Bratnia

... for the US
Much capital flighted to the US due to uncertainties/wars. The S&P500 has been pulled up a lot by the Magnificent 7. As fear subsides so might capital flight out of the dollar to ... wherever 'better' returns might be seen to potentially be made. The UK's FT All Share index has lagged, its PE is around half that of the S&P500, as money leaves the US so might the price of gold in dollars rise, as might a strengthening Pound be additional rewards for US investors who bought Pounds to buy the UK's FT All Share. If a American gives 1.25 USD to buy a Pound, and the FTAS index they buy increases by 15%, and the Pound strengthens to buy 1.35 USD, then the Americans reward is over 24%
Historically stock price only (FT Composite/All Share) to gold ratio has broadly seen the two provide similar returns. Stocks obviously pay dividends on top, however we might use that price only / gold ratio as a input into Robert Lichello's AIM - which in turn provides a indicator of how much gold weighting to start each year with in a stock and gold asset allocation/portfolio

Historically that yielded better results than just simple 50/50 yearly rebalanced stock/gold, reduced the 30 year SWR risk and in some cases scaled up the rewards considerably.
In short, what might be a case of stocks down, gold up ... for American's, needn't be true for a British investor who could see stocks up, gold down. AIM had 2024 start with just 7% gold being indicated, i.e. is suggesting that stocks may start to do well, the price of gold in Pounds may presently be relatively high.
AIM has done a reasonable job in the past, for instance with reference to the second chart in the above image late 1960's was a relatively poor start date for retirees, stocks struggled, as was the late 1990's. AIM at those times was suggesting relatively high gold weightings. In the early 1980's after large gold gains and after which gold yielded relatively low/poor returns up to the late 1990's, AIM indicated relatively low gold weightings. Again more recently it is flagging relatively low gold weightings.
Perhaps by year end 2024 the Ukraine and Israel wars might have been resolved, fear being replaced with greed, stocks up, gold down. To recent the AIM indicated 7% year start gold weighting (so 93% stock) has been a relatively bad outcome, gold has done well, stocks have been flat, so obviously it is not a great indicator across all of time and time periods, but more broadly it does tend to do a OK job of indicating reasonable/appropriate allocation weightings.

... for the US
Much capital flighted to the US due to uncertainties/wars. The S&P500 has been pulled up a lot by the Magnificent 7. As fear subsides so might capital flight out of the dollar to ... wherever 'better' returns might be seen to potentially be made. The UK's FT All Share index has lagged, its PE is around half that of the S&P500, as money leaves the US so might the price of gold in dollars rise, as might a strengthening Pound be additional rewards for US investors who bought Pounds to buy the UK's FT All Share. If a American gives 1.25 USD to buy a Pound, and the FTAS index they buy increases by 15%, and the Pound strengthens to buy 1.35 USD, then the Americans reward is over 24%
Historically stock price only (FT Composite/All Share) to gold ratio has broadly seen the two provide similar returns. Stocks obviously pay dividends on top, however we might use that price only / gold ratio as a input into Robert Lichello's AIM - which in turn provides a indicator of how much gold weighting to start each year with in a stock and gold asset allocation/portfolio

Historically that yielded better results than just simple 50/50 yearly rebalanced stock/gold, reduced the 30 year SWR risk and in some cases scaled up the rewards considerably.
In short, what might be a case of stocks down, gold up ... for American's, needn't be true for a British investor who could see stocks up, gold down. AIM had 2024 start with just 7% gold being indicated, i.e. is suggesting that stocks may start to do well, the price of gold in Pounds may presently be relatively high.
AIM has done a reasonable job in the past, for instance with reference to the second chart in the above image late 1960's was a relatively poor start date for retirees, stocks struggled, as was the late 1990's. AIM at those times was suggesting relatively high gold weightings. In the early 1980's after large gold gains and after which gold yielded relatively low/poor returns up to the late 1990's, AIM indicated relatively low gold weightings. Again more recently it is flagging relatively low gold weightings.
Perhaps by year end 2024 the Ukraine and Israel wars might have been resolved, fear being replaced with greed, stocks up, gold down. To recent the AIM indicated 7% year start gold weighting (so 93% stock) has been a relatively bad outcome, gold has done well, stocks have been flat, so obviously it is not a great indicator across all of time and time periods, but more broadly it does tend to do a OK job of indicating reasonable/appropriate allocation weightings.

