Bratnia

Consider a ten year period such as 1972 to 1981. If a investor had $10,000 (I use US data for stock and gold here as that is the simpler to back test, the US generally have more tools/data available. For a UK investor investing in the same assets the only difference is the additional currency changes (FX) on top) and they invested half in stocks, half in gold (and assuming the stock fund automatically reinvests all dividends). If you rebalanced that portfolio back to 50/50 each year then you ended 1981 with the original $10,000 having grown to $57,000, and around equal amounts invested in each of stocks and gold at that time. If instead the investor just left the original purchase as-is, didn’t make any trades at all, then they ended 1981 with $56,000, but where 82% of that was in gold, 18% in stocks. It was a good ten years for gold. Repeating the same for 1982-1991 and $10K into 50/50 yearly rebalanced ended with $21K, non rebalanced ended with $25K, with 83% in stock, 17% in gold Repeating again for 1992-2001, rebalanced ended with $17K, non-rebalanced ended with $20K, with 80% in stock, 20% in gold For 2002-2011 rebalanced ended with $30 non rebalanced ended with $34 (20% in stock, 80% in gold) 2012-2021 and rebalanced ended with $24K, non rebalanced ended with $28K (80% stock, 20% gold) … see the patterns? Generally whether you rebalanced or not didn’t make much difference, they tended to end ten years later in the same ball-park region in value. But where non rebalanced tended to end with 80% in the asset that performed the best over the ten years. If you start with 50% allocation to a asset, and end with 80% (or 20%) then you time averaged 65% (35%) in that best (worst) asset. Having near two thirds of your money in the decades best performing asset, 35% in the worst performing asset, is a overall winning type situation. Rebalancing does little more than just reducing out of the better performing asset to add more to the worse performing asset, but where the ‘trading gains’ tends to negate the otherwise ‘cost’ of that, and reduces the concentration risk (having 80% in one asset and if suddenly that asset takes a dive !!). Also note the alternations, 1972 star year decade had gold being the best, 1982 start year and stocks were the best, 1992 and again it was stocks that were best, 2002 saw gold being the best, 2012 saw stocks being best. You can’t predict what might be best in the next ten years, but quite likely one of either stocks or gold will do well, and if you can end the decade having averaged around two-thirds having been invested in that asset, just a third in the poorer performing asset, then likely you’ll have done OK overall. At a guess, and given prior alternations gold could be the 2022-2031 best performing asset, a gambler might go all-in on gold on such a prediction, however generally its better to not gamble and instead invest (be neutral and go with 50/50 of both), as the odds/rewards are reasonable enough without having to make a bet, and potentially be wrong. To recent and $10,000 in gold at the start of 2022 to the end of May 2023 would have risen to $10,664, whilst $10,000 in stock would have declined to $8738. 50/50 rebalanced $9707, non rebalanced $9701. I source all of the above data using PV

In what sense? Method? Or historic rewards? Method is relatively simple, if your portfolio wealth is £100,000 you buy £50,000 into each of stocks and gold. A year later you calculate the portfolio value and again adjust stock/gold weightings to be half invested in each. A good year for stocks, bad year for gold for instance will have some stock shares being sold to buy more gold. In other years (gold up more than stocks) you'll sell some gold to buy more stock shares. Reward wise and ... good enough for most purposes. For a US investor for instance 1972 to recent and 50/50 stock/gold compared in overall total return to just 100% stock alone, and did so with less volatility. A little over 10% annualised total return rewards in both cases. For non US investors the same rewards, plus/minus any currency differences and where for the UK generally the Pound broadly tends to relatively decline over time compared to the US dollar.

