Today Gold reached a new all time high of $3,000 per ounce. Articles abound attributing tariff uncertainty, a Fort Knox gold audit or the deal to avert government shutdown as the catalysts of the price action. In a February article I guessed, predicted that gold would selloff unless it makes a strong move above $3,000, and I hold to that.
While I remain a long term gold bull, the climb has always been slow. I would be more surprised than not if gold does not drop below $3,000 before consolidating above the psychologically important $3,000 level.
Gold is a holding and hedge whose price appreciation success is judged over decades not years.
It has been a while since I’ve written about gold. It’s isn’t a good thing to check the price too often or be overly concerned with the month to month price, I’ve come to believe. Gold is a long term hedge against hyperinflation.
However, it is worth noting that gold has been in a bull market since Spring of 2024. It attempted to break through the phycological $2,000 price point in August 2020 then again in March of 2022. But both times sellers overpowered the buyers and gold sold off. The price action was relatively benign in 2023 that gold slowly increased and consolidated. In 2023 it finally broke through $2,000 and held, albeit weakly. But then in the spring of 2024 it strongly broke to the upside and went from $2,050 up to the current price around $2,900.
As someone who first built a gold position in December of 2012, and learned to endure a 3 plus year bear market and a roughly 40% decline in price, it is nice to see the yellow metal making new highs. Will it make it through $3,000? Eventually yes. In the short term only time will tell.
But I will provide a guess here, since there hasn’t been a pull back since January of 2024, gold will struggle to hit $3,000 and if it does, will probably selloff and consolidate more before it makes a definitive move above $3,000 and holds it.
Since I don’t have the gift of auric market prophesy I’ve found the best approach with gold is the boring old but tried and true effective approach of dollar cost averaging and building a position over time. Commodities like gold can be volatile and I do think you can own too much gold (as a percentage of your total assets). As always make your own decisions!
President Biden’s physical and cognitive decline prior to and during his Presidency has been apparent to anyone willing to see it.
However, until recently the far-left media has discounted or simply ignored anything regarding the Commander in Chief’s mental or physical health. That all changed with the presidential debate on June 28th. All of a sudden the far-left echo chamber was calling for Biden to withdraw from the race:
The far-left powers, including most if not all of the legacy media, major Democrat donors, and senior Democrat leaders, believes Trump is basically Hitler and must be stopped. They believe the ends justify the means and no action is too extreme to stop Trump. Anyone opposed to Trump, including and especially Biden is to be blindly supported with the utmost of enthusiasm. Any issues with Biden such as dubious mental competency or corruption are comparatively insignificant in the context of the dire and overarching goal of defeating Trump.
If Biden had a decisive lead in the polls, the far left, I believe, would be content to ignore his physical & cognitive decline, as they have for the past 4 years, and continue to back him. The fact that the clothes have no emperor matters little so long as the emperor isn’t Trump. Any debates would have occurred after the nomination and the far-left powers would have talked about how great Biden did in those debates, focused on how terrible Trump is, and dismissed anything that Biden did poorly as being due to a cold or a stutter or some such other excuse, to extent they’d even address any Biden shortcomings at all.
So what changed on June 28th? Did the far-left media wake up and decide they should be impartially reporting on the relevant physical and mental health of the Commander in Chief of the United States? Were they unaware of the President’s physical and cognitive declines up until they saw it on display at the debate? Did Democrat leaders decide that maybe the person in charge of the nuclear “football” should be able to walk down stairs unassisted or consistently be able to form coherent sentences? Of course not.
What happened is the left-wing powers that be: the aforementioned far-left media, large Democrat donors, and Democrat leadership in general, realized that Trump has a good chance of winning the 2024 presidential election. They watched the polls in fear, they saw with trepidation how Trump’s conviction in New York was a huge fundraising boon for his campaign with little to slightly positive impact on his polling. They’ve witnessed a number of criminal cases brought against Trump collapse or be delayed. Their fear and trepidation had grown into terror and then into horror, we’re talking Apocalypse Now level, Colonel Kurtz/Marlon Brandon horror.
Their darkest fear loomed large before them: Trump re-elected to the presidency in 2024.
Of course, to the far-left, this is the worst thing that could possibly happen: Trump has to be beaten at all costs, and if Biden can’t do it, he needs to be replaced with someone who can.
So, the left-wing powers contrived to have an early debate, prior to the Democratic convention, earlier than any prior Presidential debate. This was a way to at least test, if not outright setup Joe Biden for failure, so that if it didn’t go well, they could attempt to replace him at the convention.
Furthermore, contrary to CNN’s practice, the June 28th debate was not that tilted against Trump, as any other CNN debate would be against Trump in particular and Republicans in general. The format, with the muting of mics, the split screens, having stairs on the stage, did not setup Biden for success. They actually asked Biden hard questions.
The debate and the timing accomplished two things. First, it provided a trigger, an event in which the far-left powers could pivot from ignoring Biden’s obvious physical and mental to decline, to now pointing it out: “Wow, Biden looked and sounded terrible,” his health is now in question. Of course they already knew about Biden’s mental and physical shortcomings, but this was the excuse needed to lift the omerta on discussing Biden’s health.
Secondly, the left-wing powers need to put pressure on Biden to drop out before the August 19th-22nd convention, so that an alternate candidate with a better chance of defeating Trump can be officially nominated. If he were to drop out after the convention even more chaos than what has already transpired would ensue.
This does bring up an interesting question: why did President Biden agree to the debate at this time? The Biden campaign could have waited to agree to a debate until after the nomination or Biden could have refused to debate “a convicted felon,” or come up with any number of excuses that under normal circumstances the far-left media would support and justify on the Democrat’s behalf.
Although it’s hard for me to believe, perhaps Biden, or whomever is telling him what to do, genuinely thought he would do a good job in a debate. In contrast to most folks’ reaction, I didn’t think Biden did that bad in the debate, which says more about how low of expectations I have for President Biden than anything else. Perhaps Biden’s advisors and family thought this would actually silence the internal naysayers that doubtlessly existed even prior the debate and help confirm Biden is indeed up for the task of being president for four more years.
Given how hard his handlers work to avoid putting him into a situation in which he does anything but read off a teleprompter, something he struggles with anyway, this is perhaps the least likely explanation. Furthermore, it doesn’t actually explain why the debate timeline was moved up to begin with.
Another reason why Biden agreed to the debate could be because of some internal betrayal by his less loyal courtiers and the far-left powers, who encouraged him to do the debate knowing he wouldn’t do well so that he could be pressured to step downand be replaced with a more viable candidate.
They could have convinced him and his loyal courtiers that he would do great, he’d mop the floor with Trump and knock Trump out of the running and an influx of Democrat donations would flow into campaign coffers. Maybe they convinced the Biden campaign to do the debate earlier, since he’d be less further along his steady path of cognitive decline and then he wouldn’t have to debate closer to the election, where he will inevitably have fewer periods of lucidity.
The most likely explanation is perhaps a combination of the above, where Biden was setup to some degree, combined with overt behind the scenes pressure by senior Democrat powerbrokers, donors, etc, that Biden’s cognitive decline is becoming obvious, and he has to go out and debate and prove he has still got it, as a condition of their continued support. This is theory is bolstered, albeit weakly, by “Dr.” Jill’s very odd affirmations directed at Biden, in which the first lady praised the President like a small child who just completed his first test at school in spite of a bully saying he was dumb.
So who would be nominated in a brokered convention? Vice President Kamala Harris is the de facto successor, but the unlikable Harris would do even worse than Biden against Trump. So replacing Biden with Harris accomplishes nothing to prevent a Trump victory. Other names thrown around are California Governor Gavin Newsome, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, former First Lady Michelle Obama, and even former Senator, Secretary of State, First Lady and twice defeated presidential candidate Hillary R. Clinton. Although, there could be backlash if Harris is passed over for Whitmer, Newsome, or Clinton:
Time will tell if Biden (or his handlers) insist on clinging to power or if he will drop out. I don’t think the far-left powers that be can overtly force him out of the race. They can pressure him, withdraw support, and publicly call for him to drop out, but he won the Democrat primary and is the presumptive nominee. In any normal situation the convention would be a formality.
However, damage has been done: after the debate the Democrat powers didn’t circle the wagons and cover for Biden’s performance. In doing so they took a big risk, because they’ve damaged Biden’s campaign for no reason if the 81 year old doesn’t step aside.
If Joe Biden did care about the United States, and was acting in the country’s best interests, something I question has ever been among his primary motivations, he would step down, but to quote President Obama, “Don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to f!#k things up.”
In The People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump, former President Donald Trump was charged and found guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records in violation of New York Penal Law §175.10, the state law which makes it a felony to falsify business records with the intent to conceal the commission of a crime.
While Trump was found guilty by the New York legal system. Was he actually guilty of committing a crime? Opponents of the former present argue that “no one is above the law” and that the judge and jury acted impartially and were simply upholding the law. In short, Trump broke the law and got caught and that is all there is to it.
Other’s believe that the Democrat’s are colluding to imprison ,or at the very least politically hurt, their leading political rival for the 2024 presidential election. If this is true, it is a significant threat to the United States Republic.
Dems have reached the "send election opponents to jail" stage of defending Democracy
— Comfortably Smug (@ComfortablySmug) May 30, 2024
It is important to have laws, and a system needs to be in place to create and enforce those laws. However, humans systems err and there are certainly cases in which reasonable people would agree did not result in the correct verdict. I believe this trial is one of those cases.
