@dcarr said:
Some of the reasons that I would never employ a financial planner are outlined above.
They don't seem to think like a contrarian. Everything they do is formulaic and main-stream, like a chef that never >has a new recipe.
Exactly. They are NOT trying to reinvent the wheel. You face lawsuits and financial liability if you veer too far off a prudent course.
While you have leeway, and ultimately the client can do what he/she wants, you are expected to guide the client. I'm the expert, not them. Just like a doctor-patient relationship.
If you retired in 1980 and all the uber-bulls like Howard Ruff controlled your thinking and you put 5% or 10% or 20% or 50% of your money into PMs because "they can't lose"....how did that work out for your retirement in the 1980's and 1990's and even into the 2000's ? Asset classes that miss out on DECADES are suspect.
What most folks do not factor into financial managers is that they are managing risk as much as they are managing returns. Having all your savings in one asset is very risky - be that AU or a specific stock. I worked in finance for years and have a portfolio managed and a portfolio that I manage. I know that I can be more aggressive in the account I manage because of how my professionally managed is risk managed.
Investing to me is also long-term, so you cannot base whether a financial planner is successful for you on a one-year return. Do they know your risk tolerance, what your time horizon is, what other investments or portfolios you have, etc.
Some additional thought I myself have regarding financial advisors and my hesitation to use them beside the issues already mentioned.
The '5%' that some have advised for precious metals leaves me thinking that it is being said just as a platitude, and perhaps it is being recommended reluctantly.... a bone being tossed to a potential customer. Perhaps as if the industry is realizing that there are a significant number of potential customers out there they are missing out on, because they do not have precious metals in their playbook. But yet I do acknowledge that the advisors do have to as a rule play conservatively, due to potential lawsuits, training, company rules, etc.
Now the percentage recommendation of precious metals in a portfolio has tended to creep up to higher percentages, between 10-20%. Perhaps finally acknowledging that precious metals have in fact proven profitable for a sizable number of the population (and potential customers).
And another concern I have that is probably going to increase. AI..... how much of the 'recommendations' , buy or sell, that advisors give are driven by software programs that the advisors use, rather than their own research. And now, with AI being used in everything... somehow I get a rather uneasy feeling suspecting a non-human entity may be in charge of my finances and my welfare. Certainly... this thought is applicable in many other areas also.
Certainly a different world now. Place your bets as you see fit.
The banks are the ones who manipulated gold and silver prices for years, and are also the ones who created the 2008 housing bubble that crashed the stock market. I can't say buying gold is wrong, but if they are going in maybe it is closer to a top.
@HalfDime said:
The banks are the ones who manipulated gold and silver prices for years, and are also the ones who created the 2008 housing bubble that crashed the stock market. I can't say buying gold is wrong, but if they are going in maybe it is closer to a top.
When the banks go in on crypto, it will be.
A top will be indicated when retail really gets excited. We are not even close. The banks get it as quietly and cheaply as possible. Once they're done, they get financial media going to hype the sector and topic to their viewers/subscribers and then the mania starts. We're far from there.
What amount of $$$ into PMs/Gold and what amount of $$$ into risky investments depends on the client's risk tolerance and other assets/portfolio size.
If someone needs $100,000 a year in retirement and they already have $80,000 between a pension and SS....then if they have $1 MM saved, they can be somewhat aggressive.
If they need $40,000 a year and get only $20,000 from SS and have $400,000 in bank CDs, you have to be careful.
Agreed that it is a strange situation right now. The big entities seem to be the ones locking it all up; while the average Joe seems to have little to no clue what is taking place, and just spending time on their cell phone playing games. But, seems to be some indications it may be starting to change. Have seen some articles that are showing lines outside of some businesses of individuals wanting to buy silver and gold; think they might have been overseas... but....
@dcarr said:
Some of the reasons that I would never employ a financial planner are outlined above.
They don't seem to think like a contrarian. Everything they do is formulaic and main-stream, like a chef that never >has a new recipe.
Exactly. They are NOT trying to reinvent the wheel. You face lawsuits and financial liability if you veer too far off a prudent course.
While you have leeway, and ultimately the client can do what he/she wants, you are expected to guide the client. I'm the expert, not them. Just like a doctor-patient relationship.
If you retired in 1980 and all the uber-bulls like Howard Ruff controlled your thinking and you put 5% or 10% or 20% or 50% of your money into PMs because "they can't lose"....how did that work out for your retirement in the 1980's and 1990's and even into the 2000's ? Asset classes that miss out on DECADES are suspect.
.
Financial planners seem to like cherry-picking data points, so as to maneuver clients into certain assets.
CFPs spend too much time looking in the rear view mirror instead of looking at the road ahead.
I guess being self-employed all my life and being responsible for my own wage in life (profits and losses too) has made me look at financial planning in the same way.
I don't want someone else telling me what to do.
When it comes to investing, whether or not I make money or lose money, I want it to be my decision.
I'll take the credit or I'll take the blame depending on the result.
Above, when I stated my reasons of the main goals of a financial adviser and why I don't use them, one member answered in a way that I was suggesting the adviser was working in an unethical or illegal manner.
This was not my intent, rather, the adviser's main goal whether or not it's a one man operation or a big firm, the adviser is steered toward making the company a profit and keeping the client invested at all times.
I'll ask you this....when was the last time, if any, an adviser said, "it's a scary time right now, I would suggest you sell all investments and get into cash".
Not a lot of times, but a handful of times in the last 40 years, this would have been excellent advice and quite a few wise experts were suggesting this.
With recent global 'events' in the past 5 years, I have lost my trust in authority, whether it's government, media or certain industries.
It's clear to me that we as the 'public' are basically on our own and that's fine with me, just ease off on the continual restrictions of our freedoms, finances and liberties and owning physical metal is one way to ensure we keep our independence.
"Gold is money, and nothing else" (JP Morgan, 1912)
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
What amount of $$$ into PMs/Gold and what amount of $$$ into risky investments depends on the client's risk tolerance and other assets/portfolio size.
Maybe so, however...
As I ponder this statement, the first thought that comes to mind is: What investment in isolation isn't risky on its own merits?
In the universe of assets, which asset has its share of risks and can go awry? Every. Single. One.
And of course, a diversified portfolio can ameliorate risk. Various studies are done to show the effects of different weightings of different asset classes and how different portfolio mixes will react to changes in the values of each asset. It's NOT rocket science.
The overriding fact in all of this is that paying an advisor to manage your portfolio mix detracts from the results, good or bad - no matter what the portfolio mix might be. That much is undeniably obvious.
When the recommendation is to limit the amount of "risky" assets to a small percentage, and when gold or silver is designated as the risky asset in question - it belies the fact that every asset has inherent risk and that in view of Portfolio Theory it is illogical to single out precious metals as the risky asset being the least desirable asset to hold.
What you're doing is to single out the asset from which you derive no income and designating it as the least desirable asset to hold in any significant amount. That, simply - is BS.
Gundlach now says to hold as much as 25% gold, Morgan Stanley says 20% and other major banks are raising their recommendations. Why is that? It's because they've been called on the carpet by their clientele. And so should any other "financial professional" who regurgitates their 5% pablum.
You refer to yourself as Goldfinger and yet you don't seem to like gold too much. Are you sure you shouldn't be called "Bondfinger"?
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
If I may make an observation, I think most of the forum participants are more financially astute and capable than the average Joe. A CFP is for people who just don't have the time or inkling to do it themselves. I do put a lot of time and research into investing to I'm well suited to do it myself, as I think a lot of people here probably are. Although some of us probably do it out of necessity or the apprehension of putting it in someone else's hands, the rest of us probably enjoy it.
@HalfDime said:
The banks are the ones who manipulated gold and silver prices for years, and are also the ones who created the >2008 housing bubble that crashed the stock market. I can't say buying gold is wrong, but if they are going in maybe >it is closer to a top. When the banks go in on crypto, it will be.
There's no "manipulation" of gold or silver prices. If the price deserved to be higher or lower, it will get there eventually.
The banks did NOT cause the 2008 GFC...blame the GSEs and politicians for stoking the housing bubble with subprime crappola. There was too much leverage in the system but that had nothing to do with credit quality.
The Fed and Bush Administration tried to reign in the bubble as early as 2003. The politicians -- Federal and State -- wouldn't hear about it.
@DoubleEagle59 said:
I'll ask you this....when was the last time, if any, an adviser said, "it's a scary time right now, I would suggest you sell >all investments and get into cash".
Did that advisor get it right...and then also do the other part, which was to get back into the market ?
@HalfDime said:
The banks are the ones who manipulated gold and silver prices for years, and are also the ones who created the >2008 housing bubble that crashed the stock market. I can't say buying gold is wrong, but if they are going in maybe >it is closer to a top. When the banks go in on crypto, it will be.
There's no "manipulation" of gold or silver prices. If the price deserved to be higher or lower, it will get there eventually.
The banks did NOT cause the 2008 GFC...blame the GSEs and politicians for stoking the housing bubble with subprime crappola. There was too much leverage in the system but that had nothing to do with credit quality.
The Fed and Bush Administration tried to reign in the bubble as early as 2003. The politicians -- Federal and State -- wouldn't hear about it.
.
What was the Federal Reserve doing in 2007-2008 when 125% of home equity loans were offered ?
Looking the other way.
In 2007 my parents set up their estate with the help of a reputable estate planning lawyer.
The lawyer recommended a specific certified financial planner (CFP) to help them invest their assets.
The CFP recommended a life insurance policy as well as several different assets. Two of those were annuities. The largest single investment was an annuity from AIG. YIKES ! Soon after purchasing the annuity, AIG went bankrupt and was bailed out. It was highly in doubt for a while, but the annuity was paid. Whew !
Had I known about this plan I would have vetoed it. Because even I knew in 2007 that AIG was going to be in trouble, and I wasn't even a CFP.
The life insurance policy was only for about $200,000. The idea behind it was, the $200,000 payout would not be taxed, and that money would cover all the taxes (if any) on the rest of the estate. The premiums that my Dad was paying were about $12,500 per year. The premiums stayed at that level for several years. My Mom passed away during that time, but the life insurance policy would only pay after both of them had passed away. Then I found out that the premiums would start to increase. My Dad was never told that initially. First, $25,000, then $30,000, then $40,000 and so on. The amount of the potential payout (whenever that might be), did not justify the rising cost of maintaining the policy. So I convinced my Dad to drop it. He wasn't happy about the premiums either. Even though he had cancer, he still lived to the age of 86. Had he continued to pay the premiums, he would have had to pay far more in premiums than the benefit. The $12,500 paid each year for several years was a loss.
I'm sure the CFP made a nice commission on the annuity and life insurance policy. The annuity was a close call and the life insurance was a total bust. It was awful.
Fortunately, my parents had other assets outside those recommended by the CFP.
@dcarr said:
Some of the reasons that I would never employ a financial planner are outlined above.
They don't seem to think like a contrarian. Everything they do is formulaic and main-stream, like a chef that never >has a new recipe.
Exactly. They are NOT trying to reinvent the wheel. You face lawsuits and financial liability if you veer too far off a prudent course.
While you have leeway, and ultimately the client can do what he/she wants, you are expected to guide the client. I'm the expert, not them. Just like a doctor-patient relationship.
If you retired in 1980 and all the uber-bulls like Howard Ruff controlled your thinking and you put 5% or 10% or 20% or 50% of your money into PMs because "they can't lose"....how did that work out for your retirement in the 1980's and 1990's and even into the 2000's ? Asset classes that miss out on DECADES are suspect.
.
Financial planners seem to like cherry-picking data points,
Im sure glad we dont see any of that cherry picking nonsense by PMers on internet chat rooms.
@dcarr said:
Some of the reasons that I would never employ a financial planner are outlined above.
They don't seem to think like a contrarian. Everything they do is formulaic and main-stream, like a chef that never >has a new recipe.
Exactly. They are NOT trying to reinvent the wheel. You face lawsuits and financial liability if you veer too far off a prudent course.
While you have leeway, and ultimately the client can do what he/she wants, you are expected to guide the client. I'm the expert, not them. Just like a doctor-patient relationship.
If you retired in 1980 and all the uber-bulls like Howard Ruff controlled your thinking and you put 5% or 10% or 20% or 50% of your money into PMs because "they can't lose"....how did that work out for your retirement in the 1980's and 1990's and even into the 2000's ? Asset classes that miss out on DECADES are suspect.
.
