The value of gold
A lot has been written about the gold price in recent days. Much of it has been the usual ex-post narrative explaining exactly why the price has moved in the way it has, including reasons such as: lower expectations for quantitative easing, hedge funds being forced to liquidate leverage positions, the loss of “safe haven” status, etc.
This type of commentary has limited use to us as value investors. What we do find useful is to stay focused on the fundamental principles of investment. That usually means making investments when we have a well founded view that what we are buying is worth more than the price that we are paying for it.
In the case of gold, this is a difficult test to satisfy. It is one thing to identify the factors that might prompt a higher or lower gold price. It is another thing altogether to determine from those factors exactly what the intrinsic value of gold should be.
We note that many people view gold as a store of wealth or as an alternative currency, rather than being a vehicle for investment. This is a legitimate view, although we think that a good store of wealth is one whose price doesn’t change materially overnight.
Returning to gold as an investment – faced with an inability to value gold with any reliability, the logical response may be to decline to invest. The Montgomery Fund and the Montgomery [Private] Fund currently do not hold any gold stocks, but we may change our view if we feel that compelling margins of safety are emerging.
Jeff T
:
Gold has no intrinsic value, so how do you value a gold company?
Roger Montgomery
:
The product they sell has a market value….
paul fairley
:
I seem to remember that Silver Lake was a stock that you liked?
Roger Montgomery
:
Lik(ED). Its our job to take a profit and change or mind.
Will Estes
:
What changed your mind on Silverlake? At what price do you think Silverlake becomes compelling again? I was thinking around $1 AUD.
Roger Montgomery
:
We are thinking there’s a price at which zero growth in production is being priced.