The reason for these prices... Is it actually "different this time?

betterinvestmentthanshare said:
Many, including myself have experienced the downside of the current banking procedures tied with the sharemarket, crypto, including purchasing of large sums of other assets. Internet banking not working due to upgrades, internet outages, etc.
Having bank accounts frozen whilst trying to move cash to purchase assets at bargain prices only to miss out on the opportunity.
The constant harassment in where the funds came from when there is a clear and legal trail.
Constantly having to justify large purchases.
Being treated like a criminal with your own funds even though you have a legitimate history with the bank.
The list goes on
Click to expand...

I've never been harassed, or felt I was treated like a criminal etc but then again I'm pretty relaxed.

I have experienced the nuisance aspect of overzealous decisions remembering one transaction in particular that was stalled for a few days involving a few $thousand because we referenced it "Isis" (it was Isis District in Qld lol) and it got flagged by someone or something at Commbank, but generally the modern banking system operates flawlessly. Or getting asked why I didn't use the ATM to deposit bags of coins instead of over the counter etc but big deal, it's hardly going to take years off my life answering their inane questions (just like the questions pharmacists drag you through). When I was younger banks closed at 3pm (later at 4pm), you had to do all your banking during your lunch hour, you needed a passbook and it took days for funds to clear. I was paid by cheque and I'd have to duck into the local pub to get it cashed because there weren't banks around in my locality or they were closed after work and so on and so on and on. Hardly convenient.

We're so accustomed to instant gratification nowadays that when some are confronted by the inconvenience of a network outage, power supply interruption or barriers to smooth transactions because things aren't proceeding in the way they think they should then their whole world falls apart.

betterinvestmentthanshare said:
If you ever bother to read their Terms and Conditions you’ll realise the huge risk holding cash in a bank. Bank Bailin Law is there for a reason, otherwise there would be no reason to have the law in the first place, why you would dismiss it is beyond me.
Click to expand...

You raised that as an aspect in relation to risk. It's negligible = overblown.

I'll ask you this: how many bank customers have lost their deposits due to a "bail-in"? And how many owners of gold/silver have lost their savings due to theft?
 
Last edited:
Fear is a marketing tool. It's as present in the precious metals sector as it is present in every other market. That doesn't mean that the fear is non-existent, it's just often blown out of proportion to lure in more money.
 
Why do you have insurance on your home Shiney, has your house ever burnt down?
Why do you have any insurance?

Banking in back in the day worked, I never experienced problems except for not having enough money.
Today the bank offers the instant gratification but is inconsistent in the name of safety.
I’ve never experienced a breach, theft or scam with any of my accounts due to my own due diligence, yet I forever keep getting emails from banks to to change the way I do things or they are changing the way they do things to protect me. It’s gotten to the point that the banks advertise that it’s to risky to bank with them so I have alternatives now.
Banks are now becoming counter productive for those don’t require debt.
I’ve never seen our society so unhappy even though they have access to instant gratification
 
Last edited:
betterinvestmentthanshare said:
Why do you have insurance on your home Shiney, has your house ever burnt down?
Click to expand...

You've ignored my question but I'll answer yours.

People's houses burn down all the time, just as people' stuff gets stolen from their homes. On the other hand there hasn't been a bail-in in Australia. On a risk scale theft or fire would rate as much higher, even government land resumption is a higher risk than bail-ins but that doesn't even enter most people's thoughts and nor should it really.
 
mmm....shiney! said:
You've ignored my question but I'll answer yours.

People's houses burn down all the time, just as people' stuff gets stolen from their homes. On the other hand there hasn't been a bail-in in Australia. On a risk scale theft or fire would rate as much higher, even government land resumption is a higher risk than bail-ins but that doesn't even enter most people's thoughts and nor should it really.
Click to expand...

Risk assessment based on yours and others experiences but when it comes to financial and banking risk based on the past and today it’s different for you because you haven’t experienced it?
Would assume that you believe there is no risk of WIII because we haven’t had one in over 80 years?
 
Risk assessment is an attempt to provide a framework in order to mitigate risk.

Say you've got $200 000 in cash sitting in a bank account, do you buy a kg of gold and keep it under your bed or leave it in the bank?

In 2023-2024 2.1% of households in Australia experienced a break-in. There's been a steady decline in incidences of robbery over the previous ten year period. But the risk is real and evidenced.

In 2023-2024 0% of deposit holders lost their funds to a bail-in. There's been no decline nor rise in the incident of bail-ins over a similar period. So while the risk is real on paper, it's never materialised.

You can take steps to minimise or prevent a break in, but what's going to prevent a bail-in? Answer: government legislation around banking frameworks mitigates much of the risk and of course there's the government bail-outs that have occurred, yet not one institution has resorted to bail-ins in this country. Hence why fears of bail-ins is largely overblown. I hope you can understand my position now.
 
Last edited:
mmm....shiney! said:
Risk assessment is an attempt to provide a framework in order to mitigate risk.

Say you've got $200 000 in cash sitting in a bank account or do you buy a kg of gold and keep it under your bed or leave it in the bank?

In 2023-2024 2.1% of households in Australia experienced a break-in. There's been a steady decline in incidences of robbery over the previous ten year period. But the risk is real and evidenced.

In 2023-2024 0% of deposit holders lost their funds to a bail-in. There's been no decline nor rise in the incident of bail-ins over a similar period. So while the risk is real on paper, it's never materialised.

You can take steps to minimise or prevent a break in, but what's going to prevent a bail-in? Answer: government legislation around banking frameworks mitigates much of the risk and of course there's the government bail-outs that have occurred, yet not one institution has resorted to bail-ins in this country. Hence why fears of bail-ins is largely overblown. I hope you can understand my position now.
Click to expand...
I understand.
Because it’s never happened, you believe it never will or at least very minimal risk of it happening
 
betterinvestmentthanshare said:
I understand.
Because it’s never happened, you believe it never will or at least very minimal risk of it happening
Click to expand...

Sort of, it's more because bail-in legislation is completely unnecessary. Let's just say that there is a minimal risk of it actually happening because there is a minimal need for it to be implemented.

betterinvestmentthanshare said:
So why do you think Australian Bank Bail In legislation was introduced in 2018?
Click to expand...

Probably as an outcome of the GFC and the fact that legislation takes time to be implemented and in the post-GFC world there was a move away from government bail-outs of banks for a variety of reasons ie people were pissed off and politicians were scrambling for promises they could make.

betterinvestmentthanshare said:
And why wasn’t in required prior to 2018?
Click to expand...

I didn't think it was required, and even now I'd argue the same.The government could always bail-out the banks if it chose, sometimes they chose not to eg Lehman Bros. And that was shown to be a huge mistake. But in the minds of legislators at the time they probably thought that taxpayer's dollars shouldn't be used to fund poor decisions on the part of banksters. Naturally that's nonsense as taxpayers don't fund bank bail-outs but nonsense often feeds the justifications of our lawmakers.

Since 2018 governments have continued to support the banking sectors with support packages during times of crisis eg SVB and Signature though not by supporting the failed banks themselves but by providing liquidity to the banking sector eg BTFP which allowed banks to swap assets at par value with The Fed which in turn increases the level of confidence of the stability of the financial sector more so than bail-in legislation alone would provide. The BASEL accord is another step to increasing the resilience of the banking sector meaning bail-ins become even less relevant and add to that central banks support each other as well eg The Fed provides temporary liquidity swaps to the RBA in times of need to protect stability ie when we have a shortage of USD to meet market need.
 
Last edited:
Americans have been screwed over many times by monetary changes in the past and it seems another is coming.

Ive only got one thing to say to anyone that goes through the wringer this time.

here-you-guys-go-v0-xgw4aun4wpxf1.jpeg
 
MarketReader AI:

SPDR Gold Shares (GLD) [-1.7%]
SPDR Gold Shares (GLD) has experienced a price decline of 1.7% as spot gold prices have retreated significantly, dropping below $4,000 per ounce. The current spot price is approximately $3,928 per ounce, following a record high of $4,398. This decrease in gold prices is linked to diminished optimism surrounding U.S.-China trade negotiations, which has reduced gold's appeal as a safe-haven asset. Additionally, the SPDR Gold Trust's holdings fell by 0.77%, decreasing from 1,046.93 tons to 1,038.92 tons. China's net gold imports via Hong Kong saw a notable decline of 17.6% in September compared to August. Meanwhile, silver prices have also declined by nearly 1%, reflecting broader market sentiment that may be influencing gold's movement.
Click to expand...

So the perspective is that the trajectory of gold's price (as well as silver) is to trend lower. This is reflected in the futures/options which really is just a market that just trades in sentiment.
 
The poor, mentally slow and financially illiterate are having a chance to jump in although they still won't and never will.
The poor tend to stay that way.

I met a guy the other day in Harveyville KS thats collected Disney VHS tapes for the last 30 years because they will be worth millions someday.
He has thousands of them and rooms and rooms full.

I didn't even know how to respond.
 
Yeah dropping, nice. Might hit a coin shop tomorrow morning. See what's shaking.

Could be a good week for a stacker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top