Financial planners seem to like cherry-picking data points,
Im sure glad we dont see any of that cherry picking nonsense by PMers on internet chat rooms.
.
CFPs often reference "1980" as a basis point for metals and 1988 for stocks.
When deciding where to put money going forward from here, a basis point of 2024 would be better.
@HalfDime said:
The banks are the ones who manipulated gold and silver prices for years, and are also the ones who created the >2008 housing bubble that crashed the stock market. I can't say buying gold is wrong, but if they are going in maybe >it is closer to a top. When the banks go in on crypto, it will be.
There's no "manipulation" of gold or silver prices. If the price deserved to be higher or lower, it will get there eventually.
The banks did NOT cause the 2008 GFC...blame the GSEs and politicians for stoking the housing bubble with subprime crappola. There was too much leverage in the system but that had nothing to do with credit quality.
The Fed and Bush Administration tried to reign in the bubble as early as 2003. The politicians -- Federal and State -- wouldn't hear about it.
I agree that the politicians and GSEs share part of the blame, but to say that the banks did not help cause the 2008 great financial crisis is being dishonest or obtuse.
" _ There's no "manipulation" of gold or silver prices. If the price deserved to be higher or lower, it will get there eventually._ "
Oh boy. If you truly believe that... after what has been revealed in the last decade or so.... I find it hard to believe anything else you may say. That is the sort of comment that is part of the reason why so many here have a distrust of the financial advisors. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtains!!!! Nothing to see here! Believe the experts! Believe what you are told!! You can't eat gold! Barbarous Relic!! Gutter Metal!! (insert the Dean Scream Eeeeyeah!!!!)
The way I am seeing it, the manipulations are now having less and less effect... and true price discovery may now be in progress. But, I'm no financial expert and don't pretend to be one.
@dcarr said:
Some of the reasons that I would never employ a financial planner are outlined above.
They don't seem to think like a contrarian. Everything they do is formulaic and main-stream, like a chef that never >has a new recipe.
Exactly. They are NOT trying to reinvent the wheel. You face lawsuits and financial liability if you veer too far off a prudent course.
While you have leeway, and ultimately the client can do what he/she wants, you are expected to guide the client. I'm the expert, not them. Just like a doctor-patient relationship.
If you retired in 1980 and all the uber-bulls like Howard Ruff controlled your thinking and you put 5% or 10% or 20% or 50% of your money into PMs because "they can't lose"....how did that work out for your retirement in the 1980's and 1990's and even into the 2000's ? Asset classes that miss out on DECADES are suspect.
.
Financial planners seem to like cherry-picking data points,
Im sure glad we dont see any of that cherry picking nonsense by PMers on internet chat rooms.
.
CFPs often reference "1980" as a basis point for metals and 1988 for stocks.
When deciding where to put money going forward from here, a basis point of 2024 would be better.
.
I have never heard a CFP use those dates. Nor, do I believe has anyone else.
Why would you say 2024 is an inflection point. What is the significance over 2020 or 2017 or 2009?
@dcarr said:
Some of the reasons that I would never employ a financial planner are outlined above.
They don't seem to think like a contrarian. Everything they do is formulaic and main-stream, like a chef that never >has a new recipe.
Exactly. They are NOT trying to reinvent the wheel. You face lawsuits and financial liability if you veer too far off a prudent course.
While you have leeway, and ultimately the client can do what he/she wants, you are expected to guide the client. I'm the expert, not them. Just like a doctor-patient relationship.
If you retired in 1980 and all the uber-bulls like Howard Ruff controlled your thinking and you put 5% or 10% or 20% or 50% of your money into PMs because "they can't lose"....how did that work out for your retirement in the 1980's and 1990's and even into the 2000's ? Asset classes that miss out on DECADES are suspect.
.
Financial planners seem to like cherry-picking data points,
Im sure glad we dont see any of that cherry picking nonsense by PMers on internet chat rooms.
.
CFPs often reference "1980" as a basis point for metals and 1988 for stocks.
When deciding where to put money going forward from here, a basis point of 2024 would be better.
.
I have never heard a CFP use those dates. Nor, do I believe has anyone else.
Why would you say 2024 is an inflection point. What is the significance over 2020 or 2017 or 2009?
.
If you are planning one or two years out, it makes sense to use a comparison starting point that is one or two years ago, not a point that was 45 years ago.
@tincup said:
The way I am seeing it, the manipulations are now having less and less effect... and true price discovery may now >be in progress. But, I'm no financial expert and don't pretend to be one.
If you are not a financial expert...then how do you know the price doesn't reflect true market demand and supply ?
How do you know it has been manipulated downward....maybe it's been manipulated UPWARD ?? Maybe the price is too HIGH ?
Who's manipulating the price ? With what money or funds ? Why aren't the regulators or supervisory agencies doing something about it ?
If you think so-called "bullion banks" are interested in moving the price of a PM higher or lower you simply don't understand their business model. I've looked at bank balance sheet and income statements for 30+ years. They simply don't speculate there anymore than they do baseball cards, artwork, or high-end real estate.
@dcarr said:
CFPs often reference "1980" as a basis point for metals and 1988 for stocks.
When deciding where to put money going forward from here, a basis point of 2024 would be better.
Financial professionals -- not CFPs -- may or may not use 1980 as a starting point only because it was an acknowledged bubble peak for PMs. It was also the high point for inflation and bond yields a few months later (Sept. 1981).
I've never seen 1988 referenced or used widely, and aside from being the year after the Crash it has no significance.
This is why true pros don't focus on starting or ending points but rolling time periods to eliminate starting and ending bias.
@dcarr said:
CFPs often reference "1980" as a basis point for metals and 1988 for stocks.
When deciding where to put money going forward from here, a basis point of 2024 would be better.
Financial professionals -- not CFPs -- may or may not use 1980 as a starting point only because it was an acknowledged bubble peak for PMs. It was also the high point for inflation and bond yields a few months later (Sept. 1981).
I've never seen 1988 referenced or used widely, and aside from being the year after the Crash it has no significance.
This is why true pros don't focus on starting or ending points but rolling time periods to eliminate starting and ending bias.
With that said, there are no unbiased time periods. You could say 10 years but someone would ask why not 20? Anyway, that all applies for backward-looking analysis of where the market has been.
We are in a new financial era. Expecting the markets to behave the same way they have in the past is not going to have a good result.
@tincup said:
The way I am seeing it, the manipulations are now having less and less effect... and true price discovery may now >be in progress. But, I'm no financial expert and don't pretend to be one.
If you are not a financial expert...then how do you know the price doesn't reflect true market demand and supply ?
Because the rise in the gold price is not being driven by speculators but by genuine hoarders (including central banks), any dip in the price is likely to be bought
Does being a fiancial whiz with dollars make one an expert with gold?
@ProofCollection said:
With that said, there are no unbiased time periods. You could say 10 years but someone would ask why not 20? >Anyway, that all applies for backward-looking analysis of where the market has been.
In fact, they often use 30-year rolling time periods which makes any "bias" miniscule. 30 years is also most people's investment and saving horizon so it matches up. You can't do it better.
We are in a new financial era. Expecting the markets to behave the same way they have in the past is not going to >have a good result.
You don't know that, the experience has been that the past does offer guidance. But even if it didn't, what is the alternative -- predicting the future ???!!! I don't know too many people who can do that.
We use the past to gauge the future. Right now, the Big Debate is about the concentration of S&P 500 market cap in the Mag 7 and related stocks and the whole AI thing. Tech and these stocks are a huge percentage of the S&P 500. Is it "different" this time or not ?
Somebody is right, somebody is wrong, we don't know who.
@derryb said:
Because the rise in the gold price is not being driven by speculators but by genuine hoarders (including central banks), any dip in the price is likely to be bought
@dcarr said:
What was the Federal Reserve doing in 2007-2008 when 125% of home equity loans were offered ?
Looking the other way.
Wrong.....they were warning about those loans 5 years EARLIER.
You simply are unaware of that fact because you haven't read the appropriate sources and/or have relied on media sources which deliberately ignore that because it shows that many of us were early on the bad loans.
@dcarr said:
It was highly in doubt for a while, but the annuity was paid. Whew !
Virtually all annuities have state backing behind them (usually NY State) so payment is virtually guaranteed, though the NPV can change if the payout term changes or payments or partial payments are deferred.
Financial professionals -- not CFPs -- may or may not use 1980 as a starting point only because it was an acknowledged bubble peak for PMs.
People use $50 in 1980 and like to call it a "bubble peak" even though it was an interday high that lasted about 5 minutes. If you are using 1980 as any kind of reference, a number like $40 or $45 is more accurate. The market stabilized around $35 for awhile after the blowoff, which could be considered much more representative.
If the silver market hadn't been manipulated by Voelker and the CFTC, by raising interest rates, raising margin requirements retroactively (in order to torpedo the Hunts and to protect the CFTC's interests), and permitting only futures contract liquidations (in order to torpedo the Hunts and to protect the CFTC's interests) - the peak might have reached $80 or $100 before any retracement, and even then silver might not have found a new base price much higher than it's 1990's lows.
This time around, the dynamics are quite a bit different, and the fundamentals are much stronger for silver and will be much harder to manipulate.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
@jmski52 said: Financial professionals -- not CFPs -- may or may not use 1980 as a starting point only because it was an acknowledged bubble peak for PMs.
People use $50 in 1980 and like to call it a "bubble peak" even though it was an interday high that lasted about 5 minutes. If you are using 1980 as any kind of reference, a number like $40 or $45 is more accurate. The market stabilized around $35 for awhile after the blowoff, which could be considered much more representative.
If the silver market hadn't been manipulated by Voelker and the CFTC, by raising interest rates, raising margin requirements retroactively (in order to torpedo the Hunts and to protect the CFTC's interests), and permitting only futures contract liquidations (in order to torpedo the Hunts and to protect the CFTC's interests) - the peak might have reached $80 or $100 before any retracement, and even then silver might not have found a new base price much higher than it's 1990's lows.
This time around, the dynamics are quite a bit different, and the fundamentals are much stronger for silver and will be much harder to manipulate.
Yep... nothing like changing the rules in the middle of the game. Price manipulation in one of it's finest moments. Must save those in control. (one thing I've learned through the years... those who have the power.... never give it up easily and will do whatever they need to, in order to keep it).
@tincup said:
The way I am seeing it, the manipulations are now having less and less effect... and true price discovery may now >be in progress. But, I'm no financial expert and don't pretend to be one.
If you are not a financial expert...then how do you know the price doesn't reflect true market demand and supply ?
PM spot is manipulated by the futures exchanges, this is why they were created - to control (they say stabilze) commodity prices.
How do you know it has been manipulated downward....maybe it's been manipulated UPWARD ?? Maybe the price is too HIGH ?
Who's manipulating the price ? With what money or funds ? Why aren't the regulators or supervisory agencies doing something about it ?
If you think so-called "bullion banks" are interested in moving the price of a PM higher or lower you simply don't understand their business model. I've looked at bank balance sheet and income statements for 30+ years. They simply don't speculate there anymore than they do baseball cards, artwork, or high-end real estate.
They manipulate PM prices up and down because it allows them to buy at a lower price and sell at a higher price:
@dcarr said:
What was the Federal Reserve doing in 2007-2008 when 125% of home equity loans were offered ?
Looking the other way.
Wrong.....they were warning about those loans 5 years EARLIER.
You simply are unaware of that fact because you haven't read the appropriate sources and/or have relied on media sources which deliberately ignore that because it shows that many of us were early on the bad loans.
.
If the Federal Reserve Bank is unable to steer other banks away from making shaky 125% equity loans, then what good is the Federal Reserve Bank ? We should get rid of it.
@ProofCollection said:
With that said, there are no unbiased time periods. You could say 10 years but someone would ask why not 20? >Anyway, that all applies for backward-looking analysis of where the market has been.
In fact, they often use 30-year rolling time periods which makes any "bias" miniscule. 30 years is also most people's investment and saving horizon so it matches up. You can't do it better.
We are in a new financial era. Expecting the markets to behave the same way they have in the past is not going to >have a good result.
You don't know that, the experience has been that the past does offer guidance. But even if it didn't, what is the alternative -- predicting the future ???!!! I don't know too many people who can do that.
Yes, we can speculate what might happen using clues on what's happened before, but do we really know will happen in the modern era where there will be no global reserve currency and very little appetite for long term government debt at low interest rates? The only thing we can do is try to predict what will happen.
We use the past to gauge the future. Right now, the Big Debate is about the concentration of S&P 500 market cap in the Mag 7 and related stocks and the whole AI thing. Tech and these stocks are a huge percentage of the S&P 500. Is it "different" this time or not ?
I don't know if that's the big debate. The big debate is probably how long the US and other countries can keep it under control with their debt spirals. We're nearing the end. Not sure if you've noticed but the fed has just about lost control of interest rates. They're about to try to lower them further with mountains of short term debt that need to be refinanced. Will they find enough buyers at such low rates and will they be able to sell the huge quantities of long term notes that they need to? The crowds willing to buy long term US debt at low interest rates is gone. The stable coin buying will buy a little time but it won't be enough.
Somebody is right, somebody is wrong, we don't know who.
@tincup said:
The way I am seeing it, the manipulations are now having less and less effect... and true price discovery may now >be in progress. But, I'm no financial expert and don't pretend to be one.
If you are not a financial expert...then how do you know the price doesn't reflect true market demand and supply ?
PM spot is manipulated by the futures exchanges, this is why they were created - to control (they say stabilze) commodity prices.
How do you know it has been manipulated downward....maybe it's been manipulated UPWARD ?? Maybe the price is too HIGH ?
Who's manipulating the price ? With what money or funds ? Why aren't the regulators or supervisory agencies doing something about it ?
If you think so-called "bullion banks" are interested in moving the price of a PM higher or lower you simply don't understand their business model. I've looked at bank balance sheet and income statements for 30+ years. They simply don't speculate there anymore than they do baseball cards, artwork, or high-end real estate.
They manipulate PM prices up and down because it allows them to buy at a lower price and sell at a higher price:
I don't doubt that there's a little bit of short term manipulation but I think some people assume the whole market is rigged and the price is nowhere near where it "should" be. The problem with that theory is that when you have to manipulate every single global market which is just not feasible, otherwise significant arbitrage opportunities arise and people exploit those imbalances until they become balanced again.
I don't doubt that there's a little bit of short term manipulation but I think some people assume the whole market is rigged and the price is nowhere near where it "should" be. The problem with that theory is that when you have to manipulate every single global market which is just not feasible, otherwise significant arbitrage opportunities arise and people exploit those imbalances until they become balanced again.
Bullion banks create volatily with PM futures to create profit and they do it with very short term manipulation. Good chance current rise to record prices will take the pricing mechanism out of their hands and put it in the hands of actual demand vs. supply of physical metal. As long as PM prices are tied to what is set in the spot market they are being held back. What you are witnessing now is the first step to throw futures contract controllers to the wayside. Next step is shortage of physical metal for the futures' vaults. Final step is a shortage of physical metal on the open market. The hands holding physical metal are gripping it tighter as this process plays out.
Study coffee and orange juice futures. What happens when a shortage arises?
Does being a fiancial whiz with dollars make one an expert with gold?
That is quite a line. He is inferring it is a 'bubble' and appears to find it quite humorous; made a comment about a 30-40% in two weeks or so? But is it really a bubble? Beats me.
Most so called financial advisors are nothing more than salespeople. They have no ability to analyze securities, absolutely zero. Instead, they put unsophisticated people into robo portfolios, and then collect annual commissions for doing nothing. The average series 7 stock broker is a money grubbing idiot, and as a lawyer with some FINRA experience, I have known many of them.
Gold Rises To A Record 30% Of Global Reserve Holdings; Will Overtake USD Above $5,790/oz.
Gold's share of global reserve holdings has risen from 24% at the end of June to 30% currently taking the spot gold price into account. And once gold tops $5,790, it will become the largest held reserve asset in the world
Does being a fiancial whiz with dollars make one an expert with gold?
@derryb said:
Gold Rises To A Record 30% Of Global Reserve Holdings; Will Overtake USD Above $5,790/oz.
Gold's share of global reserve holdings has risen from 24% at the end of June to 30% currently taking the spot gold price into account. And once gold tops $5,790, it will become the largest held reserve asset in the world
Got Gold? God bless The Metal of Kings. RGDS!
The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.
BOOMIN!™
Wooooha! Did someone just say it's officially "TACO™" Tuesday????
@jmski52 said:
People use $50 in 1980 and like to call it a "bubble peak" even though it was an interday high that lasted about 5 >minutes. If you are using 1980 as any kind of reference, a number like $40 or $45 is more accurate. The market >stabilized around $35 for awhile after the blowoff, which could be considered much more representative.
I agree. I don't have perfect recall going back 45+ years....but I remember silver tripled in a matter of weeks. I'm not sure if we "stabilized" at $35 or plunged below that level after Silver Thursday. But the moving average certainly dropped bigtime.
Within 2 months of the $50 peak...the price was $11.
Silver and gold's moves in recent weeks and months are MUCH MORE defensible and sustaining.
Another strong day for gold....risk-on with Tech and it's still up $150....haven't seen anything like this since the 1970's and that was an anomaly (40 years of price controlled gold ended, legalization of gold ownership in the U.S., end of fixed exchange rates, inflation, gas lines, etc.).
No sellers, lots of buyers. Could $5,000 in 2026 be doable !!??!!
The banks did NOT cause the 2008 GFC...blame the GSEs and politicians for stoking the housing bubble with subprime crappola. There was too much leverage in the system but that had nothing to do with credit quality.
The Fed and Bush Administration tried to reign in the bubble as early as 2003. The politicians -- Federal and State -- wouldn't hear about it.
Huh, although the GSE's, FED, and the regulators share a lot of the blame, the banks, retail & investment, namely WAMU, ML, Lehman, Wachovia, etc caused the 2008 crash with their leverage and quest for revenue. Offering 'liar loans', i.e. no doc loans at even 100% of inflated market values what do you expect. Flippers were going crazy with the housing market. WAMU sold the loans and the investment banks packaged them up for big profits. Yes the govt entities were so concerned about getting out of the Y2K mini crash and high unemployment. They loved housing and all the consumer expenses associated with buying a home that drove the economy upwards. But they had their heads in the sand. But the Banks made the profit and ignored the credit risks with such leverage.
Comments
Heinz. Yeah.
Exactly. They are NOT trying to reinvent the wheel. You face lawsuits and financial liability if you veer too far off a prudent course.
While you have leeway, and ultimately the client can do what he/she wants, you are expected to guide the client. I'm the expert, not them. Just like a doctor-patient relationship.
