My Take on Gold
-
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 12:54 pm
Re: My Take on Gold
I definitely think before anyone knocks the stuff, they should hold some physical silver in their hands. Holding 60 ounces of American silver Eagles in your hand or a few ounces of gold eagles is quite the experience.
- Epsilon Delta
- Posts: 8090
- Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 7:00 pm
Re: My Take on Gold
My chemistry class once toured an Engelhard Industries refinery. We got to pass around a 50 pound gold ingot. It is indeed impressive, even if you didn't know it was worth $150,000. It wasn't shiny however, more of a matte yellow.
Re: My Take on Gold
Indeed gold has the power to own you rather than that you own it.
Re: My Take on Gold
Here is a link to an article supportive of owning gold.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1375731 ... s-analysis
I espeicially liked the chart US Debt and Debt limt Vs Gold.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1375731 ... s-analysis
I espeicially liked the chart US Debt and Debt limt Vs Gold.
- Epsilon Delta
- Posts: 8090
- Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 7:00 pm
Re: My Take on Gold
A classic on how to lie with statistics. The graph does a number of things to overstate the case. If you don't torture the data it still says that both the debt and the price of gold increased from 2000 to 2011, but that's not enough for the author.TO39 wrote:Here is a link to an article supportive of owning gold.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1375731 ... s-analysis
I espeicially liked the chart US Debt and Debt limit Vs Gold.
Re: My Take on Gold
so where was the lie? I missed it. To me it looked like as the debt limit was raised, debt followed, and so did the price of gold.
- Rick Ferri
- Posts: 9703
- Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:40 am
- Location: Georgetown, TX. Twitter: @Rick_Ferri
- Contact:
Re: My Take on Gold
It's not due to an increase in the US debt ceiling. The price of gold tripled in every currency around the globe, even in those countries where there was no increase in government debt.
Rick Ferri
Rick Ferri
The Education of an Index Investor: born in darkness, finds indexing enlightenment, overcomplicates everything, embraces simplicity.
Re: My Take on Gold
Didn't most of the developed countries have an increase in debt the last decade? Surely this must have helped the rise in gold. Thats a lot of people who have access to gold through ETFs and other means who are worried about the various debt limts. This would raise the price even in those countries who aren't raising their debt levels due to it being a global economy.
Thats the way I see it
Thats the way I see it
-
- Posts: 119
- Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 8:51 pm
Re: My Take on Gold
I said this here in 2009 and still believe it:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Postby mtbouchard » Wed Nov 18, 2009 12:40 am
To me gold having a small amount of gold can help protect from US Dollar risk. But so can foreign currencies, debt or equities. Tips are a much better hedge to inflation and if you do not plan to leave the US, a decline in the dollar would just manifest itself in inflation anyway.
And unfortunately, gold is prone to speculation - just as a year ago "black gold" was as well. There is a feeling that just because there is a limited amount of something its price cannot go down - whether it be real estate in japan, gold, or oil. There are millions of tons of gold in the ocean - theres just not a cheap way to extract it - YET!
Gold is really like buying a foreign currency to a country that is guarenteed to have no inflation or interest and therefore maintains price-parity from year to year. I call it goldland. But these days everyone wants to live there even though theyve never even visited!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As it turns out, I have a 1% of Asset Allocation in inverse Gold ETFs and am up 20%. Never bet against what the bond markets are saying (no inflation for 10 years).
Matt Bouchard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Postby mtbouchard » Wed Nov 18, 2009 12:40 am
To me gold having a small amount of gold can help protect from US Dollar risk. But so can foreign currencies, debt or equities. Tips are a much better hedge to inflation and if you do not plan to leave the US, a decline in the dollar would just manifest itself in inflation anyway.
And unfortunately, gold is prone to speculation - just as a year ago "black gold" was as well. There is a feeling that just because there is a limited amount of something its price cannot go down - whether it be real estate in japan, gold, or oil. There are millions of tons of gold in the ocean - theres just not a cheap way to extract it - YET!
