Gold Price - Where is it heading?

[nizar]

Re: GOLD Where is it heading?

Hersy

look at the graph u posted, there was a correction in december that sent gold from 540 to about 490, maybe this one will be the same...

i havent to be honest read by anybody qualified that is bearish on gold. they all reckon correction now and by year end 600+, some even higher. these guys dont have to be right, gold may not be worth more in the future, but as long as people believe them, 2days prices will seem like a bargain...

plus i hear russian and sth african central banks are buying for their reserves. Many asian central banks carry 2 much US dollar, any sign of weakness may see them dump it for gold...

 

[wayneL]

Re: GOLD Where is it heading?

What is happening to me!!!! I find myself agreeing almost 100% with Duc!!!

Thankfully, there was one point with which I can argue.....

the safe "technical trades" have long since past,

Well. I think the no brainer trades have past, but still plenty of safe trades.

All trades are safe in the context of positive expectancy, money management etc.

Indeed, all trades are unsafe without the above, especially leveraged ones.

Cheers

 

[rederob]

Re: GOLD Where is it heading?

ducati
If you do not understand what "intrinsic value" is, there is not much point continuing.
There are some accepted definitions of "intrinsic value" relating to the markets, yet you still miss the essential point of what "intrinsic" is.
The intrinsic value of a derivative is only ever achieved when it in the money. It is that portion which is immediately available to be taken off the table as it were - the in the money quantum - and despite what you might do or think, while it is "in the money" it is equal to the defined intrinsic value.
In relation to your Coca Cola example, you have confused "intangible" with "intrinsic" - they are quite different concepts.
Irrespective of what you believe, you cannot destroy the intrinsic value of Coca Cola, or Nike, or BHP, or Mercedes, or Honda, but their "values" (in a dollar sense) will change considerably over time. The intangibles are tools we can use to measure or "approximate" an intrinsic value for these companies.
What I find very interesting in you position to date is your apparent view that you can relatively easily calculate "intrinsic value".
In ten years of wide-ranging reading on these matters I pronounce your thesis unique.
I suggest you quickly write a book and make a lot of money.
But do not take offence when your publisher quietly suggests it be sold in the "fiction" section.

 

[tasmanian]

Re: GOLD Where is it heading?

gday ducati,

thanks for your reply.you seem like a pretty smart guy.hell sometimes i have to read your posts a couple of times to get the jist but you seem to know what your talking about.
im basically a trader that uses pretty simple methods.trend is your friend.stop/losses etc.i believe gold is still going to go along way yet.but ill be honest im no expert(who really is)with really knowing.i can only go on what i read and my gut feeling on gold.i see many uses for it without the hedging,wealth storage etc etc that is just the icing on the cake if people feel that way.
you have some valid points but i leave that up too you guys to discuss why golds in an uptrend ill be following it.
good luck and cheers

 

[rederob]

Re: GOLD Where is it heading?

ducati only became interested in this thread for the reason that arguments were being promulgated that somehow the intrinsic value of gold supported the current price, and that based on these fundamental calculations, the price of gold was still undervalued

He said it is patent nonsense and reckons whether the price of gold rises or falls is a speculative outcome.

While that may be true for ducati it does not explain why my rather meagre portfolio is over $100k up in 6 months, and I have made the grand total of a dozen trades in that period (mostly buys) all based on what I regard as "fundamental trading".

In fact, the issue of intrinsic value is only a by-line to this thread as from what I have read the consensus is that non-technical factors are supporting gold going forward (apart from MARKETWAVES Elliot Wave interpretations indicating upside is most probable).

If ducati wants to make an "on topic" contribution to the thread he will need to indicate where his view of the "speculative" outcome finally lies, or at least he needs to give a clear view of gold's price going forward in the medium to longer term.

In an earlier post I mentioned the role of Central Banks being a key to ultimate gold prices. There are several reasons for this.
First, there is great conjecture about how much gold their vaults contain, versus their stated quantities.
Secondly, European Central Banks have been offloading up to 400 tonnes of gold each year to 2004 and 500 tonnes from 2005 but the gold price keeps rising. It implies that demand is robust, especially as we know of several non-European nations that are keen to add gold to their State reserves.
Thirdly, these banks would run out of gold to sell within 30 years, and thereafter how is the unmet demand to be satisfied?
Finally, if gold has little apparent value to most European banks, how do we explain the interest in gold from nations that have an inherently "eastern" flavour?

