I want to protect some of my money and some of my children's money. I have done extensive research and reaching the point of information overload and am now more confused than when I started. I have thought of using Schiff's EuroPac but I have mixed feelings.
Assuming I have the savings, tools, shelter, food, and weapons stockpiled....
To simplify,
I want to put most, if not all of my children's money in foreign markets/gold and let it rot for another 15-20 years.
I want to set up a secondary retirement portfolio for my wife and I (for now, I have a 401K and a partial pension that my company froze) - I want to be able to add to this in drips and drabs and it can be long-term as well.
After those 2 things are up and running, then I may play a bit for short term gains, but that is not a priority at this time.
With that said, I thought of EuroPac's new China Mutual Fund, IRA etc...but doesn't the government still have a say in Funds and IRAs?
I also was advised to look into ETFs?
Would I be better off just buying individual stocks overseas? The brain is fried.
Any and all opinions please...
Good luck. Whatever you do, you can be sure the government will fuck you over. If people start using gold and silver for exchange, the government will outlaw gold and silver. If you start making too much money on foreign stocks, the government will up your taxes on foreign stocks. If you make more money, however you make it, the government will take it, if not through taxation, then through inflation.
At most, 5% of the population would need to stop complying to bring down the government.
I have studied extensively on the subject and I could send you my article (about 800 words on the subject) if you e-mailed me to ricardo@campelodemagalhaes.eu.
Basically it says Gold if President is a Bear (like LBJ, Nixon, Carter & Bush II) and invest in a Dow Jones if the President is a Bull (like Ford, Reagan, Bush I & Clinton).
Don't be fooled by rethoric. Clinton attacked the deficit and Bush II expanded it, so the economy was affected (or not) by actions, not speaches.
I have done this study for all those presidencies and 5.000 in Jan 1965 would be, in Jan 2009:
- 37.000 if spent in goods (using the CPI to make the calculations)
- 73.000 if deposited at the FEDs rate
- 50.000 if invested in an ETF over Dow Jones
- 123.000 if invested in Gold
- 6.681.000 if invested in ETF over Dow Jones and physical gold according to the President being a Bear or a Bull.
Oh, and Obama is a Bear. So, invest in Gold.
In Liberty,
Ricardo Campelo de Magalhães
ricardo@campelodemagalhaes.eu
Ricardo Jorge Fernandes Campelo de Magalhães:Don't be fooled by rethoric. Clinton attacked the deficit and Bush II expanded it, so the economy was affected (or not) by actions, not speaches.
Clinton did not attack the deficit. He vetoed the balanced budget bill. Congress overrode his veto.
Maybe keep it simple and just buy the HUI Gold Index? Same as buying physical gold but more leveraged. When the gold goes up, the mining stocks will go up more.
I was looking into that one. But I am trying to protect some of my money in foreign stocks in the respective currency of that country. Schiff's EuroPac does that, I believe.
It is irrelevant the rethoric and who did what.
All that matters is that in those years, what influenced the economy was the budget that was put into effect.
The fact remains.
All the rethoric is irrelevant for this topic.
Nobody here is qualified to give you investment advice. I don't know why you have mixed feelings about Schiff and Europac. Schiff is principled, patriotic, and he knows his stuff. I don't think there is anyone who I would trust more. Have you read his books? He basically uses a standard value investment approach combined with a few Austrian insights. Here's the impression I get from them. He starts off by picking the region (block of countries) that he thinks will do well over time, usually based on factors such as savings rates, and expansion of the money supply). Then he picks industries within the country's economy he thinks will do well. Then he picks companies that he thinks are good buys (a low price to earning ratio in general). He thinks that gold is a risky investment, but its worth the risk. He has a record of correct forecasting.
Gold... it is sure to go up in the long run but there's lot of uncertainty right now. I would wait for the inevitable drop in price that will follow the next stock market drop to buy and then hold on. I was about to buy more a couple of weeks ago but then I decided to sit and wait a few more months.
The one big winner I see both in the long and short run are agricultural resources and, to a lesser extent, raw materials. Oil is always a winner but it's too much subject to politics. Remember that last August wall Street was betting on US $ 200 a barrel and how quickly everything evaporated: price is not driven by supply and demand so it's difficult to make predictions. Agricultural resources are sure to be a big winner: supply is rising very slowly if not contracting while demand is always expanding. Asia needs food and has the money to pay for it and the EU suicidal agricultural politics will cause plenty of troubles in the short run. Look out for funds investing in agricultural resources...
Yes, it's time for the Dr Goebbels show!
I do think that gold will perform extremely well during the next five year time period until stocks and bonds are so cheap that people will flight from raw materials and commodities to them simply because they give so good yields. But remember that historically speaking gold has been an extremely lousy investment. Here is a quote from Thomas Sowell's book Basic Economics about the long rung performances of different asset classes (sounds pretty similar to the thesis of Jeremy Siegel's classic Stocks for the Long Run):
hile a dollar invested in bonds in 1801 would be worth nearly a thousand dollars by 1998, a dollar invested in stocks that same year would be worth more than half a million dollars. All this is in real terms, taking inflation into account. Meanwhile, a dollar invested in gold in 1801 would by 1998, be worth just 78 cents. The phrase, "as good as gold" can be misleading as the phrase "money in the bank", when talking about the long run.
In the long run, I do think that value investing is and always has been most succesfull investment philosophy. So one good investing strategy could simply buying mutual funds or ETFs which are handled by investor with value investing philosophy and good track record. For instance, there is one First Global Eagle A fund that has annual gain of 14.5 % and (and low beta) since 1979 and that has 6.5 percent of its assets in gold bullion (and there are several more funds with the same philosophy). And there are several Austrian value oriented investors such as Paul Mladjenovic, Christopher W. Mayer and Mark Skousen, whose works and writings are worth of looking at who share my view.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap