|
Sask | The point of the OP is gold has done a very good job of protecting one's labors against currency devaluation over the last 45 years.
There are things you convert your labor into to create a lifestyle, their are things you take your labors and invest them hoping to grow your wealth, and there are things you invest your labors into to try and protect what you have labored for.
What people can't seem to figure out is where gold fits in that whenever someone says "my gold has been a good way to protect my life labors". For some reason there is no shortage of people who think that none of your labors should be put in gold and instead all of it should be put into furthering your wealth creation. Sure you can do that, that is your own choice, but I bet the s&p index is not the best way to maximize your return in that scenario. However, for those who want to ensure they protect what they have labored for, then gold is a very viable option. Many say no, so be it.
As for what percent a person should have in gold, it all depends how focused you are on protecting what you have. For those who want maximum growth then you want 0% gold. For those who want maximum protection then you want 100% bonds. For those who want neither of those options then you have to decide where you fall.
The one thing no other investment has, that gold does is no counter party risk. Where as stocks and bonds require the other party to give you what is promised, your gold is yours. The great financial crisis showed a lot of people they don't necessarily own what they thought they did or was valued the way they claimed, and Monette Farms may show a few more people that not everything is a guarantee. | |
|
Buying Gold was this a good investment 45 years ago
