Seeking Alpha

Moses Kim

 
View as an RSS Feed
View Moses Kim's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • The China Factor: A Changing Paradigm for Gold [View article]
    Both. The Chinese government is actually pushing citizens to buy gold. My read on it is that China knows there will be a new currency arrangement backed in part by gold. As for the citizens of China, they are net savers, so they have the reserves to buy.
    Feb 9 02:30 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The China Factor: A Changing Paradigm for Gold [View article]
    Agree on all points.
    Feb 9 11:23 AM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is Gold the 'Ultimate Bubble?' [View article]
    I suggest you also value gold against stocks and the national debt while you're at it. Perhaps your perspective will change then.
    Jan 13 10:02 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Is Gold the 'Ultimate Bubble?' [View article]
    I am one of the biggest supporters of gold so I don't see how I am making people make "wrong headed decisions." To say that gold is an inflation hedge though is just empirically false. Are you trying to tell me that there was no inflation from 1980 to 2000, and this is why gold collapsed in value?

    Gold is a hedge against fiscal mismanagement and instability, which sometimes is inflationary and sometimes is not.
    Jan 13 05:00 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Is Gold the 'Ultimate Bubble?' [View article]
    Just a quick point. You make it seem as if this data goes back a legitimate 120 years when gold was fixed until 1971. Not quite the best valuation method in my opinion,
    Jan 13 04:57 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • The Deflation Bogeyman [View article]
    You are bunching up all asset classes when history shows this is the wrong approach. Yes real estate has some downside, but this doesn't necessarily mean stocks go down. I have heard about a deflationary collapse for some time now, but CPI is still up year-over-year, and this is according to the government!

    Right now the government's stimulus measures are counteracting the deflation caused by the weak economy. Eventually a loss of confidence will turn the tide in favor of inflation.
    Aug 20 06:19 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • The Deflation Bogeyman [View article]
    Well if you look strictly at CPI, it was rising throughout the 90's. Stocks and real estate, or course, collapsed.
    Aug 20 04:09 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • A U.S. Government Bond Bubble [View article]
    I am referring to physical gold. Just think of it as insurance and you won't mind paying carrying costs.

    As for the miners. the safest route is probably buying an index, then buying the majors, and moving on down from there.
    May 31 06:53 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • A U.S. Government Bond Bubble [View article]
    Haha, I'm glad I convinced you so early on in the article!
    May 30 09:15 PM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • A U.S. Government Bond Bubble [View article]
    Kohalakid,

    I agree. I am very, very long gold.
    May 30 09:04 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Prepare for a Lower Dow to Gold Ratio [View article]
    granger,

    The S&P would work just as well, if not better, in my opinion. However, the S&P has only been around since 1957, so it's hard to extrapolate from historical data in the same way that you can with the Dow.


    On Sep 03 12:06 PM granger wrote:

    > I have a question. Why is it compared to the DOW. Is there any credence
    > to using the S&P 500 or Russell 3000. (maybe Wilshire 5k)
    >
    > I would be interested in the authors thoughts
    Sep 3 03:54 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 'Green Shoots' Are a Mirage: Economy Will Deteriorate Further [View article]
    Your statement is true, but a little misleading. The only reason the Great Depression ended near the peak of unemployment was because unemployment stayed elevated for such a long period of time. From the trough in unemployment to the end of depression was roughly 7 years. Not much of a leading indicator there.

    Also, GDP growth has nothing to do with the end of a downturn. We can still be in a recession, or depression for that matter, with sustained positive GDP numbers. The Great Depression after 1933 is one example.


    On Aug 13 11:52 AM thiazole wrote:

    > The Great Depression ended when unemployment was near the peak, yet
    > we still saw 10% annual growth for several years.
    Aug 13 12:08 PM | 9 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 'Green Shoots' Are a Mirage: Economy Will Deteriorate Further [View article]
    1. Writedowns are understated. Mark-to-imagination still rampant. Top-line revenue non-existent.
    2. You can't be sure of that. But the point is, GDP is weaker than advertised.
    3. What was the one time this century that relationship did not hold true? The Great Depression, which is the closest precedent we have in terms of the magnitude of unemployment.
    4. Great


    On Aug 13 10:44 AM thiazole wrote:

    > The arguments in this article are lacking.
    > 1. P/E - David already explained the flaw in your reasoning
    > 2. Government spending - as you correctly point out, this effects
    > future generations (think post WWII), but it won't cause the CURRENT
    > economy to go into a tail spin.
    > 3. Unemployment - How many times do people have to be told that unemployment
    > is a lagging indicator - look at your own chart! Average weeks unemployed
    > peaked out in 2004 after the last recession! That was 2 years into
    > a bull market and 3 year after the recession ended!
    > 4. Consumer spending - your only good point, but if you consider
    > that inventories are still shrinking (and if anything, the rate they
    > are shrinking is accelerating), consumers MUST be buying more than
    > is being produced (or do you have an alternate hypothesis?). How
    > are we going to keep inventories from disappearing unless companies
    > start hiring?
    Aug 13 11:00 AM | 9 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 'Green Shoots' Are a Mirage: Economy Will Deteriorate Further [View article]
    Does nobody,

    "Yes consumption is 70% of GDP but it is intrinsically stable, people have to buy food, clothes, gasoline, etc. Swings in GDP are not driven by consumption and this is statistically provable as well as intuitively sensible "

    Hence my point about increased government spending. All spending is not created equal. I don't have the exact stats on me, but we are getting to the point where more and more government spending is having less and less of an effect on GDP. The party can only go on for so long.


    On Aug 13 02:33 AM Does nobody understand what long term actually means? wrote:

    > While I don't disagree with the broad conclusion it is worth debunking
    > the myth that where goes consumption so goes the economy. Yes consumption
    > is 70% of GDP but it is intrinsically stable, people have to buy
    > food, clothes, gasoline, etc. Swings in GDP are not driven by consumption
    > and this is statistically provable as well as intuitively sensible
    Aug 13 09:12 AM | 9 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Stock Market Is Not a Leading Indicator [View article]
    With all the government intervention, I wouldn't be surprised by an AAAA-shaped recovery, ala the Great Depression.


    On Aug 04 09:18 AM Roger Knights wrote:

    > If the past is prologue, we'll have an A-shaped recovery.
    Aug 4 10:04 AM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
33 Comments
84 Likes