I prefer east nor-east myself as those corrections can get nasty.Nicks said:North
Given that we want to know where it is ultimately heading, a 2 or 4 is relatively pointless as the correction occurs at 5 - the "top".dutchie said:Its better to look for a new 2 or 4 as they are the starting points of a wave 3 and 5. When it gets to a 3 or 5 its too late unless you're looking for a retracement.
crackaton said:well I guess POs and POG are almost equal
ducati916 said:I must admit to not being a big fan of gold, but the rise in price has really very little to do with it being an inflation hedge, as gold has increased by 35% this year, while inflation is still currently circa 2%-3% as measured by the CPI.
As regards "intrinsic value" that is often bandied about, what is the calculation that you can apply to gold? It has no cash-flow, no earnings, has limited consumption and is very doubtful ever to be used as a direct currency, nor as a currency peg, for all the reasons that it was abandoned in the first place.
Gold’s meteoric rise is largely due to the popularity of an ETF, StreetTracks Gold Trust "GLD". Launched 15 months ago, by the beginning of this month it has attracted assets of more than $6 billion.
Since shares in the trust represent ownership of one-tenth ounce of physical gold, the trust is sitting on 343 metric tons of the stuff, more than the Bank of England -- indeed, more than all but 16 of the world’s central banks.
The ETF has more assets than the next five largest gold mutual funds combined, and is the world's largest trove of gold in private hands. It dominates its marketplace more completely than any comparable investment portfolio. Among technology funds, for example, no single fund is bigger than even two of its biggest rivals.
It has consumed a big chunk of global demand -- 13% or 14% of annual mine supply,” Singlehandedly the ETF shouldered aside typical factors affecting the gold market and became the big driver of gold’s price. Traditionally, jewelry demand and hedge-fund speculation were the culprits.
Bullion’s price also surged upward because gold producers decided four years ago to stop hedging their future production, or selling next year’s output at today’s price
With prices at current levels, and cost of extraction having consumed marginal profits due to high energy bills, it is quite likely that producers will start to lock in profits by selling future supply, and reinstating hedges.
If, energy prices were to fall, and remain low, the profitability of extraction would again swell margins, but, would there still be the demand?
Both factors, sustained demand for gold, combined with sustained falls in energy prices would be required to push the POG higher. Having said that, Citigroup and Merrill Lynch are still bullish, and pushing their clients into gold.
Short sellers, if forced to cover, will also push the market higher.
What is common to these scenarios is that they are speculative. There are no pressing fundamental reasons (read valuation) for purchase at these levels. The horse has left the stable. If you weren't in a couple of years back, well too bad, but now is the wrong time to think about entering.
ducati916 said:Entering on a "technical" basis is likely suicide, as the volatility will trigger those naughty little stops far too often.
jog on
d998
As for "reinstating hedges" - some producers that have maintained a so-called prudent hedge positions may lock in some high prices going forward. They will also have seen the disadvantage they are at compared to their peers, so while the analysts say this, the companies may not take up the offer.
Re intrinsic value: I've questioned this point myself, never to have had it satifactorily answered. Intrinsic value could be deemed to be the cost of production. But this varies from mine to mine. The 450oz nugget that I tripped over while photographing needle nosed warblers (true, I really did dream that) has no intrinsic value by that measure. Besides someone has to be willing to pay that. Which gets us back to instrinsic value being what someone is prepared to exchange for it, what they are prepared to pay.
This is where I diverge strongly with your views (as you have come to expect ) Technicals are the only sensible way to trade this beast, stop or no stop...especially leveraged to the eyeballs. Traded on fundamentals, and considering the volatility, I would trade an underlying quantity of no more than 50 - 100ozs. Whereas technically I am prepared to trade an underlying quantity of 500-2000 ozs...short, long whatever. I know which strategy, for me, would come out in front over the long haul, and by a long, long way.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?