The recent silver market

[PigsDad]

I am also seeing that Costco has put a limit on how much silver they will sell per customer. They are apparently doing a land office business in selling silver to Americans.

Do they also buy silver?

Kurt

 

[Ralph Sir Edward]

And the metals rally continues on. . . Gold at $4746 USD and silver at $95.26 USD.

 

[Brett]

Do they also buy silver?

Kurt

Probably not - that would expose the huge spread

.

 

[easyrider]

Probably not - that would expose the huge spread

.


View attachment 120878

This is ture enough but if you changed the parameters you would see that in the short run that silver is one hot nut.

Bill

 

[Ralph Sir Edward]

Probably not - that would expose the huge spread

.


View attachment 120878

Another meaningless chart.

 

[Brett]

Another meaningless chart.

Maybe you retired on your silver hoard ... or maybe not

.

 

[Ralph Sir Edward]

Maybe you retired on your silver hoard ... or maybe not

.


View attachment 120906

Brett, you can't seem to grasp the basic idea that if you want to compare things, you have to start with the same starting point for <both>. Same in time; same in amount. You keep using charts with different starting points for price. Here is the same chart - from the same source - with all factors starting at the same point. If you put $10K USD in each one of the choices on July 1st 2013, how much would they be worth (compared to each other) as of yesterday.

(If you don't like the date, you me what date you started at, and I'll redo my chart.)

 

[Brett]

Brett, you can't seem to grasp the basic idea that if you want to compare things, you have to start with the same starting point for <both>. Same in time; same in amount. You keep using charts with different starting points for price. Here is the same chart - from the same source - with all factors starting at the same point. If you put $10K USD in each one of the choices on July 1st 2013, how much would they be worth (compared to each other) as of yesterday.

(If you don't like the date, you me what date you started at, and I'll redo my chart.)

.


LOL

Just enjoy your well earned "silver" retirement !

.

.

.

.

 

[JohnnyO]

I don't understand why this has to be such a contentious issue and pissing contest? Don't you all diversify? Own some of most of it. I'm happy any of you get good returns on whatever. We all must have our share of winners and losers.

I recommend more vacations for all of you. Sheesh.

 

[emeryjre]

There are those on this thread who feel only gold and silver are good investments
They keep ranting about Fiat Currencies and how the sky is falling
The responses you see are counters to the arguments and proclamation's made by "the sky is falling"

 

[ScoopKona]

There are those on this thread who feel only gold and silver are good investments
They keep ranting about Fiat Currencies and how the sky is falling
The responses you see are counters to the arguments and proclamation's made by "the sky is falling"

I truly wish the article "Fine Austrian Whines" was available. Can't be found anywhere. It's like it disappeared.

The synopsis is that predicting gloom and doom 100% of the time and then crowing about a recession is not the same as having a crystal ball.

 

[emeryjre]

I truly wish the article "Fine Austrian Whines" was available. Can't be found anywhere. It's like it disappeared.

The synopsis is that predicting gloom and doom 100% of the time and then crowing about a recession is not the same as having a crystal ball.

A stopped analog clock is correct twice a day
Doesn't make it an accurate clock

 

[Ralph Sir Edward]

There are those on this thread who feel only gold and silver are good investments
They keep ranting about Fiat Currencies and how the sky is falling
The responses you see are counters to the arguments and proclamation's made by "the sky is falling"

How old are you? I'm around 70.

When I was in the first grade, I could buy my lunch for a (silver) quarter. The cost of a family car was around $2-3K. Today, the equivalent (an SUV) runs around $40-60K. You see similar price rises for most non-tech products.

This isn't opinion; it's verifiable facts. The dollar's purchasing power is around 1/20th of what it was worth in 1963. So am I "ranting" when I ask what would have happened if i wanted to save a dollar in 1963 (I said saved , not invested) and I had a readily available choice of saving a dollar bill or 4 silver quarters; and I point out those silver quarters would have been a whole lot better that a paper dollar.

What I am trying to do is point out that there is no fixed measure of value any more. Dollars don't do it, they slowly lose their purchasing power. I use the Dow Industrials as a stock proxy, not because it is the best, but because it was the only thing that was consistently quoted in the nation news in the 1960s and 70s. I was trained with the Dow. The Dow hit 996 in 1961 and 1001 in 1965, so I will say it was worth around $1,000 in 1963 (to keep things simple). It's now at around $50K today. 50 fold, a huge profit, right? Not really. In purchasing power, those dollar are only worth 1/20 of what they were worth in 1963. so divide 50 by 20, and you get 2 1/2 fold increase of asset value over 60+ years - in purchasing power. Gold wasn't particularly legal in 1963, but let's assume you bought gold in Canada or Mexico (or Switzerland) and stuffed it in a safe deposit box. Say you paid a $5 dollar premium ($40) an ounce. Today it's around $4800. Let's chop off $400 discount for selling fees, leaving a net sale price of $4400. So that is a 110 fold profit over the same time period. Divide that by 20 and you get 5 1/2 time profit in purchasing power. Even figuring double the cumulative stock value for reinvested dividends, that's as much as stocks.

