Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="medoraman, post: 963582, member: 26302"]This one is fine. The one problem with this graph is it starts with the MASSIVE correction of 1973 and 1974. It is the same as if I start a graph for PM starting with 1980. You are starting at the highest price point you will see for a long time, so of course you will look unfavorable. You cannot look at a chart and see which one did better by year and count them and think it means anything. Compounding of the returns is what counts the most, and that is what you miss by just counting how many years one did better than the other. I don't disagree that gold may have done better than stocks equal number of years, but that is meaningless compared to the level of outperformance. Btw, my number set and compound return function of the market is not mine, but has been evaluated and used by investors for 30 years. If you wish a link, I can find one. I used the data set so much in teaching Finance I have it memorized, both the 1926 to date and 1904 to date data. BTW the 1926 to date data is juiced, and I use a more conservative annualized return calculation for the comparison I made earlier. I can explain if you wish. Saying that stocks are claims on real assets is true enough, but to not point out gold is an absolute real asset, that is absolutely in your control and not subject to market, financial, and management risks is absurd. I agree with you.[/QUOTE]