Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gold futures top $472, levels not seen since 1988
(AFX) ^ | Monday, September 19, 2005 3:32:17 PM | (AFX)

Posted on 09/19/2005 9:45:28 AM PDT by AdamSelene235

SAN FRANCISCO (AFX) -- Gold futures climbed to a high of $472.40 an ounce, a level not seen since 1988, according to monthly charts. December gold was last at $471.10, up $7.80, or 1.7%. Prices found support as rallying energy prices sparked worries over inflation

This story was supplied by MarketWatch. For further information see www.marketwatch.com


TOPICS: Business/Economy
KEYWORDS: buymygold; chickenlittle; gold; goldbuggery; goldbugs; goldmineshaft; greenspan; inflation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-89 next last
To: AdamSelene235
Yeah, the bond market thinks Fannie Mae is safe despite the fact they are incapable of stating their earnings for, oh, the last 5 years

The risk in Fannie Mae is socialized. As long as that aspect remains why would the market react otherwise?

61 posted on 09/19/2005 11:52:32 AM PDT by Mase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: tortoise

I'll just add that I would be far more inclined to buy platinum group metals than gold if I wanted to store value in metals. Even silver would be better in many ways, though that is more volatile because a lot of the silver produced is not mined as a primary ore but as a secondary product of copper, gold, and lead mining (among others), meaning that supply is dependent on the production of other metals.


62 posted on 09/19/2005 11:54:15 AM PDT by tortoise (All these moments lost in time, like tears in the rain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: tortoise
An interesting fact is that a very significant chunk of gold mining production in a given year does not come from published reserves. In a nutshell, there is no shortage in supply or refinery capacity, and the reserves are significantly understated. There will be no real gold shortage for the foreseeable future

What would you estimate the max. possible increase in supply per year would be?

63 posted on 09/19/2005 11:54:21 AM PDT by AdamSelene235 (Truth has become so rare and precious she is always attended to by a bodyguard of lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Lester Moore

Where they actively managed funds?


64 posted on 09/19/2005 11:54:38 AM PDT by nickcarraway (I'm Only Alive, Because a Judge Hasn't Ruled I Should Die...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Mase

"The risk in Fannie Mae is socialized"

Especially since mortgage lenders began engaging in social engineering to increase home ownership in underrepresented groups. Lowered credit standards, no money down or money back at closing... yep, it's socialized alright.


65 posted on 09/19/2005 11:55:17 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry (Esse Quam Videre)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

Your right. I meant numismatic. (IE: the value of the coin as a old rare object vs. the value of it as a weight of gold)


66 posted on 09/19/2005 11:56:15 AM PDT by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black
The question isn't whether gold is a better growth investment than the highest flying stock you can think of, or even of the Dow over a long period of time. The question is whether it holds it's value better than fiat currency.

The right question is a function of what one's goals are. If the goal is to identify a superior unit of account, store of value and currency, then indeed your question is the right one. However, if the goal is to trade from one position to the next over time so as to maximize the value of one's trading account, then one can do better than "buy and hold" in any single asset class.

67 posted on 09/19/2005 11:56:22 AM PDT by sourcery (Givernment: The way the average voter spells "government.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: sourcery

Yes, true. But if you want to hold a single assett class real estate and gold are pretty good ones for really LONG plays. Gold is a lot more portable and more difficult to tax.


68 posted on 09/19/2005 12:00:34 PM PDT by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black

"Gold is a lot more portable and more difficult to tax."

... which helps explain Roosevelt's antipathy, LOL.


69 posted on 09/19/2005 12:01:55 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry (Esse Quam Videre)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: AdamSelene235

Murray Rothbard, the favorite economist of Lew Rockwell and Justine Raimondo. LOL


70 posted on 09/19/2005 12:03:18 PM PDT by Petronski (Avast me hearties! I loves me Cyborg. Arrrrrgh!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black

Hmmm. Interesting, considering gold is always cheaper and cheaper to produce, and there is more and more of it. I think a dollar invested in gold in 1802 would be worth about $11 today.


71 posted on 09/19/2005 12:05:20 PM PDT by nickcarraway (I'm Only Alive, Because a Judge Hasn't Ruled I Should Die...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: AdamSelene235

Gold is good to have in any portfolio. I'd say at least 15%.


72 posted on 09/19/2005 12:05:40 PM PDT by Liberty Valance (Campus Shocker! My son's political science prof is a Republican!...developing....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

"... and there is more and more of it"

I've been reading that researchers have come up with a way to combine genetic markers from that Avian flu that everyone's worrying about, with gold particles to form what could best be desribed as a "mist" that, in human tests, is as effective or more effective than vaccines cultured in the usual manner, involving eggs. It's been said that a batch of 150 million could be produced in a matter of weeks, instead of months or more.

That would certainly put a crimp in supply. It bears watching, I'd think.


73 posted on 09/19/2005 12:10:12 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry (Esse Quam Videre)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: AdamSelene235
What would you estimate the max. possible increase in supply per year would be?

It is hard to say. Even though refinery capacity is 3x production, a lot of that capacity is not located where it is needed, e.g. there is an under-supply of refinery capacity in South America and an over-supply in Africa. Realistically, they could probably boost total output 50% from current without straining anything.

But as it is, there is currently little incentive to change their production schedule, which is currently highly profitable even from well-developed but expensive ores. As more very cheap South American sites come online and refinery capacity down there gets developed, I expect that will push down prices a bit. Gold production is slowly but surely shifting to the western hemisphere. Nevada was thought to be in decline a few decades ago but they've discovered a number of very nice sites in the last few years that have not been developed yet (or added to published reserves) and output has been doing very well with published reserves growing rapidly every year. South Africa is slipping, but Nevada should maintain its position in the world gold market for some time and possibly even move up. South America is the potential wild card in all this, as it has a ton of potential and very rich ores.

74 posted on 09/19/2005 12:11:54 PM PDT by tortoise (All these moments lost in time, like tears in the rain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

Very interesting. That would be a legitimate reason for gold prices to rise.


75 posted on 09/19/2005 12:13:10 PM PDT by nickcarraway (I'm Only Alive, Because a Judge Hasn't Ruled I Should Die...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
That would certainly put a crimp in supply.

The quantities of gold we are talking about here is relatively insignificant. The lovely thing about gold for purposes like this is that a little bit goes a very long way. Annual gold production is on the order of 2.5 million kilos. The amount required to do anything like what you are talking about falls way under the noise floor of annual production variances and could be trivially covered by borrowing an tiny fraction of the national gold reserves in an emergency (which outstrip annual worldwide production by more than an order of magnitude).

In short, this would have no impact on gold supply. Producing a super-massive batch of vaccines would require gold quantities measured in kilograms, while annual production (never mind existing supplies) can be measured in thousands of tons.

76 posted on 09/19/2005 12:24:12 PM PDT by tortoise (All these moments lost in time, like tears in the rain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: tortoise
Realistically, they could probably boost total output 50% from current without straining anything.

In a year?! I didn't think mining was something you can simply flip a switch on. I remember looking at production over the last century and I don't recall any YOY production increase over ~~ 5%.

77 posted on 09/19/2005 1:23:40 PM PDT by AdamSelene235 (Truth has become so rare and precious she is always attended to by a bodyguard of lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: tortoise
Let me rephrase, by 5%, I mean 5% increase over the previous above ground supply of gold.

I assume by 50% you meant a 50% increase of the ~~average 2% per year increase in the overall gold supply?

78 posted on 09/19/2005 1:29:46 PM PDT by AdamSelene235 (Truth has become so rare and precious she is always attended to by a bodyguard of lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: sourcery

Timing is everything. It's what separates you from Jesse Livermore, for example.



That is the point I was making. You could have bought in to gold back in the 70's and made a fortune or gone bust, all depends on when you bought and when you sold.

The key here is that gold is not something you would want to buy and hold forever. It is a speculative thing. Like trading on the Stock market, you can go conservative or be a day trader. Different strokes...

My Mom bought gold, way back when and it did zip. I bought nice conservative mutual funds and am happily retired.


79 posted on 09/19/2005 1:31:15 PM PDT by KeyWest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: redhead

Same here. Got a fair amt of gold coins in 1998 and held them.. Not thinking about selling them now.. but its nice to see it go up :)

I look at them as a worst case scenario protection. When all else fails I will have them and they WILL be worth more than I payed for them.


80 posted on 09/19/2005 1:33:12 PM PDT by eXe (Si vis pacem, para bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-89 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson