Page 24 of 25 FirstFirst ... 141819202122232425 LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 248

Thread: Gold as a replacement for large cash and bond savings

  1. #231

    Default

    Brutus 2

    If i bought a 20 year treasyrybond at 4pct interest rate in nov 2003 and redeemed tdy including the compound interest i would get 312.56 $
    if i had bought g=the same day bought 100 $ gold and sold it tdsy i would get 507.69 $

    difference 294.12 $

    In order to beat that differenci the bond included the compounded interest should have been 8.315 pct in order to beat gold by a catwhisker thickness. and at 8.15 pct Wallstreet would jump out of the window

    Gost my 2 cents.

    Golditiki2+++

  2. #232

    Default

    Brutus2

    If i had bought a 100 $ bond at 4 pct interest rate 17 nov 2003 and compounded the interest i would tdy redeem 213.56 $
    if i had bought 100$ gold at the same daye and sold tdy i would have 507.69 $

    Difference 294.13 $
    in order to beat gold by a caztwhisker's thickness the interest percentage should have been 8.15, but Wallstreet would have jumped out of the windows...

    Golditiki2+++

  3. #233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by golditiki2 View Post
    Brutus2

    If i had bought a 100 $ bond at 4 pct interest rate 17 nov 2003 and compounded the interest i would tdy redeem 213.56 $
    if i had bought 100$ gold at the same daye and sold tdy i would have 507.69 $

    Difference 294.13 $
    in order to beat gold by a caztwhisker's thickness the interest percentage should have been 8.15, but Wallstreet would have jumped out of the windows...

    Golditiki2+++
    There are many comparison years until current that gold would have beat a longer term treasury bond. Especially if those years would be more recent when gold sprung up from its depressed price of the 90`s ( CB`s to a significant extent) and US treasuries were suppressed by the ZIRP policies of the FED.

    You could take dates like 2012 however until recently where even a 2% long bond would beat the return of the average price of gold bought that year (1669)

    I was talking about high grade corporate`s which have an even higher yield.

    The main fact is that you must take the good with the bad in order to compare things properly. Hence why I choose 1974. It would be even worse for gold if I choose 100 years ago, but that would not be fair as the price was fixed. Like I said I choose the price I did at beginning of 1974 as gold never went below this as it was just starting to find its market price and the US market was not even involved yet. An even higher starting price (average) might have been more appropriate (comparison would have been even worse for gold)


    I have said repeatedly that gold has been a great investment this century. That is because the vast majority of its rise happened then because it was being suppressed by CB selling.
    You need to take its whole experience.

    That is why a mix of assets are great in the long run. Bonds had crazy high yields before golds run for a time. Other assets have done well or less so at various times.

    Once again I will say I own gold, I like gold, I am buying gold, at this point, like I have said, I am not buying even corporate bonds until my threshold is met, they are running off in my portfolio.

    My whole point was that bonds are misunderstood by many, and in their time and place can be a great diversifier in your portfolio.

    The thread initially advised to drop them and have stocks and gold. I was advising that a mix of all 3 properly managed would have produced far better returns in the long run ( not cherry picking the good years for gold vs the bad years for bonds)

    One other point is that you could have always sold your long bond portfolio accumulated in the 80`s and 90`s and early 2000`s for large capital gains if you wanted to when rates were low. I have not even put this into the equation. I was simply trying to say every dog has his day. This is simply a fact ( at least to this current hour )

  4. #234

    Default

    I'm not picking a side in the gold vs. bond debate, but I do want to say that I believe 1974-date is the correct time frame to look at for gold's performance. Anecdotally, an active physical market did exist open to all in some places in the US from 1972. In NYC, Manfra, Tordella, & Brooks, or MTB had a storefront in Rockefeller Center directly across the street from St. Patrick's Cathedral. I walked in many times in these years(1972-4), buying 100 coin mint rolls of Austrian 4 ducats dated 1787(44.76 oz.) for $3000 or so. Mexican 50 pesos 1947, 1915 Hungarian 100 coronas. All restrikes made by the sovereign mints in 1972-3 and on.
    Last edited by insidedealer; 11-17-2023 at 07:29 PM.