Gold is really like buying a foreign currency to a country that is guarenteed to have no inflation or interest and therefore maintains price-parity from year to year. I call it goldland. But these days everyone wants to live there even though theyve never even visited!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As it turns out, I have a 1% of Asset Allocation in inverse Gold ETFs and am up 20%. Never bet against what the bond markets are saying (no inflation for 10 years).
Matt Bouchard
Re: My Take on Gold
Epsilon Delta wrote:My chemistry class once toured an Engelhard Industries refinery. We got to pass around a 50 pound gold ingot. It is indeed impressive, even if you didn't know it was worth $150,000. It wasn't shiny however, more of a matte yellow.
When was a 50 lb gold ingot worth 150K? not this century I would guess
Re: My Take on Gold
By my math, 50 lbs is 600 troy ounces. That would make gold about $250/oz. His chemistry class probably did their tour around 1979. So it wasn't this century, but the previous century.TO39 wrote:When was a 50 lb gold ingot worth 150K? not this century I would guessEpsilon Delta wrote:My chemistry class once toured an Engelhard Industries refinery. We got to pass around a 50 pound gold ingot. It is indeed impressive, even if you didn't know it was worth $150,000. It wasn't shiny however, more of a matte yellow.
However it got close to $250 back in 2000, so he might be rounding off and referring to 2000.
Re: My Take on Gold
If you look at a chart of gold back to 1975, you can see that gold may have corrected well with U.S. debt from 2000-2011, but it didn't correlate very well before. The chart maker deliberately tailored his analysis to fit a short span of years.TO39 wrote:so where was the lie? I missed it. To me it looked like as the debt limit was raised, debt followed, and so did the price of gold..Epsilon Delta wrote:A classic on how to lie with statistics. The graph does a number of things to overstate the case. If you don't torture the data it still says that both the debt and the price of gold increased from 2000 to 2011, but that's not enough for the author.TO39 wrote: Here is a link to an article supportive of owning gold.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1375731 ... s-analysis
I especially liked the chart US Debt and Debt limit Vs Gold.
- Epsilon Delta
- Posts: 8090
- Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 7:00 pm
Re: My Take on Gold
Exactly, and when the article was written, in April 2013 there are also an addition year and half of date on the right hand side that don't support the case. He also fudged the y-axis, but that's only a venal sin.Joe S. wrote: If you look at a chart of gold back to 1975, you can see that gold may have corrected well with U.S. debt from 2000-2011, but it didn't correlate very well before. The chart maker deliberately tailored his analysis to fit a short span of years.
- Rick Ferri
- Posts: 9703
- Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:40 am
- Location: Georgetown, TX. Twitter: @Rick_Ferri
- Contact:
Re: My Take on Gold
I've already said this, but I' repeat. A what level can it help protect your portfolio?mtbouchard wrote:I said this here in 2009 and still believe it:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Postby mtbouchard » Wed Nov 18, 2009 12:40 am
To me gold having a small amount of gold can help protect from US Dollar risk. But so can foreign currencies, debt or equities. Tips are a much better hedge to inflation and if you do not plan to leave the US, a decline in the dollar would just manifest itself in inflation anyway.
Matt Bouchard
The price has already tripled and there hasn't been inflation or US dollar risk. Yet people are making the same argument about owning gold at $1400 per ounce they did at $500 per ounce. "Gold protects my portfolio."
At any price gold protects your portfolio? That's not good logic.
Rick Ferri
The Education of an Index Investor: born in darkness, finds indexing enlightenment, overcomplicates everything, embraces simplicity.
Re: My Take on Gold
That same logic permeates most boglehead portfolios as well. Isn't the most common advice to draft a reasonable asset allocation, rebalance, and stay the course? Do you suggest that investors attempt to market time stock and bond markets based off of valuation as well?Rick Ferri wrote:
I've already said this, but I' repeat. A what level can it help protect your portfolio?
