World Colonial

On 11/5/2023 at 8:22 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

 Definitely not true, even with the rise in interest rates.  Much more overvalued only 2 years ago let alone in 2000.  On a straight P/E basis, we're elevated but not at bubble levels.  See charts, below.

No practical difference with the late 2021 or early 2002 peak.

Once again using one of the worst value metrics (earnings) even when I keep telling you this, over and over.  It's even worse using forward earnings.

Statistically, Hussman has proved this, but you ignore it because the asset mania has made it possible to profit from the most overpriced market ever anyway.

It's not just stocks either.  Look at real estate and until the 2020 bottom in rates, bonds.

Foreign markets have improved somewhat recently (some), but US valuations have been on an island in deep outer space since 2008, 2000, or the late 90's depending upon the comparison.

This relative US performance hasn't been based upon the "fundamentals".  The fundamentals ("growth") during the mania have been mediocre most of this time, even with deranged monetary and fiscal policy the entire time since 2008.  Deranged, not just in the US, but Europe, Japan, and China too.

US interest rates are somewhat "normalized" now, but the FRB balance sheet absolutely is not.  Fiscal policy is worse than ever.  Remove that and the supposedly great "fundamentals" evaporate, with little if any "growth" since 2008.

Lastly as I told you, earnings aren't real money.  It's an abstract accounting number.  No one can spend earnings.  It's buried in the balance sheet where the retail "investor" can never monetize it.    They can only sell their shares.  That's what makes it SPECULATION.

"Investors" mostly don't care about the overwhelmingly pathetic dividends, and they almost never care about the balance sheet, so why do earnings matter either?  (No, it's not a real question.)

On 11/5/2023 at 8:18 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Yeah, I've been reading them since the mid-1980's and they've made some great Cover Calls.  Probably the best over that time was the March 2000 cover story on how the Dot.com's were bleeding too much cash.  NASDAQ went down 75% next 2 years, lots of the bubble stocks lost 90-100%. 

Great calls out of how many?

Something tells me their batting average isn't that good.

No one's has been, except those who say "buy and hold" forever due to the asset mania.

On 11/2/2023 at 8:21 PM, VKurtB said:

At COINEX 2023 in London’s Mayfair section, the show had about 30 dealers. It ALSO had an entry fee of £20 that did cover both days. The exchange rate for £20 is $24.39 US. Two day show. 30 dealers, most of whom were quite upscale. Free is on the way out. The Internet meme that everything has to be free is going to destroy this hobby.

If I am correct that the typical US hobbyist collector's budget is somewhere in the vicinity of $500/YR, I can see that most of them won't pay to attend local shows.

It's presumably different for the example in this post or roughly equivalent higher end shows in population centers with a high concentration of affluent collectors.

On 11/1/2023 at 1:03 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Silver and Gold price discussions and Silver vs. Gold and the types of coins to get exposure to both are something that should be a staple at these shows.  Also, primers on MSDs and DEs.  I think that would stimulate the public and get more of them to stick with the hobby.

This has nothing to do with actual collecting.

It's financial widget buying.

On 10/31/2023 at 1:55 PM, VKurtB said:

Ahh, but it WAS necessary at Nashville. Given the costs, there was NO WAY ON EARTH the IMEX show would not bleed red ink without an admission charge. It's GOING TO BE THE NEW NORMAL. ANA has done it for well over a decade. And NYINC has been $20 a pop forever.

I'd pay $20 for the NYINC because I've never been there and it's one of the few that has a decent chance of having something I want to buy for my primary collection.  I've paid admission to the ANA multiple times too.

I'm not paying a dime to attend a "no name" show.  I get that the economics might or don't work without it but that doesn't make any difference to me.  But then, I don't go to these shows anyway.

I see it as we discussed before.  The show circuit is a social event for you and a low minority of the collector base.  A larger number turn it into a vacation.  Entrance fees don't make any difference here.

I'm a utilitarian.  My coin budget is for buying coins, not a vacation to a location I'd never go otherwise and not for travel expenses to get there.

On 11/5/2023 at 11:36 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

If they mint so few, chances are you won't get one.

Virtually 100%.

On 11/5/2023 at 10:31 AM, olympicsos said:

or the Barber coins which I feel are underrated. 

Given the option to choose from all predecessor US designs, I'll make the wild guess that Barber coinage ranks close to the bottom as a preferred option.

The 1913 LHN was illustrated, but I assume no coin chosen will have a retro date. There won't be any restrikes.

On 11/4/2023 at 12:04 PM, VKurtB said:

For me (and yes, I may be the unicorn here) I don’t LIKE handling slabs, if there is a useful other way to store a coin.

Another reason not to have too much graded is storage space.  My 5X10 SDB won't hold all my slabs and hasn't for some time.  I choose what to store based upon a combination of value and the difficulty of replacing it.

On 11/4/2023 at 11:59 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Never have, WC. 

But for non-dealer collectors who submit a few times a year (figure 20-30 coins), my understanding is total per-coin costs for grading are about $35 ?

Why would someone pay $35 to get a $50 to $100 coin graded, in volume?  That's a money losing proposition when coins store just fine outside of a holder. 

The oldest highest graded coin I submitted myself was a 1721 Spanish which graded MS-64.  It survived almost three centuries outside of a holder.

Rather than submit coins in your price range, the better strategy is either buy it already graded or not at all.

That's what I do now mostly.  I don't make impulse purchases or have "side collections" of this type.  I'm not interested in buying dozens to hundreds of coins in this price range (or somewhat higher) with mostly poor liquidity (graded or not) and which are almost guaranteed money losers.   That's easy to do over a collector's lifetime and it adds up.

I'd rather buy a (much) lower number of more expensive higher preference coins I actually want.

On 11/4/2023 at 12:39 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

It's not only for grading, registry, or sales reasons....many people want the holder to preserve the coins and/or easier handling.

The number of people who submit the coins themself is a lot lower than you think.  Most of these coins are submitted by dealers or eBay resellers.

You're using the same reasoning I've seen others make for world coins.  Over time, they see more non-US coinage in plastic sold by non-US sellers and assume non- US based collectors have an increased preference for it.

Well actually, the coin was almost certainly in the holder when the non-US seller bought it, after being submitted by a US dealer or collector.  I see more non-US coinage in plastic than I did before, but it's still a low minority.  Also, foreign sellers know that US based buyers prefer it and pay higher prices, so it's marketing to them and not locals.  There is seldom a reason for the non-US collector to pay TPG premiums because there is no market for these coins at this price locally and no practical difference between it and numerous others anyway.

On 11/3/2023 at 8:00 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Yes, true...but not even the ones I buy....let's say any coin over $50, $100 tops....which most every collector of any series would have to probably buy a few of these over time IF they were a serious collector who wanted a complete set OR a few nice "trophy" coins.

Forget my bullion (DEs, MSDs) targets. 

Have you ever submitted a coin yourself?

If you have, you'd know the improved marketability doesn't offset the cost on coins in this price range more than a low fraction of the time.

Most of the graded coins in this price range (or otherwise) are (world) silver NCLT (like ASE) and post-1998 US moderns.  The grading fee is lower on this coinage and probably most is bulk submitted (by dealers), but this doesn't hardly ever apply to end-user collectors.

For the collector, your example will work for the highest grade common (yes, most of these coins) world and US coinage that will end up in "66" or higher numbered plastic but which actually has no practical difference with lower graded (eligible) examples of the same coin.

On 11/3/2023 at 3:00 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Surprised they rendered a verdict on the 1st day and after "only" 4 hours.  Congrats to the jury....I was afraid something this complex might confuse 1 or 2 and result in a hung jury.  Personally, I probably would have needed 15 minutes to convict.

