Where Bitcoin is legal tender
To the editor:
This was completely predictable. Imagine what would happen if the US dollar fluctuated by just a small percentage of the rate that Bitcoin does. Total mayhem (“El Salvador’s lonely experiment,” Cover Story, September 9).
Combined with the senseless environmental damage caused by these absurd cryptocurrencies, this should be a lesson to anyone who thinks this “currency” has any place in serious financial systems. Hopefully, the Securities Exchange Commission and/or Congress will finally apply common sense regulations to crypto.
John Fischer, at Barrons.com
To the editor:
Getting into crypto is a risk/reward decision threshold for me. When the risk/reward ratio of using crypto versus the dollar shifts in my favor, it’s time. Now is not the time. Let the crypto crowd sweat it out. I will sit on the sidelines and watch the game unfold.
Roli Antonio, at Barrons.com
Conflicting indicators
To the editor:
A Kardashian private-equity firm (“A Housing Bubble and Kim Kardashian: More Troubling News for Markets,” Up & Down Wall Street, September 9). Actors who promoted crypto when Bitcoin was at $62,000. C-list celebrities with special acquisition companies. Even NBA superstar Giannis Antetokounmpo is starting an environmental, social and corporate governance fund. Sounds good. Hey, what could go wrong?
Steve Klouda, Sugar Grove, Ill.
Social insecurity
To the editor:
Americans have been fretting for decades about the lack of funds in the capital base that will freeze out the next generation of payees. The problem is not financial; it’s entirely political (“Social Security Will Hit a Breaking Point. What It Means for Younger Workers,” Sept. 9).
We can solve “social insecurity” in no time. Simply invest the money in an index of US stocks that over time will pay recipients about 9% a year versus the current 1% earned by the fund. It will end the topic with sufficient funds, as participants will earn large sums over time. The obstacles are politicians in Washington, DC, who want control of the fund so they can blow it on favored projects, instead of giving Americans the peace of mind we all seek.
Citizens should band together and demand this result or vote against every member of Congress who thinks otherwise. And for those who refuse to comply, we should remove them from any retirement program they are currently participating in. Want to bet we get the changes?
Rich Klitzberg, Boca Raton, Fla.
To the editor:
The simplest and most sensible way to guarantee social security continuity is to raise the ceiling on contributions. This is done at regular intervals. Nevertheless, it has always been the lower and middle classes who finance social security. The wealthy upper class have never paid their fair share because their contributions stop at [an annual income level of] $147,000. Why don’t we tax those making $148,000 to $10 million plus on their full income, or at least a few percent above the current cap? It would keep social security in the black indefinitely.
Lyle Stotelmyre, Oceanside, California
To the editor:
I found Martha Shedden, president and co-founder of the National Association of Registered Social Security Analysts, a bit glib when she concluded that beneficiaries should simply ignore potential benefit cuts resulting from program deficiencies. If benefits are cut by 23% across the board in 2034, it will have much less impact on those who start benefits early than on those who start them late.
Suppose someone turns 62 in 2026. Under the stated program depletion plan, he can enjoy eight years of benefits before the cut begins in 2034. But if he starts benefits at age 70, his benefits are reduced from the beginning.
Additionally, compared to a program without such cuts, the breakeven year (a critical calculation for any reasonable person considering the benefits of delaying retirement) under the above situation comes three years later (at age 81) for someone who waits until full retirement age and four years later (at age 86) for someone who waits until age 70.
Clint Myers, Georgetown, SC
Buy Europe
To the editor:
Cresset Capital’s Jack Ablin believes there will be a buying opportunity in the First Trust S&P International Dividend Aristocrats exchange-traded fund as Federal Reserve tightening eases (“How Europe’s Energy Crisis Could Play Out,” Sept. 9). As Ablin says, the ETF has high-quality companies with strong balance sheets that can withstand an “ugly quarter.” But as strong as these companies are, the problem lies in the ETF’s long-term performance: one year, minus 8.38%; three years, 1.74%; five years, 2.8%; and from inception, 2.14%. I wonder why Ablin thinks the future might be brighter. Some individual stock surveys may prove to be better at picking winners.
Harvey Rosen, Brooklyn NY
holy grail
To the editor:
Clearly, Illumina’s main line of sequencing tool manufacturing is fantastic (“Illumina Stock Has Tanked After Its Deal for Grail. The Battle With Regulators Continues,” Follow-Up, September 9). My view is that CEO Francis deSouza would not spend the vast amounts of human capital and actual dollars for the Grail unless the payoff would be huge, which I happen to agree with. The numbers are huge. I’m sticking with Illumina and deSouza, with or without grail, but I hope it’s included.
Britt Hughes, at Barrons.com
Send letter to: [email protected]. To be considered for publication, correspondence must include the author’s name, address and telephone number. Letters are subject to editing.
