Don wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 10:52 am
Markets are down greatly in the past few days. A trade deal with China is in jeopardy. N Korea launched 2 missiles today. We're sending B52s and a carrier fleet towards Iran. And yet, gold is only up a fraction. What's up with this?
It's better than being down, right?
It takes more than a couple days to make a trend. One weeks behavior is meaningless; it's nothing but pure noise. Gold is in a secondary downtrend of a primary uptrend that started back in August, that is inside of a bullish wedge consolidation (a long series of higher lows and flat highs) that started back in 2013. In layman's terms gold is fine technically, and sooner or later it will break out, and when that happens with that long of a consolidation it will likely break out violently to the upside. Have some patients, all will be just fine in the end.
Don wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 10:52 am
Markets are down greatly in the past few days. A trade deal with China is in jeopardy. N Korea launched 2 missiles today. We're sending B52s and a carrier fleet towards Iran. And yet, gold is only up a fraction. What's up with this?
You’ve been sold a promise that isn’t accurate?
Why should gold intrinsically outperform during times of geopolitical risk?
Charlie Munger/Carl Jacobi: Invert, always invert.
Don wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 10:52 am
Markets are down greatly in the past few days. A trade deal with China is in jeopardy. N Korea launched 2 missiles today. We're sending B52s and a carrier fleet towards Iran. And yet, gold is only up a fraction. What's up with this?
Don wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 10:52 am
Markets are down greatly in the past few days. A trade deal with China is in jeopardy. N Korea launched 2 missiles today. We're sending B52s and a carrier fleet towards Iran. And yet, gold is only up a fraction. What's up with this?
This is how uncorrelated assets work.
Some of you will say anything to defend the PP, even if it's totally illogical.
Don wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 10:52 am
Markets are down greatly in the past few days. A trade deal with China is in jeopardy. N Korea launched 2 missiles today. We're sending B52s and a carrier fleet towards Iran. And yet, gold is only up a fraction. What's up with this?
This is how uncorrelated assets work.
Some of you will say anything to defend the PP, even if it's totally illogical.
They aren't inversely correlated. If they were they would perpetually cancel each other out. Just uncorrelated.
Bonds were up today.
But I agree that gold is one of the more frustrating assets to hold. And also the one that makes me feel most secure, strangely. I've also learned years ago that while gold is sometimes a barometer of world events, it never seems to last more than a day or two. Look at the graphs when Brexit was being voted and when Trump was elected. You'd think it was the end of the world. Until the next day...
which is why i basically trade gold and not wait when it sees a pop. i have one third of my gold position left at this point , about 4% of assets ... i sell a little each day we are up ..
Cortopassi wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 8:25 pm
And (gold is)also the (asset) that makes me feel most secure, strangely.
...
My PP is up 6.32% YTD. No complaints.
Don wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 10:52 am
Markets are down greatly in the past few days. A trade deal with China is in jeopardy. N Korea launched 2 missiles today. We're sending B52s and a carrier fleet towards Iran. And yet, gold is only up a fraction. What's up with this?
This is how uncorrelated assets work.
Some of you will say anything to defend the PP, even if it's totally illogical.
Sorry, but that's not an exclusive feature of the PP, that's Modern Portfolio Theory in a nutshell. Are you saying you disagree with all the research and Nobel prizes that have been awarded for the various aspects of MPT?
Also, speaking to the PP specifically, it does exactly what it promises consistently. On any country and any time frame I have looked at (including Japan) the PP over the long run always hits a trusty 3-5% real CAGR with low volatility. If 3-5% real return with low volatility is your goal, then perfect. If that is not enough return to satisfy your greed, then you will need to concentrate to some degree and accept more risk and volatility. I don't see why this is a point of contention? It's common sense. If anyone bought into a PP then it's their own damn fault if 3-5% real is not enough to satisfy their desires. Nobody has ever claimed the PP would do more than this in real compounded terms. It's what it historically has always done and continues to do to this day. There is no problem with the portfolio, there can however be a problem with the individual if they go into the PP with unrealistic expectations or as a way to make a market timing bet that doesn't play out.
Cortopassi wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 8:25 pm
And (gold is)also the (asset) that makes me feel most secure, strangely.
...
My PP is up 6.32% YTD. No complaints.
Cortopassi wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 8:25 pm
And (gold is)also the (asset) that makes me feel most secure, strangely.
...
My PP is up 6.32% YTD. No complaints.
Wait until you get their huge capital gains distributions in December!
Good job ignoring the argument I presented and picking and choosing a couple small points that you want to try to argue with. Where I come from, they call that trolling.
Wait until you get their huge capital gains distributions in December!
I don't own them anymore, but yes, good point. I'd forgotten about those distributions!
I owned them for a while almost ten years ago, because it seemed like the most comfortable way for me to hold gold. Nice and abstracted. The ER bugged me, though, and after I started getting the other components together on my own, I took the plunge, bought some gold, and gave PRPFX the boot.
I think it could still be a nice vehicle for many investors. I just don't like the ER.
Monstres and tokeninges gert he be-kend, / And wondirs in the air send.
Wait until you get their huge capital gains distributions in December!
Good job ignoring the argument I presented and picking and choosing a couple small points that you want to try to argue with. Where I come from, they call that trolling.
I don't argue with idiots. You're blocked forever.
Don wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 12:05 pm
Wait until you get their huge capital gains distributions in December!
Good job ignoring the argument I presented and picking and choosing a couple small points that you want to try to argue with. Where I come from, they call that trolling.
I don't argue with idiots. You're blocked forever.
Let the record show that Don makes no attempt to even consider or refute a logical argument that is presented to refute his claims, he is simply here to troll the forum, try to annoy the members of the forum, and bash the PP for no logical reason. When presented with a logical argument that refutes his claims he completely ignores it and then blocks the person presenting it.
Good job ignoring the argument I presented and picking and choosing a couple small points that you want to try to argue with. Where I come from, they call that trolling.
I don't argue with idiots. You're blocked forever.
Let the record show that Don makes no attempt to even consider or refute a logical argument that is presented to refute his claims, he is simply here to troll the forum, try to annoy the members of the forum, and bash the PP for no logical reason. When presented with a logical argument that refutes his claims he completely ignores it and then blocks the person presenting it.
Such a person will always call any investment strategy other than what has been winning lately an idiot, it's not just limited to anti-PP. It's anti-anything-but-US-Equities. In 1980 it was if-you're-not-in-gold-you're-an-idiot. In 2007, if-you're-not-in-EM-you're-an-idiot. In a few years it will be something else. At the next bottom it may be if-you're-not-in-PP-you're-an-idiot.
Don wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 3:18 pm
I don't argue with idiots. You're blocked forever.
Let the record show that Don makes no attempt to even consider or refute a logical argument that is presented to refute his claims, he is simply here to troll the forum, try to annoy the members of the forum, and bash the PP for no logical reason. When presented with a logical argument that refutes his claims he completely ignores it and then blocks the person presenting it.
Such a person will always call any investment strategy other than what has been winning lately an idiot, it's not just limited to anti-PP. It's anti-anything-but-US-Equities. In 1980 it was if-you're-not-in-gold-you're-an-idiot. In 2007, if-you're-not-in-EM-you're-an-idiot. In a few years it will be something else. At the next bottom it may be if-you're-not-in-PP-you're-an-idiot.
Yeah. I mean, I'm not going to claim the PP is for everyone. There's reason why it is not a popular investing style, and never will be (aside from those moments like you mention of extreme capitulation... which is the worst time to swap to a PP, imo). I don't see the point though in someone coming to a forum about the PP and subjectively bashing it and then refusing to discuss the subject when someone refutes them. If someone has legitimate complaints about the PP I seriously want to have a discussion with them. But it seems we just get people that want to throw the baby out with the bathwater and make sweeping blanket judgements simply because the 3-5% consistent real compounded return is not good enough for them. Saying subjective prodding lines like "the PP is garbage" or "Some of you will say anything to defend the PP, even if it's totally illogical" without presenting any context, data, or logic behind the claim is silly. Only forum trolls behave that way. We got rid of one troll, and the discussions lately on this forum have been super constructive since then... until troll #2 jumped in today right where the first one left off, haha.
A lot of blocking forever going on lately on this board. I felt pretty cool earlier this week when I got blocked by someone for the first time ever. I don't think I'm the trolly type, but I will layout what I hope is a factual well reasoned counterpoint if I think someone is just wrong on something. It seems gold has an almost religious aspect to it. Kinda weird I think. I'm not anti or pro gold, for me it's a financial asset with known characteristics. Historically, we know the following:
1. It used to be money. It no longer is money. Who know's if it will ever be money again.
2. It has no productive value in the economic sense of "productive" other than for ornamental jewelry and specialized coatings.
