Buying Gold Sovereigns

DiggerUK

tommyboyd wrote: »

.......I am worried about a caveat in my own insurance that states it will not cover the theft of 'money'

Anyone here using content insurance for their sovereigns?

The term money is confusing here. I suspect it will be more generally described as cash, and further described as coins or notes. A gold sovereign is none of those, despite it being legal tender.
You pays your money and gets the cover you get. I can't remember what ours covers , but it is a limited amount for cash.

It is also usual to find that any single item, group of items, or a collection has an upper limit unless it is specified, and the amount reported. We have contents insurance with the gold coins specified, and their current value. (see previous post)..._

Zorillo

I'd be wary of a 'money' exclusion, and I'd dispute that a sovereign is anything other than a coin.

Specifying the sovereigns as separate items on a policy that does not exclude money or coins would be sensible.

tommyboyd

I dont think its sensible to specify individual items, unless they are specifically excluded by the general insurance cover. Its the insurance company that needs to correctly price the risk if offering universal 'content insurance'.

However you do need to check the excess on your cover; if ever claiming for the loss of coins, it would be incurred for each coin.

C_Mababejive

But why would you buy gold now as its so expensive?

Malthusian

C_Mababejive wrote: »

But why would you buy gold now as its so expensive?

Never hurt Bitcoin. If being expensive put people off buying gold, it wouldn't be expensive in the first place.

Buying gold (if you're not a jeweller) is always a decision based on irrationality. Either first-order irrationality ("the economy's going to crash and it's so shiny") or second-order irrationality ("when markets dive irrational people will buy gold so I'll buy some too to reduce volatility"). Either way rational arguments about the current gold price v historical averages do not apply.

C_Mababejive

Malthusian wrote: »

Never hurt Bitcoin. If being expensive put people off buying gold, it wouldn't be expensive in the first place.

Buying gold (if you're not a jeweller) is always a decision based on irrationality. Either first-order irrationality ("the economy's going to crash and it's so shiny") or second-order irrationality ("when markets dive irrational people will buy gold so I'll buy some too to reduce volatility"). Either way rational arguments about the current gold price v historical averages do not apply.

Well i always say that the stupidest question is one that isn't asked so i thought i'd ask. I'm far from being an expert investor and i just think the obvious that gold is now way too expensive to buy.

So in 1971 gold was about £17 an ounce.
Thats about £168 in todays money

Today the price of an ounce of gold is about £927

Also in all those 47 years it hasnt paid a single penny dividend.

Had i put my £17 in a savings account at 3% pa it would have made about £68 by now.

If i had some gold now, id sell it quickly before everyone else catches on ,sells and creates a crash.

But then what do i know? My maths might even be flakey.

Should i buy some when its £170 an ounce?

Just checking the vault, i have 100 American silver eagles i bought new in 2010 for £1996. The same amount would cost me £1860 today from the same supplier

antrobus

C_Mababejive wrote: »

...

Had i put my £17 in a savings account at 3% pa it would have made about £68 by now.
...

And if you'd put it in the FTSE All-Share?
https://www.jpmorgan.com/country/US/EN/maxrecovery/uk

Warren Buffett doesn't do gold for a reason.:)

C_Mababejive

Well i found an S&P 500 calculator showing a return of 2814% over that period so £17 =£495.

Of course the key is to have bought your gold in 1971 but knowing that would involve time travel.

Zorillo

I dont think its sensible to specify individual items, unless they are specifically excluded by the general insurance cover. Its the insurance company that needs to correctly price the risk if offering universal 'content insurance'.

However you do need to check the excess on your cover; if ever claiming for the loss of coins, it would be incurred for each coin.

I'm not sure you've understood how specified items, general exclusions, or excesses work.

You might be right that specifying sovereigns is unnecessary, but not for the reason you've stated. It would depend on the value of the sovereigns and any single article limits within the particular policy.

You're definitely wrong about the excess, which would be applied per incident, not per coin.

cinereus

Malthusian said:

C_Mababejive wrote: »

But why would you buy gold now as its so expensive?

Never hurt Bitcoin. If being expensive put people off buying gold, it wouldn't be expensive in the first place.

Buying gold (if you're not a jeweller) is always a decision based on irrationality. Either first-order irrationality ("the economy's going to crash and it's so shiny") or second-order irrationality ("when markets dive irrational people will buy gold so I'll buy some too to reduce volatility"). Either way rational arguments about the current gold price v historical averages do not apply.

Why is this irrational?