I am tempted to start investing in gold, silver, platinum. More silver and platinum right now as gold is just bloated at the moment... but it's easier to track and fairly stable on the long term investment.
That and I'd feel better about having sticks / bars of precious metals in a safe than I would with my assets tied to banks and the us dollar.
Thoughts?
That and I'd feel better about having sticks / bars of precious metals in a safe than I would with my assets tied to banks and the us dollar.
Thoughts?
Sounds like a good idea. If you've got the guns to protect it. :)
this sounds like something from a bad ron paul book or a rush limbaugh radio ad
Seriously it does. Can you even buy a bar of platinum? Most gold that I've seen is sort of like e-gold where you get a cert that certifies you own a piece of gold.
i'm sure you can buy a bar of it
if you do buy bars you should make some custom platinum stamps.
kitco.com sells gold, silver, and platinum from respected mints at a pretty good rate. There's also some local shops / dealers in NYC, but my guess is unless you are related directly to them you are gonna get screwed.
There's reasons not to custom stamp your stuff... you want the registration serials from the distributor of the bar you got visible.
There's reasons not to custom stamp your stuff... you want the registration serials from the distributor of the bar you got visible.
I mean technically trading in precious metals is a form of commodities trading, it's not that different from trading on the market, except that your investment is tied to physical assets.
Actually on the commodities market you can pick up anything you buy from one of two warehouses in the US. SO if you decide to buy 50 gallons of oil you can show up with a truck and request your 50 gallons of oil.
my biggest issue with investing in precious metals is that there is no yield, no coupons or dividends.. you're just making a bet on prices into the future, with zero fundamentals. fine if you think you can play economic indicators better than the market, i guess.
it's not a gamble unless you are trying to trade on the volatility of the market... but it is a generally safe long term asset, unlike say... currency.
are you better off investing in "safe" stocks? maybe... probably in fact... but there's less risk IMHO.
are you better off investing in "safe" stocks? maybe... probably in fact... but there's less risk IMHO.
i think currencies can be as safe as commodities.
commodities are volatile from the supply side and the demand side. i think currencies are mostly just volatile from the supply side.
commodities are volatile from the supply side and the demand side. i think currencies are mostly just volatile from the supply side.
safe stocks? no way. equity product is insanely risky. if you are that risk-averse, in the long term, debt products are so much safer! see http://omploader.org/vMnFhNg - $10,000 in a canadian bond portfolio vs. $10,000 in a canadian equity index. obviously stocks outperform bonds in certain periods, but the riskiness of residual ownership means massive losses can occur rather easily
i think gold will hold its value in the long term, but in the short term, you are exposed to a lot of random macroeconomic stuff that is difficult to predict. i can see it is part of an overall portfolio, but not as the central part.
i agree with you larz. also note the volatility/market dynamics of industrial commodities (copper, etc.)are a lot different than those of precious metals, probably for the exact reason you specify..
i think gold will hold its value in the long term, but in the short term, you are exposed to a lot of random macroeconomic stuff that is difficult to predict. i can see it is part of an overall portfolio, but not as the central part.
i agree with you larz. also note the volatility/market dynamics of industrial commodities (copper, etc.)are a lot different than those of precious metals, probably for the exact reason you specify..
in short term precious metals is considered a volatile market... but long term gold pretty much stays around where it should be.... always has. Thus the crazy folks screaming for a return to the gold standard.
currency is also considered a volatile market. It fluctuates pretty massively... and inflation is a constant threat to currency in the long term on any market.
I wouldn't invest in a debt portfolio if a gun was put to my head... it's the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. And just plain immoral IMHO.
currency is also considered a volatile market. It fluctuates pretty massively... and inflation is a constant threat to currency in the long term on any market.
I wouldn't invest in a debt portfolio if a gun was put to my head... it's the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. And just plain immoral IMHO.
i suppose then the issue with gold is whether you are buying it above or below the mean value, relative to a basket of goods. you bring up the fact that you'll never "beat the market" by just holding gold, unless you're some sort of perma-bear perpetually waiting for the coming devaluation in everything that is paper (everything).
curious to hear your opinion on debt - works well for many pros, and given the evidence of riskiness in equity (even in the long term), that's where i'll be putting at least 50% of my funds when i'm out in the world.
curious to hear your opinion on debt - works well for many pros, and given the evidence of riskiness in equity (even in the long term), that's where i'll be putting at least 50% of my funds when i'm out in the world.
a gold standard is so stupid. all the government needs to do is never alter the money supply or increase the money supply by a constant rate.
nestor didn't work well for lehman...
Also I just don't agree with this crazy debt based economy we have. It's eventually going to grow unmanageable and severely impact our economy ( some would say it already has ).
Also I just don't agree with this crazy debt based economy we have. It's eventually going to grow unmanageable and severely impact our economy ( some would say it already has ).
there is a difference between the national deficit and the trade deficit. i don't think that the former really causes much harm. the latter doesn't cause harm per se, it shifts demand between imports and exports, which can in turn harm domestic producers or domestic consumers.
changes in the "national deficit" change the "trade deficit", but the converse isn't necessarily true. the national budget is one component of the trade balance:
a trade deficit simply implies that there is net foreign capital inflow due to the following identity:
but: at what rate?
current account = ( savings - investment ) - gov't budget deficit = -( capital account )
a trade deficit simply implies that there is net foreign capital inflow due to the following identity:
current account + capital account == 0
increase the money supply by a constant rate
but: at what rate?
dunno
lets go with 2%
lets go with 2%
disregarding the fact that monetary aggregates can't even be measured to determine money supply, why change it at a rate other than GDP growth (so that, in a classical world, you get 0 inflation)?
because having expected inflation be accurate to actual inflation would minimize risk for currency holders.
> nestor didn't work well for lehman...
excessive lev'ge is certainly bad for a lot of companies, especially when the full risk exposure is hidden when you're a massive diversified financial conglomerate. and i totally agree about excessive lev'ge in the US economy overall. however, from an investor's point of view, i don't see the issue.
excessive lev'ge is certainly bad for a lot of companies, especially when the full risk exposure is hidden when you're a massive diversified financial conglomerate. and i totally agree about excessive lev'ge in the US economy overall. however, from an investor's point of view, i don't see the issue.
nestor the issue was in the debt futures being somewhat bogus as they were largely high risk investments rolled in with a few low risk to present a false rating on the portfolio. the primary reason these portfolios failed was because they were built around predatory lending... which is in and of itself an unethical business practice.
> minimize risk for currency holders
:<
:<
what's wrong, sadface?
if you grow the money supply at a rate above (below) that of real gdp growth, you get inflation (deflation). so, i don't understand how committing to a specific arbitrary rate benefits anyone. the problem is that real gdp growth is only observable ex post (setting other monetary authority objectives aside).
plus, targetting real gdp growth for ms growth isn't inconsistent with your notion of having actual equal expected inflation
plus, targetting real gdp growth for ms growth isn't inconsistent with your notion of having actual equal expected inflation
deinflation or inflation isn't bad.. differences between expected inflation and actual inflation are bad. or am i wrong?
> targetting real gdp growth for ms growth isn't inconsistent with your notion of having actual equal expected inflation
right. i don't think inflation needs to target real gdp growth. i think all that matters is that comsumers and firms are able to accurately predict inflation.
> targetting real gdp growth for ms growth isn't inconsistent with your notion of having actual equal expected inflation
right. i don't think inflation needs to target real gdp growth. i think all that matters is that comsumers and firms are able to accurately predict inflation.
inflation is a tax on people holding currency. when the government wants more cash and more liquidity (which ends up being the same thing because they tax you only most all transactions) they cause inflation.
inflation shucks