absolutezero

I don't think I will buy any of this "artwork".

 

Makes the Churchill crown look attractive!

Absolute zero, is that your projection?

 

I had a look at the dictionary just to check my understanding of the word,

 

There are an interesting variety of meanings;

noun

1 an estimate or forecast of a future situation or trend based on a study of present ones : plans based on projections of slow but positive growth | population projection is essential for planning.

2 the presentation of an image on a surface, esp. a movie screen : quality illustrations for overhead projection.

• an image projected in such a way : the background projections featured humpback whales.

• the ability to make a sound, esp. the voice, heard at a distance : I taught him voice projection.

3 the presentation or promotion of someone or something in a particular way : the legal profession's projection of an image of altruism.

• a mental image viewed as reality : monsters can be understood as mental projections of mankind's fears.

• the unconscious transfer of one's own desires or emotions to another person : we protect the self by a number of defense mechanisms, including repression and projection.

4 a thing that extends outward from something else : the particle board covered all the sharp projections.

5 Geometry the action of projecting a figure.

6 the representation on a plane surface of any part of the surface of the earth or a celestial sphere.

• (also map projection) a method by which such representation may be done.

DERIVATIVES

projectionist |-ist| noun ( in sense 2).

ORIGIN mid 16th cent. (sense 6): from Latin projectio(n-), from proicere ‘throw forth’ (see project ).

 

 

It looks like number one is the one your are referring to.

 

"Projections are useless if they're more than 6 months in advance". The reason you equate projections with being useless is because in your mind projection equates to knowing the future. A projection is just an estimate of the future.

 

Eg I recently projected that the Japanese yen would go down - that projection turned out to be the opposite of "useless"

An estimate of the future where there are a massive number of variables that can ruin your projection within the next week alone is pointless and, dare I say, useless.

You are a GP, aren't you? What do you say when a patient wants to know the prognosis of a disease and expected future survival ( morbidity and mortality)? Or do you say I can not predict beyond the next 6 months? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

No. I'm not a GP.

Not sure what your point is? I can give you projected ones (it says 'projection') but they may or may not be the right ones.

Projections are useless if they're more than 6 months in advance (and even then they're only slightly less useless!)

Nobody knows the future.

50K is around the mid-level of a Senior Lecturer payscale, and quite a few of these achieve close to 40 years service which under USS means that they get 50% of their final scalary.

 

No wonder we've recently heard recently that USS now caps inflation adjustments at 2.5%/year.

Senior?!

Most people never get a promotion!

How do you store this labour for when you'll be weak and old?

You don't.

You take it from those who are not weak and old.

If money is labor, then gold is definitely money as compared to pieces of paper with some random number on it.

 

 

 

http://fofoa.blogspot.com/2010/08/relativi...old-really.html

 

 

 

Whoever Another or Friend of Another or FOFOA is, I think he knows what he is talking about.

Gold's only worth something because people believe it is. It's all about confidence.

The big thing that gold has in its favour is that it cannot be inflated away at the press of a button.

Gold is money. Three types of people understand this;

 

Central banks

 

Uber rich oligarchs

 

Ordinary people - mainly in Asia and The Middle East - but a growing (albeit small) number of people in the West.

 

You do not appear to understand that gold is money - I hope you can be open to persuasion, as it would be a shame if you lost wealth due to being duped by MSM and banking propaganda.

I am open to persuasion but don't make out it's some kind of enlightened club and anyone who doesn't believe isn't one of the illuminati.

I prefer to think of money as labour rather than bits of paper.

If gold falls to 350£/oz from 700£/oz, and if it goes from 55,000 rs/oz to 75,000 rs/oz at the same time, the money i gain out of selling gold elsewhere other than UK would serve me very well. However, looking at the big picture the possibility of that happening are a bit low. The possibility of it going higher a significantly higher. As FOFOA says 'follow the footsteps of giants'.

This is the problem.

No bugger knows what's going to happen. Which is why I talk about diversity.

It is all in the mind. If you start accepting gold as money and not as investment, you will not have all these doubts of asset allocation over gold. I am 80% in gold. Read FOFOA.

It's all well and good saying that but if you buy gold at £700 it will buy you £700 worth of goods.

If it falls to £350 then it'll buy me only half as many goods.

Gold is a commodity like any other, except it's pretty to look at and does have a magical kind of allure. However it is subject to supply and demand. Putting most of your money into it is speculation and not wisdom.

Why?

Most people in the public sector (pretty much the only place to get a half decent pension unless CEO of a FTSE 100 company) don't earn anything like £50k.

It obviously all depends on your personal financial situation and how much savings/assets you have.

 

Say, you are a 40-year old state employee on 50K/year and you have been there long enough to get a 50% final salary pension.

Impossible for most people. Like most, you over-estimate public sector pay. But we'll go with it for these purposes.

Assume 80 years life span. Since all payments are inflation-adjusted, we don't discount them and we assume a retirement age of 65. The future lifetime income is 25x50K + 15x25K = 1.625M. Say you own a house outright, 250K. Say you have another pension fund of 50K

, and your truly free assets (your "savings") are 100K (which is nice given you own the house outright and you have a safe job). Total assets: 2.025M. Now you put 10% (10K) of your liquid assets in gold, the rest in cash, and you think you are diversified.

 

OK, let's see. You have 10K/2.025M = 0.494% in gold, most of the rest in a bond (80.247%), a little in the house (12.346%), and 4.444% in cash.

 

0.494% (i.e. next to nothing) in gold, and the rest in investments (bond, house, stocks, cash!!) that will most likely suck big time.

 

You are NOT exactly well diversified in that case.

 

EDIT: Had to correct my figures.

 

EDIT2: Even if you put all savings (100K) in gold (wuahahaha, ALL eggs in one basket) you are still below 5% gold allocation! Indeed, ALL eggs are still in your bond (lifetime income) basket. Good luck. People who are in such a position (as above, with 10K in gold) and think they hold a lot of gold, they could as well spit into the Pacific and be proud that they raised the water level.

 

EDIT3: One could argue that there has to be tax paid on the income and daily expenses etc. However, that doesn't change the little gold figure too much (even if it doubled it), and in the end all expenses go out of one pot of assets (the ingredients, admittedly, get differently taxed).

I do suspect some "creative accounting" has gone on here!

Should you go in 100% (with your PM allocation) now? It depends on many things, risk preferences etc. If you have a more than 1-y time horizon, I would def. start averaging in. Silver, however, is still cheaper.

I believe silver will, in % terms, rise in price more than gold.

Again, it depends on personal preferences. However, say you are a middle-aged lifetime tenured state employee.

No such thing since 2008.

Your income is a (badly?) inflation-hedged bond. You maybe have a private pension fund (in stocks!?) on the side, and you might even have a substantial amount of money stuck in a house. I think it would be mad to not be 100% in gold then, because you are a HUGE bond, with the rest in shares and houses. That is just so bad, as much gold as possible needs to be bought to make up for this gross (and maybe fairly unintended, but what can you do) mis-allocation.

 

EDIT: Again, the difference of total wealth and liquid wealth is important here. People often don't properly account for their lifetime income etc. In the above case, anything liquid (ie. outside the house and pension found) should possibly be in precious metals just for diversification alone.

Now this raises a very interesting idea. Must admit to never having thought of myself as a bond.

What if you see your lifetime salary as an inflation hedged bond, you have a public sector final salary pension, 10% of your liquid assets in precious metals and another 15% in FTSE100 shares and the rest in cash?

So, further to this, here is a GDP:debt chart and a GDP:gold chart. LOW values mean HIGH debt respectively HIGH gold.

 

What do we see. Well, gee, debt is actually at an all-time high (bubble top) EXCLUDING unfunded liabilities(!!), while gold is far off its former highs (not even closing in on the bubble stage yet).

 

Can anyone please tell the Einsteins at Fortune? Cheers.

 

http://gold.approximity.com/since1970/GDP-...-Ratio_LOG.html

 

http://gold.approximity.com/since1970/GDP-...-Ratio_LOG.html

I'm not saying gold isn't a good investment.

What I do say is: Is gold a good investment now?

And: I don't think holding most of your wealth in gold is a good idea. 10%? 20%? Why not? But over 50% and I think you're barking.

The graph show the ratio of the price of gold in dollars versus the Money of Zero Maturity (cash dollar in your wallet and bank account). The last time gold was 'officially' in a bubble the price of gold touched a ratio of 0.25 of the total dollar paper cash available for folks like you and me (I presume this is only is US-centric rather than a global MZM measure). To even get to get to half of the price that was on offer in the late 70's, gold would have to quadruple from here (something like $4000 per ounce, GF?). So thus no bubble here so far.

This is the problem with statistics and graphs.

Depending on what you want to prove you can present the data how you like.

As far as I am concerned gold is in a classic bubble.

As far as some other people on here are concerned, it's not in anything like a bubble.

Show me the bubble.

 

http://gold.approximity.com/since1959/Gold...rium_Price.html

By selectively choosing your graph you've made it appear there is no bubble.

Show me a graph of gold price, in US dollars, for the last 10 years.

I'm yet to be convinced that gold ISN'T in a bubble. I do have some but I'll not be buying more.

Seems to fit the classic 'Anatomy of a bubble' graph.

Definetly worth watching again if you have'nt seen it before can you believe this is from over 2 years ago!!

 

A MSM (BBC PROGRAMME) GYPSIES WARNING FOR THOSE WITH THE EYES TO SEE AND THE EARS TO HEAR

 

The Money Programme - Gold - The Money Programme 13.06.08

 

From:

From:

From:

Nice videos.

Had Brown not sold the gold off in 1999 the UK would have been £3bn better off now.

Is it just me or is £3bn chicken feed?

I have some physical, but only a few handfuls of 1-oz. coins, stored in a bank vault.

And a smallish holding at GM.

 

I am not comfortable holding large amounts of Gold in a bank vault. So if I go "big into physical", I may use GM,

or have to come up with another solution.

 

I have a friend who lives in HK, who keeps a large amount of Gold in a bank vault in NZ.

But is something disastrous occurred, he needs to get down there before he can use his giold.

 

I like GLD because I can buy options, and have limited cash invested, carrying a big position.

 

Believe me, I know how to use leverage. I used to teach options course, at one of the big banks.

So you need not fear I will misuse it.

 

Question, how much money would you tie up in Gold?

I side with the old adage about 10%. I see gold as insurance more than an investment.

10% is not an awful lot but can ease the pain if the brown stuff hits the air circulating device.

When you buy gold do you buy the physical metal and take delivery or are you just into gold stocks?

You answered that in one of your later posts.

For those who think I am "dangerously Bearish" on Gold, I thought you might want to see this post from the Y-shaped thread

 

 

I am not the only one looking for a dip in Gold.

 

So does TFNN's Tom Obrien (the top Gold forecaster, I believe), and Pierre Lasonde:

 

http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/Bro..._Lassonde_.html

 

Lassonde sees Gold falling back to $1050-1100.

 

BTW, I still have a long exposure to Gold and some Gold stocks.

I have made money in recent weeks, given the strength in GLW.t, and the way the GLD position is hedged:

When you buy gold do you buy the physical metal and take delivery or are you just into gold stocks?

Here is a recreation, from my own datasets, of the most convincing gold graph I have seen. I think the original was a post from Steve Netwriter a couple of years ago, and it impressed me so much I have wanted to rework the data.

 

It shows the monthly change in gold price against real interest rate (Fed rate - US CPI), geometrically averaged since 1970. The moral of the story is that:

 

+ Gold is the place to run when real interest rates are negative, offering a positive return.

+ This bull market may well end only when real interest rates are above +3% (+1 % for a cautious outlook)

+ The error bars (one standard error) show how good a bull market this is - that increase for negative rates is most likely statistically significant p< 0.05 over 40 years.

 

Interesting that the red bar on the left is the highest.

Why isn't the blue one? You would have thought that the largest difference in interest rates (in gold's favour) would have had the largest change in gold price.

Does it matter? If gold is money and the decide to produce gold from bombarding other precious metals with sub atomic particles or they mine it out of the ground, there is only a finite amount you can produce. When price gets substantially high and it is worth going down the atomic route, they would do just that. However, you need infrastructure for this. Even with the presence of infrastructure, the other precious metals would still be required.

Granted, but what I'm getting at is diversification.

Anyone who invests all they've got in one thing is a bit silly.

I appreciate what you're saying, but there have been rumours of people being able to create gold for thousands of years. As I understand it, the recent internet rumours aren't acknowledged by the scientific community.

 

I would like to add, coming on to an established gold thread and making throw away comments about anyone who's 100% invested in gold will lose everything when they synthesize gold is on my troll watch list.

Feel free to go back and read what I said. But please think about it this time...

You do understand what an element is don't you?

Yes but you evidently don't.

An element substance that contains one type of atom. The same type of atom with the same number of protons in each.