Thanks, Matthew. I won’t be surprised if 45 is the bottom. I will be shocked if it falls to 35.

I would love to swap each of my NSRPF shares for a share of BTI some day.

Many will not be around…..as far as that goes……many have said bye, bye already…

My trading account positions in Gold & Silver mining companies are based on a thesis that Gold bottomed in 2015 and started it’s first impulse leg up in the first 8 months of 2016. If that is true, then we’ll be seeing the next up-leg in the PMs later this year and moving into 201.

If Gold drifts sideways to down until 2020 then the whole sector would be in the doldrums for years, instead of just for the summer, and then the move up in 2016 would have just been a false start, but I don’t see anything to confirm that yet.

As stated on the weekend show there is nothing in gold that leads me to believe 2016 was just a little rally or fluke, and it was much more significant than that. The fact that so few can seem to understand this, will just make the next leg of the bull that much more intense as so many will be wrong-footed once again, and then need to position after many gains have already played out.

Here were a few musing I posted on the weekend show regarding the 2016 surge:

I’ve read a number of editorials and heard a number of interviews from the recent resource investing shows (and even here on the KER) where pundits have dismissed that move in 2016 as nothing more than a “dead cat bounce” or a “relief rally” but those comments are wrong on many levels technically.

First of all, a “dead cat bounce” or “relief rally” is when an equity is still in a cyclical bear market and bounces, but will resume the downtrend; and that is clearly NOT what happened in Gold as it has never gotten anywhere close to the $1045.40 low from December 2015 in 2 and 1/2 years.

In fact, some pundits seem to have amnesia that in 2018 the high in Gold actually already took out the 2017 high, so Gold is much closer to making new highs if anything.

When Gold surged for the first 8 months of 2016 it took out a number of prior peaks & the 2013 spike down trough that really accelerated the bear market, and those hadn’t been cleared in years. That makes 2016 an “impulse leg” higher because it took out the most recent prior peaks, (but actually took out about 3 of them).

Next up, Gold pricing surged up through a number of key prior moving averages (233, 144, 89) day EMAs, that it hadn’t surpassed in years. This was also true on the weekly charts. In addition, the EMAs reverted back to the shorter ones on top and the longer duration ones on the bottom, where in the bear market the shorter were on the bottom and the longer were on top. Those were 2 more key clues that the bear market had truly end in the metal in Dec 2015. Relief rallies don’t do that.

Lastly, 2016 broke down most of the normal seasonality trends in an outside year where the metals continued rallying through the PDAC curse in March, and then powering through the remainder of Spring and into the Summer Doldrums to new highs. It was very unusual and strong action.

Finally, Gold had gotten too far ahead of itself and corrected back down during late Aug – Oct (a time that is typically a strong seasonal period for Gold). That move up for the 8 months into August showed how strong the energy being released was and was yet another tell that this was not just a fluke or a relief rally, so the consolidation since then makes sense to digest those gains.

Pundits that are now dismissing the move up in 2016 as some kind of novelty, or just a nice little bounce don’t seem to understand the gravity of that move up, the overhead resistance that was sliced through like a hot knife through butter, and how that definitively ended the bear market once and for good.

Gold has been in a new bull market since the tail end of Dec 2015 and has been making higher lows ever since. It is nowhere close to $1045.50, and took out the 2017 high this year.

Unless Gold takes out $1238 to the downside then even that trend upwards of higher lows has not been negated either.

http://schrts.co/wkPR7B

Often times those blogs or newsletter writers bashing a stock will pick a popular company doing well to take a swipe out just to be nasty, and take the wind out of their sails. There are times where flavors of the month get really over-valued and they need the counter-balance, and then there are times where the hit piece really warps the real picture in a very lop-sided, and often incorrect way.

Organized disingenuous short-selling that mixes bad facts with dubious narratives are slimy/ugly and a scourge on the industry (albeit they are often effective in scaring away fickel resources investorts). While there nuggets of truth and genuine reasons for concern in many of their hit pieces, we’ve also seen a number of flat out misstatements with the dingbats over at Kerrisdale & Muddy Waters (ie… like with First Majestic/Northern Dynasty/Asanko smear pieces).

There are times these negative-bias skeptics do uncover legitimate (although often inflated) concerns, and thus they offer some value, but often their jaded nature blinds them from the speculative gains, and sometimes it is better to make some cake with imperfect companies, than to just hurl rocks at every single company, deposit, or managment team.

Sing you specifically named Brent, I just wanted clarify that I like him, and see him as a very smart guy. He has pointed out legitimate flaws and was right about companies like Rubi – con, and Pretium, and picked off some good companies prior to takeovers like Kaminak and New Market.

However….. he is not a mining deity or all-knowing, and is often too quick to escalate analysis to a “fatal flaw” diagnosis or simply dismiss companies that he hasn’t really taken the time to understand. It make sense for him to err on the conservative/risk adverse side to protect his subscribers, but I’d submit that many of the stocks he really likes are just as risky, and they’ve passed on stocks that outperformed his picks in a huge way.

I take it all with a grain of salt, and respect a good critique of companies weaknesses, but dislike when people make a mountain out of a molehill. What is disappointing is that people put these guys/gals on pedestals with a huge mouthpiece, and often investors get scared away at the first “boo” and then throw out the money making baby with the bath-water.

That was what I liked about @Engineer’s post up above, because some of the other negative NLW’s scared people away from good stocks, and seem to take too much glee in peeing in the punch-bowl of other people’s businesses.

The Angry Geo put out 7 editorials ripping on Arizona Mining (AZ), raising all kinds of doubts and concerns, but at the end of the day it was one of the most impressive journeys from the Wildcat Silver days to their meteoric rise, massive high-grade Tier 1 resource, and eventual takeout by South32.

The Angry Geo just put out a recent hit piece on Excellon, and missed a vast number of pieces in her analysis, and readers that don’t do their own due diligence will end up missing the forest through the trees.

I’ve learned from most of the short side pieces, and dodged a few bullets as result, but don’t buy into anyone’s analysis whole cloth. To each their own.

Beats the heck out of owning the phyz…………what a take……..looks like another insider gets to take a HAUL IT TO THE BANK

Yes, and while AZ started as a Silver company it transformed into a Zinc/Lead company, and most people don’t stack the physical in those, so buying the mining shares was a much more profitable venture.