Can Bitcoin Become a Long-Term Store of Value?

[FallenApple]

Can it be treated like a rare commodity that is of high value? Gold isn't legal tender either but it's rarity and demand keeps the market value reasonably high.

Are there any fundamental reasons why bitcoin wouldn't turn out to be like a precious metal?

I'm talking long term. Right now, I think it still is a bit volatile. I'm thinking about doing a buy and hold strategy.

 

[Borg]

Take a look at the BITCOIN, Heists, Thefts, Hacks, Scams, and Losses thread and decide if you still want to invest.

 

[Mark44]

Right now, I think it still is a bit volatile.

Something of an understatement. In Dec. 2017, it was a bit under $20,000. In late January of this year, it was about $3,600. Right now the price is a little over $5,000, so in a little over a year, it lost 75% of its value.

 

[Klystron]

Can it be treated like a rare commodity that is of high value? Gold isn't legal tender either but it's rarity and demand keeps the market value reasonably high.

Are there any fundamental reasons why bitcoin wouldn't turn out to be like a precious metal?

I'm talking long term. Right now, I think it still is a bit volatile. I'm thinking about doing a buy and hold strategy.

A fundamental difference is the lack of an underlying commodity. Even the most abstruse derivatives of, say, pork belly futures, contain the expectation that farmers will raise pigs for sale to a market. Holding precious metal futures expects metals will be mined, smelted, refined, and sold. At some level real estate investment trusts (REITs) collect and collate mortgages on actual properties.

Comparing Bitcoin to currency exchanges requires different analysis but that was not your question.

[Bold added to original post.]

 

[russ_watters]

Can it be treated like a rare commodity that is of high value? Gold isn't legal tender either but it's rarity and demand keeps the market value reasonably high.

Are there any fundamental reasons why bitcoin wouldn't turn out to be like a precious metal?

Well the basic issue is that Bitcoin is not a precious metal, it's just bits. Precious metals have intrinsic/practical value in addition to being rare (strictly speaking, *everything* is a certain scarcity, so the word "rare" isn't all that useful in this context). The intrinsic/practical value of bitcoin is exactly zero. It's more like a Beanie Baby, which had value as long as people thought it had value and not a moment longer.

 

[BWV]

To be fair, Bitcoin is an alternate currency like gold, not a collectible like baseball cards or Beanie Babies. People value gold by social convention that goes back thousands of years, Bitcoin has been around about a decade. It is possible that Bitcoin could compete with gold for this role, but by no means a sure thing. An anonymous, untraceable offshore payment system is valuable to criminals and people in oppressive regimes (bitcoin purchases are booming in Venezuela for example), so I do think they are here to stay in some form. Not clear why these systems would be valuable to a law abiding citizen in a developed democratic country. In addition to the speculative risks, as Borg noted, there are significant operational risks in cryptocurrencies.

I would be careful about the phrase 'intrinsic value', which becomes an oxymoron if thought about too much - all value comes from outside the object, nothing is 'intrinsic'. Whale oil used to be an essential commodity, but it is of no value today.

 

[Rive]

I'm talking long term.

Technically, for any trading instrument a (barely valuable) technical prediction requires at least five times of history than the timeframe of prediction asked.

So, for ten year long 'long term' prophecy please ask again in 2060

 

[BWV]

Technically, for any trading instrument a (barely valuable) technical prediction requires at least five times of history than the timeframe of prediction asked.

So, for ten year long 'long term' prophecy please ask again in 2060

why 5x? the only 'technical' prediction method that works (according to academic finance) is momentum and that only requires enough history to show rising or falling prices

 

[Nik_2213]

Consider how a recent 'bit vault' with millions of virtual bit coins turned out to be empty after the operator died.

Consider how many bit exchanges have crashed & burned after hacks.

Consider how my Norton's had a stand-up, bare knuckle fight last night with a 'legitimate' Google-searched site that had recently been infested by 'mining' malware...

{ Data: ...I was tempted by her offer... Zero point six eight seconds, sir. For an android, that is nearly an eternity.}

IMHO, current situation is still akin to 'Wild West', when any bank could be robbed, swindled or simply fail, even those empowered to issue currency...

 

[russ_watters]

To be fair, Bitcoin is an alternate currency like gold, not a collectible like baseball cards or Beanie Babies.

Setting aside that gold is not a currency, it's an element...

What does that get us? I can write "1" on a post-it note and "1,000,000,000" on another and call it "currency" too. So what? Why should anyone let me use either of those post-it notes to buy anything?

The OP didn't ask about Bitcoin's value as a currency but as "a rare commodity". Bitcoin doesn't have any commodity value. It's even worse as a store of value than it is as a currency!

People value gold by social convention that goes back thousands of years...

While that's true, even part of the "gem" value of gold is related to its practical value: it doesn't corrode. Bitcoin doesn't have a practical value.

...Bitcoin has been around about a decade. It is possible that Bitcoin could compete with gold for this role, but by no means a sure thing.

Is it even likely? Unlike gold it has no practical or aesthetic(or does it?) value. Unlike the dollar or Euro it has no promise behind it. Unlike a Beanie Baby it isn't cute (or is it?). Users could decide tomorrow they aren't interested in it anymore and its value could drop to zero. IMO, the only reason Bitcoin has any value at all is that some people think its cool and some people don't understand fad bubbles. I don't even think its value as an illegal currency is a big influencer (should we even be advocating that?).

An anonymous, untraceable offshore payment system is valuable to criminals and people in oppressive regimes (bitcoin purchases are booming in Venezuela for example), so I do think they are here to stay in some form.

Perhaps, but so is cocaine and I'm not stuffing any of that under my mattress as a store of value either. Maybe more to the point, a system of transferring value is important to criminals. But Bitcoin is absolutely terrible at that except for its difficulty to trace. Everything else about it as a currency is terrible. A good currency is stable and easy to use first and foremost. Bitcoin users are willing to accept it being a terrible currency because of its attribute of being anonymous/untraceable. Maybe a better cryptocurrency will be invented, but of course if that happens Bitcoin's value will go to zero.

Not clear why these systems would be valuable to a law abiding citizen in a developed democratic country. In addition to the speculative risks, as Borg noted, there are significant operational risks in cryptocurrencies.

I don't think it is unclear. The point of currency hasn't changed in thousands of years. It needs to be a stable and easy to use means of holding and transferring value. Add-in the criminal element, and you also have the possibility that the government could step in at any time and cancel it.

I would be careful about the phrase 'intrinsic value', which becomes an oxymoron if thought about too much - all value comes from outside the object, nothing is 'intrinsic'. Whale oil used to be an essential commodity, but it is of no value today.

Agreed, "intrinsic value" is a difficult concept to pin down. It's hard to measure instantaneously and it isn't constant. Gold may well be the best there's ever been though in terms of longevity and consistency. But one thing's for sure: the "intrinsic value" of Bitcoin is the same no matter what units you use or how you try to measure it: 0.

...Just like a dollar bill. Or Beanie Baby. Or baseball card. Or a Monet.

 

[russ_watters]

If it wasn't clear from my last post, I'd like to point out again the split-personality nature of Bitcoin:
-Is it a commodity?
-Is it a currency?

The two are very, very different things, and while most Bitcoin advocates will argue in favor of its value as a currency, what they are really interested in is its value as a commodity. Bitcoin is terrible for both, but by hyping its value as a currency they can at least temporarily give it value as a commodity.

 

[Nik_2213]

I'd remind you of the Dutch Tulip bubble.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania
As the craze grew, rare bulbs, imported at great expense, soared in value unto 'totally ridiculous'...

At one port, a peckish sailor supposedly took what he thought was an onion or shallot from sack, nibbled it. Importer had him arrested, as even that single bulb was worth a lot of money.

By the time the case came to trial, the bubble had burst and all those exotic bulbs were worthless. Worse, they were toxic, could not even be eaten safely...

But the charge had stuck, and the guy went to jail for 'Grand Theft Tulip' or equivalent...

FWIW, his life may have been saved by that prompt arrest: During WW2 famine, IIRC, many Dutch were poisoned by trying to eat such bulbs. Can be done but, like some types of cassava, require very lengthy, so-patient preparation to leach the toxins. Akin to 'retting' flax...

 

[BWV]

 

[Klystron]

why 5x? the only 'technical' prediction method that works (according to academic finance) is momentum and that only requires enough history to show rising or falling prices

Some (most) forms of modern technical price prediction software derive from systems used to track and intercept aircraft based on radar returns while the aircraft moves in multiple dimensions. Simplistically the answer 'momentum' is accurate but the number and type of inputs into that computation are quite complex.

Even ignoring the many computational inputs still requires best estimates of the expected position of the object (price/aircraft) at appropriate times in the future and then accurately tracking the object for intercept.

Financial prediction software is so poor at tracking, say the closing price of an S&P 500 stock, that one could assume price manipulation without considering that the calculated prediction based on momentum lacks vital data. For an excellent if exaggerated example, review stock price momentum during the morning of 11 Sep 2001. The numerous news feeds into trading offices are not for entertainment but to adjust prices for conditions.

Generally, 'buy and hold' and 'long term' intend to avoid market highs and lows and concentrate investment potential over a period with a minimum of some multiple of the tracking time of the price data. Never invest (gamble) an amount more than you can safely afford to lose.

 

[BWV]

If financial prediction software worked it then wouldn't work - the EMH’s a jerk

Simple momentum measures work about as well as more complex ones, after accounting for datamining and overfitting

The signal processing techniques work on radar due to real physics that is not applicable to financial data

 

[Rive]

...according to academic finance...

Well, academics are rare to make good traders. They tends to mess up: when it is about psychology, they are about math and when it is math, they suddenly have too much psychology to keep cool.

the only 'technical' prediction method that works ... is momentum and that only requires enough history to show rising or falling prices

I don't know what/which 'momentum' do you refer to, but even the most basic indicators needs history to provide information about the chart.

 

[BWV]

I don't know what/which 'momentum' do you refer to, but even the most basic indicators needs history to provide information about the chart.

(Wikipedia)

In finance, momentum is the empirically observed tendency for rising asset prices to rise further, and falling prices to keep falling. For instance, it was shown that stocks with strong past performance continue to outperform stocks with poor past performance in the next period with an average excess return of about 1% per month.[1][2] Momentum signals (e.g., 52-week high) have been shown to be used by financial analysts in their buy and sell recommendations.[3]
The existence of momentum is a market anomaly, which finance theory struggles to explain. The difficulty is that an increase in asset prices, in and of itself, should not warrant further increase. Such increase, according to the efficient-market hypothesis, is warranted only by changes in demand and supply or new information (cf. fundamental analysis). Students of financial economics have largely attributed the appearance of momentum to cognitive biases, which belong in the realm of behavioral economics. The explanation is that investors are irrational,[4][5] in that they underreact to new information by failing to incorporate news in their transaction prices. However, much as in the case of price bubbles, recent research has argued that momentum can be observed even with perfectly rational traders.[6]

 

[Rive]

The existence of momentum is a market anomaly, which finance theory struggles to explain.

Told ya' academics are not for this

Closest to this kind of 'momentum' in trading would be some indicators. They needs history and interpretation, and they have only limited range of prediction power. The ~ 5X range as the minimal requirement stands.

 

[BWV]

The ~ 5X range as the minimal requirement stands.

Stands based on what? Why not 3x or 10x?

 

[nsaspook]

An anonymous, untraceable offshore payment system is valuable to criminals and people in oppressive regimes (bitcoin purchases are booming in Venezuela for example), so I do think they are here to stay in some form.

Bitcoin purchases are going down in Venezuela because there is no power for days or weeks in some locations. Needing global communications technology to buy bread and milk from the corner market can be a serious impediment to life in oppressive regimes under extreme stress.

https://ambcrypto.com/bitcoin-btc-following-mega-blackout-in-venezuela-btc-volume-domino-drops-in-neighboring-countries/

https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywis...grid/netblocks-tracks-venezuelas-power-outage

 

[BWV]

Good point

 

[Rive]

Stands based on what? Why not 3x or 10x?

Sigh... Most indicators are based on some combinations of chart data averages. This means they need previous data first to have an actual, valid value. Usually this goes back to 9-20 candles.
The same time these indicators has a lot of stupid statistics (based on the market history) about the chance to have too drastic change (trend change) within the next few periods. By these statistics usually 2-5 candle is the maximal 'safe' predictive range.
The actual rate will vary due personal risk acceptance, indicator type/personal settings, luck and plenty of other voodoo, but at the end you need at least a dozen candle back to 'see' few candles long in the future of a trend (momentum, as struggled up by academics ) - that's the basis of the 5X value, as minimal requirement.

That's all.

 

[BWV]

Ok so no basis for your contention other than claiming special knowledge of trader lore. About as productive as talking to an astrologer

 

[Rive]

I can't really understand where that come from for you...

 

[BWV]

You are talking about technical analysis like it is a legitimate discipline, but at the same breadth seem confused about the concept of momentum, which is well documented and can explain most any positive results of TA (after accounting for various selection biases).

 

[Rive]

You have just linked a wiki article that how ill-defined and cloudy the 'momentum' is by academic 'science', and then you reject the clear cut approach/definition of 'indicators' about the 'momentum' as chart property - together with the math and statistics coming with it.

It is exactly what I mentioned in #16:

Well, academics are rare to make good traders. They tends to mess up: when it is about psychology, they are about math and when it is math, they suddenly have too much psychology to keep cool.

Especially the second part.

 

[BWV]

Given that the greatest living trader is a trained mathematician, not sure your characterization holds. Momentum is well defined, simple and robust, unlike trader jargon or technical analysis.

 

[FallenApple]

Well the basic issue is that Bitcoin is not a precious metal, it's just bits. Precious metals have intrinsic/practical value in addition to being rare (strictly speaking, *everything* is a certain scarcity, so the word "rare" isn't all that useful in this context). The intrinsic/practical value of bitcoin is exactly zero. It's more like a Beanie Baby, which had value as long as people thought it had value and not a moment longer.

Yes, that is true. There are elements more scarce than gold but yet has a lower price. I think demand due to culture around the world is a big part of it. For example, gold is heavily purchased in India and China, which are large segments of the world population.

 

[rootone]

Bitcoins and others have no intrinsic value at all.
A value they have at any given time is largely due to speculation (gamboling).
Gold may be expensive for a small amount, but you can do useful/creative things with it.
You can even do useful things with tulip bulbs. (Like growing tulips)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania

 

[Vanadium 50]

Bitcoins and others have no intrinsic value at all.

Unlike, say, dollar bills?

 

[BWV]

Dollar bills are intrinsically valuable for paying taxes if you are a US citizen.

 

[russ_watters]

Dollar bills are intrinsically valuable for paying taxes if you are a US citizen.

That isn't what people mean by "intrinsic value". The intrinsic value is what you can do with or what it takes to make the thing based on what it is, as independent of market forces as you can manage. Water has value because you can drink it. A house has value because you can live in it and it took raw materials and labor to build. A dollar bill is just a decorated piece of paper that cost 5 cents to make. It is only worth a dollar because the US government promises it is.

 

[BWV]

No, there is no economic value independent of market forces and government fiat. If the government requires I pay my taxes with pieces of paper that ‘cost 5 cents to make’ that gives those pieces value. Additionally, soverein currencies derive value from the creditworthiness of the issuing government, which is why US dollars are more valuable than Venezuelan bolivars.

The idea of intrinsic value is an outdated notion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value

 

[russ_watters]

No, there is no economic value independent of market forces and government fiat.

If the government collapses, that dollar bill will become a small amount of kindling, but I'll still be able to exchange a bushel of potatoes for a gallon of gasoline. That's value independent of any financial system.

 

[BWV]

No, just people value things differently based on circumstances - what is the gasoline / potato exchange rate and how is it determined? What about air and water, which are much more ‘intrinsic, than gasoline? Maybe in 50 years gasoline goes the way of whale oil. You know the Keynes quote about practical men being slaves to defunct economic thinking? Try reading the wiki link I posted

 

[Rive]

The idea of intrinsic value is an outdated notion

It is just your understanding what's makes you think so. Just because pricing does not follows the intrinsic value, it does not mean that this definition would be anything 'outdated'.

The intrinsic value is what you can do with or what it takes to make the thing based on what it is, as independent of market forces as you can manage.

This is a definition, more or less. Won't do as basis of many types of financial or monetary analysis, but still has its own merit. Especially in cases mentioned in #20, for example.

 

[russ_watters]

No, just people value things differently based on circumstances...

Valuing things *differently* based on circumstances is not the same as saying there is no intrinsic value. The value of most goods or services can *mostly* be based on market forces, but cannot *totally* be based on market forces. The intrinsic value of labor and materials means their cost can never go to zero. If I offer to pay laborers 1 cent per hour, nobody is going to take me up on that, even if they are unemployed. Their time is simply worth more than that.

