- This topic has 120 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 16 years ago by
scaredyclassic.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 19, 2008 at 3:38 AM #272839September 19, 2008 at 9:40 AM #272673
34f3f3f
ParticipantMy post was more hypothetical, and pointing to security of assets rather than short term profits to be had from current gold speculation. I do know Rich and am aware of his views, and have myself been well invested in gold for some time. However, for those seeking a little more stability and security, bricks and mortar, even if still on a depreciating curve, has one fundamental benefit over everything else, you can live in it. I don’t think the time has been reached yet for many of us, but is got pretty close to at least considering it over the last few days, driven less my prices and more by financial anarchy.
September 19, 2008 at 9:40 AM #27291534f3f3f
ParticipantMy post was more hypothetical, and pointing to security of assets rather than short term profits to be had from current gold speculation. I do know Rich and am aware of his views, and have myself been well invested in gold for some time. However, for those seeking a little more stability and security, bricks and mortar, even if still on a depreciating curve, has one fundamental benefit over everything else, you can live in it. I don’t think the time has been reached yet for many of us, but is got pretty close to at least considering it over the last few days, driven less my prices and more by financial anarchy.
September 19, 2008 at 9:40 AM #27292134f3f3f
ParticipantMy post was more hypothetical, and pointing to security of assets rather than short term profits to be had from current gold speculation. I do know Rich and am aware of his views, and have myself been well invested in gold for some time. However, for those seeking a little more stability and security, bricks and mortar, even if still on a depreciating curve, has one fundamental benefit over everything else, you can live in it. I don’t think the time has been reached yet for many of us, but is got pretty close to at least considering it over the last few days, driven less my prices and more by financial anarchy.
September 19, 2008 at 9:40 AM #27296434f3f3f
ParticipantMy post was more hypothetical, and pointing to security of assets rather than short term profits to be had from current gold speculation. I do know Rich and am aware of his views, and have myself been well invested in gold for some time. However, for those seeking a little more stability and security, bricks and mortar, even if still on a depreciating curve, has one fundamental benefit over everything else, you can live in it. I don’t think the time has been reached yet for many of us, but is got pretty close to at least considering it over the last few days, driven less my prices and more by financial anarchy.
September 19, 2008 at 9:40 AM #27298834f3f3f
ParticipantMy post was more hypothetical, and pointing to security of assets rather than short term profits to be had from current gold speculation. I do know Rich and am aware of his views, and have myself been well invested in gold for some time. However, for those seeking a little more stability and security, bricks and mortar, even if still on a depreciating curve, has one fundamental benefit over everything else, you can live in it. I don’t think the time has been reached yet for many of us, but is got pretty close to at least considering it over the last few days, driven less my prices and more by financial anarchy.
September 19, 2008 at 9:53 AM #272678peterb
ParticipantI read Rich’s analysis as the why gold is not in a bubble. And I would agree based on fundemental analysis rather than chart analysis. If you looked at house price charts, they dont look too different from gold from 2001 to 2006.
From a fundemental aspect, it’s difficult to value gold, but I think that the cost of extraction/production is a fair place to start. The break-even for gold is $500 to $600. So anything above this is a premium for what someone would consider it’s future value or hedge against currency devaluation/weakness/instability.
So, by my way of thinking(suspect at best)if gold is selling for say $900/ounce, then there’s a $300 premium for it. So you’re kind of betting that the currency or US$ has got some devaluing to do in the future. Hopefully sooner than later.
One caveat about this analysis is that if energy prices decrease, the cost of gold extraction will decrease as well since extraction is energy intensive.
At any rate, the cost of production indicates to me that gold is not in a bubble. However, If oil prices continue to decrease and the US$ gains stregnth, the premium for gold should decrease as a result. But, how long can these two factors contunue?!In this evironment, being liquid has a lot of appeal to me as opportunities are coming and houses are still decreasing in price. You can always rent. Why buy a house and hang-up your money in a devaluing, illiquid asset?
September 19, 2008 at 9:53 AM #272920peterb
ParticipantI read Rich’s analysis as the why gold is not in a bubble. And I would agree based on fundemental analysis rather than chart analysis. If you looked at house price charts, they dont look too different from gold from 2001 to 2006.
From a fundemental aspect, it’s difficult to value gold, but I think that the cost of extraction/production is a fair place to start. The break-even for gold is $500 to $600. So anything above this is a premium for what someone would consider it’s future value or hedge against currency devaluation/weakness/instability.
So, by my way of thinking(suspect at best)if gold is selling for say $900/ounce, then there’s a $300 premium for it. So you’re kind of betting that the currency or US$ has got some devaluing to do in the future. Hopefully sooner than later.
One caveat about this analysis is that if energy prices decrease, the cost of gold extraction will decrease as well since extraction is energy intensive.
At any rate, the cost of production indicates to me that gold is not in a bubble. However, If oil prices continue to decrease and the US$ gains stregnth, the premium for gold should decrease as a result. But, how long can these two factors contunue?!In this evironment, being liquid has a lot of appeal to me as opportunities are coming and houses are still decreasing in price. You can always rent. Why buy a house and hang-up your money in a devaluing, illiquid asset?
September 19, 2008 at 9:53 AM #272926peterb
ParticipantI read Rich’s analysis as the why gold is not in a bubble. And I would agree based on fundemental analysis rather than chart analysis. If you looked at house price charts, they dont look too different from gold from 2001 to 2006.
From a fundemental aspect, it’s difficult to value gold, but I think that the cost of extraction/production is a fair place to start. The break-even for gold is $500 to $600. So anything above this is a premium for what someone would consider it’s future value or hedge against currency devaluation/weakness/instability.
So, by my way of thinking(suspect at best)if gold is selling for say $900/ounce, then there’s a $300 premium for it. So you’re kind of betting that the currency or US$ has got some devaluing to do in the future. Hopefully sooner than later.
One caveat about this analysis is that if energy prices decrease, the cost of gold extraction will decrease as well since extraction is energy intensive.
At any rate, the cost of production indicates to me that gold is not in a bubble. However, If oil prices continue to decrease and the US$ gains stregnth, the premium for gold should decrease as a result. But, how long can these two factors contunue?!In this evironment, being liquid has a lot of appeal to me as opportunities are coming and houses are still decreasing in price. You can always rent. Why buy a house and hang-up your money in a devaluing, illiquid asset?
September 19, 2008 at 9:53 AM #272969peterb
ParticipantI read Rich’s analysis as the why gold is not in a bubble. And I would agree based on fundemental analysis rather than chart analysis. If you looked at house price charts, they dont look too different from gold from 2001 to 2006.
From a fundemental aspect, it’s difficult to value gold, but I think that the cost of extraction/production is a fair place to start. The break-even for gold is $500 to $600. So anything above this is a premium for what someone would consider it’s future value or hedge against currency devaluation/weakness/instability.
So, by my way of thinking(suspect at best)if gold is selling for say $900/ounce, then there’s a $300 premium for it. So you’re kind of betting that the currency or US$ has got some devaluing to do in the future. Hopefully sooner than later.
One caveat about this analysis is that if energy prices decrease, the cost of gold extraction will decrease as well since extraction is energy intensive.
At any rate, the cost of production indicates to me that gold is not in a bubble. However, If oil prices continue to decrease and the US$ gains stregnth, the premium for gold should decrease as a result. But, how long can these two factors contunue?!In this evironment, being liquid has a lot of appeal to me as opportunities are coming and houses are still decreasing in price. You can always rent. Why buy a house and hang-up your money in a devaluing, illiquid asset?
September 19, 2008 at 9:53 AM #272993peterb
ParticipantI read Rich’s analysis as the why gold is not in a bubble. And I would agree based on fundemental analysis rather than chart analysis. If you looked at house price charts, they dont look too different from gold from 2001 to 2006.
From a fundemental aspect, it’s difficult to value gold, but I think that the cost of extraction/production is a fair place to start. The break-even for gold is $500 to $600. So anything above this is a premium for what someone would consider it’s future value or hedge against currency devaluation/weakness/instability.
So, by my way of thinking(suspect at best)if gold is selling for say $900/ounce, then there’s a $300 premium for it. So you’re kind of betting that the currency or US$ has got some devaluing to do in the future. Hopefully sooner than later.
One caveat about this analysis is that if energy prices decrease, the cost of gold extraction will decrease as well since extraction is energy intensive.
At any rate, the cost of production indicates to me that gold is not in a bubble. However, If oil prices continue to decrease and the US$ gains stregnth, the premium for gold should decrease as a result. But, how long can these two factors contunue?!In this evironment, being liquid has a lot of appeal to me as opportunities are coming and houses are still decreasing in price. You can always rent. Why buy a house and hang-up your money in a devaluing, illiquid asset?
September 19, 2008 at 1:46 PM #272857cr
ParticipantToday was a forced rally.
To me it just shows how many traders really expected this decline to continue.
So the shorts are covered, now what? These banks are suddenly profitable again?
Yeah right.
Fleckenstein (the mullet) ripped the shorting ban last night with a great line in response to the claim that shorting artificially drove prices down, and said that if the prices are artifically low, then where are the buyers?
Look at the stocks that aren’t up today, and I think it’s telling of what’s really happening. This quasi-government induced rally is only designed to pad the holdings the Government just bought with more of our borrowed money.
It will end and stocks will plummet back to where they need to be.
September 19, 2008 at 1:46 PM #273102cr
ParticipantToday was a forced rally.
To me it just shows how many traders really expected this decline to continue.
So the shorts are covered, now what? These banks are suddenly profitable again?
Yeah right.
Fleckenstein (the mullet) ripped the shorting ban last night with a great line in response to the claim that shorting artificially drove prices down, and said that if the prices are artifically low, then where are the buyers?
Look at the stocks that aren’t up today, and I think it’s telling of what’s really happening. This quasi-government induced rally is only designed to pad the holdings the Government just bought with more of our borrowed money.
It will end and stocks will plummet back to where they need to be.
September 19, 2008 at 1:46 PM #273106cr
ParticipantToday was a forced rally.
To me it just shows how many traders really expected this decline to continue.
So the shorts are covered, now what? These banks are suddenly profitable again?
Yeah right.
Fleckenstein (the mullet) ripped the shorting ban last night with a great line in response to the claim that shorting artificially drove prices down, and said that if the prices are artifically low, then where are the buyers?
Look at the stocks that aren’t up today, and I think it’s telling of what’s really happening. This quasi-government induced rally is only designed to pad the holdings the Government just bought with more of our borrowed money.
It will end and stocks will plummet back to where they need to be.
September 19, 2008 at 1:46 PM #273149cr
ParticipantToday was a forced rally.
To me it just shows how many traders really expected this decline to continue.
So the shorts are covered, now what? These banks are suddenly profitable again?
Yeah right.
Fleckenstein (the mullet) ripped the shorting ban last night with a great line in response to the claim that shorting artificially drove prices down, and said that if the prices are artifically low, then where are the buyers?
Look at the stocks that aren’t up today, and I think it’s telling of what’s really happening. This quasi-government induced rally is only designed to pad the holdings the Government just bought with more of our borrowed money.
It will end and stocks will plummet back to where they need to be.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
