4 ms·
If this is an argument for gold, then it's important to note that most gold "owners" don't actually own gold. They own paper. Or, at best, they own shares in fu
by jonnathanson 15y ago
If this is an argument for gold, then it's important to note that most gold "owners" don't actually own gold. They own paper. Or, at best, they own shares in funds that must buy and sell their gold on fixed timetables (debatably erasing a lot of the real gains that would be made by holding actual metal). But they're pretty far removed from the physical good -- and, if the shit truly hit the fan, they'd be just as SOL as would stock-holders.
Hedging against the apocalypse is a silly reason to own "gold." Hedging against market volatility is a slightly better reason. It is important that we don't conflate the two strategies, as popular perception seems to.
- klochner 15y agoI'm in complete agreement that holding something like GLD is only valuable as a hedge against market volatility. As for owning gold rather than "gold", I find appeal in being able to put $30k in my pocket in the event that credit cards or ATMs are temporarily out of service, which could happen well short of an "apocalypse."
- paganel 15y ago> Hedging against the apocalypse is a silly reason to own "gold." In the last 100 years alone there were at least 2 such "apocalyptic" events: the Russian revolution and the communists' grab of power in China. Granted, there were a couple of lucky stock-owners that didn't see their holdings going to zero (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_International_Group#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_International_Group#Hi...), but generally speaking it would have been much better for a "White" Russian to be carrying gold or jewelry on his way to Paris in the 1920s than to carry worthless Tsarist stocks.
- jonnathanson 15y agoBut my point is that most people don't actually own physical gold (hence my use of the air quotes around the word).