Tout d'abord, avant de parler de l'or, qui est un actif sans risque de contrepartie, on oublie un peu trop souvent le cash, qui lui aussi, n'a pas de risque de contrepartie (même s'il partage sa valeur avec la monnaie crédit), mais qui en revanche, n'a pas besoin d'être revendu pour être utilisé...
Et visiblement, à voir les
statistiques de la BCE elle même, la quantité de billets de 500€ émis a fait un joli bon en 2008 :
Table 2: in value (EUR billions), outstanding amounts, end of period | Year | Total | € 500 | € 200 | € 100 | € 50 | € 20 | € 10 | € 5 |
| 2007 | 677 | 226 | 31 | 121 | 222 | 49 | 20 | 7 |
| 2008 | 763 | 265 | 34 | 138 | 246 | 52 | 20 | 7 |
| 2009 | 806 | 282 | 36 | 147 | 260 | 54 | 20 | 7 |
| 2010 Q1 | 797 | 285 | 36 | 146 | 253 | 51 | 19 | 7 |
| 2010 Q2 | 812 | 285 | 36 | 150 | 262 | 52 | 20 | 7 |
| 2010 Q3 | 813 | 285 | 36 | 151 | 263 | 52 | 20 | 7 |
| Aug. | 814 | 284 | 36 | 151 | 264 | 53 | 20 | 7 |
| Sep. | 813 | 285 | 36 | 151 | 263 | 52 | 20 | 7 |
| Oct. | 815 | 285 | 36 | 151 | 264 | 53 | 20 | 7 |
Et donc, après cette digression, j'en reviens au sujet de ce post :
|
Super-rich investors buy gold by ton
|
Reuters, Laura Macinnis, 04/10/2010 (traduire en Français  )
|
|
→ lien
|
The world's wealthiest people have responded to economic worries by buying gold by the bar -- and sometimes by the ton -- and by moving assets out of the financial system, bankers catering to the very rich said on Monday.
"They don't only buy ETFs or futures; they buy physical gold," said Stadler, who runs the Swiss bank's services for clients with assets of at least $50 million to invest.
UBS is recommending top-tier clients hold 7-10 percent of their assets in precious metals like gold
"If you talk to ultra-high net worth individuals, that level of uncertainty has never been higher in the last two, three, four years," he said. "If they ask me, 'Is inflation going up or are we entering a deflationary cycle?,' I don't know. But obviously nobody knows."
Cours de l'or ajusté de l'inflation officielle :
Montée de l'or comparée à la bulle Internet et la bulle immobilière :
Perso, j'ai arrêté d'en acheter pour ma part... Ce qui m'intéresse, ce n'est pas le point le plus haut du pic, mais plutôt la valeur d'équilibre qu'il atteindra à terme. Et en terme d'équilibre et de prix de la masse d'or mondiale sur le M3 mondial en $, je vois bien l'or finir par s'établir autour des 1000$...
Typiquement, en 1980, on s'en tape un peu que l'or aie atteint les 850$ tout en haut de la pointe. C'est un placement peu liquide qui ne se vend pas en deux clics. Et espérer viser le top quand on ets un ptiot poypoy, ça n'a aucun sens. Sans parler de la logique derrière tout ça visant à surfer encore sur une enième bulle spéculative. Perso, je m'en tiens à viser la valeur de long terme. En 1980, l'or a fini par s'établir à 400$... Il faut juste retenir qu'il est passé de 35$ à 400$ en passant par une bulle. Seules les deux extrêmités comptent.
La hauteur de la pointe n'a aucune importance.
Et aujourd'hui, pour un particulier, il faut se poser les questions en ces mêmes termes.
Pour ma part, je me suis fixé 20% de mon patrimoine en métaux précieux, en assurance contre une éventuelle hyper inflation. Je m'y tiens. Et comme les cours ne cessent de monter, je ne repasse pas en dessous des 20%. Et donc tant que ça dure, pas de nouveaux achats en vue. Ce système de pourcentage, c'est d'ailleurs un bon moyen simple d'établir une position qui se "gère" toute seule. Ça oblige à acheter quand c'est bas.
