wrongmove

I think it's just broken today. It should be live, not delayed, and whilst the silver price is spot on, Gold is stuck at 909.10 on my Kcast ticker, whereas it should be down nearer 901.

Seems to be the case - I think Kitco was down briefly earlier. As I say, I have never noticed a delay before. Thanks.

http://www.goldprice.org/live-gold-price.html

 

its closer to the 900 mark

Cheers - it seems that the Kitco price is just delayed - but I hadn't noticed this before.

I am getting a discrepancy between the price of gold reported by Kitco and IGIndex, which I haven't noticed before.

At the time of posting, Kitco says around $910, whereas IGIndex says around $901

Does anyone know which is more reliable, or can suggest a 3rd party than is better than either?

927 and falling.

Gold is still nearly +5% MoM and more than +35% YoY. As long as you are not geared (at say, £500 a pip to pluck a number out of the air), this is just noise, surely?

Trends, cycles and secular markets are always changing. There are no absolutes in the world of investing. In my opinion, the successful investor [not the speculator] manages to identify which markets are waxing and which are waning. Many think that while the long bull run in the financial markets is well and truly in decline, a secular bull market in the commodities is still in its early stages. The success of many investors has consisted in identifying these markets. If we are indeed in a long term commodity bull market, and if gold is the king of commodities, then gold is likely to do well in the coming years.

 

Different times call for different measures.

 

Look at a chart of gold for say the past ten years, compare to similiar charts of the dollar or stirling. Which currency would you rather have??

I agree with everything you say. To me, gold is just another asset class, and if you can spot its periodic time in the sun, you can profit greatly.

But all the arguments seem to revolve around "gold is real money" and make no reference to the problems specific to any one time, but argue against cash under any circumstances. Some are so attached to this reasoning they will surely ignore the inevitable blow off top that eventually forms, and be buying that "bargain priced" gold all the way down again. This is what I an many others find objectionable about some goldbugs arguments, particularly when accompanied with arrogance and hubris. In general, when you start to see arrogance and hubris, the end is near, in most peoples' experience. Rearrange "pride fall before comes" for the folk wisdom version of what I am trying to say.

http://www.moneyweek.com/file/16672/why-it...y-gold-now.html

 

Gold pays no interest. It’s just a lump of yellow metal. If the bank is paying you 7% interest on your cash, chances are you’d rather have your money in the bank. It makes sense in this case, thanks to compound interest—in 10 years you’d have doubled your money. Hold gold for 10 years and you still have the same lump of yellow metal.

 

Now consider this... Imagine the bank was paying zero percent interest... then which is more attractive, paper dollars or gold? In this case, a rational investor would choose gold.

 

Gold is beautiful, rare, and easy to exchange, no matter where you are in the world. Paper money, on the other hand, is just paper. Governments can print as much of it as they like.

 

Governments can print money to pay off their debts. But they can’t create gold. The supply of paper money can be infinite. But the supply of gold is extremely limited (they say that the entire gold production in the history of the world could fit on the basketball court at Madison Square Garden). And it’s difficult to extract. Bill Gates could buy all the gold mined in the world in a year from his checkbook.

 

As a rule, money flows where it’s treated best. If interest rates are high, then gold performs poorly relative to money. If interest rates are low, money flows toward gold.When interest rates are zero, gold becomes a no-brainer.

 

 

 

But wait,” you say. “Interest rates soared in the 70s… how did gold manage to run from $100 to $800 during that time?” Yes, interest rates soared in the 70s… but let’s look at the “real deal” you get for your money. Let’s consider the effects of inflation…

 

The “nominal” interest rates you might see advertised at your bank or in the newspaper don’t give the full picture. Here’s why: if the prices of the items you buy on a regular basis, like food, gas and accommodations, are rising at 5% and - at the same time - the bank is paying you 5% interest on your savings, the bank is not compensating you for holding your wealth in cash instead of gold.

 

In this case, economists would say your “real” interest rate—the interest rate AFTER inflation—is actually zero. Back in 1979, short-term interest rates were 8%, but inflation was 13%, so “real” interest rates were negative 5% a year.

 

Is it any wonder the people rushed into gold and away from paper money?

By 1981, Fed Chairman Paul Volker had driven short-term interest rates to 15% and inflation to 6%, so the real interest rate was almost 10%.

By 1982, gold was back below $400.

 

Buy gold: why you should shift your money from cash

Today, we see nominal interest rates advertised at around 5%. At the same time, inflation is around 5%… and Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke says he’s almost done raising interest rates... Real interest rates are close to negative… and the smart money is shifting from cash and into gold.

 

You should own some gold, even if it is purely to lower some of the risk in your investment portfolio, as gold and stocks often move in opposite directions. If you’re not there right now, it’s time make the move.

Good investing,

And in the 1990s??????

Index linked cash investments held up ok, whereas gold just drifted downwards - in nominal, let alone real terms. Where would this have left a pensioner? Should they risk a repeat of this?

Oh I think that is so so wrong.

Yes, when interest from the bank is bigger than the REAL inflation rate you can get a real income to supplement your pension.

But at the moment it's the other way round, so rather than getting an income, your money in the bank is just going down in value. And any money your withdraw thinking it is "income" isn't really at all. You're reducing capital.

 

Now compare that with gold during times when gold goes up.

Yes you get no "income". But you just sell a little as you need the money. Call it income if it makes you feel better.

But most importantly, assess the value of your assets after a year. Yes you have less gold, but it's worth more !

With gold having sold some, after a year (unless you're living the high life), your wealth will have increased.

 

I've tried to explain this to someone I know, and have failed.

