-
When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
GoldFinger1969
-
Posts
8,795 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
NGC Journals
Gallery
Events
Store
Downloads
Posts posted by GoldFinger1969
-
-
On 9/7/2022 at 10:42 AM, RWB said:
No. Approx 1,000 was the number inherited by Pierce and his brother. Only Pierce's were sold. Some also remained on the plantation due to infirmity, illness or childbirth. The Butler plantations were, according to his ex-wife, as efficient as others, but Butler spent and borrowed much more than his income.
I didn't know it was possible to blow $700,000 back then -- where could you spend that kind of money back then ?
On 9/7/2022 at 10:42 AM, RWB said:Most of the auction proceeds paid creditors. Read the source materials for a more comprehensive picture of the 1859 auction and of the rice plantation in 1838.
Will do, thanks !
Fascinating story....I wonder if any of those slave descendants or the Butlers are around today and aware of this story.
-
On 9/7/2022 at 8:50 AM, zadok said:
...fyi $1 in 1859 equals $35.70 in 2022 for whatever thats worth...too bad he didnt have a bag of liberty seated dollars or a bag of old US $1 gold pieces laying around...but i guess at least the quarters could be used in parking meters...on to the next archival anecdote....
I think $1 might even go further in buying food or shelter back then. Have to check prices for those particular goods/services.
-
On 9/6/2022 at 6:09 PM, World Colonial said:
For stocks it depends upon what you owned. There were 10 year periods from 1966 (or earlier) and 1982 when returns were zero or negative, definitely measured in purchasing power which is what ultimately matters. This was during a mostly expanding economy, measured by GDP.
Not ROLLING 10-year periods, certainly not 20 or 30-year rolling periods. I'm willing to bet even a single 10-year period may have eeked out a small nominal return. But perhaps negative in real terms, yes.
"Unless you believe the interest rate cycle has not bottomed (which I do), I can't imagine a worse time to buy bonds than now or recently. It's better now versus 2020 but only marginally. Due to relative overvaluation in all major asset classes, I expect short-term higher quality debt (like ST UST) to outperform, but still with a likely negative real return."
Mathematically, the lower durations and higher coupons of bonds will make it more difficult for future rate rises to generate losses UNLESS they are larger and larger as was the case in the 1970's and early-1980's. I agree.....short-term, high-quality corporate and Treasuries going forward are a good place to invest/hide.
-
On 9/6/2022 at 6:00 PM, World Colonial said:
The P/E ratio is a poor value measurement.
First, it's a lagging indicator because stock prices always move before earnings, up or down.
Second, earnings aren't even real money. You can't spend it. No one can spend it. It's an accounting number and nothing more with most of it permanently buried in the balance sheet. The dividend is actual cash in your pocket and most payouts are very poor historically. It only appears competitive due to the abnormal rate environment but that's changing fast now. In a long-term economic uptrend, rising payouts can mostly or entirely negate this but someone would have to be wildly optimistic to believe that's where we are now.
Also look at the quality of corporate balance sheets. For anyone who is going to ignore valuations and hold anyway, at least make sure that the company can sustain the dividend during bad times. The leverage most larger companies have now better supports they can't, unless the recession is very modest and brief. In 2008, stock prices crashed (the S&P fell 58%), then earnings crashed, and then dividends were cut or eliminated. All in a few months. The fundamentals are far worse now versus 2008 and balance sheets are much weaker.
Third, earnings are also inflated for a variety of reasons. Some of it is due to increased efficiency but much of it is something else. The extended low interest rate environment has artificially reduced interest expense. This won't change quickly but it's going to be a headwind for the indefinite future, a long time. Financial engineering (mostly in the form of stock buybacks) has inflated EPS while simultaneously gutting corporate balance sheets. The credit mania has inflated GDP and with it, corporate earnings by enabling the everyone to consume above their means. If globalization partly reverses, this will reduce labor arbitrage.
The quality of U.S. earnings is very solid. You can state that earnings will collapse, but the quality is A-1.
Leverage in U.S. corporations is very modest compared to past cycles. Banks, for an example, were levered at about 25:1 before 2008. Today, they are leveraged about 10x. Capital ratios across the spectrum are 2-4x HIGHER than 2008's. It's like comparing a straw house to a brick house with the economy the Big Bad Wolf.
