By the time the #Fed finally admits that higher #inflation is not transitory it will be much too high for the Fed to actually do anything to prevent it from getting even worse. When investors finally figure this out the U.S. dollar and Treasuries will crash and #gold will soar.
More from Gold
90% of my savings were in equity, debt was never attractive! Last few months have taught me the imp of diversification!
Gold - through SGBs was my move on diversifying! Holder since Jan'20 - so far so good!
A🧵on talk given by @PositiveGamma on Investing in Gold!
(1/16)
Link to the here - https://t.co/NxEkVKZi2H
MMTC PAMP is where Krishna worked before Setu and he was also responsible for launching Digi Gold at PayTM!
1) Why Gold?
1.1 Diversification - Volatility & Returns not tied to market conditions - diff. from financial assets.
(2/16)
1.2 Safe Haven - High value asset, easy to transport! Large value - limited space. Liquid and easy to convert to cash across the world.
1.3 Hedge against inflation and currency depreciation! (Depreciation of Rupee is a major factor behind Gold returns in India)
(3/16)
1.4 Upside in Tail Risk - Confidence in currencies & financial systems is low, gold can see upside in scenarios like this!
1.5 Upside on Demand/Supply - Constant Demand - Supply is stable!
2) Gold - Indian Context - Better returns compared to other asset classes...
(4/16)
... specially in the last 2-3 years. Gold has done well both in low inflation & high inflation returns. So both real (ex. inflation) & nominal returns have been good!
3) How much to Allocate?
3.1 Diversification/Inflation Hedge - 10-20%
3.2 Tail Risk/Safe Haven - 5-20%
(5/16)
Gold - through SGBs was my move on diversifying! Holder since Jan'20 - so far so good!
A🧵on talk given by @PositiveGamma on Investing in Gold!
(1/16)
Link to the here - https://t.co/NxEkVKZi2H
MMTC PAMP is where Krishna worked before Setu and he was also responsible for launching Digi Gold at PayTM!
1) Why Gold?
1.1 Diversification - Volatility & Returns not tied to market conditions - diff. from financial assets.
(2/16)
1.2 Safe Haven - High value asset, easy to transport! Large value - limited space. Liquid and easy to convert to cash across the world.
1.3 Hedge against inflation and currency depreciation! (Depreciation of Rupee is a major factor behind Gold returns in India)
(3/16)
1.4 Upside in Tail Risk - Confidence in currencies & financial systems is low, gold can see upside in scenarios like this!
1.5 Upside on Demand/Supply - Constant Demand - Supply is stable!
2) Gold - Indian Context - Better returns compared to other asset classes...
(4/16)
... specially in the last 2-3 years. Gold has done well both in low inflation & high inflation returns. So both real (ex. inflation) & nominal returns have been good!
3) How much to Allocate?
3.1 Diversification/Inflation Hedge - 10-20%
3.2 Tail Risk/Safe Haven - 5-20%
(5/16)
You May Also Like
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?
