Church Silver Sale

Google it: 6% is the magic number for those seeking income. With +3% ann. inflation and rising taxes, they'll NEED it!

The dividend return on the S&P 500 index has declined to about 1.5% in 2000s from 3.5% to 4.0% in the 1960s. Dividends accounted for 20-30% of stock holders' total return in the 1960s. You didn't know this?

Dividends for S&P500 cos averaged over 6% mid 1940s - mid 1950s. In the late 1950s, 9 out 10 publicly-traded American companies paid dividends. And half of all NYSE cos paid special dividends, 20% of all dividends paid. Today, fewer than 1 in 5 pays any dividend at all. Therein lies the failure of American Capitalism and 'the Dream,' I fear.

No dividend = fluff value, pure spec. Or, a servile corporatist govt that buys up/props 'special friends companies' in some horrid cryptofascist market dystopia. Turning Japanese? It will, no doubt, continue and probably worsen, here and elsewhere. However, more Americans (Little People) do see this as a game stacked against them. Or they've already been played. And they're right in that understanding, either way. What do you believe WILL change?

Paper-Bugs always insist we're in a "Gold Bubble" ... yet cannot show any significant participation/allocation to prove that. If "most investors" don't and won't (you insist; I'll agree) own a particular asset, how can said asset ever be a Bubble? And how can a textbook Bubble that doesn't exist pop?

You've contradicted yourself there, but I read the same thing (tortured premise) everywhere. You're not alone, but it's still pure Paper-Bug propaganda.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I agree that dividend yields were higher than the historical average post World War II. But the historical dividend isn't 6%. The rest of what you posted is smoke. I dont' think you will find many intelligent investors who will claim that stocks without dividends have no value. That's your belief system, not anybody elses. By the way, I don't believe the S&P500 existed in the 40s and most of the 50s. You didn't know this? Much of what you post is similar to what could have been seen in the old AOL investment chat rooms in the late 90s regarding tech stocks. They will never go down because of [post favorite list of reasons]. So it is with gold. Human nature never changes. I don't think I ever used the word bubble. Bubbles are rare, and a bear market can occur without an asset being in a bubble. So I never contradicted myself. You just fabricated a lot of things I never said. Apparently you can't support your position without changing the statements of others.

 

I didn't fabricate anything you wrote.
You wrote: "The gold bull market will end as a textbook example of the greater fool theory." 9 out of 10 understand that as a Bubble-call.

You've been making that call since early 2011?
http://www.cointalk.com/t169702/

Waaaaaay too early chief.

 

Thanks for proving my point. My exact quote was "I think it is interesting not because they are necessarily correct, but because any large move by institutions into gold could cause a large upward move in the price, even if it turns out to be the last leg of the bull market. It's another data point to watch."

Read more: http://www.cointalk.com/t169702/#ixzz2E7ZXCNQy

No thinking investor equates the greater fool theory with bubbles. Only you. Nice try though. As of now, April 2011 was a pretty good call for the next leg of the gold bull market. A careful reading, which you never seem to do, will indicated that I was discussing the future in that post, not the present. And if you read more of my posts, you will also find that was selling part of my gold holdings in 2011 - about enough to almost recover my original cost in 2004. So I'm not just pontificating here. I tell people what I'm doing and let them make their own decisions.

Also, the gold bull market may very well end as a textbook example of the greater fool theory. But we aren't their yet. I readily admit that I'm better at identifying what will happen than when, and you will find that admission in several old posts also. So let's not go lying about my making a "call" in 2011. People here who have followed what I write will know that I would never do that.

 

Why? Because the market moved higher four months later? Silly to pat yourself on the back for being too early. And still (so far as I can see) wrong.

Is THAT why you keep harping on the Bubble that you and so many Paper-Bugs imagine? To feel vindicated ("....at last!" say, 10 years later?) that you were "right"?
Sorry: I don't see that and I don't agree. It's not "lying" to state the obvious - you are a nasty piece of work, though.

Oh really? Who made this equation (2/9/2012) then?

"The second major category of {dangerous} investments involves assets that will never produce anything, but that are purchased in the buyer's hope that someone else -- who also knows that the assets will be forever unproductive -- will pay more for them in the future. Tulips, of all things, briefly became a favorite of such buyers in the 17th century.

This type of investment requires an expanding pool of buyers, who, in turn, are enticed because they believe the buying pool will expand still further. Owners are not inspired by what the asset itself can produce -- it will remain lifeless forever -- but rather by the belief that others will desire it even more avidly in the future.

The major asset in this category is gold..."

Since you're so uninformed, here's a fine piece dismantling Buffett's Bubble/Greater Fool Theory about Gold. Read up!
http://advisoranalyst.com/glablog/tag/greater-fool-theory/

 

Good lord. Your posts are so full of insults.

 

I think that there have been too many personal comments having nothing to do with the subject, so stop now. For those who missed the rules,

 

Thank you, Juan, for posting your thoughts. Everyone here can read what each of us posted and decide for themselves what to do in their personal situations. I'll continue to use value investing within the sort of portfolio management concepts I've discussed in the past. They work for me. And I'll continue to own gold as another tool in the toolbox as are certain common stocks that fit my criteria for safety and value.

 

For me the issue is the fact that some 300+ years ago someone left items of value to the church with the understanding that they would be kept by the church in perpetuity. Unless said organisation is in some dire need of funds I believe they should honour the wishes of the person or persons whom gave them to the organisation in the first place.

Sure - if you think about it, holding on to old stuff might be conceived to be a bit of a burden - but thence you have to ask yourself are you worthy of those before you whom bestowed such treasures unto you? And I state that with diligence because I myself am the current benefactor of an ancestor's furnishings, mementos etc from the early 20th century. At mere moments I believe holding onto valuable well made furniture that I don't permit my kids to sit on etc is a hassle, but then on the other hand I am endowed with something very special. My views have certainly changed from my teenage years.

 

Thanks, cloudsweeper99!




scottishmoney-
Excellent points, but sadly - when it comes to Silver nowadays - fewer and fewer people grasp that. This Church has no dire situation, either... but the urge to SELL PMs cannot be restrained any longer. A piece of RE sold in the late 1990s augumented the Endowment by $25 mln ; this sale continues that drive.