World Colonial

I disagree with him. You are still only measuring it by earnings. That's why we continue to disagree. What I would like to know is, if today isn't a bubble, then what exactly is one? It's also not possible to separate the debt bubble (global debt, not just US federal) from the stock market. That makes no sense. Increasing debt and the debt mania is the enabler or at least a rationalization for the rising stock market. It lowers the P/E by inflating earnings from lower interest expense, borrowing for share repurchases, and sustaining the fake economy to inflate revenues. Since 2008, corporate America has effectively performed a collective leveraged buyout concurrently gutting its balance sheet. How do you not see that? I'm not specifically referring to US federal debt but global debt from all sources. If you want to make this argument, the US cannot prevent a "credit event" from occurring anywhere else in the world and neither can any other central bank. Whether any response "works" or not is psychologically determined. See my above response. You are joking right? Both fiscal and monetary policy have been anything but "normal" since 2008. There also isn't even a hint that there is any intent to do it, unless of course, your definition of "normalize" is entirely different than mine.

There aren't any specific sources. I do a lot of reading to obtain ideas from elsewhere but I don't need to rely on someone else to form my own conclusions. There is no "trigger event" or "black swan" necessary to end this mania because this mania (and the associated fake economy) aren't the result of any economic "fundamentals" but manic psychology. The mania will end when the psychology enabling it ends, it's as simple as that. When collective psychology changes, it won't matter what the government or any central bank does because anything they do will be viewed as inadequate or a failure. This is what happened during the initial stage of the GFC which is why both the government and FRB did what they did in 2020. It "worked" last year but with the side consequence of blowing the bubble even larger and distorting the economy even more by further "kicking the can" down the road.

There is absolutely nothing in history which guarantees that living standards should or will increase for most of the population, in or out of the United States. It may or may not happen but it's entirely a faith based assumption. It's predicated on circumstances specific to our time and recent past which may or may not last and are not within the control of any society or government. In the more recent past, it's actually primarily been from pulling demand forward by increased debt. Someone is going to have to pay it back, even if it's by inflation or default. It isn't going to increase forever either where there is no consequence. The depression did not happen due to any "policy mistake". I know every conventional economist will dispute this but it's a myth. It's the thinking that's driven post WWII monetary and fiscal policy under the false belief that government has the ability to prevent declining living standards. By some miraculous coincidence, this ability somehow only applies to developed countries and central banks, not anywhere else. What government is actually doing is distorting the economy and financial system to where when they "lose control", the consequences of these economic and financial distortions will be compressed into a shorter time period into one or a lower number of "events" instead of spread out as it was in the past. If anyone claims this isn't true, then they believe in something for nothing. Virtually no one believes it because the "fat tail" equivalent event hasn't happened yet. This is what leads practically everyone to believe it never will. I received a similar reply from someone on the PCGS forum last time I was there. The US of today and the recent past isn't the same "America" you infer and the change isn't an improvement either. On the PCGS forum, the other poster quoted Buffet using an argument from authority logical fallacy to supposedly rebut my comments. There has been substantial social decay over my entire life, back into the 1960's. That's one reason for 21st century fiscal and monetary policy. At least some of these policy makers must know it. They see what the Balkanization of the country and breakdown in the social order implies for the future of the country. This is a topic beyond the scope of this forum and it's one where even more disagreement exists than in finance and economics. The point I am making is that social decay is the actual primary root cause behind the deteriorating economic "fundamentals", including exponential increase in US federal debt. The more immediate question is, is there anything preventing this fake economy and bubble from continuing for the immediate future? No, because people aren't robots. It's possible the current manic optimism will allow the fake economy to persist for the rest of the decade (into 2030 or something like it). This isn't something I will bet my future on but anyone else is free to act otherwise.

Market prices aren't determined by the economic "fundamentals". Contrary to what most people believe, it has little if any predictive value. Priced are based upon collective optimism or pessimism. This is true for both individual securities and entire markets. Look at Bitcoin, Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPAC), and stocks like Tesla or Uber. None of these are priced based upon the "fundamentals". Bitcoin and crypto currency are literally nothing. SPAC are the equivalent of the 1720 South Sea Bubble example "an undertaking of great advantage but no one to know what it is", in spades. Tesla is a real business but has lost billions and faces entrenched deep pocket competitors in a mature market. Uber and all other similar companies are cash burn machines that should be worth zero and would be in any sane market. The US stock market is about the only market in a current bull run. It's on an island in deep outer space and has been post GFC. This valuation difference isn't supported by any meaningful difference in "fundamentals" either versus the rest of the world, but manic psychology.

It isn't just certain pockets. Look at the entire bond market. Are you going to tell me it isn't in a massive bubble? The US stock market (which has also never been more overpriced) isn't the only market and doesn't exist in a vacuum. The "good value" you infer is based upon the fake economy. At market peaks, the economic fundamentals never look bad to most people. That's how you get manic bubble valuations. Why would you expect anything else? Do you think the environment looked bad at the US stock market peak on September 3, 1929? I don't expect an economic collapse like the one into 1933. The economy and actual state of American society (and much of the world) is far worse now but optimism and belief that government can prevent declining living standards means that politicians are guaranteed to do "something" to try to prevent it, just as they did last year and during the GFC. As for market prices, I ultimately expect a decline worse than the 1930's but I don't know whether it will be quick or extended. I also don't know whether the decline will be worse measured in nominal or inflation adjusted prices. US stocks lost 89% from September 3, 1929 to July 8, 1932 but the decline was less (excluding dividends) adjusted for price changes than from February 9, 1966 to August 13, 1982.

There is no analogy between the end of WWII and now. Sentiment and valuations then were the opposite of now and to imply that after a 20+ year bubble (since 2000) we are going to get up to several more decades of market advance (that's what happened after 1946 into 1966) makes no sense. The fundamentals then are also practically the mirror opposite of now and the recent past. US federal debt was high (as now) but I see no other similarity. The primary reason I disagree with you and the financial community on valuations is because all of you insist on primarily relying on one of if not the weakest measures of value, earnings. Yes, earnings have been unprecedentedly high during most of the mania (mostly excepting Q4 2001 to sometime in 2003 or near it and the GFC) because of the fake economy. When the government runs consistent deficits of $1T+ ($3T in 2020), it has to show up somewhere and much of it ends up in corporate net income. That's not evidence of a fantastic economy but a distorted one. If the economy has been so great, why is it necessary for the government to run deficits to these levels for over a decade and why has the FRB found it necessary to run what used to be considered extreme monetary policy over the same time period? (This is a rhetorical question. I'm not really asking.) Let me give you the only real answer: One: Those in charge are really dumb or ignorant enough to believe there is something for nothing. Two: A combination of "kicking the can down the road" and political expediency. At least some of these people must know the real state of the economy (and society) and understand or infer the social consequences of "normalizing" fiscal and/or monetary policy, a (massive) economic depression.

We have different opinions on this subject for a variety of reasons. First, based upon history, I know the major asset markets (bonds first, stocks second, and real estate third) are a lot more inflated than you have implied in your prior posts. This overvaluation isn't uniform across every asset class and market versus the past, but it absolutely is in the aggregate. As an example, most global stock markets are lower or barely higher versus 1999 and 2007. Conversely, bonds and debt generally in all major markets are far more inflated than ever. It's not even close and this is the asset class ultimately supporting everything else. Second, I also know the actual economic "fundamentals" are either disproportionately mediocre or awful today and have been since 2008. It's artificial prosperity supporting unsustainable living standards. So, manic collective psychology supports ridiculously overpriced aggregate asset prices while a fake economy since at least 2008 (from unsustainable government deficit spending and the loosest credit conditions in human history) supports inflated living standards. The combination of these two is what leads me to conclude that asset prices and living standards are ultimately destined to decline and fall a lot more than you believe. I haven't claimed it will happen overnight and it doesn't appear "imminent" either, (since this mania keeps on going like the Energizer Bunny) but it's going to end because there is never something for nothing in life. When it ends, it's like to be a long-term process, not an event. Probably measured in decades and not months or years. (My guess is the biggest decline in asset markets initially with the larger decline in living standards later.) With coins, as such a small illiquid market, it's entirely possible that gold and silver will provide support initially, as it did in the 70's. But I wouldn't count on it for most coins of any "meaningful" value. The coin price level is far more inflated and most people will almost certainly become poorer or a lot poorer. The primary reason coins increased this much since the 70's isn't due to bullion prices, though this was the initial catalyst. It's primarily a combination of an increased number of affluent buyers (from the financialization and marketing of "collecting") while the asset mania made it much easier for them to pay higher prices due to this huge increase in mostly fake wealth.

