Buy gold?
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Nayab Khan
Feb 19, 2012, 10:13:47 AM2/19/12
to Sanguine Strategy
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-17/gold-traders-get-more-bullish-as-billionaire-paulson-says-buy-commodities.html
"Twelve of 22 surveyed by Bloomberg expect prices to gain next week
and five were neutral. Paulson & Co. is already the biggest investor
in the SPDR Gold Trust, the largest exchange- traded product backed by
bullion, with a stake valued at $2.9 billion, a Securities and
Exchange Commission filing Feb. 14 showed. Investors have 2,389.7
metric tons in ETPs, within 0.2 percent of the record reached in
December and more than all but four central banks, according to data
compiled by Bloomberg.
Speculators in U.S. gold futures are now their most bullish since
September after the Bank of England and Bank of Japan said they will
buy more assets and the Federal Reserve said it was considering
purchasing more bonds. Central banks are also expanding their bullion
reserves, adding 439.7 tons last year, the most in almost five
decades. They may buy a similar amount in 2012, the London-based World
Gold Council said yesterday. "
My thoughts? Let's see if we can buy it. The problem is that we don't
have any cash on hand. I think that in order to buy it we'd have to
see if events from the past week have made us re-think any of our main
assumptions that underpinned our E(r) for the ETFs we've chosen in
this portfolio allocation program and see if want to, consequently,
get out.
Let's chat about this today at the meeting. I think this + Iran making
moves and stopping exports to the UK could provide for an interesting
meetig.
"Twelve of 22 surveyed by Bloomberg expect prices to gain next week
and five were neutral. Paulson & Co. is already the biggest investor
in the SPDR Gold Trust, the largest exchange- traded product backed by
bullion, with a stake valued at $2.9 billion, a Securities and
Exchange Commission filing Feb. 14 showed. Investors have 2,389.7
metric tons in ETPs, within 0.2 percent of the record reached in
December and more than all but four central banks, according to data
compiled by Bloomberg.
Speculators in U.S. gold futures are now their most bullish since
September after the Bank of England and Bank of Japan said they will
buy more assets and the Federal Reserve said it was considering
purchasing more bonds. Central banks are also expanding their bullion
reserves, adding 439.7 tons last year, the most in almost five
decades. They may buy a similar amount in 2012, the London-based World
Gold Council said yesterday. "
My thoughts? Let's see if we can buy it. The problem is that we don't
have any cash on hand. I think that in order to buy it we'd have to
see if events from the past week have made us re-think any of our main
assumptions that underpinned our E(r) for the ETFs we've chosen in
this portfolio allocation program and see if want to, consequently,
get out.
Let's chat about this today at the meeting. I think this + Iran making
moves and stopping exports to the UK could provide for an interesting
meetig.
Chris Kuntarich
Feb 19, 2012, 11:17:11 AM2/19/12
to Sanguine Strategy
If you haven't read my outlook, not only was buying gold one of the
things I talked about doing this week, but my expected return on
energy is now lower. I would be more than willing to allocate away
from IXC to GSC or from both to a SLV and IAU play. I'm pretty sure I
used the same exact article as well. Cya later today.
On Feb 19, 10:13 am, Nayab Khan <nhkha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-17/gold-traders-get-more-bullis...
things I talked about doing this week, but my expected return on
energy is now lower. I would be more than willing to allocate away
from IXC to GSC or from both to a SLV and IAU play. I'm pretty sure I
used the same exact article as well. Cya later today.
On Feb 19, 10:13 am, Nayab Khan <nhkha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-17/gold-traders-get-more-bullis...
Phil Matta
Feb 19, 2012, 11:24:51 AM2/19/12
to sanguine...@googlegroups.com
In terms of allocation, do we expect gold to move up and the market to move down? The obvious choice from an allocation stand point is divesting ICLN because it is our hedge against downward movements in the IVV. Gold also shares these traits (a negative correlation coefficient with the IVV) with ICLN over the past 6 months. From a hedging prospective, SLV has been moving more consistently opposite the IVV in the last 6 months.
If you think gold/silver is a good play regardless of the IVV and/or you expect the IVV to continue its upward trend than you can ignore the fire paragraph and follow Chris's suggestions for reallocation in my opinion.
Phil
Rebecca Sheppard
Feb 19, 2012, 12:23:23 PM2/19/12
to Sanguine Strategy
I read the article too I think there was a caveat about the fact that
gold was also linked to Greek uncertainty and therefore other metals
were a safer play, but if we are careful with gold I agree.
gold was also linked to Greek uncertainty and therefore other metals
were a safer play, but if we are careful with gold I agree.
Chris Kuntarich
Feb 19, 2012, 1:37:26 PM2/19/12
to Sanguine Strategy
So do we want to re run the allocation program with new expected
returns for maybe two weeks and include IAU and SLV? The game is
fairly short, so this might be a good way to avoid a week of
unsatisfactory returns, and potentially get us out of fifth place...
On Feb 19, 11:24 am, Phil Matta <matta.phi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In terms of allocation, do we expect gold to move up and the market to move
> down? The obvious choice from an allocation stand point is divesting ICLN
> because it is our hedge against downward movements in the IVV. Gold also
> shares these traits (a negative correlation coefficient with the IVV) with
> ICLN over the past 6 months. From a hedging prospective, SLV has been
> moving more consistently opposite the IVV in the last 6 months.
>
> If you think gold/silver is a good play regardless of the IVV and/or you
> expect the IVV to continue its upward trend than you can ignore the fire
> paragraph and follow Chris's suggestions for reallocation in my opinion.
>
> Phil
>
> matta.phi...@gmail.com
returns for maybe two weeks and include IAU and SLV? The game is
fairly short, so this might be a good way to avoid a week of
unsatisfactory returns, and potentially get us out of fifth place...
On Feb 19, 11:24 am, Phil Matta <matta.phi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In terms of allocation, do we expect gold to move up and the market to move
> down? The obvious choice from an allocation stand point is divesting ICLN
> because it is our hedge against downward movements in the IVV. Gold also
> shares these traits (a negative correlation coefficient with the IVV) with
> ICLN over the past 6 months. From a hedging prospective, SLV has been
> moving more consistently opposite the IVV in the last 6 months.
>
> If you think gold/silver is a good play regardless of the IVV and/or you
> expect the IVV to continue its upward trend than you can ignore the fire
> paragraph and follow Chris's suggestions for reallocation in my opinion.
>
> Phil
>
Phil Matta
Feb 19, 2012, 1:40:58 PM2/19/12
to sanguine...@googlegroups.com
I won't be there tonight as usual but if you give me updated E(r) and STD for the ETF's (including the IVV) then I can rerun the program. Keep in mind the time horizon of two weeks when deciding on E(r) and STD.
Phil
Nayab Khan
Feb 19, 2012, 3:52:58 PM2/19/12
to Sanguine Strategy
I am unsure of what to think about with the market's movements next
week, but I do think there will be a flight to gold. So, I'm not quite
sure about divesting our position in ICLN. Rather, I think this is
something to discuss at the meeting with the other teams regarding
ETF's that they think might potentially underperform our initially
anticipate E(r) and get out of those positions to get into the
precious metals.
I think we should re run the allocation program with new expected
returns. Maybe let's do it with a one week time horizon though. I know
we have two more weeks remaining with our current allocation, but I'd
feel more comfortable just trading gold with a shorter mindset. At the
end of the week, we can reconvene and look at whether or not we want
it in our portfolio for the third week of the allocation program, but
given its volatility, I'd feel good looking at it only for the next
week.
What are everyone else's thoughts on the market in general for the
next week? Potential reasons for market gains: market consensus on
existing home sales is higher than what it was last week (4.68M vs.
4.61M) and consumer sentiment is expected to inch up from 72.5 to
73.0. Potential reasons for market losses: Iran's movements will
royally mess with crude prices, the meeting in Brussels on Monday with
the European finance ministers completely collapses, etc.
So, in short, I'd say let's keep ICLN. Let's get out of one of our
other ETF's that might underperform given the potential for volatility
in the market as a result of Monday's meeting...
On Feb 19, 12:40 pm, Phil Matta <matta.phi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I won't be there tonight as usual but if you give me updated E(r) and STD
> for the ETF's (including the IVV) then I can rerun the program. Keep in
> mind the time horizon of two weeks when deciding on E(r) and STD.
>
> Phil
>
> matta.phi...@gmail.com
week, but I do think there will be a flight to gold. So, I'm not quite
sure about divesting our position in ICLN. Rather, I think this is
something to discuss at the meeting with the other teams regarding
ETF's that they think might potentially underperform our initially
anticipate E(r) and get out of those positions to get into the
precious metals.
I think we should re run the allocation program with new expected
returns. Maybe let's do it with a one week time horizon though. I know
we have two more weeks remaining with our current allocation, but I'd
feel more comfortable just trading gold with a shorter mindset. At the
end of the week, we can reconvene and look at whether or not we want
it in our portfolio for the third week of the allocation program, but
given its volatility, I'd feel good looking at it only for the next
week.
What are everyone else's thoughts on the market in general for the
next week? Potential reasons for market gains: market consensus on
existing home sales is higher than what it was last week (4.68M vs.
4.61M) and consumer sentiment is expected to inch up from 72.5 to
73.0. Potential reasons for market losses: Iran's movements will
royally mess with crude prices, the meeting in Brussels on Monday with
the European finance ministers completely collapses, etc.
So, in short, I'd say let's keep ICLN. Let's get out of one of our
other ETF's that might underperform given the potential for volatility
in the market as a result of Monday's meeting...
On Feb 19, 12:40 pm, Phil Matta <matta.phi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I won't be there tonight as usual but if you give me updated E(r) and STD
> for the ETF's (including the IVV) then I can rerun the program. Keep in
> mind the time horizon of two weeks when deciding on E(r) and STD.
>
> Phil
>
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages