| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 518.1 | For Sophisticated Investors Only... | MPGS::BEAULIEU | | Mon Jul 12 1993 17:36 | 6 |
| I am not an expert by any means so I wouldn't even try to predict how
long the "gold rush" might last, however, Select funds, such as Gold or
Biotech (which concentrate on one industry) are probably the most volitile
funds you will find and therefore are probably better left alone (unless
you really know what you're doing and can stand the risk).
|
| 518.2 | Bail at first sign of trouble | KOALA::BOUCHARD | The enemy is wise | Mon Jul 12 1993 17:48 | 9 |
| re: .0
As one who has been in gold funds for the last two quarters, and is
very happy, I don't see much reason for gold to advance beyond $400/oz,
so I expect to sell out and take profits almost as soon as it looks
like the price is starting to drift.
And, as .1 noted, funds like this are at the high-end of the risk scale
relative to other mutual funds
|
| 518.3 | | ZENDIA::FERGUSON | Your recipe is so tasty | Mon Jul 12 1993 18:11 | 7 |
| Interesting comments. I was in boston this weekend at the Jewlery Building
talking to a store-owner there. He speculated that Gold is going to go up
to the mid 400s...
Don't know what he knows, but, nevertheless, another datapoint.
|
| 518.4 | Another point to consider... | MPGS::BEAULIEU | | Tue Jul 13 1993 13:47 | 13 |
| Eventhough Charles Givens (author "Wealth Without Risk" and many
others) is on the hot seat right now about some of his advice, he makes a
good point about gold as an investment. He says that in the 1890's or
whatever an ounce of gold costs about the same as a tailored man's suit
and that today in 1993 an ounce of gold still costs about the same as a
tailored man's suit. Yes, it has had up's and downs in between but still
comes out to just about keep pace with inflation. As far as buying gold as
a hedge against inflation, he says that the loss here comes when you sell
and have to pay a 28% capital gains tax.
|
| 518.5 | New tax on mining on Federal lands. | MARVA1::BUCHMAN | UNIX refugee in a VMS world | Wed Nov 24 1993 17:17 | 11 |
| I heard on National Public Radio last week that the House of
Representatives passed a bill to levy an 8% tax on the value of all
minerals extracted from federal lands. (This strikes me as just good
sense, if true). Historically, minerals found on federal lands by
people with the proper permits were essentially free; also, federal
land could be bought by mining concerns at a ridiculously low price --
something around $2/acre -- which has not changed since the late 1800s.
Does anyone have details on this? Will it cause mining stocks to go
down? The price of gold to go up? I'm going to look into this further.
Jim
|
| 518.6 | New taxes is just the first of many laws | VMSDEV::HALLYB | Fish have no concept of fire | Sat Nov 27 1993 14:48 | 16 |
| I agree that our mining laws were written for a different time, and
need to be updated. The 8% tax is but one of many salvos to be fired
into the mining industry; the environmental laws to come will be far
more dangerous. I suspect the Clinton administration will tend to err
on the green side after decades of neglect that benefited the gold side.
(I'm -trying- to be apolitical about this! Right/wrong are irrelevant.)
This leads me to believe that the best bets in the gold mining industry
will be the large, established companies. They have the cash to lobby
Washington. The smaller companies, usually those involved in exploration
and early development, will end up regulated to death and will likely
end up owned by the large companies.
Invest accordingly.
John (who sees gold going to $461)
|