Don't be surprised if a final assault by the short sellers is around the corner. Don't let them shake you out. Add to your portfolio as they create the last correction before 1000 is viewed in the rear view mirror.
Gold Fools: Not Fools Gold. Gold will leave as many weak holders as possible. CNBC commentators will certainly pay a price for their bias's. Gold will always look too expensive as it makes it's move. Most of the big money guy's will be in Marthas Vinyard for the entire month of August. Look out $1500 Gold. Stay strong and don't let the talking heads shake you out.
Is Black Gold Worth More than Real Gold? [View article]
If I remember correctly, President DeGaul, ( not sure of the spelling) ,of France was demanding gold instead of the dollar that caused the freeing of the price of gold. The last 90% silver was 1969 and then for a time 40% silver then none. BAD MONEY ALWAYS CHASES OUT GOOD MONEY. FULL FAITH AND CREDIT.ha and not to mention the copper penny. Don't get me started. I'm sticking with gold until I have a way to store oil .Good trading,
Gold Downgraded to Underweight - National Bank Financial [View article]
I'm adding some smaller names to my core holdings here. Gold is very fickle, and will shake all weak holders out before a big move which, I think, will surprise many. Don't weaken now.
The Gold market always shakes out the weak holders before a rise and tends to capture them in a correction. If it was easy everyone would be in the gold market. That's not going to happen if history is any indication. May you be blessed with good trading. JR
One other place to visit for coins etc. golddealer.com , which is California numismatics. I have always had a good experience and fair prices. they ship and insure free if the order is $2000.00 or more. JR
Naidle, I'm charting, PAAS, SLW, & HL. My thoughts are as listed. PAAS is breaking out, SLW is looking to and HL has to recover from missing a debt payment but has been punished for that . HL could be a longer term speculation on a recovery from these depressed levels. Hope this helped.
This article is dead on. As time passes Gold will rise in all currencies and will do so in spite of efforts to control the price rise.
On Jan 24 08:05 PM Roger Knights wrote:
> Rolex18K wrote: > > "it is weird to predict 1 year in advance." > > Nonsense--looking ahead to where long-term macro-economic trends > are heading is commonplace and respectable. Buffett does it all the > time. (He doesn't predict exact upside price points and dates, of > course, but neither did this article.) > > "Regarding mining stocks, the insiders of the precious matals mining > companies don't agree with the price of Gold at this level and the > [low] stock prices reflect it very precisely." > > Ridiculous. The prices of mining stocks reflect market forces, not > their executives' opinions. Only if there was an unusual level of > recent insider selling by such executives would such a statement > that "insiders ... don't agree" be warranted. > > "[See] where are they now compared to where they were when Gold was > 900$ in 2008, you will see the facts. I always say, numbers don't > lie." > > Ridiculous. "The facts" don't come bundled with their implications--the > latter is a separate matter. No one's disputing that mining stocks > are sharply off their highs of 2008. But they were high then because > of speculative excess--it was thought that gold's price would soon > go "to da moon," and that miners would benefit disproportionately > thereby. That's because the cost of mining an ounce of gold is a > large fraction of gold's price, so any increase in that price is > has a leveraged effect on the miners' profits.) with the deflation > of that irrational exuberance, miners have declined more sharply > than the price of gold. > > And their price decline hardly implies a forecast that gold's price > will fall further, or move sideways. On the contrary, when miners' > stocks are undervalued for a long period in relation to the price > of gold, as they are now, it suggests that their price is set to > rise--or at least that a shrinking of the spread is likely. Two or > three recent articles have pointed this out--see for instance this > SA article by Andrew Mickey, "Could Gold be 2009's 'Trade of the > year'?", at seekingalpha.com/artic... > > "I don't want to predict 1 year from now but the price of Gold stocks > reflects price of Gold at 600-700$." > > Just because miner's stocks are oversold doesn't mean that gold is > over-valued. > > Toeser wrote: > "I can see the possibility of a gold rally from a collapsing dollar, > but not from inflation - at least for quite a while." > > I can see a gold rally arising from other causes, such as foreign > recessions, currency declines, bond rating cuts, or inflationary > prospects. If such occur, foreign investors will seek a safe haven. > It's happened in the past week in Europe, with a collapsing pound, > down-rated foreign bonds, and bad economic news resulting in a skyrocketing > gold price (up 10% from its low the prior week to $897). It's a parochial > mistake, but a nearly universal one, even by gold-bugs, to think > that the price of gold depends on what happens here in the US, or > to the dollar. If banks, bonds, stocks, and currencies abroad are > failing or threatened, overseas money will bid up gold's price, and > that will be reflected in its price in dollar terms. It doesn't matter > where the money comes from. Gold's price is not just an inverse-dollar > play. (Recent dollar-divergent price action bears this out.) > > I agree that inflation may not occur for quite a while, but the price > of gold isn't strictly tied to the inflation rate. It can rise when > alternative places of stashing ones cash (bonds, stocks, and commodities) > look risky. That's the case today. Even a bank account or a mattress > (i.e., cash) looks risky to foreigners, because of the chance of > their currency declining against the world's reserve currency.<br/> > > Please note that foreigners don’t have to start buying gold to cause > its price to rise. They merely need to stop selling it, or reduce > their rate of selling. European central banks have been scheduling > sales of about 500 tonnes per year for about a decade. They haven’t > yet fulfilled their recent quota, or so I’ve read. Why shouldn’t > they start to feel that moving out of gold and into bonds is no longer > justified in terms of risk/reward? (There is a major threat of default > of emerging nations’ bonds. And there is now an eight-year trend > of rising gold prices. And interest rates on newly issued bonds are > unattractive.) > > In gold’s action this past week, it rose right through the $885-890 > price level without a hitch. This was the level at which a European > central bank supposedly had placed a huge sell order (according to > an influential, Swiss-based pundit). Perhaps they cancelled their > sell order. (Indeed, perhaps the cancellation of their sell order, > once traders got wind of it, is what prompted most of the price rise.) > > > Even if only China were to reduce its rate of gold sales, the supply/demand > equilibrium would reset at a higher price level. Increased investment > demand for gold isn’t required as a driver for there to be a major > gold bull market. >
Canary in the Gold Mine [View article]
Gold Resumes Its Reign [View article]
With a Small Pullback Behind Us, Precious Metals Are Ready to Shine Now [View article]
Gold's Next Move Will Come from Inflation Figures [View article]
What's CNBC's Problem with Gold? [View article]
Is Black Gold Worth More than Real Gold? [View article]
Will Gold Rush to 1,000? [View article]
Gold Downgraded to Underweight - National Bank Financial [View article]
Gold Traders Whipsawed [View article]
Three Ways to Take Profit in Gold as Inflation Props Up Prices [View article]
Gold: Not a Bubble [View article]
February Wrap-Up: 252 Banks on FDIC Watch List, Gold Pull Back, Dow Declines (Again) [View article]
Will Silver Now Outperform Gold? [View article]
Gold Will Shine in 2009 (Part II) [View article]
On Jan 24 08:05 PM Roger Knights wrote:
> Rolex18K wrote:
>
> "it is weird to predict 1 year in advance."
>
> Nonsense--looking ahead to where long-term macro-economic trends
> are heading is commonplace and respectable. Buffett does it all the
> time. (He doesn't predict exact upside price points and dates, of
> course, but neither did this article.)
>
> "Regarding mining stocks, the insiders of the precious matals mining
> companies don't agree with the price of Gold at this level and the
> [low] stock prices reflect it very precisely."
>
> Ridiculous. The prices of mining stocks reflect market forces, not
> their executives' opinions. Only if there was an unusual level of
> recent insider selling by such executives would such a statement
> that "insiders ... don't agree" be warranted.
>
> "[See] where are they now compared to where they were when Gold was
> 900$ in 2008, you will see the facts. I always say, numbers don't
> lie."
>
> Ridiculous. "The facts" don't come bundled with their implications--the
> latter is a separate matter. No one's disputing that mining stocks
> are sharply off their highs of 2008. But they were high then because
> of speculative excess--it was thought that gold's price would soon
> go "to da moon," and that miners would benefit disproportionately
> thereby. That's because the cost of mining an ounce of gold is a
> large fraction of gold's price, so any increase in that price is
> has a leveraged effect on the miners' profits.) with the deflation
> of that irrational exuberance, miners have declined more sharply
> than the price of gold.
>
> And their price decline hardly implies a forecast that gold's price
> will fall further, or move sideways. On the contrary, when miners'
> stocks are undervalued for a long period in relation to the price
> of gold, as they are now, it suggests that their price is set to
> rise--or at least that a shrinking of the spread is likely. Two or
> three recent articles have pointed this out--see for instance this
> SA article by Andrew Mickey, "Could Gold be 2009's 'Trade of the
> year'?", at seekingalpha.com/artic...
>
> "I don't want to predict 1 year from now but the price of Gold stocks
> reflects price of Gold at 600-700$."
>
> Just because miner's stocks are oversold doesn't mean that gold is
> over-valued.
>
> Toeser wrote:
> "I can see the possibility of a gold rally from a collapsing dollar,
> but not from inflation - at least for quite a while."
>
> I can see a gold rally arising from other causes, such as foreign
> recessions, currency declines, bond rating cuts, or inflationary
> prospects. If such occur, foreign investors will seek a safe haven.
> It's happened in the past week in Europe, with a collapsing pound,
> down-rated foreign bonds, and bad economic news resulting in a skyrocketing
> gold price (up 10% from its low the prior week to $897). It's a parochial
> mistake, but a nearly universal one, even by gold-bugs, to think
> that the price of gold depends on what happens here in the US, or
> to the dollar. If banks, bonds, stocks, and currencies abroad are
> failing or threatened, overseas money will bid up gold's price, and
> that will be reflected in its price in dollar terms. It doesn't matter
> where the money comes from. Gold's price is not just an inverse-dollar
> play. (Recent dollar-divergent price action bears this out.)
>
> I agree that inflation may not occur for quite a while, but the price
> of gold isn't strictly tied to the inflation rate. It can rise when
> alternative places of stashing ones cash (bonds, stocks, and commodities)
> look risky. That's the case today. Even a bank account or a mattress
> (i.e., cash) looks risky to foreigners, because of the chance of
> their currency declining against the world's reserve currency.<br/>
>
> Please note that foreigners don’t have to start buying gold to cause
> its price to rise. They merely need to stop selling it, or reduce
> their rate of selling. European central banks have been scheduling
> sales of about 500 tonnes per year for about a decade. They haven’t
> yet fulfilled their recent quota, or so I’ve read. Why shouldn’t
> they start to feel that moving out of gold and into bonds is no longer
> justified in terms of risk/reward? (There is a major threat of default
> of emerging nations’ bonds. And there is now an eight-year trend
> of rising gold prices. And interest rates on newly issued bonds are
> unattractive.)
>
> In gold’s action this past week, it rose right through the $885-890
> price level without a hitch. This was the level at which a European
> central bank supposedly had placed a huge sell order (according to
> an influential, Swiss-based pundit). Perhaps they cancelled their
> sell order. (Indeed, perhaps the cancellation of their sell order,
> once traders got wind of it, is what prompted most of the price rise.)
>
>
> Even if only China were to reduce its rate of gold sales, the supply/demand
> equilibrium would reset at a higher price level. Increased investment
> demand for gold isn’t required as a driver for there to be a major
> gold bull market.
>
Hang on to Your Gold [View article]