Comments on: 10 Reasons Barry Ritholtz Is Wrong About Gold http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2014/01/11/10-reasons-barry-ritholtz-is-wrong-about-gold/ A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: Alex... http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2014/01/11/10-reasons-barry-ritholtz-is-wrong-about-gold/comment-page-1/#comment-49475 Tue, 18 Mar 2014 17:10:47 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=23000#comment-49475 Interesting, all these comments about be censored out of Barry’s blog comments. I suffered the same fate from Mr. Continuum of Time and am fine with it.

Got to keep up appearances to keep the new Bloomberg gig of his!

]]>
By: bongstar420 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2014/01/11/10-reasons-barry-ritholtz-is-wrong-about-gold/comment-page-1/#comment-49329 Tue, 25 Feb 2014 21:37:45 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=23000#comment-49329 Most of the demand for this commodity is for jewelery and Gold bars. That is not good fundamental support IMO. I do not buy into the currency bit, or at least, I won’t until the reserve base can supply for all individuals in physical form.

Here is another way to look at it. In 2013, demand for jewelery was ~2200 tons and investment was ~770 tons while actual useful applications in industry was ~400 tons. Well, the jewelery/investment demand was ~19% lower from the start of 2012 to the finish of 2013 while the actual price declined ~29%. Industrial demand was statistically the same for the time period. Gold is currently priced at ~560% over inflation since 1920 in USD. Gold production will not change much and is up against diminishing returns unless a new frontier opens up. I believe that each years supply of jewelery and investment can be diverted to 4-6 years of useful supply for the planet. So, think, how much jewelery and investments are consumers willing to part with vs how much is needed for useful purposes vs how much base supply exists. Total Gold supply appears to be ~4400 tons annually with a slow decline to ~2200 over several decades. Oh, and over all, Gold has high recycleability at current prices.

]]>
By: Moopheus http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2014/01/11/10-reasons-barry-ritholtz-is-wrong-about-gold/comment-page-1/#comment-49050 Wed, 15 Jan 2014 14:24:10 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=23000#comment-49050 He doesn’t have to identify any investor to say that someone lost money buying at $1900. If the price got that high, it means, that someone, somewhere, a bunch of someones most likely, was actually willing to fork over the cash. Now they have an asset that is worth less than they paid. Technically, they may not have “lost money” until they sell and it’s certainly possible that at some point in the future they may be able to recoup at least their nominal investment. Price goes up, then down, then up again, then down again, over and over and over.

]]>
By: whopper http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2014/01/11/10-reasons-barry-ritholtz-is-wrong-about-gold/comment-page-1/#comment-49047 Wed, 15 Jan 2014 02:44:08 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=23000#comment-49047 Why the fuss over Gold ? The market cap is about 3-4 days of QE and all this constant media focus. My point is made.

]]>
By: LeChefBoyardee http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2014/01/11/10-reasons-barry-ritholtz-is-wrong-about-gold/comment-page-1/#comment-49043 Tue, 14 Jan 2014 23:03:56 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=23000#comment-49043 Agree with your critique 100%. The problem for both Ritholtz and his protege Josh Brown is that they exist in self-inflicted dichotomy. They both criticize prognostication ad nauseum, but there’s Josh Brown on TV all the time analyzing the day’s trading and Ritholtz is the CEO of Hindsight Capital. You never hear about their positions until one has done well. They are both intelligent, well spoken and hopeless conflicted in that their stated mission conflicts with their actions.

]]>
By: _tom_ http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2014/01/11/10-reasons-barry-ritholtz-is-wrong-about-gold/comment-page-1/#comment-49036 Tue, 14 Jan 2014 11:21:04 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=23000#comment-49036 A very weak critique. Where Ritholz and Salmon disagree, Ritholz is right on almost every point. If you refused to sell in 2013 as the market was going against you, you lost, a lot, no matter when you bought. Even if you’re a long-term investor, you’ll do better if you learn to sell near the tops – and that’s true even if saying so might perhaps mislead some poor saps into trying to sell near the tops and instead selling near the bottoms (sorry). The mainstream US financial investor community usually called “Wall Street”, buying mainly through GLD, was a major force in gold’s surge to $1900. Ron Paul fan goldbugs were a puny force.

But both Ritholz and Salmon miss a very obvious and powerful factor in the 2013 market turn for gold: the end of Asian real appreciation. Rising Asian incomes in dollar terms has been the single most powerful driver of gold’s run over the last decade. Asians are more numerous and more culturally inclined to own gold than Europeans and Americans. “Wall Street” was speculating ahead of that trend, and dumped in a hurry as it became clear that Asian real appreciation was running out of steam. If you missed that point you really know nothing about gold.

]]>
By: JBtfsplk http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2014/01/11/10-reasons-barry-ritholtz-is-wrong-about-gold/comment-page-1/#comment-49028 Mon, 13 Jan 2014 06:37:21 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=23000#comment-49028 Posted a comment on Ritholtz’s site suggesting it is easy to publish lessons on gold investing when the gold market is down; that doing so would have been more helpful when gold was at its peak. Suggested that he publish some lessons on the effect of easy money on stock prices now when stock prices are high. My comment was rejected by the “Big Picture” censor. Kind of thought it was relevant, apparently Barry did not.

]]>
By: JBtfsplk http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2014/01/11/10-reasons-barry-ritholtz-is-wrong-about-gold/comment-page-1/#comment-49025 Mon, 13 Jan 2014 00:37:40 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=23000#comment-49025 Posted a comment on Ritholtz’s “Big Picture” site suggesting it is easy to publish lessons on gold investing when the gold market is down; that doing so would have been more helpful when gold was at its peak. Suggested that he publish some lessons in WAPO or Bloomberg on the effect of easy money on stock prices (e.g. 2000 & 2008 crashes for starters) now when stock prices are high. My comment was rejected by the “Big Picture” censor. Kind of thought it was relevant, apparently Barry did not.

]]>
By: KidDynamite http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2014/01/11/10-reasons-barry-ritholtz-is-wrong-about-gold/comment-page-1/#comment-49024 Sun, 12 Jan 2014 18:25:16 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=23000#comment-49024 i’m pretty shocked by your #7, Felix, as I think that

““What would make you reverse your biggest present holding?” asks Ritholtz. “If your answer to that question is, “Nothing,” you have a huge, devastating flaw in your approach to investing.”

is probably the BEST advice any investor can receive.

]]>
By: TFF http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2014/01/11/10-reasons-barry-ritholtz-is-wrong-about-gold/comment-page-1/#comment-49021 Sun, 12 Jan 2014 13:19:51 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=23000#comment-49021 What is your point with the Camrys? Obviously 1000 will not push the market far. If you want to sell them at $30, I’ll pay cash on the spot for the whole lot. You could likely sell a couple hundred million at that price, in this country alone.

Since commodity markets are strictly supply and demand, with no fundamentals, a large seller will move the market. But this may permanently diminish demand, thus resulting in a lower equilibrium price. No?

]]>