Yes that's where I was looking, but it appeared that it was only sending me to my local warehouse inventory, whereas there were warehouses in Canada that had them, though I wasn't sure I could buy them there…

Truly a novice so I appreciate everyone's patience…

r/CostcoPM is a good resource for when things are restocked on the Costco website (or even in warehouses). They sell out pretty quickly, though, so you have to act fast.

Red Pear Realty said:

---

$5,000 gold within the next four years.

---

Or months!

Red Pear Realty said:

---

$5,000 gold within the next four years.

---

That may happen, and it may not. My guess is you would have said this 4 years ago. In fact, it's up from 2000 to 2600 in that time period, about a 4% per year return, while the S&P is close to 20%. So, if inflation kicks up, and your wish comes true that both gold and the S&P are up 20%/year the next 4 years, what have you really gained? Especially since the S&P at least pays a small dividend. Gold rarely doubles in 4 years, historically, by the way.

Just trying to provide some context and perspective on the returns you're indicating. The market is forward-looking (in theory), and it probably weights gold and equities as equally likely to outpace inflation. Real estate may be close behind. My final thought - diversification wins!

I bleed maroon said:

---

Red Pear Realty said:

---

$5,000 gold within the next four years.

---

That may happen, and it may not. My guess is you would have said this 4 years ago. In fact, it's up from 2000 to 2600 in that time period, about a 4% per year return, while the S&P is close to 20%. So, if inflation kicks up, and your wish comes true that both gold and the S&P are up 20%/year the next 4 years, what have you really gained? Especially since the S&P at least pays a small dividend. Gold rarely doubles in 4 years, historically, by the way.

Just trying to provide some context and perspective on the returns you're indicating. The market is forward-looking (in theory), and it probably weights gold and equities as equally likely to outpace inflation. Real estate may be close behind. My final thought - diversification wins!

---

SPX peaked in value against gold in 2000. With the historic rise in SPX since 2011, it's only gotten half of that back. There's a much great chance this ratio resumes back down given the financial instability of US and global markets than it gets back to 2000 levels.

It's all about cycles. We've been in once since the 2008 crash bottom. Once it ends, you can find opportunities in multiple places, but most aren't likely to outperform gold until the next cycle starts.

All of this is the system where the USD is the world reserve currency.

That's not the case anymore! The rest of the world is done with the fed reserve dollar. A new system and currency is coming.

Why is Japan set to have their entire population on the quantum system by 2025?

That's our closet financial ally.

Remain in the past and your indoctrination or get ready for the future.

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

I bleed maroon said:

---

Red Pear Realty said:

---

$5,000 gold within the next four years.

---

That may happen, and it may not. My guess is you would have said this 4 years ago. In fact, it's up from 2000 to 2600 in that time period, about a 4% per year return, while the S&P is close to 20%. So, if inflation kicks up, and your wish comes true that both gold and the S&P are up 20%/year the next 4 years, what have you really gained? Especially since the S&P at least pays a small dividend. Gold rarely doubles in 4 years, historically, by the way.

Just trying to provide some context and perspective on the returns you're indicating. The market is forward-looking (in theory), and it probably weights gold and equities as equally likely to outpace inflation. Real estate may be close behind. My final thought - diversification wins!

---

SPX peaked in value against gold in 2000. With the historic rise in SPX since 2011, it's only gotten half of that back. There's a much great chance this ratio resumes back down given the financial instability of US and global markets than it gets back to 2000 levels.

It's all about cycles. We've been in once since the 2008 crash bottom. Once it ends, you can find opportunities in multiple places, but most aren't likely to outperform gold until the next cycle starts.

---

There you go again, as Ronnie Reagan would say. Cherry-picking your best case to build a chart. You can make a chart show whatever you want, if you manipulate the data enough by picking the right start date and time frame. Have you ever worked in a command economy propaganda department, comrade?

I think we can all agree that the proper way to do this is to do a Monte Carlo Simulation with a million start and end dates to get the real answer over a range of time periods. Which is staring you right in the face - the S&P greatly out-performs gold over any wide-ranging analysis of time periods, and pays dividends.

I like gold. I like silver. They belong in a portfolio. They're just no perfect all-in solution that beats the stock market - that's demonstrably false.

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

Never said they were perfect. And how did I cherry pick? You spoke of both SPX and gold moving in tandem when they clearly rarely do. It's a FACT that SPX peaked in relation to its value in gold in 2000. It's a FACT that having all of your wealth in GOLD in 2000 would have you in a better place today than the SPX would. That's not because of technical analysis or cherry picking, it's because your wealth would have been insulated from the devaluation of the dollar brought about by reckless fiscal and monetary policy since 2000. Could I be wrong about the future, sure. But are you willing to bet that the FED isn't going to continue to devalue your currency, and in return, devalue your wealth invested in everything tied to the dollar?

---

Never said that. I said they are equally likely to beat inflation, a totally different concept.

Are you really trying to convince people that gold has outperformed the stock market over time? Not just from cherry-picking the best-case pre-dot.com crash arbitrary starting point?

Also, are you really recommending putting all of your wealth in GOLD? At all points in history, and in the future?

You keep talking about the devaluation of the dollar, and hinting that gold is the only way to insulate yourself from this. Do you not agree that the S&P (made up of real companies making real products with real value) also does this? Are you saying diversification is bad?

Just not following your logic on this one.

(good discussion, by the way - respect, as always).

Quote:

---

Are you really trying to convince people that gold has outperformed the stock market over time?

---

No, I've made it very clear that it's outperformed since SPX peaked against it. My chart essentially measures the SPX in gold. Since 2000, SPX has underpformed. Also true is that since 2011, SPX has outperformed Gold. The last major peak before 2000 was 1967. Gold then outperformed until 1974, SPX took back over briefly until 1977, then gold continued its outperformance until 1979. For people that had their wealth in GOLD in 67 vs people in SPX, it wasn't until the late 90's that SPX was back to where it was in 67. Assuming constant dividend reinvestments you can maybe shave 10 years off. Point still stands.

Quote:

---

Not just from cherry-picking the best-case pre-dot.com crash arbitrary starting point?

---

What is this about cherrypicking? We're talking multiple decade cycles where one instrument vastly outperforms the other as a store of value and/or investment vehicle. Go look up how much round steak cost in the late 1800's in dollars. Then compared it to now. Next, go up look how much gold it would have cost to buy round steak in the late 1800's and compare to now. Gold holds its value. It's the longest running store of value. SPX is a product of liquidity and devaluation of the dollar. When you take money manipulation out of the equation, you get my chart above.. SPX as if it was valued in Gold. Wild fluctuations over time where there are long periods of time you want to be in stocks and long periods of time you are better off completely in gold. I'm not cherry picking anything. I'm pointing out that we are in a period of SPX outperformance within a greater period of gold outperformance, and that I believe gold is going to outperform in the short to mid term going forward.

Quote:

---

Also, are you really recommending putting all of your wealth in GOLD? At all points in history, and in the future?

---

I've never once said that. I've said since 2000, you would be better off in GOLD than if you left everything in the SPX. And that's fact. Going forward, my exposure will be to things that hold historical value, with reasonable allocations when I see short to mid term opportunity in dollar influenced investments (stocks, bonds, general equities). At least until it's clear that the trajectory of dollar outperformance is in a breakout phase. That's not clear today.

Quote:

---

You keep talking about the devaluation of the dollar, and hinting that gold is the only way to insulate yourself from this.

---

You need to go study historical cycles. There's a reason why the cost of everything is sky high. There's a reason why people, governments, and the world are so polarized and moving farther apart. There's a reason why societal moral decay is growing. These are all things that happen at the end of a long term debt fueled growth cycle. The cycle that follows is always one of global instability, financial contraction, and often war. I've said over and over that I can't predict if its tomorrow or 5 years from now, but that the warning signs are blaring from all directions and that we've been in this cycle since the Great Depression. We are FAR closer to the end than any other point, and I am going to be very risk averse. Will I give up some gains? Sure. But when the reversal happens, I'm going to be in a FAR better place than the common man who thinks their stocks are going to maintain value. And gold will have its ups and downs. It will absolutely crash again at some point. And I plan to be out of everything except my longest term allocation which is ride or die and a lifetime hedge against the financial system.

Quote:

---

Do you not agree that the S&P (made up of real companies making real products with real value) also does this? Are you saying diversification is bad?

---

Sure. But when you enter a period of deleveraging, it doesn't matter how strong a company is when liquidity is being sucked out of the system. Everything tied to the dollar will fall in some capacity. I will always have some exposure to companies that produce and export things the country and world NEED, like energy, food, and strong inputs for industrial expansion. But those things aren't immune to global deleveraging. Just like anything else, they are dependent on liquidity not only being available, but constantly expanding. And I believe we are about to enter a period of significant liquidity contraction, one that takes the liquidity in the system back to pre dotcom bust levels over a period of 10-20 years.

Aggiemike96 said:

---

Every time you walk into Costco, swing by the jewelry case where the watches and rings are at. Sometimes they have gold and silver bullion items available. Buy in the store and walk out with it in your pocket.

---

Like this!

I think my last words on this will be:

• The S&P has outperformed gold by about 2 to 1 over the last 10 years, outperforming 7 out of 10 years; Many time periods have similar results.
• Scare tactics of devaluation, hyper-inflation, and impending financial market implosion don't really do anything to help your cause. Guns and food are probably much higher return investments in those instances.
• I don't get the "a chunk of metal hidden in my closet" is a better economic choice than redeploying capital to build an economy, jobs, profits, wealth, and societal progress. You can't live off of it (it produces no income), and if the stuff hits the fan, you likely can't spend it for what you really need.
• Speaking of "moral decay", Even Jesus prefers the S&P. Read the "Parable of the Talents".

I bleed maroon said:

---

I think my last words on this will be:

• The S&P has outperformed gold by about 2 to 1 over the last 10 years, outperforming 7 out of 10 years; Many time periods have similar results.
• Scare tactics of devaluation, hyper-inflation, and impending financial market implosion don't really do anything to help your cause. Guns and food are probably much higher return investments in those instances.
• I don't get the "a chunk of metal hidden in my closet" is a better economic choice than redeploying capital to build an economy, jobs, profits, wealth, and societal progress. You can't live off of it (it produces no income), and if the stuff hits the fan, you likely can't spend it for what you really need.
• Speaking of "moral decay", Even Jesus prefers the S&P. Read the "Parable of the Talents".

---

I'm not even sure you even know what you are talking about outside of the fact that the SPX has outperformed the last 10 years. You are on a thread where the majority of participants are converting their dollars to the longest running store of wealth in the history of the world and arguing against it being a store of wealth. If you want to imagine gold purely as an investment, then I suggest staying on the stock market thread.

I think of gold as the profit taking. Not necessarily principle for future investments.

The last two posts finally hit the nail on the head.

I have no argument against gold as a store of value. I agree that it's unmatched on that front. Just questioning why H-A argues it is a better investment until he's blue in the face.

As an investment, it's inferior. As an income-producer, it's inferior. As far as transaction costs, maintenance costs, and safety/security, it's inferior. As a doomsday protection device, it's inferior. If the economy rocks along like it has for the past 100+ years, it's a pretty good store of value.

I bleed maroon said:

---

The last two posts finally hit the nail on the head.

I have no argument against gold as a store of value. I agree that it's unmatched on that front. Just questioning why H-A argues it is a better investment until he's blue in the face.

As an investment, it's inferior. As an income-producer, it's inferior. As far as transaction costs, maintenance costs, and safety/security, it's inferior. As a doomsday protection device, it's inferior. If the economy rocks along like it has for the past 100+ years, it's a pretty good store of value.

---

Please back this up. Because there are definitely periods where that's 100% false. My chart clear as day shows that and you've done nothing to disprove my argument for cyclical periods of gold outperformance nor have you provided anything to back up your opinion. YTD, Gold is outperforming SPX even after dividend reinvestment. I can understand your hang ups with transaction cost, storage, etc. But you can invest in gold through instruments like GLD just as easy as anything else on a computer screen if you are purely aiming for investment returns.

I'm also not sure you understand relationship charts.

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

I bleed maroon said:

---

The last two posts finally hit the nail on the head.

I have no argument against gold as a store of value. I agree that it's unmatched on that front. Just questioning why H-A argues it is a better investment until he's blue in the face.

As an investment, it's inferior. As an income-producer, it's inferior. As far as transaction costs, maintenance costs, and safety/security, it's inferior. As a doomsday protection device, it's inferior. If the economy rocks along like it has for the past 100+ years, it's a pretty good store of value.

---

Please back this up. Because there are definitely periods where that's 100% false. My chart clear as day shows that and you've done nothing to disprove my argument for cyclical periods of gold outperformance nor have you provided anything to back up your opinion. YTD, Gold is outperforming SPX even after dividend reinvestment. I can understand your hang ups with transaction cost, storage, etc. But you can invest in gold through instruments like GLD just as easy as anything else on a computer screen if you are purely aiming for investment returns.

I'm also not sure you understand relationship charts.

---

Investment: There are time periods where gold outperforms, but there are many more when the S&P wins. https://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/histretSP.html

Income: Reinvestment of Dividends - You seem to continually want to deny income as part of return. I wonder why this is? Maybe to support your position? Are you being disingenuous, or do you just not understand total return? Are you saying no income is better than 1.5-2.0% on average for the S&P throughout history?

Transaction Cost / Security: You finally conceded this one (as I did on "store of value")

Doomsday Scenario: I think (?) you conceded this one?

I own GLD and physical gold, so you'll get no argument from me on the ETF being far superior in terms of liquidity and transaction cost.

Quote:

---

I'm also not sure you understand relationship charts.

---

Now come on, my friend, that's being a little mean. Don't worry - I can take it. I do understand that if you bought the S&P with gold in September 2011 and decided to buy it again today, you'd have to spend not only more gold, but 4 times as much in gold to do it. See - I can pick arbitrary start dates from your data, too. That's called cherry-picking, and it is silly. You may not be as smart as you have convinced yourself that you are:

https://www.macrotrends.net/1437/sp500-to-gold-ratio-chart

OK - I think it's time we let this thread go back to the primary purpose - investing in physical gold. I'm not trying to convince anyone, I'm just trying to keep it from being an echo-chamber where people miss some critical counterpoint because of groupthink (or faux data presentations).

Everyone here knows about other investments. We choose precious metals for many reasons, but the main ones all have a similar component: lack of counterparty risk. We own what we own and it has value across the decades and centuries.

(If you're a stock market hound and haven't read the free pdf "The Great Taking" or simply watched any of the better summaries of it on YT, encourage you to do so … I hope its case for action never comes true…)

I bleed maroon said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

I bleed maroon said:

---

The last two posts finally hit the nail on the head.

I have no argument against gold as a store of value. I agree that it's unmatched on that front. Just questioning why H-A argues it is a better investment until he's blue in the face.

As an investment, it's inferior. As an income-producer, it's inferior. As far as transaction costs, maintenance costs, and safety/security, it's inferior. As a doomsday protection device, it's inferior. If the economy rocks along like it has for the past 100+ years, it's a pretty good store of value.

---

Please back this up. Because there are definitely periods where that's 100% false. My chart clear as day shows that and you've done nothing to disprove my argument for cyclical periods of gold outperformance nor have you provided anything to back up your opinion. YTD, Gold is outperforming SPX even after dividend reinvestment. I can understand your hang ups with transaction cost, storage, etc. But you can invest in gold through instruments like GLD just as easy as anything else on a computer screen if you are purely aiming for investment returns.

I'm also not sure you understand relationship charts.

---

Investment: There are time periods where gold outperforms, but there are many more when the S&P wins. https://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/histretSP.html

Income: Reinvestment of Dividends - You seem to continually want to deny income as part of return. I wonder why this is? Maybe to support your position? Are you being disingenuous, or do you just not understand total return? Are you saying no income is better than 1.5-2.0% on average for the S&P throughout history?

Transaction Cost / Security: You finally conceded this one (as I did on "store of value")

Doomsday Scenario: I think (?) you conceded this one?

I own GLD and physical gold, so you'll get no argument from me on the ETF being far superior in terms of liquidity and transaction cost.

Quote:

---

I'm also not sure you understand relationship charts.

---

Now come on, my friend, that's being a little mean. Don't worry - I can take it. I do understand that if you bought the S&P with gold in September 2011 and decided to buy it again today, you'd have to spend not only more gold, but 4 times as much in gold to do it. See - I can pick arbitrary start dates from your data, too. That's called cherry-picking, and it is silly. You may not be as smart as you have convinced yourself that you are:

https://www.macrotrends.net/1437/sp500-to-gold-ratio-chart

OK - I think it's time we let this thread go back to the primary purpose - investing in physical gold. I'm not trying to convince anyone, I'm just trying to keep it from being an echo-chamber where people miss some critical counterpoint because of groupthink (or faux data presentations).

---

Homie, I posted the all time chart of SPX/GOLD showing multiple DECADE long periods where gold outperforms, hence my continual use of the word cycles and that I believe we are entering one / in one where it will happen again.. I don't see what I've cherrypicked other than the fact that gold has outperformed SPX since 2000, which is fact. And no, I didn't ignore dividends reinvestment, hence my comment about how gold is outperforming SPX this year "after dividend reinvestment". What you are ignoring is the inflation adjusted returns. SPX nominal returns are deteriorated due to inflation and dollar devaluation. Gold is not.

But yes, derail over.

Quote:

---

SPX nominal returns are deteriorated due to inflation and dollar devaluation. Gold is not.

---

Sorry, but this isn't so. Both are equally deteriorated if you inflation-adjust the returns, including in the charts you provided (which didn't include S&P dividend reinvestment).

My true final word:

$100 invested in Gold in 1928 is now worth $10,042.68. Very nice!

$100 invested in reinvested S&P in 1928 is now worth $787,018.53. Nicer.*



*includes several HUGE cyclical periods, including handicapping the index from the get-go, 50% from 1928-1932. Bottom line: Most time periods, S&P wins, however, with reinvestment, it's a blowout victory.

I bleed maroon said:

---

Red Pear Realty said:

---

$5,000 gold within the next four years.

---

That may happen, and it may not. My guess is you would have said this 4 years ago. In fact, it's up from 2000 to 2600 in that time period, about a 4% per year return, while the S&P is close to 20%. So, if inflation kicks up, and your wish comes true that both gold and the S&P are up 20%/year the next 4 years, what have you really gained? Especially since the S&P at least pays a small dividend. Gold rarely doubles in 4 years, historically, by the way.

Just trying to provide some context and perspective on the returns you're indicating. The market is forward-looking (in theory), and it probably weights gold and equities as equally likely to outpace inflation. Real estate may be close behind. My final thought - diversification wins!

---

Sir, this is a Wendy's.

Not really. This is a thread about precious metals, so I posted a prediction about a precious metal. There's a whole other thread about the stock market.

My final thought - you don't know anything about me. I didn't own an ounce of silver or gold four years ago, and there's lots of others like me that have become interested in precious metals recently. That's a great thing.