Gold Price - Where is it heading?
- Thread starter guycharles
- Start date
-
- Tags
- gold gold price
>Apocalypto<
20.03.2012
- Joined
- 2 February 2007
- Posts
- 2,233
- Reactions
- 2
- Joined
- 16 February 2008
- Posts
- 2,906
- Reactions
- 2
- Joined
- 31 May 2006
- Posts
- 1,941
- Reactions
- 2
Its going to be interesting to see whether golds run has legs or not.
I find it promising that the gold stocks appear to be leading the way this time rather than trailing the price, albeit from low bases. The strength of the major producers in the Aus market - LGL and NCM - gives some indication that an institutional shift into the sector may also be occurring, because the types of movements these stocks have experienced, given their market caps, can't be created by trigger happy punters alone (surely?!?).
I'm curious as to when the breakouts in LGL/NCM will pause for a proper breather - I've been surprised at the ongoing strength (not complaining though!).
I find it promising that the gold stocks appear to be leading the way this time rather than trailing the price, albeit from low bases. The strength of the major producers in the Aus market - LGL and NCM - gives some indication that an institutional shift into the sector may also be occurring, because the types of movements these stocks have experienced, given their market caps, can't be created by trigger happy punters alone (surely?!?).
I'm curious as to when the breakouts in LGL/NCM will pause for a proper breather - I've been surprised at the ongoing strength (not complaining though!).
- Joined
- 20 August 2008
- Posts
- 73
- Reactions
- 0
Hi Cuttlefish,
From what I have heard, the interest in LGL/NCM is from overseas buying.
Bankit
Rockon2
It's all about the Money!
- Joined
- 27 May 2005
- Posts
- 137
- Reactions
- 1
3 Gold picks atm.... ALD TRY TAM
... TYMFTR
Pattern finished on TAM imo... taken $ , as well as TRY and ALD
Attachments
- Joined
- 31 May 2006
- Posts
- 1,941
- Reactions
- 2
Cheers - that seems likely - globally the choice of quality unhedged gold producers is relatively thin compared to the choices available in other commodity and industry sectors (as far as I can tell anyway). So if the current gold price strength does continue, alongside a scarcity of physical supply, we might see the movements amplified within the gold stocks.
- Joined
- 17 October 2008
- Posts
- 89
- Reactions
- 0
Gold prices in Indian market have come down yesterday. Were as in foreign markets gold is moving on both the directions.
Good morning gold bugs.
I had a great night trading CFDs on my IGmarkets account for the first time proper.
I populated my account with $250 and was happily scalping spot forex and gold minis up to $280 and then the US markets opened and a couple of positions wiped me down to $130! Managed to scalp back up to $150 in the end before calling it quits. A very interesting learning experience.
Anyway, the reason I am posting is the end of my shift and browsing my bookmarks came across this, worth a read:
http://www.321gold.com/editorials/kirby/kirby123108.html
I had a great night trading CFDs on my IGmarkets account for the first time proper.
I populated my account with $250 and was happily scalping spot forex and gold minis up to $280 and then the US markets opened and a couple of positions wiped me down to $130! Managed to scalp back up to $150 in the end before calling it quits. A very interesting learning experience.
Anyway, the reason I am posting is the end of my shift and browsing my bookmarks came across this, worth a read:
http://www.321gold.com/editorials/kirby/kirby123108.html
Friday 2nd day of 2009
To the Q, where is gold heading, likely nowhere,
except a protacted trading range. While no one
has a corner on what any market may definitively
do over some span of time, general direction is
more ascertainable.
[The ability to post charts exceeds the limits of
mine, so one will have to refercence their own.]
An annual chart shows gold peaked at a point
equal to its previous runnup, from 100 in the mid-
1970s, to its 1980 high at 850, 750 $ difference.
It is not likely an accident that from the 1999 low
of 250, gold subsequently peaked last March at
around 1040, a difference of 790, close enough
for golden horse shoes.
Gold closed close to the middle of its 2008 annual
range, which says there was sufficient supply in
the market to push price to that lower level.
A Quarterly chart amplifies the above observation.
Keep in mind, the discussion centers around facts,
not opinions. The volume at the highs was record,
which speaks to record sellers at higher levels.
