• The above Banner is a Sponsored Banner.

    Upgrade to Premium Membership to remove this Banner & All Google Ads. For full list of Premium Member benefits Click HERE.

vand

Member
  • Content count

    854
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%
  • Country

    United Kingdom

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    vand reacted to Lowlow in Silver Stacking Regrets   
    I'm not saying this about silver, and not at this price, but ...
    There are times when you know in your bones that you're in the exact right place, at the exact right time, and it's important at that moment that you don't dawdle and miss the opportunity.  That's true of investments, women, and life in general.  Missed opportunities feel worse over time than mistakes.
  2. Like
    vand got a reaction from KDave in Silver Monitoring Thread £ only.   
    Or rather Sterling is back below £12/oz
  3. Like
    vand got a reaction from KDave in Silver Monitoring Thread £ only.   
    Or rather Sterling is back below £12/oz
  4. Like
    vand got a reaction from KDave in Silver Monitoring Thread £ only.   
    Or rather Sterling is back below £12/oz
  5. Like
    vand got a reaction from JCRJM in Today I bought.....   
    Taking advantage of these subdued prices and put in a slightly bigger than normal monthly purchase, added +40oz of BU added to the stack.
     
  6. Like
    vand reacted to swAgger in Gold/Silver Eagles sales are plummetting   
    Mik at AgAu runs an excellent sales report for the 3 big mints, going back to 2013;
    http://agaunews.com/comparative-bullion-sales-perth-u-s-royal-canadian-mints/
     
  7. Thanks
    vand got a reaction from StackerNoob in Gold/Silver Eagles sales are plummetting   
    This should not come as a surprise, but stackers are becoming an ever rarer breed.
    https://www.reuters.com/article/usmint-coins/sales-of-u-s-mint-american-eagle-gold-silver-coins-fall-in-march-idUSL2N1RF0MV
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gold-coins-usa/u-s-gold-coin-sales-slide-as-stock-markets-show-more-luster-idUSKBN1HW23Y
     
    "In the final quarter of 2009, U.S. investors bought 21 tonnes of official gold coins, according to GFMS data. Nearly eight years later, with U.S. stocks swinging higher, sales had dwindled to less than a tenth of that."
    https://in.reuters.com/article/usmint-coins/update-1-us-mint-american-eagle-gold-coin-sales-at-weakest-april-since-2007-idINL1N1S71IK
    BTW, it's very difficult to find anyone who's bothered to put together a cohesive report for all the historical sales data, which probably tells you as much as you need to know about interest in the PMs right now!
  8. Like
    vand got a reaction from PansPurse in Gold/Silver Eagles sales are plummetting   
    My thoughts exactly!
    Just don't get too excited. It will take time for sentiment to swing back round the other way. Worst thing that a new stacker can do is to put too much energy and excitement into their purchasing. Just gradually accumulate what you comfortably can manage in the knowledge that it's a very smart place to park your money, and otherwise go about your daily business.
  9. Like
    vand got a reaction from PansPurse in Gold/Silver Eagles sales are plummetting   
    My thoughts exactly!
    Just don't get too excited. It will take time for sentiment to swing back round the other way. Worst thing that a new stacker can do is to put too much energy and excitement into their purchasing. Just gradually accumulate what you comfortably can manage in the knowledge that it's a very smart place to park your money, and otherwise go about your daily business.
  10. Like
    vand reacted to StackerNoob in Gold/Silver Eagles sales are plummetting   
    This kind of data excites me. Buy what nobody else wants (within reason of course) is a tried and tested investment strategy. If there was ever a time to accumulate, it is now.
  11. Like
    vand reacted to StackerNoob in Revisiting - How Much PMs should you hold?   
    Its a question I love to debate, no matter how many times!
     
    Everyone has a different view on this. My own view is you should stack somewhere between 10 - 20% of your savings total i.e If the value of all your savings is say £20,000, at least £2000 of that should be in PMs.
    Having said that, I have never really made sure I stick to that number religiously, rather I stack on an instictive feeling that my portfolio is becoming unbalanced. Let me just work this out....
     