Be mindful that its cyclical. Consider 1980 to 1999 for instance 20 year period https://www.lbma.org.uk/prices-and-data/precious-metal-prices#/table Gold £251/ounce start of Jan 1980. £180/ounce end of Dec 1999 Inflation calculator 1980 to 1999 2.24 increase in general prices (inflation) £251/ounce gold value in Jan 1980 should have risen 2.24 higher times to $562 at the end of 1999 to have negated inflation, instead it declined to $180/ounce, bought less than a third in 1999 that what its value bought in 1980 In contrast 50/50 US stock/gold yearly rebalanced in US dollar terms gained 4.14 over 1980 to 1999 years. £/$ over those years changed from 2.27 USD per GBP to 1.62, that added a further 1.4 gain factor. i.e. in Pound terms US stock/gold gained 3.2, which exceeded inflation that rose by a factor of 2.24. Bought 1.43 times more stuff, compared to just gold alone that only bought less than a third of what it bought in 1980 Imagine the emotions of that 20 year 1980 to 1999 period, where broadly the price of gold just sloped downwards in nominal terms, declined even more in real (after inflation) terms. Over a period when stocks did very well. Go back to the 1970's and it was the other way around, gold did very well, stocks declined. As was the case in the 2000's. 50/50 of both stocks and gold smoothed out those cycles. 1980 to 1999 for instance you would have repeatedly sold some stock shares to buy more ounces of gold and ended 1999 with 6 to 10 times more ounces of gold than what you held in 1980, so even though the price of gold declined, without adding any new money you ended up with significantly more gold to (more than) compensate for the price declines of gold. What you often find is that individuals will accumulate assets after they've done very well, and then become disappointed with results as prices flatten or even decline and end up selling to chase gains elsewhere. Hop from buying high, selling low repeatedly and end up with worse results than had they just left their money in hard cash. The trick is to be on the counter-side of that, sell to those individuals when prices are high, buy back again from them when prices are low. A simple 50/50 yearly rebalanced blend of stock and gold does that automatically for you, you don't have to predict the highs and lows. Best not to hold cash (hard Pound note currency) but to keep it in stocks/gold. Typically that 'savings account' comes with a two days notice period i.e. it takes T+2 time to sell shares and have the actual cash available in your account. Safer than bank deposits, where as soon as the money is deposited it becomes the banks money, and where interest that might not even offset inflation is taxed.

Portfoliovisualizer is a US investment data backtest tool web site. Has a whole range of useful tools for measuring investment asset allocations but yes is only really for those that are into that type of maths. The link I posted was for investment allocation of 50/50 US stock/Gold i.e. a initial equal split between stock and gold, rebalanced to two equal halves again once each year. If you scroll down to the Portfolio Growth chart then that shows how $10,000 initially invested grew over the years. You can hover the mouse over the chart line at any point along that growth line and it shows a pop-up of the portfolio value at that date.

Rather than withdrawing cash out of a ISA, that can't later be returned, to buy gold sovereigns, you could buy a gold ETF within the ISA, and then as you have other cash accumulate outside of ISA progressively use that to buy sovereigns and sell some of the gold ETF holdings within the ISA to around the same £££ amount. So the amount of gold you hold overall remains the same, but transitions from being all in a gold ETF/fund over to being held in sovereigns. Personally I'd hold 50/50 US stock and gold in the ISA, something like VUAG and PHGP ETF's, rather than risking it all on either gold or stocks alone.

Is that not just reasonably expected business practice. When volatility is high, turn trading off and sit it out for a while until prices stabilise. At least for situations that could result in losses for the business. Not a issue if selling coins at high upside volatility = business benefit/gain. I also imagine that businesses might hedge their positions. Have £1M of physical gold and a desire to maintain that level of exposure, sell £100,000 of gold coins and open a £100,000 gold ETF position so that they still have £1M of overall gold exposure.

