Don't have it, and the guy I got it from said he saw it come across his Bloomberg terminal. So wish I had more on that.

No, the opportunity cost of holding gold is whatever other investment has the highest return (ie. stocks). If there's something that returns more than stocks then you should compare it to that. Comparing it to paper is irrelevant.

Definitely not irrelevant. Comparing it to both is relevant.

Because you always know which one that is ahead of time?

Isn't that being results oriented? And more importantly, isn't that an unrealistic way to look at things.

If that's the case, then every nearly 100% of investments have negative opportunity cost, since you could have made a better investment... It's just not a realistic measure of anything.

If you're holding for the long run (ie. investing) then historical returns are adequately reliable for comparison purposes.

What does this mean?

The general points made is that gold is a store of value. It is not generally a way to accumumate wealth. Investing is how to preserve wealth and this is done through index funds. If you pick individual stocks (unless you are of outstanding ability) then you will not be adequately compensated for that risk.

Looking simply at what returns the highest return is not known beforehand and does not take into account risk. Also, since gold does not produce anything, it should not be compared to stocks/businesses that do. Gold has been money and a store of value for thousands of years. Simply looking at the opportunity cost is the same as comparing any investments, but you have to take risk into account.

Depends on your definiton of 'long-run'. I don't plan on holding gold for 50 years.

I hold gold instead of cash when I want out of the market and stocks instead of gold when I want to enter the market.

With risk, it might be better to hold a losing bet like paper than risk (even with 0 EV gold, but higher variance) if you don't have time to withstand the risk.

If you're just holding gold in the short-run, returns are best compared with potential earnings from coin flips, black jack, or roulette.

[x] uses internet paid for by taxpayers to complain about taxation.
[ ] sees irony.

[x] probably uses roads and bridges too.

level?

No.

level?

I am not just holding gold. I am generally a fan of the three fund portfolio for investing. However, given our current circumstances I bought gold and silver in 2009 to add to my portfolio.

Again you keep mentioning 'returns' when gold is generally a store of value. However, I did take a gamble at it as I believed in 2009 that gold and silver would go up.

Went to change some currency today at a very popular outlet and sign on door says they were out of 1oz gold bars and maples until the 24th.

I had the same sort of thing happen at the cheese shop the other day. Coincidence?

I would never

I think it was not a cheese shop at all.

lol

lol.

Start from post #1 and read through all 5000 to get caught up to speed.

No. Why do people move their money into cash or treasuries? When they think stocks are overpriced and don't want to be in the market, they move their money into something to to save it for the time being and sustain it's value. Gold is the alternative for dollar bills and fiat currencies. What you're suggesting is that money can and should be in the most profitable investment at all times but overlooks the fact that there's transitional periods in investing. Stocks are for investing and growing wealth, gold is used as a store of value and savings. The relevant comparison is to dollars.

Judging from other posts, no. Thus, lol.

Perfect timeframe you picked for me. If you had invested in GLD as of 4-21-2009 you would be up 53.7%. If you had invested in SPY you would be up 80.2%. LOL?

But if you measured it as of 2 weeks ago, GLD would be ahead. Does that mean you would say LOL @ yourself 2 weeks ago? Results oriented much? 12% returns LOL.

It's all cherry picking at best. I wouldn't expect GLD to beat SPY in the long run (in favorable business climates).

Tom,

He picked the time frame, not me. I think gold is a poor investment, yes. Gold has had quite a run in the past decade, that's certainly true. But over the next twenty or thirty years which would you rather own? To me I'd rather own productive, cash flowing companies than a metal that pays no dividends and has a small holding cost.

We are saying it is a store of value. Thus I would rather hold gold than paper which pays 1% or whatever yearly.

Me telling you to start from post #1 and read from there was in order for you to understand gold better so you can stop arguing with strawmen and making fallacious claims about gold destroying wealth. It wasn't telling you to go back and check the date of post #1, check the price of gold then, and then compare to SPY. How you interpreted it as that is beyond me. And plus, it's pretty lol trying to cherry pick dates and returns against gold considering the return gold has had for the past 12 years.