It is frustrating at times to see the attention focused on predictions for the price of gold. The more sensational and spectacular the price forecast, the greater the cacophony.
It is worth taking a look back at a few of these predictions to help put things in perspective.
HEADLINE: Gold Forecast $6000, And Gold Mining Analysis Through Visualisation 23Jan2012
Quote: "If the current gold bull market was to follow the timing and extent of the 70s bull market, the gold price would reach $6000 before 2014."
Gold price on 23Jan2012: $1679.00 per oz.
Gold price on 14Mar2014: $1382.00 per oz.
Gold price on 31Dec2014: $1181.00 per oz.
How far off base can a price prediction be? Not only did gold not reach the target price, it went in the opposite direction - beginning that same month - and proceeded to decline by thirty percent over the next two years, ending at $1205.00 per ounce on December 31, 2013.
The problem is not the plausibility of $6000.00 gold. It is very plausible, and possible; maybe even likely. However, the prediction was specifically time oriented and horrendously misjudged in terms of direction and timing.
All that is excusable. Unless you are the proprietor of a subscription service and/or making investment recommendations to others, or dispensing trading advice.
HEADLINE: JPMorgan Forecasts Gold $1,800 By Mid 2013 01Feb2013
Quote:"JPMorgan Sees Gold At $1,800 By Mid 2013 As South Africa "In Crisis" And "Escalating Instability" In Middle East J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. said gold will rise to $1,800 an ounce by the middle of 2013, with the mining industry in South Africa "in crisis," according to Bloomberg."
The price of gold on the date the headline appeared was $1667.00 per ounce. Five months later on June 29, 2013, the price of gold was $1233.00 per ounce.
The call for $1800.00 gold was a 'safe' prediction. Only an eight percent increase from the existing (then) level of $1667.00 would have resulted in a gold price of $1800.00.
But, as in the previous example, the price went south with a vengeance; this time dropping twenty-six percent in five short months.
HEADLINE: Trump Win Signals $1,500 Gold... 10Nov2016
Quote: "A Trump US presidential victory signals US$1,500 an ounce for gold... in the intermediate term."
Gold price on 10Nov2016: $1258.00 per oz.
Gold price on 31July2017: $1268.00 per oz.
Apparently gold did not see the 'signal' since its current price is nearly identical to its price on the day the prediction appeared in print just after the elections last November.
And what does the writer mean by "intermediate term"? The longer the time frame, the less value in the prediction. The projected dollar increase amounts to twenty percent. If it takes two years, that amounts to roughly ten percent annually. In that case - or if it takes longer than two years - is it worth the bold-face headline?