You can NOT steal from clients.  The mixing of customer funds with Alameda accounts (the hedge fund) is a huge no-no.

From what I read of the proceedings, he basically convicted himself.  His comments (mostly texts) made the case for the prosecution.  I presume that's why the defense seemed so ineffective.  They didn't have anything to use as a defense.

On 11/3/2023 at 2:52 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

So you want to go back to the 1960's and 1970's...before TPGs...before the Internet....where if you dealt with a reputable dealer you were OK...but if you dealt with a fraud or a guy who simply didn't know coins, you got screwed ?

Most coins aren't worth enough money to be graded.

You're still thinking of the coins you buy, which only a very low to tiny minority do.

On 11/2/2023 at 9:59 PM, Henri Charriere said:

For example, if you have an Indian Head Cent, dated 1877, the only question that ought to follow is what grade is it? From there you can get a ball-park figure as to value.

Actually, no.  The first thing someone needs to know with the 1877 IHC is if it is counterfeit.

On 10/31/2023 at 8:32 PM, VKurtB said:

There simply IS NOTHING that a collector or dealer can rely upon to determine supply and demand, nor will there ever be. “Yo pays yo money n’ yo takes yo chances.”

There are common factors that can be used to get an idea of whether a coin is likely (noticeably) more available (and therefore, common) than personal experience. 

Too many US collectors seem to think that the TPG population data is representative of the supply because they assume most coin owners are financially motivated or prefer slabbed coins when this isn't universally true.  The other common fallacy is assuming "If I don't see it or those I know don't either, it must not exist".

With non-US coinage, the TPG counts when low almost always are because of the low value and/or cultural dislike of coins in plastic.  When I resumed collecting in 1998 and first started looking extensively at non-US coinage, I also mistakenly believed that because some coin was "old", it was "scarce" or "rare".  Most of it isn't, often or usually in "high" quality too.

With US coinage, it's because of the price and the limited or lack of improved marketability.

Here is a list of factors I once provided on the PCGS forum, presumably not exhaustive, which anyone can use to evaluate whether a coin is likely as scarce as it appears from personal observation.

*Mintage (most are not actually low, only relatively; it's a mass-produced object)

*Extent of organized local collecting.  (Extensive in all developed countries, often for a long time)

*Geographic access, extent of travel, and ease of communication.  

*Local circulation, as opposed to other geographic locations with more collecting. (Correlated to a coin's age.  Substantially applicable to trade coinage.)

*Coin age combined with length of circulation.  ("Recent" coinage could have been saved in volume within the lifetime of just those reading this thread.)

*Quality when included in prominent collections of the series.  If a coin is missing from a prominent collection or is of low quality, it’s usually at least somewhat scarce.

*FV materiality 

*Melting, where it happened.  

*Hoards (it's subjective, but it doesn't take much to make a coin common.)

*Market value which if “low”, reduces the number for sale and probability potential buyers will be aware of it.  

*Random preservation; yes, it’s possible for some centuries old coin to sit in a “change jar”, just like ancient and medieval hoards.

*Comparison to coins with the closest characteristics where the number known is better quantified and/or with higher TPG population counts.  If coins confirmed to be at least somewhat scarce meet most of these factors, the coin someone believes scarce probably isn't.

On 11/1/2023 at 12:48 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

That's fine. 

MPT basically says that having an equity exposure below 20% doesn't reduce portfolio risk at that point because as your bond or fixed income portfolio goes over 80% you increase the overall portfolio risk there.  Of course, if someone is market-timing and dropping their stock exposure under 20% just for a short period of time, that's a separate manner. 

Of course, lots of people do that saying it's short-term and then they never get it back to that level. 

The composition of someone's portfolio should be based upon their personal financial circumstances, risk tolerance, and knowledge.  It should not be based upon what anyone else thinks, as no one else is going to pay their bills when life doesn't "work out".

The goal of every individual should be to maintain or improve their personal financial circumstances, not maximize their return or beat some arbitrary benchmark.  Using myself as an example, I'm hardly rich but I don't need to follow conventional thinking to accomplish what I want to achieve.  That along with knowing this is the most overpriced market in history is why I don't follow conventional advice.

On 10/31/2023 at 11:05 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Gold is a personal choice, not really an asset to be included in a financial plan.  But equities should be -- at least 20% -- as an all fixed-income/bond portfolio is riskier than a portfolio with a small allocation to equities.

Gold is a valid asset to be included in a financial plan, just not according to the financial services industry because there are no management fees to get from anyone.  The conventional thinking you are describing is the result of the trend from 1981 in bonds and 1982 in (US) stocks. 

On 10/31/2023 at 9:50 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Normally, public cover stories are reverse indicators (i.e., Time or Newsweek in their heyday), but BARRON'S is different.  If they had a cover story that gold was going higher, they'd have lots of sound reasons within the story for that to be the case.

Great.

Is there actual evidence that they are correct more often than not?

I'd say "no" until proven otherwise.

On 11/1/2023 at 10:09 AM, zadok said:

...true, has to be a buyer n a seller...but arent there indicators of trends?....

I believe trading volume and open interest are an indicator, but I have never seen actual evidence.  Also seen sentiment indicators in terms of WHO is doing the buying and selling.  Data I have seen breaks it out by commercials (producers hedging), large speculators (such as hedge funds), and small traders (retail public).  

I don't have direct access to the data and if someone is going to own physical anyway, I don't believe it matters much.  It's a lot more relevant to "paper" trading.

On 10/31/2023 at 7:05 PM, zadok said:

...expand on the gold contracts...to buy or to sell?....

"Traded" differs from "open interest" but it has to be both.  

On 10/31/2023 at 4:02 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Analyst on CNBC said look for these things as a sign gold is going higher (much higher):

1. Stays above $2,000 an ounce, preferably a new ATH closer to $2,100  

2. A cover story in BARRON'S signifying increased retail interest in gold.  

3. 250,000 contracts traded on the gold contract at the CME.  

One: That would be a technical breakout, actual evidence.

Two: That's bearish, not bullish in my view.  I just read another article of central bank buying in Q2 and Q3.  I place less weight on this versus actual price performance but don't view this as bullish either.

Three:  Is there actual evidence that this is consistent with higher prices?  I've never seen the data.

On 10/29/2023 at 11:54 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

The problem is the starting premium to bullion for some investment-grade coins, JPM.  As an extreme example, MS-65 Saints were selling for $3,500 in 1989-90 when gold was under $400 ounce. 

I'd attribute the premium at the time (1989-1990) to the combination of the TPG bubble and an incorrect belief in the actual supply, with the two somewhat related.  It was an outlier.

I don't even know the price of most MS-65 Saints now, but whatever the price, still think the premium is too high for the most common dates.  1908 NM, 1924, and 1927 have 16K, 40K, and 22K just at NGC with many, many more (from these dates and others) in MS-64 where there is no practical difference.  That's a widget.

How many might be owned by collectors primarily for collecting purposes is a function of anyone's assumptions.  I know (as fact) only a very low minority (probably less than 5%, based upon my definition of "collector" and assumptions of the collector base) own coins in this price range, though many Saints were presumably bought at noticeably lower prices when spot was cheaper.

You're discussing Saints, but the concept is no different for common Liberty $10s and $20s, Indian Head Eagles, and all US modern gold, palladium, and platinum NCLT.

On 10/29/2023 at 8:59 AM, zadok said:

...i did not say that i would or do buy these coins for my "portfolio" i said "many investors"...i would never buy saints for those purposes, in fact i only own one saint n its not for bullion...i agree most saint holders r not collectors...ur example of the 2022 AGE proof 1/2oz is an appropriate one, but i dont buy any US nclt coins for their bullion value, there r too many other better avenues for all of the precious metals....

I wasn't referring to you in my last post.