Just a stupid chart. Dont bother with this thread if you dont believe in voodoo.
cohodk
Posts: 19,143 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comment as you wish.
Excuses are tools of the ignorant
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
0
Comments
On a somewhat unrelated note: There has been much discussion this week regarding a huge rise in the cost of getting one ounce of physical gold to market. Some have it as high as $1100. Comments?
<< <i>Nice chart.
On a somewhat unrelated note: There has been much discussion this week regarding a huge rise in the cost of getting one ounce of physical gold to market. Some have it as high as $1100. Comments? >>
My comment is that comments like that are put forth as a marketing ploy or as an attempt at an excuse as to why gold MUST hold its value. Production costs are meaningless.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>On a somewhat unrelated note: There has been much discussion this week regarding a huge rise in the cost of getting one ounce of physical gold to market. Some have it as high as $1100. Comments? >>
I heard similar comments about the cost of bringing silver to market.
Isn't there a natural relationship in the price to bring PMs to market and the market price?
There's gold and silver in all sorts of places all with different costs to get it to market.
Lets say a deep gold mine that costs $1500 an ounce to bring the gold to market, if gold is $1600 an ounce they mine it, if gold drops to $1500 they shut down that mine and keep the other mines with lower costs. The average cost to bring PMs to market would be those near the break even point averaged in with the more profitable ones.
Isn't the cost to market always going to track (with some spread) the market price?
I think it's almost opposite of what people are saying that the cost to bring it to market sets a floor, it's more like the market price sets a cap on the "cost to bring it to market".
<< <i>
<< <i>Nice chart.
On a somewhat unrelated note: There has been much discussion this week regarding a huge rise in the cost of getting one ounce of physical gold to market. Some have it as high as $1100. Comments? >>
My comment is that comments like that are put forth as a marketing ploy or as an attempt at an excuse as to why gold MUST hold its value. Production costs are meaningless. >>
Bingo. as the price of metals drop, firms continue to produce and sometimes even ramp up production in an effort to lose less, exacerbating the drop in prices until the weak firms go out of business. the boom/bust cycle of mining is well documented and highly repetitive, 'fundamentals' or no. sub 1k in gold in the next 2-3 years is a very solid possibility.
Naked shorts seem to be in charge of this one.
<< <i>Production costs are meaningless. >>
Not to those that pay them upfront, and they are generally passed on to the consumer. A producer has to look at his costs to determine if he is profiting. If he is not profiting he will not be able to continue production for very long.
Production costs affect prices, except in "controlled" markets where price equilibrium is not determined by supply and demand forces. Like interest rates, could it be that the PMs are one of these exceptions?
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
<< <i>Comment as you wish. >>
just looks like a bunch of lines and stuff. Can't read all that mumbo jumbo.
Too many positive BST transactions with too many members to list.
<< <i>"just looks like a bunch of lines and stuff. Can't read all that mumbo jumbo. "
I wish I could understand those charts...even only a little would help!
SO...hypothetically gold goes to $1,000.
If you had a trillion dollars in your piggy bank, you could purchase a
BILLION oz.
Now, me think....hmmmm...who has 1T$......
H mmm... PBOC?
Bingo. Coincidently...they acquire gold. Their lucky day.
How does one read these tea leaves?