The biggest misapplication of the totally subjective theory of value I've seen is solar power advocates who 10 years ago would draw these impressive hyperbolic curves showing how the cost of solar power would essentially go to zero as supply caught up with demand. But there's a real floor based on the real value of labor and raw materials and the price is leveling-off, above zero.

Things who's value can go to zero:
-Beanie Babies (well I suppose you could burn them as fuel...)
-Dollar Bills
-Bitcoin
-Service companies that have no assets.

Things who's value cannot go to zero:
-Potatoes
-Fuel
-Labor
-Buildings
-Solar plants
-Companies with physical assets

...what is the gasoline / potato exchange rate and how is it determined?

Being difficult to determine/subjective doesn't mean something doesn't exist. The reason I use the zero point is because that's where the existence or lack of intrinsic value becomes clear. At zero you don't need a value system: in dollars, Euros, bushels of potatoes, whatever, zero is zero. And zero times a billion is still zero.

Maybe in 50 years gasoline goes the way of whale oil.

I don't think you're using the whale oil example correctly:
1. We don't use whale oil anymore because it's illegal, not because it has no value. But its decline started due to scarcity and mining of oil...
2. As it was replaced by mined oil, it happened because the cost (value) was too high, not too low.

 

[russ_watters]

This is a definition, more or less. Won't do as basis of many types of financial or monetary analysis, but still has its own merit.

Agreed, it's a very limited concept because as I said value is *mostly* driven by market forces. But this thread - this example of Bitcoin - is one of those rare cases where it becomes important.

The, er, value of the concept of "intrinsic value" is that it speaks to the likelihood that the asset value of something can go to zero. If I buy a house, I can be assured that based on market forces alone (eg., not a fire), the value of that asset can never go to zero. I will always be able to trade it for something, whether it be dollars, gallons of fuel, whatever. It is very difficult to determine the floor of that value (and it isn't constant), but it's there.

Assets that go to zero do so because their value is driven *only* by market forces.

 

[BWV]

Not sure why you all are attempting to reinvent your own economics here. The notion of intrinsic value is a fallacy

Karl Menger provided this defintion of value:
value is the importance that individual goods or quantities of goods attain for us because we are conscious of being dependent on command of them for the satisfaction of our needs

Back to the OP, this is the standard by which cryptocurrencies might have a long term value

another piece to read to get a summary of thought on the subject

https://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2...r-paradox-and-the-subjective-theory-of-value/

Agreed, it's a very limited concept because as I said value is *mostly* driven by market forces. But this thread - this example of Bitcoin - is one of those rare cases where it becomes important.

The, er, value of the concept of "intrinsic value" is that it speaks to the likelihood that the asset value of something can go to zero. If I buy a house, I can be assured that based on market forces alone (eg., not a fire), the value of that asset can never go to zero. I will always be able to trade it for something, whether it be dollars, gallons of fuel, whatever. It is very difficult to determine the floor of that value (and it isn't constant), but it's there.

Assets that go to zero do so because their value is driven *only* by market forces.

That is your definition, but does not hold. It can go to zero - the structure will become worthless at some point in time if not maintained and, depending on the location, the demo costs could offset the land value. Some natural disaster could possibly destroy the land value. By your definition, no patent or copyright holds any value because either time or a better alternative could destroy their value. Someones job skills may be valuable currently but worthless in 10 years because of some advance in technology.

 

[Rive]

Agreed, it's a very limited concept because as I said value is *mostly* driven by market forces.

More like, it has a bad reputation because it was/is used for some ideological beliefs as synonym for 'fairness' or such.
It is a kind of funny that with that history it tends to shine when other beliefs shatter.

Not sure why you all are attempting to reinvent your own economics here.

Well, I know an old joke for this. The driver of a car hears in the radio that 'warning, one car is riding the wrong direction on the highway!'. The he breaks in rant that 'just one? All of them!'
Your posts reeks of beliefs almost at religious level.

 

[BWV]

one car is riding the wrong direction on the highway!'. The he breaks in rant that 'just one? All of them!'
Your posts reeks of beliefs almost at religious level.

No, the religiosity is the belief that objects are endowed with some objective value (by whom?). Just pointing out that 200 years of economics has hashed out these arguments pretty well, so why not learn from it?

