Now this is the response I expected from the PP.
Am I wrong to expect this reaction in GLD and TLT with equities down > 1000 DOW points in the last 2 days?
Could have saved me a lot of heartache kicking in a little sooner, but better later than never.
buddtholomew wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:37 pm
Now this is the response I expected from the PP.
Am I wrong to expect this reaction in GLD and TLT with equities down > 1000 DOW points in the last 2 days?
Could have saved me a lot of heartache kicking in a little sooner, but better later than never.
Budd,
I'm very disappointed in you. With LTTs up 1.20% and Gold up 2.76% as of this typing, I was anticipating a joyous Buddburst.
buddtholomew wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:37 pm
Now this is the response I expected from the PP.
Now?... Do LTT and Gold always respond NOW? Sometimes it takes days, weeks or even months.
"Now" in this case doesn't meant instantaneous.
Be patient, my friend :-)
buddtholomew wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:37 pm
Now this is the response I expected from the PP.
Now?... Do LTT and Gold always respond NOW? Sometimes it takes days, weeks or even months.
"Now" in this case doesn't meant instantaneous.
Be patient, my friend :-)
I think that's an important point to remember. We should never expect a tit-for-tat "balancing" on a daily basis. And in fact, long bonds were dropping for a few days before this upswing. We need a sustained if delayed balancing.
9pm EST Explosions in Iran (Isfahan) and Syria and Iraq. Not yet confirmed.
buddtholomew wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 4:30 pm
I see further declines in stocks as an 800 point drop in the DOW will panic most investors to sell.
I agree. Anything could happen, but I feel tomorrow will see another slaughter or else a partial recovery, leading the semi-panicked to say ok, I recouped some of Wednesday’s losses and to sell by 3:00pm EST, i.e. an afternoon slaughter.
Always folks who need to chime in and say "gold is dumb" w/out providing explanations
Gold is a tough sell over there. An impossible sell.
I've tried to wake them up a couple of times by pointing out that Berkshire Hathaway also doesn't pay interest or dividends, so that "isn't an investment" either according to their very limited understand of investing.
Of course all I get back is spluttering about the value of the portfolio Berkshire Hathaway holds, even though in fact the shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway have no claim on that portfolio. The only way they can make money is by selling their shares to someone else who also has no claim on the underlying assets.
How exactly is that different from owning gold? Other than that with gold, you actually DO have the underlying asset.
The BH folks have some good reasons for their scepticsm. Ultimately we hope gold remains a good store of value and uncorrelated to equities. If it doesn’t, it’s economically a very stupid thing to invest in.
Ad Orientem wrote: ↑Sun Oct 14, 2018 12:12 pm
IMO the only really serious threat to gold as a store of value would be if someone figures out how to make it in a way that is economical.
Correct, but that would imply cheap transmutation, which would probably have numerous other effects that are hard to predict or hedge against.
I get synthetic diamonds but since Au is an element, wouldn’t creating it be akin to synthesizing Carbon? I agree with Tech. When they do that, they might be able to satisfy our material desires anyway.
I do wonder if SpaceX will find a massive amount of gold on an asteroid, but I’m willing to take that risk. Most of my money is safely stashed in Sears Holdings stock.
9pm EST Explosions in Iran (Isfahan) and Syria and Iraq. Not yet confirmed.
Kbg wrote: ↑Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:54 am
The BH folks have some good reasons for their scepticsm. Ultimately we hope gold remains a good store of value and uncorrelated to equities. If it doesn’t, it’s economically a very stupid thing to invest in.
And if the US stock market ceases to be an outlier in the world of investing, having 50% or more of your assets in that market may turn out to be a very stupid thing to invest in.
Yet they don't seem to realize that could happen.
Which is more likely:
1. That an asset that has had great value for thousands of years loses most or all of its value, or
2. That an asset with less than 100 years of track record loses most or all of its value?
Kbg wrote: ↑Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:54 am
The BH folks have some good reasons for their scepticsm. Ultimately we hope gold remains a good store of value and uncorrelated to equities. If it doesn’t, it’s economically a very stupid thing to invest in.
And if the US stock market ceases to be an outlier in the world of investing, having 50% or more of your assets in that market may turn out to be a very stupid thing to invest in.
Yet they don't seem to realize that could happen.
Which is more likely:
1. That an asset that has had great value for thousands of years loses most or all of its value, or
2. That an asset with less than 100 years of track record loses most or all of its value?
I know which of those seems more likely to me...
I think none of us know...in the store of value realm you have to consider crypto-currencies as a potential threat to gold. Clearly with all the hacking thefts, this isn't happening anytime soon. Stocks as an asset class have around 400 years of history and they completely trash any other asset for returns. This board seems to forget gold was worth whatever the US government said it was worth on Apr 5 1933 after which point it was a completely useless yellow metal so far as its purchasing power was concerned.