*Schiff*

[raja]

Re: *Schiff*

If the stocks regain their 2007 values within 10 years (probably a not unreasonable assumption) then I've made 10% a year on my original investment, which is not going to be too big a disappointment.

Is that "regain their 2007 values within 10 years" figuring in inflation?

[pianodoctor]

Re: *Schiff*

Is that "regain their 2007 values within 10 years" figuring in inflation?

No, but it's also just a conservative guess and in any case it's not my goal to sell off the whole portfolio at any particular time. In actuality, I think they will probably do better than double in 10 years or in any case better than the broad U.S. market. But I'm not counting the market value of my chickens before they hatch, so to speak.

But the strategy is to keep holding these stocks for their exceptional dividends they pay out (which get better as the dollar falls) and if any or various of them become very bubbly looking at various times, perhaps consider the idea of selling them off and taking profit at that point. Right now with the port value down, it just means that the dividend yields are extremely if not incredibly attractive. I don't think of it as having 'lost' anything, because I'm not selling. Just collecting dividends.

I keep a separate chunk of money for shorter term trading based on stock prices. Euro Pac was never intended as a trading strategy. It's a buy-and-hold strategy.

[Guest]

Re: *Schiff*

Couple of points. When I had 150K parked with EuroPac about three years ago, I discovered several Canadian stocks I'd purchased with express instructions that they be on the Toronto exchange were instead purchased on US exchanges. An inquiry on that "got lost".

Another thing I called to their attention was that client brokerage statements were not clearly listing all commission alongside the transactions, which I found a little too cute. And as to their brokers reminding clients to review all commissions prior to larger buys or sells? I don't recall them ever bothering. At present I only have a couple of thousand in my account.

On occasion I'll call them to discuss an idea? One or two of their brokers are invariably curt and dismissive because I don't have a commission trade right there for them. When they pull up my account and see there is little in it they are so dismissive they are practically hanging up on me. One of these brokers practically told me not to "waste his time" in so many words. Little twit collects 3%-6% on regular trades so he's a "boutique" broker, and feels license to talk to clients this way?

Oh and I've been a client since 2003. Must confess I don't really appreciate this kind of high handed style. I think Peter's manufactured notoriety (sorry, "fame") has gone to their collective heads.

Since *Schiff* is not here to present his side of things, I'm going to copy over a couple of his FAQs that may provide his side of the issue as per 'rip off prices', etc. Also, note the statement that theirs is a buy-and-hold strategy.

"1. How do I save money by trading foreign stocks through Euro Pacific?
Just about every other U.S. brokerage firm that can even offer access to foreign securities trades those non-U.S. listed securities through domestic market makers on the U.S. over-the-counter market. For example, if the ordinary shares of stock X closed Jan 1 in Hong Kong at the U.S. dollar equivalent on $1.00 per share, the market for those ordinary shares Jan 2 in the U.S. might be 90 cents bid, 1.10 offer. Anyone buying shares of stock X in the U.S. would be forced to pay $1.10 per share. Even if the investor used a discount broker, he would still be paying a 10% premium to buy the stock. Buying 10,000 shares with a 6 dollar commission would cost $11,006. However, the real cost of the trade is not $6, but $1,006; $1,000 to the market maker and & $6 to the broker. When you invest through Euro Pacific, we would execute your buy order directly on the Hong Kong exchange, saving you the $1,000 dollar mark up charged by the market maker. We would charge a commission, but the net effect would be a substantial savings for the investor.

2. What are your fees for buying non-U.S. listed foreign stocks?
We charge a percentage markup on all foreign trades that varies based on the size of each individual transaction and the total size of the portfolio. These fees can vary from as much as 5% ($50 to buy $1,000 of a single foreign stock), to less then 1% for a single stock transaction in excess of 1 million dollars. Most clients will end up paying between 2% and 3 % to build a portfolio of foreign stocks. The difference will depend of the total size of the portfolio and the number of individual stocks that comprise it. The more diversified the portfolio, the more it costs us to create it and the more we charge for our services. Since commissions will vary it is important to discuss the fees involved with the broker prior to placing any orders so that you understand the exact percentage that you will be charged.

Since we do not charge an annual management fee and given our buy-and hold strategy, in the long-run this fee structure should prove advantageous to paying the 1% to 2% annual management fee typically charged by money managers.'

[Mega]

Re: *Schiff*

Agreed.
Luke you are aware of the trouble i had, it turned out to be THERE fault....they given me the WRONG A/C number for transfar in Pounds!

However Euro-pac is useful to me as its NOT UK Based thus the coming crash in the value of the £ will not effect it. I got one more trade to make, just a few Thou then its just a case of re-investement of the Div.

Mean time, come on Gold!!!!
Mike

[metalman]

Re: *Schiff*

Agreed.
Luke you are aware of the trouble i had, it turned out to be THERE fault....they given me the WRONG A/C number for transfar in Pounds!

However Euro-pac is useful to me as its NOT UK Based thus the coming crash in the value of the £ will not effect it. I got one more trade to make, just a few Thou then its just a case of re-investement of the Div.

Mean time, come on Gold!!!!
Mike

i'm waiting for the fed to talk about deflation before i buy. the nytimes isn't a strong enough contrary indicator.

[Guest]

Re: *Schiff*

He is, but that's only because he runs a brokerage that sells rubbish funds.

He isn't an asset manager: he's another blowhard.

So which is it? Does he run a brokerage or a "fund" ?

I think the phrase "another blowhard" definitely applies.

[Guest]

Re: *Schiff*

I would never use Europac since I don't think paying 3 percent or whatever to get your money invested is reasonable. It's just not for me. And if you want to make a move from one asset class to another frequently it will expensive to do so with that sort of arrangement. They also have, like ALL brokers with that sort of compensation, an unhealthy desire to put you into STOCKS and other products not available to discount brokerage customers vs something simple you could have done without their help. In their case, they push what makes them different, their ability to deal with more foreign stocks than typical brokers. It's hard for them to hit you with a big commission and then say "thanks for the $30K, now just sit in cash till this thing settles out". He should have been dollar cost averaging clients into the market over a year at least I think, despite worries the dollar would collapse in the meantime. I also suspect he likes gold stocks better than bullion because you dont' need him to buy your bullion, and the return is leveraged. When it wins, he is a hero. When gold stocks tank, he still got his commission. Win-win.

He's a businessman in America. What did you expect?

That doesn't mean Schiff's view is wrong. I think he's right in the macro picture, but being Americans we lack patience to see that through. Markets change rapidly in the short run. He says it over and over he's not into trading short term and that isn't his forte and some of his clients just didn't listen and expecting nothing but huge gains from the start. The game isn't over. If in a year or two his stocks recover and US stocks don't, then he'll be proven right.

Any fool can claim clairvoyance in retrospect. But with some asset classes and individual stocks rising or falling over 20% in a day routinely, you're full of it if you say you "knew" what would happen. You may have gotten this one right, but nobody bats 1.000 .

I've found that you can nail it right, but if millions of other fools are wrong, you still get carried along with them until reality beats their foolishness. This applies to booms AND busts. So it's what happens in the long run that matters. In 5 years those foreign and gold stocks might be worth 10x what they are now. We don't know. And YOU don't know. We can just try to understand the markets and why they do what they do. But they're not always understandable.

My understanding says oil will rise, commodities will rise, and stocks associated with them will rise. Until then I'll suck it up earning 13% dividends and hope they keep paying the dividends. We'd all love to sell at the top, wait out the downturn, then buy at the bottom. But Schiff repeatedly says he doesn't know what they'll do in the short run. I heard it just this week and I heard him say it a year ago.

Go check an oil price chart. There are some pretty radical ups and downs over the years. Same with gold. Give it time, you might be happy with your Europac portfolio, even if it's not the best possible outcome. If not, you probably didn't do any worse than any other broker did this year (dow down 40% at one point)

[Guest]

Re: *Schiff*

Sure, he is trying to get people to invest money with him, because thats how he makes his money, but its not as if he has the horrible track record that some of you guys are saying here.

He was talking about buying gold the same time people were talking about it here, when it was under $300. Anyone that bought gold then like he recommended has made a lot of money. For some reason, people think thats great when talking about EJ, but not so great when talking about Sch.iff.

Lots of the stocks that he has recommended have done poorly lately, but as he has said, its not like they are cutting their dividend. So now you are still getting your dividend, and you get a chance to buy more at a lower price.

Obviously people are upset that they have lost money in the short term, but anyone who has been invested with him for the last few years has probably done pretty well. (Ive been with him a year or so and havent done so well, but I own an oil company and a commodity company that are paying 18% and 13% in dividends, and dont appear to be in much danger of cutting anytime soon.

Anyone who was interested in getting a guaranteed, steady return shouldnt have been invested in something as risky as foreign stocks, really.

As for suing because he called you and convinced you not to sell, if you agreed with him that you were going to hold, then you dont have a case. If every investor who had to argue with his broker to get him to sell something could sue if he took losses, brokers would be out of business in a week.

Some of my canroy purchases are down, but others are up 20% and yield over 25%! I've bought some gold that is still "up" and some that is off about 20%.

Some of these guys complaining just went "all in" at the market peak and got burned. But they haven't lost a dime until they sell it.