.
The opposite is the movement of Tao.
People who do not understand this reverse thinking will never understand BTC in their entire lives.