Now there are time when stocks vastly outperform precious metals, and times when precious metals vastly outperform stock. It is 20-40 year cycle. If you sell metals when they are extremely high compared to stocks, and then sell stocks when metals are extremely low, you can make even more profits than holding either one permanently.

This isn't a rant; it's a calm and reasoned look at the history of money over the last 60+ years. the only ranting that's being done is by those who won't look at this history and reason; who simply rant that they are right and anyone who disagrees with them are. . .ahem . . . not logical.

 

[Brett]

How old are you? I'm around 70.

When I was in the first grade, I could buy my lunch for a (silver) quarter. The cost of a family car was around $2-3K. Today, the equivalent (an SUV) runs around $40-60K. You see similar price rises for most non-tech products.

This isn't opinion; it's verifiable facts. The dollar's purchasing power is around 1/20th of what it was worth in 1963. So am I "ranting" when I ask what would have happened if i wanted to save a dollar in 1963 (I said saved , not invested) and I had a readily available choice of saving a dollar bill or 4 silver quarters; and I point out those silver quarters would have been a whole lot better that a paper dollar.

What I am trying to do is point out that there is no fixed measure of value any more. Dollars don't do it, they slowly lose their purchasing power. I use the Dow Industrials as a stock proxy, not because it is the best, but because it was the only thing that was consistently quoted in the nation news in the 1960s and 70s. I was trained with the Dow. The Dow hit 996 in 1961 and 1001 in 1965, so I will say it was worth around $1,000 in 1963 (to keep things simple). It's now at around $50K today. 50 fold, a huge profit, right? Not really. In purchasing power, those dollar are only worth 1/20 of what they were worth in 1963. so divide 50 by 20, and you get 2 1/2 fold increase of asset value over 60+ years - in purchasing power. Gold wasn't particularly legal in 1963, but let's assume you bought gold in Canada or Mexico (or Switzerland) and stuffed it in a safe deposit box. Say you paid a $5 dollar premium ($40) an ounce. Today it's around $4800. Let's chop off $400 discount for selling fees, leaving a net sale price of $4400. So that is a 110 fold profit over the same time period. Divide that by 20 and you get 5 1/2 time profit in purchasing power. Even figuring double the cumulative stock value for reinvested dividends, that's as much as stocks.

Now there are time when stocks vastly outperform precious metals, and times when precious metals vastly outperform stock. It is 20-40 year cycle. If you sell metals when they are extremely high compared to stocks, and then sell stocks when metals are extremely low, you can make even more profits than holding either one permanently.

This isn't a rant; it's a calm and reasoned look at the history of money over the last 60+ years. the only ranting that's being done is by those who won't look at this history and reason; who simply rant that they are right and anyone who disagrees with them are. . .ahem . . . not logical.

I'm also in my 70's but have (apparently) experienced a very different financial life than you. Honestly, I don't know anyone that has retired accumulating gold and silver coins in a safe deposit box but if that's true and you have done that, great.

But keep in mind other people have retired with different financial assets that include dividends, interest, real estate, rental returns and capital gains. (and pensions & SS)

This isn't a rant - it's a calm and reasoned look at the history of financial returns over the last 40+ years.



.

.

.


and for the "JohnnyO" post - yes, I'm diversified.

 

[emeryjre]

How old are you? I'm around 70.

When I was in the first grade, I could buy my lunch for a (silver) quarter. The cost of a family car was around $2-3K. Today, the equivalent (an SUV) runs around $40-60K. You see similar price rises for most non-tech products.

This isn't opinion; it's verifiable facts. The dollar's purchasing power is around 1/20th of what it was worth in 1963. So am I "ranting" when I ask what would have happened if i wanted to save a dollar in 1963 (I said saved , not invested) and I had a readily available choice of saving a dollar bill or 4 silver quarters; and I point out those silver quarters would have been a whole lot better that a paper dollar.

