Big Advantage - SGB offers 2.50% per annum interest. It will be credited to your bank account once every 6 months.
Physical gold sits ideal, gold bonds earn you money.
Better way to Invest in Gold -
The new Sovereign Gold Bond (SGB) issue opened today for subscription for 5 days from 17-21 May.
Thread on why consider SGB bonds vs physical gold this year-
Big Advantage - SGB offers 2.50% per annum interest. It will be credited to your bank account once every 6 months.
Physical gold sits ideal, gold bonds earn you money.
Keeping gold safely is one of the major challenges that people have to face when buying gold.
However with SGB, gold is safe in a vault under Government surveillance.
Your bond can be kept in Demat format.
Checking the purity while buying Physical Gold is a common problem but investing in SGB saves you from having to go through the trouble of checking purity as it is being issued by the Government and each unit you buy is backed by 99.9% pure 24-carat gold.
One of the lesser-known advantages of Sovereign Gold Bonds is that they can be hypothecated for taking loans which makes it equivalent if not better than buying physical gold.
It is a good opportunity for investors who can broaden and diversify their portfolio by investing in these SGB.
Just be aware of the lack of liquidity. If you need to cash out in less than 5yrs, then avoid this!
GOI has exempt capital gains tax on redepmtion of SGB at the end of 8 years. Any capital gains arising at the time of redemption will be entirely tax-free.
However, the interest earned is taxable. But not TDS will be deducted.
To know more about Gold as an investment, check free learning - https://t.co/jT4tqymNin
Retweet to create awareness.
More from Gold
From 1850 to 1990$ - the GOLD is getting more interesting. I will be adding up more if the resistance is taken off and the price follows through.
GOLD https://t.co/l6pEGDpAkL
GOLD https://t.co/l6pEGDpAkL
Most interesting chart:
— The_Chartist \U0001f4c8 (@charts_zone) February 12, 2022
Orange line = Gold
Blue Curve = Gold/S&P 500
Previously the ratio crossed 50 days MA in Feb' 20 with Gold giving a breakout on the charts. The previous cross of 50 days MA didn't result in gold breaking out. pic.twitter.com/HRG1fvsILp
You May Also Like
The first area to focus on is diversity. This has become a dogma in the tech world, and despite the fact that tech is one of the most meritocratic industries in the world, there are constant efforts to promote diversity at the expense of fairness, merit and competency. Examples:
USC's Interactive Media & Games Division cancels all-star panel that included top-tier game developers who were invited to share their experiences with students. Why? Because there were no women on the
ElectronConf is a conf which chooses presenters based on blind auditions; the identity, gender, and race of the speaker is not known to the selection team. The results of that merit-based approach was an all-male panel. So they cancelled the conference.
Apple's head of diversity (a black woman) got in trouble for promoting a vision of diversity that is at odds with contemporary progressive dogma. (She left the company shortly after this
Also in the name of diversity, there is unabashed discrimination against men (especially white men) in tech, in both hiring policies and in other arenas. One such example is this, a developer workshop that specifically excluded men: https://t.co/N0SkH4hR35
USC's Interactive Media & Games Division cancels all-star panel that included top-tier game developers who were invited to share their experiences with students. Why? Because there were no women on the
ElectronConf is a conf which chooses presenters based on blind auditions; the identity, gender, and race of the speaker is not known to the selection team. The results of that merit-based approach was an all-male panel. So they cancelled the conference.
Apple's head of diversity (a black woman) got in trouble for promoting a vision of diversity that is at odds with contemporary progressive dogma. (She left the company shortly after this
Also in the name of diversity, there is unabashed discrimination against men (especially white men) in tech, in both hiring policies and in other arenas. One such example is this, a developer workshop that specifically excluded men: https://t.co/N0SkH4hR35
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
