Live data from Hacker News

Warren Buffett: Why stocks beat gold and bonds

finance.fortune.cnn.com

101–110 of 208 posts

Re: Warren Buffett: Why stocks beat gold and bonds

#101
post #88
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stocks are meant to be an investment vehicle, gold is not. The difference is, in an inflationary environment, stocks get murdered in real terms. That was the first line of my initial post in this thread. The problem with stocks on the smooth sailing point, is that you can have a company that goes bankrupt, and plenty do over 30 years or more. You should look up the rather shocking numbers on how many publicly traded…

> in an inflationary environment, stocks get murdered in real terms. is there any evidence to back this up? is a logical reason why this would be true? i certainly can't think of any > Gold does not go bankrupt, and it will not go to zero yes, in this respect, stocks are riskier than gold. if minimizing investment risk is what you want, maybe you should buy gold, or maybe TIPS. however, most people also care about re…

Sure there is evidence, the 1970s provided lots of it, and the last 15 years have provided even more.

A quick glance at the Dow chart from 1960x to 1983x tells that story very well.

Gold did extremely well during the inflationary late 1960s and the 1970s. Stocks did horrifically terrible in the 1970s (which is where Buffett made a lot of his killing in the market, buying dirt cheap). Right up until the point where Volcker broke the back of inflation in the early 1980s, at which point stocks had a stellar run while inflation was relatively tame.

The reason this happens is: inflation hammers almost every core ingredient of an economy. It kills real savings, because the rate of return on cash can never outrun inflation. It pushes up of the price of commodities that producers need, while eroding wages capabilities for the bottom 90% (the rich can shield their wealth from inflation, poor can't shield their wages). That makes producing things more expensive, while simultaneously limiting the ability to raise prices on consumers that have less real cash to spend. So it squeezes companies, and it erodes real growth.

If you have a 5% to 10% net profit margin, and you're growing at 5% to 10% per year, which are perfectly common rates for most businesses - if you run real inflation at 5%, you're making it radically harder to survive random risk events in the course of business, you're removing critical points of profit and the ability to stick back cash for a rainy day. In effect, that hammers the stock market because it's an inter-connected economy in which IBM or Microsoft or Dell or Cisco all depend on small businesses. And so on and so forth.

There are now a lot of ETFs, you still have to pick among roughly 1,000 of them.

Re: Warren Buffett: Why stocks beat gold and bonds

#102
Warren Buffet is a value investor. He buys stocks that he sees as fundamentally undervalued during a bear market and sells them when they are overpriced later.

If you try to value gold objectively (its industrial and possibly jewelry use), its price should be significantly lower than what it is today. Speculation and paranoia have driven its price to amazing heights. A value investor can't touch gold with a 10 foot pole.

I know Hacker News has its share of gold bugs and libertarian survivalists preparing for the fall of the US government. My only recommendation for you all is to remember to leave a map to your buried gold in case you die unexpectedly.

For those who don't think the fall of civilization will come within their lifetime (which I hope is the majority of you), trying to match the market with a heavy diversification of stocks/ETFs and bonds (notably US government bonds), a long time horizon and a yearly re-balancing is probably a better bet.

Re: Warren Buffett: Why stocks beat gold and bonds

#103
post #6

He omits the only valid reason any non-speculator would own gold - it holds it's value through times of political turmoil - holds it's value over millenia rather than decades or centuries. A coup d'etat may result in seizure of private companies, rendering your stock worthless, but not touching the value of gold. It would be speculating to put all your assets into gold, but a small amount is like an insurance policy.…

If this is an argument for gold, then it's important to note that most gold "owners" don't actually own gold. They own paper. Or, at best, they own shares in funds that must buy and sell their gold on fixed timetables (debatably erasing a lot of the real gains that would be made by holding actual metal). But they're pretty far removed from the physical good -- and, if the shit truly hit the fan, they'd be just as SOL as would stock-holders.

Hedging against the apocalypse is a silly reason to own "gold." Hedging against market volatility is a slightly better reason. It is important that we don't conflate the two strategies, as popular perception seems to.

Re: Warren Buffett: Why stocks beat gold and bonds

#104
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paying someone like him a fee to choose stocks for you seems like a much better strategy to me.

The challenge is identifying "someone like him" before the fact . But if you could do that, then you would know why he's been so successful and you'd be able to do it all by yourself. Most funds do not beat the market in the long term (> 10 years) after costs, and for the same asset allocation, someone who just invests in the market (e.g. through low-cost index funds) will do much better than the average professional…

Investing money produces measurable results. It is possibly to verify that someone is a successful investor without knowing why he is successful.

Re: Warren Buffett: Why stocks beat gold and bonds

#105
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By the 1980 CPI, inflation is running at closer to 9% right now. So yes, I'm saying inflation has been chugging at a brutal pace the past 12 years. When the CPI was that high back then, Volcker had to take extreme measures to tame inflation. When inflation was 3% to 4% in 1970/1971, Nixon installed price and wage controls. Now when it's much higher on our new CPI, we don't even bat an eyelash at the extreme inflation…

What kind of fun inflationary items? And please don't say gold or oil as it would be an extreme case of cherry picking commodities.

The Fed CPI excludes food and energy.

So when milk goes from $1.50 to $3.60 per gallon over 20 years, they pretend that never happened.

Or when gasoline goes from $0.75 to $3.59 over 30 years, they pretend that never happened.

They pretend you don't need to eat food or drive anywhere.

Re: Warren Buffett: Why stocks beat gold and bonds

#106
post #64
post #41

Imagine if gold were a company. Friend: "Hey man, you gotta get in on this— this stock has gone up 30% in the last year! Nowhere to go but up!" You: "Wow, that's amazing! What does it do?" Friend: "Um... it doesn't corrode?"

Imagine if the USD were a company. Friend: "Hey man, you gotta get in on this— this stock has gone down 30% in the last year! Nowhere to go but down!"

Currency is a terrible way to invest. Nobody is arguing that.

Re: Warren Buffett: Why stocks beat gold and bonds

#108
post #49

Warren Buffet once wrote about gold... It gets dug out of the ground in Africa, or someplace. Then we melt it down, dig another hole, bury it again and pay people to stand around guarding it. It has no utility. Anyone watching from Mars would be scratching their head.

Gold has utility: it easily forms a plating on other metals, and conducts electricity even when continuously exposed to air. This is not true of many other metals, hence the popularity of gold-plated electronic interconnects.

I'd need to find the statistic again, but it's something like 15% of the value of gold is due to its utility, and the rest is due to it being shiny/historically valued

Re: Warren Buffett: Why stocks beat gold and bonds

#110
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gold is subject to speculative bubbles just as housing and stocks are. Gold is not a wealth protector unless you are lucky, but that's true of anything. If you buy gold during a speculative bubble then gold is more likely to be a wealth destroyer. If you buy gold today, near the peak of a classic and obvious speculative bubble then you are not doing yourself any favors. Worse yet, gold tends to return to a constant v…

You don't have to be lucky with gold. You could have bought in roughly 88 of the last 90 years and been perfectly well protected over time from the loss of value in the dollar.

Indeed, it's always good to sell near the peak of a speculative bubble. What is your argument that "this time it's different" for gold? That the current exceptional run-up of gold prices over the last decade is sustainable and the current inflated gold price will be the price floor for the remainder of the 21st century?

If you're lucky enough to buy gold in the doldrums and sell it at the peak of a bubble, you make a killing. If you're unlucky enough to buy gold during a bubble and sell it during the doldrums you lose a lot of money. If you're neither lucky nor unlucky and buy and sell during the doldrums then you end up making a very paltry return on investment that is inferior to the average of other equally popular forms of investment (such as property or stocks).

Buying gold today is just as smart an investment as buying a house in 2006 or buying stock in pets.com in 1999.

Post reply on HN