Larry Swedroe

Wise Investing
Click Here

Don’t Believe the Hype About Gold

By Larry Swedroe | Sep 14, 2009 |

Driving a car based on what you see in their rear view mirror is not a good strategy. And neither is investing based on yesterday’s returns. Falling prey to “recency” — the tendency to give too much weight to recent experience – leads many to buy yesterday’s winners high and sell yesterday’s losers low. And buying high and selling low is not exactly a prescription for investment success.

The latest example of this is gold. This interest is based on the fact that the price of gold has risen more than $700 since 2002. And there’s the usual media hype because that’s where the action is. Before you decide to allocate some of your portfolio to gold, consider the following:

  • In January 1980, the price of gold hit $850, an increase of over $700 from its price just five years earlier. (Sound familiar?)
  • The media was filled with headlines eerily similar to today’s — fears of inflation, a falling dollar, huge budget deficits and foreign policy problems.

By June 1982, the price of gold had fallen to less than $300 an ounce. And more than 20 years later, in January 2002, it was still trading at less than $300. Keep in mind that these stagnant returns don’t consider the direct costs of investing in gold, let alone the lost returns you could have been earning had by investing in either equities or bonds.

One can only wonder how many investors would’ve stayed the course — waiting patiently, persistently rebalancing and pouring more money into gold to maintain its weighting in the portfolio — after watching it drop $700 and then do nothing for more than 20 years.

Spanish philosopher George Santayana warned: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” If you’re not prepared for another such spell, you shouldn’t invest in gold. The historical record is that gold experiences long periods of poor returns followed by very short, unpredictable bursts of spectacular returns.

Here are some important facts to consider. Over the very long term, gold has provided virtually no real return. However, the attraction of gold is not a high expected real return, but that it has had a negative correlation to equities — it has a tendency to do well when stocks are doing poorly. You certainly don’t need gold to hedge inflation. TIPS are a far superior hedge of inflation, as are short-term Treasury bills. Gold does hedge some (but not all) of the risks of equity investing. It can be a haven in times of crisis when investors are seeking safety. However, you only get the benefit of negative correlation if you have the discipline to rebalance. And that can be a very tough task as the historical evidence demonstrates.

If you’re going to invest in gold, you should consider this advice from Charles Ellis: “Learn from deer hunters and fishermen who know the importance of ‘being there’ and using patient persistence — so they are there when opportunity knocks.”

 
Reply to Story

MoneyWatch TalkbackShare your ideas and expertise on this topic

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

  •  
    1

    funddaddy

    09/14/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Don't Believe the Hype About Gold

    Well, one of the best mutual funds SGENX has gold in their portfolio...with 10 years average of over 12%.

  •  
    2

    larry swedroe

    09/14/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Don't Believe the Hype About Gold

    funddaddy,
    True but you cannot buy yesterday's returns, only tomorrow's. I wonder how many people actually owned it before the run up, versus how many now own because if the run up?

    Investing based on rear view mirrors is usually a way to end up buying high and selling low. Not exactly a prescription for investment success.

    Best wishes
    Larry

  •  
    3

    DougDiggerEberhardt

    09/14/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Don't Believe the Hype About Gold

    Larry, I'd like you to consider that the dynamic for gold has changed sine the year 2000 as the dynamic for the U.S. dollar has also changed since that time.

    There is now more competition to the dollar than there was before 2000 (like during your 80's example) with the introduction of the EURO and since, the introduction of ETF's allowing more to invest in gold as insurance from a falling dollar.

    Before 2000 there wasn't any real competition to the dollar and until that time, the dollar was supreme and had been since 1971 when Nixon took us off the gold standard. That's when Nixon basically told the world, take our dollars "as is."

    The dollar index is currently hovering around the 76-78 range. When that 72 mark of last March is taken out, one better have the insurance that only gold can offer. Breaking 72 on the index puts us in uncharted territory that even TIPS won't counteract (which is a whole separate area of discussion about how CPI has changed over the years). It also doesn't mean that at present, the dollar can't bounce higher and gold fall. But year over year, gold is still on pace for its 9th straight up year. No other asset class can claim that.

    Again, the dollar is the key. Just look at the gold/USD chart since 2000 and you'll see what I mean.

    I wrote an article about this decoupling with gold and the dollar after 2000 with the intro of the EURO and a few others about how financial advisors don't understand how gold needs to be a part of everyone's portfolio. One can find these articles by clicking the "gold" tab on my blog: http://fedupbook.com/blog.

    You'll also see a white paper I wrote about investing in gold there.

    Disclosure: I don't sell gold. I just write about it.

  •  
    4

    larry swedroe

    09/15/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Don't Believe the Hype About Gold

    Doug

    The four most dangerous words for investors are "this time its different." IMO there is nothing really different (such as your claim there is more competition).

    Another of my favorite expressions is the only thing you don't know about investing is the investment history you don't know.
    Which is why I pointed out that we had "been there, done that" with gold before.

    BTW--another myth surrounding the dollar is that if it loses its status as reserve currency that is really bad for stocks. Well the UK lost its status as the reserve currency and over the last 55 years UK stocks have outperformed US stocks. So much for that myth.


    As I said, gold does hedge some of the economic and political risks that equity and bond investors face. But the only way investors have been rewarded for doing so is that they have had to show the patience and discipline to wait 20 or 30 years and then get the benefit--and that means rebalancing along the way, buying AFTER if goes down and selling AFTER it has gone up. Otherwise the returns have been miserable.

    The same issues apply to investments in collateralized commodities futures (CCF) in general (my preference). You have to have the discipline to rebalance and stay the course, absorbing long periods of poor returns. In fact, you should be rooting for poor returns because the ONLY reason to buy gold or CCF is as portfolio insurance. And no one wants to collect on the insurance. They want the rest of their portfolio to be doing really well and are willing to see their "insurance premium" go to waste.


    My experience is that the vast majority of investors get this dead wrong.They only buy after the great returns have been realized and then sell after they poor returns have been realized.

    My crystal ball is always cloudy. And that is why I own a small allocation to the PIMCO Commodities Fund (PCRIX), which is my preferred choice. I wrote the blog so that investors could make an informed decision about investing in gold BEFORE they reacted to the noise. At least forewarned is forearmed.

    For those interested, my book, The Only Guide to Alternative Investments You'll Ever Need, has chapters on investing in CCF and precious metals equity (an alternative to gold).

  •  
    5

    DougDiggerEberhardt

    09/15/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Don't Believe the Hype About Gold

    Larry, I appreciate the discourse.

    I do take issue with the "this time its different" statement as being "four most dangerous words for investors." Allow me to explain.

    Up until 1971, the price of gold was fixed and Americans were not allowed to own more than $100 of gold. It wasn't until 1975 when U.S. citizens could actually purchase gold in larger quantities. So technically, in just five years from that date, gold soared to its then all-time high.

    Being that there was no competition to the dollar at that time, Fed Chairman Volcker stepped in and raised interest rates to where the dollar, which still had the U.S. production for the world backing it, became more attractive than gold. Today, that story cannot repeat should the dollar become less attractive.

    The dollar has 38 short years of existence without gold backing. In that time we've had a Savings and Loan crisis and our current banking crisis, coupled with Central Bank sales of gold keeping the U.S.dollar price at bay (there's a reason why Central Banks have so much gold...to give the illusion that the gold actually backs the currencies of the world). During the S&L crisis, the dollar was still king of the world.

    But since 2000, this dynamic has changed with the intro of the EURO and since, many ETFs around the world that allow investors to buy gold.

    You say that an investor has to wait 20-30 years for gold to go higher. Yes, it had "been there and done that" once. I submit that there there was no competition to the U.S. dollar when that single occurrence happened.

    You said: "the ONLY reason to buy gold or CCF is as portfolio insurance. And no one wants to collect on the insurance. They want the rest of their portfolio to be doing really well and are willing to see their "insurance premium" go to waste."

    And this I agree with. Gold should be part of everyone's portfolio as "insurance" that no one wants to collect on. But in analyzing the economics of what our government is doing, I don't like what I see with the last administration and this one adding trillions of new debt to the trillions of old debt. And that's why I recommend people hold gold.

    It just so happens that the returns for gold haven't been that bad either which would have stabilized investors portfolios over the last 8.5 years.

    If an investor earns 10% on their portfolio and the dollar falls 10%, they haven't created any new wealth. That's why I think its imperative to watch the U.S. dollar index and that 72 level. Then and only then will we see if the second time in (U.S.) history for gold to soar has arrived.

