Donald ( @Home ) :
BRAVO!
I had just posted my agreement with NotaGOldbug about the supply demand thoughts and went back and there you were saying I was wrong! Well actually, ( :- ) you said he was incorrect and therefore by extension, I was wrong. NOT! ( :- ) You're right of course about the car companies not being shorted like the Gold market is at the moment. The problem is for me, that the two markets are totally separate. From the point of view of the creators ( companies ) of cars/gold etc. if there is too much output and nobodies buying, then the production line stops until the market catches up with the goods already produced. Of course they can't "short" the items already produced since that would entail taking back already produced goods from the market and would be most uneconomical. They also cann;t reduce production below zero so that also would back you feelings of non-shorting the items. When you refer to shorting though, we're talking about a different area. We're talking about the feelings of people about the future of a company. Sure we can sell "Ford" short ( and sometimes when my Taurus stops working, I will! ) and we can also sell Barrick Gold short of course. But that still doesn't eliminate the necessary distinction between the items price of conceivement and the wantings of individuals taking a flier in the stock market re shorts. Two different worlds I would venture to say. Is it possible we're both right?
TTFN
To : Vieserre
A Special Report on gold and silver issued by Princeton in Jan 97 stated that critical support for gold was in the 325-331 price range and that gold would likely test this support in 1997. Further info issued in May stated that the most likely timing for a low in gold was early July ( ideally the week of the 7th ) or Q1 1998. If we get a monthly close on spot gold below 334 AND penetration of 320 AND a yearly close below 341, then the low in gold will be during Q1 98 in the 255-275 area. I should receive some more info from Princeton next week and will post a summary of their forecasts.
Note - Martin Armstrong is very bullish about the medium term prospects for gold, but is very negative on silver. He refers to silver as the commodity from hell and sees a greater probability of $3.25 before $6.00. He has been calling for gold to decline ahead of silver for some time with gold then recovering and the gold/silver ratio going over 100 during 1998.
My own opinion is that the fundamentals for silver are worse than those for gold. Digital cameras will take a significant amount of the market and this may be why large commercial buyers of silver are not concerned about falling inventories. Also, silver does not have the huge volume of forward sales above the current market which will be covered on a rally. There are many gold forward sales contracts which were established at prices above $400 and which would be closed out to continue the forward momentum of any substantial gold rally. Additionally, silver is not widely accumulated as money anymore and would not benefit to the same extent as gold with a loss in confidence in paper money.
Best regards, Milhouse
Front - although I am usually more than happy to take whatever credit comes my way I cannot, in all honesty, except the praise accorded to me in your recent post. The forecasts you referred to were extracted from info received from Princeton Economics. I generally try to state the source of my information - in this case I obviously forgot. My apologies.
BTW, I tend to rely on fundamental analysis only and take long term positions as I believe it is impossible to predict short term market movements with enough reliability to build substantial wealth. How Princeton is able to do so well for their clients ( including myself ) through the trading of futures and options is a complete mystery to me.
TTFN, Milhouse
Find out more about Kitco at info@kitco.com, or call 1-800-363-7053.
Copyright © 1996 Kitco Minerals & Metals Inc.