Top ten reasons for the drop today (real and imagined):
1. It�s Friday the 13th
2. Arch�s self-fulfilling prophecy
3. Larry finally sold some shares
4. UDC presented at Emerald and had nothing new to say
5. Sony still mum about clie and OLED
6. Uetani is now invested in UDC
7. The Panl Yahoo board is uncomfortably quiet
8. Stockbug�s MM�s have gone way overboard this time
9. Filing of 50 mil shelf
10. Terrorist bio threat potentially resurfaces in the mail
Hey, who said it had to be just one thing? I will say this though, in trying to come up with a list of why UDC should not drop it was a bit harder at this stage of the game. So instead I put together a list of why UDC will not stay down:
1. Sony, Samsung, AUO, Toyota, Pioneer, Dupont, ��
2. Over 400 patents in a disruptive technology
3. a-Si capability
4. Award winning Phosphorescent Red material
5. PHOLED and large area screens
6. TOLED and improved resolutions and efficiencies
7. LPOVPD and Ritek
8. Financially strong, no debt, low burn rate
9. Revenues continue to climb quarter over quarter at a greater pace
10. What, you need another reason?
I think you have a valid point-of-view, cpr, it's just that I don't agree with it. You may call that author "biased" in favor of gold, but I call him a realist! Like the author, I do not buy into the government's numbers.
Aside from that, I do agree, gold is NOT money, and in many ways acts more like a commodity, subject to the vagaries of supply/demand. It is, in fact, this very thing that makes it possible to actually get ahead of the game by speculating in gold, taking advantage of the extremes.
I was going to search for an article regarding loss of purchasing power in the dollar that wasn't written by an advocate of gold, but it seems that everyone who sees it this way also tends to see gold as the answer, so I give up!
Let's just agree to disagree on this one. In any event, we'll all know which point of view prevails in the fullness of time. Cheers.
Newly, thank you for the link.
The article is interesting, but author is a true gold-lover (like you LOL) and biased about gold and fiat money.
"The only real currency is gold"
"Gold is the real money"
"Dollar lost 30% of value comparing to real money - gold" and so on, and so on...
This is not true, because gold is a commodity and price of gold subject to supply and demand ratio. If you consider gold as money, why not any other commodity like oil or pork bellies?
I know, I know your point - gold is easier to keep than pork bellies.:-).
Again, if USD lost 30% in relation to gold or Euro, it does not mean that it lost 30% of it's real value, as sppn as inflation is in bay.
<<<<I was thinking in terms of the fact that prices are rising for food, electricity, gas, services, insurance, medical care, etc., while earning power is declining along with salaries and benefits. Sorry, but don't have any statistics handy, and too tired to hunt for some, but just going to the supermarket, or opening one's heating bill tells the tale>>>>
Earning power has nothing to do with portfolio value. You still instists that portfolio that made less than 30% actually lost money?
Again, it's equivalent to 30% annual inflation in US and it's just not true...
Here's a little article that elaborates on my statement regarding loss of value in "real terms" better than I ever could:
http: //news.goldseek.com/Tocqueville/1077035369.php (remove the space to access)
uetani: I respect your thoughts on the FPD industry,
but I must challenge your thoughts about gold.
>>Gold has traditionally been a store of wealth<<
Forget tradition. Today gold ownership is a hedge
against the dollar. If gold ownership is about
storing wealth, then it's a story of stasis and
not about profits.
Gold ownership just keeps you even with
purchasing power. You don't really profit unless
you create leverage in currency markets. I am
not sophisticated enough to be a currency trader.
I bought my gold position and I'm holding until the
gold market looks like the 2000 market balloon.
Sometimes gold trades as a commodity.
Other times it trades as a currency.
As a commodity, gold has been thoroughly dissed.
Gold bottomed at what, about $250?
As a currency, gold is now above $400.
And the US dollar continues to go lower.
Dollar up = gold down.
Dollar down = gold up.
It's that simple, for the most part.
Yes, there are divergences.
And I'm just talking day-to-day.
Gold is closer to a real market
than diamonds and de Beers.
de Beers is sitting on a humongous
surplus of diamonds in an attempt
to keep the market price strong.
They are manipulating a worthless
asset and marketing it as something
of value that is necessary to seal
a bond of love. What a bunch of crap!
Japan is buying umpteen billions
of US dollars to keep their exports
cheap. Do you think Japan gives a rip
about diamonds? Okay, tell me about
any savvy investor who might give a rip
Nobody is buying or selling diamonds
in order to stabilize (manipulate) currencies.
de Beers only wishes they could have
so much power. The status of diamonds doesn't
even approach the status of a currency, or even
a foundation for a currency valuation. There are
just too many diamonds.
But currencies will always pay attention to gold.
At this point I have to point out the gazillions
of dollars floating around. In contrast, at least
de Beers has some controls on their 'money.'
The central banks fear the tiny gold
market because gold speaks volumes
about where a fiat paper currency is headed.
Gold is a currency; diamonds are not, and,
I dare say, diamonds are a crappy investment
and definitely NOT "a store of value."
Gold also is NOT a store of value. Its ownership
is a defense against dollar devaluation and
debasement, and a defense against the
government overspending, deficit creation,
and the national debt which undermines the value
of the dollar.
Try reading "A Gold Polaris" from 1995:
Boy, is this off topic or what?
PS. I don't think 'gold is pretty' (to paraphrase you)
deserves a response. And if you want me to address 'scarce'
I suggest reading the link above. It's a long and
onerous reading, and I linked you to part 2 of 6.
Regards to you and all.
I was thinking in terms of the fact that prices are rising for food, electricity, gas, services, insurance, medical care, etc., while earning power is declining along with salaries and benefits. Sorry, but don't have any statistics handy, and too tired to hunt for some, but just going to the supermarket, or opening one's heating bill tells the tale.
It is taking a larger and larger portion of a smaller and smaller pie to live these days. That's been my experience. Yours may vary.
LOL. Gold is still scarce and still pretty. Nothing has changed. Gold is virtually indestructible, and practically useless, and while, as you say, there is more gold in the world right now than ever before, there are also more people.
And do not forget, gold does have an intrinsic value in that men must sweat and endure danger to locate, mine and refine it, and new sources must be found periodically as mines playout, whereas the printing press can spit out your "pretty pictures" at practically zero cost ad infinitum.
If in future the earth should collide with a solid gold meteorite that then shattered, coating the surface of the earth with a layer of small gold nuggets (already refined and printed with pretty pictures, of course), then gold would surely lose its position as a store of value. Until then, I'm betting people continue to flee to the relative safety of gold in unsure times as they traditionally have always done.
And what is to say the pendulum will not swing too far in the opposite direction once again? Are things really so very different to the '70's? We still have widespread currency fluctuations, oil shocks, the remnanants of the war in the mid-east, major political scandals brewing, not to even mention the corporate and mutual fund fiascos. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
It is different opinions that make a market. And dead Presidents aren't all that attractive, so I think I'll just stick with my pretty golden pictures for now. Good luck with your paper . . .
<<<BTW, the USDollar has lost nearly 30% of its value over the past 2 years, so if one's portfolio has not gained at least 30%, one is losing money in real terms.>>>
I think your statement is wrong.
Which real terms do you mean?
Relating to Euro or to gold?
Do you assume 30% inflation in US?
This may make sense only for person who lives in Europe and whose income is in USD, in this case you feel the difference.
If you live in US and buy everything in USD given the inflation is weak, why should you lose money if your portfolio gains 25%?
You better define your "real terms" more explicitly.
Gold has traditionally been a store of wealth because it was scarce nd pretty -- same as diamonds. Diamonds have retained their value largely because of the deBeers cartel, but there is actually more gold in the world right now than there is usage for it. That leaves the fact that it is pretty, and somehow I don't see that carrying as much weight now as it did 200 years ago. The 70's were a perfect example, I think, of the pendalum swinging too far in the opposite direction -- in that case helped by widespread currency fluctuations, oil shocks, the remnants of the war in Vietnam, a major political scandal in the USA, etc., etc., etc.
Personally, I like the pictures on the EUR and RMB bills right now. Very, very pretty.
What??!! I was hoping to trade in the after life as well. On second thought, I'm sticking around as a ghost. I don't see things being so nice in the future. This capitalism just may implode upon itself.