What I am trying to do is point out that there is no fixed measure of value any more. Dollars don't do it, they slowly lose their purchasing power. I use the Dow Industrials as a stock proxy, not because it is the best, but because it was the only thing that was consistently quoted in the nation news in the 1960s and 70s. I was trained with the Dow. The Dow hit 996 in 1961 and 1001 in 1965, so I will say it was worth around $1,000 in 1963 (to keep things simple). It's now at around $50K today. 50 fold, a huge profit, right? Not really. In purchasing power, those dollar are only worth 1/20 of what they were worth in 1963. so divide 50 by 20, and you get 2 1/2 fold increase of asset value over 60+ years - in purchasing power. Gold wasn't particularly legal in 1963, but let's assume you bought gold in Canada or Mexico (or Switzerland) and stuffed it in a safe deposit box. Say you paid a $5 dollar premium ($40) an ounce. Today it's around $4800. Let's chop off $400 discount for selling fees, leaving a net sale price of $4400. So that is a 110 fold profit over the same time period. Divide that by 20 and you get 5 1/2 time profit in purchasing power. Even figuring double the cumulative stock value for reinvested dividends, that's as much as stocks.

Now there are time when stocks vastly outperform precious metals, and times when precious metals vastly outperform stock. It is 20-40 year cycle. If you sell metals when they are extremely high compared to stocks, and then sell stocks when metals are extremely low, you can make even more profits than holding either one permanently.

This isn't a rant; it's a calm and reasoned look at the history of money over the last 60+ years. the only ranting that's being done is by those who won't look at this history and reason; who simply rant that they are right and anyone who disagrees with them are. . .ahem . . . not logical.

You were not the person I had in mind

 

[TolmiePeak]

You were not the person I had in mind

That should have been obvious.

 

[emeryjre]

How old are you? I'm around 70.

When I was in the first grade, I could buy my lunch for a (silver) quarter. The cost of a family car was around $2-3K. Today, the equivalent (an SUV) runs around $40-60K. You see similar price rises for most non-tech products.

This isn't opinion; it's verifiable facts. The dollar's purchasing power is around 1/20th of what it was worth in 1963. So am I "ranting" when I ask what would have happened if i wanted to save a dollar in 1963 (I said saved , not invested) and I had a readily available choice of saving a dollar bill or 4 silver quarters; and I point out those silver quarters would have been a whole lot better that a paper dollar.

What I am trying to do is point out that there is no fixed measure of value any more. Dollars don't do it, they slowly lose their purchasing power. I use the Dow Industrials as a stock proxy, not because it is the best, but because it was the only thing that was consistently quoted in the nation news in the 1960s and 70s. I was trained with the Dow. The Dow hit 996 in 1961 and 1001 in 1965, so I will say it was worth around $1,000 in 1963 (to keep things simple). It's now at around $50K today. 50 fold, a huge profit, right? Not really. In purchasing power, those dollar are only worth 1/20 of what they were worth in 1963. so divide 50 by 20, and you get 2 1/2 fold increase of asset value over 60+ years - in purchasing power. Gold wasn't particularly legal in 1963, but let's assume you bought gold in Canada or Mexico (or Switzerland) and stuffed it in a safe deposit box. Say you paid a $5 dollar premium ($40) an ounce. Today it's around $4800. Let's chop off $400 discount for selling fees, leaving a net sale price of $4400. So that is a 110 fold profit over the same time period. Divide that by 20 and you get 5 1/2 time profit in purchasing power. Even figuring double the cumulative stock value for reinvested dividends, that's as much as stocks.

Now there are time when stocks vastly outperform precious metals, and times when precious metals vastly outperform stock. It is 20-40 year cycle. If you sell metals when they are extremely high compared to stocks, and then sell stocks when metals are extremely low, you can make even more profits than holding either one permanently.

This isn't a rant; it's a calm and reasoned look at the history of money over the last 60+ years. the only ranting that's being done is by those who won't look at this history and reason; who simply rant that they are right and anyone who disagrees with them are. . .ahem . . . not logical.

After I returned from overseas
I pursued a Degree in Economics
My favorite question during that period was
"How long would the war have lasted if we had paid for it as we went"
"If the US Government would have gone door to door and told every working person"
"You owe us $5 for your share of our military spending this month"

This era was the start of budget deficits and big government spending
Ignored because the effects were slow
Carter got stuck trying to wind down deficits
Bush Sr got crushed because he raised taxes to bring deficits down

I do appreciate how the dollar has lost value
And I know very well how it happened

I beat the game by investing
Real Estate and individual stocks
Some turned out to be shooting stars
Burned bright and then faded
Some have changed the world as we know it
They outperformed the indexes by a BIG margin

Those are the ones providing for my retirement

 

[PigsDad]

I use the Dow Industrials as a stock proxy, not because it is the best, but because it was the only thing that was consistently quoted in the nation news in the 1960s and 70s. I was trained with the Dow. The Dow hit 996 in 1961 and 1001 in 1965, so I will say it was worth around $1,000 in 1963 (to keep things simple). It's now at around $50K today.