 

[crackaton]

Re: GOLD Where is it heading?

Investment strategy please!! Buy physical now and hoard or buy shares?

 

[tasmanian]

Re: GOLD Where is it heading?

good point redrob,

everything seems to be pointing for gold to go up imo.its been good to me and we are having a correction that is due.history speaks for itself gold has and will be (for well i believe our lifetimes)a very valuable asset.if peope/banks arent holding gold to show their wealth what are they going to hold(Paper money).im not sure if asian and middle eastern countries etc are so convinced about the US dollar anymore.
i enjoy listening to you guys both put up interesting arguements but i have to admit gold long term looks very good to me.days of the US dollar being so powerful are coming to an end gold seems the way for me.

cheers

 

[rederob]

Re: GOLD Where is it heading?

Investment strategy please!! Buy physical now and hoard or buy shares?

crackaton
Go to James Turk's goldmoney website and buy his e-gold for something different.
Buy LHG tomorrow.
As the Tassie devil notes, gold long has legs.
But I am just speculating.

disclosure: I bought LHG shares today
I don't have any electronic gold accounts open

 

[tasmanian]

Re: GOLD Where is it heading?

you bought lhg today so did I good luck.20 0dd % drop in 2weeks gold down over 5% in a correction mmmm.seems like a good deal

 

[ducati916]

Re: GOLD Where is it heading?

rederob

There are some accepted definitions of "intrinsic value" relating to the markets, yet you still miss the essential point of what "intrinsic" is.
The intrinsic value of a derivative is only ever achieved when it in the money. It is that portion which is immediately available to be taken off the table as it were - the in the money quantum - and despite what you might do or think, while it is "in the money" it is equal to the defined intrinsic value.

And if you actually had read my previous post, you would see that is exactly what was stated;

You are using "intrinsic value" now in regard to "Options pricing" and you are correct in stating "an ITM Option" posseses "intrinsic value".
However, the intrinsic value is not derived from its nature, it is derived from being ITM which of course, represents a cash-flow.

By way of example, you have two KO derivatives (Call Options) one is ITM @ $41.00, the other is ITM @ $50.00

KO as I type is trading @ $41.36
Therefore Option #1 has an "Intrinsic value" of $0.36 + Time Value
Option #2 has "Intrinsic value" of $0.00 + Time Value

The Intrinsic value of the derivative, is derived from the value of the Common of KO, which is calculated by investors on a daily basis, this however may, or may not be the "intrinsic value" of KO

What may have confused you is the reference to the intrinsic value of the underlying being a separate calculation.

In relation to your Coca Cola example, you have confused "intangible" with "intrinsic" - they are quite different concepts.
Irrespective of what you believe, you cannot destroy the intrinsic value of Coca Cola, or Nike, or BHP, or Mercedes, or Honda, but their "values" (in a dollar sense) will change considerably over time. The intangibles are tools we can use to measure or "approximate" an intrinsic value for these companies

Nonsense.
"Intangible" under GAAP accounting can be assigned a dollar value, only if the asset has been the subject of a financial transaction. I specifically chose KO, as it has never been the object of a merger, thus the intangibles of KO have never been subject to a GAAP valuation
Therefore, the intangibles must be calculated via alternate methods. They will provide you with a dollar figure of your calculated intangible value.
The INTRINSIC value of KO, will INCLUDE in the valuation the contribution of the intangibles within the calculation to the overall intrinsic valuation.
Simply calculate a ratio to ascertain the contribution of the intangibles to the intrinsic value.

Therefore, if, the intangible value of an asset, in this case the example was the "Brand" value was reduced, impaired, lost, or destroyed, this will alter the INTRINSIC value whether it has a permanant, or temporary impact only time will tell.

What I find very interesting in you position to date is your apparent view that you can relatively easily calculate "intrinsic value".
In ten years of wide-ranging reading on these matters I pronounce your thesis unique.
I suggest you quickly write a book and make a lot of money.
But do not take offence when your publisher quietly suggests it be sold in the "fiction" section.

Yes, I believe that I can.
You obviously have not read as widely as myself it would seem.
I have no interest in writing a book, but if I had, where it would be placed for sale, as long as it sold, would not be a major concern.

