enrieb Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 The 'put your money where your mouth is' thing is fine, but it doesn't really address enrieb's point in my view. The opinion of someone who makes money out of selling bullion, for example, isn't necessarily as objective as that of a by-stander. You wouldn't think twice about, for example, questioning Gordon Brown's view that everything's fine -- and you'd be right to question it, as he stands to gain if everything really is fine. People with vested interests aren't automatically wrong or anything, but the fact that they have vested interests shouldn't be ignored. From a personal point of view I do agree with Goldfinger, and I do think that at least to me, the commentators credibly is improved by the them also choosing to put their money where there mouth is, similar to what DrBubb said in the Commodity Watch podcast after the Fred Harrison interview. But my point is that the commentator is then exposed to the 'your just saying that because it makes you money' attack which is often used in the mainstream media channels (and Internet trolls) to discredit peoples positions. This is almost always an unjust criticism because the most important thing about the advice given, is not whether it makes money for the economic commentator, it is that the economic advice is based on sound and consistent judgment and that the commentator has a proven track record of good advice. Such as people like Peter Schiff/Jim Rodgers etc... We all here are quite well informed about economics and investment so we know if advice is based on sound judgment of the fundamentals, but the public who are not well informed about the subjects are easily deceived by the 'your just saying that because it makes you money' attack. Which we will often see used against Schiff/Rodgers etc... on the news channels. We know its a baseless attack, but the uninformed public are swayed by it. This works both ways though I can think of celebrity BTL investors that were hailed as 'property experts' for putting their money where their mouth was, but in their case the sound judgment of the fundamentals were not present, as we all pointed out at the time, and the celebrity investors simply performed the role of Judas Goats leading the bewildered herd to a slaughterhouse. The only time that the VI attack 'your just saying that because it makes you money' is valid is when the person is giving the advice and the sound fundamentals are not present and they have a track record of making bad economic calls, like the so called experts on Fox Business news who advise people to buy financial share's when it was these same people telling people to buy real estate at the peak or dot com shares in the tech bubble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warpig Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 FTSE -8.57% and Dow Jones down 3.95%, it will be interesting how gold reacts. At least GB saved the world for 24 hours, good on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Compounded Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 FTSE -8.57% and Dow Jones down 3.95%, it will be interesting how gold reacts. At least GB saved the world for 24 hours, good on him. Anecdotal People at work today genuinely seem to feel it's all sorted out, a big change of mood. I said nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dopamine Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 Silver and gold clearly decoupling today - silver down $0.57, gold up $11.40 at time of writing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ologhai Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 Just had my first attempt at gold 'trading' this afternoon for fun. Made £6.85! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azazel Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 Just had my first attempt at gold 'trading' this afternoon for fun. Made £6.85! You did better than me. I lost 76 grams. I sold on the biggest spike yet and crapped myself back in at a loss. To be fair on me Jim Sinclair was saying the war has been won, gold will now vault to $1000, and got me in a flap! Bless him. Had I waited I'd be about 200 grams up. I think we need to discuss trading more. Most spikes result in a fall and selling on spikes would usually be successful as long as you have patience to wait for the dip. But if gold moves up to a higher level then you would have to buy in at a loss. I know goldfinger is a buy on the dips and hold sort of guy. The thing is if my cash was in the bank I would receive a small amount of interest and making a profit on trading would compensate for that. Although I did badly on my first trading experience, I'm thinking of giving it another go having learned a lesson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrongmove Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 From a personal point of view I do agree with Goldfinger, and I do think that at least to me, the commentators credibly is improved by the them also choosing to put their money where there mouth is, similar to what DrBubb said in the Commodity Watch podcast after the Fred Harrison interview. But my point is that the commentator is then exposed to the 'your just saying that because it makes you money' attack which is often used in the mainstream media channels (and Internet trolls) to discredit peoples positions. This is almost always an unjust criticism because the most important thing about the advice given, is not whether it makes money for the economic commentator, it is that the economic advice is based on sound and consistent judgment and that the commentator has a proven track record of good advice. Such as people like Peter Schiff/Jim Rodgers etc... I like to read both. The views of those on the coal face are always highly valuable IMHO. You can easily filter out the pure VIs. They don't bother to address the downside risks. And there are always downside risks. But I also like to read the take of the "disinterested". It can add objectivity, and some people just don't have the temperament for all-in full-time trading and investment, but have an excellent understanding of how the system works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrongmove Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 Most spikes result in a fall and selling on spikes would usually be successful as long as you have patience to wait for the dip. But if gold moves up to a higher level then you would have to buy in at a loss. You don't have to think like this if you are trading. You bought, then sold on a spike. You banked a profit. You will next buy when you see a good chance of a subsequent rise (or short a fall). It doesn't matter what price you rejoin at, as long as you re-exit with a further profit. I'm not a trader, but I think it is an entirely different mindset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azazel Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 You don't have to think like this if you are trading. You bought, then sold on a spike. You banked a profit. You will next buy when you see a good chance of a subsequent rise (or short a fall). It doesn't matter what price you rejoin at, as long as you re-exit with a further profit. I'm not a trader, but I think it is an entirely different mindset. Trouble is, when is a good chance of a subsequent rise? Gold can make a good rise in just a matter of hours, often during U.S. trading when I'm out working. I'd rather be in gold than cash by default and sell out on a spike to get back in on a dip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ologhai Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 You did better than me. I lost 76 grams. I sold on the biggest spike yet and crapped myself back in at a loss. To be fair on me Jim Sinclair was saying the war has been won, gold will now vault to $1000, and got me in a flap! Bless him. Had I waited I'd be about 200 grams up. I think we need to discuss trading more. Most spikes result in a fall and selling on spikes would usually be successful as long as you have patience to wait for the dip. But if gold moves up to a higher level then you would have to buy in at a loss. I know goldfinger is a buy on the dips and hold sort of guy. The thing is if my cash was in the bank I would receive a small amount of interest and making a profit on trading would compensate for that. Although I did badly on my first trading experience, I'm thinking of giving it another go having learned a lesson. I'm certainly of a mind to give the trading thing a whirl. Up until now, I've been buying with the long-term view, and I don't expect to sell that any time soon -- unless my beliefs substantially change, or I get tired of the whole thing. But I decided I'd have some additional funds just for trying out trading. I've considered it before, but what made me actually decide to do it was the reply I gave to someone a few days ago on this thread when they were expressing regret at not having bought earlier in the long run up we had last week (but before the smack down had occurred). In response to them, I said something like: I can almost guarantee that at some point in the future, the price will be lower than it is now (given the general volatility, plus the leg-up that gold had had the few days before)... and it got me thinking... 'Yes, gold WILL be lower that it is now, and if I was in a trading frame of mind, I'd be selling some now and waiting for a lower price to buy back in again.' As it happened, that was a well-timed thought because of the smack-down. I appreciate that the smack-down needn't have happened, but I'm sure most people on here who've watched gold price for a few months would agree that, after a leg-up like that, the price of gold will indeed (with almost 100% certainty) be lower again at some point -- probably within days if not (as on this occasion) hours. So, that's it really -- that's as far as I've gone with considering strategy, but I'd be more than happy to hear anyone else's views on trading. Perhaps a separate thread would be useful? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plan9 Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 Silver and gold clearly decoupling today - silver down $0.57, gold up $11.40 at time of writing. I know what you mean, silver swore she was a lady, but she's acting like a cheap commodities tart! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dopamine Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 I know what you mean, silver swore she was a lady, but she's acting like a cheap commodities tart! That's right - 'money' my arse. Might as well be wheat. However, I still agree with GF that when/if TSHTF, silver will be just what the public want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CIGA Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 I'm certainly of a mind to give the trading thing a whirl. I urge all to be very very very careful with this mentality, only 1 in 100 will ever make a positive in day trading and that is on a good day! Proceed with caution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrongmove Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 Trouble is, when is a good chance of a subsequent rise? Gold can make a good rise in just a matter of hours, often during U.S. trading when I'm out working. I'd rather be in gold than cash by default and sell out on a spike to get back in on a dip. Don't ask me! I can pretty well guarentee you will do better by just trying to buy when you see value, and holding on until the value disappears (hopefully because the price has risen, or because things have changed). I bet experienced traders can have a lot of fun in this market, but it doubt it will be fun for a beginner. Is it 10% of spreadbetters that actually make a profit, or is that an urban myth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FWIW Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 No - It's 90% of statistics are made up on the hoof... Just go with 80/20 (pareto) rule (or 90/10 rule if you really want to be a bit different) and you will be OK... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G0ldfinger Posted October 15, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 Anecdotal People at work today genuinely seem to feel it's all sorted out, a big change of mood. I said nothing. I laughed at them, rolled my eyes, told them to better get ready for hyperinflation, and the had to explain why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azazel Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 OJ, I remember you saying that you can guarantee that prices would be lower. This is risky business as gold is more likely to vault from here than six months ago, after the previous vault. Regarding silver, when the demand gets so great that you cant buy gold, I think that silver will become second best. IMO. "only 1 in 100"...... 95% of all statistics are made up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azazel Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 I laughed at them, rolled my eyes, told them to better get ready for hyperinflation, and the had to explain why. Hi goldfinger, hope you had a good day at work Whats your basis for buy and hold then? I respect you for it, but why? Its interesting how the media can have such affect. Last week there was fear now its relief that the "rescue" has been done. who thinks this is a good buying opportunity? I have "promise" money waiting to be turned into real money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G0ldfinger Posted October 15, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 ... I think we need to discuss trading more. ... No, I don't think so. When I started the gold thread(s) back when the Great Banning over at the madhouse HPC took place, I wanted this to become a thread on gold fundamentals and relationships to other assets like houses. IMO, trading gold is quite dangerous and I would like to encourage everyone to rather follow an accumulating buy & hold strategy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G0ldfinger Posted October 15, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 ... Whats your basis for buy and hold then? I respect you for it, but why?... From long term charts I expect the average UK house to fall below 80-100oz of gold, and the DJIA and gold could easily reach 1-to-1 over the course of the depression that is beginning now. That's enough for me to know, why risking money in trading that is rigged by the major players? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azazel Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 From long term charts I expect the average UK house to fall below 80-100oz of gold, and the DJIA and gold could easily reach 1-to-1 over the course of the depression that is beginning now. That's enough for me to know, why risking money in trading that is rigged by the major players? [/quote Yes I appreciate and agree with those views. But trading could increase the quantity of gold saved. Surely the rigged markets can be exploited to our gain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azazel Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 No, I don't think so. When I started the gold thread(s) back when the Great Banning over at the madhouse HPC took place, I wanted this to become a thread on gold fundamentals and relationships to other assets like houses. IMO, trading gold is quite dangerous and I would like to encourage everyone to rather follow an accumulating buy & hold strategy.[/quote You know British bulls? It would be good if someone like Ker would teach us to trade and display results of his trading suggestions just as British bulls do, but using bullion vault. I know that accumulate and hold is a safe strategy but my hope would be to increase my gold holdings. Do you think that its a tortoise and hare sort of thing where the losses could be worse than steady accumulations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G0ldfinger Posted October 15, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 ... Yes I appreciate and agree with those views. But trading could increase the quantity of gold saved. Surely the rigged markets can be exploited to our gain? Tell me once you know how. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ologhai Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 No, I don't think so. When I started the gold thread(s) back when the Great Banning over at the madhouse HPC took place, I wanted this to become a thread on gold fundamentals and relationships to other assets like houses. IMO, trading gold is quite dangerous and I would like to encourage everyone to rather follow an accumulating buy & hold strategy. I think people should be allowed to discuss what they want to discuss, even on 'your' thread... or indeed on a new one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pixel8r Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 Silver and gold clearly decoupling today - silver down $0.57, gold up $11.40 at time of writing. Yeah it's a reverse of yesterday (silver up, gold down), just noise I think really don't think one day counts as decoupling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now