World Colonial

Even back then, I'm guessing the more expensive coins could be bought by having a dealer find it for you, if you made it worth their while. Harvey Stack wrote a series of articles for Coin Week where he described doing this for Josiah Lilly. This is the 6000 gold coin collection (US and world) later donated to the Smithsonian. Few of those coins would be hard to buy now but presumably were a lot harder then.

Somewhere on this forum, RWB mentioned the existence of "old money" European collections going back 200+ years. Long term ownership of specific coins is unusual but not an aberration. The internet has made most coins available but the difference with many world coins is that it has both limited availability and isn't really worth selling. I have multiple coins in duplicate which I bought because it's about the only type I buy. I'm not selling the extras as the proceeds won't make any difference financially to me and there aren't other coins I would rather own at anywhere near an equivalent cost. So, this just means there is less for anyone else who might want to buy the same coins I do. I alone probably own about one third of the limited number of better (AU and above) TPG coins for this series, somewhat more excluding the more available ones.

Why was the US downgrade bogus? Because the US can print? If that's your reason, I don't know why the rating agencies even rate any sovereign debt denominated in the local currency, since they can always "pay it back", even if it's steeply devalued. The entire credit rating system is bogus. Look at the history of bond rating upgrades and downgrades. It's practically worthless as a decision making tool. Bond raters invariably downgrade after prices have crashed. That's completely useless.

I was trying to point out that attempting to collect legitimately scarce but low to moderately priced coinage the same way most collectors buy US coinage isn't workable. I am aware that no collector would ever choose to complete any series (other than maybe bullion) in one day. No point in doing that. Agree Of course, I also don't see any sense of accomplishment in having an essentially unlimited bank account and completing anything either. What kind of accomplishment is there in that?

Have you ever looked for the coins I primarily collect? There isn't enough money to make it worthwhile for a dealer to even attempt to find the coin for me, possibly excepting paying multiples to current estimated value. Collecting (relatively) low priced hard to find coins doesn't apply in collecting US coinage, except under some specialization where most of it was invented because most US series are so easy to complete. As a date, all US coins are either cheap when common or expensive if scarce or rare. There is nothing in the middle. Common coins are easy to buy by definition. Somewhat scarce but (very) expensive coins are more prominent and have a high enough turnover where the coin is easy enough to buy also. Most of the coins which most US collectors consider scarce are actually common and also easy to buy, like practically all 20th century key dates. It's only actually rare and scarcer US coins with the highest preferences that are actually hard to buy. Anyone who has the money can literally complete the majority of US series (a noticeable majority) in one day, either in "high" or "acceptable" (by pre-TPG standards) quality. That's why it was so easy for Hansen to reach the completion rate in his collection as fast as he did. As an example, it's possible to buy every single US regular issue circulation strike half dollar in the quality I described in one day, outside of the scarcest Liberty Seated and maybe the 1794, excluding specialization like die varieties. Same applies to every series back to the Barber coinage, excluding Saints and Indian Head eagles. No one can do that with the primary series I collect or anything close to it. Though the exact scarcity is only partially known, the coins are actually hard to buy, there is limited incentive to sell due to the low to moderate market value, and the coins apparently have a high enough preference where the owners do not want to sell it. Otherwise, I would have seen more of the coins I know exist from prominent collections which I have not.

I'm not referring to now or since PCGS came into existence. I'm referring to an earlier time. I don't know that no one did it but I'm confident hardly anyone would have paid more than modest premiums to do it. (I have heard it happened anecdotally.) This is how I collect as it's my only option for what I collect,.to my knowledge. I could have attended the auctions in person but would be uneconomical to do so given the value of the coins I collect. I could also literally contact dealers all over the world (even the ones who sell similar coins to mine) repeatedly and possibly never have found a single coin I don't own now that I would want to buy. However many times they had anything, it wouldn't be many. Back when I collected South Africa, I asked one of the more prominent dealers in that country how many times they had sold a better 1931 silver circulation strike in over 30 years. Their answer was never. If I were collecting pre-internet, I wouldn't be able to collect my primary interest, unless I did so only through private transactions, probably mostly through dealers. That's what I presume the collections I know must have done (Norweb, Patterson, Sellschopp). I haven't done that, yet.

I was thinking more of Eliasberg's contemporaries. One of the many unpopular viewpoints I have expressed on coin forums is that the internet has eliminated the traditional challenge in collecting the coins most collectors collect, US and many other countries. Most US are easier to buy because the much higher price level makes the coins available for sale with greater frequency, but it also applies to at minimum Europe and the Anglo-Saxon countries. I have read the Hansen "Mega thread" on the PCGS forum intermittently. Offhand, I recall he bought at least 95% of all US Mint issues within a few years and has mostly upgraded since. Someone like him has the money to buy any coin, but even coins not normally available can be bought privately through the dealer network because these US coins are simultaneously expensive. It's not possible to do that for much lower priced non-US coinage without likely paying large premiums to "market" but even then, often the prospective buyer may not be able to identify the owner or even worse, confirm the coins they want even exist.

Doesn't this have a lot to do with the difference in collecting approach at the time? The differences in quality which modern US collecting finds so important now (mostly due to money) were a lot less important or irrelevant back then. As one example, I've never heard that any elite collection cared about buying what are now the highest graded but very common or extremely common coins.

I prefer the first by far. I still have a modest number from South Africa before the country changed to a republic and left the Commonwealth.

You are correct. But I can infer that those who did the buying weren't actually doing it with their own money hardly at all if ever. Aside from the ECB with its deranged monetary policy, it must have been institutional buyers 99+% of the time. And the only reason they did it was believing rates would go even more negative as an interest rate speculation. As one example, I recall Austria selling a 1000YR bond at 1.2%. Not negative but even worse than a ST negative coupon bond. Serial defaulter Argentina sold 100YR USD debt within the last 10 years or so. This was a "reach for yield" by the buyers and yes, it's already in default now.

Yes, I read about that. It's absolutely insane. It's obvious that when the mortgage contract was written, the underwriter never conceived that they would find themselves doing that.

What you are describing is a form of price fixing. That's what monetary policy represents. It "works" now for the reasons I have given you. Your statement is a contradiction. Negative interest rates are a contradiction, as no one would voluntarily pay anyone to borrow.

Debt is a tool, that's all. No tool is good or bad in and of itself. You disagree with me that ANY amount of debt poses a problem for a society. That's my disagreement with you and nothing else. If I believed as you claimed, I'd be in favor of usury laws. I'm not. I'm against any interest rate caps of any sort. I do believe disclosures should be understandable to consumer borrowers but otherwise, anyone should be able to charge any rate they want. I'm also against bailouts of any sort. That's what governments and central banks have been doing lately, over and over.

The P/E is the one of the worst measures of value. The only reason the P/E has the correlation it does to stock prices is because the "P" is the market. It's a lagging indicator. When stock prices fall a lot, the P/E ratio is high making the market look more expensive. you know this as well as I do. There wasn't a national real estate bubble in 2006 either. Are you telling me that wasn't a bubble either? Look at the Case-Schiller indices for the 20 component cities. All are not in a bubble, but more are now versus then and the overvaluation is a lot worse. Housing is less affordable than it's ever been, even according to the NAR or whatever affordability index is used. Everyone should have to live with the consequences of their financial decisions. Problem is in today's society, they don't. Those who take imprudent risks disproportionately immediately look for someone else to bail them out. Back in 2020, I told you I thought the oil majors were cheap, but I didn't buy it. Why? Because I've subsidized my mother and sister to the tune of $150K in the last five years. I have to make sure that regardless of what happens, I can meet my obligations. Are you going to write me a check if I am wrong and need the money? I didn't think so. I don't need to participate in the most overpriced markets in history to do what I need to do. That's one of the main reasons most people are in this market. I can do what I have been doing to this point and still be better off than most others in the future. No "fundamental" event ever bought or sold a single share. The fundamentals are also worse now than decades ago, yet valuations are much higher. Interest rates are the primary example. No one can rationalize away that aggregate credit quality and credit standards are the lowest ever yet interest rates have been the lowest ever with it. If the US fundamentals are so great, why has what can only be described as emergency fiscal and monetary policy been necessary since at least 2008? The answer is because the economic fundamentals aren't what you claim. I'm not assuming anything. I'm aware of movement up and down the income and wealth distribution. The FRED data is the most representative data for the population as a whole. It doesn't demonstrate the result you like but that's another consideration entirely.

I'd agree a lot more with you if I knew it wasn't substantially or mostly the result of the distortions I just described to you. The US of today isn't the same country it was in the past and the change isn't for the better. That's one aspect of my disagreement with you and everyone else who disagrees with me. I also disagree that what is actually a form of socialistic central planning (the Bizarro World 21st century monetary and fiscal policy in most or every developed country) creates permanent long-term prosperity. This is another aspect of my disagreement with you and presumably practically everyone else. My difference of opinion with others here isn't actually economic or financial, it's philosophical.

It's predominantly based upon a fake economy, so while it may mean a lot to you, it doesn't mean anything to me. You can't mix financial with non-financial companies. For non-financials, leverage is low measured by the earnings coverage ratio because of extended low interest rates. Concurrently, their debt levels are not low but historically high. I'm working with a company now (which I won't name) whose debt is rated BBB-, barely above a junk credit. Concurrently, it's debt coverage ratio now is 11:1. So yes, it's obviously not at imminent risk of default. This is typical, not an outlier or even close to it. Like I said in a recent post, this will take a while to change as the credit cycle progresses because companies have extended maturities. (The converse of which is the buyers will experience huge losses). This, of course, assumes they can mostly continue to borrow. Interest rates have barely increased, yet the weakest borrowers (US corporate and international) are already showing signs of duress. They have been (practically) shut out of the credit markets. Given current operating and financial leverage, it doesn't take much for supposedly "solid" credits to be gasping for financial air without much if any notice.

