swissie

On 4/17/2024 at 11:02 PM, lkn said:

Right, China is hardly doing this covertly.

 

And even without plans to invade Taiwan (and risk getting all their USD frozen, as we saw with Russia after their invasion of Ukraine), there is increasing tension between the U.S. and China, so it’s not really that surprising, that China wants less exposure to USD, and for them, gold is probably the second best thing.

All very well observed,
not to forget, that before "tensions" between the US and China arose, China parked massive amounts of their "export surplus money" in US T-Bills/US T-bonds. Financing a good part of the US budget deficits.

Absurdity total: Without the Chinese influx of "surplus money", the US defence of Taiwan would possibly have to be financed by tax increases by US citizens. No way, as no US polititian would be re- elected proposing something like that. (Another Vietnam, with a peaking inflation rate of 15 % in the middle of the 1970 ties?)

To impose sanctions agaist China? Great idea! Meaning that the Chinese will even buy less US T-Bonds, and affordable Chinese consumer goods will no more enter the shores of the US. The consumer goods that the US Industry can produce (if at all possible) will cost 30% more than the Chinese imports, further accelerating the impoverishement of the "lower-class" of Americans.

The future looks bright, unfortunately not for the US/European economical universe.

10 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Yeah, you were the one that claimed (falsely) that you could get 50-50 odds playing roulette, yes? So much for mathematics. 

Being the heaviest, gold is on the bottom.  

Is it swissie or swishy?

It's "swissie", for better or for worse.

Question: Next to your valuables, have you locked your sense of humor in your safety deposit box as well?

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

Yeah, if you're "investing" in 1 ounce of gold, just buy a necklace. 

 

And of course, one can keep any number of other things in a safety box. I had one long before I bought any investment gold. 

 

How are you doing with your roulette investments? 

I am so disthrought. If only you would read my posts more carefully. By doing so, you would have noticed that I used "Roulette" only within the context of "mathematics". I don't do roulette, but I do "ruthless trading" far away from any roulette table on occasion. (With playing money only).

With regard to my post above: I would be interested to know what you store in your safety deposit box next to Gold. With the right "content" of your safety box, I might still want to "suck up to you". Come on, spill your guts.

To verify: Is your handle truly "yellowtail"? If "yellowsnail", I would have to reconsider my generous offer.

On 4/18/2024 at 5:19 AM, Yellowtail said:

Perhaps not for free, but at $2,300, a million dollars' worth of gold weighs a bit over 13.5kg, and has a volume of about 700ml, so it can fit easily in a bank safe deposit box. 

 

My safe deposit box in the US was free, and I think it's around 2,500 a year for the one we have at Krunsri. 

 

So, it would cost less than 0.007% to store it in Thailand. 

 

Actually, if the box was close enough to the floor where you could drag it out, you could probably store $6M in gold in it. 

What you pay for your safety deposit box at Krunsri is very reasonable. Congrats!
Of course it's all relative. If only 1 oz of Gold is stored, the carrying charge would be close to 3%.
--------------------------------
PS: In case you store 1 Mill $ worth of Gold in your safety deposit box, I would like to suck up to you. I make for a great pal, I sing and dance like Fred Astair. I tell funny jokes and sell snake oil on the side. I can mow your lawn and give professional massages to the female members of your family. We could sit together and wach the markets while sipping liberal amounts of beer. How's that?

9 minutes ago, Korat Kiwi said:

AND??? 

Are you playing your cards right? = AND ???

1 hour ago, mfd101 said:

I transfer money from Oz every month. I figure Oz is less likely to be 'disrupted' than most countries but anything's possible.

 

No point in worrying too much about what could happen but probably won't, particularly if there's not much you could do about it anyway.

It's more about what the "locals" think about the happenings of the world and how it could possibly affect them. With or without the support of Farangs. History shows, that Thailand has not been affected by any colonial "power plays". Thus making it possibe to stay away from "international disturbances", as they have done successfully in the past, possibly benefitting long term Farangs, if they play their cards right.

The wold in turmoil. (once more).

As a long term Farang in the Isaan, how much attention you and your family pays to increasing  "international disruptions"? Possibly, eventually affecting Farangs and their families in the Isaan? Especially if "international disruptions" would make it hard to transfer monthly funds to Thailand from the "old country"?

Any plan b) or other remedies in such a case?

16 hours ago, Mike Lister said:

For @swissie in particular:

 

The link below may be behind a paywall for you, in which case, there are some work arounds so PM me. 

 

Ambrose Evans Pritchard is the author, he's a superbly qualified economist but a bit of doom monger at times. Anyway, he picked up on the price of gold and asks the question, why and who? It's not normal buying by any means, he researched that. It's not a Western institution and it's NOT a Central Bank, it's somebody with deep pockets who is not price sensitive, Ambrose concludes it's China but doing so covertly. Why? WWIII, government deficits, over leveraging by governments, USD sinking into the sunset.....many possible answers. A good read.

 

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/04/16/gold-price-surge-china-warchest-geopolitical-dystopia/

Yes indeed, I was confronted with some obstacles, trying to access this site. Never heard about a Mr. Pritchard. But still interested.

Seems to me, China is publizising it's Gold purchases quite openly. To support it's currency after the mayham followed by their invasion of Taiwan? I don't think they accumulate their Gold to shoot at the Taiwanese with golden bullets.

On 4/4/2024 at 12:45 PM, Skeptic7 said:

I hear ya...but been waiting since 1980. 🤣

Did sell some then. But bought a lot more for years after that, dirt cheap. Should have sold in 2011. Don't need the cash, just want to off-load it. Clearing out the clutter. 

Compared to Gold, Silver is plentyful and therefore relatively cheap. Comperatively "little money" can move the price of Silver over proportionally. Always remembering the "Hunt Brothers", cornering the market with the help of the former broker "Prudential Bache".

Unless somebody new corners the market again, I can not see the price of Silver hitting 50$ per ounce again during my livetime.

On 4/4/2024 at 1:11 AM, Srikcir said:

"Here's Why Gold Is At A Record High - Forbes"

"Gold has added 394% in value over the past 20 years, according to FactSet data, below the S&P 500's 522% return over the two-decade period, but still a remarkable feat considering gold is an inorganic material without the potential to return profits to shareholders as a stock would."  Mar 9, 2567 BE  https://www.forbes.com

Here is a problem. One can not store Gold for free, unless one stores physical Gold under the matress.

Be it futures, ETF's or other instruments, there is always a "carrying charge". Even storing Gold in a safety deposit box at the bank costs an annual fee.

Just assuming that over the last 20 years an annual "carrying charge" of a modest 3% would have applyed, with compound interest and missed interest by other investements, (missed opportunity cost) the above quoted (theoretical) 394% gain of Gold would be greatly diminished.  = Warren Buffet never liked Gold.

The price of Gold doesn't follow financial/world events tick by tick. Lenghty periods of "dormancy" can be observed. Only to readjust on quick periodical strong "outbursts" on the upside. I believe such a corrective "outburst on the upside" is currently taking place. To be followed by a lenghty period of relative "dormancy" again.

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Not good then? I expected not. Carry on...

Good enough. My (boring) investements produced satisfactory results over time.

52 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

How'd you do at Roulette?

The same mathematics would apply. But I limit my gambling to the greatest Casino that was ever invented: WALL STREET

There I can appear as a "serious investor" (respected by everyone). But I can act as a ruthless gambler (with 10% of my liquid assets only) as well. My ruthless gambling in Commodities is legendary.

Unfortunately, while my investements produced some nice returns (no complaints), my gambling netted only a measely 40'000 US$ over time.

But must confess, the gambling was always more fun and exiting than investing. Something like having a wife for 40 years (=solid investing) and having an exotic dancer simultainiously (=trading) on the side. To dance on 2 different dance floors at the same time is possible, as long as the 2 different dance floors are strictly kept seperate.

Why all this? Back to the root of everything:

"HOMO HOMINI LUPUS EST".

On 4/8/2024 at 12:03 PM, MrPancake said:

 

I disagree with the way you conceptualize the entire thing.

- Short-term traders don't exist.

- So called "day traders" are gamblers not traders.
(trying to figure out how trading algos are gonna play the market on a given day is BS - to not get reckned you best bet is to average. You buy once on opening. If the stock goes up you sell and you're done for the day. If the stock goes down you keep buying more and more. At some point during the session the stock will go back up and you will be able to exit).

- A trader operates on weeks or months.

- An investor holds for years if not decades.

 

Anyways. Whatever floats your boat I guess 🙂

Quote: "If the stock goes down you keep buying more and more. At some point during the session the stock will go back up and you will be able to exit".

