Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GoldFinger1969, post: 2109686, member: 73489&quot;]True, wars do wipe out equity returns close to zero (Japan and Germany after WW II).</p><p><br /></p><p>However, if you are saying an investment strategy should be built upon a military defeat of the United States and the occupation of our soil, I think that is highly unlikely. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie8" alt=":D" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>You can use the last 5, 10, 15, 20, or 30 years.</p><p><br /></p><p>It&#039;s easy to employ a buy-and-hold strategy using a diversified mutual fund, ETF, or Index Fund.&nbsp; <b><span style="color: #ff0000">While trading costs and fees will impact the result and might knock it down a bit, it WILL NOT impeach the final results (final numbers a bit lower, yes). </span></b></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Many people include TDAs to avoid taxes.</p><p><br /></p><p>Again, taxes lower the final numbers but DO NOT impeach the final results/rankings.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>But PM&#039;s and gold do not pay interest and are not participating in the GROWTH of the economy, which is why you have dividends, reinvestment, and taxes with equities (and bonds).</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Because even going back to 1871 let alone 1815 doesn&#039;t make sense.&nbsp; What is relevant is what is available to invest in NOW and the choices, reduction of fees, tax minimization, and ease of trading and liquidity have never been better for an individual investor.</p><p><br /></p><p>You are aware it is alot easier for a farmer in Ohio to buy/sell stocks today than when John Rockefeller was moving oil through Ohio in the 1880&#039;s, right ? <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie8" alt=":D" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>I never said that gold is the worst possible investment, but as an ASSET CLASS it clearly lags stocks and bonds over most time horizons.</p><p><br /></p><p>If you want to start from 1970 and measure to 2011, then the numbers may look more favorable.&nbsp; Again, rolling periods eliminates this bias.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Right after the government seized the gold, it was revalued upward by over 50%.&nbsp; That&#039;s a confiscation in my book ! <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie9" alt=":eek:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Because nobody who buys SHARES in a company expects to own THE COMPANY.</p><p><br /></p><p>But someone who buys a gold ETF can actually buy the same quantity of gold (unless they&#039;re buying a few tons). </p><p><br /></p><p>It&#039;s not the same thing.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>You&#039;re comparing problems with an individual stock -- which should NEVER be the only or largest holding in a portfolio -- with an asset class.</p><p><br /></p><p>It does appear the author has some bias but I think his general thrust is on-target.&nbsp; That said, I do like holding gold...I think periodic investing in gold makes sense....I would buy more gold at lower prices....and gold is a good &#039;disaster insurance&#039; -- or so I hope.<img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie8" alt=":D" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>But in an economy where money flows at the speed of light, the safety value of gold is not what is was in the 1920&#039;s, the 1950&#039;s, or even the 1970&#039;s.&nbsp; The Dollar and U.S. Treasury bonds are where scared money goes to hide out during Ruff Times. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie8" alt=":D" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />[/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