    Ok, my net worth is split as follows:
    Cash savings: 70% (45% raw savings and 30% ISA)
    PMs: 16%
    Cryptos: 10%
    Other: 4%
     
    Interesting that Im almost on the money with my suggested PM allotment just through gut feeling. You might be wondering why I have such a large portion in cash savings. Well, fact of thr matter is that I have some pretty big purchases coming up over the next two years and unfortunately for us, most people dont accept silver bars or tiny gold coins as payment, regardess of whether they should or not.
     
    As an aside, the very first thing I did after finishing my education was pay off my debts in one lump sum. That move has saved me many hundreds of pounds already and I would advise everyone to rid yourself of debt before you start investing. I dont buy Robert Kiyosakis mantra of getting yourself into productive debt. Unless of course you have something to back the debt up, like a nice pile of PMs for example!
  12. Like
    vand got a reaction from augur in Revisiting - How Much PMs should you hold?   
    "How much PMs should one hold?" is one of those "how long is a piece of string?" questions. The answer will be very different for everyone depending on factors such as your age, income, debt, free cashflow, your net assets, your expectation, and understanding of PMs. Holding no PMs at all leave you open to many political and economic risks that have been well discussed, yet putting 100% of your wealth into PMs is also not smart, as the fortunes of PMs can wax and wane wildly also.
    There are different ways you to measure your PM holdings, and this is important. Firstly and most easily you can consider the outright number of Oz of gold/silver that you have accumulated. An oz of gold is an oz of gold, after all. However, I believe that a better and more rounded way of looking at this is to also consider how much this represents of your net assets. 
    For a young person just out of college who maybe has some debt and no working history to have accumulated any savings, pension or property, they have zero or even negative net asset. Does it make sense to  start accumulating 30oz of silver a month for this person, as much as it does to someone who has been working for 20 years, has a decent pension pot and home equity, and wishes to diversify with PMs? I would argue their priorities are different. The true price of any investment is the opportunity cost of buying and holding it. Ploughing a sizeable chunk of your salary into PMs takes away a lot of resources that might be needed for more pressing matters. PMs can and should be bought by far more people than they currently are, but it has to be proportional to each person's circumstance. Aggressively accumulating 1000oz of silver may be far too much for our newly graduated debt-laden student, but it may be far too little for our hypothetical middle-aged higher-income manager who has steadily built up his net assets throughout his working life.
    Personally, as someone who has always been a saver/investor with 20 years of working history behind me, and probably at least 20 more still ahead of me, I ran the sums for my own situation and it altered the way I think of my stack. Having accumulated well over triple-digit oz of silver, I was beginning to ask myself if I was putting too much into an "unproductive asset." However, when I recalculated it all as simply a part of my overall net asset (housing equity + cash + shares + pension + car) it only came to about 7%. For me, it makes more sense to think of my PM holdings in this way than simply to think about how many ozs are in my stack, and I've decided that I'm very comfortable holding up to 20% of my wealth in PMs. 
    As an aside, repaying high interest debt is by far the most useful thing that anyone can do with their monthly paycheque. Anyone who has credit card debt should not even think about investing in PMs or anything else until they fully pay off this crippling burden. You will never find a better risk/reward profile on any investment venture that matches the interest savings that you can make from just paying off high interest debt - it doesn't exist. 
    For most people then, credit card & possibly personal loan debt should be prioritized before buying PMs.
     
  13. Like
    vand reacted to mr-dead in The effort that goes in to your £12 oz silver   
    The work that goes in to your £12 oz silver, and this is just the first stage not including the refining + creating coin blanks, designs + dies etc.
    Just seems like its on sale currently thanks to the paper games and manipulation.
     