The risk was different then versus now. There was greater risk of buying fakes or over graded coins. Today, it's easier to avoid both but when a mistake is made on one of the higher or highest graded coins, it is a lot more expensive than it ever was then. This is a function of the much higher price level and price spreads between grades. The confidence buyers have to pay "recent" prices (varies with the coin) where it is "material" (to them) is overwhelmingly contingent on the buyer's belief that they can recover most, all, or more than all of their money back. Part of it is related to TPG (or CAC) and part of it is due to other reasons such as "investment" buying. The "reason" doesn't matter, only that they believe it. Without this belief, there is no possibility the price level would be anywhere near its current level because too many coins sell for prices which are "too high" for the collectible merits where hardly any buyer will pay it as an alternative consumption expenditure. A small proportion (which I will get to in my next reply) are also dependent upon the asset mania. The buyer presumably (usually) finds it interesting enough as a collectible, but not anywhere near its current or recent price. Look at the 1933 Saint or 1822 half eagle, as it's no different than high priced art. The asset mania is the only explanation for these inflated prices. Without it, prices would be a low fraction.

I wasn't expressing an opinion on whether it is "better" or "worse" in my last post. Only stating (once again) that these price differences aren't actually based upon collecting, but financially motivated marketing. I have stated numerous times on coin forums but there are a lot of collectors and "investors" who have no clue of it. If anyone wants to spend their money that way, great. Just don't believe the fallacy that it's because the buyer likes it that much as a collectible because the anecdotal evidence (mostly from coin forums) demonstrates they don't. This is exactly what common sense leads anyone to believe, as there isn't a dime's worth of practical difference between many and sometimes most of these coins. And it isn't just Saints or US coins either, as evidenced by some of the examples I have documented here with coins I have owned. Your last point is also a function of the internet, not my prior reply. This is an improvement (undoubtedly) but a separate consideration entirely. It's also easier to sell anything generally on eBay.

I will agree with you on one thing. It would be the end of financialized "collecting". The "numismatic" value is in the label. Most buyers can't grade most coins in these grades "accurately" outside the holder and most would not pay these premiums without the expectation of getting most of their money back. I'll grant you more of those who buy these specific coins (in 65 or better) can on occasion, but that's because of money. No one cared enough before. You're aware of how these coins were priced up to the early 70's I assume? The change in the pricing is due to the financialization of "collecting" (buying coins as "investments") in the 70's and marketing (TPG labels, CAC stickers, and registry sets) starting in the 80's. It's the same coin now it was then. For the consensus to be true, here's what someone has to believe. Until the 1970's, prior buyers were operating out of ignorance by treating the coins essentially equal. At some point starting in the 70's (or maybe the late 80's for Saints), buyers experienced a collective epiphany where they miraculously discovered the merits which no none knew before. Sorry, but nothing of the sort ever happened. It's nonsensical. When the asset mania collapses (which it will "eventually"), buyers will collectively forget this epiphany to once again mostly or entirely view these coins as their predecessors. That's what happens when the price of a collectible is (totally) disconnected from the actual collectible merits.. I also wasn't trying to single out Saints. This is equally true any most series where buyers have the same or similar motives.

Since the grades mean nothing to me, I'd consider every one of those bullion coins. Large to big premiums for a label on a piece of plastic.

I have been there several times. I like it.

Don't know the timing yet but if it ever happens, somewhere in the Orlando area.

No, but if I move to central FL as I might early next year, I might consider it later if I can free up the time.

I suspect cost and lack of interest rank first and second, in that order.

What I meant is that I believe collectors would find it more interesting if fewer coins were issued but this isn't directly connected to the mintages. Look at the majority of US modern commemoratives. How many collectors would even notice if most of these coins never existed? They would notice if the program was terminated (as it was in 1954) or the Mint skipped one or more years but not because of the themes. If a collector treats their collection primarily as an alternative consumption expense, financially it doesn't matter. Above some unspecified level which varies by collector, they usually do care. I don't know how many have "noticeable" amounts "invested" in NCLT but don't believe that they wouldn't have an issue if the price declines "noticeably" below their cost. That's a lot more likely with this endless flood of "product" and what I believe will happen in the future, outside of changes to the spot price.

Not sure where you disagree. Obviously, all NCLT is owned by someone unless it's literally lost. I'd describe the US classic commemorative series collector as predominantly a hole filler. A large series where the majority of coins have little if any actual connection, disproportionately uninteresting themes which most people have never heard of or know nothing about, and which isn't even close to being scarce. A full set still sells for over five figures in practically any decent quality (like an MS-63) which is hardly cheap for what is actually being bought. The mintage of most NCLT is not actually low. The mintages of US classic commemoratives aren't low either. It isn't low because the relevant comparison isn't circulating coinage but other NCLT or maybe proofs. Virtually no one is buying any NCLT as a substitute for circulated circulating coinage. In "high quality", most NCLT is not scarcer outside of the most common circulating coinage. Outside of US proofs dated from 1950 onwards, only a very low proportion have comparable mintages to most NCLT. As for "forgotten", I was also speaking in a financial context. Virtually none of this coinage "stands out" and I expect most of it to sell for nominal premiums to the spot price decades from now, once the asset bubble ends because that's the primary if not only factor holding it up now, especially on 70's.

