Gold

Where will the price of gold by in 5 years?

  • Over the next 5 years gold will out perform the SP500 by 10% or more

    Votes: 18 32.7%
  • Over the next 5 years gold will be with plus or minus 10% of the SP500

    Votes: 16 29.1%
  • Over the next 5 years gold will under perform the SP500 by 10% or more

    Votes: 21 38.2%

  • Total voters
    55
Cute Fuzzy Bunny said:
Hmmm...homes in my area in the 80's...under 60k...today 400k.  Basic sedan in the 80's...$7000...today...$18k.  A good pound of steak in the 80's...$3-4...today $15.

THIS is tame inflation thats been in a long term decline?  Ohhh....I dont think so!

You look at gold since 1971, which makes a bit more sense than since 1933, and except for the late 70's inflationary period, theres no correlation between gold price and inflation.  The run up in the late 70's was simply people buying the metal because inflation was soaring and when it did that...you bought gold.  Its simply what you did.  It no longer made any sense, but that rarely stops an investor and a sales man with a 75 year chart of prices. :-/


thats the point..thru it all an ounce of gold still buys the same thing it did back then..and yes thats tame inflation...look at a graph from the highs of the 70's and its a slope downward as hard as it is to believe all the way until just around the early 2,000's..you can ski down that slope the cpi dropped so much...although we are still shocked at the price increases even with the slope they have been mild in comparison to what would have been if the slope wasnt downward...since gold is a competitor and alternate currency to the dollar it would take alot more to push gold higher beyond just being the store of value that it is...does it track inflation exactly noooooooo but for the most part does it still buy the same goods with 1 ounce of it for the last 100 years? yep pretty darn close
 
Focu$ed said:
I would hardly liken investing in gold, copper, uranium, silver etc. to investing in tulip bulbs.

Why?
 
mathjak107 said:
thats the point..thru it all an ounce of gold still buys the same thing it did back then..and yes thats tame inflation...look at a graph from the highs of the 70's and its a slope downward as hard as it is to believe all the way until just around the early 2,000's..you can ski down that slope the cpi dropped so much...although we are still shocked at the price increases even with the slope they have been mild in comparison to what would have been if the slope wasnt downward...since gold is a competitor and alternate currency to the dollar it would take alot more to push gold higher beyond just being the store of value that it is...does it track inflation exactly noooooooo but for the most part does it still buy the same goods with 1 ounce of it for the last 100 years? yep pretty darn close
I must need another cup of coffee, because all i see is a high spike of both gold prices and CPI in the late 70's/early 80s. An annual CPI factor of ~3.5% which often fails to reflect true inflation. And the price of gold sitting there doing absolutely nothing between that late 70's spike and the past few years.

I dont see the price of gold showing ANY correlative factors since that one high inflationary period shortly after the nixon 1971 decision. And I dont think that 30-35% per decade is "tame".

Now, if you argued that inflation is more consistent year on year than its been in the past, where we had rollercoaster rides into 10-15% inflation amidst periods of zero inflation or deflation as deep as 5-10%...that I'd agree with.

And if you pointed out that gold prices rolled with inflation (and deflation) while it was either closely or loosely coupled with our currency (which was more than 3 decades ago), then that would be born out by the data as well.

But I cant call 2-5%, averaging 3.5%, for the last 20+ years to be "tame" compared to...gee...3.5% annualized average for the last 100...

As far as golds purchasing power, while we saw that 3.5% average a year for the last 20 years, the price of gold during this slow and steady trend upwards went absolutely nowhere. No correlation at all. So the thesis that an ounce of gold always bought the same is unsupported by the data.
 
Interesting stuff...look at the chart below. Shows the "purchasing power of gold" which measures the price of gold vs the wholesale price index.

This is from a "goldbugs" newsletter and is is his measurement for the stability of gold

What I see is huge volatility that runs for decades. In fact, his primary point in referencing this chart is

"As the chart demonstrates, gold always returns to its full purchasing power, although sometimes it may take several decades to do so."