  5. #235

    Default

    I wanted to summarize this bond vs gold debate, by repeating, once again, that I started this thread in opposition to the common bond-stock mix that so many are given, such as with their retirement fund. Few people buy individual "aaa corporate bonds" and hold "to maturity" - this thread was not for the professional corporate bond investor, most of whom I highly doubt would ever find their way to this forum. A better comparison would be with the "TIAA-CREF Bond Index Fund, or TBIAA, this is typical of what many peoples retirement or other investment accounts (and my own 529 Scholarshare plan for my daughters) hold for bonds. In my above post, in which I compared 20, 10, 5, 2, and 1 year periods to a high yield corporate bond fund, I was strangely critiqued as "cherry picking". However that high yield corporate bond fund (which is the bond fund most similar aaa corporate) did better than this most common bond index funds the majority hold such as TBIAA. I stand by my contention that gold does better than bond funds, and all are free to pick their own years to compare -- while sticking to one spread of years, and these "aaa corporate bonds to maturity" (that nobody I know actually owns) is what I call cherry picking.

    Now, there are some who like to even claim gold is a bad form of savings, as unlike bond founds, it does not have "compounding interest". Throwing in such terms, without knowing what is actually being compounded, really is having faith in matters you do not understand. While one can graph the exponential increase over time compounding interest provides, one needs to consider what the basic numbers you use represent, i.e. "what is a dollar". Most can no longer answer what a dollar is, just as many doctors (and a Supreme Court Justice) now can't even answer "what is a woman". Modern man is so confused. Also, when you consider inflation can also be considered to increase much in the same way compounding interest does, if you say gold holds it's value vs dollar inflation, you well can say it's value "compounds", that is in dollar terms (one can actually graph this out, so see how the chart is similar to a bond funds value increase).

    Now, even in regards to aaa corporate bond funds, one needs to have trust that this corporation will last a long time. I do not myself have such faith, at least not compared to the value of gold which has held up for thousands of years. How long has Tesla been around, I should trust they will be around till my bonds maturity? And even more so, gold can be held discretely, not so easily confiscated by big G and other forces who watch all, taking and giving to whomever they think deserves it.

    Those who live by digits, will die by digits. The arguments to hold lots of bonds instead of gold for long term savings, are not well founded, or based on "cherry picking". They exist only because the standard, and lazy, financial advice, that is so easy to find on so many investment sites, what the vast majority of the trusting masses receive, has an easy time discussing stocks and bonds, all neatly displayed on some chart of graph. Gold is for those who do not comply, who think of the bigger picture, who know what is going on, who does not trust that our government and financial authorities really love them. You need to ask yourself: do you trust the authorities, such that you should have the vast majority of your savings/investments dependent and open to them?

    I am one of those who does not have such trust, my Trust is in God --and the natural world he created, with Gold being one of it's most fascinating and beautiful elements. No long bonds for me, corporate or otherwise, and I'll spread what I know on this, only because I feel so many have been kept deliberately ignorant on this matter, and should open their world to new possibilities, we need not be so dependent on debt, what was once considered related to usury, once commonly seen as a sin for Christians (apparently, our ancestors knew a lot more than we give them credit for).
    “Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring class of mankind, none has been more effective than that which deludes them with paper money.”Daniel Webster (1782-1852)

  6. #236

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by motocat View Post
    I wanted to summarize this bond vs gold debate, by repeating, once again, that I started this thread in opposition to the common bond-stock mix that so many are given, such as with their retirement fund. Few people buy individual "aaa corporate bonds" and hold "to maturity" - this thread was not for the professional corporate bond investor, most of whom I highly doubt would ever find their way to this forum. A better comparison would be with the "TIAA-CREF Bond Index Fund, or TBIAA, this is typical of what many peoples retirement or other investment accounts (and my own 529 Scholarshare plan for my daughters) hold for bonds. In my above post, in which I compared 20, 10, 5, 2, and 1 year periods to a high yield corporate bond fund, I was strangely critiqued as "cherry picking". However that high yield corporate bond fund (which is the bond fund most similar aaa corporate) did better than this most common bond index funds the majority hold such as TBIAA. I stand by my contention that gold does better than bond funds, and all are free to pick their own years to compare -- while sticking to one spread of years, and these "aaa corporate bonds to maturity" (that nobody I know actually owns) is what I call cherry picking.

    Now, there are some who like to even claim gold is a bad form of savings, as unlike bond founds, it does not have "compounding interest". Throwing in such terms, without knowing what is actually being compounded, really is having faith in matters you do not understand. While one can graph the exponential increase over time compounding interest provides, one needs to consider what the basic numbers you use represent, i.e. "what is a dollar". Most can no longer answer what a dollar is, just as many doctors (and a Supreme Court Justice) now can't even answer "what is a woman". Modern man is so confused. Also, when you consider inflation can also be considered to increase much in the same way compounding interest does, if you say gold holds it's value vs dollar inflation, you well can say it's value "compounds", that is in dollar terms (one can actually graph this out, so see how the chart is similar to a bond funds value increase).