    IMO, we're still in the second and longest stage of the gold cycle.

    I would hope that you think my reasoning is sound. I give you credit for responding to my first comment. Most wouldn't. We may disagree and that's ok too. It's the discourse I'm after, not proof of who's right or wrong. Time will take care of that, but you have allowed me to present my side of the discussion.

    I too wrote a book about gold. http://safelybuygold.com Yes, that is a sales page, and yes, my book is expensive, but I'm just trying to help people understand gold and keep and grow their wealth...just like you. I was a financial advisor for over 20 years and left the business to write about it and take on some bigger tasks.

    I like the fact you look at alternative investments, which most in America don't. I found a link for it and will be purchasing it: http://www.amazon.com/Only-Guide-Alternative-Investments-Youll/dp/1576603105

  •  
    6

    larry swedroe

    09/15/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Don't Believe the Hype About Gold

    Doug
    We will agree to disagree on the this time it's different issue. Yes we did go off the gold standard and cannot do that again. But nothing else is really different.

    For example, you cite many crisis we have had recently. Well we could both cite many crisis we had before that as well, all during the period that gold did poorly. Try the S&L crisis for example, or the Asian Contagion.

    And I don't agree at all with this statement
    "Being that there was no competition to the dollar at that time, Fed Chairman Volcker stepped in and raised interest rates to where the dollar, which still had the U.S. production for the world backing it, became more attractive than gold. Today, that story cannot repeat should the dollar become less attractive."

    First there was plenty of competition for the dollar. Not just gold. There was the Swiss Franc, the German Mark and Japanese yen, all considered strong currencies. BTW-I ran a FX trading room for Citicorp during the 70s and 80s, so I was there during that very period when gold ran up. And I watched people chase it, buying only after it had gone way up. They had no plan, just chasing the recent hot asset class, like betting on the "hot roller" at the dice table.

    Second, there is absolutely no reason that the actions Volcker took could not be repeated IF inflation does rise again. While we can both guess at whether it will or will not, we are only guessing. There is only one person who knows what would happen and neither of us gets to talk to that person.

    What we do agree on is that there may be a role for low expected returning asset classes (gold has no real expected return) in portfolios, with the attraction being non- or negative correlation to equities and nominal bonds. In other words, they can act like portfolio insurance.

    We also agree I think that if you buy such insurance you will need to stay disciplined and have it as part of your long term plan, rebalancing along the way. And that from my experience is something most individual investors acting on their own have a very difficult time doing. But it is the key to success: acting like a postage stamp, sticking to your plan until you reach your financial goal.

    So if you are going to buy gold, or CCF, or precious metals equities, recognize the risks, recognize that they tend to go for very long periods of very poor returns with short and unpredictable bursts of great returns, and be prepared to buy low and sell high (the reverse of what the noise of the market and your stomach will be telling you to do). In other words, it must be part of your overall plan, in writing as part of an overall investment policy statement you are prepared to adhere to over the very long term.

    I hope you enjoy the book, and as I tell all readers, I am happy to answer questions you have, just email me at lswedroe@bamstl.com

    Best wishes
    Larry

  •  
    7

    DougDiggerEberhardt

    09/15/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Don't Believe the Hype About Gold

    Larry,

    As far as the competition to the U.S. dollar goes, I agree there were other currencies available, but I don't believe mainstream investors were so much aware of the ability to put their money in those vehicles. They were just figuring out that mutual funds were a good place to put money for the most part.

    Today, the size of GLD alone would make it the world's 6th largest Central Bank (last I checked) based on its holdings, so people are definitely taking advantage of this, even last year when the price of gold was falling as there were at times, a shortage of the metal to be found.

    Back in the 70s and 80s when you were running the FX trading floor for Citicorp, I would imagine you personally knew of fortunes made and lost. I knew one of those traders that made his fortune. He lived in the same building on Lake Shore Drive in Chicago with his two Rolls Royce's (you couldn't have just one right?).

    Yes Larry, chasing it is what I would advise against too. I think what it may come down to with our differences is what stage gold is presently in. This would dictate whether the chase is now as you might claim where the last ones in get burned, or the chase of the future in that third "euphoria" stage which I believe is still forthcoming (because of current government and Fed action).

    And yes, interest rate manipulation in the future with the possibility of inflation is a fine line the Fed walks.
    All we can do is read what Bernanke has written in the past in his study and writings about the Great Depression. He said the mistake of the Fed then was that they didn't inflate enough. From that, I do have to make assumptions today....

