Invest in gold or something else ?

atush

bigadaj wrote: »

Yes that's my point, I was concerned it appear credible to inexperienced investors, particularly as it received some thanks and wasn't critiqued.

Yes we should have critiqued, but i know from my experience trying to reason with gold or bit coin rampers is pointless.

I will tell you, in light of the above highs and lows- my mother bouth gold in the 80's,and died in 2001. When as executor i was forced to sell it at a low.

Despite this, I did buy some myself when it was trading around $600 ish. And sold half when it went up past $1300. Not looking to buy more at these prices for sure.

atush

grey_gym_sock wrote: »

the term "fake news" is now being used (and not just by digger) to mean "anything i disagree with".


read the labels more carefully. the graph - http://www.macrotrends.net/1333/historical-gold-prices-100-year-chart - is the inflation-adjusted gold price.

i guess that's not a graph you spend much time looking at, or you might realize that there's no overall uptrend in the gold price after you allow for inflation. for instance, the recent peak price in 2011 was lower than the previous peak in 1980. OTOH, the recent low in 2001 was higher than the previous low in 1970.

I think Digger is confusing Fake News with Alternative facts

atush

DiggerUK wrote: »

gymsock, history shows that equities go bad on a regular basis, and the opposite for gold.

Stop loss, yes. Had some moments in 2015 when it was heading for £700. For an asset to suffer a 40% dive from its high in September 2011, and survive, says more than enough. That was a stress test that gold and Digger Mansions survived well.

If you go to the Over 50's forum you will find a long running thread about living life as a 'SKIER'.......spend kids inheritance enjoying retirement. Sod our heirs and successors they've had plenty off us, we're dying skint..._

I hope you arent a parent. If you are, you are pretty poor example of one.

Sure, I will prioritize our happiness and spending over leaving it all to the sprogs, but I do hope to leave them something. And I am sure I will.

shaun_from_Africa

atush wrote: »

I hope you arent a parent. If you are, you are pretty poor example of one.

Sure, I will prioritize our happiness and spending over leaving it all to the sprogs, but I do hope to leave them something. And I am sure I will.

Why do you think that DiggerUK would be a poor parent?
It's certainly not obligatory to leave a nice inheritance for your kids especially if they have already reached a reasonable age and have a good income themselves when you finally pop your clogs and a great many people have done very well in life without anything being bequeathed to them.

One of my friends who is now retired decided long ago that he would leave as much as possible to his daughter.
This daughter is now 30+, has never kept a job for more than a couple of months and spends most of the year travelling with friends whilst claiming every benefit she can get her hands on.
As far as she is concerned, she would be a mug to work as she knows that there is a nice big lump sum and a house coming her way in the future.

Eco_Miser

atush wrote: »

Sure, I will prioritize our happiness and spending over leaving it all to the sprogs, but I do hope to leave them something. And I am sure I will.

When my father finally shuffled off this mortal coil, he left £14 in the bank, with a month's care home fees and his funeral to pay for (and some pension due).

Since I was already over 60 and retired by then, a big bequest wouldn't have been exactly life-changing anyway. The lifetime gifts were much more useful.

grey_gym_sock

DiggerUK wrote: »

gymsock, history shows that equities go bad on a regular basis, and the opposite for gold.

that's simply untrue. both gold and equities have their ups and downs, but after taking the good with the bad, equities tend to double the real value of your capital after every couple of decades. gold tends to do nothing.

Stop loss, yes. Had some moments in 2015 when it was heading for £700. For an asset to suffer a 40% dive from its high in September 2011, and survive, says more than enough. That was a stress test that gold and Digger Mansions survived well.

a stress test is supposed to be the worst plausible scenario. gold fell about 80% from its 1980 peak, over the next 20 years. it's plausible that it is on the way to doing the same thing, from the 2011 peak. there are always some shorter-term price rises in the middle of the general fall.

If you go to the Over 50's forum you will find a long running thread about living life as a 'SKIER'.......spend kids inheritance enjoying retirement. Sod our heirs and successors they've had plenty off us, we're dying skint..._

well, providing you'll really sell at a stop loss, at a level which will give you enough cash to do the things you want to do, you'll be ok. though it's an inefficient way to achieve your objectives. it would make more sense to hold cash for any money you'll be spending soon. and it might eventually make sense to use some capital to buy an annuity, if you really want to die skint.

Malthusian

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Why do you think that DiggerUK would be a poor parent?
It's certainly not obligatory to leave a nice inheritance for your kids especially if they have already reached a reasonable age and have a good income themselves when you finally pop your clogs and a great many people have done very well in life without anything being bequeathed to them.

And if Digger was planning on spending his wealth rather than leaving it to his kids then I doubt anyone would have any problem.

However, Digger is not spending his wealth - he is destroying it by buying shiny metal with it which will deliver negative real growth in the long term (unless he is lucky). He says he wants to spend it as well, but his ability to spend it will depend on whether he can trade his gold for enough cash at that particular moment in time. And as GGS points out, if he wanted to maximise his spending money at the expense of his inheritance, an annuity would make more sense.

Not leaving money to your children because you want to spend it is a perfectly rational choice, not leaving money so you can sacrifice it to the Incan god of shininess is silly and you can expect people to laugh at you.

atush

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Why do you think that DiggerUK would be a poor parent?
It's certainly not obligatory to leave a nice inheritance for your kids especially if they have already reached a reasonable age and have a good income themselves when you finally pop your clogs and a great many people have done very well in life without anything being bequeathed to them.

One of my friends who is now retired decided long ago that he would leave as much as possible to his daughter.
This daughter is now 30+, has never kept a job for more than a couple of months and spends most of the year travelling with friends whilst claiming every benefit she can get her hands on.
As far as she is concerned, she would be a mug to work as she knows that there is a nice big lump sum and a house coming her way in the future.

I said that becuase he expoused spending all your money and leaving kids with nothing. I didnt go to all the bother of having 3 and raising them, and paying their way thru uni to then abandon them completely- I actually love mine.

But there is a huge difference with wanting to help your children and future grandchildren and spoiling a child so badly and giving them too much so that they feel they dont have to 'bother' to work.

My 3 are all debt free, and all have good graduate jobs (with pensions lol) so are working for what they want and need. And any who are working and choose to live at home to save are all charged rent.

You need to actually teach your children while you are feeding/clothing and housing them. Otherwise they might turn out like the f**kless one above?