How deep underwater are you?

Don't forget the income tax on that deposit. I read it might be better buying the bank shares than depositoing fiat.

 

Ask James Cameron if you can have his sub soon maybe?

 

To be fair, traders don't compare even situations.

If one is in it for 30 years, then you have to compare buying and stacking over 30 years vs trading over 30 years.

You cannot have it one way and not the other.

Whether you could have traded and beat stacking only over 6 months is not a fair comparison. Nor is it a fair comparison even over 29 years, for that final year of trading may well find you being worse off.


You must compare both, and that is impossible at this point. We will only know which you would have been better doing after 30 years

 

^^^ This is my point.

Trading or time frames are irrelevant. If stackers claim success in preservation of wealth when prices rise, then it follows that loss of wealth (ie a financial hit) has been suffered when prices fall.

 

Was having a perv at the Rolex Seadweller before...but with this spot...Casio will do!

 

Well what is your point wrcmad ?

Sometimes losing is part of playing the game.

Do you have a magical system that always increases wealth and never loses ?

 

You just nailed it.

Nope.
But I get annoyed when it is constantly inferred that stacking beholds those magical qualities. :|

 

Nice when you have a significant percentage of your stack represented as numismatic coins. Checking on eBay & there's no appreciable loss of value in my high enders since silver swam south.

 

I agree with you that those saying "it's not a loss if I don't sell" are just deluding themselves - a loss is a loss until it (maybe) goes back up.

But I also get annoyed when some traders claim their charts enable them to profit in all markets.
No system can always win. Any system with positive expectancy must include losing trades.
Yet we only seem to hear of the winning trades - never the losing trades.

 

**GAGS**

 

Yeah interesting observation!
But it does make sense as the value comes from the premium/rarity rather than the metal component.

 

+100.
Every trader has losing trades.
I do post when I get my butt smacked (see T/A thread), but the losses are never big.

 

Not picking on you in particular, but trying to add context to the "hit to wealth".

Gold should be compared against currency and for most members on here that's the Australian dollar.

Although slightly complex, the below graphs the purchasing power of the A$ versus different categories as well as relative to gold. It's impossible to pick a clear point in time but I have arbitrarily chosen the first data point from the year 2000 and June 2007 (i.e. just before the sub-prime crisis began). As any dummy knows, the purchasing power of the AUD relative to gold over the past three quarters has improved considerably, but over any longer timeframe gold has won hands down. Further gold has won hands down (or at least maintained) relative to almost all other consumable categories.

Although the colours are a bit tricky to make out, Clothing & Footwear is the basically the only category that AUD has maintained it's purchasing power (that is $1 will still buy you the same amount of Clothing & Footwear today as it did 1, 2, 5, 10 years ago). Over the past few years, it has also maintained relative to Furnishings and Recreation & Culture.



Yes, geniuses who sold out three quarters ago would have more purchasing power holding A$ rather than gold.

Edit: Data is quarterly and sourced from the RBA website. Dec-2012 is the last data point except for gold which goes through to Mar-2013 (and I added in today's price to "represent" April).

 

thanks for the chart, at some point in time will not gold find its balance back to money and have the same if not more purchasing power?

 

My stance is I didn't take the money to the casino, so I'm up =)

 

:lol:

I rest my case here. What ever you guys reckon.


One thing I know I can get more ounces today than last month.
My ounces still accumulating.

 

I think time-frames are very relevant, but certainly agree that if your plan takes a decade, you shouldn't be claiming success until it's over and you've actually sold, or some wild miracle happens and PMs becomes so stable that it's almost statistically certain. Of course holding during a market high carries very real risks.

In all fairness I should probably add that it's easy to be calm when your stack is as puny as mine. I bought being prepared to lose 50% in a worst case scenario, and given that nobody can predict the future, I still think I made the right decision. I of course sympathise with those who had a rosier outlook on things, have more invested, and perhaps have a more immediate need to sell.

 

I think it's important to note your profits/losses not just in percentage terms but also in dollars and cents.

Then you'll have a better picture, be it rosy or depressing.

Personally, my PM portfolio has lost 2K in value. Which doesn't look so bad to me. But for another stacker it could be a larger amount.

 

The tide had gone down ; wouldnt be underwater anymore. It had reveal an island of silver pile.
Quite remarkable. If you think you sink then you are in deeper water.
Sorry I cant swim I always play in shallow water.

 

How do you manage to word your posts so poorly?! Lol serious!

On another note, the uptrend is nice, I hope it will keep going.
AM reckons this will correct down a lot more. He has been pretty good so far, so we'll see.

Either way, still not where I want the prices to be.