  14. Like
    vand got a reaction from KDave in Revisiting - How Much PMs should you hold?   
    Important Edit: In reality PM exposure is more than 7% as I also trade PM and PM-derived markets which increases my effective position, so I would say that it's probably in the region of 11-12%. While this is several thousand£££s of exposure that might keep me up at night normally when a 1-2% move can result in a few hundred £££ change in my trading position, I can sleep very easy with this level risk as it fits in nicely with my overall investment philosophy. Being able to sleep easily on your position is a very important pat of being a good trader. 
  15. Like
    vand reacted to KDave in Revisiting - How Much PMs should you hold?   
    Great topic.
    I used to wrestle with this as well though now I treat precious metals as my long term cash equivalents given where we are in regards to the bond market. Basically I supplant bonds with gold. This means I am happy to hold up to 40% in gold. This may be right or wrong, but it is where I am comfortable and it has done me right so far. 
    Debt - in most cases absolutely don't be investing in anything until it's paid off if it's going to cost money servicing it. That said it is possible to service debt for no cost for long periods of time with the right vehicles and a plan in place. I did this to renovate the house, couple of credit cards, regular saver to pay it off, 30 months interest free. Will be paid off well before it yields interest. It's a monthly outgoing like a bill, but costs nothing extra. The only thing is I can't use that money to buy precious metals in the mean time which isn't fun 
  16. Like
    vand got a reaction from augur in Revisiting - How Much PMs should you hold?   
    "How much PMs should one hold?" is one of those "how long is a piece of string?" questions. The answer will be very different for everyone depending on factors such as your age, income, debt, free cashflow, your net assets, your expectation, and understanding of PMs. Holding no PMs at all leave you open to many political and economic risks that have been well discussed, yet putting 100% of your wealth into PMs is also not smart, as the fortunes of PMs can wax and wane wildly also.
    There are different ways you to measure your PM holdings, and this is important. Firstly and most easily you can consider the outright number of Oz of gold/silver that you have accumulated. An oz of gold is an oz of gold, after all. However, I believe that a better and more rounded way of looking at this is to also consider how much this represents of your net assets. 
    For a young person just out of college who maybe has some debt and no working history to have accumulated any savings, pension or property, they have zero or even negative net asset. Does it make sense to  start accumulating 30oz of silver a month for this person, as much as it does to someone who has been working for 20 years, has a decent pension pot and home equity, and wishes to diversify with PMs? I would argue their priorities are different. The true price of any investment is the opportunity cost of buying and holding it. Ploughing a sizeable chunk of your salary into PMs takes away a lot of resources that might be needed for more pressing matters. PMs can and should be bought by far more people than they currently are, but it has to be proportional to each person's circumstance. Aggressively accumulating 1000oz of silver may be far too much for our newly graduated debt-laden student, but it may be far too little for our hypothetical middle-aged higher-income manager who has steadily built up his net assets throughout his working life.
    Personally, as someone who has always been a saver/investor with 20 years of working history behind me, and probably at least 20 more still ahead of me, I ran the sums for my own situation and it altered the way I think of my stack. Having accumulated well over triple-digit oz of silver, I was beginning to ask myself if I was putting too much into an "unproductive asset." However, when I recalculated it all as simply a part of my overall net asset (housing equity + cash + shares + pension + car) it only came to about 7%. For me, it makes more sense to think of my PM holdings in this way than simply to think about how many ozs are in my stack, and I've decided that I'm very comfortable holding up to 20% of my wealth in PMs. 
    As an aside, repaying high interest debt is by far the most useful thing that anyone can do with their monthly paycheque. Anyone who has credit card debt should not even think about investing in PMs or anything else until they fully pay off this crippling burden. You will never find a better risk/reward profile on any investment venture that matches the interest savings that you can make from just paying off high interest debt - it doesn't exist. 
    For most people then, credit card & possibly personal loan debt should be prioritized before buying PMs.
     
  17. Like
    vand got a reaction from augur in Revisiting - How Much PMs should you hold?   
    "How much PMs should one hold?" is one of those "how long is a piece of string?" questions. The answer will be very different for everyone depending on factors such as your age, income, debt, free cashflow, your net assets, your expectation, and understanding of PMs. Holding no PMs at all leave you open to many political and economic risks that have been well discussed, yet putting 100% of your wealth into PMs is also not smart, as the fortunes of PMs can wax and wane wildly also.
    There are different ways you to measure your PM holdings, and this is important. Firstly and most easily you can consider the outright number of Oz of gold/silver that you have accumulated. An oz of gold is an oz of gold, after all. However, I believe that a better and more rounded way of looking at this is to also consider how much this represents of your net assets. 
    For a young person just out of college who maybe has some debt and no working history to have accumulated any savings, pension or property, they have zero or even negative net asset. Does it make sense to  start accumulating 30oz of silver a month for this person, as much as it does to someone who has been working for 20 years, has a decent pension pot and home equity, and wishes to diversify with PMs? I would argue their priorities are different. The true price of any investment is the opportunity cost of buying and holding it. Ploughing a sizeable chunk of your salary into PMs takes away a lot of resources that might be needed for more pressing matters. PMs can and should be bought by far more people than they currently are, but it has to be proportional to each person's circumstance. Aggressively accumulating 1000oz of silver may be far too much for our newly graduated debt-laden student, but it may be far too little for our hypothetical middle-aged higher-income manager who has steadily built up his net assets throughout his working life.
    Personally, as someone who has always been a saver/investor with 20 years of working history behind me, and probably at least 20 more still ahead of me, I ran the sums for my own situation and it altered the way I think of my stack. Having accumulated well over triple-digit oz of silver, I was beginning to ask myself if I was putting too much into an "unproductive asset." However, when I recalculated it all as simply a part of my overall net asset (housing equity + cash + shares + pension + car) it only came to about 7%. For me, it makes more sense to think of my PM holdings in this way than simply to think about how many ozs are in my stack, and I've decided that I'm very comfortable holding up to 20% of my wealth in PMs. 
    As an aside, repaying high interest debt is by far the most useful thing that anyone can do with their monthly paycheque. Anyone who has credit card debt should not even think about investing in PMs or anything else until they fully pay off this crippling burden. You will never find a better risk/reward profile on any investment venture that matches the interest savings that you can make from just paying off high interest debt - it doesn't exist. 
    For most people then, credit card & possibly personal loan debt should be prioritized before buying PMs.
     
  18. Like
    vand got a reaction from augur in Revisiting - How Much PMs should you hold?   
    "How much PMs should one hold?" is one of those "how long is a piece of string?" questions. The answer will be very different for everyone depending on factors such as your age, income, debt, free cashflow, your net assets, your expectation, and understanding of PMs. Holding no PMs at all leave you open to many political and economic risks that have been well discussed, yet putting 100% of your wealth into PMs is also not smart, as the fortunes of PMs can wax and wane wildly also.
    There are different ways you to measure your PM holdings, and this is important. Firstly and most easily you can consider the outright number of Oz of gold/silver that you have accumulated. An oz of gold is an oz of gold, after all. However, I believe that a better and more rounded way of looking at this is to also consider how much this represents of your net assets. 
    For a young person just out of college who maybe has some debt and no working history to have accumulated any savings, pension or property, they have zero or even negative net asset. Does it make sense to  start accumulating 30oz of silver a month for this person, as much as it does to someone who has been working for 20 years, has a decent pension pot and home equity, and wishes to diversify with PMs? I would argue their priorities are different. The true price of any investment is the opportunity cost of buying and holding it. Ploughing a sizeable chunk of your salary into PMs takes away a lot of resources that might be needed for more pressing matters. PMs can and should be bought by far more people than they currently are, but it has to be proportional to each person's circumstance. Aggressively accumulating 1000oz of silver may be far too much for our newly graduated debt-laden student, but it may be far too little for our hypothetical middle-aged higher-income manager who has steadily built up his net assets throughout his working life.
    Personally, as someone who has always been a saver/investor with 20 years of working history behind me, and probably at least 20 more still ahead of me, I ran the sums for my own situation and it altered the way I think of my stack. Having accumulated well over triple-digit oz of silver, I was beginning to ask myself if I was putting too much into an "unproductive asset." However, when I recalculated it all as simply a part of my overall net asset (housing equity + cash + shares + pension + car) it only came to about 7%. For me, it makes more sense to think of my PM holdings in this way than simply to think about how many ozs are in my stack, and I've decided that I'm very comfortable holding up to 20% of my wealth in PMs. 
    As an aside, repaying high interest debt is by far the most useful thing that anyone can do with their monthly paycheque. Anyone who has credit card debt should not even think about investing in PMs or anything else until they fully pay off this crippling burden. You will never find a better risk/reward profile on any investment venture that matches the interest savings that you can make from just paying off high interest debt - it doesn't exist. 
    For most people then, credit card & possibly personal loan debt should be prioritized before buying PMs.
     
  19. Like
    vand got a reaction from KDave in Retirement...   
    And I think that brings us back whole circle to the original topic of retirement, and most peoples' unrealistic expectations thereof!
  20. Like
    vand got a reaction from KDave in Retirement...   
    And I think that brings us back whole circle to the original topic of retirement, and most peoples' unrealistic expectations thereof!
  21. Like
    vand reacted to KDave in Retirement...   
    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/apr/28/proportion-home-owners-halves-millennials
    I don't like the guardian but they have the numbers for today and the 1980's as we have been discussing.
    It doesn't really matter if this is driven by economics, low wages, expensive phones (), the result will be political change if it continues for long enough. Its a growing block of votes that will just become too irresistible for politicians to exploit. 
  22. Like
    vand got a reaction from onlyroadtoheaven in Retirement...   
    The current high house prices and low inflation environment is a terrible combination for today's buyers. It means they need to overstretch themselves to afford a house, and the debt will remain massive as inflation won't be able to significantly erode it over 15-25 years. Buyers are stuck in overpriced properties with no means to trade up, and will spend a huge chunk of their future income paying off the mortgage. No wonder Britain is quickly sliding down the ladder of world productivity when we have such a dysfunctional housing market that sucks up so much productive capital. 
  23. Like
    vand got a reaction from onlyroadtoheaven in Retirement...   
    The current high house prices and low inflation environment is a terrible combination for today's buyers. It means they need to overstretch themselves to afford a house, and the debt will remain massive as inflation won't be able to significantly erode it over 15-25 years. Buyers are stuck in overpriced properties with no means to trade up, and will spend a huge chunk of their future income paying off the mortgage. No wonder Britain is quickly sliding down the ladder of world productivity when we have such a dysfunctional housing market that sucks up so much productive capital. 
  24. Like
    vand got a reaction from Keenstacker in The lifecycle of a sovereign country   
    We're in late stage 4. In the next downturn I see us moving into stage 5.
     
    I would add that this life cycle reflect the political cycle of a country, as it becomes more prosperous on the ingenuity and productivity of its individuals, the have nots of society vote themselves ever increasing claims on wealth they didn't earn, while the politicians play a game of increasing promises of everything to everyone and expecting someone else to pay for it, firstly with tax claims on other members of society, and then debt claims on the unborn.
  25. Like
    vand reacted to kimchi in Are luxury watches the best investment ever?   
    I may be wrong and the 'money-men' will 'magic' a solution (however temporary) medium-term, but there will/have got to be be serious financial troubles coming soon imho, and if so as soon as it hits this sort of item will be out of reach (or not even a consideration) for the 'aspirational' folk these currently sell to.
    Call me pessimistic (and I hope to be wrong) but hard times will be coming in the next five years I think, and these types of things will be the first off the shopping list.
    (I am looking at the UK market for people I know who e.g. always have a top of the range new car on credit, an amazing house with a mortgage, never settle for less than designer clothes, etc.)
    If you can flip short to medium term (and always have your back covered) then all's good (maybe/hopefully).