I went by Jan 2013 to Dec 2022 decade, where LBMA and Portfoliovisualizer.com data both indicate more broadly similar start/end date levels, give or take a bit of noise. Within that there was a fair amount of volatility/variance (15% standard deviation in yearly changes)

Sorry to necro-bump a old thread, but thought that better than the separation of a new thread. Is same series gold not the same as for shares when selling the same stock, where tax reporting is based on the average costs rather than the prices paid for individual shares (gold coins)? Buy three American Eagle one ounce gold coins at different times for £1000, £1200, £1300. Average price paid £1200. Sell one for £1200 and zero capital gain/loss, rather than being able to say you sold the one costing £1300 and made a £100 capital loss; Or alternatively saying you sold the one that cost £1000 and made a £100 capital gain. Can't find anything in the HMRC manuals about that, but I didn't look that intensely. I guess even if not documented that push come to shove and HMRC would apply what worked in its favour. Somewhat similar to if you FX exchanged Pounds for dollars at different times. Apply the average FX rate paid if/when converted back to Pounds again to identify the actual gain or loss, you wouldn't instead identify individual notes exchanged by their year/serial number. Different series of coins and yes, distinctly different. Similar to if FX exchanging for US dollars and Euro's at multiple/different times. Two separate average price paid values for working out capital gains/losses when 'sold'. If not recorded and reported correctly and you were investigated and found to have done things wrong I imagine the penalties could be harsh, even though you might not have been intentionally evading tax, found guilty of tax evasion and at risk of having (gold and other) assets confiscated on the basis of having been the proceeds from illicit activities.

Since 2013 (Yellen, the then newly appointed Fed Chair) and policy has been to align (not directly peg) USD to gold as part of setting policies. Gold in USD was much the same a decade ago as to recent. What has changed this last week is that the Pound has appreciated against the USD, so gold in turn has depreciated by near the exact same amount. A good practice is to hold both USD and gold to smooth out the individual volatilities. Gold in-hand (there's 125 times more paper gold than physical gold, so at any time a gold-run could occur (large scale demand for delivery of physical gold)) and for safe keeping drop the USD into US stocks (that can typically be liquidated in a couple of days (T+2)). PV (US data)

USD will still remain a main reserve currency, but less so than its prior dominance/control since WW2. The US applying sanctions (blocking international transactions) will induce less trust, increase preferences for alternatives. A slide from that video ... TINA (there is no alternative to the USD) has now already started transitioning to TARA (there are reasonable alternatives), spearheaded by Russia/China along with around two-thirds of the global population (Russia, China, India, Arabia, Africa, S America). Wont be any one single currency, but a blend of currencies, which he suggests will also include gold. A distributed global transaction clearance system rather than any one state having dominant control. Not so good for the US, who wont be able to so easily export inflation onto others, such as by printing dollars to buy a massive military might. a.k.a the future for gold looks OK. Wont be dumped by central banks to just be used in electronics/whatever (that would reposition to much lower prices), is more inclined to continue to rise and broadly offset inflation, albeit in a volatile manner. I suspect that whilst the likes of bitcoin could conceptually replace the need for physical gold that instead as part of the transition away from USD central banks will introduce their own digital currencies and as part of that legislate against the likes of bitcoin, ban conversion between the two for instance. We've been in a plateau period since 2013, when Yellen as per former Fed Chairs aligned the USD with gold, as Fed Chairs commonly note that "when you don't then bad things tend to happen". USD based price of gold in recent times is much the same as it was in 2013. That's the nature/characteristic, long periods of plateau (reasonable stability), periodic step-up's in the price of gold (panics) - as more paper currencies are printed (devaluation, inducing inflation). Mid to longer term combining gold with stocks and periodic rebalancing will tend to see gold accumulated during the plateau periods, that is a saviour as/when periods of panic occur. IIRC between 1980 to 1999 saw around 6 to 10 times more ounces of gold being accumulated/held, that then reaped dividends in the 2000's. Just have a safe capacity that can support that. maybe 400 held ounces today, and without adding any more money just rebalancing between stocks and gold periodically and you might end up with 4000 ounces in your safe, across a period of when gold prices generally declined, but where the increase in ounces being held negated the price declines.

Supplies of non-investment gold are liable to VAT. One criteria of "investment gold" is a coin that is normally sold at a price not exceeding 180% of the open market value of the gold contained in the coin. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/gold-acquisitions-imports-investments-and-vat-notice-70121#sect2 Looking at recent RM prices for a Coronation Sovereign and I see a GBP 725 price tag, which is in excess of 180% of the open market price of the gold content. Spot gold 1564 x 0.235 troy ounces of gold in the Sovereign = GBP 367.5 x 1.8 = 661 GBP upper limit to be VAT exempted. VAT however is only levied on goods used in the UK, should be zero rated if the goods are exported to a destination outside of the UK. I'd be concerned that the invoice shows the inclusion of VAT and would drop them a line to query that as it could be the actual amount you're charged when dispatched. There is a obligation however that there must be proof that the goods were dispatched to outside of the UK, so maybe their procedures are such that until dispatched and to a non-UK address they leave the invoice showing VAT included and then amend the invoice and amount charged at the time of having been dispatched.

From 1791 up to 1931 one GBP mostly bought 4.50 USD. Gold was money. Britannia ruled the waves. If the state borrowed (peopled deposited their One Pound gold Sovereigns) it paid a real rate in return (interest was pretty much real, as inflation was broadly 0%). For smaller amounts silver was coinage, a silver shilling (or dollar). For even smaller amounts and copper pennies. Worth their weight. More recently and copper pennies are no longer copper as copper prices spiked so they swapped over to using inexpensive metals in coins, 1p and 2p coins nowadays are just copper plated steel. But then the US stepped up to take over from the collapsed British Empire, where the cost of WW1 pretty much had bankrupted the UK. And they (US) got international agreement that the USD should be used instead of gold for international trade, and that they'd peg the USD to gold. But in reality ended up printing/spending USD's (such as to buy a massive military might) that in effect exported US inflation onto others. As part of that in 1934 the US nationalised all of its gold, compulsory purchased gold held within the US, and locked it up in Fort Knox. Since 1931 the tendency has generally been for the USD to decline relative to gold, and for the GBP to decline relative to the USD. As both countries printed/spent (dollars/pounds). Each new note (dollar bill) printed/spent, devalues all other notes in circulation, inducing inflation. But that's not a consistent trend, at times the GBP might rise relative to USD (or gold), according to ongoing economic/geopolitical circumstances. People save/invest surplus money today in the hope/expectation of that money buying much the same amount of goods/services at a later date. One way to better ensure that is to diversify, hold a mixture of currencies (GBP, USD, gold) and assets (bonds, stocks, commodity). Likely one will falter, another will do well, collectively averages out OK. If/when post 1931 trend continues, in another x years time the GBP may very well be at parity with the USD, or even continue on further down, perhaps having to spend GBP 1.20 to buy a single USD.

Gold (and silver) used to be Pounds/money. A Sovereign = One Pound legal tender value. Containing 0.234542 troy ounces of gold. In 1931 that ended and the two separated, enabling the state to print/spend whereas before it couldn't create more gold. Recently the same amount of gold buys around £366, such has been the Pound devaluation (inflation). Less a case of gold having appreciated 6% annualised, more a case of Pound paper (now plastic) money having depreciated at 6% annualised. So think more along the lines of Pounds, Dollars and Gold ... all being different currencies. Where the exchange rates between them vary constantly. Labour may very well get in at the next General Election, but I don't think the EU would be quick to take the UK back into the EU, nor under the same prior terms. I would also expect that the Pound would be more inclined to fall rather than increase if/when Labour rise to government. Fundamentally that's the game, if you think a currency such as Pounds, Dollars or Gold is going to strengthen (or weaken) then you exchange into whichever you opine has the better upside potential, factoring in that in the case of Pounds or Dollars you might also deposit those for interest or invest them in stocks/shares. Or rather than making bets, hold some of each, perhaps in around equal measure. US$ maybe invested in US stocks, Pounds perhaps deposited in savings accounts, Gold. On that basis you might buy all at the same time, you've in effect averaged in. If you just buy one then you're more making a bet. My opinion is worth nada, however in my opinion I wouldn't lump into gold in one go at present levels, instead I'd buy perhaps one coin/month (average in). Or instead of spending £12,000 just on gold in one go, invest £4000 in gold Sovereigns, £4000 in VUAG (US stock accumulation fund) and drop £4000 into a savings account, some one year fixed rate deposits/accounts are paying around 3.75% as of recent. That way if the Pound or Dollar or Gold rise or fall you will neither have been fully wrong nor right. But where middle road average tends to broadly work out OK. PV example

I hope you continue to update/share your experience/outcome with the rest of us and the wording you use on that https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1108962/BOR286-English-09-22.pdf form would be helpful. I'd be inclined to write the reason as being ... If it is as relatively simple as that and you don't mind the wait before having VAT payment amounts returned, then its more tempting to look abroad/import. Thus far I'd been less inclined to even look abroad with Brexit and import issues in mind.

Are you VAT registered and able to reclaim it? I'm not so I guess I'd have to bear that cost. I note that https://www.gov.uk/guidance/gold-acquisitions-imports-investments-and-vat-notice-70121 indicates you're supposed to notify HMRC that you trade in gold, and where if you don't have a VAT number you're supposed to include your accountants name and VAT number. I suspect many who own/trade gold don't directly do that, which down the line could introduce taxation issues/problems. Life in general, driving ...etc. is increasingly made more complex, as that then opens up potential revenues. I got caught with a £80 fixed penalty notice the other day where a road that I'd driven down before had been changed to being a out of school hours road. The sign indicating that was rather obscure, easily missed if you're watching other traffic/pedestrians. A few minutes later and I'd have been fine. One local council around my way has made the traffic system all too easy to incur penalties for those that don't know the area. I originally got caught with two, one being a bus lane line that ran up very close to a road where you turn left into and if you cut the corner of that they have a camera that catches you. Another requires that you drive around the wrong side of a traffic light when the light turns green or again your captured. Once you know those (have been fined once) you avoid getting caught again, but I suspect many strangers to the area get caught quite possibly twice in the same day/town.

Waited with interest to see what replies might have indicated, but as nobody has replied yet and bearing in mind I know nothing about such matters, are you aware of https://www.gov.uk/guidance/gold-acquisitions-imports-investments-and-vat-notice-70121#sect8 When I click on the "Further information on imports is given in Imports (VAT Notice 702)" link within that the browser tab titles indicates [Withdrawn]. Reading around some of the rest of it also led to content removed since Brexit type indications. Best would be expert advice. Otherwise and assuming that is the correct form I'd be inclined to enter something like "The gold being imported is 1/10oz of investment gold purchased for myself at a price of £xxx. I am a private individual investor, not registered for VAT and believe that the gold being imported to be exempt from VAT as per (CPC) 40 00 073" But to repeat, I know nada.

Which dip? Today's ceiling may become tomorrow's floor

I'd guess, in part, money laundering

That's a very kind offer James. Thanks. Canary Wharf is where my son works. Gave a visit to today's fair a miss, too late to rise this morning after a late pub night last night. Still very much in the due diligence phase. Was pretty much close to starting actual purchases but for one present prices are too high for my needs/objectives. Could of course go higher, but then likely stocks would be even better value such that capital would be directed that way. Tavex (London) looks a good choice for me for both buying and selling back. On Britannias 3.5% type round trip spreads. Ideally bought/sold in person rather than via post. Which also resolves a concern I had with stacking Britannias in that special delivery insurance of £2500 limits could become a issue if prices rose to >£2500/ounce (other threads have suggested that for items >£2500 the entire package insurance becomes null/void). Fundamentally part of a investment strategy of a combination of (US) stock and gold, periodically rebalanced. In that context I could use of their tester, buying face to face yields the opportunity to inspect and test each coin, so I may have no need for my own Sigma (was thinking of the smaller Mini Pro where you use your phone as the measurement gauge rather than the larger tablet shaped version that includes the gauge). The other aspect is holding a combination of taxable/non-taxable gold, for tax harvesting purposes, which is more of a priority now that CGT allowances are in decline. Primary home (tax efficient), stocks mostly in ISA, combination of gold ETF in general trading account (taxable/tax harvesting) and Britannias, in around thirds each home/stock/gold weightings. Drawing a modest income from the stock/gold to supplement state and occupational pensions as/when they all fully come on-line in a few years time. Home avoids having to find/pay rent to others, and serves as a later life cover against potential care/nursing home costs (my mother is presently in that position and the (dementia nursing) costs are around £1500/week, that can rise even further if/when more intensive care becomes required).

Found the web site for the event https://www.coinfairs.co.uk/events/london-coin-fair-2-2023-06-03/ and then only searched for and found this thread. 9:30 to 4pm, £5 entrance. Man U/City FA Cup kick off 3pm, and with no overground trains (rail strike) so maybe even the published line-up might fall short as there's quite a few that travel long distances. For me its just a tube ride away, but a bit late for me to get the amount of cash I'd like to take. May just attend for the experience with a possible return to their September fair https://www.coinfairs.co.uk/london-coin-fair/ with a more serious wedge. Noob, and still on the lookout for a Sigma Metalytics Pro that I'd like to have before I start stacking.

If one CBDC is heavily regulated/controlled then people in general may very well opt to hold/trade using another less regulated CBDC instead. British Pound Digital Currency for instance could see largescale migration over to US Dollar Digital Currency if the Pound Digital Currency was regulated in a manner that was 'inconvenient' compared to US Dollar Digital Currency. That is a additional risk factor for central banks, mass outflows/flight of 'money' due to political policy changes can have significant affects upon national financial stability. Fundamentally whatever you pay for a item/service or are quoted as a 'price' is just a simple mathematical calculation matter in order to quote/pay in a range of alternative choices of currency units. I guess that if generally adopted shops may start to add digital price tags to items rather than existing strips of paper hanging on a thread attached to the item with the price in US$, GB£, Euro's ... whatever printed on that tag. Maybe serving as dual purpose anti-theft/security tag attachment that is removed at the check-out, that also shows the price in whatever currency you want/prefer on your phone when you hold your phone next to that tag. Much of Pounds nowadays is digital anyway already as many prefer to tap-to-pay (card payments) rather than handing over actual bank notes/coins.

CBDC for me will just be relatively little value "current account" money. Otherwise land/stock/gold larger value "notes" (currency units). I mostly spend using credit card nowadays, and pay off the entire amount each month with a few weeks notice of the amount to be settled, so liquidate enough stock and/or gold into my current account to cover that (and other general monthly cash spending). Land/home along with gold (coins) have no counter-party risk, are literally physical and in-hand. Stocks have T+2 liquidation time, a couple/few days between being sold and the money being available in your account. Similar in some respects to in past times when you might have held a $10,000 dollar bill, along with perhaps three $1000 dollar bills, and a mixed number of smaller $100, $10 and $1 dollar bills. A luxury cruise ship week holiday price of a combined 1 ounce gold coin, a single SPY ETF share ($420 recent price), and $40 in dollar bills cost each. ... or 24 $100 dollar bills and 4 $1 bills, or otherwise around $2404 in whatever currency unit values you might otherwise prefer. Current account/CBDC sits at the lower end of that currency units set, more in the loose-change category.

