JSF

Total Rating:
0 / 0

7 Comments

    • Sun Jan 6th 16:15 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      When the Dollar Crashes, All That Glitters Will Be Gold
      The fact is that the US Dollar has lost substantial value in the last 6 years against most major currencies. During the same time, the gold price has more than tripled to $860 an ounce. Gold is the anti-dollar. The trend is likely to continue as the USA inflates its money supply and deficits rapidly. Gold is priced in dollars so a devalued dollar equates to higher gold prices. The dollar going to zero may be hyperbole, but the fact is that the dollar has gone down substantially and is likely to continue doing so over time. The trend is the friend - of gold.
      View article »
    • Sat Jan 5th 11:59 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Gold Is Just a Brick ('Active Value Investing' Book Excerpt)
      What academic planet is the author on? Gold was $20.67 an ounce in 1930. Today it is $863 an ounce. The U.S. dollar today buys perhaps 5% of what it bought in 1930. The history of fiat currencies like the dollar has been a steady erosion of value, while gold has maintained value.

      More importantly, gold has more than tripled since 2001 when it was about $256 an ounce, while (and because) fiat currencies like the US dollar have been losing value at the same time. As the dollar and other currencies lose value gold will pass $1,000 an ounce within the next 24 months or less. It could pass $2,000 an ounce in the next 60 months if the loss in confidence in the dollar and other currencies becomes extreme.

      Writing an article about gold referencing a 200 year time frame is mostly ridiculous. Prior to 1933 we were on a gold standard, and the government could fix the price of gold and then successfully defend that price because they were not rapidly running up debts and the money supply. (After 1933 the price of gold was fixed at $35 an ounce until 1971. It was a bad investment mainly because the US government made owning gold illegal until 1975.) All this changed, and the connection between gold and "dollars" has been gradually eliminated (1913 - creation of the Federal Reserve; 1933 - FDR's gold confiscation; 1971 - Nixon closes the gold "window"; 2000-2008 - central banks dump gold reserves onto the market each year while increasingly ramping up the money supply).

      What is a barbaric relic is not gold, it is those little pieces of paper that get devalued year after year!
      View article »
    • Fri Nov 30th 13:52 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Platinum Group Metals: Junior Explorer Gaining Steam
      This article says essentially the same, that Platinum Group Metals is the next platinum company to get bought out:

      www.zacks.com/blog/com...

      The best way to follow this stock is at the Stockhouse forum at:

      beta.stockhouse.com/Bu...
      View article »
    • Sat Nov 24th 21:28 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Japanese Investors 'Quitting America' for Emerging Markets
      Ah yes...diversification of investment holdings = code phrase for "let's get out of the US dollar before it loses even more value"
      View article »
    • Sat Nov 24th 16:55 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      iShares Silver Trust: A Potentially Risky Market Hedge
      I agree with this article for the most part, however, the article in all its massive detail misses the simplicity of the excellent performance and function of the precious metals like silver and gold. Silver and gold are hedges against a falling dollar in particular and fiat currencies in general. The dollar has been falling for 6 years now due to massive increases in the U.S. money supply and current account deficit. It seems that both the general public and mainstream investors have barely noticed the fall of the dollar and the rise of precious metals during the exact same time. It is a mistake to look at the fall of the dollar as some sort of short term quirk. In the last 6 years the USD index is down from 120 to 75 while silver has gone from $4.50 to $14.70 and gold has gone from $256 to $822. Many of you reading this have ignored the first 6 years of this bull market in precious metals and are likely to ignore the remaining years of it. Those of you that ignore the long term bull market in precious metals and do not hedge in some way against the troubled United States currency will miss out (and have missed out) on outsized gains, and are unprotected from the undue systemic risks coming from our shaky credit markets and falling dollar.

      The silver ETF has been a way to play the rise in silver prices, however, it is not the only way to play it. Nor has the ETF been available for investors during the last 6 years of the silver's bull run. Investors have caught the entire bull run by buying everything from "junk" 90% silver coin bags, to silver bars, to silver stocks like Pan American Silver (PAAS), one of the silver "majors". The latter has increased over 1000% during this time if you ignored the various peaks and valleys and instead held out for the long term. My favorite silver stock which has both leverage to silver and above average growth potential is Silverstone Resources (TSX-V: SST or OTC: SVRCF)
      View article »
    • Wed Oct 24th 14:55 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Wall Street Does Not Bear Sole Responsibility For Subprime Crisis
      What I find interesting is how the media ignores the process by which buyers got stuck with these now non-performing loans in the first place. Buyers were attracted to 100% financing (no money down) arrangements. Real Estate agents knew these borrowers had no skin in the game but had no problem getting them into the game with none of their money. They told their clients that Real Estate historically has gone up, it's a good investment, you get a tax writeoff, they aren't making any more land, etc. They told the buyers what they wanted to hear. They did not see it as their responsibility to discourage their clients from having what they wanted with discussion about the risks of 100% financing.

      Loan agents were told to deliver on 100% financing and nobody - neither buyer nor Real Estate agent - wanted to hear their opinions about risks either. Loan agents were told "there are 5 guys down the street who can get me into a home with no money down; if you cannot do it I will find someone who can". So, the Real Estate agents dutifully wrote up the purchase contracts with 100% financing, and the loan agents dutifully provided financing. And the buyers got the houses they wanted with no money down. Part of these marginal buyers were owner occupants, but part of them were investors looking for easy money flipping properties, and no emotional attachments to the homes they bought. Nearly every marginal buyer had bought a house, bidding up prices to astronomical heights, when the music stopped. Prices began to edge down, and all of a sudden everyone realized that - surprise, surprise - the Real Estate market is a market after all. Like all markets, that means that prices sometimes go down, and they don't always go up. And then the finger pointing began, with the lenders and especially the mortgage brokers being singled out for scapegoating. We all know the truth, that one profession cannot be singled out for greed. This was a group effort, with everyone involved in the game.
      View article »
    • Wed Oct 24th 14:51 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Wall Street Does Not Bear Sole Responsibility For Subprime Crisis
      What I find interesting is how the media ignores the process by which buyers got stuck with these now non-performing loans in the first place. Buyers were attracted to 100% financing (no money down) arrangements. Real Estate agents knew these borrowers had no skin in the game but had no problem getting them into the game with none of their money. They told their clients that Real Estate historically has gone up, it's a good investment, you get a tax writeoff, they aren't making any more land, etc. They told the buyers what they wanted to hear. They did not see it as their responsibility to discourage their clients from having what they wanted with discussion about the risks of 100% financing.

      Loan agents were told to deliver on 100% financing and nobody - neither buyer nor Real Estate agent - wanted to hear their opinions about risks either. Loan agents were told "there are 5 guys down the street who can get me into a home with no money down; if you cannot do it I will find someone who can". So, the Real Estate agents dutifully wrote up the purchase contracts with 100% financing, and the loan agents dutifully provided financing. And the buyers got the houses they wanted with no money down. Part of these marginal buyers were owner occupants, but part of them were investors looking for easy money flipping properties, and no emotional attachments to the homes they bought. Nearly every marginal buyer had bought a house, bidding up prices to astronomical heights, when the music stopped. Prices began to edge down, and all of a sudden everyone realized that - surprise, surprise - the Real Estate market is a market after all. Like all markets, that means that prices sometimes go down, and they don't always go up. And then the finger pointing began, with the lenders and especially the mortgage brokers being singled out for scapegoating. We all know the truth, that one profession cannot be singled out for greed. This was a group effort, with everyone involved in the game.
      View article »
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links:
Contribute an Article Become a Seeking Alpha Contributor

Transcripts

More Transcripts»