What's the difference between "income" and "capital gain" ? They both allow you to spend some of your profit to live on, and not erode your total wealth.

I was specifically talking about pensions - the usual route is an annuity, which can be index linked. More recently, people have tried to use property, which pays a rental income, regardless of whatever happens to its capital value. You are suggesting just whittling away at a non-productive and highly volatile asset. For a pension??

So is gold a good short to medium term punt? - quite possibly. If we go into deflationary recession, and oil crashes, taking commodities and gold with it, you can just put it down to experience.

But is gold a good place to put your entire life savings, just at the point when you stop earning income? Well, historically, no it isn't. Now? Maybe, but no-one is going to do it unless they are either extremely well researched and sure of themselves, or total idiots. These two totally different groups combined is not many people IMHO.

I just think that people tend to be hyper cautious with pensions - quite rightly, there is no second chance if you cock up - so gold is not going to be for the vast majority, even if it does turn out to have been a good option.

And not forgetting that a great many people have viewed property as their 'pension' in one form or another, be it increased equity in their own pad or that nice little BTL portfolio they accumulated. Given the condition of the stock markets and wider economy at the present time I think traumatised probably doesn't quite cover the panic some people are now feeling as they approach retirement having placed so much blind faith into the system in general.

Very true.

But gold is no good to a pensioner - it doesn't generate an income. In fact, it generally costs money to store. All a pensioner could do with gold is to slowly sell it in order to eat etc., with no chance at all of ever being able to top up again.

(No criticism of the original poster at all)

 

I think this may also be a factor. Maybe the biggest factor.

 

"See you in the penthouse.... save a little fiat in case you need to use the outhouse".

 

Simply because anyone buying gold can be seen as effectively betting on the fall of fiat. And that's what most people have.

So it's a bet against most people and their wealth.

 

That I think is the fundamental difference between an investment in gold and in BT shares.

 

I've been wondering about this, and I think (I hope) I've finally sussed it.

But who today actually has any fiat? People have debt and houses, not cash! Inflation is generally pretty friendly to both.

I am sure that chrysophobes exist, but most of the antagonism about gold on BBs in not chysophobia, it's just a dislike of that minority of goldbugs that think they know it all, and that they know what is best for everyone. That attitude riles people, whatever the subject matter.

It only takes one or two to start a flame war. I wouldn't bother visiting this forum if I thoughty the majority were arrogant know-it-alls.

Contrary to wren's experience, I don't know any Chrysophobes.

I am sure that chrysophobes exist, but most of the antagonism about gold on BBs in not chysophobia, it's just a dislike of that minority of goldbugs that think they know it all, and that they know what is best for everyone. That attitude riles people, whatever the subject matter.

Look at zimbabwe and price gold in their currency to understand why.

The same argument could be made for absolutely any asset on the planet. Even Taylor Wimpey shares look good in Z$!

Not a critisism of gold, btw, just a critism of the argument.

I was thinking that. But on the other hand gold hasnt really made a parabolic move yet, and when demand increases supply is unlikely to meet it

Well I guess it took about a decade of "property porn" before that bubble finally burst.

Gold Fever

BBC 2, 19:00–19:30 on Fri 13 Jun 2008

The Money Programme's Max Flint travels to the gold mines of Nevada and the souks of Dubai to find out why. He meets the investors who are converting their savings into gold and puts claims that it even improves your complexion to the test. With reports suggesting that a recession is looming, there's never been a better time to examine the eternal allure of gold.

Are programs like this a bit of a danger signal (shoeshine boy moment), or does the bull still have decades to run?

Some Litium info Lithium

In 2001 (most recent figure, unfortunately):

World production was 15,000 tonnes

World resources were 12,000,000 tonnes

Looks like there is plenty around, unless Li-ion really takes off.

Have you come across Li-polymer batteries ? I have a colleague who designs small, powered (model) aircraft, where energy density is vital. He has been using Lipoly for several years now as it significantly out performs Li-ion in his opinion. He actually has a very small business, importing Lipoly in bulk and then retailing them over the net, mainly to other model enthusiasts, I believe.

Hmmm...

Perhaps I should look into the price of Lithium

Very good point though. I have no idea how much Lithium is available for exploitation. It is a very simple atom, so probably quite a lot. I shall try and look into it

Make sure there is enough left over for the manic depressives though! Lithium has been a "wonder drug" for people with this condition.

Edited to add: A quick look on Google reveals that most Lithium mining takes place on Rigel VII

http://mirkwood.ucs.indiana.edu/startrek/e...?sn=1&sr=1&ep=9

" lead-acid batteries "

are rapidly becoming yesterday's technology.

 

Li-Ion looks the future, along with... what else??

Agree that lead-acid is a very old technology. It still does a good job where high peak loads are required though, eg. starting a car. When cars come with Li-Ion batteries instead of lead-acid, we will know that a lot of progress has been made.

At the moment though, Li-ion is miles away from being viable for storing domestic electricty. Cheak out the price of batteries, and then work out how many kWh they hold. They are also have a limited lifespan.

Stored power has been around for decades, in a small way. As a student, 20 years ago, I used to clean the offices of a company called UPS, or Uninteruptable Powers Supplies. They sold great banks of lead-acid batteries wired to inverters to generate 240v ac. They were, and still are, used in the IT industry to ensure that power cuts do not cause a catastrophic failure of critical computer systems in a power cut. They are way to expensive and bulky for general use or power applications though.

There is a good Wikipedia entry on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage

To summarise, at the moment, pumped water is probably the most effective, but suitable sites are rare. Some battery technology looks promising but costly, and hydrogen may be an option in the future.