Peter Schiff, more bullish than ever, sees gold headed to $5,000 an oz.

[NACBA]

Please head over to Peter's site and buy 10 ounces or more NOW!!

Despite a ho-hum performance year to date for gold, Peter Schiff, chief executive officer at Euro Pacific Capital, is still betting on gold’s eventual climb to $5,000 an ounce.

Schiff’s persistent call is more than 300% higher than the Thursday’s settlement at $1,225.20 an ounce on Comex, which marked the highest close for the yellow metal since mid-February.

Gold is roughly 3% higher year to date, but the precious metal seems light year’s away from the all-time highs near $1,900 reached in 2011.

Still, gold’s performance hasn’t been particularly exciting in recent months. Prices GCM5, -1.06% tallied declines for the last three months in a row. They logged declines last year and the year prior.

Gold’s sluggishness makes Schiff’s dogged call on gold all the more notable.

Over the years, he’s reiterated his long-running gold-price forecast, which has yet to come to fruition. Lately, however, he’s sounding even more bullish.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/pe...aded-to-5000-an-oz-2015-05-15?dist=beforebell

 

[phonetic lee]

Despite a ho-hum performance year to date for gold, Peter Schiff, chief executive officer at Euro Pacific Capital, is still betting on gold’s eventual climb to $5,000 an ounce.

I understand that "$5,000 gold eventually" is considered shocking, but of course anyone with historical awareness would find it unremarkable. It only requires two doubles from the current price level, and gold has already doubled several times during the Federal Reserve era.

(Sorry, the chart's a few years out of date.)

The Fed has successfully kept investors hypnotized by continually threatening to act slightly less irresponsibly. Gold can't rally because a rate hike is always presumed to be just around the next corner. I think Peter makes a reasonable case that rate hike talk will be abandoned in favor of additional QE, which should be favorable for gold.

 

[NACBA]

How long should one wait?

 

[phonetic lee]

How long should one wait?

To buy gold?

If I didn't already own it, I would buy now at the current level near $1,220. The price has been range-bound for nearly a year, with an established low of $1,140 (November 2014).

Government/central bank irresponsibility has already fueled the tank for a gold bull market.

 

[Zippyjuan]

It has been pretty steady between roughly $1180 and $1220 or so for a couple years now (since May 2013). And Schiff has been calling for $5000 for nearly a decade now (since at least 2006). Maybe eventually he will be right. It just doesn't look like it will happen anytime soon.

 

[phonetic lee]

(since May 2013)

You're being polite. Since May 2013, GLD is down 15%. But SLV has fallen 25%, while GDX (mining shares) has plunged nearly 30%. Since the September 2011 top, GDX has collapsed nearly 65%. And the numbers for GDXJ (junior miners) are worse.

Of course we know the broad US stock market has posted massive gains.

Precious metals have been a disaster. In my view, the results are suggestive of extraordinary mispricing due to government-induced insanity -- admittedly a bold claim.

 

[phonetic lee]

I know this is a Peter Schiff thread, but Sprott just launched a new monthly publication, the Sprott Precious Metals Report, authored by portfolio manager Trey Reik. The May 2015 link is here:

http://www.sprott.com/precious-metals/precious-metals-watch/

And this is the direct PDF link: http://www.sprott.com/media/341875/sprott-precious-metals-report-5-2015.pdf

Here are a few excerpts focusing primarily on anticipated dollar weakness as a supportive factor for gold:

Given the gaping disconnect between global paper claims and underlying productive output, as well as the unwavering penchant for global central bankers to debase fiat currencies in their attempts to bridge this chasm, we believe the gold thesis remains in its early innings. While these arguments may appear detached and academic in light of recent tape action, we remain committed to our analysis because we believe it is correct.

We believe Western dollar bullishness rests largely on investor expectations for divergent central bank behavior in coming years (U.S. tightening while Japan, Europe and China ease). However, this expectation ignores growing global disenchantment with the dollar-standard system. The world has made no secret of mounting resentment toward dollar-denominated trade.

We believe Western investors are prone to ignore the significance of shifting global economic allegiances. While we are in no way endorsing a “decline of America” argument, we do believe resentment of American dominance of the global financial system, and increasingly frequent crises emanating from that stewardship, is galvanizing resolve around the world to develop alternatives to the dollar-standard system. For those with an open mind, we believe this process is plainly evident wherever one looks.

While the dollar’s role in global monetary affairs is not about to disappear anytime soon, it is pretty clear the dollar’s dominance as hegemonic reserve currency diminishes with each passing day.

We view the dollar’s vertiginous rally since June less as a discretionary vote of preference than a reflexive manifestation of two gut-wrenching but finite developments in global asset markets.

First, a half-decade of Fed largesse has fostered trillions-of-dollars-worth of dollar-denominated debt around the globe. In a very real sense, recent dollar strength reflects self-reinforcing urgency to settle dollar obligations before they inflict further damage. This brand of mechanical dollar demand is notorious for reversing course once the “synthetic short” is satisfied.

Second, we believe consensus underestimates the pervasive inverse relationship between oil prices and the U.S. dollar.

We believe extreme Western spec positioning, exploding carry trades and a plummeting oil price have temporarily masked the ongoing erosion of the dollar’s hegemonic reserve-currency role. We expect the basis for much dollar enthusiasm (expectations for Fed rate increases) will prove just as misguided as consensus Fed analysis during the past half-decade.

 

[oyarde]

All I can tell you is , I would feel better having a little than having none .

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Of course, gold may one day go up to $5000, $10,000 or who knows how high if there's hyperinflation but that's not an "investment strategy", it's more like "economic disaster strategy" & in that sense, Schiff is just going to be like a broken clock being right twice a day!

