Jeanne d'Arc jumps the shark

My name is Bond. Jeanne de Bond.

One of my central theses (as opposed to one of GM's ventral faeces, which is another matter entirely) is that in an inflationary environment, gold is really just not that great a hedge. Currently, I own no gold (paper or solid), and I make no apology for that: it's neither (a) necessary, nor (b) profitable. Shoot me.

I don't really enjoy philosophical debates about gold emerging as the new real money, or it being liberated from its chains to enrich a few sharp billionaires and web-obsessed PM market followers. It's not that I'm utterly humourless - oh no - I enjoy spluttering into my tea at the latest silver fiction splurged out onto the silverogosphere as much as anyone, and I like to think of myself now as some sort of connoisseur. It's just that when it comes to gold, the level of debate is just so... how can I put this?... so, un-rock and roll. It's a bit of wealth protection here, a bit of cheat the gubbernment there; a bit of inflation hedge here, a bit of doomsday over there. I just can't grind with that kind of solipsistic navel gazing: Louis has just given me my pocket money, and I want to make it worth more - now!


So I have three aims. The first is to protect against (what is by any objective measure, moderate) inflation, the second is to minimise risk, and the third is to increase my net worth if at all possible. And that's why I trade, even though I don't really have the time because of my day job as Slow Lorris Larry's dust-off-book blower, or the inclination as a wishy-washy European liberal.

For each of those three criteria, I find that gold is currently coming up rather short.

Inflation is notoriously hard to measure, but a reasonable stab for the US, UK and northern Europe is around 3 - 5%. Goldbugs will be quick to tell me that gold has risen by 15% percent a year for ten years (or some such), but a well placed trade in a resource stock (blue chip, not penny stock) can yield 15% in a month (or lose it, certainly, but so can gold). Granted, not everyone has the acumen, the money, or the nerve to do this, but for your average amateur trader, gold is just not very exciting compared to, say, Rio Tinto - especially since gold's all-time high in September 2011 when it has just been stuck in an adolescently petulant trading range that belies all predictions of both shorts and longs alike. Those who bought in September 2011 have demonstrably not protected themselves against inflation. However, those who have traded Vedanta in both its highly predictable directions, absolutely have. Now, I'm not saying that everyone should rush out and get a trading account: that could be disastrous. What I'm saying is that even as a good old-fashioned inflation investment, it is not clear why one would privilege gold over, say, blue-chip resource stocks.

Risk? Don't talk to me about risk. I remember gold hitting its all-time high, selling my position a few dollars from it, and then buying back in just under $1800. Worst. Trading. Mistake. Of. My. Life. It nearly ruined me - and I thought I was being clever by letting the overbought status wear off. Don't get me wrong - as a trader (but not a citizen) I love volatility, because that's how one makes money in trading, whether short or long. But the ultra-sharp moves in gold are often counter-intuitive, and frequently ruinous. I've lost money in both directions, and that's never happened for me with, say, Tullow Oil, which has its own trading range (again, in both directions) that is entirely predictable on the basis of RSI and stochastic indicators. And if a long trade goes wrong, well there's always the dividends to keep me warm until the share price recovers.

Increasing net worth? Well this links to the inflation point. But just to expand on it: by creaming the 10% in both directions of the moves in, say, Kazakhmys, I have been able to consistently turn a profit of a magnitude - by buying low and selling high - that I have not been able to achieve for gold.

By now, the readers of this post will have split into two groups. The first will be those who trade for a buck, and who know how to short (NB: retail traders don't [generally] short), and who know what I'm talking about.

The second will be those who think that I have utterly, utterly missed the point. Gold, they will say, is the only true money on the planet [comment: not true, not even by a long chalk]; Gold is the only wealth protection [comment: yeah, they said the same about housing. And land. And oil and wine and beads, for that matter]; Gold is philosophically pre-destined to take the place of defunct fiat currencies based on the ramblings of an obviously increasingly senile hoaxer who has clearly never sat in a diplomatic meeting in his life. Another point is that even if all of that were true, the fiat gains made by not investing/trading in gold but rather in something else (i.e. opportunity cost), provided that the investments and trades were sensibly made, would be more profitable, and more liquid, than simply holding onto bullion with the enormous gamble of expecting ever and ever greater all-time highs.

How to be a shill: get the sheep to go long!