Check out the JP Morgan Guide Book I listed above for more household and corporate data points.
-
On 9/6/2022 at 5:44 PM, World Colonial said:
There is risk, the depreciating currency.
DXY dollar index at multi-year highs; dollar at 24-year highs vs. Japanese Yen. Remember when everyone said Japan and their managed economy was the wave of the future, circa 1980 ? They've been stuck in quicksand for 30 years now.
On 9/6/2022 at 5:44 PM, World Colonial said:My position is that the bond bull market which started in 1981 ended in 2020. The prior bear market lasted from somewhere in the 40's (1946 I think) to 1981 during which time interest rates (long-term UST) rose seven fold. It wasn't that big of a problem last time because debt levels were so much lower. It's going to be a much bigger problem this time because the actual fundamentals now (including debt levels) are actually absolutely awful.
It just never appears so at or near a market peak. What most people call the negative fundamentals will become a lot more evident during the rising rate environment or at the peak.
I agree we (probably) can't go lower unless we're going to have negative interest rates, something the Fed doesn't want (banks, money market funds, pension funds, etc.). But the circumstances that led long-term Treasuries to go from 2% in April 1946 to 15% in September 1981 are not present today.
You had: trade barriers (Cold War, China/India closed).....currency problems (leading to floating rates in 1973)....Treasury vs. Fed conflicts (largely addressed in 1951 Accord) that persisted with control of dollar vs. open market operations.....inflation going from 2% to 5% to 12%. These are NOT likely to persist for years or decades.
A single-minded focus on debt is misguided, IMO. As I have said before, it took Greece -- a 3rd-rate, tourist-dependent Socialist economy -- nearly 30 years to implode. A global financial superpower which is the best debt-laden house in a debt neighborhood is not likely to have the problems you believe.
Doom & Gloom work for a short period of time -- but not in the long run, WC !!
-
On 9/6/2022 at 5:43 PM, VKurtB said:
Are equities really so high based on PE’s? I honestly haven’t had cause to check much lately. The last I heard, PE’s were fairly normal. But I realize that at some point, dividends can matter more than earnings per se.
Check out Pages 4, 5, and 10 among others:
The big problem is that growth stocks are expensive and they comprise the bulk of the S&P 500 and the Top 50 stocks by market capitalization.
-
On 9/6/2022 at 1:25 PM, zadok said:
...and yet over the past 50 years my tangible assets including precious metals have outperformed my paper investments by 400%...n i have averaged 18% on my paper during that time, some of my paper ive owned 50+ years, true the dividends have surpassed the cost by 300+% but the gold i bought same time has generated more money....
The key is 50 years.....and the returns in recent years/decades are certainly LESS than what you gained in the 1970's alone. Right ?
-
One more thing.....I'm wondering if the slaves were treated well by this guy Butler, why he didn't free them ?
Also.....if he gave them money...and then they were sold....wouldn't that money revert to the buyer of the slaves ? I doubt slaves could have money or any property.
The Dred Scott decision had come out 2 years earlier but maybe there was still confusion about what the SCOTUS ruling meant.
-
On 9/6/2022 at 4:07 PM, RWB said:
Thus, the ignoble gentleman, took in $303,850 for flesh, and paid out to the same 436 chattel the generous sum of $436.
If he took in that much, then $436 isn't much, I agree. But if most of that $300,000 went to creditors, for all we know he may have dipped in to his own pocket for the $$$. Even if he cleared $10,000 -- $436 is a nice chunk.
The number of slaves seems to have dropped over that time (1,000 to 436). Maybe that was just adults ? With children and expansion (cotton and other crops), you would think it would go UP over time. But the guy was a lousy absentee owner so I guess that explains why the plantation and slaves were not run as "efficiently" as others in the South.
I would be interested in knowing about the authors of the articles and the newspapers -- were they pro or anti-abolition, Copperheads, Whig, or GOP. Not necessarily in this forum, since we're about coins, but it would be interesting to know, especially since the articles were written in 1859 -- right on the cusp of The Civil War.
Times were VERY different back then -- The New York Times was sympathetic to slavery during it's early existence.
