Comments by "dixon pinfold" (@dixonpinfold2582) on "Peter Schiff" channel.

Try holding both. Because it costs miners typically $1k to produce an ounce, if gold doubles from $2k, their profits triple. So in theory anyway mining stocks should provide great leverage to rising prices. But other factors enter into it, such as how high the miner's P/E is at the time you buy --- if it's already got a rich valuation then some of your potential leverage has already been booked and enjoyed by earlier investors. Then there's the fact that the leverage works both ways --- your shares plunge faster than bullion when gold drops. So you can dial down your potential share gain or loss by mixing in bullion. But if you don't, and go for a pure miner position, just realize that it's far riskier. It can even trail bullion when gold rises, and sometimes does --- yes, mining shares can even fall as gold rises, as investor sentiment around gold miners tends to be pretty unstable. But then, Buffett just dove in, didn't he? (I don't think his bullion position, if any, is public, but since he has badmouthed it as an investment before, he might not have much. I think we can only speculate.)
3
@FrustratedFisher I did something similar. Impatient at the rise of miners' shares lagging that of bullion, I switched out half of them a few weeks ago and have profited from the switch since. Now Barrick is up 8% in after-hours since Friday evening, and Newmont gained nicely, too. At least I still have some. Lesson: Never assume you're not just as clever as Warren Buffet. ;)
2
Good point, but indirectly he bought ounces in the ground in the same sense that people own barrels of oil in the ground if they buy ExxonMobil. Barrick claims reserves of 71m ounces and he now (well, on June 30) owns 1.23% of the company, so his share is 870k ounces. That much gold, at the current $1950/oz is worth $1.7b, and would cost nearly a billion to get out of the ground. So he paid $568m for the indirect, theoretical, potential profit of about $750m, and that's if gold stays at this price.
1
Factually WRONG. The average price he paid was $25.80, Friday's close was $26.99. That's not a loss of $90m, it's a gain of around $25m.
1
Barrick has something like 70m ounces in the ground. That's what he's after, not a cash stream.
1
@rpbajb That's why you find out first how the company feels about its dividend, and how long it has felt that way. Nothing is etched in stone, but when a company hasn't cut for a lifetime and has been increasing for decades, it counts for a lot.
1
@rpbajb If I meant to say 'it could never happen again' I would have said that. Instead I said 'nothing is etched in stone.' If you want something eternal, I advise you to invest in the stars.
1
@rizzoj9399 Ok, while I'm at it, since you don't take me for an idiot, let me add that this Schiff guy strikes me as a half-clever blowhard and that's being kind of nice about it. Good God, man, give him at most a 3% position in your portfolio of influences. "Run. Run screaming," is a blunter way of putting it. I kept stumbling across his name so I decided to have a look-in, but I certainly will not be back. All the best to you.
1
There's no set answer, as any given miner has both believers and speculators. If bullion keeps rising, there will be a fairly sudden and steep rise in miners when they at last get a lot of attention for skyrocketing profits. When gold falls, historically pretty soon afterward, miner investors are punished cruelly, so have a pre-set plan to bail at a price you can live with. After this, the stock tends to drift in the doldrums for years, sometimes several.
1
 @thedillestpickle Past that point? I hope not: Barrick's P/E is 10.8, Newmont's is 13.
1
I don't know. I'd say he or anyone can see pet rocks as a lousy buy but still invest in a wildly profitable pet rock company.
1