Given that the public tends to be long, and with gold
in paricular, in love with the long side, as well, one
might then deduce that the record volume of sellers
came from commercial interests, so-called "smart
money."
[That is a subjective observation, but the other side
of the argument looks weak.]
Staying with a Quarterly chart...[why the longer
time frame references? They are more controlling.]
From the 1980 high, gold bottomed 20 years later.
It remained in a protracted trading range during that
span....which goes back to the opening sentence
as to wither gold?
There will be strong rallies, and likelier stronger breaks,
but the overall direction will be sideways with a down
side bias. The analysis could be wrong, but there are
historical price references and, more importantly, that
heavy selling from the top.
Supply and demand are as basic as one can get, and
those are principles to be ignored at one's own peril.
The smaller time frames, monthly to daily can be left
to devising one's own trading strategies.
Several mentions to gold stocks appear here. One
point with which to reckon is that gold stocks are not
a proxy for gold, and those who buy the metal stocks
anticipating rewards commensurate with the metal
are buying fool's gold.
During this overall collapse, one of the stronger recoveries
has been in gold, but its overall trend remains down.
Most of the gold stocks mentioned are under $10, a level
which attracts little to no institutional interest. Most all
are hugging their lowest lows.
It would be a mistake, and this is but an opinion from a
trading perspective, to bottom pick a sector that fails to
perform any where as well as its underlying base. If the
stocks are such a bargain, why have they failed to rise
above what can be called poor performance, of late?
Gold stocks are companies that must deal with corporate
issues and circumstances unrelated to the direction of
the price of the metal. Poorly made decisions, an inability
to obtain working capital, etc, etc, etc, factors unrelated
to the metal but directly reflected on the stock price are
legitimate reasons not to expect a parallel performance
of gold, which is unemcumbered by corporate ideology.
Any interest in gold stocks should be based on an
analysis independent of the metal, and solely on the
performance ability, as in any other stock consideration.
Do not use gold-colored glasses to buy what look like
dogs.
To the non-"strategy" that the stocks seem like bargains.
So say you seems.
One person's opinion.
To the Q, where is gold heading, likely nowhere,
except a protacted trading range. While no one
has a corner on what any market may definitively
do over some span of time, general direction is
more ascertainable.
[The ability to post charts exceeds the limits of
mine, so one will have to refercence their own.]
An annual chart shows gold peaked at a point
equal to its previous runnup, from 100 in the mid-
1970s, to its 1980 high at 850, 750 $ difference.
It is not likely an accident that from the 1999 low
of 250, gold subsequently peaked last March at
around 1040, a difference of 790, close enough
for golden horse shoes.
Gold closed close to the middle of its 2008 annual
range, which says there was sufficient supply in
the market to push price to that lower level.
A Quarterly chart amplifies the above observation.
Keep in mind, the discussion centers around facts,
not opinions. The volume at the highs was record,
which speaks to record sellers at higher levels.
Given that the public tends to be long, and with gold
in paricular, in love with the long side, as well, one
might then deduce that the record volume of sellers
came from commercial interests, so-called "smart
money."
[That is a subjective observation, but the other side
of the argument looks weak.]
Staying with a Quarterly chart...[why the longer
time frame references? They are more controlling.]
From the 1980 high, gold bottomed 20 years later.
It remained in a protracted trading range during that
span....which goes back to the opening sentence
as to wither gold?
There will be strong rallies, and likelier stronger breaks,
but the overall direction will be sideways with a down
side bias. The analysis could be wrong, but there are
historical price references and, more importantly, that
heavy selling from the top.
Supply and demand are as basic as one can get, and
those are principles to be ignored at one's own peril.
The smaller time frames, monthly to daily can be left
to devising one's own trading strategies.
Several mentions to gold stocks appear here. One
point with which to reckon is that gold stocks are not
a proxy for gold, and those who buy the metal stocks
anticipating rewards commensurate with the metal
are buying fool's gold.
During this overall collapse, one of the stronger recoveries
has been in gold, but its overall trend remains down.
Most of the gold stocks mentioned are under $10, a level
which attracts little to no institutional interest. Most all
are hugging their lowest lows.