-
On 9/7/2022 at 12:33 AM, FlyingAl said:
While it is indeed history, it doesn't make the actions committed any less wrong. History is there so that we may perhaps avoid the tragedies that have already occurred, and hopefully learn enough to avoid more. I thought this had to be acknowledged, though I have not doubt you likely knew this.
Sure, but just as amputations and leeches were used to treat illness, so did primitive bartering systems and mercantilist societies have inefficient and what we may consider today to be antiquated or offensive policies. "Monetary policies" back then meant going to war or stealing someone's gold....increasing the money supply....and leading to GDP growth. Not exactly like today's open market operations involving the Fed !
What I mean is, I wouldn't want to be judged by someone 150 years from now. The Constitution speaks of being judged by one's peers. To me, that means contemporary standards. That's what I mean.
Most people were paid subsistence wages if they weren't subsistence farmers.
-
Nothing there should be offensive to anyone. It's history.
Interesting stuff.....but par for the era. There were far worse countries to be a slave or an indentured servant or immigrant or impoverished family in.
I'm not sure how much of the $300,000 he got to keep. It may have ALL gone to creditors. I know very few plantation owners would have given slaves anything -- or factory owners their workers for that matter (pensions, healthcare, etc.). Most people were subsistence farmers of that era. I think it was sometime in the 1900's when the number of people making a living from OTHER than farming exceeded the number of those earning a living from farming (maybe 1900 or 1920 ?).
Different era.
-
Not up on current designs, but I'd give the United States top honors for coin designs going back before currencies began to float (c. 1973). I'm biased to larger precious metal coins, I admit.
I think Saint-Gaudens, Liberty DEs, and Morgans are really beautiful. I'm sure other countries had interesting coins -- thanks to QA for informing me of the unique appeal of Roosters.
-
On 9/6/2022 at 12:50 PM, The Neophyte Numismatist said:
Hope you feel better soon QA. This is the last time I will respond to this thread... I wanted to wish QA well, but I do not want to promote traffic to this otherwise TOXIC thread. The OP is nothing more than a troll. Hopefully this thread sinks into the abyss and we can start a new one to have more meaningful conversation.
On many threads -- thankfully this one -- the most recent posts are totally divorced from drivel at the beginning.
-
On 9/6/2022 at 9:21 AM, zadok said:
...i guess if u like being classic...if my annual return was only 3.4% id consider it a year of failure....
Without taking any risk, it's not bad. 10-year Treasury today is at 3.33%.....that means you'll get close to 40% over 10 years with NO RISK.
Good investments for some -- not ALL -- of one's portfolio.
-
On 9/6/2022 at 9:10 AM, zadok said:
...makes a good case for owning tangible assets....
Over time, REAL financial assets are the only assets capable of generating positive, inflation-adjusted returns over long measuring periods. Tangible assets, collectibles, and commodities have their years or decades...but then they get too high...correct...don't pay dividends or income....and you go 10-15 years making nothing.
That is NOT the case with stocks or bonds.
-
On 9/6/2022 at 9:23 AM, zadok said:
...difficult to display on ur wall, guess needs a really big frame....
Baseball cards are held in plastic holders or lucite slabs. They were being encapsulated years before coins...it's the grading that has just recently taken off.
-
On 9/3/2022 at 10:41 AM, Quintus Arrius said:
Fair appraisal. Unfortunately, now that I am behind a walker, 95 % of my world is inaccessible and what I've been left with is a periscope. I have to make do with what I have. I thank you for broaching the subject with sensitivity.
The internet is your legs to the outside world !!
-
On 9/5/2022 at 10:41 PM, VKurtB said:
Yes, this. A guarantee against loss now brings LOWER returns than at any point of my lifetime. Only risk brings even a reasonable return. More risk? Higher average returns, but may also bring a negative return from time to time. Time horizon matters. Those who will need funds soon need to be careful of risk. Those who are young not only CAN handle more risk, they NEED TO. Low risk investing for young people is HORRIBLE for their futures. Just like high risk investing is horrible for me. And gold is just a ridiculously bad “investment” for nearly everyone, even William Devane. Seven figures of new resources at my age brings new decisions that have not been relevant before.
