Why did gold dip in 2011
"The cause of the increase in 2006-2011 was the financial crisis, where, if you recall, the global banking system came close to collapse for reasons that are well documented. Rightly or wrongly, gold is seen as a safe haven asset in times of crisis. The price of gold began to decline in 2011 when the markets decided that the risk of a global banking system collapse had passed without further incident. In the period leading up to 2006, the price of gold was in a flat-to-down trend because there was little net buying interest in gold and large gold sales had been executed by various central banks around the world who felt that gold no longer had a place in central bank reserves.   In modern economies gold is seen as a ""fringe"" asset.  It has no role to play.  The recent financial crisis may have dented that perception, but those dents are now being forgotten and the price of gold is returning to its long-term downward trend.  When the next financial/banking crisis is upon us, the price of gold will again (probably) rally.  The extent of the rally will depend on the extent of the crisis."
For the record, now that 2011 is here we know that the capital gains tax rate didn't change. Congress extended it for two more years. This shows the uncertainty in trying to maximize earnings based on future changes to the tax code. "I'll take a stab at this question and offer a disclosure: I recently got in RING (5.1), NEM (16.4), ASX:RIO (46.3), and FCX (8.2).  While I won't add to my positions at current prices, I may add other positions, or more to them if they fall further.  This is called catching a falling dagger and it's a high risk move. Cons (let's scare everyone away) Pros The ECB didn't engage in as much QE as the market hoped and look at how it reacted, especially commodities.  Consider that the ECB's actions were ""tighter"" than expected and the Fed plans to raise rates, or claims so.  Commodities should be falling off a cliff on that news. While most American/Western attention is on the latest news or entertainment, China has been seizing commodities around the globe like crazy, and the media have failed to mention that even with its market failing, China is still seizing commodities.  If China was truly panicked about its market, it would stop investing in other countries and commodities and just bail out its own country.  Yet, it's not doing that.  The whole ""China crisis"" is completely oversold in the West; China is saying one thing (""oh no""), but doing another (using its money to snap up cheap commodities). Capitalism works because hard times strengthen good companies.  You know how many bailouts ExxonMobil has received compared to Goldman Sachs?  You know who owns more real wealth?  Oil doesn't get bailed out, banks do, and banks can't innovate to save their lives, while oil innovates.  Hard times strengthen good companies.  This means that this harsh bust in commodities will separate the winners from the losers and history shows the winners do very well in the long run. Related to the above point: how many bailouts from tax payers do you think mining companies will get?  Zero.  At least you're investing in companies that don't steal your money through government confiscation. If you're like me, you can probably find at least 9 people out of 10 who think ""investing in miners is a VERY BAD idea.""  What do they think is a good idea?  ""Duh, Snapchat and Twitter, bruh!""  Then there's the old saying, ""Be greedy when everyone's fearful and fearful when everyone's greedy."" Finally, miners own hard assets.  Benjamin Graham used to point this out with the ""dead company"" strategy like finding a used cigarette with one more smoke.  You're getting assets cheap, while other investors are overpaying for stocks, hoping that the Fed unleashes moar QE!  Think strategy here: seize cheap assets, begin limiting the supply of these assets (if you're the saver and not borrowing), then watch as the price begins to rise for them because of low supply.  Remember, investors are part owners in companies - take more control to limit the supply.  Using Graham's analogy, stock pile those one-puff cigarettes for a day when there's a low supply of cigarettes. Many miners are in trouble now because they've borrowed too much and must sell at a low profit, or in some cases, must lose.  When you own assets debt free, you can cut the supply.  This will also help the Federal Reserve, who's been desperately trying to figure out how to raise inflation.  The new patriotic thing to do is stimulate the economy by sending inflation up, and limiting the supply here is key." "Overall, since gold has value in any currency (and is sort of the ultimate reserve currency), why would anyone want to currency hedge it? Because gold is (mostly) priced in USD. You currency hedge it to avoid currency risk and be exposed to only the price risk of Gold in USD.  Hedging it doesn't mean ""less speculative"". It just means you won't take currency risk. EDIT: Responding to OP's questions in comment what happens if the USD drops in value versus other major currencies? Do you think that the gold price in USD would not be affected by this drop in dollar value? Use the ETF $GLD as a proxy of gold price in USD, the correlation between weekly returns of $GLD and US dollar index (measured by major world currencies) since the ETF's inception is around -47%. What this says is that gold may or may not be affected by USD movement. It's certainly not a one-way movement. There are times where both USD and gold rise and fall simultaneously. Isn't a drop in dollar value fundamentally currency risk? Per Investopedia, currency risk arises from the change in price of one currency in relation to another. In this context, it's referring to the EUR/USD movement. The bottom line is that, if gold price in dollar goes up 2%, this ETF gives the European investor a way to bring home that 2% (or as close to that as possible)." "Nothing necessarily has to ""benefit."" Right now, what primarily drives demand for gold is its perceived use as a hedge against the inflation of fiat currency. I.e. when inflation strikes, the price of gold goes up rapidly. Thus, for a given currency, gold decreasing in price is almost always a signal that the currency is increasing in value. However, it may be that at some point in time people everywhere just decide that gold is no longer worth using as an inflation hedge, and thus the price collapses simply because demand collapsed. No corresponding ""benefit""." Two reasons why I think that's irrelevant: First, if it was on 3/31/2012 (two other sources say it was actually 4/3/2012), why the big jump two trading days later? Second, the stock popped up from $3.10 to $4.11, then over the next several trading days fell right back to $3.12. If this were about the intrinsic value of the company, I'd expect the stock to retain some value. As soon as the USA left the gold exchange standard, total factor productivity began to dramatically stagnate.   We can trace it back to the early 1900s, but because of electricity, oil, automobiles and computers it is best to track it from Nixon taking us off the gold standard:  http://azizonomics.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/tfp.jpeg  Coincidence? I don’t think so — a fundamental change in the nature of the money supply coincided almost exactly with a fundamental change to the shape of the nation’s economy. Is the simultaneous outgrowth in income inequality a coincidence too?  Keynesians may respond that correlation does not necessarily imply causation, and though we do not know the exact causation, there are a couple of strong possibilities that may have strangled productivity:  1.Leaving the gold exchange standard was a free lunch for policymakers: GDP growth could be achieved without any real gains in productivity, or efficiency, or in infrastructure, but instead by just pumping money into the system.  2.Leaving the gold exchange standard was a free lunch for businesses: revenue growth could be achieved without any real gains in productivity, or efficiency.  And it’s not just total factor productivity that has been lower than in the years when America was on the gold exchange standard — as a Bank of England report recently found, GDP growth has averaged lower in the pure fiat money era (2.8% vs 1.8%), and financial crises have been more frequent in the non-gold-standard years.  Bottomline, it is the best explanation for a fall in productivity even factoring in computers. The point of what you heard is likely that gold is thought by some to hold its value well, when the money market would provide negative interest rates. These negative interest rates are a sign of deflation, where cash money is worth more in the future than it is today.  Normally, under inflation, cash money is worth less in the future than it is today. Under 'normal' circumstances where inflation exists, interest paid by the bank on money held there generally keeps up with inflation + a little bit extra. Now, we are seeing many banks offering interest rates in the negatives, which is an acknowledgement of the fact that money will be worth more in the future than it is today. So in that sense, holding physical gold 'fights' deflation [or, negative interest rates], in the same way that holding physical cash does [because if you hold onto a $10k bundle of bills, in 10 years you can walk into a bank and it will be worth $10k in future dollars - which in a deflationary market would be more than it is worth today]. Some view gold as being better at doing this than just holding cash, but that discussion gets into an analysis of the value of paper money as a currency, which is outside the scope of this answer.  Suffice to say, I do not personally like the idea of buying gold as an investment, but some do, and partly for this reason. December, 5, 2011 ( 03:00pm ) :-  All markets including stocks &amp; Commodities are moving towards upward direction on the strong cues comes on the expiring today.  Little bit Volatile comes over the settlement in MCX today. Gold &amp; Silver contracts are expiring today.  Dow Jones Industrial average future up by80 points from the optimism coming from the European Countries.  All European Countries getting financial aid from the side of IMF which is provided through the European Central Bank.  Nifty have strong resistance at 5150 levels  under this level  short term trend still bearish side.  Gold have strong support at Rs 28960 above this trend bullish under this trend down for short term. Gold is a commodity.  It has a tracked price and can be bought and sold as such.  In its physical form it represents something real of signifigant value that can be traded for currency or barted.  A single pound of gold is worth about 27000 dollars. It is very valuable and it is easily transported as opposed to a car which loses value while you transport it.  There are other metals that also hold value (Platinum, Silver, Copper, etc) as well as other commodities.  Platinum has a higher Value to weight ratio than gold but there is less of a global quantity and the demand is not as high.  A gold mine is an investement where you hope to take out more in gold than it cost to get it out.   Just like any other business.  High gold prices simply lower your break even point. TIPS protects you from inflation but does not protect you from devaluation.  It also only pays the inflation rate recoginized by the Treasury.  There are experts who believe that the fed has understated inflation.  If these are correct then TIPS is not protecting its investors from inflation as promised.   You can also think of treasury bonds as an investment in your government.  Your return will be effectively determined by how they run their business of governing.  If you believe that the government is doing the right things to help promote the economy then investing in their bonds will help them to be able to continue to do so.  And if consumers buy the bonds then the treasury does not have to buy any more of its own. "As Michael McGowan says, just because gold has gone up lots recently does not mean it will continue to go up by the same amount. This plot:  shows that if your father had bought $20,000 in gold 30 years ago, then 10 years ago he would have slightly less than $20,000 to show for it. Compare that with the bubble in real estate in the US:  Update: I was curious about JoeTaxpayer's question: how do US house prices track against US taxpayer's ability to borrow?  To try to answer this, I used the house price data from here, the 30 year fixed mortgages here and the US salary information from here. To calculate the ""ability to borrow"" I took the US hourly salary information, multiplied by 2000/12 to get a monthly salary. I (completely arbitrarily) assumed that 25 per cent of the monthly salary would be used on mortgage payments.  I then used Excel's ""PV"" (Present Value) function to calculate the present value of the thirty year fixed rate mortgage. The resulting graph is below.  The correlation coefficient between the two plots is 0.93.  There are so many caveats on what I've done in ~15 minutes, I don't want to list them... but it certainly ""gives one furiously to think"" !! Update 2:  OK, so even just salary information correlates very well with the house price increases.  And looking at the differences, we can see that perhaps there was a spike or bubble in house prices over and above what might be expected from salary-only or ability-to-borrow." "First, a clarification. No assets are immune to inflation, apart from inflation-indexed securities like TIPS or inflation-indexed gilts (well, if held to maturity, these are at least close). Inflation causes a decline in the future purchasing power of a given dollar1 amount, and it certainly doesn't just affect government bonds, either. Regardless of whether you hold equity, bonds, derivatives, etc., the real value of those assets is declining because of inflation, all else being equal. For example, if I invest $100 in an asset that pays a 10% rate of return over the next year, and I sell my entire position at the end of the year, I have $110 in nominal terms. Inflation affects the real value of this asset regardless of its asset class because those $110 aren't worth as much in a year as they are today, assuming inflation is positive. An easy way to incorporate inflation into your calculations of rate of return is to simply subtract the rate of inflation from your rate of return. Using the previous example with inflation of 3%, you could estimate that although the nominal value of your investment at the end of one year is $110, the real value is $100*(1 + 10% - 3%) = $107. In other words, you only gained $7 of purchasing power, even though you gained $10 in nominal terms. This back-of-the-envelope calculation works for securities that don't pay fixed returns as well. Consider an example retirement portfolio. Say I make a one-time investment of $50,000 today in a portfolio that pays, on average, 8% annually. I plan to retire in 30 years, without making any further contributions (yes, this is an over-simplified example). I calculate that my portfolio will have a value of 50000 * (1 + 0.08)^30, or $503,132. That looks like a nice amount, but how much is it really worth? I don't care how many dollars I have; I care about what I can buy with those dollars.  If I use the same rough estimate of the effect of inflation and use a 8% - 3% = 5% rate of return instead, I get an estimate of what I'll have at retirement, in today's dollars. That allows me to make an easy comparison to my current standard of living, and see if my portfolio is up to scratch. Repeating the calculation with 5% instead of 8% yields 50000 * (1 + 0.05)^30, or $21,6097. As you can see, the amount is significantly different. If I'm accustomed to living off $50,000 a year now, my calculation that doesn't take inflation into account tells me that I'll have over 10 years of living expenses at retirement. The new calculation tells me I'll only have a little over 4 years. Now that I've clarified the basics of inflation, I'll respond to the rest of the answer.  