We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Better Buy Gold
Comments
-
The sad thing about the gold advocates is that they really don't get it. They believe gold is a hedge against inflation quoting the gold standard in the USA which disappeared nearly 50 years ago and even refer back to the situation 2500 years ago.
The simple fact is that gold is a commodity; it rises and falls just like other commodities and is volatile more so than the majority of shares. Those who hold physical gold are penalised further financially and then again in paying storage costs or additional insurance premiums or are they prepared to run the risk of getting it stolen?
There are a few articles around suggesting the value of gold will rise. Fine. That confirms gold is a commodity and rises and falls just like everything else. Gold may well indeed rise but so might the stockmarket. Equally gold and stocks might fall. So if people want to speculate on gold that's fine but to suggest gold is a hedge against inflation is very misguided.Take my advice at your peril.0 -
There are a few articles around suggesting the value of gold will rise. Fine. That confirms gold is a commodity and rises and falls just like everything else. Gold may well indeed rise but so might the stockmarket. Equally gold and stocks might fall. So if people want to speculate on gold that's fine but to suggest gold is a hedge against inflation is very misguided.
And suggesting it is in any way equivalent to a savings account is highly misleading as well as misguided.I brought a gold one ounce sovereign at the beginning of last month and the value of it has increased by over £100.
That's better than any savings account I could lay my hands on.
Rather than ramping shares the vast majority of posters here are very clear on their ability to fall as well as rise.Remember the saying: if it looks too good to be true it almost certainly is.0 -
Rather than ramping shares the vast majority of posters here are very clear on their ability to fall as well as rise.
In fact, many here (myself included) are happier when shares are cheap.I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
I brought a gold one ounce sovereign at the beginning of last month and the value of it has increased by over £100.
That's better than any savings account I could lay my hands on.
Going right back to the original post pop_gun clearly misunderstands how savings accounts work.
The price of the coin has increased, but he/she hasn't made a penny. Any increase or decrease will only be crystallised when the coin is sold. The value of the coin could go to a £1,000,000 but if it then falls back to the price that it was originally bought at and sold at that level then not a single penny has been made.
Which makes gold far worse than a savings account. The interest is paid in regularly without any further action.
So, pop_gun, do you know understand why holding gold (or any other commodity) does nothing until its sold? you could hold that shiny coin for the next 20 years and you won't make a penny of it.0 -
Going right back to the original post pop_gun clearly misunderstands how savings accounts work.
Or putting it another way..... pop_gun clearly misunderstands how savings, investments and gold works.I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0 -
Because with their next breath they spout BS like this:
What about people that bought gold when it was £1,151 per ounce in September 2011? They've "lost" 30% in less than 3 years.
What you are doing is displaying a confirmation bias (along with an unhealthy dose of conspiracy theory belief). In other words you are only seeing what supports your belief. Anything that contradicts your belief is either distorted such as this
or ignored such as this:
I find it amazing you can equate losing 30% of an investment to losing the whole amount. If anyone had brought gold in any prior year to 2011 they would've made money had they sold at or near the peak.
So to clarify, if someone had owned gold for the past 15 years, they wouldn't have suffered a lose of capital, but a lose of opportunity. When Jim Rickards' made his statement he was talking about a stock market trend of 30% losses. Loss on capital invested.
Got it?
I didn't ignore gadgetmind or JimJames. I addressed some of the points they raised in previous posts. Gadgetmind was shoring up JimJames' argument about a return of 70%, if you had brought the entire FTSE index and reinvested the dividends from it's highs in 1999. Even if we don't take into account the various brokerage fees or the tax on dividends, this percentage still pales into comparison with the 400% rise in the price of gold for the same period. If you add storage fees and capital gains tax (some coins are exempt) you'd still beat those stock market returns.
A conspiracy theory gains traction in the mind of the theorist, when the logic surrounding a set of facts leads one to conclude an intention, other than the one widely held to be true. It's disingenuous of you to label me a conspiracy theorist without challenging the logic behind the assumptions I make.
Confirmation bias? You know you've lost an argument when you're attacking the poster and not the argument he makes.0 -
Going right back to the original post pop_gun clearly misunderstands how savings accounts work.
The price of the coin has increased, but he/she hasn't made a penny. Any increase or decrease will only be crystallised when the coin is sold. The value of the coin could go to a £1,000,000 but if it then falls back to the price that it was originally bought at and sold at that level then not a single penny has been made.
Which makes gold far worse than a savings account. The interest is paid in regularly without any further action.
So, pop_gun, do you know understand why holding gold (or any other commodity) does nothing until its sold? you could hold that shiny coin for the next 20 years and you won't make a penny of it.
Money is losing value through inflation and near zero interest rates. If you look at the CPI numbers and ignore all the evidence around you (been shopping lately?), you would believe inflation is at 1% and you'd have nothing to worry about.
Savings sit in a bank account accruing next to nothing in interest, but it's value is eroded with each passing year.