Everyone has to do their own DD. The 2-year Treasury bill finished Friday @ 3.40%. Getting 7% over 2 years isn't great, but it's about 10x what the 2-year paid 12 months ago.
That's not bad for a classic risk-free investment.
-
On 9/5/2022 at 10:00 PM, Quintus Arrius said:
[I should like to exercise a little Threadmaster's Privilege here seeing I have the right audience all lined up. Recently, I went to my local Chase Bank branch, spoke to a platform assistant who then presented me with his card. I did not know until now that this card, from a gentleman who on his card bills himself a "Relationship Banker," had a message (advertisement) printed on the back. I would like to know what, if anything, do members make of the following: Investment products and services offered through J. P. Morgan Securities LLC (JPMS) Member FINRA and SIPC. Insurance Agent of Chase Insurance Agency, Inc. (CIA) Yes, there apparently is a another CIA! JPMS and CIA are affiliates of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Now, the curious part, boxed, capitalized and in bold font: INVESTMENT AND INSURANCE PRODUCTS: * NOT A DEPOSIT * NOT FDIC INSURED * NOT INSURED BY ANY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY * NO BANK GUARANTEE * MAY LOSE VALUE. My one and only takeaway, if I am reading this correctly, is: why would anyone in possession of their full faculties, want to venture into this hornet's nest? Is this a disclaimer of some sort which would allow them to say, "What part of this didn't you understand,"? Or is there something else I am missing. (Not cryp-to; simply cryp-tic) Anyone?]
It's just someone who will offer investment products/securities (likely mutual funds) to more savvy bank depositors fed up with low rates.
- VKurtB and Henri Charriere
-
1
-
1
-
On 9/5/2022 at 12:09 PM, zadok said:
...just curious...the big bucks mantle rookie card, how do u view it then?...a high priced collectible? or a speculative investment?....
Collectible....tangible asset....like art. Nobody who can legitimately afford a 1952 MM needs it to make money as an investment because they probably (certainly) have 8 or 9 or 10 figures in liquid financial assets.
-
On 9/5/2022 at 9:39 PM, VKurtB said:
Gold is down 15% off recent highs. And THIS with high inflation! Money and credit simply may not matter anymore. The Fed simply makes up new tools as needed. Now we have a RIDICULOUS fiscal policy environment and STILL things hold together. Yes, it’s weird, but there it is.
Let me give you all some free advice on markets: they will NOT do as you expect, as textbooks state they should, or as you want them to go. They are resilient on the downside and will overshoot on the upside. Staying long equities absent margin is the best long-term strategy to make $$$ and sleep at night.
On 9/5/2022 at 9:39 PM, VKurtB said:To put it succinctly, the boom bust cycle may have been rendered obsolete. The data sure looks that way.
That's what they were saying about Greenspan and Bernanke during the 1990's and 2000's. Didn't turn out that way....
-
On 9/4/2022 at 10:08 PM, World Colonial said:
The primary reason gold isn't more widely used in industry is because of its price, not its lack of utility. There are cheaper options (like silver), at least for most applications. Being a gold hater doesn't change this fact.
Gold was key in the James Webb Space Telescope.
On 9/4/2022 at 10:08 PM, World Colonial said:I don't hate crypto, I just know that it's current value (for all 19,000+) is (almost) entirely due to the bigger asset mania. Whatever utility it has bears no relation to the price, no government backs it to provide base demand, and it has no extended history as a store of value. If the major asset classes (stocks, bonds, and real estate) crash but somehow crypto (presumably BTC) prices mostly remain intact, I'll admit my error. I'm sure somebody will remind me. There is no comparison whatsoever.
If you mean no comparison to gold, I agree.
-
For the record, I don't consider baseball cards "investments" but collectibles like art. Or Hummels.
-
On 9/4/2022 at 8:00 PM, VKurtB said:
Gold is a thing without a value.
As a metal, it has value in certain mechanical and other instruments.
Fascinating story....I wonder if any of those slave descendants or the Butlers are around today and aware of this story.
Asking for an Opinion
in US, World, and Ancient Coins
Posted
What iconic figures do foreign countries have, though ? Lady Liberty on the SG and Liberty DEs...plus on the Morgan Dollar.....and the iconic eagle...they might not be one's favorite, but I wouldn't say they were ugly or bad.