query: How do historically low interest rates affect real estate prices?

positive: The article John cites says no correlation, but this chart from the article says otherwise;  One sees the rate drop from 14% to 4% and housing rise from an index of 50 to near 190. (reaching over to my TI BA-35 calculator) I see that at 14%, $1000/mo will buy $84,400 worth of mortgage, but at 4%, it will buy $209,500. 2-1/2 times the borrowing power for the same payment. But wait, my friends at West Egg tell me that inflation means I can't compare $1000 in 1980 to the same $1000 in 2010. The $1,000 inflates to $2611 (i.e. an income rising only with inflation, no more) and that can fund a mortgage for $546,900. This is 6.5 times the original borrowing power, yet the housing index 'only' rose 3.8X. See that crazy chart? Housing actually got cheaper from 1980 to the peak. Statistics can say whatever you wish.  Interest rate change drove all the change in housing prices, but not quite as much as it should have.  To answer your question - I expect that when rates rise (and they will) housing prices will take a hit. In today's dollars, a current $1000 borrows (at 4%) nearly $210K, but at 6%, just $167K. If rates took a jump from these record lows, that's the nature of the risk you'd take.

positive: Interest rates do generally affect house prices but other factors do too, especially the unemployment rate. However, everything else being equal, when interest rates drop, it makes the borrowing of money cheaper so tends to stimulate the economy and the housing market, increasing the demand for houses and generally causes house prices to increase (especially if the supply of new housing doesn't increase with the demand). When interest rates go up the opposite happens. Usually interest rates go down in order to stimulate  a slowing economy and interest rates go up to slow down an overheated economy. Regarding your situation you are able to get a 30 year fixed rate at today’s interest rates (in Australia the longest fixed rate you can get is for 10 years and the rate is usually 1 or 2 percent higher than the standard variable rate. Most people here go for the variable rate or a fixed rate of between 1 to 3 years). This means that even if rates do go up in the future you won't be paying a higher rate, which is a positive for you. You are buying the house to live in so as long as you can keep making the repayments you should not be too worried if the price of the house drops sometime in the future, because if your house has dropped and you want to sell to buy another house to live in, then that house would have also dropped relative to yours (give or take). So your main worry is that rates will go up causing both house prices to fall and unemployment to rise, and you yourself losing your job and eventually your house. It is a risk, but what you need to consider is if you can manage that risk. Firstly, I believe rates won't be going up in the US for a number of years, and if and when they do start going up they will most probably start going up slowly. So you have some time on your side. Secondly, what can you do between now and when interest rates do start going up in a few years: Try to put more saving away to increase your safety net from 6 months to 12 months or more, or make extra repayments into your home loan so that you are ahead if things do go wrong. If you are worried that you could lose your job, what can you do to reduce your chances of losing your job or increasing your chances of getting a new job quickly if you do lose it? Improve your current skills, get new skills, become an invaluable employee, or look at possible opportunities to start your own business. Do your own research on the types of houses you are looking at buying, the more houses you look at the better prepared you will be when the right house at the right price comes along, and the less chance that you will be rushed into buying what might be an overpriced house. So to sum it up; do as much research as you can, have an understanding of what your risks are and how you are going to manage those risks.

negative: I don't like REITs because they are more closely correlated to the movement of the stock market. They don't really do the job of diversifying a portfolio because of that correlation.  When the stock market dropped in 2008, REITs were hammered as well because the housing bubble burst. Bonds went up, and if you rebalanced (sold the bonds to buy more stock) then you came out much further ahead when the stock market recovered. The point of adding bonds for diversification is that they move in the opposite direction of equities; blunting the major drops (and providing buying opportunities). REITs don't fit that bill. REITs are not undergoing a correction like bonds because the price of real estate is a function of housing supply and buyer demand. Rising interest rates only make it a little harder for buyers to buy, so the effect of rising interest rates on real estate prices is muted. The other effects on real estate prices (more wealth in the economy for buyers) pushes in the opposite direction of the rising interest rates.

negative: I would go with the 2nd option (put down as little as possible) with a small caveat: avoid the mortgage insurance if you can and put down 20%. Holding your rental property(ies)'s mortgage has some benefits: You can write off the mortgage interest.  In Canada you cannot write off the mortgage interest from your primary residence. You can write off stuff renovations and new appliances.  You can use this to your advantage if you have both a primary residence and a rental property.  Get my drift? P.S. I do not think it's a good time right now to buy a property and rent it out simply because the housing prices are over-priced.  The rate of return of your investment is too low. P.S.2.  I get the feeling from your question that you would like to purchase several properties in the long-term future.  I would like to say that the key to good and low risk investing is diversification.  Don't put all of your money into one basket.  This includes real estate.  Like any other investment, real estate goes down too.  In the last 50 or so years real estate has only apprepriated around 2.5% per year.  While, real estate is a good long term investment, don't make it 80% of your investment portfolio.

negative: Interest rates are at historic lows. In my opinion they can only go up from here. With that in mind, it is best to lock in interest rates now.  I would only take an adjustable rate if I expected my personal income to increase in excess of the increase in interest rates.  I hold that the recent technology of fracking has driven down the price of energy. I also believe that this is a short term situation and energy prices will return, and have already begun to do so. With the price of energy going up, inflation will return.

negative: I just wish people who hate on keynesian policies (which while not perfect, are not as terrible as people point them out to be) would at least acknowledge that Keynes advocated maintaining budget surpluses when the economy is doing fine/alright.   For me the major catalysts for the recession were:  * Low interest rates despite rising real estate prices which encouraged risky investments. * Two expensive wars   Anything else was salt on the wounds really.

negative: Short answer: Structural decline in banking revenue and margins.  Longer answer: A combination of regulation and technology has slowly eroded the profitability of banks, just look at historic ROEs. This has been exacerbated by low interest rates which has compressed banking margins via lower interest revenue, particularly affecting Swiss and German banks. Bottom line, investment banking is not as profitable as it was and is likely to become less profitable going forward.

negative: "Yes. S&P/ Case-Shiller real-estate indices are available, as a single national index as well as multiple regional geographic indices. These indices are updated on the last Tuesday of every month. According to the Case-Shiller Index Methodology documentation: Their purpose is to measure the average change in home prices in 20 major metropolitan areas... and three price tiers– low, middle and high. The regional indices use 3-month moving averages, published with a two-month lag. This helps offset delays due to ""clumping"" in the flow of sales price data from county deed recorders. It also assures sufficient sample sizes.  Regional Case-Shiller real-estate indices  * Source: Case-Shiller Real-estate Index FAQ. The S&P Case-Shiller webpage has links to historical studies and commentary by Yale University Professor Shiller. Housing Views posts news and analysis for the regional indices. Yes. The CME Group in Chicago runs a real-estate futures market. Regional S&P/ Case-Schiller index futures and options are   the first [security type] for managing U.S. housing risk. They    provide protection, or profit, in up or down markets. They extend to the   housing industry the same tools, for risk management and investment,    available for agriculture and finance. But would you want to invest? Probably not. This market has minimal activity. For the three markets, San Diego, Boston and Los Angeles on 28 November 2011, there was zero trading volume (prices unchanged), no trades settled, no open interest, see  far right, partially cut off in image below.  * Source: Futures and options activity[PDF] for all 20 regional indices.  I don't know the reason for this situation. A few guesses: Additional reference: CME spec's for index futures and options contracts."

negative: My equities portfolio breaks down like this: (I'm 26 years old, so it is quite aggressive) Additionally, I have a portfolio of direct real estate investments I have made over the past 4 years.  I invested very aggressively into real estate due to the financial crisis. As a result of my aggressive investing & strong growth in real estate, my overall asset breakdown is quite out of balance. (~80% Real Estate, ~20% Equities) I will be bringing this into a more sensible balance over the next few years as I unwind some of my real estate investments & reinvest the proceeds into other asset classes. As for the alternative asset groups you mentioned, I looked quite seriously at Peer to Peer lending a few years back. (Lending Club) However, interest rates were quite low & I felt that Real Estate was a better asset class to be in at the time.   Furthermore, I was borrowing heavily to fund real estate purchases at the time, and I felt it didn't make much sense to be lending cash & borrowing at the same time.  I needed every dime I could get a hold of.  :)  I will give it another look once rates come back up. I've shied away from investing in things like actively managed mutual funds, hedge funds, etc ... not because I don't think good managers can get superior returns ... rather, in my humble opinion, if they DO get above average returns then they simply charge higher management fees to reflect their good performance. Hope this helps!

negative: Obviously the best way to consolidate the real-estate loans is with a real-estate loan. Mortgages, being secured loans, provide much better interest rates. Also, interest can be deducted to some extent (depending on how the proceeds are used, but up to $100K of the mortgage can have deductible interest just for using the primary residence as a collateral). Last but not least, in many states mortgages on primary residence are non-recourse (again, may depend on the money use). That may prove useful if in the future your mother runs into troubles repaying it. So yes, your instincts are correct. How to convince your mother - that's between you and her.