This is a completely worthless calculation when you don't include reinvesting dividends. It makes a HUGE difference. Here, I'll show you:

This is straight from the Dow Jones Industrial Average Return Calculator, where you can plug in a start and ending date, and it will show you the actual total return (which includes reinvested dividends) over that timeframe. So I plugged in the dates of Jan 1961 to Jan 2026. The total return was 62,995%, or a 630 fold return.

That just a little different than your simplistic 50 fold you were claiming when ignoring dividend reinvestment, and dramatically changes your evaluation of gold vs. investing in the DOW.

Kurt

 

[Ralph Sir Edward]

This is a completely worthless calculation when you don't include reinvesting dividends. It makes a HUGE difference. Here, I'll show you:

This is straight from the Dow Jones Industrial Average Return Calculator, where you can plug in a start and ending date, and it will show you the actual total return (which includes reinvested dividends) over that timeframe. So I plugged in the dates of Jan 1961 to Jan 2026. The total return was 62,995%, or a 630 fold return.

That just a little different than your simplistic 50 fold you were claiming when ignoring dividend reinvestment, and dramatically changes your evaluation of gold vs. investing in the DOW.

Kurt

At what tax rate? Every dividend was taxed the year it was issued, and that amount reduced what you could re-invest. (And that tax was at the marginal rate for the investor each year.) And don't forget commissions. They may be zero today, but not before 2000 or so. Every commission dollar spent in re-investing dividends also has to be deducted. (you might be re-investing 20 or more dividends every quarter. . . )

 

[PigsDad]

At what tax rate? Every dividend was taxed the year it was issued, and that amount reduced what you could re-invest. (And that tax was at the marginal rate for the investor each year.) And don't forget commissions. They may be zero today, but not before 2000 or so. Every commission dollar spent in re-investing dividends also has to be deducted. (you might be re-investing 20 or more dividends every quarter. . . )

Taxes would reduce the returns, but still be way more than the gold return. And you don't include taxes with your gold example either. That would take a 30%+ slice off of your gold return as well at the end, whereas at the end of the stock investment, the long term capital gains rate would apply, which is about half of the capital gains rate for gold.

Bottom line is that comparing gold to a stock index w/o including reinvested dividends is a completely bogus comparison.

Kurt

 

[emeryjre]

If we are really interested is which was a better investment based on returns
We have a lot more calculations to do
We could use CoPilot or Gemini to do an annual investment using a traditional IRA
The amount invested could be X percent of the average income from the prior year
The purchase price would be the market close on the first full day trading day of the year
Start year would be 1975 to use an IRA
I am having trouble with PC today or it would already be done in CoPilot
Stock indexes would have annual dividends added in based a shares accrued which would be calculated as well

 

[easyrider]

Taxes would reduce the returns, but still be way more than the gold return. And you don't include taxes with your gold example either. That would take a 30%+ slice off of your gold return as well at the end, whereas at the end of the stock investment, the long term capital gains rate would apply, which is about half of the capital gains rate for gold.

Bottom line is that comparing gold to a stock index w/o including reinvested dividends is a completely bogus comparison.

Kurt

Thats true but if you were picking the "nut" , gold and silver was a really easy choice for 2025 and probably 2026.

Bill

 

[Brett]

Thats true but if you were picking the "nut" , gold and silver was a really easy choice for 2025 and probably 2026.

Bill

I suppose if one is "picking the nut" then tech stocks like Palantir, Artificial Intelligence, Western Digital, etc. would be the easier "nut" in 2025 (and so far in 2026)

But retirement funding isn't about "picking the nut" each year hoping for the highest return 'nut', it's really about long haul returns

 

[emeryjre]

I suppose if one is "picking the nut" then tech stocks like Palantir, Artificial Intelligence, Western Digital, etc. would be the easier "nut" in 2025 (and so far in 2026)

But retirement funding isn't about "picking the nut" each year hoping for the highest return 'nut', it's really about long haul returns

Nuclear Energy sector was a good one to pick in 2025 as well

 

[easyrider]

I suppose if one is "picking the nut" then tech stocks like Palantir, Artificial Intelligence, Western Digital, etc. would be the easier "nut" in 2025 (and so far in 2026)

But retirement funding isn't about "picking the nut" each year hoping for the highest return 'nut', it's really about long haul returns

I agree. Having a long term investment that produces an income stream is important. Finding a nut or flip is more for kicks and giggles, imo.

Bill