(click to enlarge)

It is true that 1,550 is a strong support level for gold. But it is not the last defense. There are support levels at 1,480 and in the 1,300s.

Some time ago I looked at long-term uptrend support lines for gold.

Taking a longer view, let's look at a 20-year perspective with a graph presented last year:

(click to enlarge)

You must extrapolate almost two years to the right to get to today. If you eyeball that extrapolation the five-year trend line support is in the vicinity of 1,100-1,120 and the ten-year trend line support is around 1,020-1,140.

Now those levels are 30% to 35% below the current price, but that is where you have to go to say the long-term uptrend for gold is over.

However, if gold does go back to test long-term trend lines, and you hold all the way to that test, you certainly will not feel like you may still be in a long-term bull market.

Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.

Here is a chart from Friday morning (01 March 2013) shown in an article by Anthony Lazarra (Futures Magazine).

(click to enlarge)

In the early afternoon on the same day the chart has moved even lower, down to 90.50.

Lazarra shows his downside targets around 87 and then 82.

Other analysts have suggested the low for oil in 2013 could be much below these near-term targets. Dian Chu has predicted $65 (05 December 2012) and Andrew Butter has suggested (in July 2012) even lower ($60). Butter's analysis predicted a price of oil around $100 before mid-year 2013 to precede the drop all the way to $60.

In October (2012) Goldman Sachs predicted a longer term downtrend in oil. Two months ago Deutsche Bank forecast $70 oil by year end. And Bank of America has predicted $50 sometime in the next two years. The same report (11 December 2012) also predicted an average price of $90 over the same time span.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has issued an update today (01 March 2013) that takes a more bullish longer-term view:

The IEA significantly increased its projections of future oil costs in this year's report due to the changing outlook for demand and production costs. It now expects crude oil to average $100 per barrel over the next two decades and more than $200 per barrel in 2030, in nominal terms. Last year's forecast estimated that a 2030 barrel would amount to only $108.

The IEA has increased the long-range price outlook by almost 100% over the past year.

However, the economic impact of energy costs has been continually reduced and that is projected to improve further. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reports that the efficiency of energy utilization has reduced the energy cost per real dollar of GDP by half over the past 30 years and projects that same rate to continue over the next 30 years. A GEI News report is scheduled on this later today.

So, are we seeing oil making a move or faking a move? It could be both, depending on your time frame.

Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.

So can we put it on auto pilot?

I'll ask three questions:

1. So far the rebound from the dip is a lot less robust than the two previous cases. Is this a matter of concern?

2. What would an Elliot Wave analyst say the pattern is? Is it a-b-c-d so far with a final "e" awaiting for a peak?

3. And how many people see a half of a head and shoulders pattern emerging?

There really should be a fourth question:

How many time have you seen someone mention the potential for a head and shoulder pattern over the years that didn't ever complete?

Finally, back to auto pilot: A fool and his boat are soon parted on auto pilot.

Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.

There is also a technical analysis summary this morning by Nick Simpson at GEI Investing:

• The dollar index has hit its strongest level in five months, trading around previous resistance in the USDX 81.50 area, following the Fed policy meeting minutes on Wednesday.
• Divergent views on QE by the Fed policy makers has seen the US dollar gain across the board. There has been speculation that the Fed could potentially end the monetary easing programme sooner than previously anticipated.

Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.

The minimum in sentiment in 2012 implies that there may be between six months and more than a year before the stock market peaks.

That is certainly not the way it feels to me, but I have not sold much up to now.

From the viewpoint that the market will make the maximum number of investors into fools, it would be appropriate for a further rise above the peaks of 2000 and 2007 should be achieved, the pundits all declare the 13-year (plus) bear market to be over, and only then have a significant market decline after suckering in all the last hold-outs.

But you are just reading the thoughts of an insufferable cynic.

Added note: I am not suggesting that the Nasdaq peak in 2000 will be taken out before a decline, just all the other (non-tech bubble) indexes.

Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.

Anatole Kaletsky (Reuters) called the address an "emperor's new clothes" moment. He also said it a "truly historic speech."

This is an astounding development for those (including me) who have been arguing that the monopoly of private banking for money creation is a seriously misdirected economic policy. This monopoly is directly responsible for the mismanagement of the business cycle for the past century.

With the historic Adair Turner paper we could finally see the question I have asked for several years discussed:

Why must nations with sovereign currency pay interest to use their currency (except for that they reclaim from citizens in the form of taxes)?

Read the rest of the news article here.