negative: An alternative to paying thousands of dollars for historical prices by the minute:  Subscribe to real time data for as low as USD$1.5/month from your broker, then browse the chart.

negative: "In the quoted passage, the bonds are ""risky"" because you CAN lose money. Money markets can be insured by the FDIC, and thus are without risk in many instances.  In general, there are a few categories of risks that affect bonds. These include: The most obvious general risk with long-term bonds versus short-term bonds today is that rates are historically low."

negative: Nobody can predict the affects of Brexit but it is wise to consider them. We saw the pound weaken after the vote to leave and it is possible the pound will weaken further after Brexit and this devaluation could be quite dramatic. If that happens it is likely to increase inflation, UK inflation has gone from under 1% around the time of the referendum to 3% today and it could well go higher. https://www.rateinflation.com/inflation-rate/uk-historical-inflation-rate If inflation continues to increase, the Bank of England is likely to put up interest rates, as it has historically done this to hedge against inflation.  We have been living in a world of artificially low interest rates since the global crash of 2008 as the BoE has tried to stimulate recovery with lower rates.  The rates cannot continue at this level if inflation starts to rise. http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2387744/Base-rate-vs-inflation-chart-How-tell-things-really-got-better.html That in turn will put up mortgage rates.  So for example if you have a £100k mortgage at 3.92% (currently this is a reasonable rate to have) your repayments will be £523 a month.  If your mortgage rate goes up to say 7% then your repayments are £707 a month, if it goes up to 10% then it's £909 a month and so on. There is a mortgage calculator you can use to try playing with different amounts here: https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/mortgages/mortgage-rate-calculator My advice would therefore be try to get as small a mortgage as you can and make sure you can afford it quite comfortably, in case rates go up and you need to find a few hundred pounds a month extra. There are other risks from Brexit as well, house prices could fall as people decide not to buy properties due to excessive interest rates! Overall nobody knows what will happen but it is good to be planning ahead for all eventualities. ** I am not a financial advisor, this advice is given in good faith but with no financial qualification.

negative: > There are also the people that want a crash to happen since they missed the boat on the real estate boom.  This is a huge factor.  I don't know the Canada market, but I would be cautious if prices are too far out of line with rents.  That's what happened in the US, but it wasn't just that.  You need a few more ingredients.  like Adjustable rate mortgages with a low down payment.

negative: > The purpose of buying these bonds was not to step in due to the absence of a market. Rather, the purpose was to deliberately bid up the price of these bonds (ahead of the market), causing their price to rise and yields (interest rates) to drop.  There are some important things you need to understand about bubbles and how they form.  When interest rates are artificially low and down payments aren't required for many loans, do you agree this is a recipe for a bubble?

negative: "P/E ratios for the whole market are rising to levels generally only seen after crashes in the market when low earnings push up the ratio.    A lot of people in the market recognize the artificial effect of government easing and low interest rates have had on prices. Basically, there's more money sloshing around and there's nowhere else for it to go that earns a good return.  I agree that outside of tech the rest of the economy is doing fairly well and will probably be resilient against any shock. But tech is a bigger part of the market than ever, and we could still see a big market correction and a small real world downturn on the back of it.  >There were people prior to 2008 sounding alarm bells about the real estate market. I haven't seen the equivalent today.  You said it yourself: overvalued tech stocks that nobody can justify the high prices for. We have big IPOs on companies that don't actually make money. Huge market caps on ""disruptors"" that are only very niche parts of their industries (e.g. Tesla). Companies like Uber that still lose money but command huge valuations.   Is that enough for a crash? Hell yes - that was what caused the 2001 dotcom crash and recession."

negative: "TARP was ~$475 billion of loans to institutions.  Loans that are to be paid back, with interest (albeit very low interest).  A significant percentage of the TARP loans have been (or will be) paid back.  So, the final price tag of the TARP was only a few $billion (pretty low considering the scale of the program). There is ~$10 trillion in mortgage debt outstanding.  That's a much higher price tag than TARP.  Secondly, paying off the mortgages = no repayment to the government as there was with TARP.  The initial price tag of your plan would be ~$10 trillion, instead of a few $billion. Furthermore how does a government with >$15 trillion in debt already come up with an extra ~$10 trillion to pay off people's mortgages?  Should the government go deeper into debt?  Print more money and trigger inflation? (Note:  Some people like to talk about a ""secret bailout"" by the Fed, implying that the true cost of TARP was much higher than claimed by the government.  The ""secret bailout"" was a series of short-term low/no interest loans to banks.  Because they were loans, which were paid back, my point still stands.)  Some other issues to consider: Remember that the principal balance of your mortgage is only a small portion of your payments to the bank.  Over 30 years, you pay a lot of $$$ in interest to the bank (that's how banks make a profit).  Banks are expecting that revenue, and it is factored into their financial projections.  If those revenue streams suddenly disappeared, I expect it would majorly screw the up the financial industry. Many people bought houses during the real estate boom, when housing prices were inflated far beyond the ""real"" value of the house.  Is it right to overpay for these houses?  This rewards the banks for accepting the inflated value during the appraisal process.  (Loan modification forces banks to accept the ""real"" value of the house.) The financial crisis was triggered by people buying houses they could not afford.  Should they be rewarded with a free house for making poor financial decisions?"

negative: I would say that, for the most part, money should not be invested in the stock market or real estate.  Mostly this money should be kept in savings: I feel like your emergency fund is light.  You do not indicate what your expenses are per month, but unless you can live off of 1K/month, that is pretty low.  I would bump that to about 15K, but that really depends upon your expenses. You may want to go higher when you consider your real estate investments.  What happens if a water heater needs replacement?  (41K left) EDIT:  As stated you could reduce your expenses, in an emergency, to 2K.  At the bare minimum your emergency fund should be 12K.  I'd still be likely to have more as you don't have any money in sinking funds or designated savings and the real estate leaves you a bit exposed.  In your shoes, I'd have 12K as a general emergency fund.  Another 5K in a car fund (I don't mind driving a 5,000 car), 5k in a real estate/home repair fund, and save about 400 per month for yearly insurance and tax costs.  Your first point is incorrect, you do have debt in the form of a car lease.  That car needs to be replaced, and you might want to upgrade the other car.  How much?  Perhaps spend 12K on each and sell the existing car for 2K?  (19K left). Congratulations on attempting to bootstrap a software company.  What kind of cash do you anticipate needing?  How about keeping 10K designated for that?  (9K left) Assuming that medical school will run you about 50K per year for 4 years how do you propose to pay for it?  Assuming that you put away 4K per month for 24 months and have 9K, you will come up about 95K short assuming some interests in your favor.  The time frame is too short to invest it, so you are stuck with crappy bank rates.

negative: "QUICK ANSWER When it comes to fixed income assets, whether rental real estate or government bonds, it's unusual for highly-leveraged assets to yield less than the same asset unleveraged or lowly-leveraged.  This is especially so in countries where interest costs are tax deductible. If we exclude capital losses (i.e. the property sells in future at a price less than it was purchased) or net rental income that doesn't keep up with maintenance, regulatory, taxation, inflation and / or other costs, there is one primary scenario where higher leverage results in lower yields compared to lower leverage, even if rental income keeps up with non-funding costs.  This occurs when variable rate financing is used and rates substantially increase. EXPLANATION Borrowers and lenders in different countries have different mortgage rate customs.  Some are more likely to have long-term fixed rates; some prefer variable rates; and others are a hybrid, i.e. fixed for a few years and then become variable. If variable rates are used for a mortgage and the reference rates increase substantially, as they did in the US during the 1970s, the borrower can easily become ""upside-down,"" i.e. owe more on the mortgage than the property is then worth, and have mortgage service costs that exceed the net rental income.  Some of those costs aren't easy to pass along to renters, even when there are periodic lease renewals or base rent increases referencing inflation rates.  Central banks set policies for what would be the lowest short-term rates in a country that has such a bank.  Private sector rates are established broadly by supply and demand for credit and can thus diverge markedly from central bank rates. Over time, the higher finance-carrying-cost-to-net-rental-income ratio should abate as (1) rental market prices change to reflect the costs and (2) the landlord can reinvest his net rental income at a higher rate.  In the short-term though, this can result in the landlord having to ""eat"" the costs making his yield on his leveraged fixed income asset less than what he would have without leverage, even if the property was later sold at same price regardless of financing method. ========== Interestingly, and on the flip side, this is one of the quirks in finance where an accounting liability can become, at least in part, an economic asset.  If a landlord borrows at a high loan-to-value ratio for a fixed interest rate for the life of the mortgage and rates, variable and fixed, were to increase substantially, the difference between his original rate and the present rates accrues to him. If he's able to sell the property with the loan attached (which is not uncommon for commercial, industrial and sometimes municipal real estate), the buyer will be assuming a liability with a lower carrying cost than his present alternatives and will hence pay a higher price for the property than if it were unleveraged. With long-term rates in many economically advanced countries at historic lows, if a borrower today were to take a long-term fixed rate loan and rates shortly after increased substantially, he may have an instant profit in this scenario even if his property hasn't increased in value."

