Gold, Silver and Other PMs
- KirkL
- dewam
- RandeS
- Whirlwind
- KirkL
- RandeS
- Whirlwind
- RandeS
- Whirlwind
- Whirlwind
This archived discussion is "read only".
For the corresponding "live" discussions, post in the active topic forum here.
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next »
» KirkL - Credit where due
I think some here were talking about gold as a buy at the recent low levels (Al) just like Gene and I were kicking around energy plays just before they took off and left me behind. Still fun to think about it before others see it, but the real credit goes to those acting on the short term plays. I don't know if Al rode Gold down from $600 or $700, but recent buys near $250 or so were sure good. Good sniffing out oversold conditions Al!(Again, I take it back if you rode gold down from mid $300's!)
-- posted by KirkL
» Whirlwind - KrugerRandS...
If gold hits $400 I'm in great shape. It doesn't even have to go any higher. I rode 25% of my gold stocks down and am riding 75% up because I bottom fished. I also purchased quite a bit of silver at the $5 level.I'm not sure where you are coming from with your attitude. What's the difference if gold makes all of its gains in one fell swoop or if it takes several years? Either way I'm going to make money. People in stocks don't sit on them forever expecting gains--they rotate all the time. However my metals are expected to keep going up and up for years or else they aren't a worthwhile investment. That's what is called a double standard. But right now double eagles are making more money than double standards.
-- posted by Whirlwind
» KirkL - Not sure Al
if you are upset with me or Rande. I was trying to give you a compliment for buying at the bottom but I would take some of the compliment back if you rode it down from high levels and need to get to a high level to be even. Considering lost opportunity to CD interest, let alone S&P500 is another factor too.I do like to poke a bit of fun too so I am sorry if I offended you.
People in stocks don't sit on them forever expecting gains--they rotate all the time.
Yes, and "people" often lose money. I don't rotate all the time and it has been 5 years since I sold completely a position in a stock. I try to buy with the intent to die with the stock.... Doing the newsletter is forcing me to buy a few more stock than I might otherwise do, so my returns are lowered some (who wants to buy a newsletter that buys a single stock each year, even if it is a LRCX?)
-- posted by KirkL
» RandeS - Al,
Al,When I said "congratulations" I MEANT it. Wasn't being sarcastic. My own view is that gold is a miserable long-term investment. I'm generally not into trying to turn a quick buck on short-term moves tied to anything less than the fundamental, long-term picture. I continue to believe that the long-term is a negative one for gold. For those who have sat on gold for the past 17 years or so waiting for something to happen and are somehow able to break even in here, I'm happy. For those who were able to predict the European bankers announcement and capitalize on the recent short-coverning, even better. My brother-in-law is founder and CEO of Silversmith's group. He's been telling me for 20 years about how great gold and silver are. I'm happy for him too. Sort of.
-- posted by RandeS
» Whirlwind - Millenium
Im more favorable to the markets after the next recession, which may well be a deep one. As for metals, one has to calculate whether they are getting rarer of more plentiful. If metals suck, no one invests in mining and mines close and metals become scarcer. The drop in mine exploration spending since Bre-X has been huge. If one believes in the world and especially US economy growing for decades, metals will be needed to sustain that kind of consumer demand. These metals aren't currently being distributed by the Salvation Army.-- posted by Whirlwind
» RandeS - Allan,
Allan,Here's another reference (posted earlier on another thread) to Kudlow's editorial on what's going on with gold. You mention economic motivation on the part of the miners. As Kudlow points out, it costs about $260 to mine an ounce of gold, on average. Allowing for a 20% profit margin, that puts the economic value at about $312. Anything less, therefore, might be considered deflationary. Assuming you accept the estimates of production costs and profit margin, of course -- may cost more or less to produce depending on the conditions and profit (or loss) margins may vary. Anyway, here it is:
-- posted by RandeS
» Whirlwind - RandS
The Great Depression was the greatest deflation of all, yet gold stocks soared."The rally was supercharged over the weekend with the surprise
announcement by the European central banks that they were capping annual
gold sales from their official reserves at 400 tonnes for the next five
years. With sales of around 1,715 tonnes by the UK and Switzerland
already decided, this was close to a moratorium on selling until late
2004."
-- posted by Whirlwind
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 Next »
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion.