Gold

[fuzzbox]

You might have mentioned that important snippet when you were advising us all to buy a couple of weeks ago!

I've been advising everyone on here to buy gold since 2008.

I expect $2200 - $2300/oz by the end of this year. More if America / Americans don't get a grip.

With absolute respect, it was definitely good advice in 2008. Although, of course, almost all investments have appreciated since the crash of 2008! So almost any advice to invest in almost anything would have been good advice...

However, when you started this post 3 weeks ago with the headline "Gold" it was bad advice! Not your fault, of course. If you got it right 100% of the time you'd be either a genius or the SEC would want a serious chat (but that would probably come to nothing!)

When I actually worked in investment banking one thing somebody told me always stuck out. He said to make money in investment is easy - save all your money in conservative vehicles until the next big crash. Then, when the 9 o clock news leads with "The FTSE had its biggest one day fall since...." just buy as much as you can of almost anything blue chip. As long as you can afford to wait a year and you will out-perform everyone. 

I would imagine it's the same in property? The problem is you can't run a business like that so you have to spend most of your time looking to make small percentiles to keep a business going throughout the rest of the period. That's where the real talent comes in.

A part time speculator with no real insight needn't bother- unless he enjoys it.

[Protheroe]

With absolute respect, it was definitely good advice in 2008.

I've been advising people to buy gold *every year* since 2008. It's still good advice. If you worked in investment banking I'd assume you understand trends.

Trends aren't based on 3 weeks FFS.

https://www.bullionbypost.co.uk/gold-pri...unces/USD/

[fuzzbox]

With absolute respect, it was definitely good advice in 2008.

I've been advising people to buy gold *every year* since 2008. It's still good advice. If you worked in investment banking I'd assume you understand trends.

Trends aren't based on 3 weeks FFS.

https://www.bullionbypost.co.uk/gold-pri...unces/USD/

I did - check my posts. I was legal Director (Compliance) for a major investment bank (Lon) and Legal Director (Sin and HK) for another. But I'm guessing an 8 year old knows what a trend is, so I won't claim any special insight. In fact, I've just spoken to one and she's told me trends can indeed be based on three weeks or in fact on any time length you care to mention! She tells me that's one of the ways 'trends' get manipulated.


I've got a suggestion for a better headline than using 'gold' right before it slips 6%.

Here it it is....

"invest in any old shite"

and I'd be right because...

the 'trend' in the economy is upwards - always has been if you extrapolate the 'trend' to a long enough time length.

If I said buy shares in x, since 2008 (conveniently you're using the date of the last big crash) the trend would be likely up.

Of course that wouldn't make such a sexy, self-aggrandising subject title!

You made a call when you headlined gold specifically three weeks ago right when it was on a historic high and it lost 6% of its value in the next couple of weeks!.

If YOU actually worked in investment advice, you would know that it would be very difficult for a client to swallow a 6% loss over two weeks. Giving condescending speeches about trends would only make things worse.

I see why you did it, but it was wrong three weeks ago - regardless of trend. But It's no big deal...we've all been there. I did think this was a 'courageous' call at this point in time, which was why I questioned it when I did. You've got to admit my timing was pretty impeccable!

(Weirdly, despite advising others to buy, you haven't bought any yourself - or for 5 years previously! If it helps your ego, you were smart to ignore your own advice!   )

[Protheroe]

What a load of absolute bollocks. Who in their right mind would buy a hedge like gold on a short term outlook FFS?

In any event in £ it's the same price today as it was 3 weeks ago. In $ terms it's up.

Look at the trend over 1 year, 3 years, 5 years, 10 years and 25 years. 3 weeks FFS, you're fucking hilarious.

[fuzzbox]

What a load of absolute bollocks. Who in their right mind would buy a hedge like gold on a short term outlook FFS?

In any event in £ it's the same price today as it was 3 weeks ago. In $ terms it's up.

If I advised someone to wait two weeks to invest long term and they saved 6% or could invest 6% more for free - would they call my advice 'bollocks'?

I'd love to see you explain that judgement to your own clients who overpaid 6%! Maybe you could patronise them by talking about trends..?

Even if its for the long term, you still don't buy at a high. I 'assumed' you'd know that. 

To make it worse, a lot of people predicted that Gold was due for a correction EXACTLY when you started a topic saying 'Gold'. Why do you think I questioned you at that particular time?

But,but,but,but look at the trends! Honestly....that's delusional.

They were right, you were wrong (Except you didn't follow your own advice so you were sort of right too!). No amount of insults or condescension will change that.




FWIW, I still think your reasoning is logical, it just quite demonstrably wasn't the right time to buy. But if you hold it long enough, the underlying strategy is sound.

Which if I was you, was all I would have said in reply.

[Protheroe]

I'd love to see you explain that judgement to your own clients who overpaid 6%!

It's the same £price as it was three weeks ago. 

A slight (and temporary) uptick on bond yields does not a trend make.

[fuzzbox]

I'd love to see you explain that judgement to your own clients who overpaid 6%!

It's the same £price as it was three weeks ago. 

A slight (and temporary) uptick on bond yields does not a trend make.

It still wouldn't alter the fact that they could have bought it 6% cheaper with better timing. If you had advised to wait two weeks then buy on the uptick - as both Bloomberg and the FT suggested and why I questioned you - then that would have been impressive. But you didn't. You posted the opposite. You were wrong. The fact that it's now roughly the same price as it was doesn't help. It just shows how bad the timing of your post was!

Your trend schtick is becoming weird. I wasn't suggesting it does make a trend. In fact, I said the opposite! I actually agreed with your analysis. You're rubbishing a viewpoint that I don't hold in an attempt to prove you were right all along! I didn't and you're not.

Or you just didn't bother to read what I wrote, which, if that's the case, makes all this pointless...