The price has already tripled and there hasn't been inflation or US dollar risk. Yet people are making the same argument about owning gold at $1400 per ounce they did at $500 per ounce. "Gold protects my portfolio."
At any price gold protects your portfolio? That's not good logic.
Rick Ferri
Re: My Take on Gold
A person with x% in gold in 2002 would have sold an awful lot of it between then and now.rmelvey wrote:That same logic permeates most boglehead portfolios as well. Isn't the most common advice to draft a reasonable asset allocation, rebalance, and stay the course? Do you suggest that investors attempt to market time stock and bond markets based off of valuation as well?Rick Ferri wrote:
I've already said this, but I' repeat. A what level can it help protect your portfolio?
The price has already tripled and there hasn't been inflation or US dollar risk. Yet people are making the same argument about owning gold at $1400 per ounce they did at $500 per ounce. "Gold protects my portfolio."
At any price gold protects your portfolio? That's not good logic.
Rick Ferri
- Rick Ferri
- Posts: 9703
- Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:40 am
- Location: Georgetown, TX. Twitter: @Rick_Ferri
- Contact:
Re: My Take on Gold
The mechanics of portfolio management are buy, hold and rebalance, but this all starts with what to buy. When you buy hard assets like gold, you have to make room in your portfolio by reducing your investment in income and growth producing assets. That's call opportunity cost. Since gold does not pay interest or dividends and does not grow over time (one ounce doesn't expand into two ounces), then the only thing going for gold is the hope that it will be negative correlated with stocks and bonds in a bear market, and rebalancing will produce a big enough payday so that it make ups for the lack of growth and income. During the wait, you'll have to pay fees to own gold. It's a big bet that tends to work about 5 years out of every 25.rmelvey wrote:That same logic permeates most boglehead portfolios as well. Isn't the most common advice to draft a reasonable asset allocation, rebalance, and stay the course? Do you suggest that investors attempt to market time stock and bond markets based off of valuation as well?Rick Ferri wrote:
I've already said this, but I' repeat. A what level can it help protect your portfolio?
The price has already tripled and there hasn't been inflation or US dollar risk. Yet people are making the same argument about owning gold at $1400 per ounce they did at $500 per ounce. "Gold protects my portfolio."
At any price gold protects your portfolio? That's not good logic.
Rick Ferri
Rick Ferri
The Education of an Index Investor: born in darkness, finds indexing enlightenment, overcomplicates everything, embraces simplicity.
Re: My Take on Gold
XOM have something like 25-30 billion barrels of known oil reserves. At $100/barrel that's 10x their market cap. Assuming extraction and other costs amount to 90% (wild guess) and holding XOM is perhaps a bit like holding stock gain/loss + commodity gain/loss exposure rolled up into one. Similar somewhat to how you might hold either stocks + foreign currency separately, or perhaps foreign currency denominated stocks via a single entity.Clearly_Irrational wrote:Except you don't own oil, you own shares of a company that works with oil, not the same thing at all. Additionally, oil is pro-cyclical which kind of kills the whole point.btenny wrote:I hold a bunch of oil companies all with huge oil reserves instead of gold for a portion of my portfolio. Everything I read and study on portfolio construction all comes back to some sort of inflation hedge and protection against currency manipulation that does not correlate well with regular stocks. Some people own commodities for this same reason. Others hold gold. I own oil. It has worked great for 20 plus years....
Bill
- Clearly_Irrational
- Posts: 3087
- Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 3:43 pm
Re: My Take on Gold
Oil reserves are not the same thing as oil that has already been extracted, but hey you don't have to take my word for it. The three year correlation between XOM and OIL is 0.59 so the price of OIL only explains about 34.8% of the price of XOM. The three year correlation between XOM and SPY is 0.84 so the stock market explains roughly 70.6% of the price of XOM. To my mind this is an ineffective play on oil prices.Clive wrote:XOM have something like 25-30 billion barrels of known oil reserves.
Re: My Take on Gold
Clearly_Irrational wrote:Oil reserves are not the same thing as oil that has already been extracted, but hey you don't have to take my word for it. The three year correlation between XOM and OIL is 0.59 so the price of OIL only explains about 34.8% of the price of XOM. The three year correlation between XOM and SPY is 0.84 so the stock market explains roughly 70.6% of the price of XOM. To my mind this is an ineffective play on oil prices.Clive wrote:XOM have something like 25-30 billion barrels of known oil reserves.
But, but, but . . . that is clearly rational, so something does not add up here.
Re: My Take on Gold
Using your figures and some pretty broad generalisations, a 35% allocation to XOM might be considered as being 25% (rounding) stock-like (35 x 0.706 = 24.7%) and 12% (35 x 0.348 = 12.2%) commodity-like exposure.Clearly_Irrational wrote:The three year correlation between XOM and OIL is 0.59 so the price of OIL only explains about 34.8% of the price of XOM. The three year correlation between XOM and SPY is 0.84 so the stock market explains roughly 70.6% of the price of XOM.
IYE ETF might be considered as an alternative to XOM (easier to use IYE than XOM as etfreplay has data for IYE but not XOM).
The 4x25 Permanent Portfolio holds 25% in each of stocks, gold, STT and LTT and rebalances at 35% upper, 15% lower rebalance bands.
A STT/LTT barbell is broadly similar to holding a 5 year treasury fund (VFITX)
So 25% stock, 12% commodity, rest (63%) in VFITX - synthesised using 35% IYE, 65% VFITX is broadly similar to a Permanent Portfolio, but somewhat light on the commodity front (12% instead of 25%). 2000 to 2009 total gains when using PRPFX as a proxy for PERM :
reasonably closely tracked each other with similar overall volatility. Post 2009 with gold having performed relatively strongly that tracking has drifted somewhat. If however we top up the commodity side by adding 13% gold to uplift commodity exposure to 25% levels then :
I appreciate this is some pretty wild generalisation/assumptions, but broadly it seems to fit reasonably well.
Returning to what Bill said :
that appears to be quite reasonable IMO.btenny wrote:I hold a bunch of oil companies all with huge oil reserves instead of gold for a portion of my portfolio. Everything I read and study on portfolio construction all comes back to some sort of inflation hedge and protection against currency manipulation that does not correlate well with regular stocks. Some people own commodities for this same reason. Others hold gold. I own oil. It has worked great for 20 plus years....
Out of interest, how did you estimate/calculate your 34.8% and 70.6% figures for : (correlation between XOM and OIL is 0.59 so the price of OIL only explains about 34.8% of the price of XOM. The three year correlation between XOM and SPY is 0.84 so the stock market explains roughly 70.6% of the price of XOM ?
PS
Extending that concept further, for all of the limited historic data so far available, 12% 3x IYE (ERX) for 36% IYE like exposure, 4% 3x GLD (UGLD) for 12% gold like exposure, rest (84%) VFITX has compared reasonably closely with PRPFX over the last 18 months (excepting the last month or two - perhaps due to weightings having drifted and in need of being rebalanced).
I appreciate this is all much more artful than scientific, but the pictures painted do look broadly similar?
- Clearly_Irrational
- Posts: 3087
- Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 3:43 pm
Re: My Take on Gold
R^2 = Pearson * PearsonClive wrote:Out of interest, how did you estimate/calculate your 34.8% and 70.6% figures
You can't use both numbers though, they're separate comparisons of how well the model fits.
Re: My Take on Gold
The 4x25 Permanent Portfolio holds 25% in each of stocks, gold, STT and LTT and rebalances at 35% upper, 15% lower rebalance bands.
Is this true? ,I thought it was rebalence at 21% lower and 29% higher 16% of 25 is 4.
Is this true? ,I thought it was rebalence at 21% lower and 29% higher 16% of 25 is 4.
