Minimize

Welcome!

Conventional markets, Commodities and the Precious metals

ker
September 5, 2015

Hour 1: 

Click download link to listen on this device: Download Show

Hour 2: 

Click download link to listen on this device: Download Show

Hour 1:

Hour 2:

 

Click download link to listen on this device: Download Show

Click download link to listen on this device: Download Show

Click download link to listen on this device: Download Show

Click download link to listen on this device: Download Show

Click download link to listen on this device: Download Show

Click download link to listen on this device: Download Show

Click download link to listen on this device: Download Show

Click download link to listen on this device: Download Show

Discussion
274 Comments
    Sep 05, 2015 05:45 AM

    I got a question and some statements. I would like to share those ideas and would like to know any adverse ideas or comments anyone has to offer. Am I crazy? or stupid? or is it a reasonable idea? Tell me. I am especially curious about Your thoughts on the NIKKEI.

    I observed the value appreciation of 6 times leveraged short options on oil. Appreciation was around 10000 % in a year. You don’t trade. You buy for 100, 200 or 300 Dollars, Euros or whatever and hold them, and hold them, and hold them. Those options have no knockout treshold. Anyone who would have bought this stuff back last year as insurance for his or her oil investments would be rich by now. Of course You have to make sure that the option emitting bank has a very low probability of going broke.

    I bought a couple of options that go short leveraged forever on the big indices, without any knock-out treshold. I plan to just invest a couple of hundreds. Of course they are already up. on the uptick I will buy another for a hundred bucks.

    I also plan to short the NIKKEI, just another hundred bucks. Do You think the NIKKEI is especially vulnerable right now? I see that Asian markets are very volatile and vulnerable. If the NIKKEI in fact would crash, I would buy long leveraged options in 6 months or so. Just for a couple hundred bucks. What can You do wrong? I also want to buy some options long and short on oil.

    Those options will appreciate maybe 1000 or 10000 percent or You lose a small amount of money.

    In case everything crashes You will get rich. It is just an insurance. I can sit it out. I have a pretty save job and don’t ever worry about paying bills.

    Am I crazy?

    Best Regards.

      Sep 05, 2015 05:50 AM

      I think that 4 to 6 times leverage would be reasonable because 10 times leverage will just wipe out Your gains too quickly in case the markets turn.

      Best Regards

      Sep 05, 2015 05:01 AM

      I did well shorting the S&P with a larger profit. I personally just considered my self lucky. Gary is the person to ask.

        Sep 05, 2015 05:23 AM

        As I stated. Those shorts worth a couple of $ for me will be a kind of hedge against desaster. I am invested in Theralase and some other small companies. However, I always am afraid of a market crash. Right now markets crash around the world. I am personally thinking about shorting the NIKKEI. Japan seems to be in a fragile position, but the market still holds up. I don’t know. The politicians over there seem desperately ready to devalue their currency even more and maybe it would drive their stocks up. However when I look at all the other Asian market indices, they are clearly telling me that they will tear it all down one country after the other. What do You think?

        Thanks and Best Regards.

        Sep 05, 2015 05:45 AM

        I want to hold those leveraged short options for the long term. I am not after the short term money. I just think that at some time I would catch aproximately the top of the market and would sit it out. As I wrote, it would have been wise to buy such options on the oil price last year in order to protect yourself from falling oil company shares prices. the money now is unfortunately lost.

        Sep 07, 2015 07:12 PM

        I think Big Al swiped some of my profits. I only made 26%. But I have a new short on the S&P for the next leg down. 🙂

      Sep 05, 2015 05:52 AM

      Yea, wouldn’t it be terrible if Iran gave up 98% of their uranium and couldn’t make a bomb if they wanted to for 15 years.

      Isn’t it horrible that they get the $150 billion that we stole from them and they could use it on their own people.

      Wouldn’t it be terrible if we didn’t have to fight another war for Israel that by military necessity would be nuclear.

        CFS
        Sep 05, 2015 05:04 AM

        Don’t appear stupid, Bob, you’re more intelligent than that.

          Sep 05, 2015 05:55 AM

          CFS..you wouldn’t know it by reading his posts….

            Sep 05, 2015 05:05 AM

            Common, please no direct comments like that.

            I am for no war. Am I stupid?

            Sep 05, 2015 05:09 AM

            Gator

            Stupid is not understanding why ISIS has never even threatened Israel or attacked Israel.

            Actually stupid is believing Israel didn’t mean what they said in the Yinon Plan in 1983 or the Clean Break from the Peace Process in 1996 or the Project for a New Israeli Century in 1997.

            When the said they intended to destabilize the Middle East for their benefit, what exactly did you think they meant?

            bb
            Sep 05, 2015 05:59 AM

            West creates refugees by destroying Islamic nations’ – Chechen leader

            Prior to this, he Kadyrov had told reporters that he possessed information that the IS leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, had been recruited to work for the US personally by General David Petraeus, the former director of the CIA and former commander of coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. At that time, Kadyrov claimed IS “was acting on orders from the West and Europe

            Story is on RT today.

            CFS
            Sep 05, 2015 05:47 PM

            I am against war too, Big Al.

            But to believe Kerry that there are only two options: War or Treaty, is false, I believe.
            The options are stupid treaty or better treaty.

            Kerry does not even know the side agreements.
            Congress does not know the full treaty provisions. Why the secrecy?
            What is being hidden?
            The US has leverage to negotiate a much better treaty.
            Why are the 4 US citizens imprisoned in Iran not being considered as part of the deal?
            Why are Iranian funds being released immediately, and not with a delay to see what happens with inspections?

            Sep 05, 2015 05:11 PM

            CFS:

            Perhaps some facts might change your mind.

            The Attack on the Nuclear Deal, the Israel Factor, and the Iran Peace Scare

            http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2015/09/05/521329-the-attack-on-the-nuclear-deal-the-israel-factor-and-the-iran-peace-scare/

            The only options are peace treaty agreed to by 7 nations and the UN which removes 98% of the uranium and returns to Iran the money that belongs to them or a nuclear war against a country with no nuclear weapons program.

            So which is it CFS, peace or nuclear war?

          Sep 05, 2015 05:01 AM

          Given that I have 10,000 times more experience in war than you, I can assure you that any attack determined to destroy Iran’s peaceful nuclear plant and support would have to be nuclear to be effective. You aren’t going to do anything but piss off the natives by dropping iron bombs. So we have this bizarre situation where a nuclear armed country is trying to con another nuclear armed country to attack a third non-nuclear armed country on the basis that they “might” someday go nuclear. We are in something out of Alice in Wonderland and twits are standing by on the sideline encouraging a nuclear war.

            Sep 05, 2015 05:07 AM

            10,000?

            Common man, what about experience from video games!

            bb
            Sep 05, 2015 05:19 AM

            In 1983 Gwynne Dyer did an excellent documentary about war.
            He mentioned that the invasions of a few middle east countries was in the works, he also said the real trouble starts when Iran gets attacked.

            Sep 05, 2015 05:28 AM

            Bob, no disrespect meant and as I have said before “I thank you for your service to our country”.. I was questioning your statement from a previous post in which you said Iran has never threatened the U.S. or Israel and I simply stated you were wrong and I still think you are….nothing else…

            CFS
            Sep 05, 2015 05:51 PM

            I have previously pointed this fact out.
            Israel does not have the bunker buster bombs that the US has, and even if it did, it does not have a bomber capable of carrying them.

            Sep 05, 2015 05:24 PM

            Gator:

            Israel and the United States have committed acts of war against Iran. Iran has not attacked the US or Israel. That they have made it perfectly clear that they will defend themselves, I actually approve of. Iran has the 2nd largest community of Jews in the Middle East, they are free to leave should they wish and they refuse to. It’s their home and they are safe.

            In the Civil War about half the men armed would not fire their weapons in battle. The Army realized it was necessary to demonize the “enemy.” In WWI less than 65% would fire their weapons. So more demonization. Now over 80% will shoot. I stand totally amazed that Americans can believe Iran is the enemy when they have done nothing, not even in their own self defense. They are letting the US and Israel destroy themselves in exactly the same way Putin has.

            We had 7 wars going on at one time in the early days of the Obama administration. We need a new rule. If at least 50% of Americans can’t find a country on a map, we don’t go to war.

            Every civilization in history that got involved in military adventurism went bankrupt. It’s too late for us, we are already bankrupt, we just keep pretending we are not. It will end badly.

        bb
        Sep 05, 2015 05:20 AM

        Just listened to it.
        Its a horrible deal Bob, we know because Greg Hunter says so. lol
        More proof there is no cure for stupid.

        Obama really make me wonder sometimes, he passes garbage like ndaa militarises police, then makes peace deals with Iran attempts to restrict Isreali influence but supports fascism in Ukraine and the states.
        Tuff to figure him out sometimes.

          CFS
          Sep 05, 2015 05:43 AM

          It’s actually very easy to figure out his moves, by making two assumptions (whether they are correct or not):
          1. Assume he is Marxist in belief.
          2. Assume he is Islamic.
          Knowing, of course, he is a Democrat, who wishes to change America.

            bb
            Sep 05, 2015 05:12 AM

            Well, Its true the U.S. has moved to some kind of fascist socialism.
            But that began long before Obama.
            I doubt if Obama or any president really has much influence.

            Remember, it doesn’t matter which system is used as long as you control the money.
            According to Rothchild anyway.

            CFS
            Sep 05, 2015 05:42 AM

            Obama, I think, believes the pen is mightier than the sword.
            (As long as it is his pen, anyway.)

          Sep 05, 2015 05:35 PM

          Horrible deal because Mr Hunter says so?

          CFS
          Sep 05, 2015 05:54 PM

          There are many more commentators than Greg Hunter who dislike the Iran Treaty.
          The majority of the US senate dislike the treaty.

            CFS
            Sep 05, 2015 05:56 PM

            The Senate currently stands 62 against, 34 for, 2 uncommitted last time I checked.

            CFS
            Sep 05, 2015 05:58 PM

            If the treaty was actually treated as a treaty it would not pass.

            I don’t know what dirt Obama has on the Republican leadership, but something does not smell right.

            Sep 05, 2015 05:27 PM

            CFS:

            That’s nothing more than a head count of who Israel has pimped out in the Senate. Treason is one of three crimes defined in the Constitution. Allegiance to another country is treason. Being against the treaty has nothing at all to do with Iran and a phantom nuclear weapons program and everything to do with Israel.

            Who runs this country?

        Sep 05, 2015 05:03 AM

        War is good. Damn just bit my tongue.

        Good comment, Bob.

      Sep 05, 2015 05:36 PM

      Thanks for the link, Professor.

      Sep 05, 2015 05:22 PM

      Thanks for this link also.

      Sep 05, 2015 05:50 AM

      GOLD….$5,7,10,000 per oz,… per Richards to avoid DEFLATION…….

        Sep 05, 2015 05:51 AM

        great listen to………..appreciate as always………………

          Sep 05, 2015 05:59 AM

          For those who wish to see the video….it is at FSN….

            Sep 05, 2015 05:50 AM

            Jerry,
            Here is hoping all is well with you and yours……….and IRISH!!…of course

            Sep 05, 2015 05:51 AM

            Marc….ditto…….

        Sep 05, 2015 05:26 PM

        That’s a lot of tomatoes, Frank.

    Sep 05, 2015 05:40 AM

    Wow professor – you are busy……..thanks!!

    CFS
    Sep 05, 2015 05:47 AM

    Manipulation.
    I don’t think folks get the time-scale.
    I could be wrong, and I’m sure I will be criticized.
    Assume a country wanted to buy significant quantities of gold or silver.
    Let’d define “significant” as one-tenth of all mined quantity.
    I’ve demonstrated in this forum a mechanism of how by choosing times of high and low demand one can drive the price down. I am suggesting China has the motive. What you have not understood is the time frame…..decades.
    You will, if you are still alive, at sometime in the future and realize that an entity (I believe China) through its agents (some bullion banks) suppressed the price of precious metals.
    This knowledge will not make you rich, but a “buy, hold and store” policy might make your heirs richer than saving fiat money in a bank account. It worked for the Rothchilds.

      Sep 05, 2015 05:14 AM

      Wow, that is a lot of stuff. So, where do You put Your money?

        CFS
        Sep 05, 2015 05:08 AM

        Diversify. But precious metals might hold up better than fiat.

        Sep 05, 2015 05:29 PM

        Now let me as, where have I heard that before!

      Sep 05, 2015 05:20 AM

      Sounds for me as if You are a pure-blood gold bug!!! 😀 Would it not make more sense to buy PMs that are also used in industry?

        CFS
        Sep 05, 2015 05:09 AM

        Just call me Cash for Silver. I agree.