The thing about "averaging down" is, that in order to stay close to the average price of the position, one would have to average down as follows:

Original position buy 1 Stock @ 100$
                               add 2   "
                               add 4   "
                                add 8   "
                                add 16 "      Total= 31 Stocks
                                        
It shows that even after averaging down only 4 times, the total exposure will have increased from 100$ to 3100$. If by then the stock shoulden't have reversed the downtrend, then it's strictly OUUUUPS!

Also from a capital management point of view, averaging down can be hazardous. Here too, mathematics offer no free lunch.

Quote: "A trader operates on weeks or months". No, a short term trader operates within a time frame of 30 seconds to 2 to 3 days.

To remain on focus: This thread is about short term trading.

1 hour ago, MrPancake said:

1) Trading and gambling are two different things.

2) Trading usually involves dollar cost averaging.

3) A 10% drop is nothing on most stocks - it's an opportunity to buy more (see above)

4) Mathematics isn't the master of gamblers. Luck is.

5) Adhering to the 1% loss rule is illogical. The only rule is the more the stock goes down, the more I buy.

6) Leveraging is indeed pretty dumb.

 

My 2 cents.

Thanks for your interest and participation. Your points work fine for long term investors, but not for short term traders.

1) The roulette table at Las Vegas offers a 50% chance of winning. The bid/ask spread and other "carrying charges/commissions" drop to below 50% for the trader operating on "the markets".

2) Dollar cost averaging works fine for long term investors, But not for short term traders. = Throwing good money after bad. A drop of 10% for a leveraged short term trader  is absolutely a "main event".  

3) see 2

4) Roulet gamblers and short term traders are subject to the same mathematical obstacles. As the las Vegas gambler only would stick to red or white. But no, they have to bet on individual numbers, thus abandoning the "natural" 50/50 chance..

5) The 1% rule only applies to short term trading ONLY.

6) Leverage is a blessing. But mostly, in the long run, a course.

As much as I appreciate your contribution, they are focused on "long term investing". But this is about short term trading and it's fundamental opportunities/pitfalls. Not to be confused with "long term investing". To compare long term investing versus comparing short term trading is comparing Oranges with Apples.
------------------------------------------
In a future post, I will outline why major Brokerage Houses rake in massive profits, whyle at the same time their "retail customers" lose money year after year. Once involved in "short term trading". As I worked for one of them in the "trading-room" for a few years. But that is another story.

"Cost averaging" for long term investors with regard to the Japonese Nikkey 224 had to wait 30 years to break even. As a sidenote.

To trade or not to trade, that is the question. According to Shakespeare.

Just considering mathematics alone, this time around.

a) Most short term trades produce a loss (Broker statistics, retail traders).

b) Given that, even recovering a 10% loss is hard to do.

c) Improve the odds by: Limiting your losses to 1% per trade. One can lose 10 times in a row. A single profit of 10% will keep you in the game. Not so, if one loses 10% 10 times in a row. Then, you are out of the game.

For short term traders, mathematics is a merciless master.

Having said that, trading "highly leveraged" with regard to "capital base" will eventually lead to "game over".

- Often have I come accross  Farangs, determined to settle in Thailand, planning to make a living in Thailand by trading the markets. By strictly adhering to the maximum 1% loss rule, a capital stock of around 200'000 US$ would be required. Any amount below would force a trader to "leverage" his trades in order to make a "possible living" in Thailand.

But: "Leverage" and mathematics are not your friend.
---------------------------------------------
When it comes to make a living in Thailand I can not recommend "trading the markets". Rather: As a viral, witty, charming and flamboyant Farang, it should be possible to conquer the heart of a financially well established Thai female. A much more relaxed lifestyle awaiting, instead of having to watch NVIDIA, tick by tick, 24/7.

50 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I think a lot of analysis went out the window with online trading. 

More than that. Even minor banks and financial institutions today have their "financial experts". Guiding their "financial sheep" tru todays financial djungle. Thousands of "experts" giving daily advice on the internet for their "investor sheep", making good use of the fact that humans are "herd animals". Soon, the "financial experts" will outnumber the "investor sheep".

When things turn south, the commom explanation will be (as usual) "nobody has seen it coming", while having collected fat bonuses before things went south. Easy for me to find a thousand "experts" recommending to buy Gold, versus a thousand "experts" recommending to sell Gold. Needless to say that I don't like "financial experts".

The old joke comes to mind: "Look at all the yachts of the financial experts. But where are the yachts if their customers"?

12 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Did you expect them to do it for free? 

Nobody does it for free. That's where the bid/ask spread comes into play. But 10% below?

Thais have their "Thai-Gold". They don't go by "Ounces".

Example: A couple of years ago I wanted to sell some 1 oz gold bars and some Kruegerrand coins to my Thai Bank. Against a receipt, they took in the merchandise for "assessement". A week later, the amount was credited to my Thai account. At a discount of 10% below bid/ask spread in New York or Zuerich.
Conclusion: Whatever is denominated in Ounces, or not considered "Thai Gold" don't sell it in Thailand.

On 4/4/2024 at 4:00 AM, Mike Lister said:

I don't see that USD has weakened at all, in fact, the opposite seems true.

 

https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/index/dxy

Currency exchange rates do matter. I don't observe "currency baskets" much. But I do constantly watch 2 "hard currencies". The US$ versus the Swiss Franc.
Since the beginning of the year, the "hard currency" (Swiss Franc) has collapsed against the US$. US$ from 0.83 to 0.90. Signaling that the US$ universe is perfectly intact and above any doubt. Granted, the swiss national bank has eased interest rates by 1/4%, ahead of anyone else, but the collapse of the Swiss Franc started before that.

Conclusion: Official statements issued by central banks is one thing, but what they actually do in "the markets" is another thing. For private investors, it's another "enigma". More and more "enigmas" seem to emerge globally.

PS: Swiss investors have not made any money by investing in the US stock market lately.

 Truly, currency exchange rates DO matter.

1 hour ago, MrPancake said:

You're referring to a phenomenon called "hitting the wall".

Women do hit the wall. In my opinion well before 60.

Passed 40-45, the vast majority of women are done.

Unfortunately you are right. I would not recommend to be part of any "western womans liberation army". Especially as the "Isaan- spirit" has not yet been affected by the "Bankkok Ways" in a meaningful way. Inspite of a hundred western NGO's, that tell Thai Females that the time to "awaken" is here.

Remarkably,

22 minutes ago, bendejo said:

 

But the great existential question must be answered:  how much you pay?

"Big Love" in the Isaan usually costs about 2 million Bht over time. "Occasional love" in Pattaya costs 2000 Bht per week. 

 

 

 

23 minutes ago, bendejo said:

 

But the great existential question must be answered:  how much you pay?

 

 

 

most rural Thai Females still don't know from what they sould be awaken from.

33 minutes ago, soi3eddie said:

 

Yes, we know about central banks. Where is the evidence that private investors are selling? Why would they, other than hardship need, or to take some profits? If there's high demand then now is not the time to sell.

 

 

There are so many official and private statistics available that prove that the "Central-Banks" are the main buyers of Gold.

I would like to know why in such a situation "private investors" rather sell their Gold, instead of following "the central banks policy" of accumulating gold, instead of selling it.  

Again: I called this thread "The Enigma of Gold". With good reason.

1 hour ago, vangrop said:

I have 2 hip prothesis. For the first, left leg, I delayed the surgery much too long. I was stuborn and tought wrongly that the longer I wait, the longer the prothesis will stand in future. After the sugery that leg never functioned correctly. In fact the cartilage vanishes totally and thus you distort the natural moving proces. When the same symptomes appeared in my right hip we didn't wait with the surgery, which was very successfull processed. For the record my left hip was done in 2000 and the right hip in 2008. Both are still stable, recently checked. I am 71 years old now. Thus my advice on the spot, don't wait too long. The sooner the better 

My sister in law is awaiting a further "correction" after a botched- up hip operation in a first- class Melbourne hospital. Describing Opium Pain Killers as the only remedy as they will try to rectify the problem with further invasive operations. (April 22). If that doesn't work, an increase of Opiod Pain killers will serve as the ultimate solution.

51 minutes ago, MrPancake said:

As far as I know buying gold is a way for central banks to diversify and protect their reserves.

It's usually a sign that the USD ain't gonna do too well.

That's the reason emerging economies are buying a lot of gold.

It's a way of hedging the risk I guess.

I remain: The central banks are gobbeling up Gold massively. At the same time Private Investors get rid of their Gold holdings.

There is a good reason I called this thread as "the Gold Enigma".