It would be a mistake, and this is but an opinion from a
trading perspective, to bottom pick a sector that fails to
perform any where as well as its underlying base. If the
stocks are such a bargain, why have they failed to rise
above what can be called poor performance, of late?
Gold stocks are companies that must deal with corporate
issues and circumstances unrelated to the direction of
the price of the metal. Poorly made decisions, an inability
to obtain working capital, etc, etc, etc, factors unrelated
to the metal but directly reflected on the stock price are
legitimate reasons not to expect a parallel performance
of gold, which is unemcumbered by corporate ideology.
Any interest in gold stocks should be based on an
analysis independent of the metal, and solely on the
performance ability, as in any other stock consideration.
Do not use gold-colored glasses to buy what look like
dogs.
To the non-"strategy" that the stocks seem like bargains.
So say you seems.
One person's opinion.
Trembling Hand
Can be found on the bid
- Joined
- 10 June 2007
- Posts
- 8,852
- Reactions
- 205
Edge I like some of your thoughts in the above but the underlined statement is just plain wrong. That's an old through away line from the States that has never applied to Aussie stocks and I'm not even sure it applies anymore in the States.
I'm no gold bug by a long shot but I have to say just because something has not performed in a previous period should not count it out for consideration in the future. In fact is that not exactly what a Fundie is looking for, under value, and what a Techie tries to jump on as soon as a move begins??
- Joined
- 31 May 2006
- Posts
- 1,941
- Reactions
- 2
It really should be based on market cap and not price point as well.
Someone has been buying NCM and LGL over the past two months - and given their multi-billion dollar market caps it seems unlikely that all of the price movement has been driven by punters - so some of it has to be institutional buying.
LGL has gone from fairly recent lows of $1.80 to over $3.00 - hardly a waste of time being on that move. (particularly if leveraged with a big stack of options contracts)
NCM has gone from a low of $17 two months ago to $34 - basically doubling in price in just over two months. That is not a bad move for a large cap stock in a bear market.
Because these stocks are highly leveraged to the gold price, having now gotten rid of all of their hedging, they're equally susceptible to price falls as price rises - thus a risky proposition for institutions.
To me the fact that there is such strong buying of these demonstrates a possible confidence in continued gold price strength. (whether thats misplaced or not time will tell, but I'm not hearing about peoples physical gold holdings around the dinner table or the bbq as yet, so I think there's plenty of room for a proper gold bull market to form).
Someone has been buying NCM and LGL over the past two months - and given their multi-billion dollar market caps it seems unlikely that all of the price movement has been driven by punters - so some of it has to be institutional buying.
LGL has gone from fairly recent lows of $1.80 to over $3.00 - hardly a waste of time being on that move. (particularly if leveraged with a big stack of options contracts)
NCM has gone from a low of $17 two months ago to $34 - basically doubling in price in just over two months. That is not a bad move for a large cap stock in a bear market.
Because these stocks are highly leveraged to the gold price, having now gotten rid of all of their hedging, they're equally susceptible to price falls as price rises - thus a risky proposition for institutions.
To me the fact that there is such strong buying of these demonstrates a possible confidence in continued gold price strength. (whether thats misplaced or not time will tell, but I'm not hearing about peoples physical gold holdings around the dinner table or the bbq as yet, so I think there's plenty of room for a proper gold bull market to form).
Friday 2 January 2009
From Trembling Hand:
* Quote:
* Originally Posted by The Edge
* Most of the gold stocks mentioned are under $10, a level
* which attracts little to no institutional interest. Most all
* are hugging their lowest lows.
> ...the underlined statement is just plain wrong.
I do not follow gold stocks, and I took a quick look at a
few mentioned here, and some from a google search, so
the sample may not be representative. Of most all the
gold stocks I see, they are under $15, and on significant
lows.
That low priced stocks do not attract much institutional
interest is not a throw-away consideration. From a
practical stand point, intsitutions do not want to become
dominant holders, particularly when they want to exit,
but that is more of a topic and less of an issue.
> ...I have to say just because something has not
> performed in a previous period should not count it out
> for consideration in the future.
That is more of one's style, and I would not disagree with
your statement. I believe I addressed that by saying:
"Any interest in gold stocks should be based on an
analysis independent of the metal, and solely on the
performance ability, as in any other stock consideration.