Those who really violently disagree with this view will probably do their usual, and say I'm a Bankster Shill trying to put people off gold. You know what? If I were a Bankster Shill, trying to make money out of the sheep, then the first thing I would do is to encourage everyone I could convince to go out and buy as much gold as possible - preferably via options, but then by any method. It's way easier than trying to persuade retail (rather than my rich bankster friends) to go short - because retail doesn't short. Given the already febrile atmosphere on the silverogosphere and in the darker recesses of the Republican party, this would be an exceptionally easy message to deliver. And, assuming I had an audience slightly larger than the two regular readers that Screwtape normally gets [Warren, and Warren's mum, if you really want to know - Ed.], I would then short the living daylights out of those 'sheep', safe in the knowledge that gold is really, really, sodding expensive at the moment.

It doesn't work the other way round: Anyone cautious about gold (at not far shy from its all-time highs, when there are thousands of, to pick an example at random, under-valued, seriously over-shorted, dividend-paying stocks out there) will not, cannot, provoke a mass propaganda move against gold by retail - even if I were as almighty and great as the Turd or the [Eric] King themselves - in order for one to profit by flipping long after the sell-off.

And that is because the market is biased towards, and manipulated in favour of, the longs.

Yes, pace Turd, the longs are winning (for now). And that's great. Whoopee-do. The opposition to gold buying, despite what you might read on the silverogosphere, is paper thin. Nobody cares. Not the 'Main/Lame Stream Media', not the politicians, not the hedge funds, and certainly not JPM-C et al. Buy as many coins or bars as you like, and still, nobody will care.

But, as resource stocks are on their knees, they are being hoovered up by those anticipating the end of the European recession (just as it enters it for a second time), a probable increase in inflation (so they need a real inflation hedge, and not just crapped-out gold), a massive new commodities boom in Africa (the new emerging market - more on this in another post), and a desire for a real, paying asset. This is smart money.

I've been hoovering them up too: LON.AAL at 16.95; LON:RIO at 29.95, LON:KAZ at 6.58; LON:TLW at 13.56; etc., etc., etc. My current stock portfolio yields an average of 5% a year in dividends - now that's protection. I'm moving away from trading, and into investment - an investment that will pay in both dividends and share price growth.

Given the fact that I anticipate my resource stocks will bounce back in share price in a highly rewarding way over the next five years, I feel really, really, flipping protected, without a shred of irony. It's all about - and I repeat myself here - buy low, sell high. These stocks are very, very low. Gold is very, very high. So why would I miss out on this resource opportunity, and plum for a long-term investment that is already well past its sell-buy date?

Gold just makes me scared.

Have at it. We aim to inspire debate.


34 comments:

Spicy Guacamole said...

JdA, excellent post. Your argument pretty much is the same one touted by Warren Buffett a few years ago. Why invest in an asset that yields no real return when you would invest in productive assets and earn a much greater real return? But even a gold bug would agree with that sentiment. Gold is savings, not investment. Whether one wants to save or invest (or trade) is a personal choice - no one can say what is best for the other. I own some gold for savings but my risk capital is invested in productive enterprises (at least I hope they are productive!).

I fully agree with your point on the insignificance of gold investment, though. Outside the metals cult nobody really cares and one's investment in gold and silver has zero impact on the course of world events. The cult would strongly disagree with that, but it is the truth.

SS said...

JdA,

Excellent post, very clearly articulated your point of view there.

I presume that you are arguing that Gold could be in a bubble, because the dollar price of gold is very very high and you've already had your hand burnt once ;)

Here's a post I wrote a while ago, for you to consider about whether Gold is in a bubble:

Put your Finger on a Bubble

Gold = 1 / Trust. If trust in the system is low/eroding, Gold thrives.

Secondly, Gold is also a wealth reserve whose stock-to-flow ratio is highest among all commodities. It is used by people who are so insanely wealthy that they actually experience a diminishing marginal utility of the currency they earn.

It is hard to imagine diminishing marginal utility on currencies from our point-of-view, but one way to think of it is: how water is to me (so abundant that it's marginal utility is highly diminished), the currency is for those insanely wealthy.

With so much inflow of currencies, Gold is a well-diversified, world-wide accepted wealth reserve asset.

Certainly, the currency supply is not dwindling ;)

Those are a few points for you to consider.

Cheers.

Dan D. said...

JdA, you have outdone yourself on this one. What a fantastic read (as always). Great work.

