This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Head Of Fortress Recommends Investing In Bitcoin

Tyler Durden's picture




 

At first glance, when the CIO of Fortress Investment Group says:

"Put a little money in Bitcoin...Come back in a few years and it’s going to be worth a lot."

One might think, the firm that manages $54.6 billion is advocating the end of the USD as we know it... Or is this more muppetry at work?

Via Bloomberg:

“Put a little money in Bitcoin,” Novogratz, principal and co-chief investment officer of macro funds at Fortress, said at a conference held today in New York by UBS AG’s chief investment office. “Come back in a few years and it’s going to be worth a lot.”

 

Novogratz said he sees Bitcoin growing as a payment system, especially in developing nations. Novogratz said he has put his own money in the virtual currency, without specifying how much. He has not invested in Bitcoin on behalf of Fortress, which managed $54.6 billion as of June 30.

 

“I have a nice little Bitcoin position,” Novogratz said. “Enough that I’m smiling that it doubled.”

 

However, color us a little skeptical at his advice...

Given that Bitcoin may ultimately make firms like Fortress - that rely on fiat specie - redundant, then doesn't the endorsement of Bitcoin by one of the world's largest Private Equity firms reek of the ultimate failure of BTC as a monetary construct, and seem much more to be merely an attempt by the firm to herd even more momentum chasers into a trade (ostensibly one for Novogratz P.A.) that will be then unwound with Bitcoins ultimately converted into the same dollar they are supposed to replace?

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Fri, 10/25/2013 - 00:35 | 4089211 Manipuflation
Manipuflation's picture

Alright, I will weigh in here.  There seems to be a very huge rift between PMer's and BTCers over which is better.  That is really not the correct way to think about it.  I have used bitcoin and it works.  I am of the old school physical metal type as many of you know but the technology can not be discounted.  Bitcoin is fluid and you can move bitcoins or parts thereof easily without regulation.

I personally like both options.  It is reasonable to have a bitcoin wallet.  I respect what is trying to be done with bitcoin.  I have a very good friend who is all in on BTC and I respect his opinion.  Yes, he is a computer genius.  At first, I was really resistant to BTC and we had words for the first time ever.  We have been around and around on this issue for two years now. 

Computer gurus speak a different language in a way.  What they want is a free Interweb.  They hate the .govs of the world just like we phyzz PM holders do.  Bitcoin is their way of saying "FUCK YOU STATE".  Now that I understand how BTC works I have to back them up.  I really do not think BTC'ers and PMer's should be at one another's throats.  We are on the same team.

Still, I had to bring up one major defect in the whole bitcoin system and that would be the exchanges.(aka Mount GOX)  That is really the weak point in the system and even my friend admitted to that fact.  I know, I know, there are more exchanges now but that changes nothing.  The other major problem with BTC is electricity and internet/web access.  You do not always have electricity or web access.  It is pretty hard for me to get past those glaring issues.

I have come to love the whole concept of Bitcoin but my silver dimes do not require electricity or an ISP.     

Fri, 10/25/2013 - 01:22 | 4089257 devo
devo's picture

JPM already has their paws in bitcoin.

It's more tainted than Sasha Grey's butthole.

Fri, 10/25/2013 - 01:31 | 4089274 Kirk2NCC1701
Kirk2NCC1701's picture

Dear Tylers, I am amazed that after all this time and amazing level of monetary, economic and financial education here on ZH U, that the majority of bloggers are still so woefully and pathologically ignorant.

The extent of Full Retard is astounding at times. Clearly it is not only Darwinism at work, but also reverse-Darwinism. Or, as a friend recently noted: "Neanderthals weren't wiped out completely. A sizeable portion actually lived on, when Modern Man fucked some of the Neanderthal women, who were the Original Slaves."

Fri, 10/25/2013 - 05:28 | 4089393 AGAU
AGAU's picture

This comment is 'full retard'.

Fri, 10/25/2013 - 03:12 | 4089343 SonOfSoros
SonOfSoros's picture

Oh so you have a virtual currency that has no intrinsic value, is mined on computers and only has value if people are willing to perceive/accept it as a mode of payment!

GREAT! 

It's so much better than a fiat currency with no intrinsic value, is printed by printers and generated by computers which only has value if people are willing to accept it as payment!

Gee. Bitcoin is so much more different than fiat money.

PMs are still better, if no one wants to accept them as payment as least that crap can be sold for manufacturing and the creation of tangible products. 

Fri, 10/25/2013 - 03:13 | 4089344 SonOfSoros
SonOfSoros's picture

-Double post-

Fri, 10/25/2013 - 03:16 | 4089345 SonOfSoros
SonOfSoros's picture

----

Fri, 10/25/2013 - 09:46 | 4089796 philosophers bone
philosophers bone's picture

I'm looking to get educated on it.  I'm not a techy so it's challenging for me to understand it.  I met with a guy who is deep into BTC and other alternative currencies (Namecoin, among others).  The more I get into the details of it, I realize that I still don't really understand it.  I don't understand the mining process - you can buy computers / programs that you just leave on and they solve the problems for you in time.  It seems to me that the people that get in at the ground floor of an alternative currency make out like bandits as they "mined" BTC (or other currency) early on and, as the number of "miners" grows, it takes more time to mine less and less BTC.  So the question for me is whether it is still sufficiently early?  Are we still near the ground floor, or at least not near the top.  The BTC guy thought it was definitely early, although he has a vested interested in that he's selling hand held "BTC miners" (the size of a smartphone) as a retail product.  My big questions about it are the following:

1.   Government Risk.  They key is that businesses need to accept this and if the government passes law banning its use, you'll likely see it dropped by main stream businesses.  This risk could happen quickly.

2.   Majority of Users Concept.  So BTC cannot be corrupted without the "consensus of a majority of users".  What does this mean?  What is the process?  Could there be a global hack job where someone provides the "consent" of a majority of users through some "super program" (I"m showing my techy ignorance here I imagine);

3.   Competing Alternatives.  Why use BTC when there are now other competitors?  Which one will win?  Who will decide?  Could the gov't ban BTC but start it's own alternative and recognize it in law so they can keep records of the transactions for tax purposes.

These are the key questions for me.

Fri, 10/25/2013 - 13:15 | 4090542 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

LOL! endorsing bitcoin... all the more fools to chase fiat gains using other electrons posing as money.

Leaves more silver & gold for me. Have at it, suckaz.

You'll be sorry when the internet, phone & power lines are gone.

Fri, 10/25/2013 - 17:02 | 4091381 Exponere Mendaces
Exponere Mendaces's picture

At least we won't have to read your idiotic rants. Hey, I feel better about the apocalypse already!

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!