Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Morgandude11, post: 1829849, member: 37839&quot;]In this case, &quot;purchasing power&quot; was completely irrelevant to me.&nbsp; The coins were NOT purchased as an alternative investment--I have lots of funds invested in other venues, and do not rely on profit of coins for income--it was purely from a &quot;hobby&quot; standpoint.&nbsp;&nbsp; The other aspect that is faulty in the logic is that this alleged &quot;purchasing power&quot; would have been compounded by interest producing investments, or other purchases that were not depreciating assets. With interest rates generally in the 1-3 percent range, consumer credit at 2-3%, and car loans in the neighborhood of 2%, alternative financial scenarios don&#039;t support the &quot;purchasing power&quot; theorem, as interest rates are way below par.&nbsp; This is borne out by the &quot;Sandard and Poor&#039;s&quot; index as of recent.&nbsp; During this time, I bought a new house, and a car, so the coins did not in any way alter my &quot;purchasing power,&quot; as they fell into the &quot;discretionary cash&quot; category.</p><p><br /></p><p>Given the volatility of the markets, and the fact that this was not my intention in buying the coins in the first place, the only relevant aspect was profit/loss on a net basis.&nbsp; I would not have used the money for any alternative purchase or investment--this was recreationally earmarked in the first place.&nbsp; Perhaps, I could have taken another trip to Hawaii as an alternative (been there 6 times), but I chose to get coins instead.&nbsp;&nbsp; Thus, the only relevant way to look it is Purchase price-Amount realized= Residual profit.&nbsp; There was a residual profit of 5.7 percent during ownership, so no money was lost, (only gained), and I had the entertainment value of the coins during this period.[/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