I got sucked into it too ... Bought a whole lot of metal, luckily sub 20.00(silver) and sub 700 (gold) ... Sold almost all my silver at 43 on the bounce after the crash. Also sold my 10 ounces of gold at 1650. I don't miss it because the money that I was able to use to pay down off mortgage was more important.... You see, the cult doesn't realize that you can't pay your bills with physical metal. You need to sell it first and in a fiscal crisis, good luck!

Sure there is room in any diversified portfolio for metal. But to "stack" away creates a false sense of security. Who will take your one once "round" and give you change in the event of a financial collapse? The doomsdayers who preach ownership never answer that question.

I harken back to another great post of yours.... The pump and dump ... The story has been told, the distribution is almost done. The bullion banks are still kicking but I can't say that for all the poor souls who jumped in near the top with illusions of the high-life, now holding metal worth over 30% less (silver).

Cash will always be king. Metals are meant to be traded like every other tradeable vehicle. Gold is just another number on the roulette wheel.

Remember, gold stocks did just fine even when gold was at $250.00. :-) Most "stackers" don't remember those days.

Warren's Mum said...

Oh Jeanne, bless you! You are very, very bearish on gold. Here, have some cupcakes and tea. x

Gavin said...

You mention gold. What about silver?

Marks said...

JdA, not having gold is not totally insane. But not having at least 25% of your net worth outside the banking/financial system is not the best way to proceed or safe, IMO.

Bank and brokerage accounts are just electronic debits and credits these days, susceptible to something going wrong in a financial crisis. That does not mean I do not have bank and brokerage accounts, I certainly do and these comprise about 40% of my net worth.

Real estate, precious metals, fine art, farm land, oil and gas working interests/royalty interests, etc. should comprise at least 25% of your net worth, IMO. You have legal title to such hard assets that are outside the banking/financial system and are governed more by the rule of law.

It's all about wealth preservation if and when the world has a financial crisis, and hard assets have historically been the best place to be...

Marvin Sparkledust said...

Give that man a tambourine.
Cum by ar me normalcy bias cum by ar, oh normalcy bias , cum by ar.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeP4FFr88SQ

marv

Beer Holiday said...

"ramblings of an obviously increasingly senile hoaxer"

Oh no you didn't! :-O

If only you'd listened to that lovely person (who perhaps is turning in his grave) at the time when he was rambling, at that gold price 350$-ish, you wouldn't be whinging.

Lets see how it plays out in the next ten years, good luck, we'll all need it. Oh wait, you'll just trade your way to through, no need luck.

Best performing stock exchange of the 90's was Zimbabwe, in nominal terms :-p

S Roche said...

For those who view gold as money, and therefore use that as the measure of financial performance, your distrust of gold will be happily dismissed.

Gold is an emotional trade.

duggo said...

Dear Jeanne d'Arc

When gainful employment gave me up (or maybe it was the other way round). I decided to become the Ace Day-trader. Two screens and so many graphs you cannot believe. I was successful. I graduated to an account betting on the FTSE. £10 a point. I was successful. I knew it all. My head was a big as a planet. Then I wasn't successful. What had changed?
Lady Luck found someone new (the bitch). I then discovered the whole freeking market was rigged against small players like me. So what next. I opened betting accounts across the World and went into betting on tennis matches. (I can't stand tennis but it's win or lose). My computers could tell me when bookmakers were betting against each other. I couldn't lose. Then I got bored. What next? Property. Yes that's the thing. Buy low. Do some work. Sell high. Then the arse fell out of property. What's next? SILVER !! Yes. Yes. Bix Weir told me just he and I will make a fortune because he knows a secret that Silver is flying to the Moon. I must get onboard before the rocket leaves. That was 3 years ago. It still hasn't left although I did double my money to be fair. Then I discovered that the whole Silver "conspiracy" is just another load of wishful thinking or a way for Silver sites to off-load their stock. So surplus property has now been sold and pumped into Gold which I shall spend bit by bit at my leisure without some mafia government trying to tax me on dividends, earnings, capital gains or whatever.
So good luck on your trading (while luck is with you).

As for the Gold buffs. Well they're rather quaint and entertaining. I never realised that people could talk so much about Gold.
Always remember you've got to spend it before you're dead.

Robert said...

Ray Dalio, founder and co-chief investment officer of Bridgewater Associates, L.P. and one of the most successful hedge fund managers of all time told Maria Bartiromo last week that he owns gold and that he sees no “sensible reason not to own gold”.

