World Colonial

Double post

Interest rates are also psychologically determined. No one can explain interest rates from "fundamentals" either. I've explained this numerous times before and can do it again. It certainly isn't due to any supposed omnipotence by the modern economic priesthood, those working at central banks and government treasury departments. More of your belief in false causality. Everything you believe is entirely the result of the asset mania. Read some history. You're read "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" and "Manias, Panics, and Crashes". I presume you have. The level of speculation and valuation dwarfs these precedents and the only reason anyone will believe it has no relevance or doesn't matter is because they believe in a form of modern alchemy as I wrote in a prior post in this thread a few days ago. Yes, I am aware of these "defensive moats" which is actually mostly a code word for oligopolistic and monopolistic corporate behavior. But since "fundamentals" don't determined prices, it doesn't mean what you claim anyway.

No, I didn't forget anything. I didn't address it in my prior posts but anticipated you would make this claim. Stock buybacks don't "return cash" to shareholders. That's another Wall Street lie. Stock buybacks increase demand for what “investors” actually bought – the stock certificate – but they don’t actually receive anything from the company, unless something is supposed to include an increase in an accounting number, what's reflected in EPS. That's why this conventional claim is not accurate. If you sell your shares, you don’t own it, do you? So, you didn’t get anything just like shareholders who sold don’t receive dividends either. Selling is selling and who you sold your shares to doesn’t alter the outcome. It’s not “returning cash” to shareholders if the company buys it but different if sold to someone else. Shareholders who didn’t sell obviously didn’t receive anything. A legal claim to a higher proportional share of an accounting number (EPS) isn’t cash. And before you answer, I know why management does it and why many shareholders favor it. I know that stock buybacks usually correlate to higher stock prices, but this still doesn't support the conventional claim.

I already know this. It's not news to me. Yes, the change in the relative return between dividends and appreciation is due to psychology, exactly as I have been telling you. That's exactly why "investors" are willing to accept such low yields now whereas they wouldn't before. Total BS "information" has nothing to do with valuation or prices. Same false causality fallacy. How many times have you heard someone say something is only worth what someone will pay for it? More than I can count. But supposedly, that doesn't apply to "investments" because that's derived from "fundamentals" This belief is also based upon the bogus "discounting" claim from the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH). I haven't heard anyone mention EMH in decades (since it's completely absurd) but that's what's still implicitly consensus belief and it's believed due to the concurrent belief in the impact of "fundamentals", not just present but future. There is no "discounting" in the implied sense. “The market” (market participants collectively) can’t discount anything, because it’s an anthropomorphic abstraction from collective “investor” belief in false causality. It’s absurd to believe “the market” somehow “knows” anything. “The market” isn’t alive knowing what individuals know collectively. That’s a quasi-form of pantheism and another “rabbit hole” altogether. As for individuals, I infer they believe this implicitly, when there is any evaluation at all (e.g., not “meme” stocks.) In at least one post, you cited behavior that “investors” typically (if not usually) put more research into the purchase of a low to mid-priced consumer good, like a toaster oven. This should be expected, since the vast majority of “investors” don’t “invest” directly and direct stock purchases represent a (decreasing) minority of share ownership. They “invest” on auto pilot (e.g., 401K) through index funds or delegating stock selection to money managers. When buying shares directly, “Investors” are also mostly ignorant of economics and accounting, know little if anything about statistics and present value, mostly don’t know anything about or understand the business represented by the company shares they buy, and how other “fundamentals” supposedly relate to stock prices. So how can they discount anything where this information you have repeatedly referenced makes any difference? The answer is they can’t, meaning this supposed discounting is actually psychological as I told you, not an analysis of how events ("information") supposedly impact prices economically. It’s what ‘investors” believe and acting on this belief that matters, not the event(s) or aby supposed "information". What about quantitative valuation methods, more common among institutions? It’s still psychologically based, because these predictive methods use assumptions biased by the user’s optimism or pessimism. There is no objective valuation method since there is no correct value. There is relative value, but since discounting attempts to predict future returns, it cannot avoid subjectivity either. Look at the dot.com bubble, current “bubble” stocks, “meme” stocks, “disruptors”, “unicorns”, and serial money losers. Consensus implicitly admits these prices are psychologically determined while concurrently believing other prices are the result of the “fundamentals”. The same psychology responsible for “bubbles” accounts for all prices, all the time, without exception. “Investors” don’t “accurately” judge value “rationally”, except when “bubbles” occur. Believing this is a total absurdity since value is an arbitrary abstract mental construct. Value is an arbitrary mental construct. It’s not contingent on anything, except collective perception. That’s why it fluctuates so radically independently of any supposed “fundamentals”. That’s why a raging mania (the one we have now) facilitated by deranged government policy (since at least 2008) can inflate fake “wealth” to such ridiculous heights, unlike real wealth requiring actual effort. If financial values were contingent on or subject to constraints in the physical world, it wouldn’t be possible.

Yes, you keep telling me this, because you keep on claiming that the P/E multiple demonstrates it. And you do this because you continue to believe in false causality, that prices are determined from supposed "fundamentals" It's also evident you believe numerous other fallacies promoted by Wall Street too. The P/E ratio is one of the least reliable valuation metrics. It’s been a lagging indicator at major turning points during the 21st century mania, both tops and bottoms. The ratio was higher at the 2002 low versus the 2000 peak and higher at the March 2009 low versus the October 2007 peak, the opposite of any actually useful indicator. This happens because the economy never leads stock prices (usually lagging) and earnings also lag economic performance somewhat. Earnings are only relevant to "investors" to the extent they receive it as a dividend. The dividend yield is barely above the all-time low from the 2000 dot.com bubble, and this is even with all the economic distortions since at least 2008 which you also completely ignore. Earnings (cash flow) is a return on actual investment, but 99%+ of supposed “investors” are engaging in speculation, on changes in the share price. That's what they actually bought, a stock certificate, not a "piece of a business" because the company and the company shares aren't equivalent. Here is what 99%+ of all shareholders actually receive: 1)·A periodic dividend payment (if any) which currently is usually immaterial. 2) Voting for corporate directors, irrelevant to 99%+ of shareholders, as they have no ability to actually influence corporate policy or strategy. That’s what makes them speculators. 3) A pro-rated share of net corporate assets in the event of liquidation. No one actually buys any stock for this reason. 4) Right to sell at the future market price, which is speculation on potential financial appreciation whether or not the company creates any net economic value at all. In the 21st century mania, that’s what the “investor” is primarily buying and what’s mostly reflected in the share price for most US stocks. “Investors” acquire specific legal rights with share ownership (see my list below), but don’t possess the required characteristics of actual business owners; any semblance of decision-making authority. If you have enough influence to make your “voice” heard, you’re an actual investor. In theory if not in practice, that’s board members, selective members of the C-Suite (CEO, COO, CFO), and anyone who can actually influence these people or select them, but no one else. If you can’t make your “voice” heard, then you own “a piece of paper”, earnings are of no direct relevance to you, and you are a speculator. That's all I can write for this post, but I have plenty more to add if neccessary.

Just saw this post. My claims don't have anything to do with what you wrote here. The prior post exchanges were about (relative) valuation, not market direction. I haven't ever made a timing claim because there is no predetermined limit to an asset mania (the one we have now) and the reason there isn't is because prices and valuation have nothing to do with "fundamentals" which is what you and practically everyone else believes. If anyone wants to buy the most historically overpriced US market in history (currently within a few percent), then go ahead and do it. But that’s what anyone is actually buying, not what Wall Stret consensus or anyone here claims. There is no predetermine price limit with financial instruments because prices have nothing to do with "fundamentals". This is why “crypto” (which is actually nothing) has value, tens of trillions in sub-basement garbage quality debt instruments are priced at such low yields, and so many US stocks have sold for such ridiculous prices for so long. As for your comment on "growth", you and I have discussed this several times. There is a difference between what you claim I believe (a "make believe scarcity") and what you have told me in the past. A supposed "new normal" and "something for nothing" where you have implied prosperity can be permanently increased by deficit spending and "printing". If this is what you actually meant, it's a belief in modern alchemy.

Previous metal in the commonly used context more or most closely relates to a store of value or role in the monetary system. Today, that's primarily gold. Silver has substantially lost its monetary substitute role, whether this is temporary or not. It has no role in the monetary system at all, while gold is still included at scale in central bank reserves. This changing perception is evident in the expanding and consistently higher gold-silver ratio since 1980. Platinum and Palladium are industrial metals, regardless that a few mints strike one or both as NCLT. Russia is the only country to my recollection striking a platinum circulating coin and I've never heard of a single one in palladium. This is evident in the relative price between gold and both, even as gold is a lot more common. There are also other metals that might qualify as "precious" to some "metal bugs" or coin collectors, though I have no idea if it's feasible to strike it as NCLT. I've seen 1oz rhodium bars for sale by golddealer.com, same as palladium around 2005 years before it was used to strike NCLT.

I don't think either service consistently sells at a premium over the other. Too few grading events to compare 99%+ of the time too.

It's primarily a problem due to the financialization of collecting which created the higher price level. When the price level was primarily the result of actual collecting and not financially motivated buying, the quality differences you describe were less important or not important at all. Same for fakes, as this is substantially also mostly the result of the much higher price level.

South African based collectors prefer NGC by a substantial margin, as evidenced by the relative number graded (they buy most of it) and volume of listings on their version of eBay. There are a few pillars I have seen crossed by PCGS forum members from NGC holders. Not sure why they did this, as there certainly is no consistently higher premium that I can see since there isn't even enough data to conclude. The 1765 Peru 4R MS-62 in both pop reports is the same coin. So is my 1759 MS-63 Peru 2R.

NGC won the grading for the Emilio Ortiz collection of Latin American 1/4R, 422 lots. Conversely, Pat Johnson's collection sold last year was PCGS.

I mostly own NGC coins, somewhat by default. But for pillar coinage and South Africa (Union and ZAR), I have seen a higher proportion of better quality for the grade coins. Concurrently, NGC has graded a lot more of both.

I'm not criticizing you. That was not my intent. The dividend absolutely means something (a lot) but in and of itself doesn't change the definition of speculation and investment. Before the current mania, it represented the majority of the return for the US stock market. That's what should be expected in any "normal" market environment. A higher dividend means it's relatively less speculative and by this metric, the US stock market is close to the most speculative ever. The dividend yield on the DJIA (2%) and S&P 500 (1.5%) is a razor's edge above the all-time early 2000 low. The ability of a company to pay dividends is a function of the actual fundamentals. Corporate management's decision to establish the dividend payout rate is substantially psychological (from numerous factors) and the price of the stock essentially entirely so because the company and the stock certificate aren't equivalent.

Prices are set by the marginal buyer. It doesn't take that many of them to move the price of anything up or down substantially. That's your best argument. This is evident in the price of any publicly tradeable asset. On any given day, the price change of the biggest moving stocks usually occurs with a (very) low fraction of outstanding shares changing ownership.

With all supposed "investors", there is no difference between "investing" and speculation. I'm not singling you out with this comment either, because this is what practically everyone believes. In the current global asset mania, calling speculation "investment" is mostly (not entirely, as a low proportion know it consciously) a rationalization from ignorance to convince yourself that paying what are disproportionately absurd or inflated prices isn’t taking high or unprecedented risk but somehow magically becomes low risk or “prudent”. I know everyone has been told they are “investing”, but if I ask anyone for an actual difference between “investing” (mostly in tradeable markets) and speculation, the only answer they can give me is the holding period which is completely arbitrary. You've heard the saying if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is one. 99%+ of stock “investing” (or other asset buying) is indistinguishable from speculation, so what does that tell everyone? (It's attempting to generate a currency profit from buying and selling without producing anything.) The inferred supposed distinction between "investing" and speculation is "market timing". Everyone is a market timer, whether they know it or not. It's literally unavoidable, unless the person lives in an alternate parallel universe where there is no time. This doesn't mean that everyone has to be a "trader", it just means that there is only good timing and bad timing.

No, it isn't, and my comment isn't contingent upon GAAP though it's a weakness of using it. When I make the comments I make on any financial subject, I'm not just "making it up". That's what most people do, including what most people read in the financial press, writing nonsensical claptrap. It's what I told you in my last post. Earnings are an accounting number to 99% of all supposed "investors". It's of no direct relevance to them outside the dividend because that's the only return they actually get from the company 99%+ of the time. This growth you are talking about isn't what you imply either, because the price of the "piece of paper" most "investors" actually buy isn't contingent upon what you are claiming either. The price of any stock certificate (what they actually bought) is almost entirely contingent upon psychological perception, not the supposed "fundamentals" which never bought or sold a single share of stock, or anything else for that matter. As for Hussman, yes, I know his track has been terrible, because we are in a mania. The one you deny exists. It's not practical for me to write a book here but you can ask me any question you want on any financial subject, and I can give you or anyone else a detailed explanation for any claim I make. So yes, by all means if you want to start another thread on this subject, go ahead and do it.

Sorry, not my series. I'm also not the most qualified to express an opinion on authenticity. There are a lot of fakes for Bust 8R.

You're using the P/E ratio too? Read my reply above.

No practical difference with the late 2021 or early 2002 peak. Once again using one of the worst value metrics (earnings) even when I keep telling you this, over and over. It's even worse using forward earnings. Statistically, Hussman has proved this, but you ignore it because the asset mania has made it possible to profit from the most overpriced market ever anyway. It's not just stocks either. Look at real estate and until the 2020 bottom in rates, bonds. Foreign markets have improved somewhat recently (some), but US valuations have been on an island in deep outer space since 2008, 2000, or the late 90's depending upon the comparison. This relative US performance hasn't been based upon the "fundamentals". The fundamentals ("growth") during the mania have been mediocre most of this time, even with deranged monetary and fiscal policy the entire time since 2008. Deranged, not just in the US, but Europe, Japan, and China too. US interest rates are somewhat "normalized" now, but the FRB balance sheet absolutely is not. Fiscal policy is worse than ever. Remove that and the supposedly great "fundamentals" evaporate, with little if any "growth" since 2008. Lastly as I told you, earnings aren't real money. It's an abstract accounting number. No one can spend earnings. It's buried in the balance sheet where the retail "investor" can never monetize it. They can only sell their shares. That's what makes it SPECULATION. "Investors" mostly don't care about the overwhelmingly pathetic dividends, and they almost never care about the balance sheet, so why do earnings matter either? (No, it's not a real question.)

Great calls out of how many? Something tells me their batting average isn't that good. No one's has been, except those who say "buy and hold" forever due to the asset mania.

If I am correct that the typical US hobbyist collector's budget is somewhere in the vicinity of $500/YR, I can see that most of them won't pay to attend local shows. It's presumably different for the example in this post or roughly equivalent higher end shows in population centers with a high concentration of affluent collectors.

This has nothing to do with actual collecting. It's financial widget buying.

I'd pay $20 for the NYINC because I've never been there and it's one of the few that has a decent chance of having something I want to buy for my primary collection. I've paid admission to the ANA multiple times too. I'm not paying a dime to attend a "no name" show. I get that the economics might or don't work without it but that doesn't make any difference to me. But then, I don't go to these shows anyway. I see it as we discussed before. The show circuit is a social event for you and a low minority of the collector base. A larger number turn it into a vacation. Entrance fees don't make any difference here. I'm a utilitarian. My coin budget is for buying coins, not a vacation to a location I'd never go otherwise and not for travel expenses to get there.

Virtually 100%.

Given the option to choose from all predecessor US designs, I'll make the wild guess that Barber coinage ranks close to the bottom as a preferred option. The 1913 LHN was illustrated, but I assume no coin chosen will have a retro date. There won't be any restrikes.