 

[Rive]

I take my freedom to guess that that 'objective' is something you assume/believe to be the equivalent of 'intrinsic'.

 

[BWV]

I take my freedom to guess that that 'objective' is something you assume/believe to be the equivalent of 'intrinsic'.

What is the difference then? What is more 'objective' than a market price?

 

[russ_watters]

Not sure why you all are attempting to reinvent your own economics here. The notion of intrinsic value is a fallacy...

This isn't new economics, it is old economics - it's Adam Smith. Again, it is mostly obsolete, but not completely. In our day-to-day lives and investments we don't have to worry about the issue much - we just pay what the market demands if we feel like it. It's pretty much only relevant for extreme situations, and Bitcoin is such an extreme.

But "intrinsic" or not, people base "value" on *something*. I might pick one car over another because they look identical to me but one is priced cheaper, for example. I might buy a stock because I think its price is below a certain multiple of what the company is expected to earn. For most markets, there's benchmarks and things to compare to find value.

The reason Bitcoin varies so widely and the reason it could go to zero is there is *nothing*, whether we call it "intrinsic" or not, from which to calculate a reasonable value for it. It is 100% market forces and zero "fundamentals", "intrinsic", or whatever you want to call the things people normally do to figure out how much to value something.

Karl Menger provided this defintion of value:
value is the importance that individual goods or quantities of goods attain for us because we are conscious of being dependent on command of them for the satisfaction of our needs

Back to the OP, this is the standard by which cryptocurrencies might have a long term value

How do we use that to calculate a long term value of Bitcoin?

That is your definition, but does not hold. It can go to zero - the structure will become worthless at some point in time if not maintained and, depending on the location, the demo costs could offset the land value. Some natural disaster could possibly destroy the land value.

I would have hoped my "fire" exclusion would have made it clear I'm not referring to any kind of decay or act of God here. This isn't about *a* house, it is about *houses*. If we use 10 year old, 1,500 square foot townhouses as our benchmark, the value of such an asset will never go to zero.

By your definition, no patent or copyright holds any value because either time or a better alternative could destroy their value. Someones job skills may be valuable currently but worthless in 10 years because of some advance in technology.

There most certainly is no requirement for "intrinsic value" to be permanent. But humans have permanent needs, so assets based on those permanent needs are likely to permanently have value.

Again, the bottom line reason we're having this discussion is we're talking about Bitcoin. What is your position on the long term viablility of Bitcoin? Do you think there is a chance (small, big, dunno) it could go to zero? Or do you think that like gold it could eventually become a relatively stable long-term store of value? And if so, why? You're arguing a lot of theory here but I see no useful connection to the topic of he thread.

 

[BWV]

Answering the OP requires an adequate concept of value. If your definition says that only things with Intrinsic Value(whatever that is) can serve as a store of value and then define the term in a way that excludes fiat currencies, then you have a much broader debate than just bitcoin - you have excluded most securities as well. Do you mean to say that bitcoin and US Treasury bonds are equally bad stores of value because neither has ‘intrinsic value’?

If people find bitcoin useful as a method to hold savings and conduct transactions then it will be a viable long term enterprise. However, in my opinion, for that to happen, several likely insurmountable issues need to be fixed. The blockchain architecture is not sustainable, the proof of work requirement results in wasting power resources that are better spent elsewhere and the risk of collusion in majority attacks increases with consolidation among miners and a stagnant price. A more fixable problem is the operational risks of theft and lost keys

 

[BWV]

,

I would have hoped my "fire" exclusion would have made it clear I'm not referring to any kind of decay or act of God here. This isn't about *a* house, it is about *houses*. If we use 10 year old, 1,500 square foot townhouses as our benchmark, the value of such an asset will never go to zero.

Did you ever watch The Wire and see the rows of abandoned, presumably worthless Baltimore townhouses? Your ability to store value in real property also depends on the preservation of a legal system that recognizes your title - not a trivial consideration in many parts of the world. If you are saying that all houses everywhere will never go to zero for whomever enjoys the ownership rights, then that is trivially true, but not really relevant. Houses are not fungible, you can't own *houses* - you can only own a finite number of properties that have their own unique risks

 

[Evo]

The thread OP's question has been answered and the thread is now veering off course, so is closed.