I wouldn't dream of psychoanalyzing you. Should have said that your views lack a sense of time. Shorthand at play in this medium.
You, not me, suggested that Q is a better investment than gold. As usual, it depends on the time frame, which you ignore. There're dozens of times frames which can be studied.
Over the past five years, gold has beaten Q by a factor of five. I started buying gold in 2007 so my earliest purchases have been significantly better investments than Q. My later ones require more analysis. I got out of Q during its dead money cycle around that time, and started buying gold. I made the mistake of trading it, with varying success, but it makes a clear cut determination of profits difficult. Year-over-year, however, it has treated me nicely.
I don't have the figures to make the comparison since Q went public, but I am sure they are available. I am equally sure that you can analyze things for your own purposes, using time frames relevant exclusively to you. I am virtually certain that any gold vs. Q analysis you make will be relevant exclusively to you as there will be few, if any, Q investors who invested at the same times you did. I personally find it best to chart my performance on a yearly basis.
So, yes, your views are chronologically challenged. |
