I know gold isnt really liked here, but with all this hype on market crashes, wouldn't a small portion in gold companies be wise? Even without some any real danger from market crashes, there is still value to be had from gold miners?
Just keep in mind that the actual company has risks like strikes, overhead costs and logistics and all sorts of things whereas the physical gold has its underlying value and that's it... One must see the mining company as a whole with its operation etc, it could be good but also could have many risks...
I say ignore the hype (and gold) .. there is always hype, markets climb a wall of worry and sure they eventually crash and some even call the crash, but they either lucky or spent years calling for the crash ..
I agree, I think we talking past one another, depending on our definitions and time horizons. To be more clear: 2011 was a 15% correction in SA but 25% move in the US. 2003 Im referring to ALSI moving from 11,000p to 7,000 (35%). I see that started in April 2002 to be more accurate.
My point really though is that these events happen a lot more often than we realize, we think markets carry on for years and years without significant pullbacks but it seems another event is always around the corner (about every 5 years). One could argue though in the big scheme of things they happen over small periods, for instance if you took the cycle 2003 to 2009, only 9 months out of the 6 years was a crash period, but how often the events happen is just quite regularly.
The real question is - did gold react positively (and adequately) to all of these "events". A bear market could well drag gold down with it... A "crash" is more likely to cause a gold price spike; but even then - not always.