Other than to make money, why does the US or any other mint have to strike so many coins? I believe that collectors would find a particular theme, coin, or series more interesting and meaningful if it wasn't buried in a sea of endless mediocrity. Decades from now, most NCLT is destined to be relegated to the dustbin of obscurity and mostly forgotten.

The reverse is not as nice as St. George slaying the dragon but still like it. I don't like the current portrait or the prior two.

Your 1979 FOREX data must be off or you are comparing two different sources. No way FOREX volume was only $1B daily. It must have been almost entirely off exchanges at the time. There is some displacement as you indicate, but it's not remotely reflected in the numbers you gave. The increase is mostly if not almost entirely for speculation or commercial transactions such as hedging debt exposure. In many countries, residents hold USD currency notes as a store of value and since it circulates parallel to the local currency. This was true in Argentina in the early 90's when the currency board was in place. USD notes also circulated in Bolivia on my visits up to 2007 but since then, have not seen it even once. The Boliviano has been stable at about 7:1 since then. Non-US residents in developing countries also tend to have most of their financial assets in one of the "hard" currencies. Local capital markets are usually relatively illiquid and it's also done for geographic/political diversification. Or, they own foreign real estate. What they own locally is held in a private business or real estate. If you are rich in a country like Colombia where my sister and her husband live, the financial markets are presumably mostly for institutions, though many shares and bonds are listed on foreign exchanges too (maybe most). This is my inference and my brother-in-law (who is from there) agreed with me. That's why Miami is the financial capital of Latin America, maybe along with NY. Outside of metal bugs and coin collectors, I doubt very many developed world residents own physical gold or silver. To the extent they do, it's overwhelmingly immaterial. Most metal bugs and coin collectors don't own material amounts either. In the developing world, I know both are owned as jewelry but it's impractical to own as coin collectors do in the US. It's not readily available in coin and bar form, certainly in any quantity, it's presumably (noticeably) less liquid with wider buy-sell spreads and it's a high(er) risk proposition to store and transport. I'd also question whether it can usually be insured, at all. I did see an advertisement in the LaPaz or Santa Cruz airport (in Bolivia) for a gold storage program on my recent visits, so maybe it's somewhat more available now than I believe or it used to be. I don't know what locals think of it but see no purpose in it. I'd own it elsewhere as I have no interest and see no advantage in storing metals in a country like that..

Correct, this is my prior experience.

I prefer the coin to look the way it is "supposed" to look which varies by series. For my primary series, I prefer toned though I do own some that are not.

Like every other asset, it's ultimately psychological. No one can support the current market price of any asset based upon the so-called "fundamentals" because the outcome isn't based upon a formula. We can only compare relative prices over time versus other assets. This tells us whether the asset is relatively cheap or expensive but nothing more. This should be evident given current valuations which should make it obvious that today's environment is the biggest aggregate bubble in the history of civilization. For gold, any attempt to measure valuation by its utility is also destined to fail. The psychological component comes from it's role as a monetary substitute. Concurrently, this doesn't mean that just because of unprecedented "printing", that gold is currently "cheap" or destined to head "to the moon" either. The ultimate purpose of money isn't to acquire other forms of money (gold for fiat currency) but tangible goods and services that people need and want. By this standard, gold isn't cheap but on balance, expensive.

Raw coins - my understanding is that they will submit it for the consignor to NGC or PCGS at a reduced rate but have not done it myself. I have sold through them twice. I sold with no reserve so everything sold. However, my recollection is that if you place a reserve, those that do not sell are included in subsequent sales though don't remember the number of times. I don't recall if there is a fee for unsold lots. There was a $3 fee to list each coin.

Yes, I was assuming OP only meant shipping the coins but covered both anyway. More generally, for the US based collector with any collection of "meaningful" value,. I don't think it makes much sense to sell it outside the US either. There may be exceptions but I do not know any. Most coins are as or more liquid and easier to sell in the US than anywhere else. Personally, unless I was going to die with it elsewhere, I'd leave it in the US or sell it. One other point, if I did move my collection, I'd consider hand carrying the coins I liked most. Drawback is that it would probably increase the likelihood of paying import duty. With the OP coins though (since I now remember what he collects), this might be to his advantage.by declaring the sheet value for untoned coins if he chooses. Can't do that if shipping unless you want to take the risk if the coins are lost or stolen.