Gold Monitoring Thread £ GBP only

[bobski]

1 minute ago, Bratnia said:

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.

If it said "holding out til after the dip" rather than "out of stock" No one would think twice.

We know they're lying lol

[Bratnia]

7 hours ago, AuricGoldfinger said:

I hve money in an S&S ISA but just cash not invested. Not sure whether to go nuts and buy a shed load of 2023 sovs lol. Only trouble with an ISA is you only get to use the allowance once so it’s money that can be replaced 

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.

[Bratnia]

9 hours ago, Earthmetal said:

I clicked on your link. It may as well be in Latvian for me... I wish I understood it.

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.

[AuricGoldfinger]

2 hours ago, bobski said:

If it said "holding out til after the dip" rather than "out of stock" No one would think twice.

We know they're lying lol

I like this lol

[MancunianStacker]

Gold 25 years ago around £176 oz, up 750% or 30% each year kept.

£2 cash 25 years later worth around £1.07

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/investing/article-12198271/As-2-coin-turns-25-heres-bought-1998.html
 

Best place to save your cash = Gold!!!! 😉 

[Earthmetal]

12 minutes ago, MancunianStacker said:

Gold 25 years ago around £176 oz, up 750% or 30% each year kept.

£2 cash 25 years later worth around £1.07

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/investing/article-12198271/As-2-coin-turns-25-heres-bought-1998.html
 

Best place to save your cash = Gold!!!! 😉 

I love how the article claims £2 has almost halved in value, immediately before letting slip it has actually quartered in buying power in real terms.

[MancunianStacker]

46 minutes ago, Earthmetal said:

I love how the article claims £2 has almost halved in value, immediately before letting slip it has actually quartered in buying power in real terms.

Never mind the “shrinkflation” 19 cigs in a “pack of 20” etc. 😂 

[Bratnia]

3 hours ago, MancunianStacker said:

Gold 25 years ago around £176 oz, up 750% or 30% each year kept.

£2 cash 25 years later worth around £1.07

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/investing/article-12198271/As-2-coin-turns-25-heres-bought-1998.html
 

Best place to save your cash = Gold!!!! 😉 

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.

Edited June 17, 2023 by Bratnia

[Earthmetal]

9 minutes ago, Bratnia said:

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.

How does that work in practice please?

 

[Bratnia]

1 hour ago, Earthmetal said:

How does that work in practice please?

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.

[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

Edited June 17, 2023 by Bratnia

[Petra]

Well, in the local pawnshop here they obviously don’t watch gold prices… ordinary fill sovereign £500 plus, halves £300 to just under £450, all depending on dates, but nothing special😮🤔

[Earthmetal]

7 hours ago, Bratnia said:

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

Maybe worth me swapping my Premium Bonds into this.

[CANV]

you can get just shy of 4 per cent on instant access cash right now..  that will be going ups again soon.   potential gold buyers will be happy to sit on their hands for a while.. especially while sterling is clawing its way back to its proper value 

 

[Solachesis]

Chart gurus, bestow upon me your wisdom! Does thou believe we will dippy some more Monday? Or will spot consume a red mushroom and grow? 

[Zhorro]

5 minutes ago, Solachesis said:

Chart gurus, bestow upon me your wisdom! Does thou believe we will dippy some more Monday? Or will spot consume a red mushroom and grow? 

I am convinced it will either go up or down.

[stefffana]

1 minute ago, Solachesis said:

Chart gurus, bestow upon me your wisdom! Does thou believe we will dippy some more Monday? Or will spot consume a red mushroom and grow? 

My mate has a crystal ball. He said that by Friday will go @£1550 and by September will be @£1600 again.

But I can not trust all the time a man with one crystal ball.

 

 

[JamesH]

I’d just be happy for levels to hold for one more week so I/we can place a chunky preorder on the bullion coronation Sovs 👍🏼

[Solachesis]

1 minute ago, JamesH said:

I’d just be happy for levels to hold for one more week so I/we can place a chunky preorder on the bullion coronation Sovs 👍🏼

İt'll moon 2 days before preorders open 😆

[Paul]

1 hour ago, Solachesis said:

Chart gurus, bestow upon me your wisdom! Does thou believe we will dippy some more Monday? Or will spot consume a red mushroom and grow? 

[Solachesis]

Just now, Paul said:

İf those are meant to be GIFs, they aren't working 😆

[Paul]

Just now, Solachesis said:

İf those are meant to be GIFs, they aren't working 😆

Yup I thought that, replying on phone tech and me don't work doh

its the coin flip scene 

[stackspot]

2 hours ago, Paul said:

"which it is"

[Paul]

15 hours ago, stackspot said:

"which it is"

To da'mooooooooooooon ! 

[Darr3nG]

1 hour ago, Paul said:

To da'mooooooooooooon ! 

Which one?