Best precious metal to invest in?

:yes:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

You need the gun to guard your gold anyway. So get all of the above ... including the canned goods ( ... Dinty Moore beef stew and Hormel chili really do keep forever ... almost ........ twinkies optional).

I wonder how many people really understand what would happen if/when we have a financial "episode". Reading about US in 1932/33, Argentina in 2001 and Latvia in 2011 would give a good idea. I've heard several families say they'd meet at the grocery store and pull their money out of the bank. I've got news for them. They'll be too late for either. That's one reason I don't keep all my gold in a safe deposit box and always keep some cash at home.

 

You can't judge an investment until you first define the goals for your investing.

If your goal is to protect your accumulated wealth from $ devaluation/debasement, then gold wins hands down, no contest. Gold is the investor's metal.

If you have cojones of steel and you are looking to make a quick buck, then silver is best. Silver is the speculator's metal.

 

Storage of value by the world's central banks to the tune of approximately one billion ounces.

 

Silver all the way. It's the must volital and cheapestof the 4 metals listed here. Also, one could get about 51 oz. of silver for 1 oz. of gold... I think I'd take the silver over the gold.

-C.J.

 

if you have enough extra ammo you don't need a can opener. just point and pull.

 

For me it's a matter of doing enough research to feel good about my decisions coupled with not being attached to money as an object. The silver ride can make you sick, it can make or lose you a quick buck for sure, but you don't have to have to be a person of mettle if you understand the silver story. It speaks for itself. I agree that gold is the investor's metal, but if I only thought silver was about making a quick buck I wouldn't be into it. It's the most undervalued commodity in history IMO.

 

I don't understand how some can say they would buy silver because it is cheaper. If gold was at historic lows and silver was at its all time high at current prices would not the smart money be on gold? So it doesn't matter what the price is, it matters what you believe will happen to your $1000 dollars 5 years from now.

 

Welcome to CoinTalk, and for resurrecting this old thread. You are correct that the nex 5 years is more important than historical results. People have opinions, but nobody can tell you with certainty whether gold or silver will be the best investment.

 

Jerky....don't forget jerky! Lasts almost as long as twinkies.

 

Lets just say everything you've stated is correct, which btw I believe to be true. I believe the biggest driver for gold, silver and platinum prices the last 4 years has not been consumption but investor fear of inflation. That being said, people faced with rising inflation will turn to Gold first, at least historically they have and I don't see this changing. In the Holland tulip bubble, the U.S Housing market and countless other bubbles it has not been the utilitarian value of the commodity but the perception of the mob driving prices. I have some gold and silver for the next 20 years to see how the U.S. handles it budget/debt problems. I might increase my position in silver as I feel gold is over valued at its current level.

 

So very true. The problem is if we default on our debt and the dollar inflates but there isn't anarchy in the streets. PM's holders will be in the driver seat. It's like buying insurance without the premium.

 

There haven't been countless bubbles. Actually, bubbles are pretty rare. CNBC has taken to calling every bull market a "bubble" because they missed the tech stock bubble in the 1990s. I think this may have contributed to people believing that it is more common than it really is.

 

I agree that bubbles aren't as common as people are saying nowadays. Even the tulip bulb craze wasn't a bubble if demand charts would have continued as they were perceived in the day.

Maybe I have been away from Econ too long, but what would you call ill-conceived demand forecasts that lead to exaggerated pricing? Let's use the tulip bulb frenzy. It wasn't a bubble since if you took potential production from a single bulb out 20 years, and factored in the exploding demand growth, the prices paid per bulb in holland at the time was actually rational. The error was to take current demand growth and extrapolate it forever. While not a "bubble", this error is what I am seeing today being made in all kinds of assets, like farmland, PM, and the like. The reason I am bearish on farmland at these prices is everyone is forecasting out cheap money, low dollar, relatively low inputs and taxes, and lack of serious foreign competition FOREVER in their price calculations.

 

I'm happy people are adding to the thread but I came here to see what and more importantly why people are getting into or out of a particular metal. Also, if you have another place you like your money to guard against inflation by all means speak up. @cloudsweeper, what do you like and why?

 

My answer, and I would let Cloud speak for himself, is I diversify and make sure I am positioned for an economic rebound as much as economic downturn. This is the common error of small investors. They position their portfolio for what they have experienced in the recent past, not expected futures. The same mentality that leads small investors to wish to buy the mutual fund that went up the most LAST quarter, leads them to invest assuming what happened LAST year will continue.

I have always owned PM, mainly silver, and some farmland. Worst comes to worst, and we have some weird Mad MAx moment, I have some Iowa farmland, gold and silver, and guns and ammo. However, I believe that is a .000001% chance of that. For other investments, I have combinations of stocks that have decent yields, some stocks that benefit if US incomes continue to weaken, some that benefit with rising Chinese prosperity, but also others that will benefit greatly when the world economy improves. You simply MUST diversify and position yourself to benefit via any economic outcome, or you will get caught flat footed and miss out when changes hit.

Just my view.

 

I would say the tulip bulb example was a bubble. It involved (1) widespread public participation, (2) the use of leverage, (3) buying that was not for economic reasons but simply because the price was going up, and (4) created an economic dislocation large enough to damage the national economy. So I think the tech stock boom and real estate boom that followed probably qualify as bubbles. I think it's unusual for a single generation to witness, or be stupid enough, to get involved in two bubbles in their lifetime.

 

But it wasn't IMO. Looking back, the strongest prices were always paid for unique, new varieties, varieties which were assumed to have strong returns from future duplication. Common varieties only modestly went up, and even those were a function of expected future production originating from them. Basically, the entire market was very rational IF you assumed future demand was going to continue to grow at current rates.

So is it a bubble if the procing is rational but its just your assumptions of market growth and pricing that are flawed? I would understand if people only bought because prices were going up, like housing in 2000's, but the prices of the bulbs were analyzed, and the calculations supported the pricing at the time.

Sorry everyone else if you view this as OT, if you want I can just PM Cloud on this discussion. I do think differences between bubbles and assumption error pricing could be applicable though to this discussion.

 

I do things a bit differently. I tend to look for assets or asset classes that I think have favorable economics and concentrate my investments in those areas. Within that technique, I'm a value investor for the most part. Over the past decade my two favorites have been precious metals and energy. Energy is a long time favorite area that I move into and out of over time. I also don't buy into traditional asset allocation models that suggest a certain percentage of investment in stocks, bonds, cash, etc. based on age or whatever. I think it's a cheap marketing tool for financial planners. Instead, I probably keep a smaller percentage of my funds in the areas I choose, but take more risk in those areas than others might be comfortable with. I was interested when Nassim Taleb basically wrote the same thing because I have been doing this for decades. This is what has worked for me for a long time, and I have complete confidence in the methodology. There are many ways to address the "problem" of investing, and it is important that whatever method is chosen is something you are comfortable with as well as being fundamentally sound.

 

I say don't get so caught up in investment strategies and asset allocation that you ignore your own expertise. The industires in which you workor are highly involved with. As you'll be the first to see and your experiences will alow you to judge and recognize true innovation in this area.