Do not use gold-colored glasses to buy what look like
dogs."
When a stock or commodity is under-performing the
general market, for me, it is a clear message that the
stock or commodity under consideration is already making
its own statement as to its underlying strength, or lack
of same.
Caveat emptor. Why go with mediocrity?
> In fact is that not exactly what a Fundie is looking for,
> under value, and what a Techie tries to jump on as soon
> as a move begins??
By all means, nothing should be discounted from future
consideration, but I put it into a context of the overall
market from a relative performance perspective. Just
wait until there is strength exhibited so as not to get
bogged down in a hapless trading range.
Without going into the mechanics of how or when, it
seems we may agree.
The point of my post stems from seeing too many think
something is cheap without thinking it can become cheaper,
and is likely the case, given trends, etc, and I am simply
airing a note of caution and due thought before taking a
position.
I also qualify my posts as one person's opinion, to provoke
thought and be ignored at will, as most will.
Happy New Year to you.
From Trembling Hand:
* Quote:
* Originally Posted by The Edge
* Most of the gold stocks mentioned are under $10, a level
* which attracts little to no institutional interest. Most all
* are hugging their lowest lows.
> ...the underlined statement is just plain wrong.
I do not follow gold stocks, and I took a quick look at a
few mentioned here, and some from a google search, so
the sample may not be representative. Of most all the
gold stocks I see, they are under $15, and on significant
lows.
That low priced stocks do not attract much institutional
interest is not a throw-away consideration. From a
practical stand point, intsitutions do not want to become
dominant holders, particularly when they want to exit,
but that is more of a topic and less of an issue.
> ...I have to say just because something has not
> performed in a previous period should not count it out
> for consideration in the future.
That is more of one's style, and I would not disagree with
your statement. I believe I addressed that by saying:
"Any interest in gold stocks should be based on an
analysis independent of the metal, and solely on the
performance ability, as in any other stock consideration.
Do not use gold-colored glasses to buy what look like
dogs."
When a stock or commodity is under-performing the
general market, for me, it is a clear message that the
stock or commodity under consideration is already making
its own statement as to its underlying strength, or lack
of same.
Caveat emptor. Why go with mediocrity?
> In fact is that not exactly what a Fundie is looking for,
> under value, and what a Techie tries to jump on as soon
> as a move begins??
By all means, nothing should be discounted from future
consideration, but I put it into a context of the overall
market from a relative performance perspective. Just
wait until there is strength exhibited so as not to get
bogged down in a hapless trading range.
Without going into the mechanics of how or when, it
seems we may agree.
The point of my post stems from seeing too many think
something is cheap without thinking it can become cheaper,
and is likely the case, given trends, etc, and I am simply
airing a note of caution and due thought before taking a
position.
I also qualify my posts as one person's opinion, to provoke
thought and be ignored at will, as most will.
Happy New Year to you.
Rockon2
It's all about the Money!
- Joined
- 27 May 2005
- Posts
- 137
- Reactions
- 1
Stormin_Norman
Currency Trader
- Joined
- 12 January 2008
- Posts
- 1,256
- Reactions
- 0
i wouldnt be surprised. inflation figures have been very tame so far. i think we wont see 900+ until the bailouts start inflating the economy later in the year.
- Joined
- 19 November 2007
- Posts
- 551
- Reactions
- 0
The massive increases in the monetary base have mostly gone into US Treasuries which have gone parabolic.
When that bursts there is a massive amount of liquidity looking for a home which will cause price rises to start showing up elsewhere.
And yes, rockon2 the rising wedge is the main near term downside risk I see too.
Saturday 3 January 2009
From a longer term perspective to a shorter view
of gold, having just finished updating charts for the
past week, this is what could unfold:
[Apologies for the lack of charts, but that is not
within my limited scope of abilities.]
I reference charts and how they depict the forces
of supply and demand, along with volume. It
reveals the net activity of every possible source
of market participation...the footprints of all the
players, who cannot hide detection.
This is market activity, the most reliable source of
information, derived from the market itself. And,
it is factual data. From this information source,
one can often make valid assessments of where
price may go, depending upon the time frame
employed.
Here is but one way in which to view "technical
analysis."