    Now, even in regards to aaa corporate bond funds, one needs to have trust that this corporation will last a long time. I do not myself have such faith, at least not compared to the value of gold which has held up for thousands of years. How long has Tesla been around, I should trust they will be around till my bonds maturity? And even more so, gold can be held discretely, not so easily confiscated by big G and other forces who watch all, taking and giving to whomever they think deserves it.

    Those who live by digits, will die by digits. The arguments to hold lots of bonds instead of gold for long term savings, are not well founded, or based on "cherry picking". They exist only because the standard, and lazy, financial advice, that is so easy to find on so many investment sites, what the vast majority of the trusting masses receive, has an easy time discussing stocks and bonds, all neatly displayed on some chart of graph. Gold is for those who do not comply, who think of the bigger picture, who know what is going on, who does not trust that our government and financial authorities really love them. You need to ask yourself: do you trust the authorities, such that you should have the vast majority of your savings/investments dependent and open to them?

    I am one of those who does not have such trust, my Trust is in God --and the natural world he created, with Gold being one of it's most fascinating and beautiful elements. No long bonds for me, corporate or otherwise, and I'll spread what I know on this, only because I feel so many have been kept deliberately ignorant on this matter, and should open their world to new possibilities, we need not be so dependent on debt, what was once considered related to usury, once commonly seen as a sin for Christians (apparently, our ancestors knew a lot more than we give them credit for).

    Perhaps I can address some of your concerns Motocat. I will try my best. I am off to a curling bonspeil for 3 days in the morning so I will not be able to address any further posts until at least then. You would like curling, lots of pretty ladies yelling hurry hard. You live in California so perhaps some of the many Canadians there have introduced it.

    Here is what you said on your initial post:

    "Gold is, has, and will be for the foreseeable the time tested solid core of money. Cash and bonds will just loose value, a fools savings. So now, instead of say 40% in stock, 40% in bonds, 10% in gold, 5% cash, 5% ____ - have 40% stock, 40% gold, 10% silver/platinum, 5% cash, 5% _____. One needs to stick to this plan even when gold is not on a bull run, as it is on the downs when gold is not favored that saving in it can really pay off."

    Lets forget about the 10% silver platinum and 5% cash ( they have done far worse than stocks/bonds or gold in most time frames).
    If you owned the portfolio you espouse then you would have done far worse than say a 40 stock 30 bond and 20 gold and 10 other in probably 90% of the time frame on my 95 year link.
    Certainly a 60- 40 stock and bond would have been 95% or more probably. Do the math. That does not say that your portfolio will not do better in the future but all we have to go on is the past. I hope your right, as my bonds are running off and my gold bullion holdings are increasing but who knows. I like to keep some of everything and I will certainly strat buying corporate bonds again as soon as my threshold is met.

    I alluded to holding my own corporate bonds because that gives me control over their purchase and sale as well as maintaining what I consider the best element of bonds - their maturity date.
    Gold and stocks do not have this feature. The older you get the more important it is. So gold and stocks have lost money for periods of at least 10 years in the past but bonds helds to maturity never have even if they have 0 coupon. I am not talking about purchasing power as they all lose in dollar terms, that is why they all must be compensated in price appreciation or interest.

    I only picked Aaa bonds because historically they have no default risk ( a rounding error). Also I am a control freak when it comes to my money so I want control of every aspect of it ( except the spending - that is where my wife likes to exert influence)
    Bond funds especially if mostly corporate should match my returns ( in that part of my portfolio) over a long enough period less any fess they charge. If there is negligible default risk you do not need a diversified portfolio, so any person with few hundred bucks can buy a bond index fund and probably do somewhat as well as me, if a long enough period managed by a capable manager. So yes lots of people on this site. I have a feeling that many people here are far more wealthy than I, ( not a high threshold ), and some have financial advisors, so they could easily do what I did, if they were so inclined.

    As I said before you are cherry picking. You are using recency bias and extrapolating it out. I notice you do not do that with silver or platinum or cash.
    Of course gold has done well in the recent past. It was suppressed by CB selling prior to 2002 so that its price caught up to what it should have been in the last 20 years.
    The reverse happened with bonds that had a fantastic coupon in the 20 years before that, and then were suppressed by ZIRP ( zero interest rate policy)
    That has changed in past couple years, and things are getting more normalized now.
    Like I said you need to start far enough back where these factors all balance out. Then you are not cherry picking. ( see link below)

    One can look at the gold price from 2011 to now and see corporate bonds of all kinds have beat those returns even in ZIRP.