    Your advice about re-balancing portfolios is spot on (pun intended, ha) and the fact you include these asset classes is to be commended. Also, from a short term "trading" perspective, gold could be topping (only as the dollar index rebounds). That $1,030 mark for gold investors is what Mt. Everest represents to a climber.

    BTW, my Dad was a commodities broker (retired) on the floor at the CBOT (ADM Investors Services). He said that the number one reason commodities investors lose money is "greed." Kind of fits in with your "dice" analogy.

    Cheers and look forward to reading your book.

    Doug Digger

  •  
    8

    funddaddy

    09/15/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Don't Believe the Hype About Gold

    .

  •  
    9

    funddaddy

    09/15/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Don't Believe the Hype About Gold

    Larry,
    My investment in gold is thru mutual funds and as a long term diversification.
    I have owned SGENX (no load) for over 10 years and the fund managers are doing great job using gold and other choices in bad times. I have seen gold goes up to 10% but also down to 5% over the years.
    Another fund favorite is HSTRX which uses gold as part of his portfolio too.

    Buying gold should be instead of your stock portion
    This means, if your ?normal? portfolio is 70/30 stock/bonds
    then it could be 60-65%/30%/5-10% stocks/bonds/gold
    in tough times 60/30/10.

    Gold start to be available since the early seventies...so let's run some numbers.
    Let's compare gold to SP500 from 1970 to 8/14/2009...(I saved that date and I don't want to do it all over again)

    Gold on 12/31/1969 was 35.4 and now it's 947 = return of 2575%
    SP500 was 92 and now 1004 = return of 990% for 3% div
    annually (probably another 150-200%).

    Let's check
    1970 to the top of the market October 9, 2007
    SP500 - 92 to 1565 that's 1600% + div
    Gold - 35.4 to 738 that's 1984%
    Can't get better than that.

    Another reason I picked 1970...I think it's fair to show 2 bad/average decades compare to one of the best 2 decades.

    Finally, I agree with you...if you do it on your own 5-7% in PCRIX is a good choice but the same 5-7% is not bad.

  •  
    10

    funddaddy

    09/15/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Don't Believe the Hype About Gold

    I'm new on this site.
    How do you change, delete your posts?

  •  
    11

    larry swedroe

    09/15/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Don't Believe the Hype About Gold

    Funddaddy
    I suggest that your data is biased by the horizon you chose. The fact is that gold was artificially fixed. If you want to look at returns try starting say 70 years ago.

    Also I wonder what you would be saying about returns to gold if we were in 2002 and were looking at the last 10, 15 or 20 years. You might be saying something like, look at these lousy returns for the last 20 years, why would anyone buy this stuff. Recency is a very deadly disease. Leads typically to buying high and selling low

    As I said, my crystal ball is very cloudy. I have no more idea where gold is going than anyone else--and as I mentioned above, only one person knows and neither you nor I get to speak to them

  •  
    12

    larry swedroe

    09/15/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Don't Believe the Hype About Gold

    Doug
    While I acknowledge that individual investors have more choices today, the big institutional investors and sovereign funds all had those choices available long ago and they have the largest sums that will drive prices. So still don't agree that this time is different really.

    As to Bernanke, and not tightening soon enough, he is also well aware of the mistake Greenspan made in not tightening soon enough in 2003. The press has been filled with the need for an exit strategy. Cannot imagine he is unaware. So not likely to repeat that mistake either. If bit late IMO the Fed will just likely tighten faster than normal, as it loosened faster than normal during this crisis.

    The market seems to believe that scenario is the likely one. You can see that at the Philly Fed's site, survey of professional forecasters--shows long term inflation of just 2.5%, below the long-term average of 3%.

    I agree high inflation is a risk. But not a certainty, nor perhaps even likely. The costs of high inflation are recognized as very high, and best avoided.

    So bottom line is on the strategy I think we agree--own TIPS for inflation hedge and then consider owning either CCF and/or Gold in a long-term plan to hedge some of the economic and geopolitical risks, rebalance and stay the course.

    Best wishes
    Larry
    .

  •  
    13

    DougDiggerEberhardt

    09/15/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Don't Believe the Hype About Gold

    Larry said;

    "So bottom line is on the strategy I think we agree--own TIPS for inflation hedge and then consider owning either CCF and/or Gold in a long-term plan to hedge some of the economic and geopolitical risks, rebalance and stay the course."

    Yes, I do agree.

    As far as the forecasters and economists who, unlike the Austrian Economists, didn't see this coming...., not so much. The simple fact that GDP is primarily being supported by Government Spending is my reason (along with other Fed intervention). But that's a whole separate conversation. I'll follow your articles and chime in if you don't mind....

    I'll definitely promote your site and this article in a forthcoming blog. You're the first to discuss this with some actual reasoning.

    It will be interesting what lies ahead and all I ask is that advisors consider gold for diversification, which you do.

    Cheers!

    Doug

  •  
    14

    larry swedroe

    09/15/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Don't Believe the Hype About Gold

    Doug
    Hope you continue to find the blog helpful. And I hope you enjoy my books on investing. Check out Wise Investing Made Simple.
    And remember, my offer stands to answer any questions--just email.

    Best wishes
    Larry

  •  
    15

    larry swedroe

    09/16/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Don't Believe the Hype About Gold

    I thought people might be interested in the following correlation data.

    Correlation of gold to inflation from 68-08.
    Annual .4 and quarterly .16

    For TIPS, unfortunately the data is only short as they are relatively new. 3/98-2/09 the Annual correlation is 0.65 and the quarterly through 5/09 was .33. But even TIPS are not the perfect inflation hedge (or correlation would be 1) in the short term as you can have changes in real rates. You need to hold to maturity to get that perfect correlation. Thus, the longer the time horizon the higher the correlation of TIPS to inflation.

  •  
    16

    DougDiggerEberhardt

    09/16/09 | Report as spam

    RE: TIPS

    Hi Larry,

    Me again, ha...

    What's your definition of inflation Larry?

    I ask because of the difference of economic opinion about the definition of inflation between mainstream economists and the Austrian School of Thought.

    The reasoning for asking is, can TIPS be a true indicator of following inflation (mainstream definition) when the government itself changes the basket of goods that the TIPS rate of return is based on.

    In other words, the government has an incentive (CPI tied to Social Security increases) to keep the inflation numbers low.

    The Austrians on the other hand look at the money supply increase (cash and credit) as a truer indicator of inflation.

    To follow that up, since 2000, the dollar index and gold have been almost polar opposites.

    I think we already agreed that a combination of both ("and/or") would be good for a balanced portfolio, but just wanted to get your thoughts on this.

    Thanks,

    Doug

  •  
    17

    larry swedroe

    09/16/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Don't Believe the Hype About Gold

    Doug
    First I use the CPI as inflation.

    Second, and it seems likely we will disagree, I know that there are a lot of "conspiracy theories" about the government rigging the CPI. Yet the articles I have read on this that have studied the issue have found that there is no bias--in fact the CPI may actually overstate inflation due to things like substitution effects.

    Note with TIPS there is no incentive to understate inflation because investors will simply demand a higher real rate and perhaps even worse another risk premium for the potential for "cheating."

    Bottom line on this, while skepticism is a healthy too much skepticism is not a good this.

    But yes ultimately inflation is a monetary phenomenon.

  •  
    18

    DougDiggerEberhardt

    09/16/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Alternative CPI

    Larry,

    It's ok to disagree on things, but I like the fact that we can discuss without trying to claim victory or let egos get in the way of deciphering our own version of truth.

    Note: I don't associate myself with conspiracy theories, but I also don't believe everything the government, Treasury or Fed feeds me.

    You may agree or disagree with John Williams from Shadow Government Statistics, but he does break it down in his August 2006 newsletter as to the different "levels" of inflation (numbers are from 2006):


    Eight Levels of Inflation
    Annual Inflation for May to July 2006

    Measure May June July
    I-1 Core PCE Deflator 2.2% 2.4% n.a.
    I-2 Core C-CPI 2.2% 2.4% 2.5%
    I-3 Core CPI-U 2.4% 2.6% 2.7%
    I-4 PCE Deflator 3.4% 3.5% n.a.
    I-5 C-CPI-U 3.4% 3.7% 3.5%
    I-6 CPI-U 4.2% 4.3% 4.1%
    I-7 Pre-Clinton CPI-U 7.3% 7.4% 7.3%
    I-8 SGS Alt Consumer Inf. 10.8% 11.0% 11.0%

    For the last year he even shows more of an increase for the BLS calculation than his Alternative SGS CPI estimate.

    Aug 2008

    $100.00

    Aug 2009
    (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics) $114.94
    (SGS Alternative CPI) $105.99


    I also follow Mish Shedlock who thinks opposite (we're in deflation) of John and try to make my own judgment. It's not all black and white eh?

    I'm glad to see though you view it as a monetary phenomenon.

    And thanks for responding...I know you're busy.

    Doug

  •  
    19

    larry swedroe

    09/16/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Don't Believe the Hype About Gold

    Doug
    you only learn from people you disagree with (:-))

  •  
    20

    Allan Roth

    09/17/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Don't Believe the Hype About Gold

    The best investment I ever made was buying gold in 1980 with my college graduation money. I was SURE gold was going to be worth at least $2,000 in the next year.

    It was a great investment because it taught me I wasn't as smart as I thought I was. Since that time, I've been investing rather than speculating.

  •  
    21

    larry swedroe

    09/17/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Don't Believe the Hype About Gold

    Even smart people make mistakes. What differentiates them from fools is that they learn from their mistakes and don't repeat them.

  •  
    22

    DougDiggerEberhardt

    10/06/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Don't Believe the Hype About Gold

    Looks like we got to a new high in gold without breaking below 72 or even 76 on the index Larry.

    The reason might be the Fisk article: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/the-demise-of-the-dollar-1798175.html

    which Mish debunks here: http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/10/ridiculous-hype-over-secret-oil.html

    I'm under the impression, based on the facts presented, that this rally in gold will be short lived. And I'm a believer in gold longer term because of the dollar index and portfolio insurance as previously mentioned.

    Gold's time will come, but not just yet...

    Gold at $1,044 for reference.

  •  
    23

    larry swedroe

    10/07/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Don't Believe the Hype About Gold

    Doug
    Yes it certainly was possible that gold would go higher. But basing a decision on ex post outcomes is never a good idea. The reason is we don't have clear crystal balls, so a strategy must be right before the fact or wrong before the fact.

    The perfect example of this is consider the following: A young married man with 2 kids and perfectly healthy. He decides to buy life insurance despite the fact that he knows the odds greatly favor the insurance company winning the bet over the next 10 or 20 years. When his kids are grown and the insurance is no longer needed he looks back and says: "what a dummy I was to buy the insurance, wasting the premium."

    Now obviously that is the wrong way to look at it.

    I have looked at the data and even with gold at historical prices a broader based commodities futures like the DJ-AIG or the GSCI would have produced a higher Sharpe ratio, and that is with other commodities well below their long time highs. If we stopped the clock at say 2004 or earlier and had to decide based on the data, the comparison gets even more favorable for a broader based index.

    Having said that an additional of a small amount of gold has led to a small improvement in the Sharpe ratio, even if you stopped the clock at 2004. The reason is not high returns to gold, but the high diversification return that came from rebalancing, buying more gold after periods of lousy performance and selling it after strong performance. This is the point I have made. If going to buy gold as part of a long term plan you must:

    A) be prepared to experience even decades of lousy performance

    B) During such periods you will have to have the discipline to buy more and sell your equities to fund the purchases, equities which have far outperformed gold. And during times like these you will have to have the discipline to sell gold to rebalance. IMO there are very few investors acting on their own that could actually do it.

    Note the same is true of collateralized commodities futures. The real benefits of which are the diversification return. So one must be a long-term disciplined investor, rebalancing when it is toughest emotionally to do so.

  •  
    24

    DougDiggerEberhardt

    10/07/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Don't Believe the Hype About Gold

    Hi Larry,

    Thanks for the reply. I think where you and I may differ on gold is primarily centered around the historic analysis.

    You like to look at how gold has performed versus other asset classes like other commodities and equities from a longer time-frame. There is truth in your words when you do this type of analysis. I do not deny this.

    However, it hasn't been a level playing field from a historic perspective. There are other factors that were in play that since 2000 has changed the game IMO.

    This dynamic change makes anything that happened before 1971, and even the period of 1971 to 2000, for the most part irrelevant.

    The main catalyst in 2000 was the intro of the EURO around that time. I have written about that EURO/Dollar/Gold connection here:

    Gold and the EURO Connection - Another Nail in the U.S. Dollar Coffin?

    I've also addressed the Sharpe Ratio and the "risk free" asset class here (although I agree with the basic tenet of it, their is a flaw in the concept):
    Modern Portfolio Theorys Biggest Flaw

    In a nutshell, being that gold was tied to (backed) the dollar until 1971, it didn't have a free market to be traded in. Yes, gold did break out once U.S. citizens were allowed to own more than $100 worth in 1975 and just 5 short years later, soared to $850 an ounce, it's all-time high at that time.

    But folks in the U.S. and around the world had no other choice but the U.S. dollar as since Bretton Woods it had been the world's reserve currency and since Nixon took us off the gold standard in 1971, the U.S. was still the top dog (and basically Nixon had no choice).

    To put a quash on gold in 1980, Fed Chairman Volcker simply raised interest rates high enough where the return on the dollar out-shined the zero interest paid on gold. Naturally you would agree the Fed can't do that today.

    Since 2000 there is the intro of the EURO and subsequently other liquid ETF's that are competition to the dollar, including the many gold ETFs. Since 2000 there has been plenty of competition to the U.S. dollar that keeps growing with more and more ETFs, including currency plays. For example, the Japenese Yen, symbol JYF, has been up 16% since May of 2008 because of the unwinding of the Yen carry trade and the New Zealand dollar and Australian dollar, both known as hard dollar currencies, have been great places to park funds of late.

    While we can learn from historical correlations of asset classes, I believe there is more to the story when you take into account the changes that have occurred the last decade and that is why I make comments on posts from journalists and advisors who write negative articles about gold (like Forbes and the WSJ just did).

    Unlike Forbes Larry, at least you respond and while we may disagree on certain issues, I give you credit for the discourse.

    Technically, I don't disagree with you from your historic perspective and concur that rebalancing is important. I just believe the dynamic has changed and that people should hold gold as a hedge against the U.S. dollar as "insurance" and you believe it should be TIPS and collateralized commodities futures.

    Why not all three? But I still would recommend 10% into gold.

    Naturally you will have a reply to this post, but I'll say in advance that I hope your open to this kind of thinking. I'm sure your clients do well with knowledge such as yours. That's why I promoted you on my blog!

    BTW, you're right...the best way to look at the life insurance example is to buy term and hope its a bad investment! That's what insurance is all about right? Same might be said of gold....if the U.S. government could only live within its taxable means. But it seems they are forever expanding with no end in site. This is what I'd want insurance against.

    But it seems we're going in circles now...lol...It's not my intent to rehash old discussions with you as we may agree on government issues, but differ on solutions which in effect may accomplish the same objective but with varying degrees of success to be revealed only by what lies ahead.

    I'm sure we're also the only one's still reading this thread, but I do appreciate the discourse Larry.

  •  
    25

    larry swedroe

    10/08/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Don't Believe the Hype About Gold

    Doug

    As I said, if you buy gold for the reasons you state (portfolio insurance), and not as a speculation, and are prepared to be a disciplined very long term rebalancer and endure very long periods of poor performance than I don't really have an objection to gold. Having said that I prefer a broader CCF. But one might also consider diversifying the form of insurance. Personally I recommend up to about 10% of the equity allocation being allocated to commodities---and the longer the duration of the nominal bond portfolio, the higher should be the allocation---so instead might have 5% of the equities in CCF and 5% of the equities in gold of some sort.

    Best
    Larry

Please add your comment:

  1. You are currently: a Guest |
  2.  

Basic HTML tags that work in comments are: bold (<b></b>), italic (<i></i>), underline (<u></u>), and hyperlink (<a href></a)

advertisement
advertisement
  • Click Here
  • Click Here
  • Click Here
advertisement

Larry Swedroe

Larry Swedroe is principal and director of research for The Buckingham Family of Financial Services. He has authored or co-authored seven books, including The Only Guide to a Winning Investment Strategy You'll Ever Need.

Larry Swedroe

Larry Swedroe is a principal and the director of research for Buckingham Asset Management and BAM Advisor Services. He has also worked with Prudential Home Mortgage and Citicorp, totaling nearly 40 years of managing financial risks for major corporations and advising individuals on ways to do the same.

His opinions and comments expressed on this site are his own and may not accurately reflect those of the firm.

Click Here
track your portfolio