I've never really evaluated or discussed the gold investment thing. So work with me here...is the chief argument that the metal will more or less hold its purchasing power, except for the decades at a time where it doesnt?

And thats better than the stock market, which grows its purchasing power incrementally over decades, and only has problems during a couple of decades when it was in decline, after which it always recovered and then some?

I also saw a lot of nostalgic references to the prior use of gold as a monetary standard, which is interesting, but doesnt apply any longer so I'm confused as to why its used as an argument at all or even a discussion point.

So let me get this straight...the metal is only used for jewelry and some electronics manufacturing processes. Except for two spikes, one during high inflation and one in the absence of high inflation, the price has gone nowhere for 3 decades. It shows no strong recent correlation with inflation, recessions or really any other major economic indicators. Note the words 'strong' and 'recent'. I'm not interested in how it behaved in the 30's or the 1790's.

Why do I want to own this again?
 

Attachments

  • gold purchasing power.gif
    gold purchasing power.gif
    12.4 KB · Views: 46
Simple, CFB.  Either you are a true believer and want gold! gold! gold! (oh, and maybe some silver or platinum), or you are a rational person.  Most of the latter view gold as just another commodity subject to the usual supply/demand equation and sometimes prone to periods of particular scarcity or abundance,  Might be worth a little as a speculative thing (an the full moon is coming soon), but other than that...

I think other commodities potentially make a lot more sense than holding gold.  After all, you can't eat it, use it for fuel, or do much with it.  Compared to most other commodities, it is pretty useless.
 
mb said:
I have heard the term "fiat currency" for a currency that is not backed by real assets. Well it seems to me that gold is kind of a "fiat metal" because it is priced at a value that is greater than its present intrinsic worth to society because of cultural/historical factors.

Very interesting point, MB. As technology has progressed, the actual valuable uses of gold have diminished.

Some of the remaining cultural uses are still potentially quite powerful - I've read how the emerging middle class in India will increase the consumption of gold to decorative use, as gold jewelry is a big part of their culture.

But it does make you wonder what (if anything) might be a candidate to replace gold as the most "valuable stuff" to today's society ... frankly, I'm not sure that a shiny malleable metal has that much value (given the amount of shiny crap that we make dirt cheap these days) ... but what does? Hmmmmmm ...
 
brewer12345 said:
I think other commodities potentially make a lot more sense than holding gold. After all, you can't eat it, use it for fuel, or do much with it. Compared to most other commodities, it is pretty useless.

I guess after the economy collapses, you could throw chunks of it at intruders or hit someone in the head with it and take their food.

Heres the good question though.

I listen to the "buy gold" argument, and its usually coupled with concerns about stock market high valuations. The "stable purchasing power" is also used heavily, although that appears to be far from the truth.

From this chart, its pretty obvious that gold is way overpriced vs its purchasing power. So given the data it would be fairly obvious that it will return to its "mean" shortly. And every peak seems to be followed by one heck of a valley.

So why would you eschew the perhaps slightly overvalued stock market for severely overvalued gold?

Buying it right now looks like a great way to lose money. Maybe slowly. Maybe uncorrelated from other assets. Unless we see huge inflationary pressures and gold doesnt react to those in a negative manner. Considering its lack of strong correlation to economic conditions over the last 3 decades, I wouldnt exactly count on that.
 
That chart is of CPI adjusted federal funds rate. I have no idea what that has to do with the price of gold vs its purchasing power, its correlation to inflation, or actually...anything at all.

Please explain.
 
interest rates and the cpi historically flow together.....the higher the cpi the higher the feds fund rate...an index can actually be constructed by merging the 2.
 
interesting though is the fact that right now maybe the exception...we have rising rates and a falling cpi..(so the gov. says)...hense tips and i-bonds have been awful investments lately.
 
mathjak107 said:
interest rates and the cpi historically flow together.....the higher the cpi the higher the feds fund rate...an index can actually be constructed by merging the 2.
Ok, and what applicability does that have to the discussion at hand? All that tells me is that the fed uses the federal funds rate to fight inflation.