Nor me.

Thanks PapaLazarou
We've been in a low interest rate era for many years now, in higher interest rate periods it was more common to eek out additional benefits/interest via the likes of Futures/Options, much less so since 2008/9 so its many years since I last looked at/traded Futures/Options. You clearly have much more insight that myself, guess you work(ed) in that field rather than me just being a regular investor. My use used to be having a pre-known price/amount of a asset that I'd be happy to sell at and then add on contracts to yield a bit more rewards/earn 'interest' on top.
In more remote places in India, not well served by regular banking systems, I believe its quite common for individuals to save using gold. There are also money lenders that will typically lend up to 70% of the spot gold value of a individuals gold, for a 7% type pro-rata rate of interest. So someone with some gold might deposit that with a money lender in return for cash, spend that cash on whatever, and then maybe a week later once they’ve been paid pay off that loan and get their gold back. Something like a 0.13% interest cost amount to have borrowed the cash for the week (borrow £100, pay back £100.13). Both parties happy, as the lender has gold and receives up to 7%/year interest on top, individual gets cheap access to cash, and if the borrower defaults the lender has more gold on their books in effect acquired at a 30% discount price.
Just methods to potentially make your capital work that bit harder.

Each standard Option is 100 ounces of gold, so north of $236K value at recent price levels. There are however E-mini alternatives that are 50 ounces of gold around $118K recent value. If you owned that much gold you could offer it up for delivery in say a years time for a particular price, and receive some interest as well (time-value). Or use Futures to do similar. So depends upon your definition of average person, whether $100K odd in gold is a lot or not. For someone with say 3 400oz standard bars they might hold a combination of gold price exposure methods, some in-hand, some in Options or other such paper-gold methods. Each method has its own distinct form of risk/benefits (such as perhaps being able to be traded 24/7 via a few mouse-clicks).

Debt is (fiat) money so with around $300 trillion of total global debt and around 200,000 tonnes of gold you could peg fiat money per troy ounces of gold at around a $46,666/oz rate in order to move to a gold standard. From a US only perspective 35 trillion debt and 8000 tonnes of gold holdings = $140,000/oz price would be required, near three times higher than the global figure, or a.k.a the US dollar/debt would need to fall by around 66%. Nowhere near as bad as the Wall Street Crash when prices halved, halved again and halved yet again (-87.5% decline) ... so obviously everything is fine.

Options/Futures/Swaps. Mostly those are cash settled. I write (sell) a Option to deliver 100 ounces of gold on a particular future date - or many multiples of such contracts. Come that date and the contract expects the seller of 100 ounces of gold to be provided to the buyer. With many such Options/Futures contracts however, oil, pigs bellies, whatever many don't actually want to take delivery, rather they'll accept (or pay) the cash value/difference instead. Investors aren't buying to get a ton of pork delivered to them at home, rather they're buying to hopefully make gains, more money. Similarly sellers/writers create those Options in expectation of making money. One side wins, the other loses, same with any other investment such as stocks. When there are few taking actually delivery of Options, cash settlements instead, so more Options/contracts are created than what actual amount of gold/whatever is actually available. What is commonly considered as being paper-gold, exists on paper only (or nowadays in a computer system/virtual). Basically its a way to leverage, scale up gains (or losses) relative to small changes in prices. The market is more efficient when leverage is being used as even a whisper of a small change can yield a decent profit (loss) that otherwise non-leveraged might incur too much in the way of dealing fees/whatever in order to be viable to arbitrage.
You can generate a form of 'dividend' from gold with Options/Futures as the price includes a element of time-value, reflective of interest that might have been earned/paid over the length of time of the contract. So some investment houses may hold gold and buy (or sell) some Options/Futures rather than just holding gold alone. Or even just buy (or sell) Options and hold no gold. The sellers of contracts often buy those back again just before expiry (delivery date) in order to avoid having to find (buy) gold in order to hand over to the Option contract holder.
The 123 paper-gold to gold ratio is indicative that a lot more gold is being offered for delivery than what gold is actually available. If all of those that opted to buy contracts did so with the intent to take delivery of physical gold, not sell those contracts before the contract expiry date, then there's no way all of those contracts could be honoured.

