WSJ: "This Should Have Been a Great Year for Gold. Here’s Why It Isn’t."

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
User avatar
GRP
Posts: 293
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2017 5:35 pm

Re: WSJ: "This Should Have Been a Great Year for Gold. Here’s Why It Isn’t."

Post by GRP »

seajay wrote: Sat Jan 14, 2023 8:39 am The ancient Talmud knew of such risk reduction millennia ago, when they suggested dividing ones wealth evenly between in-land, in-business assets and in-hand.
This bit is the most interesting, and I've often seen as the progenitor for modern theories of diversification.

Aside from the detailed work from figures such as Ray Dalio, I also think that a glimpse at Exter's period gives people insight on how the current financial system is structured and where gold's place is in it.

Image
User avatar
firebirdparts
Posts: 3830
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:21 pm

Re: WSJ: "This Should Have Been a Great Year for Gold. Here’s Why It Isn’t."

Post by firebirdparts »

GRP wrote: Thu Jan 12, 2023 2:13 pm
firebirdparts wrote: Thu Jan 12, 2023 1:27 pm Have this so far:
What I was referring to as a game plan for this is what we called a
“Depression gauge.” Because big debt crises and depressions had happened
many times before and we had the template explained in this study, we had
created this gauge as a simple algorithm based on the proximity of interest
rates to 0 percent, a few measures of debt vulnerability, and indications of the
beginning of debt deleveraging that would lead us to change our overall
portfolio and risk controls (including our counterparty risks).
This paper
https://www.bridgewater.com/big-debt-cr ... -dalio.pdf
Describes a view that a debt crisis (resulting in deleveraging) occurs during the depression and that is what they are watching for (in its entirety). I claim no competence at all, just googling.
Nice find. If the aggregate data they are using is largely publicly available then this practice may be within reach of an individual investor
I am going to read the whole thing and see if it makes any sense to me. He claims in the intro that it will.
A fool and your money are soon partners
Morik
Posts: 1141
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 12:26 pm

Re: WSJ: "This Should Have Been a Great Year for Gold. Here’s Why It Isn’t."

Post by Morik »

GRP wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 10:23 pm
Morik wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 9:02 pm My position in gold is for portfolio diversification rather than US meltdown scenarios; for that purpose I think the relatively low counter-party risk of futures contracts and the convenience (gold-backed ETFs are also similarly convenient) them vs holding physical gold, plus the leverage make them pretty nice.
Your position seems reasonable to me.
I have actually changed my mind here. See https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gold ... SKBN23I1M0
It looks like futures actually don't track gold very well compared to physically backed ETFs.
There are also rare events that can happen with physical commodities and cause super contango in the futures market, which can cause big gaps between futures prices and the actual commodity prices.
User avatar
GRP
Posts: 293
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2017 5:35 pm

Re: WSJ: "This Should Have Been a Great Year for Gold. Here’s Why It Isn’t."

Post by GRP »

firebirdparts wrote: Sat Jan 14, 2023 9:06 pm I am going to read the whole thing and see if it makes any sense to me. He claims in the intro that it will.
I'm slowly making my way through the book as well. It's absolutely first rate. Reading PDFs hurts my eyes though. I want to get a physical copy instead but it's weirdly expensive.
User avatar
GRP
Posts: 293
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2017 5:35 pm

Re: WSJ: "This Should Have Been a Great Year for Gold. Here’s Why It Isn’t."

Post by GRP »

Morik wrote: Sun Jan 15, 2023 12:05 pm
GRP wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 10:23 pm
Morik wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 9:02 pm My position in gold is for portfolio diversification rather than US meltdown scenarios; for that purpose I think the relatively low counter-party risk of futures contracts and the convenience (gold-backed ETFs are also similarly convenient) them vs holding physical gold, plus the leverage make them pretty nice.
Your position seems reasonable to me.
I have actually changed my mind here. See https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gold ... SKBN23I1M0
It looks like futures actually don't track gold very well compared to physically backed ETFs.
There are also rare events that can happen with physical commodities and cause super contango in the futures market, which can cause big gaps between futures prices and the actual commodity prices.
Totally agree with you on that point. ETFs with actual gold in the underlying are superior to futures. It's one of the reasons why I don't think a commodity basket fund is enough to replace an explicit gold allocation.
User avatar
GRP
Posts: 293
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2017 5:35 pm

Re: WSJ: "This Should Have Been a Great Year for Gold. Here’s Why It Isn’t."

Post by GRP »

Interesting tidbit about Exter's pyramid:
Exter is known for creating Exter's Pyramid (also known as Exter's Golden Pyramid and Exter's Inverted Pyramid) for visualizing the organization of asset classes in terms of risk and size. In Exter's scheme, gold forms the small base of most reliable value, and asset classes on progressively higher levels are more risky. The larger size of asset classes at higher levels is representative of the higher total worldwide notional value of those assets. While Exter's original pyramid placed Third World debt at the top, today derivatives hold this dubious honor.
User avatar
seajay
Posts: 1067
Joined: Sat May 01, 2021 3:26 pm

Re: WSJ: "This Should Have Been a Great Year for Gold. Here’s Why It Isn’t."

Post by seajay »

GRP wrote: Sun Jan 15, 2023 3:44 pm Interesting tidbit about Exter's pyramid:
Exter is known for creating Exter's Pyramid (also known as Exter's Golden Pyramid and Exter's Inverted Pyramid) for visualizing the organization of asset classes in terms of risk and size. In Exter's scheme, gold forms the small base of most reliable value, and asset classes on progressively higher levels are more risky. The larger size of asset classes at higher levels is representative of the higher total worldwide notional value of those assets. While Exter's original pyramid placed Third World debt at the top, today derivatives hold this dubious honor.
So do we allocate 1 to gold, 2 to cash, 3 to bonds, 4 to stocks, 5 to REIT ... and forget about leverage/derivatives, which has REIT at 33% weight, which is perhaps the value of some investors home relative to their total wealth, so discounting home value that's 40% stock, 30% bonds, 20% cash, 10% gold? Or do we reverse that, 40% gold, 30% cash, 20% bonds, 10% stock? Or average those two, 25% each in stocks, bonds, cash, gold?

Consulting PV for data since 1972 and each/any of those were in the same ballpark! (Around 4% real).

Seems like respective choices of somewhat ...

Wellseley
Fat Tail minimization
4x25 Permanent Portfolio

Similar'ish rewards, drawdowns, worst year declines, volatility.
AlphaLess
Posts: 3350
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 11:38 pm
Location: Kentucky

Re: WSJ: "This Should Have Been a Great Year for Gold. Here’s Why It Isn’t."

Post by AlphaLess »

seajay wrote: Mon Jan 09, 2023 1:25 pm
AlphaLess wrote: Mon Jan 09, 2023 1:12 pm People finally understanding that in year 2022 gold is not a great asset.
You'd have to sell 25% more stock index shares at the end of 2022 to buy the same amount of gold as at the start of 2022.
You might want to put down your narrow goggles, and get a source with a long history of data.
I don't carry a signature because people are easily offended.
User avatar
seajay
Posts: 1067
Joined: Sat May 01, 2021 3:26 pm

Re: WSJ: "This Should Have Been a Great Year for Gold. Here’s Why It Isn’t."

Post by seajay »

AlphaLess wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 11:28 pm
seajay wrote: Mon Jan 09, 2023 1:25 pm
AlphaLess wrote: Mon Jan 09, 2023 1:12 pm People finally understanding that in year 2022 gold is not a great asset.
You'd have to sell 25% more stock index shares at the end of 2022 to buy the same amount of gold as at the start of 2022.
You might want to put down your narrow goggles, and get a source with a long history of data.
On a 30 year final portfolio value outcome after SWR for all years since 1794 in 40% of years all-stock was bettered by stock/gold 50/50 (assuming when gold was money/coins the investor held bonds instead of gold coins, but when that ended in the early 1930's they opted to hold physical gold). In 40% of start years stock/gold bettered all-stock. In 20% of start years stock beat stock/gold by 2% annualized or more, however stocks tended to do well in start years following deep declines but those start dates clustered. Mostly all-stock investors outcome was little different in outcome to other choices. Such a infrequent great all-stock case outcome cluster occurred after the deep 1970's stock price declines, anyone lumping into stocks since the 1980's has been a fortunate participant of that. In the absence of more recent deep stock declines forward all-stock outcomes are inclined to be more mediocre, similar whether you hold all-stock or stock/gold or stock/bond blends. All stock however gives up the optionality of being able to transfer some/all of a less-down (or even up) asset into stocks if/when deep stock declines do occur. In the case of gold that can be a substantial benefit as the price of gold can spike sharply upwards when stock prices spike deeply downward. If 50 stock value halves, 50 gold value doubles, you have the option to sell gold and increase the number of stock shares you hold to five times as many shares being held, and if bought at relative lows those shares are subsequently inclined to yield potentially great rewards. In contrast a all-stock investor just rides the waves, compounds to no overall additional benefit.

Gold might be considered a Black-Swan/fire insurance hedge, when others may be crying a investor who held some gold might be indifferent or maybe even rejoicing. Over shorter periods holding some gold can be a drag factor, however in 30 year scale that 'insurance' cost is minimal, if any.

Whether you rebalance back to the likes of 50/50 yearly or simply leave as-is and direct withdrawals (or additions) to being taken from the most-up (added to the least-down) and 30 year outcomes were near-as the same. With non-rebalanced you just ended up with more in the asset that performed the best. You might say that the rebalance benefit of yearly rebalancing compares to having held more in the better performing asset. Win the lottery, drop a third into buying a nice house(s), a third into stocks, a third into gold, and just draw SWR from either stock or gold - whichever was the higher value at the time. No other rebalancing/effort required. Historically drawing 3% SWR from a initial stock/gold 50/50 allocation was inclined to end 30 years with your inflation adjusted wealth still intact, if not expanded, whilst during those 30 years there was the option to migrate gold into stocks if/when at any time stocks had declined a lot. Deep declines are more common across 30 year periods so most investors will likely have the potential to make such a transition at some point that can make a substantial difference to overall outcome, such as possibly holding five times more stock shares than held at the start and where the majority of those shares were bought at relative lows.
User avatar
firebirdparts
Posts: 3830
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:21 pm

Re: WSJ: "This Should Have Been a Great Year for Gold. Here’s Why It Isn’t."

Post by firebirdparts »

GRP wrote: Sun Jan 15, 2023 3:18 pm
firebirdparts wrote: Sat Jan 14, 2023 9:06 pm I am going to read the whole thing and see if it makes any sense to me. He claims in the intro that it will.
I'm slowly making my way through the book as well. It's absolutely first rate. Reading PDFs hurts my eyes though. I want to get a physical copy instead but it's weirdly expensive.
I am on vacation and had to send it to an iPad! He is very plain spoken and I have enjoyed it so far.
A fool and your money are soon partners
User avatar
seajay
Posts: 1067
Joined: Sat May 01, 2021 3:26 pm

Re: WSJ: "This Should Have Been a Great Year for Gold. Here’s Why It Isn’t."

Post by seajay »

firebirdparts wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 10:18 am
GRP wrote: Sun Jan 15, 2023 3:18 pm
firebirdparts wrote: Sat Jan 14, 2023 9:06 pm I am going to read the whole thing and see if it makes any sense to me. He claims in the intro that it will.
I'm slowly making my way through the book as well. It's absolutely first rate. Reading PDFs hurts my eyes though. I want to get a physical copy instead but it's weirdly expensive.
I am on vacation and had to send it to an iPad! He is very plain spoken and I have enjoyed it so far.
Executive Summary :

Policy makers play a balancing role, and periodically mess up.

"Gold" occurs over 200+ times throughout the document.
User avatar
GRP
Posts: 293
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2017 5:35 pm

Re: WSJ: "This Should Have Been a Great Year for Gold. Here’s Why It Isn’t."

Post by GRP »

firebirdparts wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 10:18 am
I am on vacation and had to send it to an iPad! He is very plain spoken and I have enjoyed it so far.
Right? Full agree there. I remember in an interview once, Ray Dalio described himself as a "mechanic" of the economy. That really comes through in his writing as he describes the economy as a big machine with these moving parts that have clear cause and effect relationships.
User avatar
firebirdparts
Posts: 3830
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:21 pm

Re: WSJ: "This Should Have Been a Great Year for Gold. Here’s Why It Isn’t."

Post by firebirdparts »

Getting back to the question of the algorithm, I don’t suppose it’s all that important to see the “minor” debt cycles coming. We had a “major” one 15 years ago, so if we are due for another one, it would say something loudly about our cluelessness. The last two important events were 80 years apart.
A fool and your money are soon partners
Post Reply