you're totally wrong on just about all of the above.
Very possible. I am often wrong.
It could be argued that real assets are the only assets that DO have intrinsic value. A house or a lump of copper is a real tangible asset.
You can argue anything you want, of course!
I wasn't arguing - but stating an economic tautology when I said "Commodities and precious metals have zero intrinsic value"
Reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_value_(finance)
Important points:
....intrinsic value refers to the value...determined...without reference to its market value. ... It is ordinarily calculated by summing the discounted future income generated by the asset to obtain the present value...
Gold and commodities have no cash flow, neither can you do any reasonable fundamental analysis on it independent of the market value -> no intrinsic value.
Technical Aside: An option on a Gold Contract with a defined end date, on the other hand, has intrinsic value as calculated by Black Scholes or other variants. There is much philosophical dispute in Economics on this - but that is besides the scope of this discussion.
When someone tells you commodities have intrinsic value - they are not engaging in the discipline of economics, as started by Adam Smith.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_theory_of_value is a fundamental piller of "The Wealth of Nations".
If you are making a "not economics" argument (e.g.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_value_(numismatics)), and state "according to vand definition of intrinsic value which is defined *thus*, It could be argued that real assets are the only assets that DO have intrinsic value" - then we have no dispute!!
A house or a lump of copper is a real tangible asset. It will always have some value. A company can go bust. It's shares or its debt can end up worthless.
Concepts like "real tangible asset", "always have some value", "go bust", "end up worthless" are irrelevant to the economic concept of intrinsic value.
AAPL put option @strike $100 has more intrinsic value 1KG of gold - despite the fact that the first will likely end up worthless, and the lump of gold would not. Refer to the "without reference to its market value" part in the wikipedia definition I linked.
If its good enough for the Rothschilds its probably more than good enough for Joe McFire:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/investor/investing-news/11971879/How-to-invest-like-the-Rothschild-dynasty.html
Interesting link. I need to read through it. Seems like they did a combination of speculative and fundamental investing.
I wonder, however, how much their fortune have been if they had invested in the equivalent of the "total market" (which was totally doable with their wealth level) since 1800's. The comparison is often unflattering!!