Entering text into the input field will update the search result below

Silver: A Change In Behavior. Enough For A Bottom?

Jul. 28, 2013 7:58 PM ET
Please Note: Blog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors.

Seeking Alpha Analyst Since 2009

Michael Noonan Edge Trader Plus Michael Noonan is the driving force behind Edge Trader Plus. He has been in the futures business for 30 years, functioning primarily in an individual capacity. He was the research analyst for the largest investment banker in the South, at one time, and he managed money in the cash bond market for a $5 billion pension fund using Peter Steidlmeyer’s Market Profile. Proficient in Gann, Elliott Wave, Market Profile, etc, Mr Noonan no longer uses any of those technical procedures. Instead, his primary focus is on developing market activity, relying solely on the information generated by the market itself, such as the interaction between price and volume, and how they relate to important price levels in the market structure. He incorporates proven market principles, such as knowledge of the trend, supply and demand, along with disciplined rules for to find developing high probability trade opportunities. He can be reached by e-mail at his website: mn@edgetraderplus.com

Sunday 28 July 2013

One of the largest issues many have with technical analysis is linking an understanding of their fundamental "beliefs" with prices on a
chart. By fundamental, we include simply the knowledge of any
number of known factors, shortages, record buying of coins, people
generally positive about the "news," as a few simple examples.
There is a need for a hand-to-eye type of association between
existing fundamental "beliefs" and current prices.

Beliefs are formed opinions about reality, but not necessarily reality
itself. Change the belief, and you change the reality. The current
wide-spread belief is that there is a huge shortage in silver, relative
to the demand. From that belief an expectation of higher prices
arises. The reality is, for whatever reason, price has declined to
levels that have surprised almost all who follow the silver market,
and gold, as well.

Technical analysis is a measure different from fundamental analysis. We will depart even more by qualifying our approach as a specialized subset of technical analysis. How so? We read price and volume
behavior, over time, in the form of developing market activity. It is
what one sees on a chart, price ranges, close locations, volume,
time factor[s], but no more.

We do not use artificial tools like Relative Strength, Fibonacci,
Bollinger Bands, MACD, Elliott Wave, even moving averages. From
our view, they are past tense information being imposed upon
present tense activity with the expectation of divining the future.

Developing market activity captures all of the KNOWN buy/sell
decisions that impact the market. Anything that does not translate
into executed prices remains an opinion about the market and has
no direct effect on price. What is the difference? An executed
price is an opinion that has been converted into an action, and we
want to know what the results are from those actions, for they
derive from smart, sophisticated players, with the most informed
sources, the strong hands, all the way down to the least informed,
weak hands, with a variety of skills in between.

It is this collective that makes the market, and they are best seen
in the charts, via price ranges and volume, over time. It is the
truest form of market reality from which a myriad set of beliefs
about that reality follows.

What we endeavor to do is follow the market's lead through the use
of a set of rules for engagement. The first rule is to know the trend because it is the trend that dictates how to position oneself in the
market, always with the trend. There is less of a hand-to-eye
bias. It is the trend that is reality, whatever one's belief about that reality may be.

With this editorial, we turn to the charts, ignoring the fundamentals, all the news. All we need to know has already been "priced in."
Everything else is an expectation based on news and fundamentals,
and they do not always go hand-in-hand with market reality. The
best example we can cite is where price expectations are/have been within the precious metals community, $50, $150, $300, and where
the reality of price is, by sharp contrast, just under $20.

We are on long-standing record exhorting the purchase, and
personal holding
, of physical precious metals, with no recommendation for buying/holding paper futures. The two are
now separate and distinct. Buy the physical at current prices,
for they are likely to be the lowest prices for the next several
years, possibly decades.

What is presented below are charts for the paper futures markets,
currently the only price mechanism for silver and gold. That may be coming to an end, sooner now rather than later, but for now, it is
what it is, and what is is reality.

The primary purpose of a trading range, [TR], is to set the stage for the next move that follows from whichever way price leaves the
TR. It is a form of "stored energy," as either buyers absorb sellers
prior to a rally higher, or sellers absorb buyers prior to a decline

Once price moves directionally, establishing that all-important trend,
there should be on-going market activity to confirm market
direction. We will not go into what is believed by most to be a
purposeful, and artificial attempt to suppress precious metal prices.
If that is the case, it will show up in price behavior. The futures
markets attract some of the best minds in the world because of the
opportunity of phenomenal rewards. Smart money is not fooled for
very long, if at all.

We are not showing the larger time frame charts, monthly,
quarterly, annually, but an argument can be made that they remain
in bull trends undergoing a correction. Few who trade futures ever
look at those charts, and we are looking for change in the present

There was a large volume break, some would call it a surprise bear
raid, on exceptionally high volume. If the stored energy in the trend was distribution, there should be a sizeable and strong move lower.
Rather than continue immediately lower, price moved sideways,
eventually hugging the 22 level.

When price stays near a price, up or down, it will generally break
in the same direction preceding its arrival. 22 did give way and did
so on high volume, again. However, a closer inspection does not
support lower prices. Keep in mind, as you look at price and
volume development, you are seeing, firsthand, how market
movers are translating their
information into buy/sell decisions,
and how those decisions are impacting the market.

In the first two-day volume effort, the exceptionally high volume
first bar was followed by another high volume buy effort. It is
considered a buy effort because price closed higher. What needs to
be asked is, what was the result of all that buying effort? There
was none. Price failed to follow through to the upside. This is
important market information.

If price cannot go higher after such an effort from buyers, who is
really in control? Sellers. What is the trend? Down. Who controls
in a down trend? Sellers. Did sellers just prove they could stop
buyers cold? Yes. What does that mean for prices? Still lower.
Did price go lower? Yes. Did developing price activity give us
confirming information that price would go lower? Yes. Did it
require guesswork? No, just applied logic in following
developing market activity.

As an aside, do you think RSI, Bollinger Bands, moving averages,
etc, could have reflected this information, at that point? Absolutely not. They may have already been pointing down, but could not
convey the same information just determined by the market itself.

The next two designated volume bars provide more information.
[High volume activity is almost always a sign of smart money The
public does not generate this level of volume, they only respond to
it, usually on the other side, by smart money intent.]

There is another break lower, from weak support at 22, which is
what the "hugging" of that level "told us," as it was happening. We
"knew," in advance, that 22 would likely give way, and it did. So
another break, just as price broke the 26 level, but there appears
to be a difference, and differences can lead to clues.

Compare the volume on the break from 22 to that of the break from
26. It is much less. Relatively less volume means less relatively less
selling effort. Why? This is a great opportunity to keep buyers
under duress. Also, the range of the bar breaking 22 is not as large
as the bar breaking under 26. Downside momentum is lessening.

What happens next day is opposite to what happened previously.
This time, volume increased sharply over the previous day, and note both the size of the bar and the close location. The bar is smaller
on increased volume. [Increased volume equals increased effort.]
Logic tells us it is smaller because buyers were not only meeting the effort of sellers, they stopped all sellers efforts cold!

Look at the location of the close: upper end. If sellers were in
control the close would have been on the lower half of the bar.
We are being given immediate market information from the best available source, the market itself. The momentum to the downside
just came to an end, at least to those of us reading developing
market activity, according to the read of 1 and 2 on the chart.

3 shows a weak rally response, after the fact. This is a reminder of
how a trend has to be respected for it takes time to change one.
No artificial technical tools could have presented this information,
not on these days, and not in such an informative manner.

We look to the daily chart for more detail and maybe more clarity.

SIU W 28 Jul 13

What needs to be noted is the decline in downward momentum from
price level A to B, relative to the next decline from B to C. If
momentum is losing its force, it should show up and confirm it in
market activity.

There is a series of numbers, 1 through 6, that alerts us to a
change in market behavior. It cannot be stressed enough to
remember that we are "reading" the decisions and intent of smart
money as they execute in real-time in the market. Follow the logic:

1. Increased volume, wide range down, low close. Sellers in control.
Next bar, higher volume, smaller range, no downside given the
increased effort, and the smaller range tells us sellers lost control
to buyers, at least on that day. This is a red flag, a warning for
2. Increased selling effort, again with no downside follow through.
Another red flag.
3. A rally day on increased volume. There is no upside follow
through, but no downside.
4. Another increased selling bar, poor close, and again, no downside
follow through, and a lost opportunity to cancel the buying effort
from 3.
5. After two days of marking time, after 4, a strong rally and close
on increased volume, with the close above all the selling effort of
the past month. This is clearly a change in market behavior by
smart money.
6. After 3, price failed at 4. After bar 5, it has taken 4 days, three
of which are selling efforts, and the last one the highest volume
effort, but the 4 day effort did not erase the single rally bar 5.
That is a relative sign of strength when price is near its lows
after a protracted decline from $50.

It is too soon to know if this is a bottom. What can be said is that
rallies within a down trend are normal, and if a rally ensues from
here, that part can be expected without making a determination of
a trend change. It takes time to change a trend, and a change
starts on the lower time frames, but we do not have enough
evidence to call this a bottom, at least in the paper futures market.

A lack of downside follow through on Monday, with rallies on strong
volume would tell us to expect a challenge of the 21.50 area. Let
the market lead. It always does.

[Written Sunday afternoon].

SIU D 28 Jul

Seeking Alpha's Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. No recommendation or advice is being given as to whether any investment is suitable for a particular investor. Any views or opinions expressed above may not reflect those of Seeking Alpha as a whole. Seeking Alpha is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank. Our analysts are third party authors that include both professional investors and individual investors who may not be licensed or certified by any institute or regulatory body.

Recommended For You

To ensure this doesn’t happen in the future, please enable Javascript and cookies in your browser.
Is this happening to you frequently? Please report it on our feedback forum.
If you have an ad-blocker enabled you may be blocked from proceeding. Please disable your ad-blocker and refresh.