What does it have to do with the original point you made that "gold always has the same buying power", which appears to not be true?

And what does it have to do with gold as an investment?

All that chart tells me is that golds price hardly moved through drastic changes in inflation, the federal funds rate, several bull markets in both equities and bonds, several bear markets in both equities and bonds, and when it wasnt moving at all, it was unpredictably and violently volatile.
 
mathjak107 said:
interesting though is the fact that right now maybe the exception...we have rising rates and a falling cpi..(so the gov. says)...hense tips and i-bonds have been awful investments lately.


actually this is stagflation and is usually very short term before leading to some other economic condition be it further inflation or recession......rates and cpi dont seem to veer very long from each other
 
well the truth is gold does buy the same thing today as it did 100 years ago.....i dont view gold as an investment.i view it as insurance against a market melt down or at the least just having a small part of it in something other than stocks and bonds.surley 5% is my max for gold and commodities.....will it perform as needed? beats me but id rather not find out....
 
Ok, so just so I know that I'm not an idiot, what you're saying is that 'right now today, an ounce of gold buys as much as it did in 1906" and not
mathjak107 said:
but for the most part does it still buy the same goods with 1 ounce of it for the last 100 years? yep pretty darn close

The former being true, and the latter being absolutely not true? And the former being an interesting tidbit but of no practical application towards the benefits of investing in gold?
 
Cute Fuzzy Bunny:

didn't take you long to pick-up the new picture ... but "cute"?

d
 
I haven't been carefully following this thread, but I'll respond anyway :D. First, I thought the poll results were interesting. My interpretation: For the most part;), I think about one-third of the folks here think gold may continue its run. I think this is very possible too. Then there's the crew that doesn't. They tend to not like gold or, in some cases, commodities A large portion of the folks here have made a substantial part of their money invested in the stock market. Plus a big part of that "growth" is due to financial stuff (specifically loose, borrowed, easier than historical money, whatever that is). Many people think such things will stay the same (see FIRE-calc and its believers)--that things will continue pretty much along the same lines of not just the past thirty years but also pretty much along the same lines of the past 100 years. And it may--unless you look deeper into the bear case, if you believe it. But one can easily see why the defense of the current system is going on; it has been very, very good to many, many people over the past 20-30 years. Even here at this poll, nearly two-thirds think gold holding is some sort of mild abomination. All of them have made their money inside that system, following the rules of the game.

Some gold bugs see a reckoning of sorts--that this way comes. They tend to see further out than 30 years. They know that EVERY paper currency has been debased by the government that controls it at some point in time. In fact, the first step is usually to sever the bond between paper money and gold. They always do it by stealth so that many, many citizens don't see it while its in process (see "inflation" CFB, and the doctoring of numbers that even you admit is happening). Oh, and the deficits on the Federal level and the huge debts, both personal and at almost every level of our society. Gold bugs tend to see an active conspiracy going on of printing, spending and lieing. This may or may not be true. The gold bug argument is that it is NEVER different this time, that once the debasing of currency gets going it is almost impossible to stop except with some sort of crisis (see So. America for their history of handling paper money). But maybe it's different this time for us :D

One can see the tilt of debt in a specific direction and a doom, gloom, or possible boom (explosion) on the horizon. Gold bugs, at least the ones I read, see only one or two possibilities: either we (as a gov't--and people who have voted for such) continue to grease everything with M1, M2, and M3 to keep things from falling apart; or we fall into a recession/depression until most of the debt is worked off. This includes Medicare and Social Security obligations too. We can go either way--maybe both. And it still may be a long dragged out process that won't even unfold in our lifetimes. That's a possibility. But some of my money is betting on sooner.