Et je finis ce post avec cet article du très déflationniste Mike Shedlock, bourré de bons conseils sur la manière d'appréhender l'épargne et l'or :
|
"Midas Crush" - MarketWatch Attempts to Explain "Why Gold is a Bad Investment"
|
|
Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis, Mike Shedlock, 15/11/2010 (traduire en Français )
|
|
→ lien
|
“Gold is always a speculation,” says James Grant.
The legal dictionary defines speculate "to assume a business risk in hope of gain; to buy or sell in expectation of profiting from market fluctuations"
By that definition, what isn't speculation?
Buying bonds is speculating that a company will be able to pay you back. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't as the collapse in GM shows. How many widows on fixed income counting on GM yields got wiped out?
Little did GM bond investors realize they were foolishly betting (speculating) that GM would not go bankrupt. They lost.
What about technology stocks, especially "bellwethers" like Cisco?
Holding Dollars is Speculating
By the definition I gave above, even those holding dollars or treasuries are speculating. The speculation in this sense is that dollars will buy more (or lose less), than other investments.
In light of the fact that everything is speculation, which of the following is the better bet?
1. The Fed continues to debase the dollar and gold soars
2. Cisco or Microsoft goes parabolic once again (and gold doesn't follow)
Bear in mind, gold is not a sure thing. Gold fell from 850 to 250 over a 20 year period with inflation every step of the way. Gold is not an inflation hedge as most think.
Rather, gold is a hedge against deflation or extreme inflation. In ordinary inflation, and periods of disinflation, gold tends to do poorly.
Ce passage également que je moulte-plussoie, où il explique qu'il faut concevoir ses placements en terme de probabilités
Probabilities
I prefer to look at things in terms of probabilities. It is highly likely the Fed embarks on Quantitative Easing. That should be good for gold, but short term that QE may easily be priced in.
Moreover, the Fed may go slower than what the market thinks.
Thus, there could be a huge "sell the news" event in both gold and the stock market on the QE announcement, no matter what that announcement is.
Should that happen, given that gold is in a long-term bull market, and given that Bernanke will likely go back to the QE well, I expect buying the next big dip in gold would be a higher probability event than buying a 10% correction in the stock market.
There is a lot going for gold, but it is by no means a "sure thing".
Pour ma part, également dans une logique de terme et de probabilités, entre hyper inflation/déflation/peak everything, j'ai équilibré mon affaire comme ça (avec un coffre à la banque pour ne jamais rien garder de valeur chez soi) :
70% en épargne réglementée (genre livrets A)
(pari d'une déflation à la japonaise)
10% cash
(assurance contre la déflation et les faillites bancaires)
11% argent
(assurance contre la déflation et l'hyper inflation / peak everything ++)
08% or
(assurance contre la déflation et l'hyper inflation / peak everything +)
01% indium/palladium
(peak everything +++)
Les sommes en question ne sont franchement pas énormes. Alors pour ceux ayant pas mal d'épargne, ne pas prendre mon exemple perso de béotien pour plus que ce que ça vaut...
Investing vs. Speculation
No matter what you do with your money, even holding it, you are taking a chance. The prudent thing is to have a cash cushion of a year's worth of living expenses in case you lose your job. If you don't have a cash cushion and you don't have insurance you are speculating you won't lose your job or you won't get sick.
I believe it's prudent to own some gold, but no more than you can sleep with.
Putting everything you have on gold is neither prudent nor practical, especially for those managing other people's money.
Risk management is crucial, no matter what you do.
In a practical sense then, one can make a case that "a" differentiating factor between investing and speculating is risk management.
Tops are formed when nearly everyone is a believer. In regards to housing, belief peaked in summer of 2005. I called the peak of the housing bubble in real time, precisely on time, in It's a Totally New Paradigm.
Note that in contrast to what Nadler says about gold, people did use the phrase "totally new paradigm" in regards to home prices. Time Magazine even went "gaga" right on the cover.
For a series of real time updates on housing, please see Collapse of the "Ownership Society"
In regards to gold, we are a long, long way from everyone being a believer. By that measure, it's highly unlikely the top is in.
Point: Gold has no untapped intrinsic value; it is worth only what people are willing to pay for it.
Counterpoint: Federal Reserve Notes have no untapped intrinsic value; they are worth only what people are willing to exchange them for.
Only difference: gold can't be created out of thin air.
)
Les pays sur-endettés vont aller sauver les pays en faillite ? 
Messages
