PDA

View Full Version : Faber: I own my physical gold and I will never sell it



mamboni
15th April 2010, 06:06 AM
INTERNATIONAL. Marc Faber, the Swiss fund manager and Gloom Boom & Doom editor, warns that when the next crisis hits, 'you'd see people flee from all paper currencies into precious metals'.

Speaking in an exclusive two-part interview with The Daily Crux, Faber said: "When the percentage of interest payments to tax revenue gets too high, it will become clear to everyone that the government will need to print money in earnest to make these payments. That's when you're likely to see a crisis of confidence in the dollar".

"The question is will there be a crisis of confidence in all paper monies and what will the reaction of investors be? I would imagine that when the crisis really emerges, you'd see people flee from all paper currencies into precious metals," Faber added.

Does he think gold will fall anytime soon below US$1,000, or even US$900?

Faber wouldn't rule out a move to the US$950-US$1,000 level, where gold broke out last year.

"My sense is that if gold went lower than US$1,050, the Chinese would come in and buy some. I think they're waiting for lower prices".

"But honestly, I'm telling everybody in the world the same thing. I own my gold and I will never sell it, especially when I see clowns like Ben Bernanke, Larry Summers, Tim Geithner...

When I'm looking at all these characters in government, I want to own physical gold."

"We're just coming out of a seasonal period where gold is often weak, and heading into a period of seasonal strength, so it's possible gold may start outperforming here," Faber said.

Explaining how investors often miss on long term bullish trends by timing the market, Faber said:" As prices rise in a bull market, investors often try to be clever, and will sell thinking they'll buy the asset back when it drops back down a bit. Of course, many times they never get the chance to do that, and end up missing a large portion of the rise."

Speaking to 'CNBC Squawk Box Europe' last month, Faber said "we already have now a gold standard created by the market place."

"We have the exchange traded funds that have proliferated and we have more and more physical buying of gold," he added.

The famed investor pointed out that between 2001 and 2008, gold outperformed bonds and stocks, but starting with 2009 stocks outperformed. "This means investors must own gold because generally retail investors cannot move in and out of different assets like institutional investors".

Investors should avoid bonds and cash over the next 10 years and choose stocks instead, he said, but warned that printing money will lead to an economic collapse in the end.

"Before we have the final collapse that will be a deflationary collapse, we will have more and more money printing."

“I think interest rates forever in the US will be at zero. By zero I mean below the rate of inflation," Faber told CNBC.

In a recent interview with a German website Faber said it is impossible for the American government to fulfill its obligations because the current deficit is already US$1.6 trillion this year.

The total US debt is already 375% of the GDP, excluding medicaid medicare and social security. If you include these, the national debt is at 600% of the GDP, he said.

The legendary investor reiterared his belief that eventually there will be a big bust and then the whole credit expansion will come to an end. But before that happens, governments will continue printing money which in time will lead to Zimbabwe-style hyperinflation, and the economy will stop responding to stimulus.

http://www.bi-me.com/main.php?id=45873&t=1&c=62&cg=4&mset=

undgrd
15th April 2010, 06:41 AM
Thanks for posting! Wonder if Faber (or any of these folks) ever gets tired of answering the same questions over and over again?

brigadeer
15th April 2010, 02:46 PM
I can't seem to make up my mind which camp I believe in more, the deflation camp or the inflation camp.

I think it is a virtual certainty that one of the two will happen, causing the total collapse of the dollar.

What I would like to know, and this question is directed to those of you that were adults in the 70's, did personal income keep up with inflation during that time?

I ask this because I have a really hard time believing that we will see massive inflation WITH a corresponding rise in personal income.

I mean, if you don't have a fairly quick rise in personal income, the economy and the dollar would literally implode in a few weeks if not months making this argument a moot point.

undgrd
15th April 2010, 03:03 PM
I wasn't an adult in the 70's but I think you're going to see both deflation and inflation. You'll be able to buy Ipod's by the 5 pack for $100 but a loaf of bread will cost $10.

Deflation on items you don't need and inflation on items you do.

mamboni
20th April 2010, 07:20 AM
I wasn't an adult in the 70's but I think you're going to see both deflation and inflation. You'll be able to buy Ipod's by the 5 pack for $100 but a loaf of bread will cost $10.

Deflation on items you don't need and inflation on items you do.

This is how I see it as well and I think this succinctly describes the symptoms of an economy with excessive credit and misallocation of capital: i.e. houses are overpriced; basic necessities like food and raw materials are underpriced.

undgrd
20th April 2010, 02:58 PM
This is how I see it as well and I think this succinctly describes the symptoms of an economy with excessive credit and misallocation of capital: i.e. houses are overpriced; basic necessities like food and raw materials are underpriced.


Well, the homes are built from raw materials so I don't know what to say about that. Maybe the old mantra of "location, location, location" will go out the window which will drive down the price of homes?

Will the cost of raw materials skyrocket halting new production? Wouldn't that raise the value of current supply? Maybe the abundance of supply (homes) right now will level out the market in relation to rising price of raw materials.


My crystal ball never worked but, I don't need one to know these next few years are going to be interesting.

Horn
20th April 2010, 03:23 PM
When the price is wrong, or set for long enough, nothing will be produced excepting fiat cash & electronic digits.

Needed, or not.

mamboni
21st April 2010, 05:40 AM
This is how I see it as well and I think this succinctly describes the symptoms of an economy with excessive credit and misallocation of capital: i.e. houses are overpriced; basic necessities like food and raw materials are underpriced.


Well, the homes are built from raw materials so I don't know what to say about that. Maybe the old mantra of "location, location, location" will go out the window which will drive down the price of homes?

Will the cost of raw materials skyrocket halting new production? Wouldn't that raise the value of current supply? Maybe the abundance of supply (homes) right now will level out the market in relation to rising price of raw materials.


My crystal ball never worked but, I don't need one to know these next few years are going to be interesting.


The real estate markets in the most trouble (CA, NV, AZ, FL) are those where home prices were most excessively priced over the cost to build. The typical $600,000 home in CA might cost $150,000 to build. The difference. $450.000 is driven by speculation, cheap bank credit and RE broker hype. Location has always been important in valuating a home. But in the period from 2001-2006, it's importance became exaggerated.

peachesinfla
21st April 2010, 05:25 PM
While RE might still have a way to correct ;D there are some decent deals to be had. The problem is in most of those areas the job market is awful. If you can work out of your home or are close to retirement you might find a deal to your liking. I still plan on waiting before I pull the trigger though.

Desolation LineTrimmer
21st April 2010, 05:32 PM
The real estate markets in the most trouble (CA, NV, AZ, FL) are those where home prices were most excessively priced over the cost to build. The typical $600,000 home in CA might cost $150,000 to build. The difference. $450.000 is driven by speculation, cheap bank credit and RE broker hype. Location has always been important in valuating a home. But in the period from 2001-2006, it's importance became exaggerated.


You are leaving out the cost of the land, otherwise people in San Francisco for instance would build in empty lots.