Goldman 2014 prediction - gold at $1050
secondrepublic
Posts: 2,619 ✭✭✭
Only five more days for Goldman Sachs to meet its prediction of gold at $1050 by end of year 2014. Link to CNBC article. They held to this prediction and even repeated it a couple of times. Not looking very good for them.
Gold exactly one year ago (Dec. 26, 2013) was selling at $1206... today it's at $1193, hardly changed at all despite some ups and downs in 2014.
Gold exactly one year ago (Dec. 26, 2013) was selling at $1206... today it's at $1193, hardly changed at all despite some ups and downs in 2014.
"Men who had never shown any ability to make or increase fortunes for themselves abounded in brilliant plans for creating and increasing wealth for the country at large." Fiat Money Inflation in France, Andrew Dickson White (1912)
0
Comments
"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>PMs have more downside in the foreseeable future. Goldman is probably close to correct. >>
For once, they are in the "ball park," unlike some gold buff's i/e P. Hellers totally absurd predictions for the last several years.
At $1,200 I will hit my lifetime goal all the sooner.
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/gold/liberty-head-2-1-gold-major-sets/liberty-head-2-1-gold-basic-set-circulation-strikes-1840-1907-cac/alltimeset/268163
Goldman Sachs crystal ball predictions for 2015
<< <i>I would not bet against GS...the prediction will come true, timing was just slightly off! >>
Timing is just as important as the number itself. Since we're not at $1050 yet we can't give GS any credit for calling that. As 2014 winds down it appears they will just be wrong.
Reminds me of analyst Larry Edelson who claims to have called for gold to reach $1200-$1250. The only problem with that was that he was calling for that in the spring/early summer of 2011 when gold was around $1500. He fully expected it to drop back $250. Turned out it went to $1900 first....then took 3 years to reach his "target." Of course today he proclaims that he got it right......just 3 years and $450 off.
<< <i>
<< <i>I would not bet against GS...the prediction will come true, timing was just slightly off! >>
Timing is just as important as the number itself. Since we're not at $1050 yet we can't give GS any credit for calling that. As 2014 winds down it appears they will just be wrong.
Reminds me of analyst Larry Edelson who claims to have called for gold to reach $1200-$1250. The only problem with that was that he was calling for that in the spring/early summer of 2011 when gold was around $1500. He fully expected it to drop back $250. Turned out it went to $1900 first....then took 3 years to reach his "target." Of course today he proclaims that he got it right......just 3 years and $450 off. >>
Semantics. off by slightly over 10% (close but no cigar) ... but a lot closer than what most Gold perma bulls predicted.
I doubt we will see $1,050, unless precious metals takes a GIANT hit (like $200+ in three days).
It will be interesting to see what 2015 brings to the precious metals market.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
As a headline grabber it "appears to be a good call." In reality it's been pretty much a coin flip. 2 days left to go though. And I would expect to probably see $1171 this week.
Goldman's 2014 calls
Currie said gold still worked as a hedge against inflation; he just doesn't see any strong inflationary pressures in the next few years. He said once the economic recovery picks up more momentum, inflation would follow and gold may become attractive again. Gold's early 2014 rally won't last, he said.
Gold's rally lasted another 2 months after Currie posted this. Strong inflationary pressures? That's not a requirement for gold to rally as it did from 2000-2003 when a recession was in full swing. Most of gold's best moves have been when there wasn't strong inflation (ie 1970-1980, 1993-1998, 2009-2011) but where the currency and economic confidence was under stress.
Where were at is pretty close.
And think that was the intent. More of a guidance.
Not defending nor calling out GS. That's another thread. Just giving a little credit where a little credit is due. In this case.
Aren't we all just muppets to them or was it another firm?