negative: Nah, this is a fluff piece designed to get people excited about real estate.  A good rule of thumb is that if a piece has a National Association of Realtors quote in it, it's good odds that that it's trying to promote buying and/or selling real estate and trying to get people excited about real estate.  If there's actually a shortage of supply relative to demand, which is what matters, I'd expect to see Case-Schiller housing price index increases (not just median sales price increases, which I see quoted a bit, as those are affected by what type of house is selling in larger numbers).  Let's go back and look at [YOY Case-Schiller for Los Angeles](http://www.standardandpoors.com/indices/sp-case-shiller-home-price-indices/en/us/?indexId=spusa-cashpidff--p-us----).  Yup, looks like Los Angeles has seen a 4.8% drop over the course of the last year in the index.  Not exactly the sign of a booming housing market.

negative: One thing to note before buying bond funds. The value of bonds you hold will drop when interest rates go up. Interest rates are at historical lows and pretty much have nowhere to go but up. If you are buying bonds to hold to maturity this is probably not a major concern, but for a bond fund it might impair performance if things suddenly shift in the interest rate market.

negative: Book value = sell all assets and liquidate company . Then it's the value of company on book. Price = the value at which it's share gets bought or sold between investors.  If price to book value is less than one, it shows that an 100$ book value company is being traded at 99$ or below. At cheaper than actually theoretical price. Now say a company has a production plant . Situated at the most costliest real estate . Yet the company's valuation is based upon what it produces, how much orders it has etc while real estate value upon which plant is built stays in book while real investors don't take that into account (to an extend). A construction company might own a huge real estate inventory. However it might not be having enough cash flow to sustain monthly expense. In this scenario , for survival,i the company might have to sell its real estate at discount. And market investors are fox who  could smell trouble and bring price way below the book value  Hope it helps

negative: "> The long-run goal is to eliminate poverty through wealth creation. If that makes for some weird new social interactions, I'd say that's a reasonable cost.  Yes, I agree but there's a problem if we ""allow"" income inequality to become so rampant it causes macro-geopolitical issues. I'm not sure how that would be solved, it seems almost inherent in a captalistic model. I suppose mitigating rent seeking in favour of actual wealth creation and spreading meritocracy in proportion rather than exponentiality might be a start. The current wave of green energy, climate change and focus on health might be an indirect mitigating factor to this. Perhaps the limitation of land is the *real* issue. Space colonization would be an interesting scenario but there's likely a lot of time before that happens.  > I mention comparing to earlier periods simply as a measure of progress to determine whether or not there is a problem that needs correction, such as a specific group in society experiencing real wage stagnation, or truly anemic growth rates relative to earlier periods. It's the slope of the trend line for each group that I'd be worried about, where linear or exponential is good, and logarithmic should indicate a potential crisis.  That actually makes sense.  > Ultimately, I believe that it's not a persons absolute circumstances that matter, but the rate at which those circumstances are improving throughout their lives that most strongly affects their subjective well-being (but that's just my theory).  I have not read enough in both economics or human psychology to really have an opinion on this but so far, I would lean towards an agreement.  > As for real estate costs, you're absolutely correct that this is a problem, but it's as easily explainable problem. Supply is artificially constrained in most of the US due to the need for explicit government permission (in the form of building permits and zoning laws) in order to build new units. Basic economics says that when supply is artificially restricted, prices will rise.  I'm on the fence on this issue because real estate is based on rent seeking and promotion of debt slavery. While I won't argue against the principle of government restriction -> higher prices, what exactly keeps private interests from raising living cost as high as it can? Even in the developed world people spend as much as half of their income on rent / mortgage alone. Other than competition of course but in a high competitive area the incentive is to eat up market share. The laws of accumulation would then argue that in the end a few, large institutions would own the majority of residential homes and living apartments. They can now set their own prices and that will, in effect, be as bad as government regulation."

negative: "leverage amplifies gains and losses, when returns are positive leverage makes them more positive, but when returns are negative leverage makes them more negative. since most investments have a positive return in ""the long run"", leverage is generally considered a good idea for long term illiquid investments like real estate.  that said, to quote keynes: in the long run we are all dead. in the case of real estate specifically, negative returns generally happen when house prices drop. assuming you have no intention of ever selling the properties, you can still end up with negative returns if rents fall, mortgage rates increase or tax rates rise (all of which tend to correlate with falling property values). also, if cash flow becomes negative, you may be forced to sell during a down market, thereby amplifying the loss.  besides loss scenarios, leverage can turn a small gain into a loss because leverage has a price (interest) that is subtracted from any amplified gains (and added to any amplified losses). to give a specific example: if you realize a 0.1% gain on x$ when unleveraged, you could end up with a 17% loss if leveraged 90% at 2% interest. (gains-interest)/investment=(0.001*x-0.02*0.9*x)/(x/10)=-0.017*10=-0.17=17% loss one reason leveraged investments are popular (particularly with real estate), is that the investor can file bankruptcy to ""erase"" a large negative net worth.  this means the down side of a leveraged investment is limited for the highly leveraged investor. this leads to a ""get rich or start over"" mentality common among the self-made millionaire (and failed entrepreneurs).  unfortunately, this dynamic also leads to serious problems for the banking sector in the event of a large nation-wide devaluation of real estate prices."

negative: "Historically, Banks are mandated to take relatively safe risks with their money.  In exchange, they gain a de-facto permission to invent new money.  They have regulations about what mix of assets they are permitted to own.  Real estate speculation will be in a different category than a mortgage to someone with good credit. Second, mortgages with a secured asset are pretty safe almost all of the time.  That person might stop paying their mortgage, but it is secured; when that happens, the bank gets the secured asset (the right-to-apartment or house or what have you). In a sense, the bank loses only if both the person paying the mortgage is less creditworthy than they look, and the secured asset cannot recoup their losses. In comparison, the person paying the mortgage loses if the secured asset cannot recoup their losses. The bank is buffered from risk two fold.  What more, the bank uses the customer to determine what to invest in. Deciding what to do with money is expensive and hard.  By both having a customer willing to put their good credit on the line and doing due diligence on the apartment, the Bank in effect uses you as a consultant who decides this may be a solid investment.  Much of the risk of failure is on you, so you have lots of incentive to make a good choice. If the Bank was instead deciding which apartment where worth buying, who would decide?  A bank employee, whose bonus this year depends on finding a ""great apartment to invest in?"", but the consequence of a bad choice doesn't show up for many years?  The people selling the bank the apartments? Such a business can exist.  There are real estate companies that take money, and invest it in real estate.  Often the borrow money from Banks secured against their existing real estate and use it to build more real estate.  (Notice the bit about it being secured against existing real estate; things go south, Bank gets stuff). The Bank's indirect investment in that apartment in the current system is covered by appraisals, the seller, the mortgage holder, and the system deciding that the mortgage holder is creditworthy. Banks sell risk.  They lend you money, you go off and do something risky with it, and they get a the low-risk return on investment of your loan.  Multiple such low-risk investments provides them with a relatively dependable stream of money, which they give out to their bondholders, deposit account customers, shareholders or what have you. When you take a mortgage out for that, you are buying risk from the bank.  You are more exposed to the failure of the investment than they are.  They get less return if things go really well."

negative: "The Fed doesn't exactly have a specific schedule when they decide to create a new dollar. Instead, they engage in open market operations, creating and destroying money as is necessary to preserve a certain interest rate for lending and borrowing. It's an ongoing process. When the Fed meets periodically and they see that inflation is getting out of hand, they will raise that rate; when they see that the economy is weak, they will lower it. They change the target rate from time to time, but they seldom tell people exactly what they'll do in advance, aside from them recently saying that rates will remain incredibly low ""for an extended period of time"". There are people who trade futures contracts based on what they think these rates will be, and the Fed does publish information on what the market thinks the probabilities are. That's probably the closest thing to telling you ""how much and when"". If you want to know about the size of the money supply, ask the Federal Reserve; you probably want series H.6, Money Stock Measures. For an explanation of what the data series there means, ask Wikipedia: you're probably interested in M2, because that's what actually affects the economy, though M0 is closer to what they actually ""print"" (currency, bills and coins, and deposits at the central bank). If you're concerned about the actual real value of your dollar dropping, the actual value drop is better understood by looking at either the inflation rate, or an exchange rate against a foreign currency (and depending on what you were hoping to use that dollar for, there are a couple of different inflation rates). The standard inflation rate which measures what happens in your day to day life is the consumer price index, published by the BLS. There are a variety of forecasts of this, but I'm not aware of any official government-agency forecasts."

negative: "At the most fundamental level, every market is comprised of buyers and selling trading securities. These buyers and sellers decide what and how to trade based on the probability of future events, as they see it. That's a simple statement, but an example demonstrates how complicated it can be. Picture a company that's about to announce earnings. Some investors/traders (from here on, ""agents"") will have purchased the company's stock a while ago, with the expectation that the company will have strong earnings and grow going forward. Other agents will have sold the stock short, bought put options, etc. with the expectation that the company won't do as well in the future. Still others may be unsure about the future of the company, but still expecting a lot of volatility around the earnings announcement, so they'll have bought/sold the stock, options, futures, etc. to take advantage of that volatility.  All of these various predictions, expectations, etc. factor into what agents are bidding and asking for the stock, its associated derivatives, and other securities, which in turn determines its price (along with overall economic factors, like the sector's performance, interest rates, etc.) It can be very difficult to determine exactly how markets are factoring in information about an event, though. Take the example in your question. The article states that if market expectations of higher interest rates tightened credit conditions... In this case, lenders could expect higher interest rates in the future, so they may be less willing to lend money now because they expect to earn a higher interest rate in the future. You could also see this reflected in bond prices, because since interest rates are inversely related to bond prices, higher interest rates could decrease the value of bond portfolios. This could lead agents to sell bonds now in order to lock in their profits, while other agents could wait to buy bonds because they expect to be able to purchase bonds with a higher rate in the future.  Furthermore, higher interest rates make taking out loans more expensive for individuals and businesses. This potential decline in investment could lead to decreased revenue/profits for businesses, which could in turn cause declines in the stock market. Agents expecting these declines could sell now in order to lock in their profits, buy derivatives to hedge against or ride out possible declines, etc. However, the current low interest rate environment makes it cheaper for businesses to obtain loans, which can in turn drive investment and lead to increases in the stock market. This is one criticism of the easy money/quantitative easing policies of the US Federal Reserve, i.e. the low interest rates are driving a bubble in the stock market. One quick example of how tricky this can be. The usual assumption is that positive economic news, e.g. low unemployment numbers, strong business/residential investment, etc. will lead to price increases in the stock market as more agents see growth in the future and buy accordingly. However, in the US, positive economic news has recently led to declines in the market because agents are worried that positive news will lead the Federal Reserve to taper/stop quantitative easing sooner rather than later, thus ending the low interest rate environment and possibly tampering growth.  Summary: In short, markets incorporate information about an event because the buyers and sellers trade securities based on the likelihood of that event, its possible effects, and the behavior of other buyers and sellers as they react to the same information. Information may lead agents to buy and sell in multiple markets, e.g. equity and fixed-income, different types of derivatives, etc. which can in turn affect prices and yields throughout numerous markets."

negative: The biggest issue is your lack of diversification.  Your real estate investments have performed quite well so far, but you have also likely enjoyed a period of unprecedented growth that is not sustainable. In the long term, stocks have always outperformed real estate investments, which tend to track more closely to the inflation rate. You need more balance for when when the real estate market cools off. You don't mention tax-deferred retirement savings accounts. You should prioritize your attention to these to keep your income tax low. Consider selling one of your investment properties if you can't adequately fund the 401k.

negative: It's all about risk. These guidelines were all developed based on the risk characteristics of the various asset categories. Bonds are ultra-low-risk, large caps are low-risk (you don't see most big stocks like Coca-Cola going anywhere soon), foreign stocks are medium-risk (subject to additional political risk and currency risk, especially so in developing markets) and small-caps are higher risk (more to gain, but more likely to go out of business).  Moreover, the risks of different asset classes tend to balance each other out some. When stocks fall, bonds typically rise (the recent credit crunch being a notable but temporary exception) as people flock to safety or as the Fed adjusts interest rates. When stocks soar, bonds don't look as attractive, and interest rates may rise (a bummer when you already own the bonds). Is the US economy stumbling with the dollar in the dumps, while the rest of the world passes us by? Your foreign holdings will be worth more in dollar terms. If you'd like to work alternative asset classes (real estate, gold and other commodities, etc) into your mix, consider their risk characteristics, and what will make them go up and down. A good asset allocation should limit the amount of 'down' that can happen all at once; the more conservative the allocation needs to be, the less 'down' is possible (at the expense of the 'up'). .... As for what risks you are willing to take, that will depend on your position in life, and what risks you are presently are exposed to (including: your job, how stable your company is and whether it could fold or do layoffs in a recession like this one, whether you're married, whether you have kids, where you live). For instance, if you're a realtor by trade, you should probably avoid investing too much in real estate or it'll be a double-whammy if the market crashes. A good financial advisor can discuss these matters with you in detail.

negative: I would hope he would borrow at historically low rates to invest wisely in American infrastructure in the hope that the improved productivity gains would offset the associated interest rate risks.  I suspect he would simply cut the minimum wage and unemployment benefits to force Americans to accept lower wage jobs.

negative: Don't know why you're getting downvoted, wouldn't be worried about a credit crisis until we get bad jobs numbers, so far they've been pretty fucking good. On top of it interest rates are at historic lows. Maybe in the future but not now

negative: Lowering of the US credit rating would affect all US bonds.  Some institutional investments are required to invest in securities with a certain credit rating (i.e. money markets and some low risk mutual funds).  If the credit rating is lowered these institutions would be required to dump their US bond holdings.  This could have a serious affect on bond prices.  The lower bond prices would drive up yields. If the US credit rating was lowered after you purchased TIPS then the price you could sell your TIPS for would most probably be lower then what you bought them.  You would lose money. All US bonds, including TIPS, would be affected by a lower credit rating since the credit rating is suppose to indicate the borrower's ability to repay the debt.  This is independent of inflation.  TIPS provide no additional benefit over regular bonds in regard to credit rating.

negative: "Great question!  A Yield Curve is a plot of the yields for different maturities of debt. This can be for any debt, but the most common used when discussing yield curves is the debt of the Federal Government. The yield curve is observed by its slope.  A curve with a positive slope (up and to the right) or a steepening curve, i.e. one that's becoming more positively sloped or less negatively sloped, may indicate several different situations. The Kansas City Federal Reserve has a nice paper that summarizes various economic theories about the yield curve, and even though it's a bit dated, the theories are still valid. I'll summarize the major points here. A positively sloped yield curve can indicate expectations of inflation in the future. The longer a security has before it matures, the more opportunities it has to be affected by changes in inflation, so if investors expect inflation to occur in the future, they may demand higher yields on longer-term securities to compensate them for the additional inflationary risk. A steepening yield curve may indicate that investors are increasing their expectations of future inflation. A positively sloped yield curve may also reflect expectations of deprecation in the dollar. The publication linked before states that depreciation of the dollar may have increased the perceived risk of future exchange rate changes and discouraged purchases of long-term Treasury securities by Japanese and other foreign investors, forcing the yields on these securities higher. Supply shocks, e.g. decreases in oil prices that lead to decreased production, may cause the yield curve to steepen because they affect short-term inflation expectations significantly more than long-term inflation. For example, a decrease in oil prices may decrease short-term inflation expectations, so short-term nominal interest rates decline. Investors usually assume that long-term inflation is governed more by fundamental macroeconomic factors than short-term factors like commodity price swings, so this price shock may lead short-term yields to decrease but leave long-term relatively unaffected, thus steepening the yield curve. Even if inflation expectations remain unchanged, the yield curve can still change. The supply of and demand for money affects the ""required real rate,"" i.e. the price of credit, loans, etc. The supply comes from private savings, money coming from abroad, and growth in the money supply, while demand comes from private investors and the government. The paper summarizes the effects on real rates by saying Lower private saving, declines in the real money supply, and reduced capital inflows decrease the supply of funds and raise the required real rate. A larger government deficit and stronger private investment raise the required real rate by increasing the demand for funds. The upward pressure on future real interest rates contributes to the yield curve's positive slope, and a steepening yield curve could indicate an increasing government deficit, declines in private savings, or reduced capital coming in from abroad (for example, because of a recession in Europe that reduces their demand for US imports). an easing of monetary policy when is economy is already producing near its capacity ... would initially expand the real money supply, lowering required short-term real interest rates. With long-term real interest rates unchanged, the yield curve would steepen. Lower interest rates in turn would stimulate domestic spending, putting upward pressure on prices. This upward price pressure would probably increase expected inflation, and as the first bullet point describes, this can cause long-term nominal interest rates to rise. The combination of the decline in short-term rates and the rise in long-term rates steepens the yield curve.  Similarly, an inverted yield curve or a positively sloped yield curve that is becoming less steep may indicate the reverse of some or all of the above situations. For example, a rise in oil prices may increase expectations of short-term inflation, so investors demand higher interest rates on short-term debt. Because long-term inflation expectations are governed more by fundamental macroeconomic factors than short-term swings in commodity prices, long-term expectations may not rise nearly as much as short term expectations, which leads to a yield curve that is becoming less steep or even negatively sloped. Forecasting based on the curve slope is not an exact science, just one of many indicators used.  Note - Yield Curve was not yet defined here and was key to my answer for What is the ""Bernanke Twist"" and ""Operation Twist""? What exactly does it do? So I took the liberty of ask/answer."