While that may be true for ducati it does not explain why my rather meagre portfolio is over $100k up in 6 months, and I have made the grand total of a dozen trades in that period (mostly buys) all based on what I regard as "fundamental trading".

I always enjoy seeing unsubstantiated claims of huge profits when seeking to justify an intellectual position.
The danger of course is that you have managed to fool yourself that you are somehow "investing" due to useage of "fundamental" factors, rather than being honest with yourself, and admit that you are speculating.
The result will be even larger profits, or, a bust out.
If your trading/investing plan, based on your fundamental analysis sees gold at lets say $1000.00, and the market collapses, what will you do?

You must either trash your fundamental analysis, and get out, or, hang on, while the fundamentals establish themselves over a longer time period.

If you were speculating, you would have no fixed view, you would hopefully have a stoploss, and try to stay with the trend as long as possible, thus managing your risk.

In fact, the issue of intrinsic value is only a by-line to this thread as from what I have read the consensus is that non-technical factors are supporting gold going forward (apart from MARKETWAVES Elliot Wave interpretations indicating upside is most probable).

And I have made no comment upon this analysis.
My only disagreement is in regard to gold having an intrinsic value.
It most certainly has a utility value, but this is nowhere near $500+

If ducati wants to make an "on topic" contribution to the thread he will need to indicate where his view of the "speculative" outcome finally lies, or at least he needs to give a clear view of gold's price going forward in the medium to longer term.

I need do no such thing.
I shall comment on what I choose to comment on, which is, the complete nonsense of gold possessing an intrinsic value.

I think we have beaten the Bank issue to death.
They hold gold, for political and economic reasons, none of which are related to intrinsic value.

tasmanian

im basically a trader that uses pretty simple methods.trend is your friend.stop/losses etc.i believe gold is still going to go along way yet.but ill be honest im no expert(who really is)with really knowing.i can only go on what i read and my gut feeling on gold.

Which is fine.
You have a trading plan, and this commodity is moving, traders need to be where the action is. You do not need to hold an opinion on where it may or may not go, to you that is irrelevant.

i enjoy listening to you guys both put up interesting arguements but i have to admit gold long term looks very good to me.days of the US dollar being so powerful are coming to an end gold seems the way for me.

And this is exactly the driver behind the speculation in gold. This outdated, and outmoded argument has been at the root of the "hedge" argument from the days when gold was a valid hedge, as currencies were issued as a direct ratio of the physical holding of gold. Those days are long gone, but the emotional residue remains, psychologically people, hedge fund managers, retail investors, traders, take your pick, lean in times of trouble and uncertainity to the psychological safety of gold.

It is this psychological safety blanket that is open to abrupt revision as the valuation is not based on utility value, or intrinsic value, but psychological, emotional value.

Therefore, if, the world outlook, the US outlook becomes increasingly uncertain, the trend in higher prices will in all likelihood continue higher.
However, should the world sort itself out, the US control their property bubble, their current account deficits, their social security, their pensions, etc etc, then gold will sell off.

It is no coincidence that the 20 year Bear market in gold, matched the 20 year Bull market in US Equities.
As the US is currently in a Secular Bear market, I suspect gold is going higher, but not for intrinsic value reasons..........psychological.

jog on
d998

 

[rederob]

Re: GOLD Where is it heading?

you bought lhg today so did I good luck.20 0dd % drop in 2weeks gold down over 5% in a correction mmmm.seems like a good deal

Gold and silver up nicely overnight so looks like yesterday was a good time to buy........... so far.

 

[michael_selway]

Re: GOLD Where is it heading?

gday ducati,

im basically a trader that uses pretty simple methods.trend is your friend.stop/losses etc.i believe gold is still going to go along way yet.but ill be honest im no expert(who really is)with really knowing.

good luck and cheers

Hm "the trend is your friend till the bend at the end" thats very old dude!

Also its quite dangerous to use that if the market isnt a bull market eg currently

 

[rederob]

Re: GOLD Where is it heading?

ducati
You sid, "What may have confused you is the reference to the intrinsic value of the underlying being a separate calculation".
I can only repeat things so many times.
Until the option is "in the money", it has no "defined intrinsic value" from a financial perspective.
If you want to have your cake and eat it, then you can rightly claim that everything must have an intrincic value because it is what it is.
It seems pointless to say the derivative in question has an intrinsic value when it is not in the money AND when it is, so the world of finance "defines intrinsic value as the quantum by which a derivative "is in the money". If it is not in the money it no intrinsic value.
If we are talking at cross purposes here, forgive me as I read your statement as suggesting the "underlier" to have an intrinsic value. From a conceptual perspective it may have, but from a strict financial perspective it is defined relative to being in the money or not.
I cannot reply to your Coca Cola example as you add dimensions that we have not discussed: GAAP simply provides rules to use for valuations. GAAP cannot change "intrinsic value" and, in any case, other rules for valuing companies would give different outcomes.

 

[ducati916]

Re: GOLD Where is it heading?

rederob

Until the option is "in the money", it has no "defined intrinsic value" from a financial perspective.

Correct, and if you look at the calculation;

KO as I type is trading @ $41.36
Therefore Option #1 has an "Intrinsic value" of $0.36 + Time Value
Option #2 has "Intrinsic value" of $0.00 + Time Value

You will see that Option number 2, which is in point of fact currently OTM (I see I typed ITM) shows;

Intrinsic Value = $0.00
Time Value = $0.05........
This is for the $50.00 Call Expiry Feb 18 (there is no $51.00 Call......at the time of example I simply used a hypothetical expiry value)

Barring the typo, of ITM/OTM, the calculation remains unchanged, that is, no intrinsic value, just time value.

I cannot reply to your Coca Cola example as you add dimensions that we have not discussed: GAAP simply provides rules to use for valuations. GAAP cannot change "intrinsic value" and, in any case, other rules for valuing companies would give different outcomes.

Of course they were dicussed, you in point of fact brought them up in the first place;

In relation to your Coca Cola example, you have confused "intangible" with "intrinsic" - they are quite different concepts.
Irrespective of what you believe, you cannot destroy the intrinsic value of Coca Cola, or Nike, or BHP, or Mercedes, or Honda, but their "values" (in a dollar sense) will change considerably over time. The intangibles are tools we can use to measure or "approximate" an intrinsic value for these companies

And as pointed out, while separate conceptually, intangibles are quite identifiable, they can be calculated and assigned a dollar value, and this dollar value can be integrated into an intrinsic valuation.

This intangible valuation can be damaged, resulting in a tangible dollar loss.
Intrinsic value can be damaged and suffer a tangible dollar loss.

Gold, does not possess an intrinsic value.
Gold possesses a utility value.............and I challenge that it is $500+

If you want to have your cake and eat it, then you can rightly claim that everything must have an intrincic value because it is what it is.

Which is precisely what I didn't say.
To have an intrinsic value, there must be a cash-flow associated.

forgive me as I read your statement as suggesting the "underlier" to have an intrinsic value.

The "underlier" or the common stock, does have an intrinsic valuation, and it is a separate calculation from the value assigned to the derivative (Option) as the derivatives value is the amount by which it is ITM.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the intrinsic value of KO common.

GAAP cannot change "intrinsic value" and, in any case, other rules for valuing companies would give different outcomes.

GAAP can alter valuations tremendously. It is the skill of the analyst to expose the machinations of manipulated results arising from the application of various GAAP standards.

Certainly different analysts will arrive at different valuations. This is not really an issue that resides with GAAP in isolation however.

jog on
d998

 

[rederob]

Re: GOLD Where is it heading?

ducati
Thank you for correcting your typo.

I have no problem with this notion: "And as pointed out, while separate conceptually, intangibles are quite identifiable, they can be calculated and assigned a dollar value, and this dollar value can be integrated into an intrinsic valuation."

Given that you are presenting your case from the perspective of financial theory, which of itself has concocted its own set of rules, you and I will never agree.

It's not that I have a problem with financial theory, but its application demands that any calculation of intrinsic value is based on assumptions, and it is these assumptions that are quantified. Where intrinsic value is presented as future free cash flow or future economic profits it implies not only that the original assumptions are correct, but also that their impacts over time are correctly forecast.

When we come to gold, you will tackle "intrinsic value" from the financial theory models that, you suggest, gives it only a "utility value".

So that we can agree to disagree (hopefully), I will continue to use the more widely understood definition of "intrinsic value" which has very little to do with economic theory.

I have posted elsewhere for quite a few years on gold and can only claim a track record that goes back to 2000. Given that our humble opinions are dwarfed everyday by the market's actions, I will continue to take guidance from the markets on the realisable price of all that is traded there. That means that while gold is over $500 I respect that the market "has spoken".
But because of how I have come to understand the "intrinsic value" of this golden commodity, I have every confidence that at some point this year it will trade very near to, if not over $700. It may reach that price through sheer speculation, or whatever means. And at the end of the day, should I see the market decisively turn on gold so that it no longer has what I perceive to be value of any measure, I will sell out of my positions.

 

[ducati916]

Re: GOLD Where is it heading?

rederob

Given that you are presenting your case from the perspective of financial theory, which of itself has concocted its own set of rules, you and I will never agree

.

That would certainly seem to be the case.

It's not that I have a problem with financial theory, but its application demands that any calculation of intrinsic value is based on assumptions, and it is these assumptions that are quantified. Where intrinsic value is presented as future free cash flow or future economic profits it implies not only that the original assumptions are correct, but also that their impacts over time are correctly forecast.

In some models calculating intrinsic value, you would be correct in your assertion. In other models your assertion would be incorrect.

When we come to gold, you will tackle "intrinsic value" from the financial theory models that, you suggest, gives it only a "utility value".

So that we can agree to disagree (hopefully), I will continue to use the more widely understood definition of "intrinsic value" which has very little to do with economic theory.

Of course you can use whatever methodology you wish, it is irrelevant to myself. However, what needed to be illustrated was that your valuation of intrinsic value was at variance with other methods of intrinsic value.

Others may agree or disagree with your definition of intrinsic value, and this will bw irrelevant to you. However, someone lacking experience within the financial markets should now stop to question if they really understand what they are doing.

The disagreement between ourselves really hinges on the discussion between investment as contrasted with speculation.

You have stated that your methodology places your analysis within the realms of a fundamental analysis. I contend that it does no such thing, and that it places your analysis firmly in the speculative camp.

I have posted elsewhere for quite a few years on gold and can only claim a track record that goes back to 2000. Given that our humble opinions are dwarfed everyday by the market's actions, I will continue to take guidance from the markets on the realisable price of all that is traded there. That means that while gold is over $500 I respect that the market "has spoken".

Here is the direct evidence of your speculative analysis.
You are stating in no uncertain terms that you believe in Efficient Market Theory (EMT) I personally do not subscribe to EMT in its purest form.

Herein lies the fundamental difference between Technical analysis, or Speculation, and Fundamental analysis, or Investment.

Technical analysis subscribes hook-line-sinker to EMT
Fundamental analysis does not.

But because of how I have come to understand the "intrinsic value" of this golden commodity, I have every confidence that at some point this year it will trade very near to, if not over $700. It may reach that price through sheer speculation, or whatever means. And at the end of the day, should I see the market decisively turn on gold so that it no longer has what I perceive to be value of any measure, I will sell out of my positions.

Which makes a mockery of the entire concept of the "intrinsic value" of gold that you have tried to foist upon me. Absolute nonsense.

jog on
d998

 

[tasmanian]

Re: GOLD Where is it heading?

Hm "the trend is your friend till the bend at the end" thats very old dude!

Also its quite dangerous to use that if the market isnt a bull market eg currently

your right old way to trade but proved profitable to me.im too old and lazy now to worry chart abc this and that..the trend is not really my friend at the moment.so keeps your stops trailing simple.saying that though ive recently been stopped out of a few of my stocks but just about all with a profit behind them.i will wait now till market sentiment changes which i dont think will be long.ill be back in off we go again.

sometimes i think people make it all to complex.ride the winners get out if you have made a mistake in your judgement.

its a good way for me not everyone i dont like to be stressed.i pick my stocks my stop loss in place if it retraces against my judgement so be it.ive lost abit but not alot.the good winners always seem to outweighthe little loosers.

im happy with my way even if im trading back in the dinosaur days.25yrs still in the game cant be too bad a track record.

 

[rederob]

Re: GOLD Where is it heading?

ducati
We have divergent views.
You have yet to indicate what value you see gold in the future.
That is the point of this thread, not whether or not the intrinsic value of gold that has pervaded the earth for thousands of years fits - or not - within the very modern economic theory that can only ascribe a commodity a utility value.
The likes of copper, aluminium and even silver have a well defined utility value, but they are not kept in Central Banks, and respond amazingly well price-wise to supply/demand issues.
I remain unclear about your aim here.
While TA and FA are different ways to approach putting money into the market, I see neither as superior as they both must take a future position and I have never seen anyone accurately predict the future of the markets day in day out.
I would urge any trader or investor to take care in every decision they make, and believe it always best to do it from a position of "understanding".
Again, what does this have to do with the future price of gold?
Technically, the charts show gold long term bullish.
Fundamentally, mine supply has not met demand for some years now, and above ground reserves (from exchange warehouses and Central Banks), will be used to meet the annual shortfall. Mining costs have increased markedly in recent years, adding significantly to per ounce costs of output: Suggesting producers will be reluctant to open up new mines unless gold prices stabilise at a higher level.
If the "utility value" is lower than the cost of supply, what are the consequences?

 

[crackaton]

Re: GOLD Where is it heading?

Simple really. War and greed. People get greedy and sell. With sabre rattling happening i see gold going higher now and oil. Don't try and pick the tops and bottoms, just buy when it drops and sell when its on a roll. Easy money.

 

[ducati916]

Re: GOLD Where is it heading?

rederob

You have yet to indicate what value you see gold in the future.
That is the point of this thread, not whether or not the intrinsic value of gold that has pervaded the earth for thousands of years fits - or not - within the very modern economic theory that can only ascribe a commodity a utility value.

But that is exactly the point as far as I am concerned.
If I could calculate a utility value for gold, I would only be interested in paying 50% or less of that value. That would then provide to me a potential 100% return.

While TA and FA are different ways to approach putting money into the market, I see neither as superior as they both must take a future position and I have never seen anyone accurately predict the future of the markets day in day out.

Again we are at polar opposites.
I view TA as a complete waste of time and a logical nonsense.
The future position to be taken in the market should be based upon a conservative analysis of the intrinsic value of the security, as rather than looking to the future to confirm & justify your analysis, I look to guard against the future. A completely different approach.

Technically, the charts show gold long term bullish.

So what, who cares. Tomorrow the charts could break technical trendlines and signal the breakdown of the trend, and reverse back again 1 week later.

Charting, technicals have nothing to do with Gold, or KO, or YMH6, they map the PSYCHOLOGY of the participants, and this psychology or SENTIMENT can change without notice, without rhyme or reason, and destroy your position in a heartbeat.

Lets look at the contradictions and failings of your analysis.

Fundamentally, mine supply has not met demand for some years now, and above ground reserves (from exchange warehouses and Central Banks), will be used to meet the annual shortfall. Mining costs have increased markedly in recent years, adding significantly to per ounce costs of output: Suggesting producers will be reluctant to open up new mines unless gold prices stabilise at a higher level.
If the "utility value" is lower than the cost of supply, what are the consequences?

Point #1

Mine supply has not met demand for some years.

Lets assume that this assertion is correct, then;

If the current high(er) price of gold does attract increased supply, what would you expect the price of gold to do?
Go up
Go down.

I will opt for the latter. With increasing supply, will come an equilibrium of the supply/demand curve, and a stabilization, reduction in price.

With a price cap in operation, speculative money will start to leave, as speculative money by definition seeks price volatility.
Should price start to fall, increasingly the speculative money may move to the short side, increasing price weakness.

Point #2

Above ground reserves will be (have been) used to meet the annual shortfall.

Therefore the analysis suggesting that price has risen, or will rise, due to an imbalance within the supply/demand curve, is also flawed, as, with equilibrim within supply/demand, price should stabilise within a range.
However due to the tremendous speculative interest overwhelming currently the economic or utility value, price will fluctuate due to the market dynamics.

Mining costs have increased markedly in recent years, adding significantly to per ounce costs of output: Suggesting producers will be reluctant to open up new mines unless gold prices stabilise at a higher level.
If the "utility value" is lower than the cost of supply, what are the consequences?

Agreed, mining and extraction costs have increased.
Agreed, development of new mines will be retarded.
Agreed, price will have to stabilise at a higher level, if supply and utility demand are to match.
If they do not, then we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

crackaton

Simple really. War and greed. People get greedy and sell. With sabre rattling happening i see gold going higher now and oil. Don't try and pick the tops and bottoms, just buy when it drops and sell when its on a roll. Easy money.

Easy money.
The cry of the doomed.

jog on
d998