Re: My Take on Gold
Rick Ferri said: The price has already tripled and there hasn't been inflation or US dollar risk. Yet people are making the same argument about owning gold at $1400 per ounce they did at $500 per ounce. "Gold protects my portfolio."
At any price gold protects your portfolio? That's not good logic.
Didn't he make the same case (don't own gold) at $500 that he is making at $1400?
I realize the reasoning behind his argument is no long term return from owning gold (whether at $500 or $1400)
I see it being logical to own a percentage of gold in your portfolio at both $500 and $1500 for protection. I also see the case being stronger at $500, but we really can't see the future.
At any price gold protects your portfolio? That's not good logic.
Didn't he make the same case (don't own gold) at $500 that he is making at $1400?
I realize the reasoning behind his argument is no long term return from owning gold (whether at $500 or $1400)
I see it being logical to own a percentage of gold in your portfolio at both $500 and $1500 for protection. I also see the case being stronger at $500, but we really can't see the future.
Re: My Take on Gold
ThanksClearly_Irrational wrote:R^2 = Pearson * Pearson
As I understand it, its 40% rebalance bands. If any one asset declines to/below 25% x 0.6 = 15% lower weighting; or rises to/above 25% x 1.4 = 35% upper weighting, reset all four back to 25% equal weightings.TO39 wrote:The 4x25 Permanent Portfolio holds 25% in each of stocks, gold, STT and LTT and rebalances at 35% upper, 15% lower rebalance bands.
Is this true? I thought it was rebalance at 21% lower and 29% higher 16% of 25 is 4.
Re: My Take on Gold
Doesn't that depend upon context?Clearly_Irrational wrote:R^2 = Pearson * Pearson
You can't use both numbers though, they're separate comparisons of how well the model fits.
There's no necessity for it to be contained to 100% or less for the combined total.
If as a Brit I hold US $ then I have USD/GBP FX risk/reward exposure. If instead of just holding US $ currency alone I buy US stocks with that currency I have 100% currency + 100% stock risk/reward exposure.
10% ERX (3x energy ETF) has 30% IYE (1x) like stock exposure, which might break down to 21% stock (70%), 10.5% commodity (35%), 10% USD/GBP, 20% debt (leverage) risk/reward factors (combined exposure of 61.5% to a diverse range of risks/potential rewards). Instead of buying into each of those risks individually, the same degree of exposure is achieved via less actual funds being invested (each unit of investment in effect working harder/being leveraged). Somewhat similar to comparing buying a stock with 0% debt to equity to that of another stock that had 100% debt to equity.
Most, if not all assets when risk-levelled broadly have similar rewards. Its the degree of 'leverage' (overlap) and how those factors correlate (combined with rebalancing) that depicts overall total rewards. Not to use both numbers would seem to be wrong?
-
- Posts: 3611
- Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 8:02 pm
Re: My Take on Gold
It's great to see so much gold bashing on a forum devoted to investment analysis! That means we aren't anywhere near being in a gold bubble.
When most people here start talking about how holding 25% in gold is a reasonable approach to diversification, then I'll start worrying about the possibility of a gold bubble...
When most people here start talking about how holding 25% in gold is a reasonable approach to diversification, then I'll start worrying about the possibility of a gold bubble...
In theory, theory and practice are identical. In practice, they often differ.
- Rick Ferri
- Posts: 9703
- Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:40 am
- Location: Georgetown, TX. Twitter: @Rick_Ferri
- Contact:
Re: My Take on Gold
You right. The last bubble popped in 2011 when gold hit $1,920. It's down 23% from the bubble peak and still falling down to it's inflation adjusted price of between $500-$600. There won't be another bubble like the one we've just seen for 20 years. We aren't anywhere near the next gold bubble!It's great to see so much gold bashing on a forum devoted to investment analysis! That means we aren't anywhere near being in a gold bubble.
Rick Ferri
The Education of an Index Investor: born in darkness, finds indexing enlightenment, overcomplicates everything, embraces simplicity.