          Sep 05, 2015 05:30 PM

          As do the Little BlondLady and I!

      Sep 05, 2015 05:56 AM

      Professor
      I really dont think ..this will take decades……..a few years….maybe…all this stuff about Chinas long term dilberate planning mechanisms is correct BUT NOT in this case….they are ramping up quickly to do ‘BUSINESS’ their way and very very soon.

        CFS
        Sep 05, 2015 05:48 AM

        My best guess is about 3 years for major turnaround…… for significant increases.
        But I use the word guess. Chartists will probably have better timing.

      Sep 05, 2015 05:12 AM

      Well, this in fact has happened also with other commodities, eg. rare earth metals and tungsten. However, it is hard to say if this was deliberate action or just the result of market forces.

      I can’t believe that those things can be planned. There are too many parties involved, too many, with too many interests. World power shifts all the time.

      Sep 05, 2015 05:54 AM

      Belief in suppression means never having to think.

      Try convincing me that gold was suppressed from $252 to $1923. Go ahead and give it your best shot.

      And you think suppression is effective?

        CFS
        Sep 05, 2015 05:15 AM

        No. I was implying the manipulation had existed for decades.

        I don’t know how long before the next bull cycle prices of in precious metals.
        I would guess when China has run out of easily acquirable bullion.

          Sep 05, 2015 05:31 AM

          Thanks, professor for your clarifications – always great hearing from you and your contributions – your a ‘real (hard) asset…:)

          Sep 05, 2015 05:15 AM

          Given that all financial markets are manipulated all of the time since Babylon days, saying markets are manipulated is only slightly more brilliant and insightful that announcing the sun rises in the East.

            Sep 05, 2015 05:35 PM

            I thought it was in the west. Maybe Ji should cut back on booze!

        CFS
        Sep 05, 2015 05:25 AM

        You don’t get it Bob, suppose the possibility that while gold went from $252 to $1923, without suppression it would have gone from $300 to $3,000. That is what I’m saying.
        Not control, because that cannot be done without loss of bullion due to sales of same, I’m talking price suppression below un-manipulated prices, while an entity is acquiring as much bullion as possible, without causing excessive up ward price movement.

          CFS
          Sep 05, 2015 05:35 AM

          At least the manipulation theory explains things like Sunday night price drops; all the major drops occurring at low volume times. And China’s accumulation of more gold than the US.

          I have not seen another theory do that.

            Sep 05, 2015 05:22 AM

            CFS:

            You are so closed minded that you ignore facts so you can swim in your fantasy world. If gold is a commodity and if it is manipulated like all other financial instruments are manipulated, of course the big players are going to push it around when it is least liquid. Remember, the sun rises in the east.

            CFS
            Sep 05, 2015 05:59 AM

            Yep, Bob, the Sun sets in the West, too.

            But does the earth go around a stationary sun, as Copernicus and Galileo thought?
            Was there a Big Bang to start it all off?
            Which one of the five versions of string theory is correct?
            Or are they all correct, being merely subsets of M-theory?

            Sep 05, 2015 05:21 PM

            CFS

            I agree – gold is manipulated just like every other commodity on earth. If they wish to crash it to 20 bucks an ounce they can do it (I have no doubt about that).

          Sep 05, 2015 05:21 AM

          CFS:

          Compared to every commodity that exists, gold got expensive when it passed $1000 an ounce. Stamps, cars, trophy wives, houses, copper, diamonds, hell, pick any commodity.

          The guys calling for $800 gold are exactly right except for one tiny factor. And that is gold as insurance against financial chaos.

          Saying gold was suppressed from $252 to $1923 is really dumb. It went from cheap to expensive and all the clowns supporting the “suppression” theory of economics totally screwed the people listening to them. When things get cheap buy them. When they get expensive sell them. It’s no more complicated than that. Anyone who bought at $300 and sold at $1900 was brilliant. Anyone who bought at $300 and didn’t take money off the table was a fool who shouldn’t be investing.

          Gold and silver show the same price moves as copper, diamonds, oil, nickel, uranium and any other commodity you want to name. To say there is some special treatment of gold and silver advertises you have no clue as to what you are talking about.

            Tim
            Sep 05, 2015 05:39 AM

            Wow, you throw out so many statements that are just YOUR opiniona nd have no basis in fact. Gold got expensive when it passed $1,000? Based on what exactly? And gold and silver have not, and do not, trade like copper, oil et.al. Each and every commodity has it’s own supply and demand dynamic. Additionally, gold and silver have a monetary dynamic as well as an emotional one. Lumping all these hard assets together is absurd.

            CFS
            Sep 05, 2015 05:10 AM

            And Gold peaked just when the true price of the dollar was at it lowest.

            and gold, considering the relative values of other things, interest rates and currency values, did get relatively expensive as it passed US$1000.
            And My eyes are mostly blue.

            But none of the above statements have much to do with proving manipulation or not.
            I do believe too much space is wasted on that subject in this forum, so you can have the last word, Mr. Moriarty.

            Sep 05, 2015 05:25 PM

            Trophy Wives! Wow, everything is on the market these days. Maybe I can paper trade a few and then stand for delivery when a hot one pops up on my screen. Ha!
            ———–
            Anyway, you got my vote Bob. All your points were valid. The bugs forget that gold went on a tear higher for more than a decade before slowly deflating. It even set a record in that regard and there was no talk of manipulation all the while people were making hay and enjoying outsize gains.

            But the bugs mournfully pine for the good old days to return. Far too many held beyond the best-before date and still cannot believe the good times ended and that they didn’t have good sense to sell before the party died.

            All they have now is sour grapes and complaints of manipulation to soak their sorrows. Never a word is said about the fact they were the authors of their own misfortune and just traded poorly (chart reading did not become an active sport in the gold community until after gold started falling….before then nobody much cared because all boats were rising).

            Sad and pathetic at the same time. Maybe they will be luckier with oil or uranium.

            Sep 05, 2015 05:16 PM

            I pick trophy wives, I will leave the stamps to CFS.

            Sep 05, 2015 05:49 PM

            I remember in the 1960’s you could go into a bar in Toronto and buy 10 eight ounce glasses of draft beer for $1, most people would tell the Bartender to lay down nine and have one for yourself, that was his tip. Look at how much the sin tax has been inflated. DT

        Sep 05, 2015 05:34 PM

        It was magic, Bob. The problem was that the guy in charge had a different definition of suppression! Right?

      Sep 05, 2015 05:33 AM

      I got something for You, very informative!!!

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPdHAleapI0

        CFS
        Sep 05, 2015 05:52 AM

        I saw that back in July, Thanks for reminding me.

        The world and markets are a very complex inter-connected place.
        Armstrong may have his computers, but I would be surprised if he could program even all the major inter-connections.

        I just read a lot try to absorb all information and try to explain all anomalies from expected behavior. Looking at deviations from expectations, always seems to allow fine tuning of the thought process.

        CFS
        Sep 05, 2015 05:03 AM

        I am not yet positive there will be a total collapse. There has been damage to the markets and charts, but there is not enough indication yet to predict with good assurance that a crash, as disctinct from a major correction, will happen. It is wise, however, to assume the possibility of a crash, even if the odds are very low as yet.
        The derivative problem is a major concern, and I am still unsure how the Fed will “muddle” through that problem.
        However, I’m not sure they won’t just try to void all derivatives. No matter how carefully one tries to figure this implies that, and such and such implies something else, sometimes the Fed or Congress or an Executive order throws a curveball and interrupts logic.

          Sep 05, 2015 05:23 AM

          $630 trillion in derivatives=Total Crash.

          The only question is when.

            CFS
            Sep 05, 2015 05:19 AM

            I have not spent a lot of time considering the derivatives problem.

            A Question, Bob.
            If the SEC or some other body said, “In order to maintain stability, all interest rate swap contracts are hereby declared void”. I know that would create turmoil, but could it prevent a market crash?
            I lack knowledge. Is there any possible way. Thinking outside the box, that it would be possible to “settle” derivatives without collapsing the system?

            Sep 05, 2015 05:28 PM

            That which cannot be paid will not be paid CFS. It’s why we need to worry about counterparty risk when the whole damn thing unwinds and be certain we don’t get caught in the crossfire since there is just a few percent good collateral for each hundred parts of bets.

            Sep 05, 2015 05:34 PM

            CFS:

            What actually has happened in derivatives is that each party has marked the contract according to the computer program that gives them the best outcome. It’s marking to fantasy. If you cancel the contracts, you have effectively marked to market and when you go from fantasy to mark to market, both sides collapse. You can’t unwind $630 trillion in derivatives without a massive collapse. It’s a number simply inconceivable. Remember, the head of the CFTC believed in 1998 that derivatives were totally out of control and a threat to the world’s financial system when they were under $60 trillion. She was right and now they are up 1000%.

            The world’s financial system is a giant casino where everyone is playing with monopoly money and pretending they are rich.

          Sep 05, 2015 05:29 AM

          So what do You think about the NIKKEI right now?

            Sep 05, 2015 05:16 PM

            Why do you keep asking when nobody ever answers? Just curious. Sounds like you have your mind made up already anyway.

          Tim
          Sep 05, 2015 05:45 AM

          Predict with good assurance a crash? Crashes in and of themselves are unpredictable (yes sure, some will claim to have seen it coming, but it is almost impossible to see in real time something like 1987 or 2008. Emotions, computers, panic selling,etc. are virtually unknowable in advance. As for the nonsensical idea that the can ‘void’ derivative contracts would mean rewriting almost the entire 200 years of contract law that we have in the US as well as many more decades of contract law from Europe.

          The Fed can expand its balance sheet and manipulate interest rates, which in and of itself is a big deal, but they aren’t omnipotent.

            CFS
            Sep 05, 2015 05:54 PM

            Don’t go to Vegas, Tim.

            Sep 05, 2015 05:37 PM

            Tim:

            True but when you start blowing up a ballon you don’t know when it will collapse but you know it will collapse if you keep blowing. It’s like predicting which grain of sand will collapse a pile of sand. The timing cannot be predicted but that it will one day collapse is perfectly predictable.

      Sep 05, 2015 05:27 PM

      One of my points, Professor!

    Sep 05, 2015 05:37 AM

    EWavers have had, and always will have, the ability to be right and call every twist and turn in the market. Why? Because they have a ‘count’ and then an ‘alternate count’. Bottom line is that all calls are: The market will go down (primary count) but if it doesn’t then it will go up (alt count). If I can call heads and tails on every coin toss, I too will be a ‘genius’ especially if I promote my ‘winning’ calls (which they all are) and people like Cory and Al buy into my BS.

    Sep 05, 2015 05:28 AM

    I think Tim Cyclesman Wood would say not a Dow theory sell signal but Dow theory primary trend change.

      Sep 05, 2015 05:02 AM

      +1 There is no Dow Theory sell signal.

    Sep 05, 2015 05:32 AM

    To believe there is no manipulation in the financial markets is just ridiculous. Newsletter writers are no different that gold salesman in that they have a product to sell and will “paint a picture” to lure in subscribers. Not saying all newsletter writers are bad.

    Avi, you never answered Corey’s question about the big dumping of contracts. You talked around it in my opinion. Was that last dumping manipulation by large entities or not? Could it have been? Yes or no.

      Sep 05, 2015 05:28 AM

      Jerryck:

      I’ll jump in. Given the number of gold contracts sold, by definition it had to be a large player and given the short timeframe of the dump, it had to be a single large player.

      So what? That’s legal and a good move.

      Load up on puts, crap out a lot of contracts in the slowest time of the week, exercise your puts, buy back you shorts and go home laughing. Funds do it all the time.

      What would the purpose of having a lot of money be if you couldn’t push around the little guys?

        Sep 05, 2015 05:13 AM

        Bob

        I agree about there may be nothing illegal about it. Maybe. If they’re part of the “president’s working group” then it’s legal as long as it’s done for the right purpose. I really doubt it is, and I think you probably feel the same. But it’s the state of our country right now. And I have no problem with shorting gold. Thing is Bob, I’m the little guy! Thanks for you comment.

    Tim
    Sep 05, 2015 05:32 AM

    The Ewave people have the great ability to make every call correctly, with hindsight. If you look at any ewave chart, the ewaver always shows two ‘counts’ that basically cover both up and down, hence they are ALWAYS right and able to say “I made the call!” Additionally, ewavers, when wrong, go back and ‘change’ the count. I’ve been in the markets for 35 years, am a CMT (chartered market technician) and have watched ewavers continuously make the great call – after the fact. It’s no different than newsletter writers telling subscribers that the makret should go down, but if it doesn’t, then it will go up. Piece of cake!

      Sep 05, 2015 05:49 AM

      Thanks for making me more sceptical again. Is always a good thing.

    Sep 05, 2015 05:04 AM

    MANIPULATION is the excuse the guru’s use when their suggestions go sour, if gold could be manipulated it would still be $275 and would have never traded above $500

      CFS
      Sep 05, 2015 05:28 AM

      You can’t hold a price constant, Ojj, without supplying physical, you can manipulate without giving up physical.

        Sep 05, 2015 05:39 AM

        C’mon Bob and JJ…..strictly by calculations of the amount of newly printed dollars – “out of thin air” dollars that have flooded the global system – even with the gold standard in ANY sense is not applied – the gold price – in US dollars – “should” be much higher – but IT DOESNT MATTER ANYWAY- the end game will be how many ounces you have not the “price” of gold in dollars – that will and is irrelevant. Even Volker mentioned that he should have and a “control handle on the gold ‘price” back in the late seventies……Finally, the GOLD “PRICE” is what it is…big deal..if somebody is nervous about then they dont understand WHY they have GOLD ANYWAYS….so basically this is all……………………………mute…:) BTW, luv your work on 321 GOLD and I have NO DOUBT that when this market heats up again ….your call on most of your junior explorers you have profiled will absolutely take off……

          Sep 05, 2015 05:52 AM

          SD Marc, control of any stock, currency, gold, oil at key levels can and is done by the big player protecting their positions or setting up their next position. BOJ intervened last week as Yen popped towards a key level they don’t want to see left behind = stronger yen

          Nobody can alter the overall trend that is taking place, create flows from one side to the other of the river banks, yes, change the flow of the river, no, unless a market is in a collapse and policy change takes place like the 666 low in the S&P as the system was supported by a massive injection which created a new trend channel to trade all the way up to 2000+

          Sep 05, 2015 05:38 AM

          SD Marc:

          Dr Marc Faber says that you should think of the world as having a big bowl balanced on the head of a pin. When money is created, it is like water being poured into the bowl. First it runs in one direction and then in another.

          You are correct that newly printed dollars have to go into something but using your own experience, price gold in packets of cigarettes or stamps or cans of coke or houses or cars. If you compare the price of gold to any commodity or item you bought yourself when you were a kid, you will realize gold is still expensive.

          50 years ago I was a cadet going through flight training. I made $152.50 a month. An 18kt gold rolex cost $400. Snickers Bars were $.05 a coke was $.10, stamps $.04 and a new Corvette $3750.

          Gold got expensive when it went over $800. If money is printed, stamps go up in price, houses go up in price, cars go up in price. But gold went up more. So saying gold “should” have gone to $3000 is like saying stamps “should” have gone to $1.80.

          But gold is first and foremost an insurance policy against government stupidity. So it will go up in a financial crash. But even at $1120 gold isn’t cheap.

            Sep 05, 2015 05:28 AM

            I would glen from your list items which keep up with INFLATION.(maybe a wrong word depending on thought)………rolex, vette…….all others waste of capital and investment…….Rolex today about $22,000…Vette….$98,000 to $125,000. ….just saying ………………….OOTB

            Sep 05, 2015 05:31 AM

            of course let’s exclude gold from this comment, ..for value is yet to be determined., I do not think rolex and vette are manipulated in price……but, who believe in manipulation……………………

            Sep 05, 2015 05:32 AM

            btw………..Bob I enjoy your comments…………………..OOTB

            Sep 05, 2015 05:40 AM

            Bob…Harry Dent is calling for $250.00 gold within the next 2 years along with a market and financial crash that will devastate the world…I know you follow gold and would like your opinion? I don’t follow Dent but read the article.

            http://pro.dentresearch.com/SLAW_BNBPOR/EBNBR907?email=jmabie%40cfl.rr.com&a=10&o=4396&s=5114&u=746334&l=99500&r=MC2&g=0&h=true

            Sep 05, 2015 05:48 AM

            That number of $250 will make the Chinese very happy…………..

            Sep 05, 2015 05:49 AM

            Gator…….read Rickards and compare the two thoughts………jmo

            Sep 05, 2015 05:53 AM

            typo glen to glean……….sorry

            Sep 05, 2015 05:13 PM

            Gold has done a great job for sure, but I would be hesitant to say that it is expensive based on its outperformance of the items you mentioned.

            Most people, including gold bugs, don’t realize that a real return is built into sound money over the long term because of technology and other improvements in the way things are done. Yes, gold’s real value goes up and down like everything else, but unlike everything else, it does so within a rising channel —at least in terms of finished goods and services if not raw materials.
            This natural and “good” deflation allows the PTB to print even more without political consequence since people don’t know that general prices should be coming down not just remaining constant.

            I think that the real contention among most gold bugs is that the dollar is overvalued. If this is true, then it follows that everything should be more expensive, not just gold. In that case, gold’s real price wouldn’t change dramatically UNLESS such a revaluation came with an economic implosion —which it likely would. In that event, we could easily find that our century-in-the-making ideas about value could be turned upside down. Let’s face it, a century isn’t much.

            Maybe 20 barrels of oil per ounce of gold will be the new worst case scenario instead of 6. Maybe 40 or 50 will be the new average, not 15 or 16.

            But in the only timeframe that actually exists, the present, gold is pretty steep, not cheap, when compared to oil and the rest of the commodities complex. In fact, it is now trading at twice its previous record (set in the crash of ’08) when priced in the gold miners. Priced in oil, gold recently went over 30 barrels per oz for the first time since the 1980s:
            http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=%24GOLD%3A%24WTIC&p=D&yr=3&mn=0&dy=11&id=p09397504571&a=401460858

            So even if the dollar were about to meltdown, gold would likely not be the best way to play it.

            Sep 05, 2015 05:27 PM

            Gold became critically overbought vs oil but I still think it will remain elevated for a long time (above fork support that was tested from April till June).
            http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=%24GOLD%3A%24WTIC&p=W&yr=7&mn=7&dy=11&id=p68509928254&a=423199508

            Sep 05, 2015 05:39 PM

            OIL AND GOLD…….SINCE oil has only been around approximately 120 yrs. as a commodity and gold 5000 yrs. Is it really fair to compare the two…..Just wondering, not debating……………………………………………….ootb

            Sep 05, 2015 05:46 PM

            Black Knight…….. to funny………………………………lol

            Sep 05, 2015 05:34 PM

            Whether you’re wondering or debating that’s a good point Frank. That’s part of the reason that I am open to our “long term” assumptions being turned upside down.

            Sep 05, 2015 05:40 PM

            Actually Vette’s are really cheap in comparison to 1965. You can buy a great Corvette for $70,000.

            Sep 05, 2015 05:45 PM

            GAtor:

            Good honest question about Dent. He was calling for 30,000 Dow in 2000. Harry Dent is brilliant at marketing and worthless at making money for people. Dent is a crowd follower of the highest order. Whatever you want to hear, he will tell you.

            Someone did a survey a couple of years back and asked about 150 “gurus” what gold would do five years in the future. 149 of the people asked gave a price for gold in five years. One did not provide a number. that was me.

            Tell me what the dollar will be in five years and I could tell you what gold would be. But saying gold is going to $250, in what currency under what circumstances. But when people have been beaten to death for four years of a bear market, they want to hear things are going to go lower. So Dent will tell you.

            Sep 06, 2015 06:25 AM

            The base price of a ’65 Corvette was $4100 which was 117 ounces of gold at the time.
            The base price of a ’15 Corvette is $55,000 which is 49 ounces of gold today.
            The price of the new Corvette is just 42% of the old one.

            Sep 06, 2015 06:32 AM

            So ask me why Kathy an I buy and hold precious metals?

            Sep 06, 2015 06:33 AM

            But then again consider the value today of Concourse 65 stingrays!

            Sep 06, 2015 06:54 AM

            OWL…….it is not that you own it, but, when did you own it………starting in 1965 or 2005…….both a vette and a piece of gold , would be a good investement as well as a rolex. Moral to story, begin early, hold assets that appreciate……………jmho.

            Sep 06, 2015 06:00 PM

            COMPARING APPLES TO APPLES…………a new 2015 Vette at $55,000 , or a 1965 Vette with less than 500 miles would be $95,000 plus.

            Sep 06, 2015 06:14 PM

            I’d say there’s a bubble in old Corvettes (and old cars in general) that reflects our bubble-based monetary system. And that’s coming from someone who likes cars and “gets it.”
            Will the 2015 Corvette also roughly act like gold between now and 2065? I wouldn’t bet on it, but even if it does, there’s still storage, maintenance, and insurance costs to deal with not to mention the first two or three decades in which it would likely have little collectible value.
            Cars are a gamble compared to gold.

            Sep 06, 2015 06:52 PM

            I agree with there is a bubble in vettes….at this moment….and agree with your statement of possible future of a 2015 vette acting as gold in the future. And agree that cars are a gamble , ….like having the wrong model ,engine size ,color etc.
            And changing taste of the next generation. But, it is hard to ride on those gold coins to the store……………………lol

            Sep 06, 2015 06:28 PM

            Bob is right but I feel Dent is not only worthless but also poisonous. He is consistently making wrong calls which are beyond outrageous. His forecast for gold range from 250 to 2000 all in the same period. If there is an intolerable guy, he is the one.

          Sep 05, 2015 05:42 PM

          SD Marc, its not exactly true that the world has been flooded with newly ginned up money. Don’t forget how the process actually worked in the case of MBS’s for example. The Fed bought those from the most exposed banks and the banks turned around and deposited the money back with the Fed for a tiny amount of guaranteed interest. The money never entered the economy and as such there is no reason it should support higher gold prices. It was sleight of hand that supported the financial system be removing risk and shifting assets onto the Fed balance sheet but did not result in a lot of new borrowing which was supposed to stimulate the economy and expand credit.

      Sep 05, 2015 05:46 AM

      Original JJ, You yourself stated to Jon that big players move markets. That is why they are called market makers.

      I also don’t believe in ongoing planned manipulation, but I do believe that some of the filthy rich and powerfull from time to time coincidentally or not stick their heads together.

        Sep 05, 2015 05:54 AM

        O JJ, didn’t mean to provoke any stupid argument. 😀 Let us not waste time on this.

        Sep 05, 2015 05:56 AM

        Nic lets say you want to purchase a $1mill worth of CRJ stock now trading at .61 you think your going to move that stock to its major resistance level at .75, you sure will than as your buying power exhausts the/those sellers at .75 will drive the price lower again, only if you have the deep pockets to take out .78 will you then get those trading CRJ to turn and buy with you, happens all the time, manipulation, or big players trading deep positions?

          Sep 05, 2015 05:01 AM

          Your question will not provoke a stupid argument Nic, lets say stock XYZ is coming off, heading lower and you have a customer order to buy a lot of stock, are you going to buy immediately, no your going to wait until it comes down to a key support area and either buy just ahead of the key level or just below and get your fill as the sellers will provide the liquidity needed to fill your boots/order as they look to take it below support. Your order is big enough to prevent the support to fail so it goes back up and you start paying offers and then the street starts covering paying offers, that’s how markets work, manipulation or trading action?

            Sep 05, 2015 05:20 AM

            Well, sounds to me more like trading action. However there is really more to it when it comes to manipulating policies, using nations ( like Greece) as collateral for propping up markets or buying and selling Billions of paper commodities in order to ( maybe) drive prices up or down in the short to medium term. Thereby You would be making money on leveraged short positions when You and Your friends with deep pockets finally achieve that an asset spirals down in price. This can work in small markets I guess.

            I mean this was achieved in the silver market decades ago. Two brothers ( and just two brothers) achieved cornering the market and drove prices up, didn’t they? Or am I wrong on this one?

            I am really not someone who buys totally in those conspiracy theories, however, all the theories have some grain of truth to them, don’t You think?

            Thanks for taking the time.

            Sep 05, 2015 05:24 AM

            China produced rare earth metals at such ridiculously low prices that capitalist Western companies went broke. And look, today 96 % of this key industry, I mean mining, seperating and the downstream industry is located in China. Reconstructing it in Europe or North America will take several years.

            Coincidence? Maybe.

            Thanks for taking the time.

            Sep 05, 2015 05:39 AM

            Nic, I trade, like Avi I go with the flow not against it, so I don’t worry/focus and all the manipulation crap it has no chance of making me any money so I leave it to those that are hung up on it and will never be convinced otherwise.

            Tues and Yellen tells the world every market is being manipulated by the US feds, so what, what are you going to do now? So I trade on and leave the tin-foil hats to their old women theories.

            Sep 05, 2015 05:55 AM

            Logical, I understand that. I lost a lot of money because I listened for too long to Eric Sprott’s theories about gold and silver price suppression.

            As Chris temple says it, You can’t build a trading strategy or portfolio around prejudiced ideas. This way sooner or later You lose big time.

            Regards.

            Sep 05, 2015 05:59 AM

            If You are prejudiced You tend to listen to those people and only those people that reinforce Your theories. I remember a time when I only listened to David Morgan, Doug Casey, Rick Rule, Marin Katusa, Eric Sprott and the likes. Had I only listened to James West.

      Sep 05, 2015 05:08 PM

      I can’t agree. Against human nature!

    bb
    Sep 05, 2015 05:57 AM

    Avi figures gold is going down to $1000, maybe lower.
    Im surprised the pitchforks havnt come out.
    Doc figures down for another year.

    If that’s the case, how much does the overwhelming physical demand really affect price.
    We know there is incredible, unbelievable even unimaginable demand for physical due to the massive shortages we are experiencing, so kinda makes me wonder if physical demand is really having any effect on price other than premiums.

      Sep 05, 2015 05:27 PM

      BB:

      I just did some recalculation on gold in the world. There is a 70 year supply of gold above ground. In 50 years with no production, supply might start to be constrained. Short term physical demand is pretty meaningless.

      I deal with some big players. All of the signs such as 400 ounce bars carrying a premium for gold or 1000 ounce bars carrying a big premium just aren’t there. There is retail demand but that’s because the price is a lot lower than it has been. That’s how supply and demand are supposed to work. Price goes down, demand goes up. Any big premium over spot is local and short term.

    Sep 05, 2015 05:14 AM

    If you think premiums are getting high now…IF BY CHANCE DOCS projections are correct…THIS TIME NEXT YEAR the PREMIUMS will be really really really….high!!!!…I mean a ton more people would have figured that the ax is going to fall hard and fast!!

    bb
    Sep 05, 2015 05:45 AM

    Maybe premiums do go higher, good for dealers.
    A real accumulator might find getting a license would pay off.

    I used to tell that to some customers I had, that they bought enough they should have their own license and save 50-75%+.
    Nobody ever bothered tho.

      Sep 05, 2015 05:15 AM

      Great idea BB!!

        Sep 05, 2015 05:22 PM

        It is an interesting idea, Marc!

    Sep 05, 2015 05:50 AM

    Anyone that says market manipulation does not exist in gold market is either uninformed or has an agenda. Gold manipulation has been documented very heavily and if anyone wants to educate themselves on it here is book that follows DATA as evidence of this manipulation. When cop investigates murder he follows DNA evidence and does not follow one’s opinion as to who has done it. EVIDENCE /DATA is where it’s at NOT THE OPINION !!!! And there is plenty of DATA / EVIDENCE in this book.

    http://www.amazon.com/Gold-Cartel-Government-Intervention-Bubble/dp/1137286423/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1441471373&sr=8-1&keywords=GOLD+CARTEL

      Sep 05, 2015 05:09 AM

      ok stewie its 1000% manipulated, so what! what are YOU going to do about it?

      Again the central banks of the world have a press release next week we are manipulating gold, what are you going to do now that they confirm the manipulation, you, me and everyone else is going to do nothing!!! and it really doesn’t matter if we know the truth, who cares!!!!!

      Don’t we have much bigger issues to worry about than market “maybe” manipulations, how about the millions of poor refugee’s fleeing war torn areas of Europe with only the clothes on their backs where are all the righteous bastards of the world on this very real issue.

      Anyone making donations to the U.N. Refugee Agency with all the money they are making in these manipulated markets, my wife and I have, regardless of many who say donations never get to the source.

      out of here

      Sep 05, 2015 05:26 PM

      You have to define what you mean by manipulation.

      If you mean market action causing the price to fall in order to cover a short position and then selling back at a higher price, then of course!

    Sep 05, 2015 05:55 AM

    Furthermore i would like non believers in manipulation explain how can 1 year entire world’s supply of silver be DUMPED (YES DUMPED) in 1 hour of trading? I’ll be waiting for this answer. One word HFT. Period.

    Sep 05, 2015 05:17 AM

    Stewie…that is basically spot on…the comex is a scam period…it falls in the same category as bankers NOT getting thrown in jail permanently for MASSIVE fraud!!!

    Sep 05, 2015 05:19 AM

    Interview with Dimitri Speck author of the book The Gold Cartel
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WRncnX8l6w

    Sep 05, 2015 05:20 AM

    they hang people in other countries for that….ah………………China…that is not what I am saying to do..but, when it is on that massive a scale..or less…..you destroy peoples lives…..jail and throw the keys away….salt water and peanut butter….breakfast, lunch and dinner…then we they are really sick you give them plenty of water…..then you wash, rinse and repeat!!..:)

    Sep 05, 2015 05:21 AM

    One reason I visit this site is due to Bob Moriarty..I trust him…

      Sep 05, 2015 05:25 AM

      Yes agreed, Bob M, Gary S, Sprott are honest folks. Sprott recommends this book for reading and read it himself. It’s really not about opinion but about data the big block dumps on the exchange that are dumped in mili seconds. There is also book Flash Boys that documents HFTs as well.

      GOLD MANIPULATION IS NOT THEORY. IT’S A FACT BUT YOU NEED TO SEE DATA IN ORDER TO AGREE. OTHERWISE YOU JUST RELAY ON SOMEONE’S FALSE OPINION.

        Tim
        Sep 05, 2015 05:28 PM

        The problems with a lot of this argument is word choice. Stewie, what you are talking about is TRADING and its been done for ages. I was on the trading floor in the 80s when China worked hard to drive soy bean prices lower so that they could get better prices. The Hunt brothers tried to corner silver. Icahn buys AAPL and goes on TV to talk the stock higher. This is all what goes on in markets all the time. It just happens that the gold market can be incredibly thin with many of the owners being weak hands that panic and fall prey over and over to larger operators like hedge funds that are able to push markets around. When anyone talks of manipulation, PPT intervention, Fed capping gold it’s best to run in the other directions (Sinclair, GATA, etc.). Also you have to know that eveyone talks their book.. Sprot is hard asset outfit hence is alwyas bullish.

          Sep 05, 2015 05:41 PM

          Tim got ya but volume and size trades that are in gold market does not show size like for example in soy beans and Icahn can not do volume like PPT does. PPT team exercises those dumps via cartel/commercials. It’s been stated many times by numerous ppl that purpose of it is to defend the dollar and as payment to those outfits (cartel) they get the profits from trading as insider. It’s win win situation for both sides. In soy bean market it’s just profit. In gold it’s dollar protection. After all it’s world reserve currency and bankers have printing press. I suspect dollar has been propped up cause QE4 will be announced which will weaken $ substantially but from much higher levels. That also allowed commercial to take long positions from lower levels for profit. Questions is when this long position for them will take place. That is million dollar question and that is how this ties into manipulation i guess which was my point 🙂 I wish everyone good luck in trading tho.

            Tim
            Sep 05, 2015 05:50 PM

            Okay Stewie we’ll agree to differ 😉 Markets trade, the PPT/Fed/bogey man are not involved in day-to-day action. Yes the Fed is a giant manipulator of interest rates, which is a very big deal, but as trader doing this for 35 years, I deal in facts, not hope or faith. There is, and to date never has been, any proof, nor even a reasonable argument, the the PPT/Fed is busy rigging the markets. And to those that believe that it is happening, then they are hypocrites for even investing/trading in the markets because it would be worse than going to Vegas and probably more like playing the lottery.

            Sep 05, 2015 05:56 PM

            Our wives lie about their weight. We live with it. That’s just part of life the same way markets are not always a level playing field. We just have to familiarize ourselves with the territory to play the game and usually it works out fine knowing the costs up front (we still marry knowing full well our lovely will probably be chunky one fine day!).

          Sep 05, 2015 05:29 PM

          Tim it’s ok but there is plenty of evidence in Speck book. You should read it seriously. Also as i said please explain to me 1 yr entire world silver mine production dump ?

          I don’t see that in soy beans. Point is you are ignoring some of the data facts and accepting others. DNA evidence is in data not opinion. PPT is heavily involved in all market manipulations at this point and their number one focus conventional markets protection as well as dollar. When they’re ready they will let dollar fall in order to devalue the debt to china. Another book i would recommend is Jim Rickards Currency Wars and Death of Money. Good luck brother.

            Tim
            Sep 05, 2015 05:03 PM

            Stewie, there are days when the entire float of a company’s stock is traded in a single day. It doesn’t mean anything other than there were a lot of buys and a lot of sellers. It happens in stocks, commodities, etc. I have over 200 books in my office (that I have read)including Speck and Rickards. There is a lot of GUESSING, SPECULATION, etc. but no facts. I can read the same things about the existence of God. In trading, as a professional, I just deal in facts and there aren’t any, period.

            Tim
            Sep 05, 2015 05:05 PM

            One other thing – for example Rickards books starts out with the story of the mysterious people shorting airline stocks ahead of 9/11. It’s not a mystery! I know the guys that were doing it and they were talked to by the SEC – it was simply a bet on a recession and had nothing to do with 9/11. A lot of trading is just common sense and not some tin-foil-hat-wearing lunacy.

          Sep 05, 2015 05:51 PM

          TIm please read reset of my comments below. It’s NOT tin foil hat but there is reason as to why suppression is being done. I have explained below. It’s dollar protection. I’ve explained in details below. Also anyone using words like “tin foil hat” and “boogie man” is obviously trying to discredit me which means i’m right and YOU KNOW IT so that means you have an agenda. Is this you Avi? hahhaha
          In any case how many years you have trader means ZERO. There are people that are sheep through most of their lives and chose to believe what they are told. Just my 2 cents.

      CFS
      Sep 05, 2015 05:27 AM

      When he touts a stock and says do your own due diligence, you should do your own due diligence.

      Sep 05, 2015 05:28 PM

      You should if for no other reason than he says what he believes.

    Sep 05, 2015 05:40 AM

    Stewie:

    Of course gold manipulation is a fact. It’s like corn manipulation and soybean manipulation and currency manipulation and Bond manipulation. It exists. So what?

    The sun rises in the east. So what?

      Sep 05, 2015 05:58 AM

      Hi Bob. Trade their patterns not against them. Pay attention to sentiment especially extremes and COT positions. Commercials which is cartel is usually right. Small specs are always wrong. When commercial are wrong they arrange short term manipulation then they take right position. They can’t lose most of the time until position size limits are enforced which won’t be for now. So paying attention to those dumps in thin markets should not be ignored and people coming on the show saying manipulation does NOT exist have an agenda unfortunately.

        Sep 05, 2015 05:01 PM

        Stewie, if the commercials were so smart then explain why they were net short for the entire decade long bull run in gold. They have not been net long since 2001!!!! And they are still short.

          Sep 05, 2015 05:10 PM

          A listener they are very smart. They are PPT. They were/are short to prevent gold from rising and to keep faith in dollar. Other words preserve dollar as world reserve currency. If they would not be short possibly already gold would be $4,000 and masses would notice that and would flee $ to gold therefore casing hyperinflation. Gold would be at $10,000 due to loss of confidence in the dollar and THEIR paper faith system which is federal reserve system. So even on rise up they are still short in order for gold to rise in controlled matter not dramatically that wall street and common Joe on the street would see. LOSS OF FAITH IN DOLLAR CURRENCY CAUSES HYPERINFLATION AND $ BECOMES WORTHLESS like in Zimba and Weimar German Republic. They are always short and will be as that is part of their mandate.

            Sep 05, 2015 05:12 PM

            A listener one more thing they have printing press and they can print whatever amount of $ money they want in order to go net short in order to suppress gold rise to keep faith in paper currency. A debt bubble burst when it happens will cause loss of faith anyway and they gold will take off like a rocket. Until then we are victims of fraud.

            Sep 05, 2015 05:36 PM

            Well then they are one hell of a bunch of good guys if that is the case stewie because as it turns out the Commercials were also net short rice too for most of its decade long run from 2002 until 2012. So according to your logic they were also doing that to suppress the price of rice and probably help those poor starving Asians.

            They must be a charity.

            They were also mostly short coffee, cocoa, cotton, orange juice, sugar and even corn for most of its bull run. How do you explain that odd coincidence? Maybe you never noticed that the Commercials are on the other side of the trade from the large traders.

            Or does that figure in your theory? Do me a favour Stewie. Next time you come up with wild-eyed price suppression theory about the Commercials precious metals price suppression methods please make an effort to first explain their identical actions with most of the rest of the commodity market.

            I mean ….please try to make sense.

            Rough Rice Futures Contracts of 20000 pounds. –Look at the COTS stewie. Ain’t that kinda weird?
            http://finviz.com/futures_charts.ashx?t=ZR&p=m1

            Sep 05, 2015 05:35 PM

            Agre or disagree, Steele you make your opinion in a very clear manner.

            Sep 05, 2015 05:34 PM

            Stweie:

            Remember back to when you were in school and reading history books. None of them were filled with stories about how smart people in government were. All of them were filled with story after story about how abysmally stupid people in government were.

          Sep 05, 2015 05:01 PM

          A listener i’m not going to claim i know much about rice or coffee or pork bellies prices or COT positions. I do however know what i see in Gold and silver COT so i can speak to that. I do not know COT in pork bellies or what commercial did or they didn’t. What you say may be true or it also may not be. I don’t simply know pork bellies so will not speak to that but read the specks book then come back to forum. Your outlook will be 180 different i promise you that.

            Sep 05, 2015 05:04 PM

            Also i suspect pork bellies futures do not matter to PPT or dollar paper system if that answers your questions as to WHY

            Sep 05, 2015 05:23 PM

            I can guarantee my position on this subject will not change an inch no matter what spec report I see. All I need to know is how traders behave in general across the whole spectrum of resources to know the theory of gold price suppression by the Commercial Hedgers is nonsense.

          Sep 05, 2015 05:20 PM

          I am just saying, try not to draw too many conclusions about gold based on the COT’s. Not in isolation anyway. Personally I don’t give that manipulation theory any weight whatsoever in my approach to the gold market because it will just make you mental.

          CFS
          Sep 05, 2015 05:41 PM

          Your history books must have been different from mine.

          I remember George Washington as very intelligent, refusing to be put in essentially a King position, and essentially creating much of the federalization of essentially 13 separate country states.
          I remember Lincoln, speaking out against slavery, at a time when it had long been abolished in Europe, but holding the country together, even though the Civil War was terrible. I remember JFK trying to abolish the Fed, although I’m glad Khrushchev had the sense to blink, rather than start a nuclear war.

    Sep 05, 2015 05:23 PM

    Stewie:

    I think you are reading something into this. What people are trying to say is that manipulation is noise. It exists but it’s not a signal, it’s noise.

      Sep 05, 2015 05:50 PM

      Bob-
      Has your wife EVER won an “argument” with you…:)..none of my business just….askin..:

        Sep 05, 2015 05:38 PM

        I guarantee that Barbara has won many arguments! Guaranteed.

        Sep 05, 2015 05:28 PM

        SD Marc:

        Fair question. Every time she is right and I am wrong she wins. I don’t have any problem with facts and logic, just with fantasies and nonsense.

        Manipulation is meaningless nonsense. There are 100 reasons to own gold, manipulation isn’t one of them. There will come a time to sell gold. Those who believe in manipulation as being significant will not sell.

        I was in the gold market from 1968 through Jan 21, 1980. The bulls were the guys who lost money. They wouldn’t take a profit. I run the site so we can help people, not so I can make some silly fantasy come true.

        No matter what you ever buy, no matter at what price, there is a time to sell.

          Sep 05, 2015 05:30 PM

          Time to sell? You really think so?

            Sep 06, 2015 06:12 AM

            You may end up being a regular silver Tutankhamen one day Al. in the future people will marvel at the hand crafted two tonne casket molded out of solid 99.9% pure silver coins and bearing your image plated in gold. That’s one way to make sure the kids never sell the treasure trove. And the other thing is the best way to hide precious metals is to put them in plain sight. So you can put the creation right in the middle of your living room like its a coffee table. Not one person in a million will actually believe its all silver and gold either. Talk about passing on wealth inter-generationally and ensuring your hard work never gets squandered.

      Sep 05, 2015 05:26 PM

      It’s powerful noise tho Bob so i pay attention to that noise as well. I try to move with them and not to go against the grain. I love your website tho sir. Frequent reader.

      Sep 05, 2015 05:37 PM

      Amen, Bob.

    Sep 05, 2015 05:49 PM

    Manipulation: and I’m a believer…

    Since 1971 and removal of the gold stAndard, the Dow has risen from an average price of about 875 to today’s 16000ish. That’s 18 times the price. Gold has risen from $35 to $1125. 32 times the 1971 price. Of course we all know that $35 wasn’t suppressed. Snicker snicker.

      Sep 05, 2015 05:03 PM

      What you are actually saying is that gold is vastly overpriced. The proof is in the math you just presented.

        Sep 05, 2015 05:54 PM

        Actually, I did not say that. You saw what you wanted to believe. A data point can be grabbed from any point in time, or segment of time, and depending on your bias, can be made to look like anything you want. Data is easily manipulated. Ask any data analyst.

        If I add the fact that in modern times, A Listener, a gold bull market will end with around a 1:1 ratio of gold to the Dow, then gold is severely underpriced or the Dow is severely overpriced, or a little of both. Will it be like that again? Who knows. We only have history to draw our conclusions from, and this is the history we have.

        What it really says is that gold can be a generational wealth preserver like it was for thousands of years. And now the greatest portion of the public is an investor is the grandest experiment in financial market history and we aren’t quite sure how this experiment will
        turn out.

          Sep 05, 2015 05:54 PM

          Your mat

          Sep 05, 2015 05:05 PM

          Lets try that again!

          Your math says that the Dow rose 18 times but gold rose 32 times from equal starting points. That should tell us one of them is overpriced or one is under priced or a little of each. You did not need to say it in blunt words but it is implied in the calculation where inflation is generally equal for all categories of assets over very long periods of time whether that be homes, precious metals or stocks. So whenever the gold community tries to baffle and boggle my mind with how impressively gold rose versus the Dow or housing or whatever they usually get no applause from me because they ALWAYS miss the obvious. What rises too quickly relative to another asset will always find its way back to earth again. But don’t take my word for it. Just look at the charts. Gold is in a bear while stocks have rallied for most of the past many years and some of us believe that trend will continue until balance is restored. So I suspect it is gold that is still overpriced relative to stocks.

            Sep 05, 2015 05:13 PM

            In other words, golds fair market value might be no more than 890 dollars if the 1971 ratio were to be restored. And you know what? That sounds just about right to me.

            CFS
            Sep 05, 2015 05:01 PM

            I agree with you logic Listener. The problem comes in choosing the starting point for the comparison.
            Since the price of gold was held constant from 1934 until 1971, should the starting point be 1971 or 1934. They give substantially different answers.

            Sep 05, 2015 05:44 PM

            But here’s the bottom line:

            If you believe the secular gold bull is still intact, secular Bulls in modern times end with around a 1:1 ratio with the Dow. If you think it’s over, then it’s different this time. So ask yourself that question and then look at the prices of the Dow and gold. What’s overpriced and what’s underpriced? This is history, not me.

            Sep 05, 2015 05:50 PM

            Of course if inflation were to really break loose and fool all the defationists, then it’s all different. For now they’ve been able to keep the monetary inflation in stocks and bonds.

    Sep 05, 2015 05:03 PM

    CLAIMS PER OZ OF GOLD at comex………….jumped to 126:1…………..zerohedge

      Sep 05, 2015 05:31 PM

      FFM,
      From Jesse:
      “The clever quislings for the bullion banks will note that an actual default on the Comex is unlikely, and they are right. It is not really a ‘physical delivery’ exchange, but is now primarily a betting shop. There is plenty of gold in the warehouses, if you do not concern yourself with the niceties of property rights. And claims can be force settled in cash on a declaration of force majeure. ”

      But who knows what the Shanghai Gold Exchange can do for 2016 or before ?

      “The physical delivery exchanges are in other places, like the LBMA in London and especially the markets of Asia such as the Shanghai Gold Exchange.
      And this is where we will see the first signs of a breakdown in the gold price manipulation pool of the bullion banks, first as signs of ‘tightness’ in the delivery of metals, and then in the initial ‘fails to deliver.’
      Rising prices will provide relief. But the pool operators are not shy about pressing and doubling down, in a familiar pattern of overreach. Remember the eventual demise of ‘the London Whale?’

        Sep 05, 2015 05:11 PM

        thanks for the info Gabriel………………………….ccf,ffm,ootb………..

    Sep 05, 2015 05:35 PM

    Greenspan said something interesting in 1993 …

    “I have one other issue I’d like to throw on the table. I hesitate to do it, but let me tell you some of the issues that are involved here. If we are dealing with psychology, then the thermometers one uses to measure it have an effect. I was raising the question on the side with Governor Mullins of what would happen if the Treasury sold a little gold in this market. (just a little)

    There’s an interesting question here because if the gold price broke [lower] in that context, the thermometer would not be just a measuring tool. It would basically affect the underlying psychology.

    Now, we don’t have the ‘legal’ right to sell gold but I’m just frankly curious about what people’s views are on situations of this nature because something unusual is involved in policy here. We’re not just going through the standard policy where the money supply is expanding, the economy is expanding, and the Fed tightens. This is a wholly different thing.”

    Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve Minutes from May 18, 1993

    Sep 05, 2015 05:40 PM

    We now have a little H&S top in gold. If legit and not a trap, gold should retest its low around 1072. Watching how the gold-silver ratio acts on the way will be and useful.
    http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=$GOLD&p=D&yr=1&mn=0&dy=0&id=p99112526366&a=406396269&listNum=1

      Sep 05, 2015 05:06 PM

      Matthew, you know very well that’s just a “pattern” since we can’t have a head and shoulders form at the bottom of a declining range. 🙂

        Sep 05, 2015 05:16 PM

        That’s my hope this time as well. 😉

        Sep 05, 2015 05:19 PM

        I have to add that when I questioned the last one, it had not yet taken out the neckline. All technical patterns are nothing until they are confirmed. Sometimes they even prove to be nothing after they are confirmed.

          Sep 05, 2015 05:45 PM

          No problem. Even I was not 100% certain. After looking at a lot of other charts though it comes up as a fairly regular pattern but one that is ignored by most technicians. I think the reason is that it is not as consistent or reliable an indicator as a H&S coming off a rising market. Not much more to it than that. Kind of like trying to read pennants and triangles. You don’t really know for sure which way they will break without the advantage of using Mclellan Osciallators or other similar tools to hint more conclusively at the coming directional change.

          Sep 05, 2015 05:10 PM

          Probably a good 50 dollars of short room there since its dropped below the 50 day MA. That should last until mid month before we get a bottom. I figure this is really all about oil at this stage of the game anyway. It’s got the limelight this month.

            Sep 05, 2015 05:26 PM

            On a high note though….gold could make a double bottom once it touches down.

      LPG
      Sep 05, 2015 05:23 PM

      Thx Matthew.
      Best as always,
      LPG

      Sep 05, 2015 05:15 PM

      Thanks LPG. As you know, I don’t consider this a secular bull in stocks for various reasons but it has been a very convincing countertrend rally. However, I agree with Jim and Ralph about the Dow and S&P having seen their respective nominal or USD lows in 2008.

      We saw an interesting pattern at the start of the last secular bull that I think will roughly play out this time. When most people talk about the last bull market they say it started around 1980 and ended in 2000. Since I look at things in real terms, I happen to agree with most people this time (for a change). The funny thing is, stocks made their nominal or dollar low many years earlier, in 1974.

      The Dow peaked at about 1,000 in 1966 and made its final nominal low in 1974. In this respect, 1966=2000 and 1974=2008. And since a higher high was made in 1972, that year represents 2007. You see, history repeats.

      So why does everyone consider the early ’80s to be the beginning of the great bull? It’s simple; in real terms (gold) it was. Priced in gold, 1966=1999 and 1974=2011. In each span, the Dow plunged about 85% versus gold (about 28 ounces to less than 4 and 44+ ounces to less than 6, respectively). Both periods were followed by convincing reversals and nearly a tripling of the Dow-gold ratio. Considering the massive real loss in the value of the Dow, a big, long bounce makes sense. But the final low for Dow:Gold was still ahead then and, I believe, still ahead now. I think 1976=2015 and that 1980 is a few years away (2019/20?).

      This time, stocks never became truly cheap or widely reviled like they did around 1980. Considering the debt and various other major concerns this time that didn’t exist then, I think it’s reasonable to expect a worse outcome, not a better one.

      https://www.goldbroker.com/media/image/cms/media/images/big-picture-view-dow-gold-ratio/50-years-dow-gold-ratio.gif

        LPG
        Sep 05, 2015 05:20 PM

        V. interesting points and observations Matthew.

        I like the years comparison: 1966-74 and 2000-08. Do you use these 8 yrs time frames as a tribute to Martin’s cycle work or is it just coincidence? 🙂 🙂 🙂
        Teaaaaaaaaasing.

        Again, v. interesting thoughts and observations.

        Best as always,

        LPG

          Sep 05, 2015 05:43 PM

          Ha ha. 😐
          For the record, cycles of many lengths have been clear to me for a long time so the most important part of Martin’s work is the least controversial to me. My criticism have had a lot more to do with his opinions. 🙂

            LPG
            Sep 05, 2015 05:53 PM

            Big hugs Matthew 🙂 🙂 🙂

    Sep 05, 2015 05:25 PM

    I wish everyone good Labor day weekend. Great conversation.

      Sep 05, 2015 05:43 PM

      Mg sentiments exactly, Stew

    Sep 05, 2015 05:29 PM

    Enjoyed the interview with Avi, however, it would have been nice to hear more of him rather than Cory. I thought the overall idea of having guests was to delve into the mind of that individual. A little less editorial view and more questions of the guest would be more insightful.

      LPG
      Sep 05, 2015 05:43 PM

      David,

      Avi has been on the show 3 times in 1 week… 3 times…
      Personally, I understand where he stands on conv mkets, gold, silver, oil. It’s all there.

      Cory does a good job during interviews, IMHO.

      GL investing/trading.

      LPG

      Sep 05, 2015 05:48 PM

      It’s an interactive interview style. Cory is getting to be a pretty good technician too.

        Sep 05, 2015 05:44 PM

        Yes, Cory certainly is!

      LFP
      Sep 05, 2015 05:44 PM

      David,

      I agree totally with your comments.
      The actual ”talk time” per participant breaks down, precisely, as follows:

      Fleck: 148 seconds 27.6%
      Korelin: 154 seconds 30.4%

      Gilburt: 205 seconds 40.4%

      The remaining +1.x % was consumed by the intro’s ”jingle music” & Coleen Robbins’s disclaimer, which followed the interview’s end, so these weren’t included in the ”talk time” stats above. 😉

        LFP
        Sep 05, 2015 05:55 PM

        CORRECTION [ & Apologies to all }

        Fleck: 148 seconds 24.4%
        Korelin: 154 seconds 25.4%

        Gilburt: 305 seconds 50.3%

        The remaining 42 seconds was consumed by the intro’s ”jingle music” & Coleen Robbins’s disclaimer, which followed the interview’s end, so these weren’t included in the ”talk time” stats above.

          Sep 06, 2015 06:14 AM

          personally I prefer an interactive interview whereby the guest answers questions. Rickards, Celente, and Lynsay Williams, et al, seem to have something to say regardless of the questions at hand.

    LPG
    Sep 05, 2015 05:05 PM

    Interesting read on the eco side of things:
    http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/urban-carmel/september-macro-update
    Best,
    LPG

    LPG
    Sep 05, 2015 05:01 PM

    Franky, I think you’re sipping 🙂
    Hope all’s well.
    With love,
    LPG

    LPG
    Sep 05, 2015 05:34 PM

    “Cool is the way” Franky !
    🙂
    Bonne fin de WE,
    LPG

    CFS
    Sep 05, 2015 05:05 PM

    Qu’est-ce c’est WE?

      Sep 05, 2015 05:24 PM

      Weekend.

    Sep 05, 2015 05:08 PM

    There a confluence of some support in the 1080-1090 area for gold. Other indicators also don’t point to a move beyond that at this time. That could change though.
    http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=%24GOLD&p=W&yr=4&mn=11&dy=22&id=p27995358279&a=423222946

    CFS
    Sep 05, 2015 05:37 PM

    Am I the only person who spends a lot of time looking at volume and insider data?

    The pundits are saying things like. “The economy is good, look at all the companies that are so confident, they are buying backs their own stocks. This makes sense because interest rates are so low, it is better for companies to invest in their own stock rather than park money in a bank at negligible interest.”

    Sounds logical, right?

    In many cases I think it is absolute BS.
    if you look at announced buy-back programs and volume of trading for some companies, you find that the buy-back program is doing most of the buy-side of trading in a stock…..without it the price would have dropped substantially.

    For other companies you find that board members are selling much of the stock they hold, and it is the buy-back program that is buying those shares.
    (Talk about conflict of interest!)
    There are a lot of insiders bailing out at this time in a lot of companies.

    This is my primary reason for believing the economy is not as strong as portrayed by the pundits. This is why I am on the short side of neutral in my general market holdings.

    Combined with obvious rotation amongst sectors; often a sign of topping.
    Also I am concerned with the amount of Algo trading or trading bots.
    A sector ETF often has a lot fewer stocks than the sector it represents.
    Usually the ETF contains the biggest, high volume stocks in a sector.
    At the moment it is easy to see the ETFs being heavily traded, but much reduced trading compared to normal times in the non-ETF stocks in the sector.
    With a lot of the total volume made up of HFT, bots and algos, I’m worried about a computer generated runaway situation. Perhaps I’m being overly cautious.

    Comments, folks?

      Sep 05, 2015 05:33 PM

      Most companies buying back shares are doing so to let large shareholders out at top dollar. This obviously comes at the expense of the company and small/dumb shareholders.

      Where were the buybacks in March 2009?

      If a company is a buy without the buyback (low PE; more cash than MCAP; earnings growth, etc) then the buyback might make sense. Such cases are rare.

      Sep 05, 2015 05:36 PM

      QE, by the way, can be seen in the same light. The Fed/US gov is letting favored trading partners out of very large positions at top dollar (above market) at the expense of USA, Inc and its workforce. The effects of which are still to come.

    Sep 06, 2015 06:49 AM

    SPEAKING OF WAR AND KILLING: Big Al and Bob M, you might find this interesting.
    http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/35791

      Sep 06, 2015 06:41 AM

      Martin Armstrong is one of the most well read people I have ever known of. I don’t believe he is the guru he would like to claim but his knowledge is very broad.

      I’m not a big fan of religion as it is the source of most really ugly wars. The middle east is a great example. It’s all about tribes and tribalism. There is no solution other than give them all guns and plant flowers.

        Sep 06, 2015 06:58 AM

        ARMSTRONG should just stick to politics…….for he is lacking on scripture……

      Sep 06, 2015 06:44 AM

      Pretty hard to disagree with Martin’s views. But so what? The obvious is not particularly insightful!

    Sep 06, 2015 06:53 AM

    DITTO-
    On September 5, 2015 at 2:29 pm,
    David says:
    Enjoyed the interview with Avi, however, it would have been nice to hear more of him rather than Cory. I thought the overall idea of having guests was to delve into the mind of that individual. A little less editorial view and more questions of the guest would be more insightful.

    Sep 06, 2015 06:39 AM

    Gold in Fed-Rate-Hike Cycles
    Adam Hamilton September 4, 2015 3076 Words

    The epicenter of gold’s intractable weakness over the past couple years has been the Federal Reserve’s upcoming rate-hike cycle. Everyone assumes higher interest rates will devastate zero-yielding gold, leaving it far less attractive. This premise led investors to avoid gold like the plague, and speculators to short sell it at wild record extremes. But provocatively, history proves gold thrives in Fed-rate-hike cycles.

    It’s easy to understand how the Fed’s first rate-hike cycle in over 9 years has cast a pall over traders’ gold outlook. While gold’s unique attributes make it exceptionally valuable for portfolio diversification, it generates no cash flows. Gold will never pay dividends or interest, which makes it a sterile investment. Presumably demand for yield-less assets will wane as rate hikes naturally force yields on bonds higher.

    While this bearish gold thesis sounds perfectly logical, its core assumption is fatally flawed. While gold has never offered a yield, investors all over the world have still flocked to it all throughout history. They certainly weren’t looking for a yield play, and bought gold to take advantage of its formidable strengths on other fronts. If yield had ever been this metal’s dominant attribute, gold would indeed be essentially worthless.

    While gold was infinitely outgunned on yields by literally everything that pays one, it still blasted 638% higher in the decade ending in August 2011. These returns were vastly superior to the dividend-heavy S&P 500, which slid 1.9% over that same 10.4-year span. While yielding absolutely nothing, gold still skyrocketed 2332% higher in the decade ending in January 1980! Bond yields were crazy-high then too.

    Gold has never been a yield play, and never will be. The widespread antipathy towards this leading alternative investment today on the idea that rising rates will slaughter it is simply a flimsy rationalization of popular bearishness. Consider how silly this yield-trumps-all notion would be in the stock markets, where plenty of the hottest and most-adored stocks like Amazon and Netflix have never paid dividends.

    Dividend-less stocks are sterile investments just like gold, yet Wall Street fawns on them. Just like gold, their prices are determined by the intersection of trader supply and demand that has nothing to do with their zero-yielding nature. Have you ever heard anyone argue that higher prevailing interest rates are going to devastate stocks that don’t pay dividends? Of course not, and that notion is just as tenuous applied to gold.

    So rather than blindly accepting today’s groupthink belief that gold is doomed in the Fed’s upcoming rate-hike cycle, why not check the historical record? While this uber-dovish Fed hasn’t raised interest rates in many years, there have still been plenty of Fed-rate-hike cycles in modern history. So how has zero-yielding gold performed during these past central-bank tightenings? Are rate hikes really a threat to gold?

    To find out, I downloaded nearly a half-century of daily Federal Funds Rate data directly from the Fed itself. This FFR is the primary interest rate the Fed directly controls, what it sets its policy target for when it hikes or cuts rates. The federal-funds market is where banks lend and borrow cash deposits on an overnight basis that they hold at the Federal Reserve. Most other interest rates key off the Fed’s FFR.

    In a mind-numbing exercise of tedium, I looked at every decision by the Fed’s Federal Open Market Committee that sets the federal-funds-rate target since 1971. And there were a lot of them, the FOMC changed its federal-funds-rate target 251 times in the 46 years since. I found that high number pretty surprising. The FOMC holds 8 policy meetings per year, equating to around 368 over that entire span.

    That implies the FOMC either hiked or cut the FFR at over 2/3rds of its meetings, which seems way too high. And it probably is, since the FOMC sometimes chooses to change rates between meetings when volatile market conditions sufficiently frighten its members. But there has been an abundance of Fed rate hikes over the past half-century, a large sample size to see how zero-yielding gold has fared in their midst.

    Since investors and speculators today are very worried about how gold will perform in a sustained Federal Reserve rate-hike cycle, I ignored isolated FFR hikes surrounded by cuts. Since 1971 the Fed has made 6 lone rate hikes bracketed by cuts. And there were 6 more episodes where the FFR was raised two times back-to-back but was then reduced again. One or two isolated hikes certainly don’t make a cycle.

    I decided to generously define a Fed-rate-hike cycle as 3 or more consecutive increases in the federal-funds rate with no decreases. These rate-hike cycles start at the Fed’s first rate hike, and end at the Fed’s last rate hike before it starts cutting rates again. By this 3-or-more definition, the Federal Reserve has executed 11 rate-hike cycles since 1971. Gold’s performance in these is critical for its outlook today.

    While this red daily federal-funds-rate data is directly from the Fed itself, it looks a lot more volatile than most would expect. This is because the FFR is technically a free-market interest rate determined by the federal-funds supply and demand from commercial banks. The FOMC doesn’t actually directly set its FFR, instead it sets a target level which it then attempts to achieve through its own federal-funds buying and selling.

    For each Fed-rate-hike cycle, 4 key metrics are noted. Each cycle’s total federal-funds-rate increase in basis-point terms is shown in red, followed by the number of separate hikes it took the Fed to complete. That’s followed by how long each rate-hike cycle took in months in white. And last but not least is gold’s price reaction over the exact spans of the Fed’s rate-hike cycles in blue. This really defies prevailing consensus.

    If the Federal Reserve’s rate-hike cycles were indeed gold’s arch-nemesis, this zero-yielding sterile asset should have been hammered in the great majority of them. Instead gold actually rallied through 6 of the 11 modern Fed-rate-hike cycles! And at average gains seen within these exact rate-hike-cycle spans of a staggering +61.0%, gold did amazingly well. Gold often didn’t just weather rate hikes, but thrived in them!

    And in the other 5 Fed-rate-hike cycles where gold indeed lost ground as everyone expects today, the losses were comparatively moderate. The average losses over these exact rate-hike-cycle spans were just 13.9%. While those are major losses, they are still a far cry from the gold death spiral that investors and speculators seem to be expecting in the Fed’s next rate-hike cycle. Gold has proven very resilient.

    And even though investors and speculators have notoriously short-term memories, it’s inexcusable that they can’t at least look to the Fed’s last rate-hike cycle to see how gold performed. Between June 2004 and June 2006, the Federal Reserve raised its benchmark federal-funds rate by a total of 425 basis points in 17 separate hikes! This more than quintupled the FFR from 1.00% at the start to 5.25% at the end.

    That last rate-hike cycle was exceptionally intense. It was the first since the extreme rate hikes of the 1970s with over 10 hikes, over 400 basis points of hiking, and lasting over a year. So if there was ever a modern rate-hike cycle that should have obliterated gold as everyone expects today, that last mid-2000s one was sure it. Since gold yields nothing, demand for it should’ve cratered if that argument is correct.

    Yet what happened? Gold surged 49.6% higher within that exact Fed-rate-hike span! That’s a heck of a rally in two years, trouncing the benchmark S&P 500 stock-market gains of just 12.0% in that same timeframe. And those strong gold gains happened while the federal-funds rate soared all the way back over 5%. This naturally catapulted bond yields much higher, which traders argue should’ve destroyed gold demand.

    And provocatively, that last rate-hike cycle was more extreme in every way than the Fed is telegraphing its next one will be. The federal-funds rate has been at zero continuously since December 2008 when the FOMC panicked in response to that year’s epic stock panic. Fed officials are very worried about the liftoff from ZIRP sparking a major selloff in the US equity markets, so they are planning very slow hikes.

    After every other FOMC meeting, the Fed publishes the economic projections of FOMC voting members who actually set the FFR target levels along with the presidents of the regional Fed banks. And at its recent mid-June meeting, the latest projections by the Fed officials who make these decisions put the FFR around just 1.5% in 2016, 3.0% in 2017, and 3.5% over the “longer run”. That frames these coming rate hikes.

    If the FOMC gradually raises its FFR target from today’s 0.0% to 3.5% over the next couple years, we are looking at 350bp of hikes. At 25bp per hike which is exactly what the Fed did in the mid-2000s, this would take 14 hikes. Such a rate-hike cycle would be less extreme than the last one in every way, including the total FFR increase, the duration of the tightening cycle, and the number of individual rate hikes.

    And I suspect this coming rate-hike cycle will prove even more moderate than that. This uber-dovish Yellen Fed is already implying a “one-and-done” strategy. The FOMC is so worried about triggering an adverse market reaction that it doesn’t seem to want to keep hiking rates at every meeting. Instead it will likely spread the rate hikes out, skipping meetings. That makes for a much-shallower trajectory of rising rates.

    On top of that, Fed officials’ future federal-funds-rate projections have proven wildly optimistic for years. The Bernanke Fed started releasing these projections at every other FOMC meeting back in April 2011, in order to promote transparency. They started including FFR projections in January 2012. And back then, these elite Fed officials forecast the federal-funds rate averaging 4%+ after 2014! That was sure wrong.

    The key point here is since gold rallied so strongly in that last major rate-hike cycle in the mid-2000s, it should have no problem rallying again in the far-milder coming rate-hike cycle. And provocatively, gold has actually done the best in the most extreme rate-hike cycles in modern history. The most extreme on record by every metric ran over 34.6 months ending in October 1979, where the FFR was hiked 32 consecutive times!

    And that was for a mind-boggling total FFR increase of 1075 basis points. With the federal-funds-rate target skyrocketing all the way up to 15.5% in that mother of all rate-hike cycles, the yields on bonds were off-the-charts high. So if there was ever an ideal case for higher yields sucking all the capital out of gold investment, that was it. By traders’ rationale today, gold should’ve plummeted into the abyss in that cycle.

    Yet it did just the opposite, rocketing 178.3% higher over the exact span of those Fed rate hikes! And that wasn’t a fluke either. There was another extreme rate-hike cycle running over 17.4 months ending in August 1973, where the Fed hiked 21 times in a row to catapult the FFR 600bp higher. And again instead of collapsing as traders today would assume, this metal soared 113.1% higher over that very span.

    Obviously something other than yields is driving gold demand! If gold was merely the yield play that all the legions of bears wrongly assume today, it would’ve been annihilated during those extreme rate hikes of the 1970s. But instead it skyrocketed, making gold bulls rich beyond their wildest dreams. Gold blasted an astounding 2332% higher over a decade where the Fed hiked its FFR target from 3.5% to 14.0%!

    Investors flocked to gold so aggressively in that extreme-rising-rate environment that they fomented a popular speculative mania in it. Provocatively 2 of the 5 rate-hike cycles where gold actually fell were in the immediate aftermath of that parabolic gold surge and inevitable subsequent collapse. A third rate-hike cycle where gold lost ground happened in the mid-1970s after another episode of incredible gold strength.

    So did the fourth and fifth ones in the mid-1980s and late 1980s. So out of the 5 Fed-rate-hike cycles where gold has actually fallen, all happened just after major secular gold highs. Gold has never fallen in a Fed-rate-hike cycle when starting from low levels. And since gold just slumped to a brutal 5.5-year secular low on that extreme record shorting attack by American futures speculators, it sure isn’t high today.

    So the evidence of history overwhelmingly supports just the opposite of what prevailing wisdom argues today. Rather than Fed-rate-hike cycles being super-bearish for zero-yielding gold, they have actually proven very bullish for it! The smart high-probability-for-success bet to make is that gold prices will surge during the Fed’s upcoming rate-hike cycle. Odds are gold is on the verge of a major rate-hike upleg.

    But how can that be? Gold yields nothing, zero, zilch, nada. It’s a “barbarous relic”, an anachronism with no place in modern portfolios. Why on earth would any investor want to buy gold when they could instead own a great American company like Netflix trading at 237x earnings, or US Treasuries yielding 2.2%? Did I mention gold pays no dividends or interest? The Wall Street Journal recently called gold a “pet rock”.

    The reason gold investment demand soars in rising-rate environments is actually quite simple. Fed rate hikes have serious adverse impacts on stock and bond markets, which is the very reason the FOMC has fearfully kept ZIRP in place for an unbelievable 6.7 years now! When the Fed initially went ZIRP for the first time in its 95-year-history at that point, it swore up and down that ZIRP was a temporary measure.

    Rising rates are devastating for stocks, especially if the stock markets are high and overvalued, for multiple reasons. Higher-rate environments lead to lower overall demand throughout the economy as debt-service costs climb for everyone. And lower demand leads to slumping corporate sales and profits, which ramps up price-to-earnings ratios to make already-overvalued stock markets look even more expensive.

    The main mechanism through which the Fed’s ZIRP has worked to directly levitate the US stock markets is through corporate stock buybacks. American companies haven’t been able to grow sales in this weak US economy, so they’ve instead taken their excess cash and bought hundreds of billions of dollars of their own stocks. They doubled down on these stock buybacks by borrowing hundreds of billions more.

    When the Fed rate hikes kill ZIRP, borrowing costs for corporations will rise which will make borrowing money to buy back stocks far less attractive and viable. When the torrent of ZIRP-financed buybacks slows, the dominant source of stock demand in recent years will wane. That will make the stock markets very susceptible to a long-overdue bear-market-grade selloff. Higher rates are super-dangerous for stocks.

    Since bond yields will rise in concert with the federal-funds rate, bonds will become more competitive with the big blue-chip companies that pay healthy dividends. These stocks are yield plays, so they will see serious selling as bond yields eclipse their dividends. Fed-rate-hike cycles are very damaging to stock markets, especially overvalued and overextended ones, in a variety of direct and indirect ways.

    And existing bonds will fare even worse. As prevailing interest rates rise thanks to the Fed’s upcoming rate-hike cycle, existing bonds will be sold off until their prices are low enough for their fixed coupon payments to equal the new higher yields. That means every rate hike will lead to losses in principal for bond investors, something most of them consider unacceptable. Bonds get crushed when rates are rising.

    With both stocks and bonds suffering serious selling pressure when the Fed is in a tightening cycle, gold really shines. This alternative investment generally moves counter to the stock markets, so when they are weak is when investors rush to park capital in this safe-haven asset. Gold not only holds its value as stocks and bonds fall, but appreciates as investment demand for it ramps dramatically with stocks suffering.

    Historically gold fares the best when the stock markets are faring the worst. And that’s likely never going to change. If this upcoming Fed-rate-hike cycle seriously weighs on the stock markets, which is all but guaranteed in light of their lofty overvalued levels today, gold investment demand is going to grow dramatically. Thus there are nearly-certain odds gold will surge again during the Fed’s next rate-hike cycle.

    And the biggest gains to be won when gold returns to favor are not in this metal itself, but in the beaten-down stocks of its miners. Gold’s recent record-extreme futures shorting attack sparked a full-blown panic in gold stocks, leaving them at fundamentally-absurd price levels. While they’ve rallied off those epic lows, their massive mean-reversion higher to righteous prices is only just beginning with far bigger gains to come!

    With the consensus opinion on gold’s outlook in Fed rate hikes dead wrong, it’s very important to cultivate a studied contrarian perspective. We’ve long specialized in that at Zeal, publishing acclaimed weekly and monthly newsletters for speculators and investors. They draw on our decades of exceptional market experience, knowledge, and wisdom to explain what’s going on in the markets, why, and how to trade them with specific stocks.

    We really walk the walk in buying low and selling high, buying sectors cheap when they are hated like the gold stocks today. This hardcore contrarian strategy has won amazing gains for our subscribers. Since 2001, all 700 stock trades recommended in our newsletters have averaged annualized realized gains of +21.3%! Subscribe today before gold stocks soar again, and enjoy our limited-time sale prices!

    The bottom line is Federal Reserve rate-hike cycles are not bearish for gold as is widely believed today. Gold has risen in more rate-hike cycles than it has fallen, and the more extreme the rate-hike cycles the greater gold’s gains. Gold surged dramatically in the last rate-hike cycle in the mid-2000s, and rocketed higher during the most extreme rate-hike cycles in history in the 1970s. Higher rates are actually bullish for gold.

    Contrary to the popular myth, gold is not and has never been a yield play. Investors diversify capital into gold when conventional stock and bond markets are weak. And Fed-rate-hike cycles hurt stocks and bonds on multiple fronts, greatly ramping investment demand for gold. With today’s stock markets so high and gold so low as the Fed’s next rate-hike cycle begins, gold’s next upleg is likely to prove massive.

    Adam Hamilton, CPA September 4, 2015 Subscribe

      Sep 06, 2015 06:46 AM

      Looks like there won’t be any FED rate hike cycle in the foreseeable future.

        Sep 06, 2015 06:56 AM

        I believe you are correct, Lawrence.

      Sep 06, 2015 06:55 AM

      Thanks, Agatha

    Sep 06, 2015 06:37 AM

    Adam Hamilton, you decide for yourself as this is a perfect example of a gold and silver guru and his previous calls

    May 16/2015 Silver Buying Only Starting, really! silver was $17.40 the next day $17.77 and then started a 20% decline to $14.33 almost straight down, those short the pm’s sector made a killing! I know, I did.

    Silver Price Poised to Surge, really! March 20/2015, silver did rise 9% from this article date to $17.41 before rolling over and hitting $15.55, where is the surge?

    Silver Price Ready to Run, really! Jan 16/2015 silver was $17.25 popped to $18.40 before once again rolling over and headed straight down from there to $15.26 the following a 7 week trend LOWER, A.H. said silver was on the verge of a MAJOR NEW UPLEG, lol

    Gold Stocks to Shine in 2015, really! Dec 19th/2014 well the HUI index topped late Jan and has fallen 50%!!!! since Jan, lol

    Can you imagine if you positioned your portfolio off this guys advice, imagine if you paid for this advice, yikes!!!

    In regards to the above article, geee Adam do you think the world is in a completely different situation than the period between 2002 and 2006, ECB, BOJ and PBOC are devaluing their currencies while the US is looking to raise rates which is US$ bullish completely different from 2002-06 when the US$ fell from 120 to 80, back in 2002-06 China was on a massive growth cycle, nobody knew of the hidden debt issues in Europe yet and oil raced from $22 to $79 between 2002-06 as global economic growth was taking place, sounds like today, lol

      bb
      Sep 06, 2015 06:09 PM

      Interesting JJ.

        Sep 06, 2015 06:37 PM

        yes it is bb, its also very interesting that 99% of those that come here don’t think for a second that those who continue to make ridiculous claims hiding behind their “I’m so intelligent labels” and I can’t be wrong egos shouldn’t be tossed from the web. I guess its because so many have made the same incorrect claims over and over again so they stick together like sh!t

      Sep 06, 2015 06:06 PM

      OJJ:

      When anyone posts opinions in the public arena they open themselves up to criticism. Everyone loves to throw rocks. Actually if you could find someone who was right 55% of the time, he could make a lot of money for you.

      You like to be critical and throw rocks at everyone else but anything you forecast is forgotten 10 minutes after you mumble it. Adam Hamilton is one of the most honest, intelligent and right far more often than wrong people posting anywhere. He’s worth listening to.

      People like you want “GURUs” who are always right. There are none. Adam writes intelligent commentary that should make you think. That is if you were actually capable of independent thought. I follow everyone, even the idiots like GATA because I’d like to know what they are saying regardless of if I agree.

      Adam Hamilton is not one of the worst, he’s one of the best.

        Sep 06, 2015 06:26 PM

        Damn right, Bob. Adam looks at the big picture and positions for big moves in the type of companies that I like and JJ won’t go near. Speculation in the junior miners is a whole different game and one that JJ is not comfortable with.

        LPG
        Sep 06, 2015 06:45 PM

        Just to add to what Bob said @ 4:06pm.

        George Soros and S.Druckenmiller have a winning %age of around 60% if I remember correctly – I was discussing this Richard/Doc on Friday. So basically, they are right 2 times, and wrong 1 time.
        They are not even right 3 times and wrong 1 time (that would be 75%): 1 time out of 3, they are wrong. That’s pretty substantial, in my book.

        Now, their track record has 1 little “secret”: risk management. And that’s key. K-E-Y.

        I bet that if 1000 investors chosen at random were putting the exact long or short trade at both the same time and also the same level (price) Soros/Druckenmiller got in for each trade, and over 40 yrs, I am intimately convinced not many of the 1000 investors would come even close to the performance displayed by these 2 over a 40 yr period.

        The “funny” thing is that S.Druckenmiller went long the Nasdaq in big size at 1hr from the top of the Nasdaq in 2000. Timing wise, it can hardly can get worse than that.

        So to me, wether paying for a service/subscription or not, the most important is to think for oneself. And when subscribing to a service, to me, the first and foremost important criteria/factor is honesty. Insight is critical, but honesty is #1. Not #2.

        Some of us might believe that putting honesty as #1 is stupid. Maybe.
        But let’s recall J.P Morgan when questioned in the 1920s or 1930s (can’t recall which year exactly, and I think it was by a Senate Committee) about what, to him, was the main criteria to lend money to someone. He didn’t answer: “solvability”. He answered “character”. To him, character was the #1 criteria to decide wether he would lend to someone or not. I was thinking about this a few hours ago. Think it’s worth “meditating”.

        My 2 cts.

        LPG

          Sep 06, 2015 06:01 PM

          I completely agree, honesty is number one and that’s why… ah, never mind… 😉

          Sep 06, 2015 06:15 PM

          Couldn’t agree more LPG, its about time the self proclaimed pm’s experts of which the list is soooo long should be honest with their followers/sheeple and tell the truth, I______ (fill in the blank) actually have NO CLUE at all as to why gold is $1100 and silver $14 down 42% and 70% along with the HUI trading at 108 down 85% from their highs.

          I _____ am sorry to continue to mislead the Sheeple with countless calls of articles with misleading titles suggesting a surge, moon shot, the bottom is in over and over again!

          Its time these clowns stopped fleecing those that can’t think for themselves with some real HONESTY!!

          I can honestly say I’d be broke if I followed the advice of these so called “experts” as these experts have no character and its been proven over and over again these past 4 years!

    Sep 06, 2015 06:02 PM

    Compared to commodities (CRB), gold is still up 5 fold since its 2001 low:
    http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=$GOLD:$CRB&p=M&st=1980-09-07&en=today&id=p81079349212&a=422676478&listNum=1

    Sep 06, 2015 06:23 PM

    Gold priced in Dow:
    http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=%24GOLD%3A%24INDU&p=M&yr=16&mn=8&dy=0&id=p73819569116&a=421517493

    This month is important and I think it will end in gold’s favor.

    Sep 06, 2015 06:26 PM

    The US debt is rising exponentially. The US cannot raise rates in a meaningful manner as the US is adding a TRILLION dollars of debt every 12 months now.

    Sep 06, 2015 06:41 PM
    Sep 06, 2015 06:30 PM

    I think the S&P is going to give up another 200 points sooner than most expect.
    http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=$SPX&p=W&yr=8&mn=5&dy=0&id=p42130472415&a=413005399&listNum=1

    Sep 06, 2015 06:20 PM

    Gold, bulls need a close above $1142 to put the upper resistance into play at $1160-$1169, bears need a close below $1112 to suggest a retest of $1080

    Silver, bulls need a close above $14.95 to suggest the upper resistance area can be tested again $15.50-$15.90, bears will want a close below $14.33 to put sub $14 in their sites, again

    HUI, bulls need a close above 118 before any suggestion of the 125-133 being left behind, bears will want a close below 104 as 104-05 has been the lows so far in 2015 (the year A.H. suggested miners ready to fly!) next 100 is in play 92-79-59 can’t be ruled out unless a WEEKLY close above 210 takes place as that’s the upper resistance trend line the HUI index has been turned back from since the 293 April high in 2013, Aug high 281 2013, Aug high 251 2014

    Pigs can fly!!!!!!!!

    Sep 06, 2015 06:31 PM

    And the Fed can lie!!!
    How about the inflation adjusted silver price of the 1980 high being $601.17,according to John Williams over at Shadow stats. The Fed banks sure knows how to keep up the lies.

      Sep 06, 2015 06:40 PM

      601 eh?…..never heard that before. And you know why? Because John is just making stuff up to suit his hyperinflation agenda.

        Sep 06, 2015 06:12 PM

        Credible people don’t doubt John. He’s simply adjusting for inflation the right way -based on money supply inflation, not price inflation.

          Sep 07, 2015 07:52 PM

          Riiiiight. That’s why we are paying 15 bucks for silver. Its not John who is wrong. Its the whole market place and all the people in the world. And don’t forget that Sinclair said gold would rocket to 50,000 dollars any old day now. Because that’s its fair value.

          Don’t you just wonder why it trades under 1100 dollars in the real world.

          Oh yeah….its manipulation 😉

            Sep 07, 2015 07:11 PM

            I didn’t say that and you know it (at least you do if I’m not overestimating you).

            Sep 08, 2015 08:28 AM

            So then you believe John is correct?

            Tell me it isn’t so……

            Sep 08, 2015 08:36 AM

            John’s calculation of inflation is correct.

            Sep 08, 2015 08:37 AM

            Wishing he was wrong won’t help you.

    Sep 06, 2015 06:03 PM

    I can’t wait to see how the dollar does when stocks resume their plunge.
    http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=$USD&p=M&st=1981-09-07&en=today&id=p17198379954&a=390915388&listNum=1

    Sep 06, 2015 06:29 PM

    well so much for the Saudi King’s visit to Washington this weekend having the Saudi’s threating to sell oil in Euro$’s or Yuan, lol

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-06/three-reasons-why-saudi-arabia-flip-flopped-iran-and-now-supports-us-nuclear-deal

    Sep 06, 2015 06:42 PM
      Sep 06, 2015 06:35 PM

      good chart as it has one noticing Silver fell hard with the Dow crashing in Q4 2008 from $13.50 down to $8.80, go figure!

        Sep 06, 2015 06:02 PM

        Actually, silver bottomed vs the Dow in October ’08 and by January it was up 130% vs the Dow. In dollars, silver bottomed in the last week of October and the Dow bottomed in early March —a full four months later. Silver was already up about 60% by then in dollars and 126% vs the Dow.
        A repeat of that action this time points to January for the low in the Dow (if we just saw the low for silver a few weeks ago).

          Sep 07, 2015 07:51 PM

          That totally makes sense, Matthew.

    LFP
    Sep 06, 2015 06:59 PM

    Somewhat OT & dedicated to those, among the crowd here, that reside in the dominion of ”Canukistan” [i.e., ”Canada” 🙂 ]. Compliments of Margaret Atwook & published in Toronto’s National Post newspaper.
    [And to all other Torontonians reading this, have a great (albeit blisteringly hot L.D. Monday) ]
    Details follow…
    __________________________________________
    ” Margaret Atwood: The Geezer Vote”
    — Margaret Atwood – September 4, 2015
    http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/margaret-atwood-the-geezer-vote

    You’ve heard what they call us, we folks over 65. “The geezer vote.”

    Yes, we golden oldies do vote, bless our knobbly knees. I remember my mother (born 1909) describing her excitement the first time she voted; she continued to vote as long
    as she could see. My spouse’s grandfather, who voted for John A. Macdonald, got himself carried to the polls in a chair when he was 99 to vote for John Diefenbaker. That’s
    dedication!

    We value our right to vote. In the early 20th century, women chained themselves to fences and were thrown into prison to get the vote. Many have fought and died to defend democratic elections: that’s one of the things we remember every Remembrance Day. Maybe we geezers can’t remember where we put our glasses, but we do remember that.

    Mind you, the “geezer vote” isn’t monolithic. Those over 65 are from all political persuasions and at least three generations. If you were born between 1915 and 1935 you can remember the Depression and the Second World War, and you are likely to take a dim view of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s mistreatment of vets — any vets. He loves monuments to dead soldiers, he’s just not keen on soldiers who have inconveniently remained alive. Over $1 billion earmarked for vets but never spent on helping them? We don’t understand that.

    If born before 1942, you remember the war years, as well as the 1950s, the atomic bomb and the Cold War. Born after 1948 and you’re a baby boomer, with an expansive set of xpectations: you had plastic toys, unlike us earlier geezers, who played with pieces of wood.

    But all of us doubtless had parents who saved string and hated debt, so we tend to keep a watch on the pennies. If our parents knew that Harper changed the law in 2007 so he can borrow billions in “non-budgetary” spending without Parliament’s permission or oversight, thus ballooning the debt, they’d be rolling in their graves.

    Despite our differences, us geezers have beady eyes. We fix those beady eyes on politicians, every single one of which is — to us — a kid in short pants, though some of those pants are shorter than others. What do the short-pant kids have in mind for the “geezer vote”?

    One of our top concerns is our health-care system, which polls say is preferred to private alternatives by 80-90 per cent of Canadians. Our system, started in Saskatchewan by Tommy Douglas in 1946 and in Alberta by Social Credit in 1950, became near-universal in 1966 under Lester Pearson, supported by the NDP. Warning bell: Pearson was a Liberal, and we remember Harper’s vow to destroy anything built by the Libs.

    Is it true that Harper has already put in place a $36 billion cut to health care? There are so many peas under the shuffle cups that we get confused, but that does seem to be the case, measured against the previous trajectory of transfers. Is hatred by one party for another, regardless of the public interest, a sound basis for public policy? Most of us think not. We want the health care we’ve paid for over many decades to be there for us when we break our hips while sliding over the ice to collect our pension cheques at the new group mailboxes we’ll be forced to use, since Harper is cancelling door-to-door delivery.

    Then there’s the CBC. It was started as a national counterbalance to foreign commercial forces under R.B. Bennett, a Conservative, so it doesn’t qualify for Harper-liquidation as a Liberal thing, but it’s no secret that Harper hates it anyway.

    We geezers grew up with the CBC. We remember the way it brought Canadians together coast-to-coast, though we are aware also of its recent shortcomings and short-changings. A strong majority of Canadians support the CBC; in more remote communities they depend on it. That’s its mandate: reflecting Canada to Canadians, with accessibility for all.

    So, warning bell: the Trans-Pacific Partnership Harper’s so keen to sign will very likely mean the end of the CBC as a public national broadcaster, in which case broadcasting will all be commercial and most likely foreign-owned. Advertisers and foreign interests will call the shots, including the shots on political news coverage. They won’t be bothered with regional news, because it won’t pay. Is that good for any nation?

    We’ve also been keeping our beady eyes on physician-assisted end-of-life, which is supported by 77 per cent of Canadians, and by 67 per cent of Conservatives. At our age we’ve been through a lot of deaths — with our grandparents, our parents and now our friends. We don’t think suffering, humiliation and wheezing your last in agony is ennobling. We’re not afraid of our dear ones trying to shove us off a cliff, but because we have lost so many dear ones ourselves and we know how hard that was, we’re afraid of them lovingly refusing to let us go.

    Very few of us will avail ourselves of such assistance, but very many of us want the peace of mind that having the option would bring. Harper’s packed his death panel with those who are vigorously opposed to assisted end-of-life. We don’t want them deciding for us when we’ve had enough suffering and humiliation, with the pre-determined answer being “never.”

    Oh, and also: we don’t like it that the so-called Fair Elections Act is crafted to deprive a bunch of our fellow geezers of their votes. A lot of older people don’t drive any more.

    Many of the elderly are in assisted living, and therefore don’t pay bills with our names and addresses on them. Why should these people be nullified?

    If you want the geezer vote, short-pant kids, you should work to deserve it.

    National Post
    ____________________
    — LFP

    Sep 06, 2015 06:03 PM
    Sep 06, 2015 06:56 PM

    Thanks for the show Al & Cory.
    Some great comments, interesting thoughts & charts on the blog too.
    Cheers.

    Sep 10, 2015 10:28 PM

    I’m stunned. For years the commentary has talked about PAPER gold knocking the price of gold down, and now all of a sudden these same people are saying it is NOT manipulated? WTF?