negative: Something that you omitted in your question is whether this prospective purchase is a single family residence (SFR) or some other type of real property.  If this is an investment purchase as you say it is, then the only real way to tell it is worth what you are willing to pay is based on the income it produces. Once you complete an income and expense analysis you can get a CAP rate to compare it to other like properties in the area.  This is the best way to value income/investment real estate.  If you don't know what a CAP rate is and how to calculate it, then you might be over your head a bit. Another important aspect to consider is the reason to pay all cash for this property.  The main reason to invest in real estate is to use the banks money as leverage.  Again, you should understand these kinds of basic real estate concepts before you dive into purchasing investment property.


query: How does spot-futures arbitrage work in the gold market?

positive: You're missing the cost-of-carry aspect: The cost of carry or carrying charge is the cost of storing a physical commodity, such as grain or metals, over a period of time. The carrying charge includes insurance, storage and interest on the invested funds as well as other incidental costs. In interest rate futures markets, it refers to the differential between the yield on a cash instrument and the cost of the funds necessary to buy the instrument. So in a nutshell, you'd have to store the gold (safely), invest your money now, i.e. you're missing out on interests the money could have earned until the futures delivery date.  Well and on top of that you need to get the gold shipped to London or wherever the agreed delivery place is. Edit: Forgot to mention that of course there are arbitrageurs that make sure the futures and spot market prices don't diverge. So the idea isn't that bad as I might have made it sound but being in the arbitrage business myself I should disclaim that profits are small and arbitraging is highly automated, so before you spot a $1 profit somewhere between any two contracts, you can be quite sure it's been taken by an arbitrageur already.

positive: "As proposed: Buy 100 oz of gold at $1240 spot = -$124,000 Sell 1 Aug 2014 Future for $1256 = $125,600 Profit $1,600 Alternative Risk-Free Investment: 1 year CD @ 1% would earn $1240 on $124,000 investment. Rate from ads on www.bankrate.com ""Real"" Profit All you are really being paid for this trade is the difference between the  profit $1,600 and the opportunity for $1240 in risk free earnings.  That's only $360 or around 0.3%/year.   Pitfalls of trying to do this: Many retail futures brokers are set up for speculative traders and do not want to deal with customers selling contracts against delivery, or buying for delivery. If you are a trader you have to keep margin money on deposit.  This can be a T-note at some brokerages, but currently T-notes pay almost 0%.   If the price of gold rises and you are short a future in gold, then you need to deposit more margin money.  If gold went back up to $1500/oz, that could be $24,400.  If you need to borrow this money, the interest will eat into a very slim profit margin over the risk free rate.   Since you can't deliver, the trades have to be reversed.  Although futures trades have cheap commissions ~$5/trade, the bid/ask spread, even at 1 grid, is not so minimal.  Also there is often noisy jitter in the price.  The spot market in physical gold may have a higher bid/ask spread. You might be able to eliminate some of these issues by trading as a hedger or for delivery.  Good luck finding a broker to let you do this... but the issue here for gold is that you'd need to trade in depository receipts for gold that is acceptable for delivery, instead of trading physical gold.  To deliver physical gold it would likely have to be tested and certified, which costs money. By the time you've researched this, you'll either discover some more costs associated with it or could have spent your time making more money elsewhere."

negative: In order to understand how much you might gain or lose from participating in the futures markets, it is important to first understand the different ways in which the slope of the futures markets can be described. In many of the futures markets there is a possibility of somebody buying a commodity at the spot price and selling a futures contract on it. In order to do this they need to hold the commodity in storage. Most commodities cost money to hold in storage, so the futures price will tend to be above the spot price for these commodities.  In the case of stock index futures, the holder receives a potential benefit from holding the stocks in an index.   If the futures market is upward sloping compared to the spot price, then it can be called normal. If the futures market is usually downward sloping compared to the spot price then it can be called inverted. If the futures market is high enough above the spot price so that more of the commodity gets stored for the future, then the market can be called in contango. If the futures market is below the point where the commodity can be profitably stored for the future, and the market can be called in backwardation. In many of these cases, there is an implicit cost that the buyer of a future pays in order to hold the contract for certainly time. Your question is how much money you make if the price of gold goes up by a specific amount, or how much money you lose if the price of gold goes down by the same specific amount.  The problem is, you do not say whether it is the spot price or the futures price which goes up or down.  In most cases it is assumed that the change in the futures price will be similar to the change in the spot price of gold.  If the spot price of gold goes up by a small amount, then the futures price of gold will go up by a small amount as well.  If the futures price of gold goes up by a small amount, this will also drive the spot price of gold up.  Even for these small price changes, the expected futures price change in expected spot price change will not be exactly the same.  For larger price changes, there will be more of a difference between the expected spot price change in expected future price change.   If the price eventually goes up, then the cost of holding the contract will be subtracted from any future gains.  If the price eventually goes down, then this holding cost should be added to the losses.  If you bought the contract when it was above the spot price, the price will slowly drift toward the spot price, causing you this holding cost.  If the price of gold does not change any from the current spot price, then all you are left with is this holding cost.

negative: No, index arbitrage desks typically aimed to profit from arbitrage opportunities between index derivatives (mostly futures) and the underlying. The desk I worked at was a market making one that provided customers exposure to their index of choice. Inventory management was one of the things we did, but not the main, or only one. Also, names for the desk varied across different banks on the street.

negative: Having trouble understanding currency arbitrage for one example. Conditions: US 3% interest per 6 months Germany 3.6% interest per 6 months Spot rate is $1.09/euro 6-month Forward is $1.04/euro  How do I make this into an arbitrage opportunity?  There is supposed to be a profit but I keep getting negatives. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

negative: "Okay - but that's about gold as an investment in today's world, and during  an extremely unstable financial situation.  Many other types of investments could be used similarly. Those who advocate gold as a hedge don't advocate buying it during a crisis, they advocate keeping some as part of an investment strategy... but again, that's gold as gold, not gold as currency.  Leveraging your investments based on current financial situations is what investing is about.   Gold as a medium for currency is a totally different thing.   What you just described would be called ""arbitrage"" - in moving markets (or other situations I guess) looking for no-lose situations where you can trade things around and increase your net value doing it.    it helps stabilize markets - as people take advantage of this situation it counters the effect and self-corrects... think about it ;)"

negative: "In layman's terms, oil on the commodities market has a ""spot price"" and a ""future price"". The spot price is what the last guy paid to buy a barrel of oil right now (and thus a pretty good indicator of what you'll have to pay). The futures price is what the last guy paid for a ""futures contract"", where they agreed to buy a barrel of oil for $X at some point in the future. Futures contracts are a form of hedging; a futures contract is usually sold at a price somewhere between the current spot price and the true expected future spot price; the buyer saves money versus paying the spot price, while the seller still makes a profit. But, the buyer of a futures contract is basically betting that the spot price as of delivery will be higher, while the seller is betting it will be lower. Futures contracts are available for a wide variety of acceptable future dates, and form a curve when plotted on a graph that will trend in one direction or the other. Now, as Chad said, oil companies basically get their cut no matter what. Oil stocks are generally a good long-term bet. As far as the best short-term time to buy in to an oil stock, look for very short windows when the spot and near-future price of gasoline is trending downward but oil is still on the uptick. During those times, the oil companies are paying their existing (high) contracts for oil, but when the spot price is low it affects futures prices, which will affect the oil companies' margins. Day traders will see that, squawk ""the sky is falling"" and sell off, driving the price down temporarily. That's when you buy in. Pretty much the only other time an oil stock is a guaranteed win is when the entire market takes a swan dive and then bottoms out. Oil has such a built-in demand, for the foreseeable future, that regardless of how bad it gets you WILL make money on an oil stock. So, when the entire market's in a panic and everyone's heading for gold, T-debt etc, buy the major oil stocks across the spectrum. Even if one stock tanks, chances are really good that another company will see that and offer a buyout, jacking the bought company's stock (which you then sell and reinvest the cash into the buying company, which will have taken a hit on the news due to the huge drop in working capital). Of course, the one thing to watch for in the headlines is any news that renewables have become much more attractive than oil. You wait; in the next few decades some enterprising individual will invent a super-efficient solar cell that provides all the power a real, practical car will ever need, and that is simultaneously integrated into wind farms making oil/gas plants passe. When that happens oil will be a thing of the past."

negative: There are 2 schools of thought in determining the price of a future contract in a day prior to expiration.  The cost of carry model, states that the price of a future contract today is the spot price plus the cost of carrying the underlying asset until expiration minus the return that can be obtained from carrying the underlying asset.  FuturePrice = SpotPrice + (CarryCost - CarryReturn)  The expectancy model, states that the price of the futures contract depends on the expectation about the spot market's price in the future. In this case, the price of the future contract will diverge from the spot price depending on how much the price is expected to rise or fall before expiration.  A few glossary terms: cost of carry For physical commodities such as grains and metals, the cost of   storage space, insurance, and finance charges incurred by holding a   physical commodity. In interest rate futures markets, it refers to the   differential between the yield on a cash instrument and the cost of   funds necessary to buy the instrument. Also referred to as carrying   charge. spot price  The price at which a physical commodity for immediate   delivery is selling at a given time and place. The cash price.

negative: Academic research into ADRs seems to suggest that pairs-trading ADRs and their underlying shares reveals that there certainly are arbitrage opportunities, but that in most (but not all cases) such opportunities are quickly taken care of by the market. (See this article for the mexican case, the introduction has a list of other articles you could read on the subject). In some cases parity doesn't seem to be reached, which may have to do with transaction costs, the risk of transacting in a foreign market, as well as administrative & legal concerns that can affect the direct holder of a foreign share but don't impact the ADR holder (since those risks and costs are borne by the institution, which presumably has a better idea of how to manage such risks and costs). It's also worth pointing out that there are almost always arbitrage opportunities that get snapped up quickly: the law of one price doesn't apply for very short time-frames, just that if you're not an expert in that particular domain of the market, it might as well be a law since you won't see the arbitrage opportunities fast enough. That is to say, there are always opportunities for arbitrage with ADRs but chances are YOU won't be able to take advantage of it (In the Mexican case, the price divergence seems to have an average half-life of ~3 days). Some price divergence might be expected: ADR holders shouldn't be expected to know as much about the foreign market as the typical foreign share holder, and that uncertainty may also cause some divergence. There does seem to be some opportunity for arbitrage doing what you suggest in markets where it is not legally possible to short shares, but that likely is the value added from being able to short a share that belongs to a market where you can't do that.

negative: "Two points:    One, yes -- the price of gold has been going up. [gold ETF chart here](http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chfdeh=0&chdet=1349467200000&chddm=495788&chls=IntervalBasedLine&q=NYSEARCA:IAU&ntsp=0&ei=PQhvUMjiAZGQ0QG5pQE)  Two, the US has confiscated gold in the past.  They did it in the 1930s.    Owning antique gold coins is stupid because you're paying for gold + the supply / demand imbalance forced upon that particular coin by the coin collector market.  If you want to have exposure to gold in your portfolio, the cheapest way is through an ETF.  If you want to own physical gold because a) it's shiny or b) you fear impending economic collapse -- you're probably better off with bullion from a reputable dealer.  You can buy it in grams or ounces -- you can also buy it in coins.  Physical gold will generally cost you a little more than the spot price (think 5% - 10%? -- not really sure) but it can vary wildly.  You might even be able to buy it for under the spot price if you find somebody that isn't very bright willing to sell.  Buyer beware though -- there are lots of shady folks in the ""we buy gold"" market."

negative: 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.

negative: It depends on what your goals are, your age, how much debt you have, etc. Assuming -- and we all know what happens when you assume -- that your financial life is otherwise in order, the 5% to 10% range you're talking about isn't overinvesting.  You won't have a lot of company; most people don't own any. One comment on this part: I have some gold (GLD), but not much ... Gold and GLD are not the same thing at all.  Owning shares of the SPDR Gold Trust is not the same thing as owning gold coins or bars.  You're achieving different ends by owning GLD shares as opposed to the physical yellow metal.  GLD will follow the spot price of gold pretty closely, but it isn't the same thing as physical ownership.

negative: Best thing to do is convert your money into something that will retain value. Currency is a symbol of wealth, and can be significantly devalued with inflation. Something such as Gold or Silver might not allow you to see huge benefit, but its perhaps the safest bet (gold in particular, as silver is more volatile), as mentioned above, yes you do pay a little above spot price and receive a little below spot when and if you sell, but current projections for both gold and silver suggest that you won't lose money at least. Safe bet. Suggesting it is a bad idea at this time is just silly, and goes against the majority of advisers out there.

negative: Depends what kind of expenses you intend to use this money for. If you plan to buy housing in the future (eg you're saving a deposit), then you need to ensure that the value doesn't deteriorate relative to the value of the housing you are likely to buy - so you could buy a Residential REIT, or buy some investment property. If you expect to use this money for food, then you should buy suitable assets (eg Wheat futures, etc). Link the current asset to the future expense, and you will be fine. If you buy Gold, then you are making a bet that Gold will retain its value compared to the thing you want to purchase in future. It doesn't matter what the price of Gold does in $US.

negative: "You might want to read about about the Coase Theorem.  ""In law and economics, the Coase theorem, attributed to Ronald Coase, describes the economic efficiency of an economic allocation or outcome in the presence of externalities. The theorem states that if trade in an externality is possible and there are no transaction costs, bargaining will lead to an efficient outcome regardless of the initial allocation of property rights. In practice, obstacles to bargaining or poorly defined property rights can prevent Coasian bargaining."" This is similar to what you are asking. Each country has an endowment of gold, and they must create a set amount of money to represent their endowment of gold. This will establish an exchange rate. If I have 5 tons of gold and you have 5 tons, and I print 10 dollars and you print 20, then one of my dollars is worth two of your dollars.  Thus, the amount of money is not relevant-  it's the exchange rate between the countries. If all the nations know each other's gold endowment, then we will have a perfect exchange rate. If we don't, then currency printing will vary but arbitrage should drive it to an accurate price.  Gold and diamonds are both valuable in part due to scarcity, but gold has been used as a measure of value because it's been historically used as a medium of exchange. People just realized that swapping paper was safer and cheaper than physically transporting gold, but the idea of gold as a measure of value is present because ""that's how it's always been."" Nobody ""creates/supervises"" these procedures, but organizations like the IMF, ECB, Fed Reserve, etc implement monetary policy to regulate the money supply and arbitrage drives exchange rates to fair values."

negative: "Buying (or selling) a futures contract means that you are entering into a contractual agreement to buy (or sell) the contracted commodity or financial instrument in the contracted amount (the contract size) at the price you have bought (or sold) the contract on the contract expire date (maturity date).  It is important to understand that futures contracts are tradeable instruments, meaning that you are free to sell (or buy back) your contract at any time before the expiry date. For example, if you buy 1 ""lot"" (1 contract) of a gold future on the Comex exchange for the contract month of December 2016, then you entering into a contract to buy 100 ounces (the contract size) of gold at the price at which you buy the contract - not the spot price on the day of expiry when the contract comes to maturity.  The December 2016 gold futures contract has an expiry date of 28 December.  You are free to trade this contract at any time before its expiry by selling it back to another market participant.  If you sell the contract at a price higher than you have purchased it, then you will realise a profit of 100 times the difference between the price you bought the contract and the price you sold the contract, where 100 is the contract size of the gold contract.  Similarly, if you sell the contract at a price lower than the price you have purchased it, then you will realise a loss. (Commissions paid will also effect your net profit or loss). If you hold your contract until the expiry date and exercise your contract by taking (or making) delivery, then you are obliged to buy (or sell) 100 ounces of gold at the price at which you bought (or sold) the contract - not the current spot price. So long as your contract is ""open"" (i.e., prior to the expiry date and so long as you own the contract) you are required to make a ""good faith deposit"" to show that you intend to honour your contractual obligations.  This deposit is usually called ""initial margin"".  Typically, the initial margin amount will be about 2% of the total contract value for the gold contract.  So if you buy (or sell) one contract for 100 ounces of gold at, say, $1275 an ounce, then the total contract value will be $127,500 and your deposit requirement would be about $2,500.  The initial margin is returned to you when you sell (or buy) back your futures contract, or when you exercise your contract on expiry. In addition to initial margin, you will be required to maintain a second type of margin called ""variation margin"".  The variation margin is the running profit or loss you are showing on your open contract. For the sake of simplicity, lets look only at the case where you have purchased a futures contract.  If the futures price is higher than your contract (buy) price, then you are showing a profit on your current position and this profit (the variation margin) will be used to offset your initial margin requirement. Conversely, if the futures price has dropped below your contracted (buy) price, then you will be showing a loss on your open position and this loss (the variation margin) will be added to your initial margin and you will be called to put up more money in order to show good faith that you intend to honour your obligations.  Note that neither the initial margin nor the variation margin are accounting items.  In other words, these are not postings that are debited or credited to the ledger in your trading account.  So in some sense ""you don't have to pay anything upfront"", but you do need to put up a refundable deposit to show good faith."

negative: When you buy a futures contract you are entering into an agreement to buy gold, in the future (usually a 3 month settlement date).  this is not an OPTION, but a contract, so each party is taking risk, the seller that the price will rise, the buyer that the price will fall.  Unlike an option which you can simply choose not to exercise if the price goes down, with futures you are obligated to follow through. (or sell the contract to someone else, or buy it back)  The price you pay depends on the margin, which is related to how far away the settlement date is, but you can expect around 5% , so the minimum you could get into is 100 troy ounces, at todays price, times 5%.  Since we're talking about 100 troy ounces, that means the margin required to buy the smallest sized future contract would be about the same as buying 5 ounces of gold.  roughly $9K at current prices. If you are working through a broker they will generally require you to sell or buy back the contract before the settlement date as they don't want to deal with actually following through on the purchase and having to take delivery of the gold.  How much do you make or lose? Lets deal with a smaller change in the price, to be a bit more realistic since we are talking typically about a settlement date that is 3 months out. And to make the math easy lets bump the price of gold to $2000/ounce.  That means the price of a futures contract is going to be $10K   Lets say the price goes up 10%,  Well you have basically a 20:1 leverage since you only paid 5%, so you stand to gain $20,000. Sounds great right?  WRONG.. because as good as the upside is, the downside is just as bad.  If the price went down 10% you would be down $20000, which means you would not only have to cough up the 10K you committed but you would be expected to 'top up the margin' and throw in  ANOTHER $10,000 as well.  And if you can't pay that up your broker might close out your position for you. oh and if the price hasn't changed, you are mostly just out the fees and commissions you paid to buy and sell the contract.  With futures contracts you can lose MORE than your original investment.  NOT for the faint of heart or the casual investor.  NOT for folks without large reserves who can afford to take big losses if things go against them.  I'll close this answer with a quote from the site I'm linking below The large majority of people who trade futures lose their money.   That's a fact. They lose even when they are right in the medium term,   because futures are fatal to your wealth on an unpredicted and   temporary price blip. Now consider that, especially the bit about 'price blip' and then look at the current volatility of most markets right now, and I think you can see how futures trading can be as they say 'Fatal to your Wealth' (man, I love that phrase, what a great way of putting it)  This Site has a pretty decent primer on the whole thing. their view is perhaps a bit biased due to the nature of their business, but on the whole their description of how things work is pretty decent.  Investopedia has a more detailed (and perhaps more objective) tutorial on the futures thing.  Well worth your time if you think you want to do anything related to the futures market.

negative: I hope you all can forgive my ignorance of the topic. But what does it mean when you invest in gold? Do you actually own real gold somewhere? I don't know how it works so if someone can explain it to me I'd appreciate it.  :)  Again sorry for asking probably a stupid question lol.

negative: I think that some asset classes should be better protected from arbitrage.  Its not possible to prevent either greed or information asymmetry so high market volatility will continue to get worse.  However, secondary transactions directly or indirectly involving assets of a protected class:  * Food - agriculture futures, farm land mortgages, seed licenses, etc...  * Housing - Resales, mortgages, any mortgage derivatives  * Medicine - Insurance policies, drug licenses, medical debt  * Education - Debt and derivatives  Should be heavily taxes to discourage destructive arbitrage.  This will not hurt investment (in the capitalist sense) because such transactions are purely speculative.

negative: "Why does the value of gold go up when gold itself doesn't produce anything? Why do people invest in gold? Your perception, that the value of gold goes up in the long run, is based on the price of gold measured in your favorite paper currency, for example the US Dollar. An increasing price of gold means that in the visible gold market, market participants are willing to exchange more paper currency units for the same amount of gold. There are many possible reasons for this: While HFT became extremely important for the short term price movements, I will continue with long term effects, excluding HFT. So when - as a simple thought experiment - the amount of available paper currency units (US $ or whatever) doubles, and the amount of goods and services in an economy stay the same, you can expect that the price of everything in this economy will double, including gold. You might perceive that the value of gold doubled. It did not. It stayed the same. The number of printed dollars doubled. The value of gold is still the same, its price doubled. Does the amount of paper currency units grow over time? Yes: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/BASE/ In this answer my term ""paper currency units"" includes dollars that exist only as digits in bank accounts and ""printing currency"" includes creating those digits in bank accounts out of thin air. So the first answer: gold holds its value while the value of paper currency units shrinks over time. So gold enables you to pass wealth to the next generation (while hiding it from your government). That gold does not produce anything is not entirely true. For those of us mortals who have only a few ounces, it is true. But those who have tons can lease it out and earn interest.  (in practice it is leased out multiple times, so multiple that gain. You might call this fraud, and rightfully so. But we are talking about tons of gold. Nobody who controls tons of physical gold goes to jail yet).  Let's talk about Fear. You see, the perceived value of gold increases as more paper currency is printed.  And markets price in expected future developments. So the value of gold rises, if a sufficient number of wealthy people fear the the government(s) will print too much paper currency.  Second Answer: So the price of gold not only reflects the amount of paper currency, it is also a measurement of distrust in government(s). Now you might say something is wrong with my argument. The chart mentioned above shows that we have now (mid 2015) 5 times as much printed currency units than we had 2008.  So the price of gold should be 5 times as high as 2008, assuming the amount of distrust in governments stayed the same. There must be more effects (or I might be completely wrong. You decide). But here is one more effect: As the price of gold is a measurement of distrust in governments (and especially the US government since the US Dollar is perceived as the reserve currency), the US government and associated organizations are extremely interested in low gold prices to prove trust. So people familiar with the topic believe that the price of gold (and silver) is massively manipulated to the downside using high frequency trading and shorts in the futures markets by US government and wall street banks to disprove distrust. And wall street banks gain huge amounts of paper currency units by manipulating the price, mostly to the downside. Others say that countries like china and russia are also interested in low gold prices because they want to buy as much physical gold as possible. Knowing of the value that is not reflected by the price at the moment. Is there one more source of distrust in governments? Yes. Since 1971, all paper currencies are debt.  They receive their value by the trust that those with debt are willing and able to pay back their debt. If this trust is lost, the downward manipulation (if you think that such a thing exists) of the gold and silver prices in the futures markets might fail some day. If this is the case (some say when this is the case). you might see movements in gold and silver prices that bring them back to equilibrium with the amount of printed paper currencies. In times of the roman empire you got a good toga and a pair of handmade shoes for an ounce of gold. In our days, you get a nice suite and a good pair of shoes for an ounce of gold. In the mean time, the value of each paper currency in the history of each country went to zero and the US $ lost 98% of its initial value. As long as there is not enough distrust, more paper currency is made in equity markets and bond markets on average. (Be aware that you earn that currency only after you were able to sell at this price, not while you hold it) Gerd"

negative: "Gold ownership has been outlawed before in this country.  However, if you research it I think you'll find that there are two components in pricing gold coins:  * The spot value of gold  * The numismatic value of the coin in question.  That second point is where you get fucked.  There are a whole lot of outfits selling worthless ""investment grade"" coins that sell for way more than they should based on gold content, and for way more than any coin collector would ever give you for the value of the coin itself.  But it's much harder to find a reasonable price for some supposedly rare coin than it is for the metal itself, so it's easier to scam you.  So it's in the best interest of the guys that advertise for these firms to say ""buying rare coins is awesome, and buying straight gold is stupid.""  Me?  If I want to buy going coins I'll buy US Gold Eagles for a small percentage over the spot price.  They're probably more liquid than some random chunk of goldish metal that says it's 1oz/10oz/100oz of gold."

negative: You acquire something because you expect to use it, or because you expect to exchange it for something that you want to use. Gold is a good candidate for storing value because it's rare, it's not easily counterfeited, it's divisible, it's portable, etc.  Contrast this with your favorite currency:  more can be printed up almost at will, etc. Overvaluedness/undervaluedness is only in reference to something else.  How many dollars does it take to buy an ounce of gold?  (About $1,500.)  How many ounces does it take to equal the DJIA?  (About 8.)  How many ounces of silver does it take to buy an ounce of gold?  How many barrels of oil can you buy with an ounce of gold?  Etc., etc. But whatever measure you're using, the value of the gold you have is directly related to the mass of gold you own.  Two ounces are twice as valuable as one ounce. As the old joke goes (no offense to taxi drivers intended!) when your cabbie starts talking about how to get rich with gold, it's probably overvalued.  Sell it all! ;)

negative: "There's a few layers to the Momentum Theory discussed in that book. But speaking in general terms I can answer the following: Kind of. Assuming you understand that historically the Nasdaq has seen a little more volatility than the S&P. And, more importantly, that it tends to track the tech sector more than the general economy.  Thus the pitfall is that it is heavily weighted towards (and often tracks) the performance of a few stocks including: Apple, Google (Alphabet), Microsoft, Amazon, Intel and Amgen.  It could be argued this is counter intuitive to the general strategy you are trying to employ. This could be tougher to justify.  The reason it is potentially not a great idea has less to do with the fact that gold has factors other than just risk on/off and inflation that affect its price (even though it does!); but more to do with the fact that it is harder to own gold and move in and out of positions efficiently than it is a bond index fund.   For example, consider buying physical gold.  To do so you have to spend some time evaluating the purchase, you are usually paying a slight premium above the spot price to purchase it, and you should usually also have some form of security or insurance for it.  So, it has additional costs.  Possibly worth it as part of a long-term investment strategy; if you believe gold will appreciate over a decade. But not so much if you are holding it for as little as a few weeks and constantly moving in and out of the position over the year. The same is true to some extent of investing in gold in the form of an ETF.  At least a portion of ""their gold"" comes from paper or futures contracts which must be rolled every month.  This creates a slight inefficiency.  While possibly not a deal breaker, it would not be as attractive to someone trading on momentum versus fundamentals in my opinion. In the end though, I think all strategies are adaptable.  And if you feel gold will be the big mover this year, and want to use it as your risk hedge, who am I or anyone else to tell you that you shouldn't."

negative: "Don't put all your eggs in one basket and don't assume that you know more than the market does. The probability of gold prices rising again in the near future is already ""priced in"" as it were. Unless you are privy to some reliable information that no one else knows (given that you are asking here, I'm guessing not), stay away. Invest in a globally diversified low cost portfolio of primarily stocks and bonds and don't try to predict the future.  Also I would kill for a 4.5% interest rate on my savings. In the USA, 1% is on the high side of what you can get right now. What is inflation like over there?"

negative: "As I stated in my comment, options are futures, but with the twist that you're allowed to say no to the agreed-on transaction; if the market offers you a better deal on whatever you had contracted to buy or sell, you have the option of simply letting it expire. Options therefore are the insurance policy of the free market. You negotiate a future price (actually you usually take what you can get if you're an individual investor; the institutional fund managers get to negotiate because they're moving billions around every day), then you pay the other guy up front for the right of refusal later. How much you pay depends on how likely the person giving you this option is to have to make good on it; if your position looks like a sure thing, an option's going to be very expensive (and if it's such a sure thing, you should just make your move on the spot market; it's thus useful to track futures prices to see where the various big players are predicting that your portfolio will move). A put option, which is an option for you to sell something at a future price, is a hedge against loss of value of your portfolio. You can take one out on any single item in your portfolio, or against a portion or even your entire portfolio. If the stock loses value such that the contract price is better than the market price as of the delivery date of the contract, you execute the option; otherwise, you let it expire. A call option, which is an option to buy something at a future price, is a hedge against rising costs. The rough analog is a ""pre-order"" in retail (but more like a ""holding fee""). They're unusual in portfolio management but can be useful when moving money around in more complex ways. Basically, if you need to guarantee that you will not pay more than a certain per-share price to buy something in the future, you buy a call option. If the spot price as of the delivery date is less than the contract price, you buy from the market and ignore the contract, while if prices have soared, you exercise it and get the lower contract price. Stock options, offered as benefits in many companies, are a specific form of call option with very generous terms for whomever holds them. A swaption, basically a put and a call rolled into one, allows you to trade something for something else. Call it the free market's ""exchange policy"". For a price, if a security you currently hold loses value, you can exchange it for something else that you predicted would become more valuable at the same time. One example might be airline stocks and crude oil; when crude spikes, airline stocks generally suffer, and you can take advantage of this, if it happens, with a swaption to sell your airline stocks for crude oil certificates. There are many such closely-related inverse positions in the market, such as between various currencies, between stocks and commodities (gold is inversely related to pretty much everything else), and even straight-up cash-for-bad-debt arrangements (credit-default swaps, which we heard so much about in 2008)."

negative: I think it might come down to the contract itself. In many states in the US an employer cannot block you from practicing your trade to make a living. In many jurisdictions contract clauses that are designed to prevent you from working in your trade area are generally void and unenforceable however in cases like this only a trip in front of a judge will fix it.   What I find interesting about this, is that depending on the details, Sony might have a hard time finding another spokesman in the future. I would imagine most actors would steer clear of that spot in the future if this is how Sony is going to react when they try to get new work.

negative: Yes, money is created out of thin air, and it is a good and necessary thing. All money, even commodity money such as gold, is given value only by what can be traded for it. So in that sense *all* money is created out of thin air, because it represents the payment of a future debt. Money merely serves as IOUs between traders.  Who do you think should be responsible for adding money to the system? Inndividuals? Been tried, doesn't work so well. Individual banks? Been tried, doesn't work so well. Nation states? Works a lot better, although can still fail.  So far having a central bank issue money as an economy needs it for trade has been the most successful method to deal with who gets to issue the IOUs.  EDIT: see my post above on a little how and why it works as it does.

negative: Bạn có sử dụng chiến lược Vàng hàng ngày theo Spot Gold Price không?  Nội dung hợp đồng cung cấp chiến lược Vàng hàng ngày theo Spot Gold Price.  Sự khác biệt giữa Nhận định và Chiến lược của chúng tôi là điểm ra – vào thị trường.  Một dòng tiền thông minh sẽ có sự lựa chọn thông minh khi tham khảo Nhận định của chúng tôi !

negative: No matter how promising the gold market is, investing in gold bars still has risks. For this reason, before you buy gold bars, make sure you have carefully studied the ins and outs of this investment. Know where, when, why and how to buy gold bar assets. Know the common pitfalls of investing in gold bars and do all that you can to avoid them.

negative: "During Graham's career, gold and currency were the same thing because of the gold standard. Graham did not advise investing in currencies, only in bonds and stocks, the latter only for intelligent speculation. Graham died a couple of years after Nixon closed the gold window, ending the gold standard.  Gold may be thought of as a currency even today, as endowments and other investors use it as a store of value or for diversification of risks. However, currency or commodities investing does not seem Graham-like. How could you reliably estimate intrinsic value of a currency or commodity, so that you can have a Graham-like margin of safety after subtracting the intrinsic value from the market value?  Saying that gold is ""clearly underpriced in today's market"" is just hand-waving. A Graham analysis such as ""net net"" (valuing stocks by their current tangible assets net of all liabilities) is a quantitative analysis of accounting numbers audited by CPAs and offers a true margin of safety."

negative: >My parable shows the mechanics of how money works.  No, it doesn't.  It shows the mechanics of how a market for credit derivatives works, not money.  Money has no counterparty risk - it is generally a commodity.  So the first thing you should have done in your post (to explain it to a ten year old) is to explain this key distinction.  >I said I wouldn't get into the gold-standard debate, and I won't, and here's why  There's a very important difference between advocating a gold standard and simply pointing out that legal tender laws exist and aren't a good idea.  Your OP's completely gloss over this fact, and they even mislead people into believing that emergent markets naturally use credit derivatives as money rather than commodities (which have no counterparty risk).

negative: I think you are asking a few questions here. Why is gold chosen as money? In a free market there are five characteristics of a good money: Gold and silver meet all five characteristics.  Diamonds are not easily divisible which is why they are not normally used as money.  Copper, Iron, and lead are not scarce enough - you would need a lot of these metals to make weekly or daily purchases.  Paper is also way too plentiful to be used as money. By the way, historically silver has been used for money more than gold. How does international trade work with gold as money (is this what you are asking with your hypothetical example of 10 countries each with y amount of gold?) Typically a government will issue a currency that is backed by gold.  This means you can redeem your currency for actual gold.  Then when an American spends 5 US dollars (USD) to purchase a Chinese good the Chinese man now owns 5 USDs.  The Chinese man can either redeem the 5 USD for gold or spend the 5 USD in the US.  If a government issues more currency then they have gold for then the gold will start to flow from that country to other countries as the citizens of the other countries redeem the over-issued currency for gold.  This outflow of gold restricts governments from over-issuing paper currency. Who creates the procedures and who supervises them in modern worldwide economy? The Federal Reserve, IMF, and Bank of International Settlements all are involved in the current system where the US dollar (see Bretton Woods agreement) is the reserve currency used by central banks throughout the world.  Some think this system is coming to an end.  I tend to agree.

negative: Err, isn't this article simply stating the obvious? I've been working for the last 18 years and I know those signs by heart, seen them on others, and on me even...   The manager who can not spot those signs deserves to be deserted, the problem is with the manager who spots those signs and does nothing!

negative: I thought the same. Money as a transferable item is against future items, and debt is a transferable item against future money, which is also seen as a much farther into the future item.  Money = tomorrows item. Debt = tomorrows money = (tomorrows item)(time +1); or longer if we agree to pay it off over 20 years  Interestingly I have seen a writeup on why gold is the material of choice.   If someone can find this it would be great but I will try write from memory, Google is not helping. The story is something like this:  Essentially when trading a material for jewellery we had difficulty finding what material to use. Obviously it must be something hardy and tough, but not common. Metals are the obvious choice, although crystalline structures like gems and opals are useful. The reason for metals are that they can easily and repeatably be shaped into a form that will be aesthetically pleasing and hold its shape.   But which specific metal is to be chosen; obviously it must be chemically stable, so potassium magnesium and those metal like elements are removed from contention. It must be rare so items like lead, iron and copper are too common, although not worthless.  The most stable, malleable and rare materials are Platinum, Silver and Gold.   Platinum requires too high a melting point to be suitable; the requirements to smelt and handle it as a material are too high. Not to deny the value but the common use it prohibitive.   Silver is easier to handle, but tends to tarnish. Continuous upkeep is required and this becomes a detraction of its full value.  Finally Gold, rare, low melting point, resistant to tarnishing and oxidation, rare, malleable and pretty. A sweet spot of all materials.