    You can see from the asset class return links from the 1920`s I could have cherry picked most of the years in my favour. I am just trying to tell yoiu that all assets are good in their turn and all should be held in your tool kit and used when times warrant. If historical investment return was the only consideration one should be 100% in stock.

    You may notice that S+P returned 624,500 and Corporate Bonds 46,379 and Gold 8,867 since 1928 on the link below.
    That does not make me say you should be 100% stock, or 80 - 20 stock bonds and screw that poor performing gold.
    No each one has an IMPORTANT part to play in ones portfolio as do the other assets.

    I totally agree debt used unwisely is a road to ruin.
    This does not mean that no one should own a house unless they can pay for it 100%.
    This does not mean that a 10 billion infrastructure project should not be undertaken if that company cannot pay for it 100%
    This does not mean a plumber should not be able to work if he cannot borrow some money for his truck and his tools. etc etc

    Debt was around aplenty when gold was the currency, or silver. You simply need to differentiate bad debt with good debt.

    You say "bonds will just lose value:, yet all the links presented show otherwise. If they are losing value, so is gold.

    I have to ask you Motocat, how did you purchase your gold, you did so with debt. A bond with no coupon and no term

    I also dream of a different type of world, a more moral and righteous one, but currently that is not the one we live in. It may never be

    I commend you and your beliefs. I think gold is a great asset to own, I just want to make sure that any reader knows the true historical facts about all asset classe, and that every dog has his day.









    https://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamoda...histretSP.html

  7. #237

    Default

    Sure hope Brutus enjoyed his curling, and especially that there were many pretty lasses to be seen (a big reason why gold has such great value), as it sure must beat trying to push bonds in a gold forum!

    What he seems to keep missing is the point of this thread: that holding more gold, and less bonds, would have served the vast majority who only know stocks and bonds better.

    It is the "cherry pickers" who try to argue otherwise, with such tactics as using only certain corporate bonds, from a certain date, "to maturity", etc.

    Once again, what I have been comparing, is the performance of most bond index funds that are typical in the digital portfolios the vast majority of Americans have, to how gold has held value. One such index fund that is very popular as I mentioned above is the TIAA-CREF Bond Index, U.S. Treasury bonds have also been popular (which I have also compared above since 1974). Anyone is free to check how they do vs gold over different time periods to today at https://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/tbiwx/chart or many other financial sites. Do not take my or word, or that of Brutus, on this. Check on whatever bond fund you own on such charts, at whatever time periods you like, and come to your own conclusions. So many millions of people are hurting badly because of their bond index fund holdings, not to mention so many stories of many who have been drained of all their life savings because it was easy to see (and confiscate), for so many reasons. Yes, the discreet nature of holding gold is a big reason, however it can win on holding value alone. These bond funds have done FAR poorly here, again, check for yourself.

    My interest is in the years I have been investing, which really means since 2000. A 95 year period is not my concern, as the world of today is far different then before WWII, before silver coinage was eliminated. Also, the amounts of debt we have today has a far greater impact on our lives than it did in the distant past, really no comparison. So no looking at antique cherries for me, I need to consider the reality of today, and looking at it tells me bonds funds have done terrible, especially when you throw in inflation - that "compounding" becomes like artificial flavoring, used to impress those who don't know what it (or the fiat dollar) really means.

    Now, of course, there are exception, a few select "bond cherries" -- and for those who know of them and would like to spread the good news, I say start a thread in a more appropriate forum group, maybe even have a "Bond Discussion Group" started, and you can suggest great AAA rated Long Term corporate bonds for people to get into? Why not, I for one would like the advice in this area. Till then can you post some pictures of the pretty curling ladies, especially if they have any gold adornments -- now that would be very appropriate in this pro-gold forum! I am long girls and gold.....
    “Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring class of mankind, none has been more effective than that which deludes them with paper money.”Daniel Webster (1782-1852)

  8. #238

    Default

    I still don't understand the need to visit a gold forum and poo-poo gold. I don't visit bond, stock or crypto forums (well maybe crypto) forums and crap on their parades. The reasons to hold any form of wealth preservation devices is a theme that all of these items have in common. To each their own. All have pluses and all have weaknesses. I enjoyed the now missing thread about retiring and living on high dividends that used to be on Kitco until one day it disappeared. I never once thought that what I'm going to do, but it did increase my knowledge and offered me a new viewpoint to ponder.
    Do your own due diligence

    I stand united with my friends & family in Canada who seek freedom.