Now it depends on the amount of gold. But if you don't own, I don't know 10%, if you don't have that and that depends on the world, then there's no sensible reason other than you don't know history and you don't know the economics of it.

9/24/2012

Jeanne d'Arc said...

Ooh, lots of interesting comments waiting for me after a hard day in Larry's library. I don't think I can address them all, but here are a few points:

- I think I might have been a bit misinterpreted on the trading thing. I'm absolutely not suggesting that everyone should become day traders to protect themselves against inflation - that would be foolish. I don't even day trade myself (normally). It was just a personal example to support my assertion that gold is not always the most profitable thing to deal with, and stacking is not always the best way to protect oneself.

- However, I then talk about resource stocks as a comparable investment to gold: e.g. buy and hold for five years, when they're rock bottom, get the 5% (or more) dividend, which is more than inflation, and (hopefully, obviously) sell once the economic recovery is in full swing. This is what smart money does. Buying heavily a commodity (sorry, VtC) that has already had such a big move rather than that which has its move ahead of it, doesn't seem very smart to me.

- @ Beer Holiday: so, yes, you're right. I'd have been delighted to have bought gold at $350. The point is that I didn't, and missed most of the move. This fact doesn't make it a smart money move to jump in now, though.

- I'm not bearish on gold. THIS IS NOT AN ANTI GOLD POST! On balance I'm neutral. Actually, I think it will continue to rise for a bit longer yet. I certainly don't envisage a big crash any time soon (although war with Iran could change that).

- THIS IS A PRO-RESOURCES POST. The unfortunate reality is that in an inflationary environment, the resource stocks could well out-perform gold. And if the expected inflation doesn't come (it's certainly low at the moment, despite all the QE), then this becomes a near certainty.

I've updated the article very slightly to try to clarify the trading/investing thing.

@Warren's mum. Thanks for the cup cakes, Mrs James - yummy as always. Can you ask Warren to return my copy of Just Getting Started? He's had it for weeks now :-(

Gary said...

'THIS IS A PRO-RESOURCES POST. The unfortunate reality is that in an inflationary environment, the resource stocks could well out-perform gold. And if the expected inflation doesn't come (it's certainly low at the moment, despite all the QE), then this becomes a near certainty.'

Hmm, you don't see any deflationary forces at work then. A few I can think of: debts being defaulted on but held on bank's books at par; real incomes falling; unemployment rising; spending falling, company investment falling.

Is that enough?

Deflation, which will be fought tooth and nail by certain central banks, and ultimately when they lose that fight, down down dow the world goes.

If you prefer Xstrata or BHP in this environment to gold, in my opinion, you must be quite stupid.

Slow Loris Larry said...

@SS

It is often reported that gold has the largest stock to flow ratio of all the commodities.

I think that is incorrect, as according to the Silver institute's Stocks of Silver Around the World report from 1991 (http://screwtapefiles.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/what-and-where-was-all-that-silver.html), the total stocks of above ground silver were 8.65 times the amount of silver available to the market at the (then) price of $20 per ounce in 1990.

Compare that to something I saw recently (but don't have the time immediately available to dig out the source), that reported that only roughly half of above ground gold was in a form that was readily available to the market, and perhaps another quarter was too tightly held to actually be on the market at current prices. That would make the stock of above ground gold only three times the amount 'available' to the market.

Of course, there is much more to a stock to flow ratio than those asynchronic figures reflect, but I still think that the present silver stock to flow ratio is about three times that for gold.

I am currently doing the research that will allow me to actually say that is the case at this point in time.

Jeanne d'Arc said...

@Gary - actually, I see quite a few deflationary forces around. I worry about them quite a bit. My personal view is that central banks will do just about anything to ward them off.

But even if I'm wrong, and deflation becomes de rigueur, I think my argument holds. Cash will beat stocks, to be sure, but gold will be crushed.

'Naive' might have been a nicer word to use than 'stupid', by the way. We're all entitled to our opinions here, and to a semblance of respect.

Beer Holiday said...

JdA

I get the impression that you roughly think that this will be a repeat of the 1980 gold spike; coordinate action by CBs eg raising rates, gold plunges, cash is king.

I'm have a very different view, that this time money printing/ debt destruction will make cash a bad place to be, gold is king. I think it's the end of the debt super-cycle.

Basically we have to get from A to B, from a huge debt overhang from 70 years of mispriced credit, to a fresh start. The logical way to do that is to debase whatever fiat currency is appropriate to get rid of the debt, and there is so much debt that it will kill the currency.

A sensible response will be to get out of the way of the CBs doing their job of killing debt with the fiat currency, and into some store of value. Gold is the best place IMHO.

Each to their own, we live in interesting times, as the curse goes.

duggo said...

Change of subject slightly.

Just seen an article by GoldMoney (I'm a customer).

Real Estate Priced in Gold by James Turk.

http://www.goldmoney.com/gold-research/james-turk/real-estate-priced-in-gold.html?gmrefcode=gata

Does anyone else find his analysis lacking? He leaves out the obvious fact that if the guy had bought Gold instead of a Home he would have had to pay rent. Turk doesn't seem to include this in his calculation.

Edwardo said...

Jeanne wrote:

"But even if I'm wrong, and deflation becomes de rigueur, I think my argument holds. Cash will beat stocks, to be sure, but gold will be crushed."

Au Contraire. Let's ponder this one a bit more. If, on Monday, The Fed announced that they were suspending all Quantitative Easing programs, what do you think would happen? The bond market would collapse, since, after all, it is The Fed through its primary dealers-those same institutions that The Fed has exchanged cash for trash (at par)- that is picking up the U.S. bond market slack in the face of a secular decline in international interest in U.S. sovereign debt.

Suffice it to say that the reverse wealth effect that would immediately ensue if The Fed stopped its operations would be hard to overestimate. Employment would instantly ramp up as the government would be unable to continue operating at anything like the present level.

The Fed, in the meantime would itself be insolvent stuck as it was with assets that could, in no conceivable way, be unwound. Except, of course, for the one asset that they have access to via The Treasury, The Fed would would have no chance of saving themselves.

Gold is the one asset available to be monetized by the lender of last resort to recapitalize itself.

Obviously, the "wake up on Monday to no more QE scenario" isn't going to occur because while the can't avoid the inevitable, they can delay it. The monetary authorities will continue to deliver nominal performance, and that is all you are getting in the stock market, for example, until such time as there is the inevitable run on the dollar. I say inevitable because all those dollars outside our borders, that are increasingly no longer finding a sterilized home in U.S. sovereign debt issuance will eventually be bidding against dollars inside our borders for all the stuff we need.

Bron Suchecki said...

Duggo,

Possibly the idea is to have bought gold and lived in a cave?

While I agree with Turk's point about housing as shelter and not a speculative investment, I don't agree about using gold as a measure or decision making tool.

This idea that gold is the only real money and is stable while everything else moves around it is another gold meme. I'm not so sure there is such a thing as an objective measure of value - possibly if we were on a gold standard - and certainly not when only a few percent of people hold gold.

S Roche said...

I've always found Kyle Bass's point of view helpful and well argued:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/113621307/Kyle-Bass#fullscreen

Lord Sidcup said...

Duggy

I used to have a GoldMoney account, but Turk's seemingly-infinite gullibility undermined my confidence in his business.

Also, I came to the conclusion that part ownership of a 400oz car might be a bad idea during a 'transition'.

Lord Sidcup said...

* that should be 'bar' (I'm not sure how 400 oz cars will fare under a new monetary system).

SS said...

@ Slow Lorris Larry,

May be I wasn't quite clear. By flow, I meant velocity and not just supply of gold available for sale. I think FOFOA once said the explosion of price is more likely to be brought about by the existing stock holders exploding the stock to flow ratio toward infinity for a period of time than by a stampede of panicked savers driving the price higher and higher.

It makes sense to me. As trust erodes in the existing system, gold goes into hiding and stops moving.

Au contraire, silver has massive industrial applications and it has its own properties towards velocity. Silver is sometimes monetary, most of the time industrial. Gold is mostly monetary.

Slow Loris Larry said...

@ SS

As I intimated in my previous response to your first post, the issue of 'stock to flow' ratios require some close examination and increased conceptual clarity. Your point about velocity (or volume?) of metal actually changing hands being an additional variable is a good place to depart on that quest.

The prediction you attribute to FOFOA about gold someday going into hiding and not moving (not changing ownership) is similar, if not the same, as Prof. Fekete's idea about gold (and perhaps silver as well) going into 'permanent backwardation' when prices for immediate delivery become higher than futures (or forward) prices because owners of physical metal won’t sell it because they do not think that they will be able to buy it back later.

I wouldn't characterise silver's use in industrial applications as 'massive', at least not in terms of the amount of metal involved. 'Significant and growing' would be more like it, in my opinion, but the volume (or velocity?) of flow involved is, I believe (without immediately checking my memory of the statistics), smaller than what is calculated to be 'investment demand'. Anyway, it would not be all that different at present.

I would certainly agree with you that silver is no longer a (significant) monetary metal, and may 'never' be again under presently foreseeable circumstances. Nevertheless, I still own a significant amount of the stuff, primarily because of its high volatility. In the end (or hopefully before) I will trade my silver for gold, as it is increasingly, albeit unofficially, taking on the role of real money. Gold may indeed again become official money some day in the not too distant future, or at least a part of a new monetary system.

Jeanne d'Arc said...

@SLL @SS - I think the graph you're looking for is here - the second chart in the post.

SS said...

SLL,

I think opportunities will arise in the future to do the silver-to-gold swap that you are referring to, may be not in the immediate future as there are clouds of at least a moderate recession in the cards due to the drama of the fiscal cliff.

As for Fekete's work, yes I am familiar with the concept of permanent backwardation. Although the metrics used by the good old Prof. itself may be rigged, as highlighted and discussed in this post.

The thermometer is rigged.

JdA,

If you are familiar with the work of Steve Keen, then I'm sure you would understand that additional debt creating more aggregate demand is not going to work in the long run.

Exponential increase in debt (beyond which can be credibly serviced) has nowhere to go, but to deleverage. This deleveraging process can take several forms - default, restructuring, inflation etc.

IMO trust erosion is happening slowly but certainly happening. Human behavior is hard to change as it works on 'availability heuristic', but when it changes, the change could be violent IMHO.

Slow Loris Larry said...

@ Jd'A

Thank you for reminding me that I was intending to reread your post on the recent silver 'mania' every so often.

SLL

Pierre Don Denirio said...

Everyone should not take author's word literally/seriously.

He already said he's very inexperienced to this field.

He even admitted he's affected by the greed and fear emotions in his actions.

From what he writes on this blog, he's trying to outplay the common people as a way to prove himself, to himself.

Everyone listening should be careful about this, the author does not have any reputable track record and is driven by primitive emotions to achieve his goals.

I can go on but it should be clear already.

Jeanne d'Arc said...

Thank you for your very kind first comment to this blog, Pierre.

Slow Loris Larry said...

@ SS

Thanks so much for including the link to http://fofoa.blogspot.com.au/2010/07/red-alert-gold-backwardation.html

I have had it bookmarked since it appeared, but of course had not gone back to it.

I have now taken the time to do that, to my great benefit, and recommend it strongly to anyone who is interested in how the 'world of gold' operates.

Or perhaps 'is operated' is more like it.

milamber said...

subbing comments

Motley Fool said...

Jeanne

A rational enough post, except for ofc imho the glaring lack of gold. xD

If you wish to play at the tight-wire act of trading that is all well and good.

In one sense gold can be seen as insurance.

It is unfathomable to me that you do not own at least 2-3% gold. Trade with the other 97% sure, but have some insurance.

I would like to see you respond and explain why a 3% allocation would be senseless. :)

Peace

TF

Jeanne d'Arc said...

@Motley Fool,

Thanks for the comment. Actually, I think that a 5 - 10% allocation in gold is perfectly sensible: as insurance, as you say. I usually have something like this amount myself, but not at the moment as I think gold is pricey, and I took good profits.

But during the next big correction (which may not be far away), I'll probably pick up a few 400 oz bars as a hedge against the bulk of my net worth.

2 - 3% hardly seems worth bothering about, does it? Unless one really believes that gold is going to be worth a hundred times what it is today? The modest gains on 2 - 3% are unlikely to provide much insurance (or comfort) if 97% of one's investments go down the pan... So 2 - 3% strikes me as more of a 'lottery ticket', in the hope of Freegold or some other such foolishness... ;-)

Motley Fool said...

Jeanne

I tried being as conservative as possible hence the lowball numbers.The idea of course being picking such low numbers that I cannot imagine a counterargument exists. Haha.

My idea was simply to protect you from your own silliness. A 30 times revaluation is again a conservative estimate, so 3% means you would be at about breakeven. That is the purpose of insurance is it not? ;)

Go get some gold and trade with the rest. The small paper profit thing because you think it is overvalued is irrelevant when considering my predicted revaluation(unless of course you think it crazy).

A few 400oz bars huh?

I don't think I wanted to know that.

TF