I am posting this in the VP forum because the article is a speculative argument for gold investing.
Is gold finished? I'd say it is about as finished as all of the other times in the past dozen years that it has been finished. It's just that the obituary has received more notice lately.
Once again I find myself on the defensive about gold, as I have been many times in the past eight years of liking the precious metal.
This time the thinking is that we are in an era of permanently low growth, aided by the potential of a deflationary collapse in Europe.
Sure, that's possible. The difficulty I have in getting negative on that news is that I don't regard gold as a haven that goes up only in an inflationary environment. I regard gold as an alternative to the euro, and I see nothing that tells me the euro is suddenly in good standing, other than an intra-morning reversal in that ultimately unworkable currency.
For the record I am not a member of the "I hate Cramer club." I certainly don't agree with his style of investing for most of one's portfolio. But he is extremely intelligent, and sometimes has interesting ideas. You just need to approach him and his show as being 100% about speculative investing. Once you understand that your good to go. As always when talking about the VP or speculating the rule is Caveat Emptor, or as Cramer would say "Do your own homework."
Trumpism is not a philosophy or a movement. It's a cult.
Ad Orientem wrote:
I am posting this in the VP forum because the article is a speculative argument for gold investing.
Is gold finished? I'd say it is about as finished as all of the other times in the past dozen years that it has been finished. It's just that the obituary has received more notice lately.
Once again I find myself on the defensive about gold, as I have been many times in the past eight years of liking the precious metal.
This time the thinking is that we are in an era of permanently low growth, aided by the potential of a deflationary collapse in Europe.
Sure, that's possible. The difficulty I have in getting negative on that news is that I don't regard gold as a haven that goes up only in an inflationary environment. I regard gold as an alternative to the euro, and I see nothing that tells me the euro is suddenly in good standing, other than an intra-morning reversal in that ultimately unworkable currency.
For the record I am not a member of the "I hate Cramer club." I certainly don't agree with his style of investing for most of one's portfolio. But he is extremely intelligent, and sometimes has interesting ideas. You just need to approach him and his show as being 100% about speculative investing. Once you understand that your good to go. As always when talking about the VP or speculating the rule is Caveat Emptor, or as Cramer would say "Do your own homework."
Yeah, I tend to agree about Cramer. He is no dummy and I have heard worse speculative advice.
But I seriously doubt that people will profit consistently over time from following his show.
Ad Orientem wrote:
I am posting this in the VP forum because the article is a speculative argument for gold investing.
Is gold finished? I'd say it is about as finished as all of the other times in the past dozen years that it has been finished. It's just that the obituary has received more notice lately.
Once again I find myself on the defensive about gold, as I have been many times in the past eight years of liking the precious metal.
This time the thinking is that we are in an era of permanently low growth, aided by the potential of a deflationary collapse in Europe.
Sure, that's possible. The difficulty I have in getting negative on that news is that I don't regard gold as a haven that goes up only in an inflationary environment. I regard gold as an alternative to the euro, and I see nothing that tells me the euro is suddenly in good standing, other than an intra-morning reversal in that ultimately unworkable currency.
For the record I am not a member of the "I hate Cramer club." I certainly don't agree with his style of investing for most of one's portfolio. But he is extremely intelligent, and sometimes has interesting ideas. You just need to approach him and his show as being 100% about speculative investing. Once you understand that your good to go. As always when talking about the VP or speculating the rule is Caveat Emptor, or as Cramer would say "Do your own homework."
Yeah, I tend to agree about Cramer. He is no dummy and I have heard worse speculative advice.
But I seriously doubt that people will profit consistently over time from following his show.
My problem with Cramer is not that you won't make money off his advice. But more because he is a trader and you are going to get killed with fees expenses and the tax liabilities. Your profit margin is just gonna get murdered. And that of course presumes you are getting consistent index beating advice which is highly unlikely over the long term. That said he is a sharp guy and I am often intrigued by some of the speculative (his term) plays that he comes up with. Some of them have paid off huge. But they call it speculation for a reason and I am a very conservative investor.
Trumpism is not a philosophy or a movement. It's a cult.
Cramer is part of the reason I started investing in the first place, so it is impossible for me to dislike him. I used to watch his show every day after school and I learned a lot about fundamental/catalyst based speculation.
Funnily enough, Cramer's REAL advice is to first establish a solid portfolio of index funds and then only speculate with your "Mad Money." This is almost identical to Harry Browne's concept of the PP and the VP. I think he could do his viewers a better service by addressing the index fund core more often, and perhaps make that more of his focus, but who besides Bogleheads would tune in to that?
everything comes from somewhere and everything goes somewhere
melveyr wrote:
Cramer is part of the reason I started investing in the first place, so it is impossible for me to dislike him. I used to watch his show every day after school and I learned a lot about fundamental/catalyst based speculation.
Funnily enough, Cramer's REAL advice is to first establish a solid portfolio of index funds and then only speculate with your "Mad Money." This is almost identical to Harry Browne's concept of the PP and the VP. I think he could do his viewers a better service by addressing the index fund core more often, and perhaps make that more of his focus, but who besides Bogleheads would tune in to that?
The problem with Cramer is that he has to fill an hour of air time every day with something. When you have this entertainment commitment, it's hard not to come across as someone who is encouraging active trading.
If Cramer was honest, he would tell his viewers that much of his returns when he was managing his hedge fund were the result of inside information, collusion among traders, and other monkey business that is either illegal or borderline illegal. I think this is true of most hedge fund managers, and I think they would freely admit this after a few drinks. Consistently outguessing the markets without some kind of edge is just not possible, IMHO.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
MediumTex wrote:
If Cramer was honest, he would tell his viewers that much of his returns when he was managing his hedge fund were the result of inside information, collusion among traders, and other monkey business that is either illegal or borderline illegal.
He pretty much has.
Carbonjames posted this a few months back. 10 minutes, but pretty interesting.
