Which do you think will be better over next 2 years ?

Aegis

TRUSt_NO_1 wrote: »

The laws of probabilty define risk.
I understand the laws of probability.

Clearly not. If we were to analyse the two possible strategies and to attempt to determine the relative probabilities using a simple calculation of the sort:

P(loss) = N(losses)/sample size

The we'd be looking at a finite number of people who lost money in commodities with probably a comparatively small sample size vs a negligible number of losses in a sample size of damn near everyone in the country (few people don't use bank accounts of some description), and we would therefore see a much higher probability of loss in commodity investments than in banks.

Hardly the most rigorous statistical analysis, I agree, but it's certainly better than anything else we have available to calculate these probabilities with. Or did you have something better that you haven't shown us yet?

Put another way, when was the last time anyone in the UK lost money due to a retail bank going bust?

Some events are more likely to occur than others.Looking back at history,as that often gives the best clues to probable outcome,is a good start.

Like I said, how many people have lost money due to a retail bank going bust in, say, the last 50 years? Proportionally a lot fewer than those who have lost money through bad investment strategies, I would imagine.

Right now I would go with a single commodity (even though I'm in both gold and silver,via several mining companies..to spread risk ! ) as opposed to another single avenue of investment..the financial sector.

People aren't investing in banks when they deposit their money. They are using an extremely low risk savings product which in normal operation does not lose capital value and offers a known rate of interest. In the extremely unlikely event of a bank being allowed to totally fail, the government would undoubtedly force a takeover or even nationalise the bank rather than lose savers' money. In short, the chances of anyone's savings disappearing are much slimmer than the chances of losing money by playing the commodities game badly!

Even a diverse investment portfolio via a bank could leave you stranded financially (please do not quote financial insurance).

Not very likely.

nicko33

TRUSt_NO_1 wrote: »

Right now I'm invested in gold/silver stocks,hoping to make enough to pull out and sit out the coming storm.

"pull out" into what?

purch

Any associated (bank dependant) institutions will do likewise.

...........last time I checked, that was the entire economy !!!

I hope your Silver and Gold is edible :rotfl:

epsilondraconis

TRUSt_NO_1 wrote: »

...
Right now I would go with a single commodity (even though I'm in both gold and silver,via several mining companies..to spread risk ! ) as opposed to another single avenue of investment..the financial sector.

I don't understand this thread. The OP asks whether he should invest in a fixed rate savings account or silver.

The OP then indicates that he believes financial institutions are risky ("As far as "giving" any money to a bank...no thanks"), he understands probability / risk, he has already invested in silver and gold stocks, and he feels happy investing more money in silver. So why are you asking the question about whether you should invest?

"Just wanted to post about silver and get a response,as most of my silver posts are removed."

Oh okay. So a worthwhile thread then.

I trust you don't allow anyone to trace where you live as a result of your internet access and posts. You may find your silver stash quickly disappears.

Good luck anyway.

LongTermLurker

epsilondraconis wrote: »

I don't understand this thread. The OP asks whether he should invest in a fixed rate savings account or silver.

It's clearly a troll, but it makes amusing reading for a minute or two.

tradetime

I don't understand this thread. The OP asks whether he should invest in a fixed rate savings account or silver.

That's because the OP is barking, he jumps from one scrap of an idea which he doesn't fully understand, to the next.
It's a bit like those who love to quote that line from the bible about an "eye for an eye" and then run around preaching vengence all over the shop because "it says so in the bible"
It's a shallow fanatical viewpoint, taking abstract statements and concepts out of context and the preaching them like they're gospel. As you can see when they get strung together in the same area they contradict each other. I concluded from reading a few other posts that the OP is probably a teenager fed on a diet of the Daily Sport.