I want to know if I need to be making sure my investments span multiple currencies to protect against a single country's currency failing. As others have pointed out, currency doesn't inflate; prices denominated in that currency inflate. Also, a currency failing is significantly different from a prices denominated in a currency inflating. If you're worried about prices inflating and decreasing the purchasing power of your dollars (which usually occurs in modern economies) then it's a good idea to look for investments and asset allocations that, over time, have outpaced the rate of inflation and that even with the effects of inflation, still give you a high enough rate of return to meet your investment goals in real, inflation-adjusted terms. If you have legitimate reason to worry about your currency failing, perhaps because your country doesn't maintain stable monetary or fiscal policies, there are a few things you can do. First, define what you mean by ""failing."" Do you mean ceasing to exist, or simply falling in unit purchasing power because of inflation? If it's the latter, see the previous paragraph. If the former, investing in other currencies abroad may be a good idea. Questions about currencies actually failing are quite general, however, and (in my opinion) require significant economic analysis before deciding on a course of action/hedging. I would ask the same question about my home's value against an inflated currency as well. Would it keep the same real value. Your home may or may not keep the same real value over time. In some time periods, average home prices have risen at rates significantly higher than the rate of inflation, in which case on paper, their real value has increased. However, if you need to make substantial investments in your home to keep its price rising at the same rate as inflation, you may actually be losing money because your total investment is higher than what you paid for the house initially. Of course, if you own your home and don't have plans to move, you may not be concerned if its value isn't keeping up with inflation at all times. You're deriving additional satisfaction/utility from it, mainly because it's a place for you to live, and you spend money maintaining it in order to maintain your physical standard of living, not just its price at some future sale date. 1) I use dollars as an example. This applies to all currencies." No.  If you have to ignore a price spike, obviously its value is not constant.  Gold is a commodity, just like every other commodity. Your quote: There's about 10 trillion in gold  and about 2.8 trillion of US cash  in the world. Neither of these is anywhere large enough to be used for all the transactions in the world.  So how was it commercial banks could lend like crazy for home mortgages??  M1 remaind constant throughout the decade and years , if frac multiplier effect was the cause for m2, why wasn't it until the 2000s that m2 became exponential?   Commercial Banks able to create credit and lend out of thin air to customers thanks to deregulation that caused m2 to explode.  They didn't need no FED.  They didin't need no reserves.  They were able to act regardless of the FED.  The FED responded to them, instead of the other way around.    Before deregulation banks didn't bother creating too much credit loans coz it was too dangerous, they were mostly utilty banks.   After deregulation, creation of exotic derivatives, low interest rates, and high speed internet globalized digital trading,  they went crazy creating credit out of thin air coz it wasn't dangerous because they could sell the home loans. What do you base that on?   It does appear to be in a bubble, but what makes you think it will pop in a year or two? What if people keep getting more and more scared of the current instability and keep pumping their money into gold? I think part of the confusion is due to the age of the term and how money has changed over time relative to being backed by precious metals vs using central banks etc. Historically: Because historically the coin itself was precious metal, if a change occurred between the 'face value' of the coin and value of the precious metal itself, the holder of the coin was less affected since they have the precious metal already in hand. They could always trade it based on the metal value instead of the face value. OTOH if you buy a note worth an the current price of ounce of gold, and the price of gold goes up, and then the holder wants to redeem the note, they end up with less than an ounce of gold. In the more modern age  The main concern is the cost to borrow funds to put money into circulation, or the gain when it goes out of circulation.  The big difference between the two is that bills tend stay in circulation until they wear out, have to be bought back and replaced.  Coins on the other hand last longer, but have a tendency to drop out of circulation due to collectors (especially with 'collectible series' coins that the mint seems to love to issue lately).  This means that bills issued tend to stay in circulation, while only a percentage of coins stays in circulation.  So the net effect on the money supply is different for the two, and since modern 'seigniorage' is all about the cost to put money in circulation, it is different in the case of coins where some percentage will not remain circulating.