3. It has weak correlation to most other financial assets and has demonstrated an ability to be a good diversifier at somewhere in the 10-25% range.
4. Most serious studies have shown that it is a hard asset to nail down what it drives or is driven by or reacts to consistently and most of what we think it does actually does not.
Kbg wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2019 12:05 pm
A lot of blocking forever going on lately on this board. I felt pretty cool earlier this week when I got blocked by someone for the first time ever. I don't think I'm the trolly type, but I will layout what I hope is a factual well reasoned counterpoint if I think someone is just wrong on something. It seems gold has an almost religious aspect to it. Kinda weird I think. I'm not anti or pro gold, for me it's a financial asset with known characteristics. Historically, we know the following:
1. It used to be money. It no longer is money. Who know's if it will ever be money again.
2. It has no productive value in the economic sense of "productive" other than for ornamental jewelry and specialized coatings.
3. It has weak correlation to most other financial assets and has demonstrated an ability to be a good diversifier at somewhere in the 10-25% range.
4. Most serious studies have shown that it is a hard asset to nail down what it drives or is driven by or reacts to consistently and most of what we think it does actually does not.
I don't think I've ever seen you do anything I would consider trolling. When you present an opinion it's always well thought out, objective, and you provide actual data or sources where applicable. That's good discussion in my opinion. This is what I wish the anti-PP'ers around here would do, bring some actual data, facts, and logical well thought out arguments to the table. Then we can have a constructive discussion. Just simply saying "x is bad, y is good" by projecting the current market environment infinitely into the future doesn't provide any real substance and serves to do nothing but annoy.
Aside from that I generally agree with all you say here about gold. I think it's greatest fundamental strength is that it is uncorrelated to pretty much everything and anything; it just marches to the beat of its own drum most of the time. It also tends to go up in those SHTF type moments. There is always money looking for a home in any market environment, which is why there always will be at least one asset class going up. When stocks and/or bonds are doing bad money always tends to find its way into gold. That is where gold pays its rent in a portfolio.
Kbg wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2019 12:05 pm
A lot of blocking forever going on lately on this board. I felt pretty cool earlier this week when I got blocked by someone for the first time ever. I don't think I'm the trolly type, but I will layout what I hope is a factual well reasoned counterpoint if I think someone is just wrong on something. It seems gold has an almost religious aspect to it. Kinda weird I think. I'm not anti or pro gold, for me it's a financial asset with known characteristics. Historically, we know the following:
1. It used to be money. It no longer is money. Who know's if it will ever be money again.
2. It has no productive value in the economic sense of "productive" other than for ornamental jewelry and specialized coatings.
3. It has weak correlation to most other financial assets and has demonstrated an ability to be a good diversifier at somewhere in the 10-25% range.
4. Most serious studies have shown that it is a hard asset to nail down what it drives or is driven by or reacts to consistently and most of what we think it does actually does not.
Points 1. and 2.inform my decision to pursue a 10% allocation, not 25%. Because if there is a risk the money put into gold becomes dead money, I don't want to deaden 25% of my port. But if gold is going to $10,000 per ounce then 10% is probably enough.
Kbg wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2019 12:05 pm
A lot of blocking forever going on lately on this board. I felt pretty cool earlier this week when I got blocked by someone for the first time ever. I don't think I'm the trolly type,
...
I don't think I've ever seen you do anything I would consider trolling.
But you’ve only been on the forum for five minutes.
I’m kidding. Kbg has always been nice.
Monstres and tokeninges gert he be-kend, / And wondirs in the air send.
pmward wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 7:44 pm
Only forum trolls behave that way.
Well, do not feed the trolls :-)
pmward wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 7:44 pm
We got rid of one troll, and the discussions lately on this forum have been super constructive since then... until troll #2 jumped in today right where the first one left off, haha.
This is a particular example of the fundamental conservation law.
Trolls can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, they can only be transformed or transferred from one form to another.
Ugly_Bird wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2019 7:14 pm
This is a particular example of the fundamental conservation law.
Trolls can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, they can only be transformed or transferred from one form to another.