 

[Danke]

http://kingworldnews.com/felix-zulauf-2-1-15/

 

[dannno]

The title of the thread is incorrect. It goes downhill from there.

 

[phonetic lee]

Of course, gold may one day go up to $5000, $10,000 or who knows how high if there's hyperinflation but that's not an "investment strategy", it's more like "economic disaster strategy" & in that sense, Schiff is just going to be like a broken clock being right twice a day!

Gold is primarily a wealth preservation strategy, IMO. It's an alternative to money-market funds or bank savings accounts.

Investment strategy includes stocks, notably gold and silver mining shares. My stock selections are usually contrarian, which I think is compatible with Schiff's preferences.

At the moment, anything associated with precious metals is contrarian. The Marketwatch article is a good example, I think. The mere fact that Peter mentions $5,000 gold is taken as proof that he's an idiot. Because the consensus, apparently, is that it will never happen.

Historically, inflation and gold have been volatile, but the trend since WWII seems to be running near 4% annually for the CPI, and somewhat higher for gold. Continuation of trend would suggest a quadrupling of gold within something like 30 years. Schiff argues compellingly that the years ahead will be above-trend. I'll try to dig up some Schiff quotes to further illustrate.

 

[acptulsa]

At the moment, anything associated with precious metals is contrarian. The Marketwatch article is a good example, I think. The mere fact that Peter mentions $5,000 gold is taken as proof that he's an idiot. Because the consensus, apparently, is that it will never happen.

Of course, there's a word to describe contrarians and presumed idiots who sell when everyone else is buying and buy when everyone else is selling.

If their timing is good enough, that word is 'wealthy'.

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

It has been pretty steady between roughly $1180 and $1220 or so for a couple years now (since May 2013). And Schiff has been calling for $5000 for nearly a decade now (since at least 2006). Maybe eventually he will be right. It just doesn't look like it will happen anytime soon.

Peter is off with his timetable, but correct about the general trends. The fed's latest bubble won't have long-term staying power. But for all we know, it could go on for another 5-10 years before the next collapse.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Gold is primarily a wealth preservation strategy, IMO. It's an alternative to money-market funds or bank savings accounts.

Investment strategy includes stocks, notably gold and silver mining shares. My stock selections are usually contrarian, which I think is compatible with Schiff's preferences.

At the moment, anything associated with precious metals is contrarian. The Marketwatch article is a good example, I think. The mere fact that Peter mentions $5,000 gold is taken as proof that he's an idiot. Because the consensus, apparently, is that it will never happen.

Historically, inflation and gold have been volatile, but the trend since WWII seems to be running near 4% annually for the CPI, and somewhat higher for gold. Continuation of trend would suggest a quadrupling of gold within something like 30 years. Schiff argues compellingly that the years ahead will be above-trend. I'll try to dig up some Schiff quotes to further illustrate.

Diversification is necessary as you very well recognize but Schiff has been beating up the $5,000 drum for years as if it's going to happen tomorrow & it hasn't happened yet. He was saying the same thing when gold was flying high, it was clearly overpriced & was going to fall quite a bit, certainly wasn't a good time to buy. So I find his talk about gold a little irritating to be honest.

 

[phonetic lee]

So I find his talk about gold a little irritating to be honest.

I'm still searching for his gold forecasts, but here's a horrible dollar prediction from 2007:

http://www.europac.com/commentaries/american_consumers_are_losing_their_crown

My forecast is that over the next two to three years the U.S. Dollar index will fall to 40; half of its current value.

At the time, the Dollar index was near 80. Within about six months, it bottomed just above 70, and today stands above 90.

I can't defend that one

 

[Zippyjuan]

Peter is off with his timetable, but correct about the general trends. The fed's latest bubble won't have long-term staying power. But for all we know, it could go on for another 5-10 years before the next collapse.

How long must one wait for a prediction to be considered a success or failure? Especially when he says in the next year or two? He has also been saying (though he has recently backed off saying it) that hyperinflation was just around the corner too.

Here he is calling for $5000 gold back in 2009. http://www.zerohedge.com/article/peter-schiff-sees-gold-5000

For an "expert at spotting bubbles"- saying he was the only one who said that housing was in a bubble (while lots of others were too) he missed the one on gold which burst at $1900 an ounce and is still saying that it could go even higher. When people said the same thing about housing he laughed at them. The housing bubble is his big "claim to fame". His predictions ever since have failed to materialize.

 

[dannno]

Diversification is necessary as you very well recognize but Schiff has been beating up the $5,000 drum for years as if it's going to happen tomorrow & it hasn't happened yet. He was saying the same thing when gold was flying high, it was clearly overpriced & was going to fall quite a bit, certainly wasn't a good time to buy. So I find his talk about gold a little irritating to be honest.

What if it wasn't overpriced? What if it is still vastly underpriced?

As far as his prediction of the value of the dollar dropping, I think that was in part an over-estimation of the intelligence of Wall St. investors.

 

[erowe1]

The OP is the biggest surprise I've had in a second.

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

How long must one wait for a prediction to be considered a success or failure? Especially when he says in the next year or two? He has also been saying (though he has recently backed off saying it) that hyperinflation was just around the corner too.

Here he is calling for $5000 gold back in 2009. http://www.zerohedge.com/article/peter-schiff-sees-gold-5000

For an "expert at spotting bubbles"- saying he was the only one who said that housing was in a bubble (while lots of others were too) he missed the one on gold which burst at $1900 an ounce and is still saying that it could go even higher. When people said the same thing about housing he laughed at them. The housing bubble is his big "claim to fame". His predictions ever since have failed to materialize.

He makes the same claims that all the Austrians make, only he assigns a timetable to them which is his problem. Nevertheless, this economy will be going down the shitter sooner or later and whoever is holding gold might have a chance of not completely losing their ass.