If you retired in 1980 and all the uber-bulls like Howard Ruff controlled your thinking and you put 5% or 10% or 20% or 50% of your money into PMs because "they can't lose"....how did that work out for your retirement in the 1980's and 1990's and even into the 2000's ? Asset classes that miss out on DECADES are suspect.
What most folks do not factor into financial managers is that they are managing risk as much as they are managing returns. Having all your savings in one asset is very risky - be that AU or a specific stock. I worked in finance for years and have a portfolio managed and a portfolio that I manage. I know that I can be more aggressive in the account I manage because of how my professionally managed is risk managed.
Investing to me is also long-term, so you cannot base whether a financial planner is successful for you on a one-year return. Do they know your risk tolerance, what your time horizon is, what other investments or portfolios you have, etc.
Some additional thought I myself have regarding financial advisors and my hesitation to use them beside the issues already mentioned.
The '5%' that some have advised for precious metals leaves me thinking that it is being said just as a platitude, and perhaps it is being recommended reluctantly.... a bone being tossed to a potential customer. Perhaps as if the industry is realizing that there are a significant number of potential customers out there they are missing out on, because they do not have precious metals in their playbook. But yet I do acknowledge that the advisors do have to as a rule play conservatively, due to potential lawsuits, training, company rules, etc.
Now the percentage recommendation of precious metals in a portfolio has tended to creep up to higher percentages, between 10-20%. Perhaps finally acknowledging that precious metals have in fact proven profitable for a sizable number of the population (and potential customers).
And another concern I have that is probably going to increase. AI..... how much of the 'recommendations' , buy or sell, that advisors give are driven by software programs that the advisors use, rather than their own research. And now, with AI being used in everything... somehow I get a rather uneasy feeling suspecting a non-human entity may be in charge of my finances and my welfare. Certainly... this thought is applicable in many other areas also.
Certainly a different world now. Place your bets as you see fit.
The banks are the ones who manipulated gold and silver prices for years, and are also the ones who created the 2008 housing bubble that crashed the stock market. I can't say buying gold is wrong, but if they are going in maybe it is closer to a top.
When the banks go in on crypto, it will be.
A top will be indicated when retail really gets excited. We are not even close. The banks get it as quietly and cheaply as possible. Once they're done, they get financial media going to hype the sector and topic to their viewers/subscribers and then the mania starts. We're far from there.
http://ProofCollection.Net
What amount of $$$ into PMs/Gold and what amount of $$$ into risky investments depends on the client's risk tolerance and other assets/portfolio size.
If someone needs $100,000 a year in retirement and they already have $80,000 between a pension and SS....then if they have $1 MM saved, they can be somewhat aggressive.
If they need $40,000 a year and get only $20,000 from SS and have $400,000 in bank CDs, you have to be careful.
Agreed that it is a strange situation right now. The big entities seem to be the ones locking it all up; while the average Joe seems to have little to no clue what is taking place, and just spending time on their cell phone playing games. But, seems to be some indications it may be starting to change. Have seen some articles that are showing lines outside of some businesses of individuals wanting to buy silver and gold; think they might have been overseas... but....
.
Financial planners seem to like cherry-picking data points, so as to maneuver clients into certain assets.
CFPs spend too much time looking in the rear view mirror instead of looking at the road ahead.
.
I guess being self-employed all my life and being responsible for my own wage in life (profits and losses too) has made me look at financial planning in the same way.
I don't want someone else telling me what to do.
When it comes to investing, whether or not I make money or lose money, I want it to be my decision.
I'll take the credit or I'll take the blame depending on the result.
Above, when I stated my reasons of the main goals of a financial adviser and why I don't use them, one member answered in a way that I was suggesting the adviser was working in an unethical or illegal manner.
This was not my intent, rather, the adviser's main goal whether or not it's a one man operation or a big firm, the adviser is steered toward making the company a profit and keeping the client invested at all times.
I'll ask you this....when was the last time, if any, an adviser said, "it's a scary time right now, I would suggest you sell all investments and get into cash".
Not a lot of times, but a handful of times in the last 40 years, this would have been excellent advice and quite a few wise experts were suggesting this.
With recent global 'events' in the past 5 years, I have lost my trust in authority, whether it's government, media or certain industries.
It's clear to me that we as the 'public' are basically on our own and that's fine with me, just ease off on the continual restrictions of our freedoms, finances and liberties and owning physical metal is one way to ensure we keep our independence.
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
heinz' chart shows how heinz is a victim of itself. dodge that FA's advice
What amount of $$$ into PMs/Gold and what amount of $$$ into risky investments depends on the client's risk tolerance and other assets/portfolio size.
Maybe so, however...
As I ponder this statement, the first thought that comes to mind is: What investment in isolation isn't risky on its own merits?
In the universe of assets, which asset has its share of risks and can go awry? Every. Single. One.
And of course, a diversified portfolio can ameliorate risk. Various studies are done to show the effects of different weightings of different asset classes and how different portfolio mixes will react to changes in the values of each asset. It's NOT rocket science.
The overriding fact in all of this is that paying an advisor to manage your portfolio mix detracts from the results, good or bad - no matter what the portfolio mix might be. That much is undeniably obvious.
When the recommendation is to limit the amount of "risky" assets to a small percentage, and when gold or silver is designated as the risky asset in question - it belies the fact that every asset has inherent risk and that in view of Portfolio Theory it is illogical to single out precious metals as the risky asset being the least desirable asset to hold.
What you're doing is to single out the asset from which you derive no income and designating it as the least desirable asset to hold in any significant amount. That, simply - is BS.
Gundlach now says to hold as much as 25% gold, Morgan Stanley says 20% and other major banks are raising their recommendations. Why is that? It's because they've been called on the carpet by their clientele. And so should any other "financial professional" who regurgitates their 5% pablum.
You refer to yourself as Goldfinger and yet you don't seem to like gold too much. Are you sure you shouldn't be called "Bondfinger"?
I knew it would happen.
If I may make an observation, I think most of the forum participants are more financially astute and capable than the average Joe. A CFP is for people who just don't have the time or inkling to do it themselves. I do put a lot of time and research into investing to I'm well suited to do it myself, as I think a lot of people here probably are. Although some of us probably do it out of necessity or the apprehension of putting it in someone else's hands, the rest of us probably enjoy it.
http://ProofCollection.Net
There's no "manipulation" of gold or silver prices. If the price deserved to be higher or lower, it will get there eventually.
