World Colonial

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.

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.

Great. Is there actual evidence that they are correct more often than not? I'd say "no" until proven otherwise.

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.

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

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.

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.

Yes, this is my point and I attribute it entirely to the reason I gave. Quasi-numismatic gold coinage is usually too expensive, too common, and not interesting enough as a collectible to maintain "substantial" premiums to the metal value at "high" spot prices. This predominantly leaves financially motivated "investors" as speculator buyers, which is why the TPG counts on common US classic gold are so high. Concurrently, I'd also guess that a noticeable proportion of these buyers don't know it. That's where I believe the majority of the demand comes from for (supposedly) low mintage modern US NCLT, somewhat excluding the ASE. There are almost certainly more buyers buying it for the low mintage for "investment" versus a collectible. "Exhibit A" is the First Spouse but it's not the only one. Sure, the mintage on some is below 2,000 (to my recollection), but there may be (a big maybe) at most a few hundred who actually want it as a collectible. At current prices, the series has $40K each for UNC and proof in metal value when it's undistinguished numismatic mediocrity. As another example, one book on the subject profiled the 1999 "unfinished" AGE in their top pick list. One was purportedly valued at $14K as a "70" at publishing in 2012. For 14K, someone could have bought any number of US or British classic gold proofs for the same or less, though obviously not in a "70" since none exist in this quality. Equally obviously, this coin is hopelessly uncompetitive as a collectible anywhere near this price versus any classic gold alternative (from anywhere), except to financially motivated widget buyers who mostly if entirely know nothing about actual collecting. unsurprisingly, if the book list price was correct, it's selling for noticeably less now but still is no bargain.

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

I wouldn't consider an MS-65 with the premiums it has (now or previously) to be a wealth preservation asset. So, while I agree with you the buyer typically fits your profile, I consider it a less than optimal choice for this purpose. My assumption has always been that most buyers are buying it to capitalize on both higher spot prices and premiums, for speculation. I call it a widget because the most common dates have tens of thousands even in this grade. There certainly is no reason to believe there are anywhere near this many buyers buying it as a collectible. I've thought about buying lower mintage AGE proofs for a similar reason but see the same drawback. It's likely to underperform low premium bullion in an environment of much higher spot prices because no, the coin isn't that interesting as a collectible to maintain the current premium. Example is the 2022 AGE proof 1/2oz which has a mintage of about 1700. It's low for a US coin but only compared to circulating coinage or modern US proofs. As a collectible, the number of survivors (presumably 100% now) is not actually low for any coin in this price range in any condition approaching this quality. Similar idea for any number of modern US NCLT gold, palladium, or platinum.

If the price of gold takes off, I'd rather buy AGE or similar type than any bullion type US classic gold which includes the common Saint dates in MS-65. The problem with a coin like this one is that the coins are too common and not interesting enough to maintain higher premiums at much higher gold spot. A label on a holder doesn't change that, especially as I anticipate that financial assets will perform poorly with it, reducing the fake "wealth" available to inflate prices. That's why it's a widget.

What is the current premium and how does it compare to somewhat recent history? (Last 20 years or near it.) I don't track it, since I'm not looking to buy it. What you are describing are bullion substitute widgets, though US collectors and "investors" have convinced themselves it differs from any number of actually somewhat less common "world" gold. As "investment", I'd rather own AGE or similar substitutes.

No "fundamentals" explain interest rates or any other market price during this manic period. It's a rationalization. The "fundamentals" aren't and weren't actually better versus your prior reference period (1942-1966) either but even if it was, the differences in market prices are completely disproportionate. I've explained to you why I don't use "fundamentals" to try to predict market prices. It's because you're left to predict your own indicators when the supposed predictive indicator mostly or entirely doesn't have anything to do with the price covered by the forecast. Even if your precedent was correct, we've already had your baseline period of low rates, 2008-2020 if not back to 2001 or 2002. Believing we're going to have another multiple decades of artificially cheap money with the current (sub) basement level credit standards we've had the entire time makes no sense. (Yes, I know Japan had it, doesn't have anything to do with the US. US commentators selectively cherry pick results they like from elsewhere while ignoring those they don't.) The US stock market is still in its biggest bubble ever with your preferred indicator (the P/E ratio) distorted by a fake economy from deranged fiscal and monetary policy. However, I'm not convinced it's over, yet. Long-term optimism is still pinned to the ceiling and performance is fractured (both of which are bearish) but the primary averages have held up anyway, again. Someone will probably do ok with a duration of 5-7 years at current levels, but any surprises should be to the downside.

Yes, and this is only the beginning if the cycle actually ended in 2020 as it almost certainly did. Any inference that a 39-year cycle (1981-2020) ended or fully "corrected" with a measly 3+ year advance especially when the actual "fundamentals" are mediocre to terrible is nonsensical. It's a complete fantasy. I also know it's contrary to the personal preference of most of the US population but there you have it. Interest rates aren't "high". Current rates are more typical of what existed prior to the late 60's (or near it) when lending standards and credit quality were actually "normal", except that both are now at (sub-)basement levels in the aggregate. "Normality" completely ended with deranged fiscal and monetary policy starting no later than 2008. (It was hardly "normal" prior to that either.) The primary reason this increase hasn't impacted the economy as many expected is precisely because lending standards are still very lax meaning it isn't actually hard to borrow, for hardly anyone. That's coming later.

Maybe buyers had a reverse epiphany where they collectively realized there isn't a dime's worth of practical difference between coins with the different labels in your examples and that it's all financialization and marketing? Probably not, but that would make a lot more sense.

Agree, except that when the next phase of the rate cycle takes off, I'll take the "over" on rates moving faster than what's happened since 2020. I expect it to coincide with the recognition of the actually mediocre to awful "fundamentals" which substantially exist now.

That's because everyone is looking in the rear-view mirror. Debt coverage is or at least was generally good, thanks to artificially low borrowing costs and inflated earnings from a fake economy, mostly from government deficit spending. Wait and see how great this credit quality looks with much higher rates and lower earnings. It's a process, not an event. No market moves in a straight line forever. We've been in a bond bear market for over three years. There will be a partial retracement lasting maybe up to a few years, maybe even longer but I doubt it. I don't think the next rising phase will take UST rates to 15% but double digits are definitely feasible. Most people don't believe this is likely or possible because they look at the environment and it looks good to "ok", depending upon the person's perception from their personal circumstances. The "fundamentals" never look terrible at or near market peaks and vice versa because that's not how markets actually work. I can speculate on the type of environment which might exist in a future of much higher rates. Both are the result of negative psychology, rates entirely since no one who knows what they are talking about can claim rates since at least 2008 are the result of the positive "fundamentals". It's a mania. The actual credit quality of the USG is the worst since at least WWII. (My explanation for it is extensive economic and social decay, an attempt to prevent falling living standards and a belief in something for nothing.) This is the benchmark for all other rates. So yes, when this is widely acknowledged, it's easy to see how rates are destined to "blow out". You seem to be describing some form of "equilibrium". There is no such thing.

Temporary value, depending upon the maturity/duration and credit quality. There has been a "blood bath" in USG bonds, with TLT ETF losing over 50% (not including interest payments) since the peak in 2020. That's as bad as the S&P during the GFC. The bond mania almost certainly peaked in 2020 after a 39=year bull market. This means rates are destined to "blow out" past the 1981 high years from now, as the economic "fundamentals" are actually mediocre to awful. So, yes, closer to an interim peak in yields and low in prices, for higher quality debt, not necessarily "junk" which is actually most of what's out there given the extended history of sub-basement credit standards masquerading as "prudent".

This is why I win most coins in my primary collection. Virtually no one else likes it enough to lose money on it.

1752 Peru 4R, if it exists. One is claimed but not publicly. confirmed.

I wasn't questioning your Google search. I'm questioning the accuracy of whoever posted it on Google. I don't believe it's possible to measure this accurately due to lack of data, accuracy of available data, and the methodology used, probably the USG if this was the source. $900 isn't "squat" today or in the recent past while $37 was decent money back then since it was close to two DE. Not trying to derail this thread. We can start another one if anyone wants to discuss it further.

I don't believe $901 in 2023 is worth the same as $37 in 1882 either. Depends how it's measured.

I think it's more than "some". I'd say "most" and it's not limited to this coin or series either. Somewhat different, but I consider chop marked coins damaged while I understand it's more widely collected or at least accepted now versus previously, including at least in some instances by the TPG. In my series, it's substantially who did it. So, when Britain did it with 1758 undated Jamaican coinage, it's not damage. Since these are collected by both British and pillar collectors and the counterstamped (or countermarked) coin is usually scarcer, it's worth noticeably more. I'd like to have a denomination set as a supplement, eventually.

This gets my vote as the stupidest idea in business, ever. There is truth to the idea that supply creates its own demand, but not with a pretend world where people are going to spend huge amounts for it. Those who have paid stupid amounts for "real estate" in it are just like those buying an NFT. It's another aspect of the asset mania where people have collectively lost their minds.

Someone saw what they wanted to see, even when it isn't there. Learning the minutia in the differences between one-point increments in the Sheldon scale takes some effort. It takes no effort for the non-collector novice to comprehend the Sheldon scale, especially when they overwhelmingly only concern themself with two numbers. That's a "69" and a "70".