What I've mentioned above are all extreme cases, just for illustration purposes. Real events will probably fall somewhere in the muddle between. For me as someone who sees such negative possibilities in the future a moderate position in gold is a good thing. I don't think being 70-80 years old and having a house I can't afford to live in anymore, a gov't that may not be there for me in any way, and an inability to get a Wal-Mart greeter job because a deserving youngster needs it more is a good possibility for an ending. So I own some gold shares just in case money turns into you know what. Maybe I'll be able to buy a ton of it to burn and stay warm with 1/4 oz of AU--although it's probably filled with toxic preservatives that the gov't hasn't told me about--either. Or maybe I'm wrong. ;)

I think a small position of 5-10% gold is a cautious and prudent portfolio choice if a few of the circumstances I mentioned are believeable or possible in your lifetime.

--Greg
 
Greg...I dont know how to agree or disagree with what you said, as you covered a lot of ground.

But I didnt hear any explanation as to why you feel gold is a good investment in todays economy.

If your argument is that paper money will continue to devolve into a state of worthlessness...gosh thats possible but I cant see the benefits of gold over beaver cheese as a valuable product in what would surely be a mad-max like world.

Certainly holders of precious metal stocks or mutual funds would fare poorly. Direct holders of the metal...well...it would make a fine paperweight but as I've often said, if things devolve to the point where holding a physical somewhat rare ornamental metal is your ace in the hole... :p

Where we agree is that a small holding might make sense for highly diversified portfolios. Not because it tracks inflation, hedges the dollar or any other financial "reason", but simply because I know people will flock to it when they perceive its "right to do so".

At this stage where the price is run up, and given this commodities historic pricing behavior...its almost surely going to drop back to its mean and perhaps further. Therefore I wouldnt recommend taking a position at this time. Or holding an existing one.

But thats just my opinion...five or ten years, maybe twenty...will tell us for sure.
 
Cute Fuzzy Bunny said:
Where we agree is that a small holding might make sense for highly diversified portfolios.  Not because it tracks inflation, hedges the dollar or any other financial "reason", but simply because I know people will flock to it when they perceive its "right to do so".

The reason not to hold it is that it is dead weight in a portfolio. With the exception of a spike in prices every couple of decades gold does not earn its cost of carry. And if you happen to buy it at the wrong time, such as after a run-up in price, your chances of earning a positive return in your lifetime becomes increasingly remote.

I agree with CFB that if the currency disappears as a medium of exchange, your gold ETFs will be worth about as much as my S&P 500 Index funds. Better off stockpiling powdered milk, canned tuna fish and ammunition.
 
Politicians, in order to get their jobs will promise a whole bunch of stuff to a whole bunch of people, then print a whole bunch of money to pay for all this stuff.

People, commodities just reflect a Finite Resource being valued by an Infinite pile of Paper.

Gold, Oil, land, etc are not going up in value, there is just a whole bunch of paper with Dead Guy's faces on it being used as a media of transfer.

The amount of Gold available and the amount still in the ground is not that great, the amount of trees that can be harvested for paper and the number of printing presses, infinite.

We will soon hear Terms like Bazillion, or Magizillion, or Infinitiziom, and the average hourly wage will be $1,000.00

Paper with Dead Guys Faces on it.
 
Re: stockpiling powdered milk, canned tuna fish and ammunition

or as Cute Fuzzy Bunny suggests, beaver cheese
 
3 Yrs to Go said:
I agree with CFB that if the currency disappears as a medium of exchange, your gold ETFs will be worth about as much as my S&P 500 Index funds. Better off stockpiling powdered milk, canned tuna fish and ammunition.

I've always hated this argument (basically because it uses my technique of looking at the extreme), but then you draw a conclusion that while valid in the narrow sense fails on the practical level. For instance, if things get pretty bad you're probably going to run somewhere a little safer if you can. Just try taking all your powdered milk and beans with you. The Jews ran from Hitler ( ;)) and probably took the most concentrated value items they had--not tuna fish, I'll bet. A little gold in physical form is probably not a bad idea just in case.
 
For Vietnamse village down the road from me when I lived in the area - gold hammered into sheets and sew into clothing was the best way to leave for America - if one could get out with anything - at least that was the story I was told in the 70's.
 
Back
Top Bottom