The banks did NOT cause the 2008 GFC...blame the GSEs and politicians for stoking the housing bubble with subprime crappola. There was too much leverage in the system but that had nothing to do with credit quality.
The Fed and Bush Administration tried to reign in the bubble as early as 2003. The politicians -- Federal and State -- wouldn't hear about it.
Did that advisor get it right...and then also do the other part, which was to get back into the market ?
Too many Charles Allmons out there.
Look it up.
I'm reading "1929" right now...very good book about the market crash.
Also reading an older book on Fractal Analysis, "Why Stock Markets Crash."
.
What was the Federal Reserve doing in 2007-2008 when 125% of home equity loans were offered ?
Looking the other way.
.
In 2007 my parents set up their estate with the help of a reputable estate planning lawyer.
The lawyer recommended a specific certified financial planner (CFP) to help them invest their assets.
The CFP recommended a life insurance policy as well as several different assets. Two of those were annuities. The largest single investment was an annuity from AIG. YIKES ! Soon after purchasing the annuity, AIG went bankrupt and was bailed out. It was highly in doubt for a while, but the annuity was paid. Whew !
Had I known about this plan I would have vetoed it. Because even I knew in 2007 that AIG was going to be in trouble, and I wasn't even a CFP.
The life insurance policy was only for about $200,000. The idea behind it was, the $200,000 payout would not be taxed, and that money would cover all the taxes (if any) on the rest of the estate. The premiums that my Dad was paying were about $12,500 per year. The premiums stayed at that level for several years. My Mom passed away during that time, but the life insurance policy would only pay after both of them had passed away. Then I found out that the premiums would start to increase. My Dad was never told that initially. First, $25,000, then $30,000, then $40,000 and so on. The amount of the potential payout (whenever that might be), did not justify the rising cost of maintaining the policy. So I convinced my Dad to drop it. He wasn't happy about the premiums either. Even though he had cancer, he still lived to the age of 86. Had he continued to pay the premiums, he would have had to pay far more in premiums than the benefit. The $12,500 paid each year for several years was a loss.
I'm sure the CFP made a nice commission on the annuity and life insurance policy. The annuity was a close call and the life insurance was a total bust. It was awful.
Fortunately, my parents had other assets outside those recommended by the CFP.
Im sure glad we dont see any of that cherry picking nonsense by PMers on internet chat rooms.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
.
CFPs often reference "1980" as a basis point for metals and 1988 for stocks.
When deciding where to put money going forward from here, a basis point of 2024 would be better.
.
I agree that the politicians and GSEs share part of the blame, but to say that the banks did not help cause the 2008 great financial crisis is being dishonest or obtuse.
Philippians 4:4-7
Very few of those offered except under unique circumstances (i.e., income, assets).
The Fed doesn't control those, anyway.
" _ There's no "manipulation" of gold or silver prices. If the price deserved to be higher or lower, it will get there eventually._ "
Oh boy. If you truly believe that... after what has been revealed in the last decade or so.... I find it hard to believe anything else you may say. That is the sort of comment that is part of the reason why so many here have a distrust of the financial advisors. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtains!!!! Nothing to see here! Believe the experts! Believe what you are told!! You can't eat gold! Barbarous Relic!! Gutter Metal!! (insert the Dean Scream Eeeeyeah!!!!)
The way I am seeing it, the manipulations are now having less and less effect... and true price discovery may now be in progress. But, I'm no financial expert and don't pretend to be one.
I have never heard a CFP use those dates. Nor, do I believe has anyone else.
Why would you say 2024 is an inflection point. What is the significance over 2020 or 2017 or 2009?
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
.
If you are planning one or two years out, it makes sense to use a comparison starting point that is one or two years ago, not a point that was 45 years ago.
.
If you are not a financial expert...then how do you know the price doesn't reflect true market demand and supply ?
How do you know it has been manipulated downward....maybe it's been manipulated UPWARD ?? Maybe the price is too HIGH ?
Who's manipulating the price ? With what money or funds ? Why aren't the regulators or supervisory agencies doing something about it ?
If you think so-called "bullion banks" are interested in moving the price of a PM higher or lower you simply don't understand their business model. I've looked at bank balance sheet and income statements for 30+ years. They simply don't speculate there anymore than they do baseball cards, artwork, or high-end real estate.
Financial professionals -- not CFPs -- may or may not use 1980 as a starting point only because it was an acknowledged bubble peak for PMs. It was also the high point for inflation and bond yields a few months later (Sept. 1981).
I've never seen 1988 referenced or used widely, and aside from being the year after the Crash it has no significance.
This is why true pros don't focus on starting or ending points but rolling time periods to eliminate starting and ending bias.
With that said, there are no unbiased time periods. You could say 10 years but someone would ask why not 20? Anyway, that all applies for backward-looking analysis of where the market has been.
We are in a new financial era. Expecting the markets to behave the same way they have in the past is not going to have a good result.
Exactly.
http://ProofCollection.Net
Because the rise in the gold price is not being driven by speculators but by genuine hoarders (including central banks), any dip in the price is likely to be bought
Does being a fiancial whiz with dollars make one an expert with gold?
In fact, they often use 30-year rolling time periods which makes any "bias" miniscule. 30 years is also most people's investment and saving horizon so it matches up. You can't do it better.
You don't know that, the experience has been that the past does offer guidance. But even if it didn't, what is the alternative -- predicting the future ???!!! I don't know too many people who can do that.
We use the past to gauge the future. Right now, the Big Debate is about the concentration of S&P 500 market cap in the Mag 7 and related stocks and the whole AI thing. Tech and these stocks are a huge percentage of the S&P 500. Is it "different" this time or not ?
Somebody is right, somebody is wrong, we don't know who.
I've said that for 6 years.
Wrong.....they were warning about those loans 5 years EARLIER.
You simply are unaware of that fact because you haven't read the appropriate sources and/or have relied on media sources which deliberately ignore that because it shows that many of us were early on the bad loans.
Virtually all annuities have state backing behind them (usually NY State) so payment is virtually guaranteed, though the NPV can change if the payout term changes or payments or partial payments are deferred.
Financial professionals -- not CFPs -- may or may not use 1980 as a starting point only because it was an acknowledged bubble peak for PMs.
People use $50 in 1980 and like to call it a "bubble peak" even though it was an interday high that lasted about 5 minutes. If you are using 1980 as any kind of reference, a number like $40 or $45 is more accurate. The market stabilized around $35 for awhile after the blowoff, which could be considered much more representative.
If the silver market hadn't been manipulated by Voelker and the CFTC, by raising interest rates, raising margin requirements retroactively (in order to torpedo the Hunts and to protect the CFTC's interests), and permitting only futures contract liquidations (in order to torpedo the Hunts and to protect the CFTC's interests) - the peak might have reached $80 or $100 before any retracement, and even then silver might not have found a new base price much higher than it's 1990's lows.
This time around, the dynamics are quite a bit different, and the fundamentals are much stronger for silver and will be much harder to manipulate.
I knew it would happen.
Yep... nothing like changing the rules in the middle of the game. Price manipulation in one of it's finest moments. Must save those in control. (one thing I've learned through the years... those who have the power.... never give it up easily and will do whatever they need to, in order to keep it).
PM spot is manipulated by the futures exchanges, this is why they were created - to control (they say stabilze) commodity prices.
They are:
Former J.P. Morgan Precious Metals Traders Sentenced to Prison
JPMorgan Chase & Co Deferred Prosecution Agreement, $920,203,609 fine
They manipulate PM prices up and down because it allows them to buy at a lower price and sell at a higher price:
Court documents from a spoofing trial revealed that between 2008 and 2018, JPMorgan's precious metals desk consistently profited between $109 million and $234 million per year.
https://www.hollandgold.nl/en/news/spoofing-zo-manipuleerde-jp-morgan-de-goudmarkt/
Does being a fiancial whiz with dollars make one an expert with gold?
.
If the Federal Reserve Bank is unable to steer other banks away from making shaky 125% equity loans, then what good is the Federal Reserve Bank ? We should get rid of it.
.
Yes, we can speculate what might happen using clues on what's happened before, but do we really know will happen in the modern era where there will be no global reserve currency and very little appetite for long term government debt at low interest rates? The only thing we can do is try to predict what will happen.
I don't know if that's the big debate. The big debate is probably how long the US and other countries can keep it under control with their debt spirals. We're nearing the end. Not sure if you've noticed but the fed has just about lost control of interest rates. They're about to try to lower them further with mountains of short term debt that need to be refinanced. Will they find enough buyers at such low rates and will they be able to sell the huge quantities of long term notes that they need to? The crowds willing to buy long term US debt at low interest rates is gone. The stable coin buying will buy a little time but it won't be enough.
Yep.
http://ProofCollection.Net
I don't doubt that there's a little bit of short term manipulation but I think some people assume the whole market is rigged and the price is nowhere near where it "should" be. The problem with that theory is that when you have to manipulate every single global market which is just not feasible, otherwise significant arbitrage opportunities arise and people exploit those imbalances until they become balanced again.
http://ProofCollection.Net
Bullion banks create volatily with PM futures to create profit and they do it with very short term manipulation. Good chance current rise to record prices will take the pricing mechanism out of their hands and put it in the hands of actual demand vs. supply of physical metal. As long as PM prices are tied to what is set in the spot market they are being held back. What you are witnessing now is the first step to throw futures contract controllers to the wayside. Next step is shortage of physical metal for the futures' vaults. Final step is a shortage of physical metal on the open market. The hands holding physical metal are gripping it tighter as this process plays out.
Study coffee and orange juice futures. What happens when a shortage arises?
Does being a fiancial whiz with dollars make one an expert with gold?
Well, I guess it does appear that retail is getting in in Australia. I don't think this his happening here yet though.
https://x.com/AndreaCapellin4/status/1979392878167343188
http://ProofCollection.Net
That is quite a line. He is inferring it is a 'bubble' and appears to find it quite humorous; made a comment about a 30-40% in two weeks or so? But is it really a bubble? Beats me.
Most so called financial advisors are nothing more than salespeople. They have no ability to analyze securities, absolutely zero. Instead, they put unsophisticated people into robo portfolios, and then collect annual commissions for doing nothing. The average series 7 stock broker is a money grubbing idiot, and as a lawyer with some FINRA experience, I have known many of them.
Gold Rises To A Record 30% Of Global Reserve Holdings; Will Overtake USD Above $5,790/oz.
Gold's share of global reserve holdings has risen from 24% at the end of June to 30% currently taking the spot gold price into account. And once gold tops $5,790, it will become the largest held reserve asset in the world
Does being a fiancial whiz with dollars make one an expert with gold?
Got Gold? God bless The Metal of Kings. RGDS!
The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.
BOOMIN!™
Wooooha! Did someone just say it's officially "TACO™" Tuesday????
Gold jolted upward very strongly while still in contango; while silver is rising (almost as strongly) while still $1.04 (almost 2%) in backwardation.
I wonder how the shorts are doing.
I knew it would happen.
I agree. I don't have perfect recall going back 45+ years....but I remember silver tripled in a matter of weeks. I'm not sure if we "stabilized" at $35 or plunged below that level after Silver Thursday. But the moving average certainly dropped bigtime.
Within 2 months of the $50 peak...the price was $11.
Silver and gold's moves in recent weeks and months are MUCH MORE defensible and sustaining.
Another strong day for gold....risk-on with Tech and it's still up $150....haven't seen anything like this since the 1970's and that was an anomaly (40 years of price controlled gold ended, legalization of gold ownership in the U.S., end of fixed exchange rates, inflation, gas lines, etc.).
No sellers, lots of buyers. Could $5,000 in 2026 be doable !!??!!
what is causing gold to rise so much so fast??
Huh, although the GSE's, FED, and the regulators share a lot of the blame, the banks, retail & investment, namely WAMU, ML, Lehman, Wachovia, etc caused the 2008 crash with their leverage and quest for revenue. Offering 'liar loans', i.e. no doc loans at even 100% of inflated market values what do you expect. Flippers were going crazy with the housing market. WAMU sold the loans and the investment banks packaged them up for big profits. Yes the govt entities were so concerned about getting out of the Y2K mini crash and high unemployment. They loved housing and all the consumer expenses associated with buying a home that drove the economy upwards. But they had their heads in the sand. But the Banks made the profit and ignored the credit risks with such leverage.