Fort Knox isn't empty. In 1934 the US compulsory purchased all investment gold held within America and filled Fort Knox up with that gold. Subsequently that's all been sold, on paper, but is still stored/vaulted in Fort Knox. Which had enabled it to be sold more than 100 times over, on paper. https://www.usdebtclock.org/gold-precious-metals.html (mid page, near the right indicates 124.55 times more paper gold than physical gold). A reason to hold physical gold is that at some point a gold-run may occur, where there's a rush to convert paper gold into physical gold, and where many will be disappointed, and whilst others rush around trying to acquire physical gold in order to fulfil their contracts and deliver that gold rather than ending up bankrupted. A disconnect between physical and paper gold. ETF's that claim to be backed by physical gold may very well reveal cracks when push comes to shove, better is actual physical in-hand gold. Having a ETF suspended at the time access is most needed ... ain't much use. Brown sold around half of British gold, as a means to buy Euro's in support of that newly formed currency back then. Doing so in a really stupid manner, forewarned of the intent enabled the auctions to result in bargain prices for buyers. Others were also selling, Netherlands, Canada ...etc. i.e. in the 'new world' of fiat currencies where it was perceived that there was no need to hold gold anymore. Multiple currencies instead perceived as being good-enough. Until the financial crisis came along and when it was realised that multiple fiat currencies weren't safe, too much inter-dependencies where one failure could domino, such that some gold again became desirable (and gold was even raised from a Tier 3 to a Tier 1 asset). 2014 - 2018 when Yellen was Fed Chair, the dollar was repegged to gold, fear had elevated that the US dollar could be dropped as a primary trading/reserve currency, such that pegging it to gold provided assurances. Not a direct peg, but enough to broadly keep the price of gold in dollars somewhat level. Then along came Covid, and the pegging had to be raised again, since 2021 having be re-pegged at around a 50% higher price. That's just the nature of gold, the price across history has tended to move in a more step/plateau type manner, with steps aligning with stressful economic times. Gold as a investment takes great patience. It can fall out of favour for decades at a time, its price progressively declining, to periodically see its price spike up considerably. Many private investors can't handle that, will tend to buy-high and sell-low. Those that have the patience take the other side of those positions. Maybe selling some of good stock gains to add a little more gold as gold prices remain flat/decline, inter-spaced with being able to sell gold at high prices to buy more cheap stock after stock prices/economies have faltered. 67/33 stock gold yearly rebalanced back to 67/33 for instance is a reasonable choice PV example

If investors can find reasonable positive real rates of return elsewhere then gold might fall out of favour, as it did after the 1970's up-run ... until the end of the 1990's. Could just as easily predict a $1000 or lower price come 2030. The 'trick' is not to bet the farm on gold alone, but to diversify across both commodity (gold) and fiat (US dollar) currencies, where rebalancing will tend to have you add-low/reduce-high, perhaps where the USD are invested in stocks. Historically the differences have swung through some pretty wild extremes, as indicated by the likes of the dow/gold ratio, where in 1980 a single ounce of gold bought a Dow stock index share, whereas in 1999 a single Dow stock index share bought 40 ounces of gold. There's also Black Swan risk entailed. What if someone finds a way to inexpensively create gold through some technological process, the more the price rises the less inexpensive it becomes to use processes/methods that might otherwise have been deemed to be expensive at times when the price of gold was relatively cheap. In a tech revolution era who knows what may become possible. Or what if central banks decide to drop gold on-mass, dumping thousands of tons of it into the open markets, perhaps to instead adopt some other form of alternative that can be more easily stored/moved. Canada has already dumped all of their central bank gold reserves. Don't have too much concentration risk in any one single factor. Dilute each down to perhaps no more than a third ... land, stocks, gold for instance rather than a high concentration into any one of those alone, and just accept what happens, one will likely falter, but where the losses in that asset tend to be compensated and more by one of the others doing well.

From the first link Not so sure they're shorting gold, they might have been selling/rolling covered calls for the time-value/interest on the assumption that the price of gold wouldn't rise to the (initially) out-of-money price of the call options sold, capture some interest, but where if the price of gold does rise sharply your upside is capped. Closing rather than rolling those covered calls infers they might expect the price of gold to rise, possibly quickly/sharply. A indication that they might see more potential/reward from upside gold price gains than that of expecting the price of gold to remain relatively flat or decline where writing/selling Covered Calls would have yielded additional interest.