I suspect that the reason gold pricing is being investigated now is because the world is nearing the point where the West has no gold left in its vaults. It sort of looks better if the West is "investigating" before that happens.
The Swiss recently opened their figures for gold coming from London and going to China and other Eastern countries. From that alone one can conclude that there is little left in London who have been the main suppiers.
Also news out of Germany is that they intend to step up their demands from the US to increase the rate of gold repatriation - do they know something about how much gold America has left?

BTW If America supplies 33 tonnes of freshly re-cast gold to Germany soon that will be the gold that the armed goon squad in Kiev grabbed at that midnight raid a week or so ago and flew back to the US.

i think gold pretty much did it's job in the years following the bottom around the year 2000.

i have a question mark over the USD. like JPY, plenty of hedge funds have been bankrupted betting against it.

On the one hand, I can understand why people are concerned because of the debt, QE, etc. etc.

But on the other hand, if you look at the US as the only world super-power, both militarily and technologically (witness the NSA saga and how they use this to their economic and political advantage), that US companies pretty much own the internet and the next generation of large companies (google, facebook, apple) as well as the old (exxon), that US is currently enjoying an energy boom, that there has already been a large correction to the housing market - would I really want to bet against that? Many US companies are doing well (admittedly, stock prices are artificially high due to the loose monetary environment).

The US and USD may not be pretty, but there are a lot more uglier alternatives out there.

__________________
By replying to this post, you hereby grant Phil_MCR a royalty-free license to use, in any way, anything posted by you on the internet. If you do not accept, stop using EF and delete your account.

well

1. I'm not sure it is correct to claim that "it all ends when oil-producing nations no longer accept dollars for oil"; and

2. I don't see these nations invoicing in anything other than dollars in the foreseeable future.

There was a huge amount of talk about this 5 years ago & the predictions that the Euro would be the currency of choice, then something happened that spooked the markets

• In >>1801<< an ounce of Gold was $19.39
• In 1998 an ounce of Gold was $288.70

• 1$ / 19.39 * 288.70 = $14.88
• Should I add: $14.88 ≠ 0.78c, or 1900% difference ?

Would be nice to know where you get the 78c and/or all your numbers from?

Rgds,
Christian

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_as_an_investment under Gold V Stocks

This one is also interesting
http://www.joshuakennon.com/stocks-v...ast-200-years/

About "Russia has missile and anti-aircraft technology that cannot be touched" Every nation boasts about its military technology but you only really know how good it is when it is used in combat; not that I want them to go that far.
For example, it is easier to shoot down a missile at up to Mach 7 when it has a locator beacon installed; not that the Russians would stoop to that
Another example, all the propaganda about smart US missiles during the first Gulf War which turned out to be not as said.

p.s. If the US start sending super tankers full of shale gas to Europe then things might look different. Might also encourage Europe to move to such unpopular extraction methods.

Doesn´t change that I´d like to know how they come up with the 78c. From what I see, from the pure numbers, it´s just plain wrong (or my math skills are crap)

In your second citation the value of $10.000 invested in Gold over 196 years is shown as yielding $26.000, i.e. up more than 100%.

While the differences vary a great deal, I guess it´s impossible to have a nominal (in $) loss over 196 years.

$26,000 Gold
$8,000,000 Bonds
$5,600,000,000 Stocks


I know I would prefer $5.6 billion v $26,000

On (16.March.2014, 18:23) there was a loss ($1 --> 78c), and on (19.March.2014 12:56) the same 200-year old investment suddenly yields a win (10k --> 26k)?

22% of loss turn into 260% gain

I prefer reliable numbers, especially when they concern the past

I have not 'admitted' anything, showing 2 different sources, using a slightly different value over 196 year old dollars is little more than a rounding error. Inflation figures can be taken with a pinch of salt, you appear to be well informed so it's odd that your confused, I would be surprised to see identical no's myself.

Obviously gold attracts storage costs & possibly insurance, otherwise 100% loss is possible.

I will take the one with extra zeros any day

The values are absolute, not considering inflation.

1$ supposingly turned into 78c. That´s a loss of 22%.

For the same timespan, the same investment (gold in USD), supposedly turns $10k into $26k. That´s + 260%.

At least for me,

• +260% vs. -22%

is more than "little more than a rounding error". (I prefer +260 over -22, but maybe that´s just me)


PS - I´m not trying to attack you, I´m looking for my error in understanding!

10k to 26k is an increase of 160% not 260%, your maths is not as good as I thought

The error falls in the range of 0.5% annually compounded, which is hardly excessive

Of course if you pick the wrong stock then you will have "0" at the end.

Whereas gold always has a residual value.

You're right there. I've never looked but I feel quite sure that in the period in question a lot more than half of quoted companies have gone bust and no longer exist. It is not therefore comparable. One needs to compare a stash of gold buried in the ground with a stash of companies share certificates or bonds hidden in a drawer in the attic (hoping the woodworm don't get to them first).
The gold needs no attending to but the shares and bonds need constant attention from a nimble person.

In that case next time you buy a car get one without a glass windscreen up front. All you need is a rear-view mirror and you can drive as fast as you like.

If the last 200 years enable you to predict the future in spite of the fact that for most of that time money WAS gold and also that 4o years ago paper fiat money underwent a major sea change when Nixon removed the last traces of convertibility to gold then all I can say is god help you.
There is absolutely no basis for comparison. Little did I think you were quoting some nonsense from Wikipedia.

Paying safe storage & insuring gold, & with interest over 196 years may have wiped up much of the principle, selling as you go to pay storage would be better, however you end up will less gold than you started off with.

If you put 100% into 1 stock that is possible. My comparisons are with the DOW JONES Industrial Average, where companies change over time & also go bankrupt. Had IBM stayed in the index & not been removed, then returned the index would be very much higher than it is today.
Possibly you would do better if you did not fiddle with stocks, fiddling is 1 reason that the vast majority of fund managers don't do as well as the index they are trying to beat. Rebalancing to reduce risk after a 10, 20 or 100 bagger seldom pays off.

http://www.tfmetalsreport.com/blog/5...le-switzerland

I suspect there may well be some truth to Turd's claim. At least the idea of having an audit is a good one.