First, the prosecutor, and more importantly the judge, were and are biased against Trump. Secondly, Trump’s 6th amendment rights were violated, in that he likely did not have an impartial jury and he was not informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. Lastly, at least one other high profile figure, none other than two time failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton also falsified business records in Brooklyn, New York and faced no more than a slap on the wrist.
A final point, less important, but worth mentioning depend on the intricacies of the statute of limitations laws in New York, which depending on the interpretation could lead one to conclude these charges were brought past the time in which they should have been allowed.
The Prosecution and more importantly the Judge are biased against Trump
Point number one. It is hard to believe, perhaps impossible to believe that Judge Merchan was impartial: Judge Juan Merchan donated $15 to Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign. While a token amount of money, it shows his political persuasion. In fact it being so small amount is telling. Many companies, for example, donate large amounts of money to candidates on both sides in a race. This is so gain access to the politicians, rather than necessarily support one over the other. Merchan’s donation is not big enough to curry favor with the campaign, but does show he supported Biden. It is also a violation of ethics rules for Judges. Judge Juan Merchan’s daughter, Loren Merchan is president of “Authentic” a political consulting firm who’s clients are Democrats, including President Joe Biden. It would have been much more ethical and appropriate for Judge Merchan to recuse himself from the case.
The prosecutor in the trial, Alvin Bragg boasted while campaigning “It is a fact that I have sued Trump over 100 times.” So was Alvin pursing justice for crimes committed, or did he look at Trump until he found a crime, and then pursued that. The prosecutor’s job is certainly not to be impartial against the accused, neither should they go after a specific person and find crimes they may have committed. The purpose is to pursue justice for crimes regardless of who the defendant happens to be, not pick a defendant and then prosecute them for whatever alleged crimes one thinks will stick.
6th Amendment violations
The 6th Amendment was likely violated in multiple ways: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” Emphasis added.
The 34 counts of falsifying business records were elevated to felonies because they were, as the prosecution argued, used to cover up another crime. But that other crime (or crimes) was never explicitly stated in the initial inditement, nor was Trump charged for it/them. At best the prosecution and judge alluded to them later in the trial and even then vaguely, as violations of tax, records, and campaign finance law. This is a violation of Trump’s 6th amendment rights “to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation” so that a defense can be prepared.
Trump was tried where the alleged crime was committed as is also required by the 6th amendment, however, was the jury impartial? In 2016, 86% of voters, voted for Hillary over Trump. If Trump did not get an impartial jury, this would also be a violation of his 6th Amendment rights. The defense gets to participate in the jury selection with the prosecution, but when the jury pool is 9 to 1 people who didn’t vote for you, it is hard to select individuals who are impartial and can assess the facts neutrally. The case should have been tried in a jurisdiction where an impartial jury could be assembled.
No One is Above the Law, Except When Some People Are
If a law in enforced unequally, it is an injustice. When prosecutors pick and choose who is subject to the law and who isn’t, a grave injustice is done and confidence in the justice system is undermined.
Imagine a member of the law enforcement community writing speeding tickets for people driving KIAs, but not those who drive Toyotas, because the law enforcement officer doesn’t’ like KIAs and prefers Toyotas. While one could argue, that those who drove the KIAs shouldn’t have been speeding, and they are simply being held accountable for breaking the law, the selective enforcement is still an injustice.
The Clinton campaign misclassified the funding of the debunked Steele Dossier as “legal services and compliance consulting” when there were in fact a direct attempt to smear Trump and influence the 2016 election. If “no one is above the law” why was Clinton not charged with a felony for falsifying business records? It seems clear that Clinton did what the New York jury found Trump guilty of doing, but the punishment (subject to sentencing) and pursuit of the crime were vastly different.
THE BUSINESS RECORDS DOUBLE STANDARD
In 2016, Hillary Clinton’s campaign was fined $8,000 for violating federal campaign finance laws. Why? Her team falsely reported the funding of the Steele Dossier as “legal services” and “legal and compliance consulting.”
Prosecution was initiated over five years after the alleged Crime was committed
I leave this point last, not because I think it is most important, but I do think it is worth mentioning.
“The statute of limitations generally forbid the prosecution from charging a person with a crime when the criminal prosecution is not commenced within a certain period of time. The purpose of the statute of limitation is to make sure that convictions are based on reliable evidence.” For felonies, excepting very serious crimes such as rape and murder, the statute of limitations in New York is 5 years.
It isn’t clear how the statute of limitations wasn’t passed. Misclassifying business expenses, which could be as simple as putting the wrong date on a lunch expense report is a misdemeanor, except when it is done with the intent to conceal the commission of a crime, in which case it is elevated to a felony. The statute of limitations for misdemeanors is 2 years, whereas for felonies it is 5 years.
The business records in question, the last of which was December 5, 2017, would mean the time in which prosecutors are permitted to bring charges against someone for this violation would end on December 5th 2023. Bragg argued and was able to bring charges for this crime despite being beyond the time dictated in the statute of limitations. Syracuse University Law Professor Gregory Germain wrote: “The District Attorney has argued that the statutes of limitations were tolled during COVID, or that they were extended when Trump left the state. These issues need to be addressed by the court clearly.”
One could point to Section 30.10(4) of New York criminal procedure law, which provides that “when calculating the time limitation applicable to commencement of a criminal action, the following periods shall not be included: (a) Any period following the commission of the offense during which (i) the defendant was continuously outside this state“
Trump was elected President in 2016, so he was out of New York for much of the time. But he certainly returned to New York at times, so he was not “continuously” outside the state. I agree with Professor Germain that this issue needs to be addressed directly by the court to explain why prosecution could be permitted despite the offense occurring more than 5 years ago. Clearly if a prosecutor wanted to charge Trump earlier, they could have found him. But charging and convicting Trump when they did has much more potential to disrupt and damage Trump’s re-election campaign.
A Sad day for the United States Legal System
Those who are opposed to Trump, perhaps because they believe it or perhaps as a smokescreen to hide their blind partisanship, celebrate Trump’s conviction on these 34 counts as the conveyance of justice and upholding the rule of law.
They will need to relish their schadenfreude while it lasts, because it seems likely this conviction will eventually be overturned, due to the flaws in the trial mentioned above, but likely not prior to November 5th. Thus, the intended damage, if this does in fact result in net harm to Trump’s campaign, will have been done.
Regardless of your stance on Trump, those who do care about the rule of law and the idea that “no one is above the law” should be deeply concerned by Trump’s conviction. This trial, is a clear case, for those willing to see it, of weaponization of the legal system and election interference. Even if you don’t like Trump, this sets a dangerous precedent for DAs and willing judges to prosecute political candidates in order to influence elections.
Back when I was an impressionable college student I was shown an asset allocation rubric. The rubric was a list of asset classes with a recommended percent of funds to be invested in each asset type. The result would be a diversified portfolio.
It was my first exposure to asset allocation and it made a lot of sense.
The allocation I was presented was very similar what I have listed below and I’ll call it “Portfolio 1”.
Asset Allocation Portfolio 1
The problem with this portfolio is that is dropped over 55% in the 2008 financial crisis.
Without any bonds (or gold) this portfolio was subject to a massive drawdown.
Since January of 2007 to January of 2017 this portfolio has a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of just 5.58%.
Plus the correlation with US stocks is .98.
In fact an investor would have been better off just buying the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index (VTSMX) and calling it a day. The “Just Buy VTSMX” strategy would have had a 7.25% CAGR with a lower maximum drawdown of around 50%.
Asset Allocation: Portfolio 2 (Add Bonds)
To be fair, the allocation actually calls for a 40% allocation to short term bonds. Adding 40% bonds would have limited the maximum drawdown to a much more manageable 33.72% with a CAGR of 4.77%.
Correlation of this portfolio is still .98.
HIGMW Asset Allocation
But enduring a 33% drawdown for a a 4.77% return doesn’t seem stellar to me. So I’m been experimenting with different asset allocations using portfoliovisualizer.com.
The HIGMW Asset Allocation I’ve developed would have a maximum drawdown of 28.77% with a CAGR of 7.38%. Correlation with US stocks drops below the 90s down to .87, still high, but at least lower.
Now the actual investments in my allocation are listed below. I had to swap out some funds in order to get a sense of how this allocation would have performed in 2008.
However, many of the funds I like did not exist in 2008.
Yes, this allocation is 30% bonds. And yes, I think US stocks and bonds are in a bubble. And yes indeed I Don’t Own US Treasuries. But 20% of my allocation to bonds are outside the US and the other 10% are in a fund managed by Bill Gross mainly consisting of corporate bonds and only 6% in government bonds.
So my 30% allocation to these bond funds in no way contradicts my views on US debt.
I also allocated 20% to gold and 10% to real estate. I think if inflation does pick up (even more) these hard assets will add some resilience to the portfolio.
Small cap value stocks have outperformed over the last 45 year so I’m overweight small cap value. 10% is allocated to international small cap value stocks and 10% to small cap value stocks in the US. The 20% allocation to the First Trust Dorsey Wright Dynamic Focus 5 ETF is an interesting ETF in that it is somewhat trend following. Combine these three funds and 40% of this allocation is to stocks.
Gold doesn’t pay a dividend or yield. But until the central banks around the world stop acting like crazy people gold will remain a large part of my portfolio.
I don’t think I can be convinced that governments can continue to borrow, print and spend money without consequences.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish.AcceptRejectRead More
Cookie Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