Re: My Take on Gold
No it isn't. Why do you say that? The price of gold in actual purchasing power parity terms jumps all over the place.mtbouchard wrote:
Gold is really like buying a foreign currency to a country that is guarenteed to have no inflation or interest and therefore maintains price-parity from year to year. I call it goldland.
Matt Bouchard
Re: My Take on Gold
Why do you say that? We were bashing it just as much when it was $1920/oz. Are you saying that wasn't a bubble?technovelist wrote:It's great to see so much gold bashing on a forum devoted to investment analysis! That means we aren't anywhere near being in a gold bubble.
-
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 12:54 pm
Re: My Take on Gold
The benefit to Gold is that it is one of the very few forms of private wealth. [Suggestion to bypass the law removed by admin LadyGeek] This may seem unlikely, but it has happened in the past and could happen again in the future.
Re: My Take on Gold
As a reminder, discussions of bypassing the law are totally unacceptable here.
- nisiprius
- Advisory Board
- Posts: 52109
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
- Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry
Re: My Take on Gold
For example:plnelson wrote:No it isn't. Why do you say that? The price of gold in actual purchasing power parity terms jumps all over the place.mtbouchard wrote:Gold is really like buying a foreign currency to a country that is guarenteed to have no inflation or interest and therefore maintains price-parity from year to year. I call it goldland. Matt Bouchard
- Dollars weren't a stable store of value when dollars were on the gold standard.
- Gold wasn't a stable store of value when we were on the gold standard.
- Gold hasn't been a stable store of value since we went off the gold standard.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
Re: My Take on Gold
I don't hear much about the fact that the GLD started trading November 18, 2004 and how this has impacted the gold market. I don't think its coincidence that gold has had out-sized returns since then. Clever marketing is part of the power behind the gold bull market, which included the introduction of gold exchange traded funds.Rick Ferri wrote:The price has already tripled and there hasn't been inflation or US dollar risk. Yet people are making the same argument about owning gold at $1400 per ounce they did at $500 per ounce. "Gold protects my portfolio."
Re: My Take on Gold
Hmmm, this sounds like chartist talk if not market timing. Guess that is considered okay when talking about things other than index funds on this forum.Rick Ferri wrote:It's down 23% from the bubble peak and still falling down to it's inflation adjusted price of between $500-$600. There won't be another bubble like the one we've just seen for 20 years. We aren't anywhere near the next gold bubble!
Rick Ferri
The cure shouldn't be worse than the disease.
Re: My Take on Gold
I think this is a rational assessment even though authored by a Clearly_Irrational Boglehead As regards Warren Buffett and his negative comments on owning gold, it's interesting that he offers a different type of insurance. The future is not ours to see so who can really say? Other than death and taxes, there are no guarantees in this life so if owning gold makes you feel better about an uncertain future, then why not? I will agree that gold has been and continues to be relatively expensive (IMHO).Clearly_Irrational wrote:Gold is basically an insurance asset. We don't normally expect insurance to make us money, instead it's role is to help us avoid catastrophic losses. There is a price associated with that function, whether or not you consider that price affordable depends on your situation.
Norris
- Rick Ferri
- Posts: 9703
- Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:40 am
- Location: Georgetown, TX. Twitter: @Rick_Ferri
- Contact:
Re: My Take on Gold
I don't own gold and I'm not selling is short, so I'm not market timing. This is my opinion. I'll give my opinion on market valuation. Those who have followed me on this forum for years know this. It doesn't change the we should invest, though.wshang wrote:Hmmm, this sounds like chartist talk if not market timing. Guess that is considered okay when talking about things other than index funds on this forum.Rick Ferri wrote:It's down 23% from the bubble peak and still falling down to it's inflation adjusted price of between $500-$600. There won't be another bubble like the one we've just seen for 20 years. We aren't anywhere near the next gold bubble!
Rick Ferri
Rick Ferri
The Education of an Index Investor: born in darkness, finds indexing enlightenment, overcomplicates everything, embraces simplicity.
Re: My Take on Gold
+1wshang wrote:Hmmm, this sounds like chartist talk if not market timing. Guess that is considered okay when talking about things other than index funds on this forum.Rick Ferri wrote:It's down 23% from the bubble peak and still falling down to it's inflation adjusted price of between $500-$600. There won't be another bubble like the one we've just seen for 20 years. We aren't anywhere near the next gold bubble!
Rick Ferri
Even though I get pummeled every time I make a snide remark about reversion to the mean and momentum as predictors, I will persist!
Not criticizing Rick, though. Since there is no rational way to assess the true value of gold (what is its P/E?), you might as well read the tea leaves.
Keith
Déjà Vu is not a prediction
- Rick Ferri
- Posts: 9703
- Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:40 am
- Location: Georgetown, TX. Twitter: @Rick_Ferri
- Contact:
Re: My Take on Gold
Gold fell below $1,200 today, down from $1,900. Only $600 more to go and it will be at fair value!
Rick Ferri
Rick Ferri
The Education of an Index Investor: born in darkness, finds indexing enlightenment, overcomplicates everything, embraces simplicity.
Re: My Take on Gold
Hooey. What does that graph look like when the y-axis is # of bespoke suits?nisiprius wrote:For example:plnelson wrote:No it isn't. Why do you say that? The price of gold in actual purchasing power parity terms jumps all over the place.mtbouchard wrote:Gold is really like buying a foreign currency to a country that is guarenteed to have no inflation or interest and therefore maintains price-parity from year to year. I call it goldland. Matt Bouchard
That's just simple fact, whether it matches anyone's theory or not.
- Dollars weren't a stable store of value when dollars were on the gold standard.
- Gold wasn't a stable store of value when we were on the gold standard.
- Gold hasn't been a stable store of value since we went off the gold standard.
"Index funds have a place in your portfolio, but you'll never beat the index with them." - Words of wisdom from a Fidelity rep
-
- Posts: 127
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:38 am
Re: My Take on Gold
Rick, shouldn't gold be compared to paper currency? I don't think gold should be compared to stocks. Gold was traditionally money and as such, it should be compared to your currency. Since the Fed was established hasn't paper money lost around 99% of its value, whereas gold maintains value over a long period of time. Granted, it can stay down in dollar terms for a long amount of time, and you can earn interest on paper money (although not much over the last few years) but comparing gold to stocks is not correct in my opinion.
Therefore if we ignore speculation, a small amount of gold (say 5% of ones portfolio) could be held for diversification benefits.
Therefore if we ignore speculation, a small amount of gold (say 5% of ones portfolio) could be held for diversification benefits.
Re: My Take on Gold
If stocks are like an undated variable coupon bond, then gold is at the other end of the scale (undated zero coupon inflation bond).
A barbell of the two appears to provide TIPS like characteristics - except being more volatile.
In some countries TIPS have the inflationary uplift element taxed. A blend of stocks and gold in contrast can be more tax efficient.
Correctly predict where you think both stocks and undated TIPS might be heading - and you might be able to deduce where the price of gold might be heading. Or equally predict gold and TIPS and deduce stocks.
My gut feel at present is that investors are more inclined to move out of safe relatively expensive TIPS and into stocks where the risks are perceived as being in decline compared to 2008/9 type circumstances. That's JMO - but if correct then potentially that's a case of continued TIPS and gold in decline, stocks in ascension. But of course that could turn around in an instant.
Whilst post early 1980's up to 2000 there was mostly stability, growth, declining inflation etc. - that's just circumstantial. The intervals between crises is unpredictable.
A barbell of the two appears to provide TIPS like characteristics - except being more volatile.
In some countries TIPS have the inflationary uplift element taxed. A blend of stocks and gold in contrast can be more tax efficient.