Late October through November, gold built a base
from which a rally ensued, to 835, about 55 $ above
the trading range high, 780, 30 October.
The next rally, to mid-December, stopped at 885,
about 50 $ higher from the previous TR high, 835.
The high on 17 December, a relatively wide range bar,
closed slightly above mid-range, saying there are sellers
up there. The previous bar, 16 December, was also a
relatively wide range bar with a poor close, again, an
indication of sellers present.
[A range depicts the battle between supply and demand.
The close says who won.]
The bar on 18 December, similar to the two just
described, with a low end close, sellers still present.
For the next four days, price holds in smaller ranges.
This is detailed, but very revealing. Of those four
days of consolidation, the two largest bars show
under mid-range closes, and the message should
be apparent: selling is present.
That small range which contained the sell-off from the
885 high held at the top of the prvious highs from the
end of November. [previous resistance becomes
support; previous support, once broken becomes
resistance.]
What we are doing here is gathering information
from the market in order to ultimately make an informed
decision. It takes more time to explain, but it does
provide direction, eventually.
There is a rally out of that small range to the upside.
The bar is wide range, showing ease of movement to
the upside, but it comes clothed in caveats...
26 December bar.
The close is at the top, can mean exhaustion, but we
do not know that, yet. The reason for taking that point
of view, [beyond experience] is because that wide range
bar to the upside does not make any advance over the
recent highs. That is what should be expected in an up
market, [which is not saying gold is in an up market.]
More telling, the rally occurs on anemic volume, and
the lack of volume says there is not a lot of buyers
participating to the upside. Isn't that what one would
expect from buyers, if they are in control. Yes, IF they
are in control.
Last Monday, price made a marginal higher high above
885, emphasis on the word marginal. Look at where
price closes...right on the low.
The message of the market for that day?
A recent rally high that should excite buyers and give
reason to route the sellers, if price is to go higher, says
buyers are not willing, or able, participants. [= the
message.] So it is the sellers that are obviously in charge.
Obvious now that it is pointed out.
Also, note the lack of upside thrust of this recent high
to that of the previous thrusts, in the area of about
50 $, +/-.
Too soon to say?
Stay with me.
Tuesday's bar is lower, and the close is again low end.
The market is saying that selling is in control, based
on the observable facts, and all we are doing, at this
point, is observing HOW the market acts as it makes
a rally high to the current level.
Wednesday was a pre-holiday market, so volume was
sufficient to make a souflle, but the range was wide
to the upside, again on air, with a high end close that
fails to take out the high from the previous day.
That brings us to Friday, 2 January. Price rallied above
the previous two day highs, but the close was just under
mid range, and lower than the previous day's rally close.
Without getting into too many observations, that little
high from the past week may have attracted some new
buying, but the activity could very well be a trap.
Can this information be put to profitabe use?
Go back to 10 October. That is a huge range, a
vertical bar to the downside, and on a sharply
increased volume day. That bar says nothing but
sellers were present to push the market down, at
will, with buyers unable to stem the tide.
[That was the market's message then, and subsequent
activity confirmed that message. Right now, price is
simply retesting that supply area.]
Friday's activity is going up against that huge supply
bar. When the activity of the past two weeks is
put into a context...yes, price is up, but it is not
exhibiting strength...we can draw a reasonable
conclusion. In fact, [and we only like to deal with
facts], the internal interpretation of the recent market
activity strongly suggest seller are present more than
buyers.
Sellers = supply, buyers = demand. Based on the
principle of supply v demand, supply is flexing itself
more than demand. If supply is greater than demand,
what can be expected?
Using the facts gathered, so far, let us take a look
at a weekly chart. What will not be apparent, until
it is pointed out, is that the range for the week is
the smallest since the October low.
What does a smaller weekly range say? It says that
sellers were in control and kept the range from
expanding higher, and that prevented buyers from
making any further gains to the upside. Supply is
in control, according to observable facts.
Note the range of the bar two weeks earlier, and
note where price closed for the week. That week's
message from the market should begin to make more
sense. The last week was an inside bar, contained,
and the close was right on the high. On a daily bar,
it was earlier noted that a close on the very high
could mean exhaustion...buyers were spent, too weak
to push price higher.
Also from the weekly chart is the most significant piece
of information of all.
Do you see it?
The trend. It is down. In a down trend, we should be
looking for opportunities to sell. Isn't that what we
have been able to glean from observing the quality of
market behavior on the daily chart, and the weekly range,
small, [contained], and a mid-range close says sellers
are in charge?
A proper trade is to be short with a stop above 895 or
900 hundred, [to avoid spike-like one day behavior].
There is no need for any mechanical indicators, drawing
converging lines, [that may somethimes work], Elliott wave,
etc, etc, etc.
Nope. The market itself tells us everything we need
to know, and it tells us in a timely fashion, minimizing
guesswork, and minimizing risk exposure.
Could this analysis be wrong?
Absolutely!
But....
I will take trade setups like this all the time, knowing
that the timing could be off a bit, but using and
relying upon the factors of supply and demand, market
principles that are, have been, and will continue to be
relaible and true, and will consistently lead to more
winners over losers.
For me, being short from Monday's close was obvious,
for the reasons cited. Friday's close is added
confirmation to be short, add to positions, or go short
if not yet having taken a position.
Market activity. There ain't anything any better.
Just one person's opinion.
Happy New Year!
From a longer term perspective to a shorter view
of gold, having just finished updating charts for the
past week, this is what could unfold:
[Apologies for the lack of charts, but that is not
within my limited scope of abilities.]
I reference charts and how they depict the forces
of supply and demand, along with volume. It
reveals the net activity of every possible source
of market participation...the footprints of all the
players, who cannot hide detection.
This is market activity, the most reliable source of
information, derived from the market itself. And,
it is factual data. From this information source,
one can often make valid assessments of where
price may go, depending upon the time frame
employed.
Here is but one way in which to view "technical
analysis."
Late October through November, gold built a base
from which a rally ensued, to 835, about 55 $ above
the trading range high, 780, 30 October.
The next rally, to mid-December, stopped at 885,
about 50 $ higher from the previous TR high, 835.
The high on 17 December, a relatively wide range bar,
closed slightly above mid-range, saying there are sellers
up there. The previous bar, 16 December, was also a
relatively wide range bar with a poor close, again, an
indication of sellers present.
[A range depicts the battle between supply and demand.
The close says who won.]
The bar on 18 December, similar to the two just
described, with a low end close, sellers still present.
For the next four days, price holds in smaller ranges.
This is detailed, but very revealing. Of those four
days of consolidation, the two largest bars show
under mid-range closes, and the message should
be apparent: selling is present.
That small range which contained the sell-off from the
885 high held at the top of the prvious highs from the
end of November. [previous resistance becomes
support; previous support, once broken becomes
resistance.]
What we are doing here is gathering information
from the market in order to ultimately make an informed
decision. It takes more time to explain, but it does
provide direction, eventually.
There is a rally out of that small range to the upside.
The bar is wide range, showing ease of movement to
the upside, but it comes clothed in caveats...
26 December bar.
The close is at the top, can mean exhaustion, but we
do not know that, yet. The reason for taking that point
of view, [beyond experience] is because that wide range
bar to the upside does not make any advance over the
recent highs. That is what should be expected in an up
market, [which is not saying gold is in an up market.]
More telling, the rally occurs on anemic volume, and
the lack of volume says there is not a lot of buyers
participating to the upside. Isn't that what one would
expect from buyers, if they are in control. Yes, IF they
are in control.
Last Monday, price made a marginal higher high above
885, emphasis on the word marginal. Look at where
price closes...right on the low.
The message of the market for that day?
A recent rally high that should excite buyers and give
reason to route the sellers, if price is to go higher, says
buyers are not willing, or able, participants. [= the
message.] So it is the sellers that are obviously in charge.
Obvious now that it is pointed out.
Also, note the lack of upside thrust of this recent high
to that of the previous thrusts, in the area of about
50 $, +/-.
Too soon to say?
Stay with me.
Tuesday's bar is lower, and the close is again low end.
The market is saying that selling is in control, based
on the observable facts, and all we are doing, at this
point, is observing HOW the market acts as it makes
a rally high to the current level.
Wednesday was a pre-holiday market, so volume was
sufficient to make a souflle, but the range was wide
to the upside, again on air, with a high end close that
fails to take out the high from the previous day.
That brings us to Friday, 2 January. Price rallied above
the previous two day highs, but the close was just under
mid range, and lower than the previous day's rally close.
Without getting into too many observations, that little
high from the past week may have attracted some new
buying, but the activity could very well be a trap.
Can this information be put to profitabe use?
Go back to 10 October. That is a huge range, a
vertical bar to the downside, and on a sharply
increased volume day. That bar says nothing but
sellers were present to push the market down, at
will, with buyers unable to stem the tide.
[That was the market's message then, and subsequent
activity confirmed that message. Right now, price is
simply retesting that supply area.]
Friday's activity is going up against that huge supply
bar. When the activity of the past two weeks is
put into a context...yes, price is up, but it is not
exhibiting strength...we can draw a reasonable
conclusion. In fact, [and we only like to deal with
facts], the internal interpretation of the recent market
activity strongly suggest seller are present more than
buyers.
Sellers = supply, buyers = demand. Based on the
principle of supply v demand, supply is flexing itself
more than demand. If supply is greater than demand,
what can be expected?
Using the facts gathered, so far, let us take a look
at a weekly chart. What will not be apparent, until
it is pointed out, is that the range for the week is
the smallest since the October low.
What does a smaller weekly range say? It says that
sellers were in control and kept the range from
expanding higher, and that prevented buyers from
making any further gains to the upside. Supply is
in control, according to observable facts.
Note the range of the bar two weeks earlier, and
note where price closed for the week. That week's
message from the market should begin to make more
sense. The last week was an inside bar, contained,
and the close was right on the high. On a daily bar,
it was earlier noted that a close on the very high
could mean exhaustion...buyers were spent, too weak
to push price higher.
Also from the weekly chart is the most significant piece
of information of all.
Do you see it?
The trend. It is down. In a down trend, we should be
looking for opportunities to sell. Isn't that what we
have been able to glean from observing the quality of
market behavior on the daily chart, and the weekly range,
small, [contained], and a mid-range close says sellers
are in charge?
A proper trade is to be short with a stop above 895 or
900 hundred, [to avoid spike-like one day behavior].
There is no need for any mechanical indicators, drawing
converging lines, [that may somethimes work], Elliott wave,
etc, etc, etc.
Nope. The market itself tells us everything we need
to know, and it tells us in a timely fashion, minimizing
guesswork, and minimizing risk exposure.
Could this analysis be wrong?
Absolutely!
But....
I will take trade setups like this all the time, knowing
that the timing could be off a bit, but using and
relying upon the factors of supply and demand, market
principles that are, have been, and will continue to be
relaible and true, and will consistently lead to more
winners over losers.
For me, being short from Monday's close was obvious,
for the reasons cited. Friday's close is added
confirmation to be short, add to positions, or go short
if not yet having taken a position.
Market activity. There ain't anything any better.
Just one person's opinion.
Happy New Year!
Trembling Hand
Can be found on the bid
- Joined
- 10 June 2007
- Posts
- 8,852
- Reactions
- 205
Edge PLEASE stay off that enter button. A post 300 lines high is hard and annoying to read. I don't know what your screen res is set to or how good your eyes are but this site is already maximised for the average users screen res and putting 6 words per line is a long way away from the ideal formatting for most readers.
Please!
As for posting charts have a read of this,
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1401
A picture really will save you and us a 1000s words
Please!
As for posting charts have a read of this,
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1401
A picture really will save you and us a 1000s words
I see...the importance of style over annoying substance.
The addition of charts would have been, simply, the addition
of charts and would not have eliminated a single sentence or
one of the 1,000 words.
How rude of me to presume effort might prevail over ease.
Easily remedied, good sir.
The addition of charts would have been, simply, the addition
of charts and would not have eliminated a single sentence or
one of the 1,000 words.
How rude of me to presume effort might prevail over ease.
Easily remedied, good sir.
Sean K
Moderator
- Joined
- 21 April 2006
- Posts
- 22,141
- Reactions
- 11,270
Edge, to be honest, I didn't read your tome either due to the style and length.
I would have liked to see a chart, which is VERY easy to attach, and TH has pointed you in the right direction.
Cheers,
kennas
Similar threads
