Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Blaubart, post: 2109663, member: 37498&quot;]Agreed, stocks have historically been the best investment in the US.&nbsp; However, keep in mind that we have not experienced any sort of major economic collapse as many other countries have in the past 200 years.&nbsp; Unfortunately, we do not live in history, we live in the present and the future.</p><p><br /></p><p>Disagreed that trading fees are irrelevant as it is simply not possible to buy and hold stocks that were available 200 years ago and realize the gains the author has claimed.&nbsp; There would have had to have been reinvestments of funds at many points in time.&nbsp; Each one of these reinvestments would not only have resulted in trading fees, but also very likely taxes.&nbsp; Precious metals are virtually unique in this regard.&nbsp; It is possible to hold precious metals for 200 years without any related expenses.&nbsp; Yes, it&#039;s prudent to have a SDB, or at least a safe, but neither are actually required.</p><p><br /></p><p>Bias in the article was noted in my previous posts, but they include comparing an individual commodity against asset classes.&nbsp; Why compare gold against all stocks on average?&nbsp; If one wants to compare specific holdings, why not pick one stock at random that was available 200 years ago and compare it to gold?&nbsp; Odds are very good that the stock certificate might be a collectors item, but the actual share of stock in what is 99% likely to be a long since bankrupt company would have no value.</p><p><br /></p><p>If one is to say that gold is the worst possible investment in history, then that means if I can find any single investment (not investment class average) that did worse, it would disprove the author&#039;s assertion.&nbsp; Since there are countless examples of companies that have gone bankrupt and shareholders received $0.00 in return for their shares, then the author&#039;s statement is completely false.</p><p><br /></p><p>He mentions the government &quot;confiscation&quot; of gold, but of course the owners of physical gold in 1933 were compensated for their gold.&nbsp; It isn&#039;t as though the gold was simply seized.&nbsp; However, there are&nbsp; numerous examples of government seizures of assets owned by corporations, without compensation to shareholders, and yet the author doesn&#039;t mention this.&nbsp; Seizure without compensation should be much more of a concern to an investor than seizure with compensation.</p><p><br /></p><p>I didn&#039;t mention it in my previous post, but he criticizes the various gold ETF&#039;s by saying the shareholder does not own physical gold, but rather shares that are backed by physical gold.&nbsp; One could similarly criticize any stock.&nbsp; One does not own a physical company, but rather shares in a company whose value is not necessarily backed by <i>any</i> physical assets whatsoever.&nbsp; There is also no redemption rights for shareholders in a corporation.&nbsp; i.e. - A shareholder cannot simply demand to exchange their share for a physical piece of the corporation.&nbsp; If I own $10,000 worth of stock in Intel, I cannot walk into an Intel office and say I&#039;m going to exchange my stock for $10,000 worth of physical property and walk out the door with it.&nbsp; Why would he criticize the gold ETF&#039;s on this point when the same, but to an even greater extent, is true of all stocks?</p><p><br /></p><p>He also mentions the ETF&#039;s are not required to be insured against loss, damage, theft, or fraud.&nbsp; Are publicly traded companies required to carry any such insurance?&nbsp; Were the shareholders of Enron compensated by such an insurance policy for their losses?</p><p><br /></p><p>So the question is, how do you not see the bias in this article?[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in