Correctly predict where you think both stocks and undated TIPS might be heading - and you might be able to deduce where the price of gold might be heading. Or equally predict gold and TIPS and deduce stocks.
My gut feel at present is that investors are more inclined to move out of safe relatively expensive TIPS and into stocks where the risks are perceived as being in decline compared to 2008/9 type circumstances. That's JMO - but if correct then potentially that's a case of continued TIPS and gold in decline, stocks in ascension. But of course that could turn around in an instant.
I wouldn't be so sure. UK 1976 and the GBP had to be bailed out by the IMF. Gold soared. 1979 through early 1980's and there was a global crisis of high inflation during which time again gold soared. A handful of years between consecutive crises (for UK investors).There won't be another bubble like the one we've just seen for 20 years. We aren't anywhere near the next gold bubble!
Rick Ferri
Whilst post early 1980's up to 2000 there was mostly stability, growth, declining inflation etc. - that's just circumstantial. The intervals between crises is unpredictable.
- Epsilon Delta
- Posts: 8090
- Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 7:00 pm
Re: My Take on Gold
Fuzzy, very fuzzy. As is the concept of a bespoke suit. Anyone priced a toga recently?momar wrote: Hooey. What does that graph look like when the y-axis is # of bespoke suits?
- Clearly_Irrational
- Posts: 3087
- Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 3:43 pm
Re: My Take on Gold
Google shopping says about $30 or 0.025 ounces at the current spot price.Epsilon Delta wrote:Anyone priced a toga recently?
Re: My Take on Gold
How on earth are you people giving gold a "fair value" of 600$ when marginal production costs are above 1200$?
Re: My Take on Gold
What fraction of the world gold supply is produced each year? Does gold mined hundred or thousands of years ago degrade?dnaumov wrote:How on earth are you people giving gold a "fair value" of 600$ when marginal production costs are above 1200$?
"Index funds have a place in your portfolio, but you'll never beat the index with them." - Words of wisdom from a Fidelity rep
Re: My Take on Gold
Demand for physical is not exactly drying up, quite the contrary.momar wrote:What fraction of the world gold supply is produced each year? Does gold mined hundred or thousands of years ago degrade?dnaumov wrote:How on earth are you people giving gold a "fair value" of 600$ when marginal production costs are above 1200$?
Re: My Take on Gold
Yes, an article on Yahoo says that the cost of production at many mines is $1000 - $1200 per ounce.dnaumov wrote:How on earth are you people giving gold a "fair value" of 600$ when marginal production costs are above 1200$?
But gold is a curious thing. Its price is not driven by supply and demand. Rather, supply is driven by the price. If the price drops, the more expensive producers stop mining. So, the supply and the cost of production go down.
In my opinion, no one knows what drives the price of gold.
Keith
Déjà Vu is not a prediction
Re: My Take on Gold
Have been wondering the same thing - why have gold - in this current state of the economy ?
With that said,
I do hold some of both the PRPFX Perm Portfolio,
the GLD ETF,
and a few of the 1oz gold and 1oz silver American Eagles.
With that said,
I do hold some of both the PRPFX Perm Portfolio,
the GLD ETF,
and a few of the 1oz gold and 1oz silver American Eagles.
- Rick Ferri
- Posts: 9703
- Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:40 am
- Location: Georgetown, TX. Twitter: @Rick_Ferri
- Contact:
Re: My Take on Gold
It's a mistake to assume that the price of gold cannot drop below the cost of production. This happens in the metals markets quite often. BTW, I read elsewhere that inefficient miners cost of production is $900 per ounce and that efficient miners are still producing an ounce of gold below $700 per ounce.umfundi wrote:Yes, an article on Yahoo says that the cost of production at many mines is $1000 - $1200 per ounce.dnaumov wrote:How on earth are you people giving gold a "fair value" of 600$ when marginal production costs are above 1200$?
Keith
Rick Ferri
The Education of an Index Investor: born in darkness, finds indexing enlightenment, overcomplicates everything, embraces simplicity.