Financial Industry think their clients are "muppets"?

MrMalkin

DiggerUK wrote: »

But it isn't even recommended to clients who want long term capital growth, or even capital protection. When it's history shows that it is ideally suited to such a risk profile.

It's historical reputation for never becoming worthless, and always maintaining buying power long term, should at least make it an ideal addition to anybodies long term retirement planning....but again silence.

Well that's just wrong, because gold has no long-term capital growth - it keeps up with inflation and that's about it. If you want long-term capital growth in real terms you have to look to a portfolio of stocks.

Long-term gold is a terrible investment, because like I said over the long term it won't earn you enough to meet your investment goals.

darkpool

dunstonh wrote: »

That is almost correct. My own portfolio has averaged over 12% a year. However, that is not what you requested.

any tips? how have you managed to do it?

Neverland

MrMalkin wrote: »

Well that's just wrong, because gold has no long-term capital growth - it keeps up with inflation and that's about it. If you want long-term capital growth in real terms you have to look to a portfolio of stocks.

Long-term gold is a terrible investment, because like I said over the long term it won't earn you enough to meet your investment goals.

I disagree gold can be a very good investment when people are fearful for the integrity of paper money systems

In the last decade gold has gone from $250 an ounce to $1600 (the last time i looked) after having a couple of crappy decades before that

Conversely stocks have been a rubbish investment over the last decade (which isn't unusual in an historical context)

I don't think investors in the greek or icelandic stock markets would agree with you either

Long term the only certainty is that we will all be dead eventually

jem16

Neverland wrote: »

Oh dear another poster who can't "do" maths

The real choice you are presenting here is between actively managed unit trusts selected by an IFA and self-investment in index trackers (my choice) and individual shares/bonds (darkpools choice)

Oh dear! Another poster who mixes up a style of investing with the cost of advice.

MrMalkin

Neverland wrote: »

I disagree gold can be a very good investment when people are fearful for the integrity of paper money systems

In the last decade gold has gone from $250 an ounce to $1600 (the last time i looked) after having a couple of crappy decades before that

Conversely stocks have been a rubbish investment over the last decade (which isn't unusual in an historical context)

See this is stupid, because you disagree that gold makes a bad long-term investment...and then point to short-term returns as 'evidence' of this.

Over the last 30 years, as came to light recently, bonds have actually had the highest returns (for the first 30-year period ever, IIRC), followed by stocks. Gold was nowhere, and would be even more so without the last 10 years.

My point is, that whatever anyone's opinions about IFAs (and for the record I think they've been taking a lot of unwarranted flak lately), pointing to them not recommending gold as some sort of issue is just stupid.

Neverland

jem16 wrote: »

Oh dear! Another poster who mixes up a style of investing with the cost of advice.

Every style has a different COST...

..the site is called MONEY SAVING EXPERT...

..the clue is in the name..

Neverland

MrMalkin wrote: »

..

My point is, that whatever anyone's opinions about IFAs (and for the record I think they've been taking a lot of unwarranted flak lately), pointing to them not recommending gold as some sort of issue is just stupid.

The point that IFAs were not recommending gold when the UK, the USA and now Japan and the EU were publicly embarking on massive money printing exercises on a scale unprecented in recent times is quite valid actually

jem16

Neverland wrote: »

Every style has a different COST...

If you use the same style the only difference in cost will be the advice cost.

..the site is called MONEY SAVING EXPERT...

..the clue is in the name..

There are many occasions when the cost of a professional can far outweigh the costs of getting it wrong by DIYing.

MrMalkin

Neverland wrote: »

The point that IFAs were not recommending gold when the UK, the USA and now Japan and the EU were publicly embarking on massive money printing exercises on a scale unprecented in recent times is quite valid actually

Well that's still wrong because a) the money printing didn't start until the last few years, long after gold started it's run-up - so investors would have missed a big part of the rally using this strategy b) gold is poorly correlated with inflation anyway - gold has had 30% years recently but inflation has barely passed 5% and c) there are far better and more appropriate inflation hedges than gold anyway, such as index-linked bonds and proven blue chip stocks.

DiggerUK

MrMalkin wrote: »

......gold has no long-term capital growth - it keeps up with inflation and that's about it......for capital growth in real terms you have to look to a portfolio of stocks.
Long-term gold is a terrible investment, because like I said over the long term it won't earn you enough to meet your investment goals.

No long term capital growth?? but it keeps up with inflation??
Portfolio of stocks?? aka Woolworth's! MFI! Bradford and Bingley! or based on a FTSE still not at it's 1990's highs ?

Long term investment goals are wisest done on the basis of protecting what you have saved, with a bit on top as a bonus. Gold does that. The gambling mentality that is encouraged by the finance industry never points out that the 'house' aka the masters of the universe, always wins.

But at least you answer my question, the lurkers should take note of that.
..._