- Joined
- 13 February 2006
- Posts
- 5,252
- Reactions
- 12,076
Was there a reason to post that?
Begging the question as to why bother posting work from elsewhere that is not worth a cracker!Unfortunately (rather unprofessionally) he did not provide any reasoned argument (apart from offering a chart, which I guess he holds to be self-explanatory) as to why he sees this scenario in a bearish light.
1. Begging the question as to why bother posting work from elsewhere that is not worth a cracker!
2. Gold has massively outperformed silver from the onset of its bull market trend. Yet we got this gem:
3. "NOW, We have some idiots in the field being bullish GOLD. WHY? Has Gold had a good time at 1700 level?"
4. Who can see this: "In times of crisis, the silver market RALLIES IN A BIG WAY."
"
Response to your points:1. Why is it worthless? Simply because it does not confirm your position? I say position rather than thesis as you seem to be overly emotional re. any analysis/opinions that oppose your position.
2. Yes it has. I look on Gold and Silver in much the same way as the Dow Industrials/Dow Transports. I like to see confirmation in both metals, they are after all both 'money'.
Look at this chart:
View attachment 101971
So either:
(a) Silver needs to outperform Gold to close the ratio and confirm the so called 'bull market' that you are calling; or
(b) Silver is sending a warning that all is not well in this move higher for Gold
View attachment 101972
3. As you see, in the past, Silver has confirmed the bull moves. Currently, it isn't. Is that a concern? It would be to me, at least until I could explain why it was not/is not an issue currently under these conditions.
jog on
duc
Blind Freddy could have posted a chart with reasons/explanations as to expectations, but you want to argue that what you posted was useful because it was a different point of view. That's the yes it is no it's not argument, and it is of no merit.My responses in Red.
1. I didn't indicate that it was without merit. I actually said that it was unfortunate that it came sans an argued position. With regard to 'my arguments', that you consider them irrelevant is interesting in the fact that (the majority of) your responses are essentially have a look at this 4hr chart of Gold.
- There was nothing of merit to your copypaste: even you indicated that was so! As to my position, you have offered many counters and I seldom see them relevant. I have explained why on numerous occasions.
2. Your argument above is essentially the chart posted by myself (from a 3'rd party) is wrong. Well there are actually two arguments there:
(a) That Gold will fall; and/or
(b) Silver will rise.
Time will tell as far as that goes.
While you say "I look on Gold and Silver in much the same way as the Dow Industrials/Dow Transports," the basis of that relationship does not comport with the above chart.3. You are concluding on a contradiction which you, yourself, acknowledge.
You add these points:
(a) Silver needs to outperform Gold to close the ratio and confirm the so called 'bull market' that you are calling; orHowever, there is no rationale to (a). Silver lagged gold after the GFC and has diverged in the present bull market trend. Your idea of confirmation is a dubious after effect at best.
(b) Silver is sending a warning that all is not well in this move higher for Gold
2(a). Incorrect. If Silver starts to rise at a faster rate than Gold, the ratio will start to fall. That does not require Gold to fall, only to rise more slowly than Silver, thereby restoring the ratio. The rise of Silver would also confirm (at least to me) that the current move higher in Gold had legs. Of course the ratio could be closed through Gold falling (at a faster rate) compared to Silver, which would have the same effect. That is the 'rationale'.
In regard to (b), if that is your thesis then it was wrong in respect of the GFC trends, noted in the
chart above.
2(b) Incorrect (again). In 2008, as demonstrated in your chart and my chart, in 2008, Silver went higher with Gold, confirming the bull (market) move. That Gold went slightly higher is irrelevant. The ratio in 2008 was 69, which is not an 'extreme' level. The current ratio is 95, which, historically, is high.
3. Nonsense.
I do not regard your analysis as sound and have stated why, again. And to claim my stance as "overly emotional" is gilding your wilting lily.
4. Unfortunately your criticisms are simply without merit as you have not addressed my arguments at all. Rather you have sought to conflate my arguments (in part) with a 3'rd party's position and simply failed to address my arguments at all re. 2(a)(b).
Given your chart, which demonstrates Silver confirming the move in Gold (in 2008), you have provided no comments or arguments as to why Silver is (currently) so absent in this current environment.
My 'position' is (previously stated earlier in thread) that Gold is tied currently to the Treasury market as that market is the risk free benchmark.
Gold, if it was tied to increasing government debt, as you have previously argued, (already demonstrated as incorrect) should with all the new money created, be exceeding its 2011 highs. It is not. Why not?
jog on
duc
1. Blind Freddy could have posted a chart with reasons/explanations as to expectations, but you want to argue that what you posted was useful because it was a different point of view. That's the yes it is no it's not argument, and it is of no merit.
2. Yes, I provide a regular update on gold's "heading" because it is in keeping with the thread's title.
I regularly state that I have no idea where gold is heading in the short-term as there is no reliable predictor that I have seen through several decades of closely following the market.
3. I regard physical gold as a store of value that is not destroyed in market crashes, so see it as more likely than any other commodity to outperform.
4. I am not going to address all your points, as here's just one showing you are not good at analysis:
Given your chart, which demonstrates Silver confirming the move in Gold (in 2008), you have provided no comments or arguments as to why Silver is (currently) so absent in this current environment.5. First, I have little to say about silver generally, except that the charts do not support your contentions.
6. Leading in to Lehman Bros collapse, (circled above) the gold:silver correlation was tight. There emerged, however, a significant divergence and it was contrary to a suggestion that silver does better than gold in times of crisis. The 25 percentage points price difference in favour of gold by 2010 apparently means the opposite in your book.
Interesting duc, ends in 2010?
If it was, then it would need to show something other than a positive correlation which we all agree upon.Do I really need to comment? Surely this is self-explanatory.
Show us where gold is used as money.Gold is money and is not an immutable store of value.
It's still debt, and bailouts were a common feature of the GFC.The Fed's Balance Sheet is increasing 'debt' of a different type, in that individuals and small businesses are receiving a 'bailout' of sorts,...
Interesting duc, ends in 2010?
1. If it was, then it would need to show something other than a positive correlation which we all agree upon. I have posted numerous charts that show that silver has not acted as was proposed by your earlier 3rd party, and that silver diverged from gold at the time of the 2008 GFC and moved in opposite directions during the current bull market trend.
2. Show us where gold is used as money.
3. Show us how gold can be turned into something else.
4. It's still debt, and bailouts were a common feature of the GFC.
1. The point is: Silver is not confirming the move in Gold. That is a break (divergence) of some 40+ years. To me that is important and calls into question the sustainability of the current Gold move. If Silver suddenly starts to move higher, I'll be far more interested in the combined move.
2. Gold would be accepted anywhere as payment, except as payment of your taxes. I would happily accept payment in gold or silver.
3. Don't understand the question.
4. Yes it is still 'debt', but the effects could be very different.
Gold has no debt.
- You are confusing correlation with confirmation.
- The positive correlation has merely weakened more significantly in 2020. So if silver moves higher, so will gold.
- The only issue is which will move with greater comparative magnitude.
- Gold is not money in the everyday sense. My gold coins are legal tender with a face value of $100. However at an ounce each they have a store of value that is significantly greater.
- Gold is immutable, contrary to your claim.
- So debt is different to debt because its effects can be different?
- All debt has a counterparty, so a lot will depend on how the debt is expunged.
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?