We were discussing differing perceptions of the stock market. Here is mine (U.S. tale that could so easily apply to this side of the pond).
http://americablog.com/2014/10/gtat-stock-crash.htmlI’ve gotten into investing of late, by necessity. It’s a long story I’ve only touched on before, but I discovered this year that my dad’s broker did a real number on both dad’s and my IRAs. While everyone else’s retirement funds doubled in the last 4-5 years, ours dropped. (My balance went down even though I kept contributing money every year.)
Long story short, I learned a lot about investing, about the usury fees brokers charge you, and how even a 1% annual fee is enough to reduce your final balance at retirement by 28%.
And most of us are paying far more than 1% per year.
Not only are our brokers taking their fees — sometimes they’re annual fees, sometimes they take a percentage of each transaction (and that means buying and selling), and boy you should see how that adds up, dad’s last year alone took half of my entire IRA contribution as his fee — but they’re investing us in funds that also charge annual fees, and some even charge a fee as high as nearly 6% for the privilege of buying the fund.0 -
Is next a story of a child who went to a shop and spent all his pocket money on sweets, I don't see your point?
You don't understand, and have no desire to learn, no problem, lets all just leave you to polish your precious
Cheers, Des.0 -
Even if we don't take into account the various brokerage fees or the tax on dividends
Minimal for the first, zero (normally) for the second.this percentage still pales into comparison with the 400% rise in the price of gold for the same period.
Well, we did choose a period that was bad (terrible!) for equities and very good for gold. Over a range of normal investment periods, gold really doesn't look good at all and should be less than (ideally much less than) 25% of a balanced portfolio.
Does firecalc let you choose a percentage of gold in a portfolio? I must have a play.I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
I find it amazing you can equate losing 30% of an investment to losing the whole amount. If anyone had brought gold in any prior year to 2011 they would've made money had they sold at or near the peak.
So to clarify, if someone had owned gold for the past 15 years, they wouldn't have suffered a lose of capital, but a lose of opportunity. When Jim Rickards' made his statement he was talking about a stock market trend of 30% losses. Loss on capital invested.
Got it?
Amazingly, you still have missed the point. Your original assertion was this:I forget whether it's the DOW Jones or the FTSE that hasn't recovered it's 1999 highs. Which means long term investors have lost money.
You completely misinterpreted how it works and ignored the dividends that an investor would receive.racing_blue wrote: »I think you have missed the point JimJames was making.
If you
1) had bought all the shares in the FTSE100 on the index's very most expensive day in history in 1999
and
2) held on to them ever since, reinvesting all the dividends you were paid
and
3) done nothing else
then
4) *your investments would now be worth about 70% more than they were initially* - even though the index is lower than it was at the start
Ta-da
Got it?;)
And now you have moved the goalposts. Your original assertion was that:I didn't ignore gadgetmind or JimJames. I addressed some of the points they raised in previous posts. Gadgetmind was shoring up JimJames' argument about a return of 70%, if you had brought the entire FTSE index and reinvested the dividends from it's highs in 1999. Even if we don't take into account the various brokerage fees or the tax on dividends, this percentage still pales into comparison with the 400% rise in the price of gold for the same period. If you add storage fees and capital gains tax (some coins are exempt) you'd still beat those stock market returns.It seems everyone on this board is promoting stocks and shares and talking about portfolios.
I forget whether it's the DOW Jones or the FTSE that hasn't recovered it's 1999 highs. Which means long term investors have lost money.
From there you are now admitting that an investor would have gained money, not lost it but have moved the goalposts to say that gold would have returned a better return.A conspiracy theory gains traction in the mind of the theorist, when the logic surrounding a set of facts leads one to conclude an intention, other than the one widely held to be true. It's disingenuous of you to label me a conspiracy theorist without challenging the logic behind the assumptions I make.
Nope....you've got that one incorrect too (you're on a roll here). The vast majority of the conspiracy theorist that I have come across (and I see a LOT of them due to some other interests that I have) do not follow any sort of logic. They tend to quote-mine, distort recorded events, ignore the burden of proof and tell bare-faced lies in order to support their version. I could bore you to tears about this subject, but if you really are interested then looking up the actions of people like Mary Bennett, David Percy, Ralph Rene, Bart Sibrel Erich von Daniken and Jarrah White would be a good start.
Your logic has been challenged and has been shown to be incorrect. I don't see much acknowledgement of this by you. For example, do you still stand by this claim:I forget whether it's the DOW Jones or the FTSE that hasn't recovered it's 1999 highs. Which means long term investors have lost money.
:which has been shown to be incorrect?
I think that your arguments have been addressed and in the main, discredited.Confirmation bias? You know you've lost an argument when you're attacking the poster and not the argument he makes.
Hence the growth in passive investing- a long-term view, tracking the whole market and very low annual costs.Money is losing value through inflation and near zero interest rates. If you look at the CPI numbers and ignore all the evidence around you (been shopping lately?), you would believe inflation is at 1% and you'd have nothing to worry about.
Savings sit in a bank account accruing next to nothing in interest, but it's value is eroded with each passing year.
We were discussing differing perceptions of the stock market. Here is mine (U.S. tale that could so easily apply to this side of the pond).
http://americablog.com/2014/10/gtat-stock-crash.html0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards