World Colonial

Most coins are in someone's collection or "change jar", not any local dealer or even the internet. You can also only be in one place at one time. Do you understand that? Did you read vKurt's post above here? Well, if you didn't, he contradicted you but then, earlier in this thread you called his experience and Zadoks "hearsay" since apparently only yours is representative. You know what you are actually claiming? You are claiming that your unrepresentative experience is more accurate than the collective knowledge base on this subject. That of all collectors in history, you know something no one else can know. So no, of course I do not believe you.

No, I'm not amazed, because I know you are just "making it up". I've already told you cannot possibly know what you claim to know and that's a fact. Your posts demonstrate you don't understand statistics and that's a fact too. You start with a false premise (that collectors "hate" this coinage) and then when you don't see it as often as you think you should because you're looking in the wrong place (your local dealer instead of the internet), you claim it's "scarce". "Scarce" meaning less available versus 1933-1964 US coinage which is the most common coinage on the planet. Your premises are false. All estimates are based upon the observer's assumptions. Therefore, your estimates cannot possibly be accurate other than by coincidence.

Total BS. I haven't responded to your post(s) on the PCGS forum (yet), but your posting pattern is to disregard the evidence I use against your claims where you either rely on your unrepresentative experience or use irrelevant evidence. I already told you in the other thread that if the world coinage I used as examples has the numbers and apparent survival rates it does, this coinage is almost certainly a lot more common than you claim. There is absolutely no basis to claim that the survival rates on US moderns is lower or even approaches the examples I gave you. It's utterly absurd.

Yes, in this case I'd attribute it to buying for "investment": I presume the data is somewhere though I cannot find it, but it's my inference that there are some coins that were previously too scarce to be collected by a large enough collector base which became more valuable even as the supply increased. Outside of "investment coinage" like your example, it appears only the most preferred coins (disproportionately from US coinage) have a deep demand base when "excessively" scarce.

You could start with the internet which is what 21st century coin collecting revolves around instead of your outdated model where you think it is your local dealer. No one needs to leave their house to buy this coinage, not even once. A collector only needs one coin for their set. This coinage can be bought on demand, all the time, in practically any quality, only exception being arbitrary criteria or in some specialization mostly invented (as in "made up") by US collecting. It's a non-problem, except for someone who theorizes in the abstract about how the world might "run out" of this coinage because collectors will find it so interesting they will either never sell it or sell it in such low proportion it won't be available. Look on the internet, something your posts indicate you virtually never do. I've looked intermittently or regularly for a wide variety of coinage: US, world, ancient. Interestingly, I find the coins I'm looking for much, most, or all of the time and it's anywhere from dozens, hundreds, to even thousands of times scarcer than any US modern as a date/MM in all but the highest TPG eligible quality. If the world hasn't run out of draped bust/small eagle half dollars (I see it every time I look) with something like 275-350 known for both dates in total (not a specific quality), there won't be any "shortage" for any of this coinage either.

Not necessarily, because the remaining supply is not low, and collectors don't collect in a vacuum where they will ignore the price of competing alternatives at similar prices. It also depends upon your definition of "big rise". All circulating coins start at FV and under overmarketed and over-financialized US collecting combined with currency debasement since 1965 increase in value by large percentages routinely.

There are no accurate estimates of survivors or survival rates, even for most actually scarce coins, much less post-1933 US coinage with large to absolutely huge mintages. Mintage, that's the starting point for determining scarcity on any coin. If anyone thinks mintages on any post-1933 US circulating coin are "low", try counting to these numbers and they will find out it isn't. Proof and mint set mintages for the last 60+ plus years aren't, even for a circulating coin. The 1950-D nickel or a "W quarter"? It will only take you about one month without eating, sleeping, or doing anything else to count to 2+MM. No, that's not a small number. From this starting point, you then need to apply common behavioral factors known to correlate to attrition, which has limited to virtually nothing to do with what anyone sees or doesn't see by personal observation. I've encountered numerous collectors on coin forums who claim or imply a coin is "scarce", or "rare", or "hard to find" or whatever because they didn't see as many as they think they should or supposedly couldn't find it. That's what I attempt to do in applying my claims, including comparing coins with better known estimates to those without it. The only thing personal observation will confirm for anyone is that a coin is common. A coin might be scarce if you don't see it (often), but in and of itself isn't the reason. Some experience is more representative than others, but no one's experience is actually representative of hardly any coin, certainly not common coins. P.S. Been gone for a long time and still owe you a response on the other thread.

One other point. I know that most of these markets are higher now, after 15+ to 20+ years. That's not the point. The point is that if "fundamentals" really explained market prices, obviously these indexes should be noticeably higher than now. I don't have earnings data but given whatever growth has occurred locally and globally where the largest companies operate, I can infer the stocks comprising these indexes are making (a lot) more now vs. previously where this performance doesn't correlate. The prices then (at any of these points in time) weren't based upon "fundamentals", then or now. If you don't like these indexes, take a look at the Korea ETF. It's lower now vs. 16 years ago and yes obviously, I know it's paid some dividends. Since Korea earnings are higher now versus then, why is this ETF lower?

Pure rationalization. This doesn't explain anything. What you described (without admitting or maybe even knowing it) is psychological. China's Shanghai index hit 1400 in 1992 when GDP (yes, probably not accurate) was about 2% to 3% of today's reported level. The index is around 2900 now. The "fundamentals" do not explain this performance.

I've watched it in the past. It's not that I don't know anything you are telling me. I disagree with your premises because it's not valid.

No one can quantify the price from what you wrote. Interest rates usually correlate to stock prices, but it's not mechanical. I'm aware starting valuations are relevant. I never claimed otherwise.

Really, where is the evidence for this? What is the obvious reason for China and Hong Kong? Because it doesn't fit your claims?

Belief in "fundamentals" is a form of EMH. There is no evidence that stocks or any financial assets are valued from "fundamentals". Everyone just assumes it.

Why would I make an exception for recessions? If earnings are a legitimate metric to value stocks, then the P/E ratio should be valid in all market environments. This is another rationalization. Yes, there is change, a psychological change. I've told you that to 99%+ of shareholders, there is a difference between the company and the stock certificate. Yes, I agree it's an unorthodox view, but that's what practically everyone actually buys, a stock certificate. They own a piece of paper whose value isn't contingent upon what most believe. Look at the examples I gave you in my above post, especially the foreign markets. I didn't include those examples to get an answer from you, because the "fundamentals" don't and can't explain this performance. The purpose is to demonstrate that this belief is invalid. If "fundamentals" actually explain prices, there is no possibility for these results. I already know you are going to disagree, because you're going to reply with some other supposed reason to explain it which doesn't have anything to do with anything. The price is what it is, regardless of what it is. It isn't because of "fundamentals".

I absolutely can dispute this claim, because neither you nor anyone else can demonstrate otherwise. It's not incumbent upon me or anyone else to disprove this conventional belief. You actually believe in a form of EMH without admitting it. EMH is nonsense. Academics never demonstrated EMH. They just couldn't explain prices by supposed causal events, so they just made this theory up. I explained to you the implied concensus agreement on the impact of psychology on various "bubble" stocks: serial money losers, "disruptors", "meme stocks", "unicorns". So, am I supposed to believe these are valued on "fundamentals" too? If not, based exactly on what? How about CSCO? How does its performance explain the stock price? It's 35% lower today versus 2001 even as it's a much larger far more profitable company. Or how about these markets? How do you explain this? You're going to tell me that this price performance is explained by earnings and GDP? Index 12/23 COVID low GFC peak dot.com peak Other S&P 500 4559 2191 1555 1553 442 (10/1994) Stoxx600 459 306 400 407 125 (10/1994) Switzerland 10879 9036 9548 7938 2675 (10/1994) ASX 200 7040 5022 6851 3386 1857 (10/1994) Shanghai 3040 2646 5560 1953 794 (10/1994) Hong Kong 17559 22519 27254 18397 16820 (7/1997) Singapore 3094 2381 3726 2528 Not available Korea 2496 1439 2085 1066 1145 (10/1994) Taiwan 17287 8523 9807 10393 10512 (1/1990) Thailand 1397 1105 924 499 1695 (10/1993) Dot.com peak = late 1999. early 2000 GFC peak = mid-2007 to mid-2008 Stoxx600 is Europe’s S&P 500 All indices in local currency Source: CNBC.com

I already explained your objection. There is a difference between the company and the stock certificate. You're also still assuming that prices are contingent upon "fundamentals", implicitly a belief in the Efficient Market Hypothesis. It's complete bunk. No one can explain prices from "fundamentals". It's accepted as a truism.

Double post

Interest rates are also psychologically determined. No one can explain interest rates from "fundamentals" either. I've explained this numerous times before and can do it again. It certainly isn't due to any supposed omnipotence by the modern economic priesthood, those working at central banks and government treasury departments. More of your belief in false causality. Everything you believe is entirely the result of the asset mania. Read some history. You're read "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" and "Manias, Panics, and Crashes". I presume you have. The level of speculation and valuation dwarfs these precedents and the only reason anyone will believe it has no relevance or doesn't matter is because they believe in a form of modern alchemy as I wrote in a prior post in this thread a few days ago. Yes, I am aware of these "defensive moats" which is actually mostly a code word for oligopolistic and monopolistic corporate behavior. But since "fundamentals" don't determined prices, it doesn't mean what you claim anyway.

No, I didn't forget anything. I didn't address it in my prior posts but anticipated you would make this claim. Stock buybacks don't "return cash" to shareholders. That's another Wall Street lie. Stock buybacks increase demand for what “investors” actually bought – the stock certificate – but they don’t actually receive anything from the company, unless something is supposed to include an increase in an accounting number, what's reflected in EPS. That's why this conventional claim is not accurate. If you sell your shares, you don’t own it, do you? So, you didn’t get anything just like shareholders who sold don’t receive dividends either. Selling is selling and who you sold your shares to doesn’t alter the outcome. It’s not “returning cash” to shareholders if the company buys it but different if sold to someone else. Shareholders who didn’t sell obviously didn’t receive anything. A legal claim to a higher proportional share of an accounting number (EPS) isn’t cash. And before you answer, I know why management does it and why many shareholders favor it. I know that stock buybacks usually correlate to higher stock prices, but this still doesn't support the conventional claim.

I already know this. It's not news to me. Yes, the change in the relative return between dividends and appreciation is due to psychology, exactly as I have been telling you. That's exactly why "investors" are willing to accept such low yields now whereas they wouldn't before. Total BS "information" has nothing to do with valuation or prices. Same false causality fallacy. How many times have you heard someone say something is only worth what someone will pay for it? More than I can count. But supposedly, that doesn't apply to "investments" because that's derived from "fundamentals" This belief is also based upon the bogus "discounting" claim from the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH). I haven't heard anyone mention EMH in decades (since it's completely absurd) but that's what's still implicitly consensus belief and it's believed due to the concurrent belief in the impact of "fundamentals", not just present but future. There is no "discounting" in the implied sense. “The market” (market participants collectively) can’t discount anything, because it’s an anthropomorphic abstraction from collective “investor” belief in false causality. It’s absurd to believe “the market” somehow “knows” anything. “The market” isn’t alive knowing what individuals know collectively. That’s a quasi-form of pantheism and another “rabbit hole” altogether. As for individuals, I infer they believe this implicitly, when there is any evaluation at all (e.g., not “meme” stocks.) In at least one post, you cited behavior that “investors” typically (if not usually) put more research into the purchase of a low to mid-priced consumer good, like a toaster oven. This should be expected, since the vast majority of “investors” don’t “invest” directly and direct stock purchases represent a (decreasing) minority of share ownership. They “invest” on auto pilot (e.g., 401K) through index funds or delegating stock selection to money managers. When buying shares directly, “Investors” are also mostly ignorant of economics and accounting, know little if anything about statistics and present value, mostly don’t know anything about or understand the business represented by the company shares they buy, and how other “fundamentals” supposedly relate to stock prices. So how can they discount anything where this information you have repeatedly referenced makes any difference? The answer is they can’t, meaning this supposed discounting is actually psychological as I told you, not an analysis of how events ("information") supposedly impact prices economically. It’s what ‘investors” believe and acting on this belief that matters, not the event(s) or aby supposed "information". What about quantitative valuation methods, more common among institutions? It’s still psychologically based, because these predictive methods use assumptions biased by the user’s optimism or pessimism. There is no objective valuation method since there is no correct value. There is relative value, but since discounting attempts to predict future returns, it cannot avoid subjectivity either. Look at the dot.com bubble, current “bubble” stocks, “meme” stocks, “disruptors”, “unicorns”, and serial money losers. Consensus implicitly admits these prices are psychologically determined while concurrently believing other prices are the result of the “fundamentals”. The same psychology responsible for “bubbles” accounts for all prices, all the time, without exception. “Investors” don’t “accurately” judge value “rationally”, except when “bubbles” occur. Believing this is a total absurdity since value is an arbitrary abstract mental construct. Value is an arbitrary mental construct. It’s not contingent on anything, except collective perception. That’s why it fluctuates so radically independently of any supposed “fundamentals”. That’s why a raging mania (the one we have now) facilitated by deranged government policy (since at least 2008) can inflate fake “wealth” to such ridiculous heights, unlike real wealth requiring actual effort. If financial values were contingent on or subject to constraints in the physical world, it wouldn’t be possible.

Yes, you keep telling me this, because you keep on claiming that the P/E multiple demonstrates it. And you do this because you continue to believe in false causality, that prices are determined from supposed "fundamentals" It's also evident you believe numerous other fallacies promoted by Wall Street too. The P/E ratio is one of the least reliable valuation metrics. It’s been a lagging indicator at major turning points during the 21st century mania, both tops and bottoms. The ratio was higher at the 2002 low versus the 2000 peak and higher at the March 2009 low versus the October 2007 peak, the opposite of any actually useful indicator. This happens because the economy never leads stock prices (usually lagging) and earnings also lag economic performance somewhat. Earnings are only relevant to "investors" to the extent they receive it as a dividend. The dividend yield is barely above the all-time low from the 2000 dot.com bubble, and this is even with all the economic distortions since at least 2008 which you also completely ignore. Earnings (cash flow) is a return on actual investment, but 99%+ of supposed “investors” are engaging in speculation, on changes in the share price. That's what they actually bought, a stock certificate, not a "piece of a business" because the company and the company shares aren't equivalent. Here is what 99%+ of all shareholders actually receive: 1)·A periodic dividend payment (if any) which currently is usually immaterial. 2) Voting for corporate directors, irrelevant to 99%+ of shareholders, as they have no ability to actually influence corporate policy or strategy. That’s what makes them speculators. 3) A pro-rated share of net corporate assets in the event of liquidation. No one actually buys any stock for this reason. 4) Right to sell at the future market price, which is speculation on potential financial appreciation whether or not the company creates any net economic value at all. In the 21st century mania, that’s what the “investor” is primarily buying and what’s mostly reflected in the share price for most US stocks. “Investors” acquire specific legal rights with share ownership (see my list below), but don’t possess the required characteristics of actual business owners; any semblance of decision-making authority. If you have enough influence to make your “voice” heard, you’re an actual investor. In theory if not in practice, that’s board members, selective members of the C-Suite (CEO, COO, CFO), and anyone who can actually influence these people or select them, but no one else. If you can’t make your “voice” heard, then you own “a piece of paper”, earnings are of no direct relevance to you, and you are a speculator. That's all I can write for this post, but I have plenty more to add if neccessary.

Just saw this post. My claims don't have anything to do with what you wrote here. The prior post exchanges were about (relative) valuation, not market direction. I haven't ever made a timing claim because there is no predetermined limit to an asset mania (the one we have now) and the reason there isn't is because prices and valuation have nothing to do with "fundamentals" which is what you and practically everyone else believes. If anyone wants to buy the most historically overpriced US market in history (currently within a few percent), then go ahead and do it. But that’s what anyone is actually buying, not what Wall Stret consensus or anyone here claims. There is no predetermine price limit with financial instruments because prices have nothing to do with "fundamentals". This is why “crypto” (which is actually nothing) has value, tens of trillions in sub-basement garbage quality debt instruments are priced at such low yields, and so many US stocks have sold for such ridiculous prices for so long. As for your comment on "growth", you and I have discussed this several times. There is a difference between what you claim I believe (a "make believe scarcity") and what you have told me in the past. A supposed "new normal" and "something for nothing" where you have implied prosperity can be permanently increased by deficit spending and "printing". If this is what you actually meant, it's a belief in modern alchemy.

Previous metal in the commonly used context more or most closely relates to a store of value or role in the monetary system. Today, that's primarily gold. Silver has substantially lost its monetary substitute role, whether this is temporary or not. It has no role in the monetary system at all, while gold is still included at scale in central bank reserves. This changing perception is evident in the expanding and consistently higher gold-silver ratio since 1980. Platinum and Palladium are industrial metals, regardless that a few mints strike one or both as NCLT. Russia is the only country to my recollection striking a platinum circulating coin and I've never heard of a single one in palladium. This is evident in the relative price between gold and both, even as gold is a lot more common. There are also other metals that might qualify as "precious" to some "metal bugs" or coin collectors, though I have no idea if it's feasible to strike it as NCLT. I've seen 1oz rhodium bars for sale by golddealer.com, same as palladium around 2005 years before it was used to strike NCLT.

I don't think either service consistently sells at a premium over the other. Too few grading events to compare 99%+ of the time too.

It's primarily a problem due to the financialization of collecting which created the higher price level. When the price level was primarily the result of actual collecting and not financially motivated buying, the quality differences you describe were less important or not important at all. Same for fakes, as this is substantially also mostly the result of the much higher price level.