Features and Interviews
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Written by Lara Crigger
|
|
February 19, 2010 11:11 am EST |
|
|
Page 4 of 4 Crigger: If this is true, why hasn't it caught more attention from the mainstream media? Schectman: Think about it this way; you tell me: How is it that gold can go up almost 500 percent since 2002 (and silver the same thing), and every financial adviser, from Jim Cramer all the way down, isn't screaming to own it? So if they're powerful enough to manipulate the price of gold and violate antitrade laws, then they're probably powerful enough to tell the media to be quiet. If you look at all the people spewing advice on CNBC and Bloomberg, the whole public has been given nothing but bad advice about gold: told it was too expensive, or that it was in a bubble, or that you shouldn't own it, or that it was an archaic relic that nobody wanted. Yet gold has well outperformed every single asset class over the past decade. Crigger: So given all this, where should gold be headed? Schectman: I think it's tough to put a number on it. There are people who say $1650/oz. is a slam dunk, and $2000/oz. and beyond. There's a fine line between conspiracy and plausibility. A lot of people believe that because the debt burden is so enormously high in this country, that what the government will try to do through monetization and inflation is manage the debt as best they can, and let gold rise to huge, huge levels, and at some point, back it with a new world reserve currency. They'll peg gold to the dollar or a new currency. Bottom line, it would not surprise me one bit to see gold at $3000, $4000, $5000/oz. Now I know that sounds crazy, but that's no more crazy than in 1991, when the Dow Jones was 2100, saying that it would one day reach 14,000. I do believe that bull markets go higher than anyone ever thinks possible, and bull markets go lower than anyone thinks possible, and I think without question, the best days are ahead for anyone who owns gold.
|
Terms of Use
The HardAssetsInvestor.com message board and comment features are designed to facilitate thoughtful discussion of the biggest issues impacting commodity investors. All comments should be respectful. Insults and profanity are not permitted. The editor reserves the right to remove comments at his/her discretion.
Related Articles »
|
Commodities Data
September 09, 2010 06:25 AM EST
Loading data ...
Weekly Commodities Poll
Related Articles »
|
Want more evidence? Look at Barrons' negative article a few days ago on Seabridge
Gold. The article maintained that Seabridge's 43-101 compliant estimates of their massive gold deposit may be inaccurate. Why? Because another company, Nova Gold, once overestimated its reserves! (Wow, what in-depth analysis). Seabridge declined on this "news."
The timing of this article was interesting; Seabridge is in the process of issuing additional shares with a shelf registration. Seabridge is often considered a takeover target and this article, I believe, was written at a time SA was most vulnerable. (Interestingly enough, their 38.6 million oz of gold at their KSM property has "good company," 10 BILLION pounds of copper!) I'm certainly not accusing Barrons of any impropriety, but the timing is curious, to say the least.