Jim Rodgers:- Gold going to get KILLED

[Mega]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/rogers...thats-finished
Mike

[DRumsfeld2000]

Re: Jim Rodgers:- Gold going to get KILLED

I have just read that Rogers is now saying that gold could fall 40-50% because of politics in India. A stupid comment which I have not bothered to post here but it can be found on Business Insider (a scare mongering site but occassionally useful!) Personally, comments like this detract from Rodgers. Any political action in India to try and stop people from holding gold would cause riots and killing in the streets. They use gold as savings, so a fall of this magnitude brought about by political meddling would be political suicide.

[globaleconomicollaps]

Re: Jim Rodgers:- Gold going to get KILLED

I have just read that Rogers is now saying that gold could fall 40-50% because of politics in India. A stupid comment which I have not bothered to post here but it can be found on Business Insider (a scare mongering site but occasionally useful!) Personally, comments like this detract from Rodgers. Any political action in India to try and stop people from holding gold would cause riots and killing in the streets. They use gold as savings, so a fall of this magnitude brought about by political meddling would be political suicide.

two things:
(1) gold measured in rupees has never gone down. A 40% drop in dollars will not be interesting to them.

(2) I'm going to play devils advocate here for a second.

price of gold 17-march-2008 -- 1023.5
price of gold 24-oct-2008 -- 692

(1023 - 692 ) /692 = 47.8%

top to bottom.
the same calculation today would give:
$1920 * ( 1 - 0.478) = $1002.00

That doesn't seem like a total disaster. The drop did after all reverse itself in about six months.
try to find that bump on the gold graph now. It looks like a little pimple.

[ajerimez2]

Re: Jim Rodgers:- Gold going to get KILLED

Strange to hear that Rogers is now hedging his gold position - In a video interview with Steve Forbes a few days ago he definitively stated he was NOT hedging his gold (skip to 7:45). And while he did state that he anticipated further gold price declines, he said that its bull market was not over. That video is dated May 8, when gold was about $1,630.

I reconciled this with EJ's forecasts, expecting a near-term price decline to the mid-$1,400's or so, perhaps slightly lower, before rallying later in the summer back to $1,700 and above. Now Jim's talk about the politics of gold in India and his decision to hedge his position is beginning to alarm me. I am NOT interested in riding gold down to $1,000 per ounce, even if it will bounce back within a year.

Can any of the wise and learned senior iTulipers offer any guidance?

BTW, GlobalEconomicCollaps, what's the story with your math? A decline from $1,023 to $692 is only a 32% drop, not 48%. Today that would put gold at just under $1,300. Seems entirely plausible given the current situation, but I'd certainly lose sleep over it.

[globaleconomicollaps]

Re: Jim Rodgers:- Gold going to get KILLED

Strange to hear that Rogers is now hedging his gold position - In a video interview with Steve Forbes a few days ago he definitively stated he was NOT hedging his gold (skip to 7:45). And while he did state that he anticipated further gold price declines, he said that its bull market was not over. That video is dated May 8, when gold was about $1,630.

I reconciled this with EJ's forecasts, expecting a near-term price decline to the mid-$1,400's or so, perhaps slightly lower, before rallying later in the summer back to $1,700 and above. Now Jim's talk about the politics of gold in India and his decision to hedge his position is beginning to alarm me. I am NOT interested in riding gold down to $1,000 per ounce, even if it will bounce back within a year.

Can any of the wise and learned senior iTulipers offer any guidance?

BTW, GlobalEconomicCollaps, what's the story with your math? A decline from $1,023 to $692 is only a 32% drop, not 48%. Today that would put gold at just under $1,300. Seems entirely plausible given the current situation, but I'd certainly lose sleep over it.

hummm... you know I make a lot of math mistakes.

Let's see:
(1023 - 692 ) /692 = 47.8%
(1023 - 692 ) /1023 = 32.3%

That would be the 32% of the highest price not the market low. I generally use the bottom not the top to calculate market movements.

incidentally I don't think this is where we are headed.

PS.

Just saw that Forbes interview. Never trust a guy with a bow tie. At least anybody older than about 7.
PPS

I goofed that up:
(1920-1299)/1299 = 47.8%
(1920-1299)/1920 = 32.3%

sorry.

[touchring]

Re: Jim Rodgers:- Gold going to get KILLED

two things:
(1) gold measured in rupees has never gone down. A 40% drop in dollars will not be interesting to them.

They won't stop people from holding gold, but will raise the current tax on gold from 4% to perhaps 10%. That is enough to cause a slide.

[Andreuccio]

Re: Jim Rodgers:- Gold going to get KILLED

hummm... you know I make a lot of math mistakes.

Let's see:
(1023 - 692 ) /692 = 47.8%
(1023 - 692 ) /1023 = 32.3%

That would be the 32% of the highest price not the market low. I generally use the bottom not the top to calculate market movements.

Standard convention is to use the starting point as the denominator in calculating market movements. To see why, take the example of a drop from 100 to 50.

Students in basic math are taught that 50% means 1/2 of something, and 100% means the whole thing. A drop from 100 to 50 is a loss of 1/2 the original value. 100% would be it's entire value.

(100-50)/100 = 50%
(100-50)/50 = 100%

Conversely, rising from 50 to 100 would be a 100% increase, as 50 would be the starting point.

P.S. After writing this I did a quick Google search on "how do you calculate percent change". Here's the first hit, which explains it in much more detail:

http://www.onemathematicalcat.org/al...nt_inc_dec.htm

[globaleconomicollaps]

Re: Jim Rodgers:- Gold going to get KILLED

Standard convention is to use the starting point as the denominator in calculating market movements. To see why, take the example of a drop from 100 to 50.

Students in basic math are taught that 50% means 1/2 of something, and 100% means the whole thing. A drop from 100 to 50 is a loss of 1/2 the original value. 100% would be it's entire value.

(100-50)/100 = 50%
(100-50)/50 = 100%

Conversely, rising from 50 to 100 would be a 100% increase, as 50 would be the starting point.

P.S. After writing this I did a quick Google search on "how do you calculate percent change". Here's the first hit, which explains it in much more detail:

http://www.onemathematicalcat.org/al...nt_inc_dec.htm

yeah. I'm dumber than a 4th grader. I know.

[Andreuccio]

Re: Jim Rodgers:- Gold going to get KILLED

yeah. I'm dumber than a 4th grader. I know.

LOL. I didn't mean to imply that. I think you're quite bright, and I enjoy reading your posts. In this area you've just developed your own way of doing things. Quite creative, actually. It's only a problem when you're in a conversation with others who do it a different way.

Let's say your less conventional than a 4th grader.

[shiny!]

Re: Jim Rodgers:- Gold going to get KILLED

LOL. I didn't mean to imply that. I think you're quite bright, and I enjoy reading your posts. In this area you've just developed your own way of doing things. Quite creative, actually. It's only a problem when you're in a conversation with others who do it a different way.

Let's say your less conventional than a 4th grader.

Speaking as someone who struggles with long division, I think you're both brilliant!

[Raz]

Re: Jim Rodgers:- Gold going to get KILLED

yeah. I'm dumber than a 4th grader. I know.

Trust me - you're not. My wife teaches Fourth Grade and I know these things. And I value your regression charts and other input very much.