Peter Schiff - Hard-Money Bank

[larryselbows]

I get why it makes people uneasy but I've been nothing but encouraged by debt levels. Households have delevered to a more healthy, sustainable level, cheaper mortgages support consumption growth, state & local govt. has shrunk considerably in terms of debt & labor force, business investment has been incredibly robust despite the cash on the sidelines myth, productivity gains have been impressive, & the outsourcing gap is narrowing by the day. Gold is a play on instability & uncertainty. Every one of these data points have been running counter to that thesis for some time now. The only thing left for gold bugs is the big, bad, scary Federal Reserve that they don't understand. The majority of that "debt" could be extinguished with the stroke of a key, & we'd feel even healthier for it. In fact, I'd love them to expand drastically further to buy back all the toll roads, federally leased buildings, etc. @ 0% interest that are commercially viable at higher rates. The return to the US taxpayer & budget would be phenomenal.

I dunno man, you have a pretty hard line view. Gold has historically and will continue to have a place in broader economy, that's just a fact. As for everything else you put in here, I'll just take your word for it since I don't have time to research it... That said, inflation is not a myth like you put in an earlier post and then claimed proved that I knew nothing about money or markets. If you'd like proof, I could provide you with an uncountable number of textbooks and reputable websites that corroborate my point. Although that would go against your perspective so I'm sure you won't ask for it.

 

[franklin]

@Frank - let's discuss the 'cash on the sidelines' portion of your post. Are you referring to individual wealth, banks/bailout money or ??

The notion is that banks and companies are both sitting on cash instead of investing it. The banks must, as they have to a) earn their way out of a big hole while we all look the other way by suspending mark-to-market, etc. while b) meeting the new, upcoming capital requirements that are much more stringent, as they should be.

You'll have to pardon me for a day or two to give you a link for the non-financial side of business. I'm having a brain fart & can't recall the exact data set nor can I find it on this computer. I'll have to search history at my other one tomorrow or Friday. For now, I believe the number was overall private investment & did not exclude any non-finance investment.


Side 1--I like you're parenthisese around cash on the sidelines. It's a misleading term.
Side 2--northeast is running through this post like an acid tripping teenager trying to get through the movie bathrooms--lost & confused.

 

[northeast]

Franklin gets all nasty when the facts prove him wrong.
Peter Schiff was right about shifting into international equities in 2002, and he was right about shifting into gold in 2006 + 2007.

 

[northeast]

PS: I suspect Peter's advice in 2012 will prove better than Franklin's as well.

 

[franklin]

I dunno man, you have a pretty hard line view. Gold has historically and will continue to have a place in broader economy, that's just a fact. As for everything else you put in here, I'll just take your word for it since I don't have time to research it... That said, inflation is not a myth like you put in an earlier post and then claimed proved that I knew nothing about money or markets. If you'd like proof, I could provide you with an uncountable number of textbooks and reputable websites that corroborate my point. Although that would go against your perspective so I'm sure you won't ask for it.

I respect the hell out of you, Larry, & you're one of the last people I'd try to offend. I'd love to read anything you think I'm blind about when it comes to this subject. Shadowstats is cool for a while but please no ZoroFudge-Beckian rantings. Do you want to live up to your challenge and swap reading material? ]:->

 

[PearlWatson]

I see another franklin-organized wild goose chase coming.

 

[franklin]

I see another franklin-organized wild goose chase coming.

Sorry you were born so slow, my dear. If you'll come over and suck down a little more of this elixer I think it will help with that.

 

[PearlWatson]

Sorry you were born so slow, my dear. If you'll come over and suck down a little more of this elixer I think it will help with that.

I guess a charmer like you couldn't just say, "Suck it, you idiot."

 

[franklin]

I guess a charmer like you couldn't just say, "Suck it, you idiot."

I save that charm for my Ely "gay test" trips. How hard can it be to flip a fin back on a twenty?

 

[PearlWatson]

That didn't take long.

 

[franklin]

So are you coming over for a shot of whiskey or not?

 

[PearlWatson]

The majority of that "debt" could be extinguished with the stroke of a key, & we'd feel even healthier for it. In fact, I'd love them to expand drastically further to buy back all the toll roads, federally leased buildings, etc. @ 0% interest that are commercially viable at higher rates. The return to the US taxpayer & budget would be phenomenal.

You've mentioned this before, but this time it is a little more coherent.

Federally leased buildings?
Buy back toll roads?

 

[sirkickyass]

I listened to the 2002 video. He was not saying the same thing in 2002 as in 2006.
He got some things wrong, but taken as whole, he was more right than wrong, and if you actually took his advice about what he said he was advising his clients to do in 2002, and not improvising, you would have cleaned up.
SOME ONE TAKING HIS ADVICE LITERALLY FROM 2002 TO 2012 COULD HAVE MADE A FORTUNE
based solely on the videos I have seen posted in this thread.

2002 is cherry picking a year to make him look bad, and even in that year, he gave good advice.

Why don't you do some research into the actual investment results of those who trusted Schiff with their money?

There were multiple reports that Europac clients lost anywhere from 40-70% of the value of their accounts in 2008; the year that Schiff should have been the theoretical best possible money manager given that he was "calling" the bubble burst and supposedly pushing gold for his clients very hard. This was largely because his theory of the market didn't just call the bubble burst but also had multiple implications, such as hyperinflation and the decoupling of the US market from global market results, that never came to fruition.

See, for example: https://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/01/peter-schiff-was-wrong.html

I'd be more impressed with the gold mongering, btw, if he advised to sell in 2011 when it was at or near peak.

 

[northeast]

Lots of people lost lots of money in 2008.
Gold outperformed in 2011, so advising to sell before late 2011 would have been early.
We do not have evidence about what he said in 2011, or many other years.
I am just going by the videos in this thread from 2002, 2006,2007, 2008
He was not gold mongering in the 2002 video.
His advice of what to do in those videos would have made people a fortune, IF they did what he said to do in those years.

 

[franklin]

You've mentioned this before, but this time it is a little more coherent.

Federally leased buildings?
Buy back toll roads?

Someone somewhere decided to make there budget look better by not buying a building for their program & leasing one from a private concern instead. States have done the same thing selling toll roads to fund other things. Makes the person in office look good but costs a lot more in the long run.

See, for example: https://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/01/peter-schiff-was-wrong.html

Mish's blog would be a good place to start since he carries the same anti-government sentiment that Schiff does. The difference is Shedlock knows what the hell he's talking about when it comes to money flows. (Anyone who wants to understand deflation should read his blog posts from a few years back. The most solid I could ever find.) Implications--not so much. He's high up in Sitka Pacific Management. I quit reading their letters a few years back but I'd be surprised if they've kept up with the market.

I'd be more impressed with the gold mongering, btw, if he advised to sell in 2011 when it was at or near peak.

You mean back when we were on here talking about shorting gold if it set up right. #patpat

 

[northeast]

kicky, Your source does not discuss what Peter actually advised his clients to do, nor distinguish between different time periods.
Absent further evidence, I am assuming that he was advising clients to maintain a heavy gold exposure in 2008, as per his latest video, which would have been good advise.

It is true that someone listening to his videos could have made some bad moves as result, but not if they followed his advice closely about what to do.

 

[sirkickyass]

You mean back when we were on here talking about shorting gold if it set up right. #patpat

I do remember Duck Rodgers telling me gold would continue meteorically climbing for at least another 5 years.

kicky, Your source does not address what Peter advised his clients to do.
Absent further evidence, I am assuming that he was advising them to have a heavy gold exposure in 2008, as per his latest video, which would have done great.
I agree that some people who listened to his videos might have done things other than what he advised.

This is not intellectually honest on your part northeast.

For example, here's a Fox Business report on Schiff's results during that period of time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjA3_Qlji1Y

While he tries to make the same arguments you do early on, he eventually acknowledges the he positioned his clients into certain assets, including gold but only wants to count that asset but not the others he positioned his clients into.

Schiff and his acolytes take a "I get credit for all my wins and avoid blame for all my losses" position. Everyone looks good when the game is heads I win, tails you lose.

In any event, since you are so convinced I look forward to hearing your reports after you let Schiff invest your money.

 

[franklin]

I do remember Duck Rodgers telling me gold would continue meteorically climbing for at least another 5 years.

1/13/11:

I don't follow currencies but PM has been going down so I figured as much.

I can see gold decoupling from industrial commodities too. A long-short hedge makes sense but I don't do this sort of thing. Actually, this would be my first short ever. I've been watching and waiting for a very long time and see a really good setup unfolding.

There are too many variables and wild cards (ex:Russia and China) for me to form much of a respectable thesis. I'm going on gold being nearly useless and overbought purely on emotion. The emotional tide always changes and I think people are becoming more comfortable with QE. There will be a snapping point in gold and I can only hope to get lucky and time it right. I'm going on gut feeling, combined with some pretty primitive TA (a series of slightly lower highs seem to fit my theory well enough). Plus, I put a high probability that the systemic shocks are well behind us. This means gold's upside and thus my risk is comfortably limited.

Not to step on Franklin here, and I'm sure he'll answer for himself, but I think the idea is that the people buying gold were the people who freaked out over QE and those people weren't really listening to economists that were fine with it.

If those people calm down they may realize they're sitting on an overvalued asset.

I'm holding my breath waiting for the northeast crowd to displace their Schiff worship & have a short investment guidebook to sell.

 

[Duck Rodgers]

I do remember Duck Rodgers telling me gold would continue meteorically climbing for at least another 5 years.

I doubt that. Meteoric implies that I think something would go straight up for an extended period time. I don't think I ever had problems with the idea of pullbacks happening in gold as long as the trajectory hadn't changed, but apparently you guys are the ones that are saying that it's not going any higher now, and I obviously would never endorse that view. You can buy gold until there is none left clear up until there is a major restructuring.


And you guys are still up in the night if you think that somehow you would have magically held onto a short position while gold went from 1400-1900 + before it pulled back. I know 0 people that would allow that kind of bleeding. And even worse, it's still above where it was in Jan '11 so you guys would still be losers today had you held it for 20 months. Or are you trying to make us believe that you would have hit the peak and shorted then? Because I believe that about as much as I believed Vinylone when he said he got out of his Silver at the very top the day before it dropped 15% a few days after it happened.

 

[northeast]

kiky
I made it very clear that I was only going by the sources already presented in this thread, so I resent this accusation of dishonesty.
So now I am bad because I haven't known what you are going to present in your new evidence. That seems unfair of you.

It sounds like you are holding him to a ridiculous standard.
So nothing I have said up until now matters one bit, you have not acknowledged a single sentence.

Please, why don't you tell me: Did the clients who are complaining invest internationally in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008
and did they invest in gold in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011?
If they did , what are they complaining about? If not, why not?

I have to read this new source now to prove, what, that not every single investor that listened to him over a 20 year period did not make money on every single investment they made every day every year?
Was he supposed to tell them to not be diversified, and go 100% gold in 2008? That would have been reckless and risky.
Why exactly am I supposed to read the other sources?
All I am saying is what I have said, based on the evidence given, nothing more.
I don't think you understood the things I said.
It sounds like the people complaining are being greedy, unrealistic, and ungrateful for good advice.
What did Peter say that was bad advice to them, and when did he say it?
If they are like your previous source, maybe they were still basing their investments in 2008 on what he said in 2002.