Gold

[skid]

He's the same as the guys he's quoting,...only the other side of the coin.

Still-we could be in for a rocky road for a while till this fiscal cliff scenario gets worked out.
Most are bullish long term..maybe 1800-2000
If they should however decide to bite the bullet on go off the fiscal cliff-adding taxes and cutting expenditure,then it would be anti-inflationary and PMs would have to be rethought[unemotionally]

They probably wont do it as, the economy [growth]would most likely take a big hit.
Never the less the fiscal cliff is proveing to be a bigger issue than the ever diminishing effects of the QEs.
Now that Obama has a bit more backing,he may have decided to finally stand up to the Republicans.
Perhaps this time around Corporate America will take a small hit instead of the middle class working joe

[Skol]

He's the same as the guys he's quoting,...only the other side of the coin.

Hardly, I'm not a paid 'analyst', I'm an enthusiastic amateur, but streetsmart enough to know that for something that goes up 960% in 10 years, the end must surely be in sight.

Nothing goes up forever, something the goldbugs seem to have missed somehow.

[elZorro]

Hardly, I'm not a paid 'analyst', I'm an enthusiastic amateur, but streetsmart enough to know that for something that goes up 960% in 10 years, the end must surely be in sight.

Nothing goes up forever, something the goldbugs seem to have missed somehow.

But Skol, most miners are spending close to US$1000 to get an ounce of gold out of the ground, and they're at the lucky end, after spending major capital amounts. I'm just kicking myself over the fact that I was watching gold when it was $300 for a long time, but didn't do much about it. I should have been renting for a big part of the last 10 years, and soon I could cash in my (imaginary) gold hoard and swap it for property, but only when interest rates rise. I'm learning, slowly.

[Skol]

EZ,
Try Auckland property, you can get a return on your money and terrific capital gain as well. 10,000 new houses required every year and they're building 4000.

Better than gold and you've got asset that people really need, not just hoard. I've got a friend who spent a total of $1.1m on a house there including improvements, sold for $1.6m.

$500,000 - not bad for a few months work.

[elZorro]

It's true that some years provide good capital gain on property, I'm just not so sure we all factor in the costs like rates, upkeep, depreciation. It's more to do with what a bank will lend against.

However my view is that Labour will be in power in 2014, and a wall of cheaper houses could be built in Auckland (if the market has not responded by then), capping capital growth but providing a welcome boost to the economy.

[Skol]

Yes, the return isn't great on property after all expenses are taken into account, but it's better than gold which is less than zero after insurance and storage costs.

Even if Labour win, which I doubt, probably less houses will be built because they're the ones that love the Metropolitan Urban Limit. Buy just outside the MUL and you can't go wrong.

[elZorro]

Yes, the return isn't great on property after all expenses are taken into account, but it's better than gold which is less than zero after insurance and storage costs.

Even if Labour win, which I doubt, probably less houses will be built because they're the ones that love the Metropolitan Urban Limit. Buy just outside the MUL and you can't go wrong.

I think Labour will bolt in unless the economy fixes itself soon, as National will have had the normal two terms, and they've done next to nothing positive with their time in power. Since the high Auckland section prices are what stops lower cost houses from being available, maybe even Labour will authorise buying land outside the MUL, an issue I don't know much about.

So gold has been a flat investment for the last year or so, you are correct there. But it's been an incredible investment over the last 10 years. That's a great record. I'd buy property in a flash, if I thought it would perform the same as gold did, for the next ten years.

[Skol]

EZ,

Your claim that gold production costs are $1000 oz are exaggerated, here's a para. from Jon Nadler's latest newsletter.

"Investors are accusing the producers of the yellow metal of being unable to control costs. They are also scratching their heads about the fact that at a time when it costs the miners an average of $585 to extract an ounce of the precioussss, they are failing to post what ought to be good earnings and their stocks are not trading with the previously promised leverage to the price of gold. Meanwhile, the production costs of an ounce of silver actually fell by 12% to its lowest level in five years."

[JBmurc]

Hardly, I'm not a paid 'analyst', I'm an enthusiastic amateur, but streetsmart enough to know that for something that goes up 960% in 10 years, the end must surely be in sight.

Nothing goes up forever, something the goldbugs seem to have missed somehow.

-Yeah your so streetsmart calling GOLD's top back at the $1000 levels now years later still talking it's demise ($1697oz) ...yeah Auckland property
now thats not a bubble is it ...NZ have one of the highest household debt's to incomes.....with rates at record lows the Auckland lemmings are just ticking themselves up to the eyeballs while rates are low (4.99%etc) as long as they think the property values are going to keep heading higher and they can afford the payments ...It's a no brainer..... Right

[Skol]

Bubbles always blow out much more than they're really worth, everyone should know that, but they don't, and with gold still extravagantly priced and average gold production costs at $585 there's plenty of room for a big fall.

There's much more risk of a plunge in gold than there is of it rising.

I'd much rather own Auckland property than gold or silver. I know heaps of people who've been tempted to take their profits and move elsewhere, but once you're out, you never get back.