It's wealth to the individual, not the economy. This is something else almost everyone misses entirely. You or I as individuals are wealthier when our bank balance or asset portfolio increases in price. The economy in the aggregate isn't.

I'm not referring to the FX rate of the USD, but it's domestic purchasing power. You are looking in the rear-view mirror, just like everyone who looks at the so-called fundamentals. Of course, at or near a market peak, the so-called fundamentals look good to most people. How else do you think we got the combination of the lowest credit quality and lowest credit standards in human history simultaneously with the lowest interest rates in history? It's also why we have a stock mania and real estate bubble. If you go back to 1981 at the peak of the interest rate cycle, either no one or virtually no one would have foreseen that interest rates would be so low now and recently with such actually awful credit quality. First, the primary basis of my position isn't on debt. Current debt is a symptom of extended social and economic decay. You and practically everyone else miss this entirely. The actual state of country longer-term is nowhere near as favorable as you imply. It's poor to very poor. Second, comparing to Greece makes no sense. I'm aware Greece is in worse shape, but your inference is that the starting point for the US now is favorable when it isn't. Predicting that most Americans are going to become poorer or a lot poorer over the indefinite future isn't "doom and gloom", it's completely realistic. A turn in the long-term credit cycle (in 2020) and an end of the asset mania are more than sufficient to result in this outcome. Believing that any society can live above its means as the US has for decades and then expecting more of the same indefinitely is nonsensical. That's the consensus. Go look at public data published by FRED. It's not mine. Real median household income and net worth has essentially flatlined since the late 90's. This is an entire generation and probably the worst performance in US history over a comparable time period. It's also occurred during a mostly expanding economy, except for short periods surrounding 9/11, the GFC, and COVID. It took a 5X increase in the national debt, an 8X increase in the FRB's balance sheet, the lowest interest rates in history, and the biggest asset mania in history to achieve this pathetic economic performance.

Not the shareholder. They never see it unless it's paid out as dividends. As for growth there is no little if any correlation with earnings in the recent past, like much of this century. Earnings are an accounting abstraction to practically every individual, as they have absolutely no ability to monetize it. They can sell their shares, but any appreciation is mostly or entirely independent or any supposed growth.

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. 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.

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.

There is risk, the depreciating currency. 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.

The real reason future returns from current market levels across all major asset classes will be "low" is because the real economy isn't actually productive enough to provide anything more, outside of a mania with perpetually increasing debt which isn't wealth. There is a time to buy and a time to sell. There is a time to short and a time to cover. There is a time to hold and a time to avoid. Every position has its place under the sun, at one time or another. It's not just time horizon or age. It's also valuation. Valuation has mostly been completely disregarded over the last quarter century. That's what makes recent experience a mania. Most supposed "investing" is also speculation. That's why I use "investing" in quotes most of the time. It's a rationalization to take on more risk and now mostly reckless risk by somehow convincing yourself that maniacally relatively overpriced markets and "assets" are somehow "low" risk. If I ask anyone the difference between most supposed "investing" and speculation, the only distinction they can usually give me is the holding period which isn't one at all. It's arbitrary, as under both any profit is disproportionately or entirely the result of changes in the market price with nothing of any value created. It's more Wall Street BS marketing. It depends upon the price. It doesn't matter that gold just sits there as Buffet states, as this isn't tangibly different from owning serial money losing cash burn machine companies or ridiculously overpriced (supposed) blue chip companies that pay immaterial dividends and have garbage balance sheets to go with it. That's most of the (US) stock market now and recently. I don't think gold is a good buy at current prices. It isn't the worst but that doesn't change it's still historically relatively expensive.

The only reason I can see for this belief is due to what you told me before, that all precedent is irrelevant. History isn't deterministic of future events but it's indicative of how people actually act. You told me you don't believe history is relevant. I'm telling you this is a very long cycle. Also, I haven't predicted "Armageddon". That's a straw man. My prediction is that the majority of Americans are destined to become poorer or a lot poorer over the indefinite future. The only reason I can see for this belief is your concurrent belief in what I call the economic priesthood. Practically everyone shares this version of religion because that's what it is. I'm telling you that the only reason for their apparent success is manic psychology. It's the only reason why QE is possible, especially for this long and to this scale. It's also the only reason deficit spending and government debts of this magnitude and duration are possible. There is no wizard behind the curtain in economics or central banking any more than there is in "OZ". There is also never something for nothing, ever. If you disagree you disagree, but I know it's nonsense. Central banks and governments didn't miraculously discover some "deus ex machina" to magically generate prosperity in perpetuity through "printing" (currency debasement), borrowing from the future (deficit spending), and pretending that risk has been eliminated because of politically motivated government guarantees (moral hazard).

What's your point? I don't disagree. I haven't lost a cent because I stayed out during the mania. Others will call me a fool for not participating in the biggest bubble in human history, but I don't measure my financial performance by other's opinions. I'll still be better off than most people by not participating. They aren't paying my bills, are they? Contrary to what you presumably believe, I also know that we've lived through the biggest financial mania in history which is going to be followed by the biggest bust.