But any asset that is subject to a lien, be it real estate, gold, corn, wheat would not be a hard asset under your definition. Also, Real Estate is not really someone elses's liability. Real Estate is Real Estate. If you buy it subject to a mortgage you still pay the same amount, only the amount of the mortgage is paid to the lender. Under your view is there a difference in the following situations if a piece of real estate is worth 100,0000 and is subject to a mortgage of 100,000, or suppose the mortgage is 50,000.00 or 25,000.00 or 5,000 or 500.
I am having a hard time understanding the concept that if it subject to a mortgage it is not a hard asset. I understand the concept that unlike most obligations gold is not some one else's debt. Because if you own gold you have value and you are not relying on someone else to pay you as with a tbill, bond or for that matter the dollar, if you accept that the dollar is a note. Frankly, I don't know what the dollar is.
I just don't see why any commodity or real estate or any other tangible item that is owneds is not considered a hard asset irrespective of whether it is mortgaged or not.
Maybe I am nitpicking, but the concept seems strange to me.
Little joe |
