I’m left scratching my head... a crash is a crash I cannot say it simpler.
I agree that commodities are more volatile than property as are shares (this is totally irrelevant to this discussion) as price drop of 30% is a crash by "definition" regardless of the volatility of the market. The conversation should end here.
If you are trying to argue that 30% drops are so common place (which they are not) this too is irrelevant because all this this means is that you are investing in an asset class that is so volatile that it "booms" and "crashes" daily, weekly or monthly. Regardless it "crashes".
Simply put a crash is a dramatic fall in value, e.g. 30%.
We are going round in circles here, I couldn’t care less if silver later this year rises by 300% because if it did history will still show a "Crash" of 30% irrespective if someone says “yes but who cares I later made 300% and made my money back and then some” because there will always be the guy that didn’t re-invest, sold out and lost money (thanks to the crash).
I cannot state my position any clearer, 30% fall is a crash irrespective of the growth that has occurred before it. Silver could have risen 1000% prior to a 30% fall and it won’t mute the fact a crash occurred.
If your understanding of crash is subject to you constantly widening your time horizon to look at an overall trend then nothing ever will crash e.g. property because I can say well I am still 100% up from 1990 figures should the market crash today by 50%.
Like someone wrote previously in this thread, lets agree to disagree.
I agree that commodities are more volatile than property as are shares (this is totally irrelevant to this discussion) as price drop of 30% is a crash by "definition" regardless of the volatility of the market. The conversation should end here.
If you are trying to argue that 30% drops are so common place (which they are not) this too is irrelevant because all this this means is that you are investing in an asset class that is so volatile that it "booms" and "crashes" daily, weekly or monthly. Regardless it "crashes".
Simply put a crash is a dramatic fall in value, e.g. 30%.
We are going round in circles here, I couldn’t care less if silver later this year rises by 300% because if it did history will still show a "Crash" of 30% irrespective if someone says “yes but who cares I later made 300% and made my money back and then some” because there will always be the guy that didn’t re-invest, sold out and lost money (thanks to the crash).
I cannot state my position any clearer, 30% fall is a crash irrespective of the growth that has occurred before it. Silver could have risen 1000% prior to a 30% fall and it won’t mute the fact a crash occurred.
If your understanding of crash is subject to you constantly widening your time horizon to look at an overall trend then nothing ever will crash e.g. property because I can say well I am still 100% up from 1990 figures should the market crash today by 50%.
Like someone wrote previously in this thread, lets agree to disagree.
I think it's a matter of interpretation, silver was predicted to perform strongly over 2011 and overall it has, silver is volatile, it does not have the barriers to entry and the high transaction costs that help property remain relatively stable, naturally there will be rapid peaks and troughs but the underlying 12 month trend, year on year will be the determining factor. In reality, whether Hobo's prediction is correct or not can really only be assessed on 31/12/2011.
If I say property will continue to perform strongly over the next decade, it matters not whether there is a 30% drop in 2015, if property doubles between 2011 and 2021, my prediction was correct.