Surely bounces to da moon now that this BullionVault advert...., ahem, article in DM is out.  (no investment advice). 
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/mailplus/article-13406865/As-world-lurches-crisis-crisis-experts-share-24-carat-advice-GOLD.html
 

Each standard Option is 100 ounces of gold, so north of $236K value at recent price levels. There are however E-mini alternatives that are 50 ounces of gold around $118K recent value. If you owned that much gold you could offer it up for delivery in say a years time for a particular price, and receive some interest as well (time-value). Or use Futures to do similar. So depends upon your definition of average person, whether $100K odd in gold is a lot or not. For someone with say 3 400oz standard bars they might hold a combination of gold price exposure methods, some in-hand, some in Options or other such paper-gold methods. Each method has its own distinct form of risk/benefits (such as perhaps being able to be traded 24/7 via a few mouse-clicks).

The easiest way to think of the"interest/time-value" is to imagine yourself as an insurer. The price at which you sell the option (call in this case) is the insurance premium you receive. As long as the option expires worthless then you keep the entire premium.
If the option expires "in the money" then you are liable for potentially huge losses.
The allusion to insurance is not coincidental, hence selling an option is often referred to as "writing" (cf "underwriting") that option. 

The "element of time-value, reflective of interest that might have been earned/paid" to which you refer is generally referred to as "cost of carry" as regards a futures contract. This is the term used whether the underlying product be either a physical or a financial product.   Options prices are based on the futures price and, as such, the "cost of carry" is already inherent.   "Time value" per se is a term used specifically to refer to that part of an option price which is not "intrinsic value". It is fundamentally a gauge of the expected value of the strike price of the option upon expiry.    There are, of course, further elements involved (eg implied v actual volatilty) but they are relatively insignificant as a rule. 

Options/Futures/Swaps. Mostly those are cash settled. I write (sell) a Option to deliver 100 ounces of gold on a particular future date - or many multiples of such contracts. Come that date and the contract expects the seller of 100 ounces of gold to be provided to the buyer. With many such Options/Futures contracts however, oil, pigs bellies, whatever many don't actually want to take delivery, rather they'll accept (or pay) the cash value/difference instead. Investors aren't buying to get a ton of pork delivered to them at home, rather they're buying to hopefully make gains, more money. Similarly sellers/writers create those Options in expectation of making money. One side wins, the other loses, same with any other investment such as stocks. When there are few taking actually delivery of Options, cash settlements instead, so more Options/contracts are created than what actual amount of gold/whatever is actually available. What is commonly considered as being paper-gold, exists on paper only (or nowadays in a computer system/virtual). Basically its a way to leverage, scale up gains (or losses) relative to small changes in prices. The market is more efficient when leverage is being used as even a whisper of a small change can yield a decent profit (loss) that otherwise non-leveraged might incur too much in the way of dealing fees/whatever in order to be viable to arbitrage.
You can generate a form of 'dividend' from gold with Options/Futures as the price includes a element of time-value, reflective of interest that might have been earned/paid over the length of time of the contract. So some investment houses may hold gold and buy (or sell) some Options/Futures rather than just holding gold alone. Or even just buy (or sell) Options and hold no gold. The sellers of contracts often buy those back again just before expiry (delivery date) in order to avoid having to find (buy) gold in order to hand over to the Option contract holder.
The 123 paper-gold to gold ratio is indicative that a lot more gold is being offered for delivery than what gold is actually available. If all of those that opted to buy contracts did so with the intent to take delivery of physical gold, not sell those contracts before the contract expiry date, then there's no way all of those contracts could be honoured.

Options/Futures/Swaps. Mostly those are cash settled. I write (sell) a Option to deliver 100 ounces of gold on a particular future date - or many multiples of such contracts. Come that date and the contract expects the seller of 100 ounces of gold to be provided to the buyer. With many such Options/Futures contracts however, oil, pigs bellies, whatever many don't actually want to take delivery, rather they'll accept (or pay) the cash value/difference instead. Investors aren't buying to get a ton of pork delivered to them at home, rather they're buying to hopefully make gains, more money. Similarly sellers/writers create those Options in expectation of making money. One side wins, the other loses, same with any other investment such as stocks. When there are few taking actually delivery of Options, cash settlements instead, so more Options/contracts are created than what actual amount of gold/whatever is actually available. What is commonly considered as being paper-gold, exists on paper only (or nowadays in a computer system/virtual). Basically its a way to leverage, scale up gains (or losses) relative to small changes in prices. The market is more efficient when leverage is being used as even a whisper of a small change can yield a decent profit (loss) that otherwise non-leveraged might incur too much in the way of dealing fees/whatever in order to be viable to arbitrage.
You can generate a form of 'dividend' from gold with Options/Futures as the price includes a element of time-value, reflective of interest that might have been earned/paid over the length of time of the contract. So some investment houses may hold gold and buy (or sell) some Options/Futures rather than just holding gold alone. Or even just buy (or sell) Options and hold no gold. The sellers of contracts often buy those back again just before expiry (delivery date) in order to avoid having to find (buy) gold in order to hand over to the Option contract holder.
The 123 paper-gold to gold ratio is indicative that a lot more gold is being offered for delivery than what gold is actually available. If all of those that opted to buy contracts did so with the intent to take delivery of physical gold, not sell those contracts before the contract expiry date, then there's no way all of those contracts could be honoured.

Options/Futures/Swaps. Mostly those are cash settled. I write (sell) a Option to deliver 100 ounces of gold on a particular future date - or many multiples of such contracts. Come that date and the contract expects the seller of 100 ounces of gold to be provided to the buyer. With many such Options/Futures contracts however, oil, pigs bellies, whatever many don't actually want to take delivery, rather they'll accept (or pay) the cash value/difference instead. Investors aren't buying to get a ton of pork delivered to them at home, rather they're buying to hopefully make gains, more money. Similarly sellers/writers create those Options in expectation of making money. One side wins, the other loses, same with any other investment such as stocks. When there are few taking actually delivery of Options, cash settlements instead, so more Options/contracts are created than what actual amount of gold/whatever is actually available. What is commonly considered as being paper-gold, exists on paper only (or nowadays in a computer system/virtual). Basically its a way to leverage, scale up gains (or losses) relative to small changes in prices. The market is more efficient when leverage is being used as even a whisper of a small change can yield a decent profit (loss) that otherwise non-leveraged might incur too much in the way of dealing fees/whatever in order to be viable to arbitrage.
You can generate a form of 'dividend' from gold with Options/Futures as the price includes a element of time-value, reflective of interest that might have been earned/paid over the length of time of the contract. So some investment houses may hold gold and buy (or sell) some Options/Futures rather than just holding gold alone. Or even just buy (or sell) Options and hold no gold. The sellers of contracts often buy those back again just before expiry (delivery date) in order to avoid having to find (buy) gold in order to hand over to the Option contract holder.
The 123 paper-gold to gold ratio is indicative that a lot more gold is being offered for delivery than what gold is actually available. If all of those that opted to buy contracts did so with the intent to take delivery of physical gold, not sell those contracts before the contract expiry date, then there's no way all of those contracts could be honoured.

https://www.goldpriceforecast.com/explanations/paper-gold/

Britannia's, exempt from capital gains tax in the UK, stack of 10 at a time and you might typically buy at a spot+2.5% price level provided you hunt around. Sell back 10+ and you may get spot. Bullionvaults pricing is much like a £300/year fee, 0.1% cost (actually presented as 0.5% on the first 75K value you trade in a single year, 0.1% thereafter (0.05% once you hit 875K+)).
Initial 50/50 of both costs around spot + 1.3%
If the price of gold goes down, sell some of Bullionvault gold, buy more Britannia's ... you have a bookable capital loss in that year that you can use to offset capital gains in other assets such as stocks.
If gold does up, sell some Britannia's, buy more Bullionvault gold, so paid a higher price for the taxable gold that may subsequently see prices decline to where you can sell/book a tax loss.
The tax savings that may provide could offset the costs/spreads, as though you'd bought/sold gold with no overheads/spreads. As well as diversifying your gold, with Bullionvault for instance you can buy/sell at any time of the day/night.
The 0.12%/year fee Bullionvault levy for vaulting/insurance is very competitive, but does mean a 40K minimum deposit (otherwise the 4/month cost, 48/year would be a higher percentage value for smaller holdings). But if you were down at levels where that mattered you'd probably not be bothered with tax-harvesting strategies anyway.

Average in (or out if in retirement), combined with a broad/main stock index fund. Fiat and non fiat currencies tend to zigzag in counter directions, as do stocks/commodity. Periodic rebalancing is yet another form of averaging down the average cost of gold (and stocks). Broadly achieving the average over many years is ... a good outcome.

IIRC the closest the Britannia one ounce gold coin with legal tender £100 value has seen the price of gold decline to was around £167. i.e. the most you could lose was -40% as below that the gold coin would have been worth more as a coin spent in shops. For centuries the Pound remained at around £4.24 and where a Sovereign coin had legal tender value of £1 and had 0.235 ounce of gold contained within it. Spend it as currency, if the price of gold rose its gold value was worth more than the currency value so commodity value pressures tended to see the price decline back down again. If the price of gold declined the coin was worth more spent as a coin which tended to pull the price of gold back up again. Broadly 0% inflation, and where those with surplus cash (gold) would deposit/lend that in return for interest, that was like a real rate of return (and interest rates were quite generous). The Pound remained 1/4.24 ounce of gold from something like 1717 up to the end of WW2 (1945).
Under the US fiat system there's been predominately inflation, and where that is taxed, so that those lending might not even get their money back (in real terms). Progressively the US is also making things worse. They used to be able to buy annuities for instance that were inflation linked, but no more. The old have to take on greater risks, all to fund ever increasing state largesse ... and where the US leads the UK follows. We used to strive to try and leave things better for the next generation, under US directive however the tendency now seems more towards leaving things worse for our kids.

IIRC the closest the Britannia one ounce gold coin with legal tender £100 value has seen the price of gold decline to was around £167. i.e. the most you could lose was -40% as below that the gold coin would have been worth more as a coin spent in shops. For centuries the Pound remained at around £4.24 and where a Sovereign coin had legal tender value of £1 and had 0.235 ounce of gold contained within it. Spend it as currency, if the price of gold rose its gold value was worth more than the currency value so commodity value pressures tended to see the price decline back down again. If the price of gold declined the coin was worth more spent as a coin which tended to pull the price of gold back up again. Broadly 0% inflation, and where those with surplus cash (gold) would deposit/lend that in return for interest, that was like a real rate of return (and interest rates were quite generous). The Pound remained 1/4.24 ounce of gold from something like 1717 up to the end of WW2 (1945).
Under the US fiat system there's been predominately inflation, and where that is taxed, so that those lending might not even get their money back (in real terms). Progressively the US is also making things worse. They used to be able to buy annuities for instance that were inflation linked, but no more. The old have to take on greater risks, all to fund ever increasing state largesse ... and where the US leads the UK follows. We used to strive to try and leave things better for the next generation, under US directive however the tendency now seems more towards leaving things worse for our kids.

what they do there will happen here

China prohibits exporting gold, whilst the West is permitting gold to be exported to China. With 123 times more paper gold than physical gold at some point physical gold in the West will become scarce. Western savers will have to rely more upon paper gold and the additional risks that involves - that if there is a gold-rush, sudden/high demand for physical delivery they'll be in a queue of 123 for each claim to one ounce of gold - highly likely being disappointed (lost their money). Indeed left as-is China may very well at some point opt to initiate/drive such a gold-rush, however instead as that risk rises the West (US) may very well look to impose changes such as prohibiting the export of gold, and when such policies are introduced they're more inclined to be accompanied with other conditions, such as the amount of physical gold individuals can own/hold. In part that is already evident in the higher taxation that the US applies to Americans holding gold.

Yes mentally folk will be drawn to and want to buy it as it moves off and upwards but people's income may restrict that desire. The rich yes of course to them it hardly promotes a desire to look at ....yet.

Which is basically the reason UK legel tender coins are CGT exempt.

Why We Are At The Start Of A Multi-Year Gold Bull Market:
https://www.gainesvillecoins.com/blog/why-we-are-at-the-start-of-a-multi-year-gold-bull-market

Unsure why so many people were bashing Wonger, I really appreciated his insights as I did the exact opposite and back up the truck and completed my collection of 1oz Gold Queens Beasts collection. Thanks Wonger if you ever decide to visit Manchester let me know I will happy to buy you a pint......