  9. #239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by motocat View Post
    Sure hope Brutus enjoyed his curling, and especially that there were many pretty lasses to be seen (a big reason why gold has such great value), as it sure must beat trying to push bonds in a gold forum!

    What he seems to keep missing is the point of this thread: that holding more gold, and less bonds, would have served the vast majority who only know stocks and bonds better.

    It is the "cherry pickers" who try to argue otherwise, with such tactics as using only certain corporate bonds, from a certain date, "to maturity", etc.

    Once again, what I have been comparing, is the performance of most bond index funds that are typical in the digital portfolios the vast majority of Americans have, to how gold has held value. One such index fund that is very popular as I mentioned above is the TIAA-CREF Bond Index, U.S. Treasury bonds have also been popular (which I have also compared above since 1974). Anyone is free to check how they do vs gold over different time periods to today at https://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/tbiwx/chart or many other financial sites. Do not take my or word, or that of Brutus, on this. Check on whatever bond fund you own on such charts, at whatever time periods you like, and come to your own conclusions. So many millions of people are hurting badly because of their bond index fund holdings, not to mention so many stories of many who have been drained of all their life savings because it was easy to see (and confiscate), for so many reasons. Yes, the discreet nature of holding gold is a big reason, however it can win on holding value alone. These bond funds have done FAR poorly here, again, check for yourself.

    My interest is in the years I have been investing, which really means since 2000. A 95 year period is not my concern, as the world of today is far different then before WWII, before silver coinage was eliminated. Also, the amounts of debt we have today has a far greater impact on our lives than it did in the distant past, really no comparison. So no looking at antique cherries for me, I need to consider the reality of today, and looking at it tells me bonds funds have done terrible, especially when you throw in inflation - that "compounding" becomes like artificial flavoring, used to impress those who don't know what it (or the fiat dollar) really means.

    Now, of course, there are exception, a few select "bond cherries" -- and for those who know of them and would like to spread the good news, I say start a thread in a more appropriate forum group, maybe even have a "Bond Discussion Group" started, and you can suggest great AAA rated Long Term corporate bonds for people to get into? Why not, I for one would like the advice in this area. Till then can you post some pictures of the pretty curling ladies, especially if they have any gold adornments -- now that would be very appropriate in this pro-gold forum! I am long girls and gold.....
    Lots of fun and we did well ( sometimes experience trumps youth)

    Thank you for your clarification.

    As I said from the start, if you are comparing the last 20 years ( and forgetting about the 20 years before that) you are absolutely correct.
    I also explained why this was so.
    It does not matter what bonds are selected,( as long as diversified) the results would be the same, the higher the risk of the bonds the higher the yield.

    I have no more affinity for bonds than I do for stocks or real estate etc. If you took time to read what I am saying you would see I have been divesting them for nearly 15 years and in part buying gold and silver and other PM`s as well as other assets with them.
    It was you that started the thread saying get rid of all bonds out of your mix. It was not I that said that gold was not a great asset to hold to diversify oneself ( quite the opposite).
    As I have said repeatedly , every dog has his day ( that means they all run at different speeds at different times)

    I simply showed you historically that your hypothetical portfolio mix was not the best mix if you took a good with the bad approach.

    Diversification is not about getting the most bang for your buck ( It is hard to argue that a 100% stock weighting would do that) It is about the highest return given the lowest possible volatility and safety of principle. The older you are the more important that becomes.

    One thing I do not like is someone trying to make it that I am saying something that I am clearly not.

    I am also long gold and girls. ( or at least 1 girl at my age)

  10. #240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LongDonSilver View Post
    I still don't understand the need to visit a gold forum and poo-poo gold. I don't visit bond, stock or crypto forums (well maybe crypto) forums and crap on their parades. The reasons to hold any form of wealth preservation devices is a theme that all of these items have in common. To each their own. All have pluses and all have weaknesses. I enjoyed the now missing thread about retiring and living on high dividends that used to be on Kitco until one day it disappeared. I never once thought that what I'm going to do, but it did increase my knowledge and offered me a new viewpoint to ponder.
    If you are referring to me, please show me where I am crapping on gold.
    You have just explained exactly what I have been spending endless posts trying to explain. " all have pluses and all have weaknesses"

    I have a lot of faults and have many views that maybe deserving of criticism, without having to invent one.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •