Showing posts with label analysis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label analysis. Show all posts

Monday, January 12, 2015

Last Week's Volatility Could Be A Harbinger Of Things To Come

There's a war going on right now and I don't mean overseas, I mean right here in the markets. Last week was a perfect example as the intraday swings of the S&P500 clocked in at a staggering 6.5%. Market volatility often is a precursor of things to come, and the irony of all this action was that the market closed with a loss of -0.65% for the week.

The net weekly change for the DOW was -0.53% and there was an even smaller loss of -0.42% for the NASDAQ. All three indices formed an important Japanese candlestick pattern, a weekly doji candle. Why is this important? A doji candlestick often signals indecision in the market. When the doji forms in an uptrend or downtrend, this is normally seen as significant, as it is a signal that the buyers are losing conviction when formed in an uptrend and a signal that sellers are losing conviction if seen in a downtrend.


What To Watch For This Week

A lower weekly close would indicate to me that the buyers are beginning lose control of this aging bull market. Here is the "line in the sand" for each of the indices that I am watching. Once below this line, watch for heavy liquidation to come in across the board.

DOW: 17.262 S&P500: 1,992 NASDAQ: 4.090

Gold Is Now Officially On The Move

You might remember on January 7th, I wrote a post on gold (FOREX:XAUUSDO) and the key neckline level. The key neckline in gold was broken to the upside last Friday when gold closed out the week with a very positive 2.9% gain. I now have a confirmed upside target zone of $1,340, which equates to about $132-$134 on the ETF, GLD. To follow all of the entry and exit points for gold, check in daily with the World Cup Portfolio.

How High Can The Dollar Go?

The U.S. Dollar Index (NYBOT:DX) continues to push higher against most currencies with another weekly gain of 0.85% in the Dollar Index. The question on everyone's mind is, how high can the dollar go without a correction? To this observer, it appears that there are technical storm clouds gathering that could spell trouble for the dollar. Take a look at the RSI indicator and check out the negative divergence that is building on the weekly charts. If you are long the dollar, you might want to review and tighten your stops.

How Low Can Crude Oil Go

That's a question better asked to Saudi Arabia as they continues to keep their oil spigots open to the world. Here is my analysis, the trend is down and picking bottoms or tops in markets is not a high percentage game. Before crude oil (NYMEX:CL.H15.E) changes trend, it needs to begin to base out and find a floor. I will leave picking bottoms to others. Meanwhile, the trend is your friend.

Have a Different View?

I invite your comments, pro or con. As always, we appreciate your feedback.

Just Click Here to get all of my Blog Post in your inBox

Every success with MarketClub,
Adam Hewison 
President, INO.comCo-Creator, MarketClub



Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!



Wednesday, January 7, 2015

Q3 GDP Jumps 5%; Ha! The Crap Behind the Numbers

By Tony Sagami


I was raised on a farm and I’ve shoveled more than my share of manure. I didn’t like manure back then, and I like the brand of manure that comes out of Washington, DC, and Wall Street even less. A stinky pile of economic manure came out of Washington, DC, last week and instead of the economic nirvana that it was touted to be, it was a smokescreen of half truths and financial prestidigitation.


According to the newest version of the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), the US economy is smoking hot. The BEA reported that GDP grew at an astonishing 5.0% annualized rate in the third quarter.
5% is BIG number.

The New York Times couldn’t gush enough, given a rare chance to give President Obama an economic pat on the back. “The American economy grew last quarter at its fastest rate in over a decade, providing the strongest evidence to date that the recovery is finally gaining sustained power more than five years after it began.”



Moreover, this is the second revision to the third quarter GDP—1.1 percentage points higher than the first revision—and the strongest rate since the third quarter of 2003.



However, that 5% growth rate isn’t as impressive if you peek below the headline number.

Fun with Numbers #1: The biggest improvement was in the Net Exports category, which increased by 112 basis points. How did they manage that?  There was a downturn in Imports.

Fun with Numbers #2: Of the 5% GDP growth, 0.80% was from government spending, most of which was on national defense. I’m a big believer in a strong national defense, but building bombs, tanks, and jet fighters is not as productive to our economy as bridges, roads, and schools.

Fun with Numbers #3: Almost half of the gain came from Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) and deserves extra scrutiny. Of that 221 bps of PCE spending:
  • Services spending accounts for 115 bps. Of that 115, 15 bps was from nonprofits such as religious groups and charities. The other 100 bps was for household spending on “services.”
     
  • Of that 100 bps, the two largest categories were Healthcare spending (52 bps) and Financial Services/Insurance (35 bps).
The end result is that 85% of the contribution to GDP from Household Spending on Services came from healthcare and insurance! In short… those are code words for Obamacare! While the experts on Pennsylvania Avenue and Wall Street were overjoyed, I see just another pile of white collar manure and nothing to shout about.

Fun with Numbers #4: Lastly, the spending on Goods—the backbone of a health, growing economy—declined by 27 bps.

In a related news, the November durable goods report showed a -0.7% drop in spending, quite the opposite of the positive number that Wall Street was expecting.

Of course, Wall Street doesn’t want little things like facts to get in the way of their year-end bonus. As we close out 2014, the stock market marched higher and ignored things like:
  • The reaction of the bond market to the 5% number. Bonds should have softened in the face of such strong economic numbers, but the “adults” (the bond traders) on Wall Street saw the same manure that I did.
     
  • If the economy was as healthy as the BEA wants us to believe, the “patience” and “considerable time” promise of the FOMC should soon be broken…...right?
I spend most of the year in Asia, including China, and I am seeing the same level of numbers massaging by our government as China’s. In China, the government leaders establish statistical goals and the government bean counters find creative ways to tweak the data to achieve those goals.

Zero interest rates.
24/7 central bank printing.
See no evil analysts.
Financial smoke and mirrors.

That’s the financially dangerous world we live in, and I hope that you have some type of strategy in place to deal with the bursting of what’s becoming a very big, debt-fueled bubble.
Tony Sagami
Tony Sagami

30-year market expert Tony Sagami leads the Yield Shark and Rational Bear advisories at Mauldin Economics. To learn more about Yield Shark and how it helps you maximize dividend income, click here.

To learn more about Rational Bear and how you can use it to benefit from falling stocks and sectors, click here.



Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

Breakfast with a Lord of War

By David Galland, Partner, Casey Research

For reasons that will become apparent as you read the following article, I was quite reluctant to write it.
Yet, in the end, I decided to do so for a couple of reasons.

The first is that it ties into Marin Katusa’s best selling new book, The Colder War, which I read cover to cover over two days and can recommend warmly and without hesitation. I know that Casey Research has been promoting the book aggressively (in my view, a bit too aggressively), but I exaggerate not at all when I tell you that the book sucked me in from the very beginning and kept me reading right to the end.

The second reason, however, is that I have a story to tell. It’s a true story and one, I believe, which needs to be told. It has to do with a breakfast I had four years ago with a Lord of War.

With that introduction, we begin.

Breakfast with a Lord of War

In late 2010, I was invited to a private breakfast meeting with an individual near the apex of the U.S. military’s strategic planning pyramid. Specifically, the individual we were to breakfast with sits at the side of the long serving head of the department in the Pentagon responsible for identifying and assessing potential threats to national security and devising long term strategies to counter those threats.

The ground rules for the discussion—that certain topics were off limits—were set right up front. Yet, as we warmed up to each other over the course of our meal, the conversation went into directions even I couldn’t have anticipated.

In an earlier mention of this meeting in a Casey Daily Dispatch, I steered clear of much of what was discussed because frankly, it made me nervous. With the passage of time and upon reflection that it was up to my breakfast companion, who spends long days cloaked in secrecy, to know what is allowed in daylight, I have decided to share the entire story.

During our discussion, there were four key revelations, each a bit scarier than the last.

Four Key Revelations


Once we had bonded a bit, the military officer, dressed in his civvies for the meeting, began opening up. As I didn’t record the discussion, the dialogue that follows can only be an approximation. That said, I assure you it is accurate in all the important aspects.

“Which country or countries most concern you?” I asked, not sure if I would get an answer. “China?”
“Well, I’m not going to say too much, but it’s not China. Our analysis tells us the country is too fractured to be a threat. Too many different ethnic and religious groups and competing political factions. So no, it’s not China. Russia, on the other hand…” He left it at that, though Russia would come up again in our conversation on several occasions.

As breakfast was served, the conversation meandered here and there before he volunteered, “There are a couple of things I can discuss that we are working on, one of which won’t surprise you, and one that will.”
“The first is precision guided weaponry.” Simply, the airplane and drone launched weaponry that is deployed so frequently today, four years after our breakfast conversation, that it now barely rates a back-page mention.

“The second,” he continued,” will surprise you. It’s nuclear armaments.”

“Really? I can’t imagine the US would ever consider using nuclear weapons again. Seriously?”

“Yes, there could be instances when using nukes might be advisable,” he answered. “For example, no one would argue that dropping atomic bombs on Japan had been a bad thing.” (I, for one, could have made that argument, but in the interest of harmony didn’t.)

“Even so, I can’t imagine a scenario that would warrant using nukes,” I persisted. “Are there any other countries doing the same sort of research?”

“Absolutely. For example, the Russians would love to drop a bomb that wiped out the people of Chechnya but left the infrastructure intact.”

“So, neutron bombs?”

“Yeah, stuff like that,” he added before turning back to his coffee.

“Okay, well,” I continued, “you at least have to admit that, unlike last century when hundreds of millions of people died directly or indirectly in world wars, pogroms, and so forth—most related to governments—the human race has evolved to the point where death on that scale is a thing of the past. Right?”

I kid you not in the slightest, but at this question the handsome, friendly countenance I had been sitting across from morphed as if literally a mask had been lifted away and was replaced with the emotionless face of a Lord of War.

“That would be a very poor assumption,” he answered coldly before the mask went back on.

I recall a number of thoughts and emotions coursing through my brain at his reply, most prevalently relief that I had moved with my family to La Estancia de Cafayate in a remote corner of Argentina. We didn’t move there to escape war, but after this conversation, I added that to my short list of reasons why the move had been a good idea.

Recapping the conversation later, my associate and I concurred that Russia was in the crosshairs and that if push came to shove, the US was fully prepared to use the new nuclear weapons being worked on.

Four Years Later


As I write, four years after that conversation, it’s worth revisiting just what has transpired.

First, as mentioned, the use of precision-guided weaponry has now firmly entered the vernacular of US warmaking. Point of fact: there are now more pilots being trained to fly drones than airplanes. And the technology has reached the point where there is literally no corner on earth where a strategic hit couldn’t be made. Even more concerning, the political and legal framework that previously caused hesitation before striking against citizens of other countries (outside of an active war zone) has largely been erased. Today Pakistan, tomorrow the world?

Second, instead of winding back the US nuclear program—a firm plank in President Obama’s campaign platform—the Nobel Prize winner and his team have indeed been ramping up and modernizing the US nuclear arsenal. The following is an excerpt from a September 21, 2014 article in the New York Times, titled “U.S. Ramping Up Major Renewal in Nuclear Arms”…,,

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — A sprawling new plant here in a former soybean field makes the mechanical guts of America’s atomic warheads. Bigger than the Pentagon, full of futuristic gear and thousands of workers, the plant, dedicated last month, modernizes the aging weapons that the United States can fire from missiles, bombers and submarines.

It is part of a nationwide wave of atomic revitalization that includes plans for a new generation of weapon carriers. A recent federal study put the collective price tag, over the next three decades, at up to a trillion dollars.

Third, the events unfolding in Ukraine, where the US was caught red handed engineering the regime change that destabilized the country and forced Russia to act, show a clear intent to set the world against Putin’s Russia and in time, neutralize Russia as a strategic threat.

So the only revelation from my breakfast four years ago remaining to be confirmed is for the next big war to envelope the world. Per the events in Ukraine, the foundations of that war have likely already been set. Before I get to that, however, a quick but relevant detour is required.

The Nature of Complex Systems


Last week the semiannual Owner’s & Guests event took place here at La Estancia de Cafayate. As part of the weeklong gathering, a conference was held featuring residents speaking on topics they are experts on.
Among those residents is a nuclear-energy engineer who spoke on the fragility of the US power grid, the most complex energy transmission system in the world.
He went into great detail about the “defense-in-depth” controls, backups, and overrides built into the system to ensure the grid won’t—in fact, can’t—fail. Yet periodically, it still does.

How? First and foremost, the engineer explained, there is a fundamental principle that holds that the more complex a system is, the more likely it is to fail. As a consequence, despite thousands of very bright people armed with massive budgets and a clear mandate to keep the transmission lines humming, there is essentially nothing they can do to actually prevent some unforeseen, and unforeseeable, event from taking the whole complex system down.

Case in point: in 2003 one of the largest power outages in history occurred. 508 large power generators were knocked out, leaving 55 million people in North America without power for upward of 24 hours. The cause? A software defect in an alarm system in an Ohio control center.

I mention this in the context of this article because, as complex as the U.S. power grid is, it is nothing compared to the complexities involved with long-term military strategic planning. This complexity is the result of many factors, including:
  • The challenges of identifying potential adversaries and threats many years, even a decade or more, into the future.
  • New and evolving technologies. It is a truism that the military is always fighting the last war: by the time the military machine spins up to build and deploy a new technology, it is often already obsolete.
  • The entrenched bureaucracies, headed by mere mortals with strong biases. Today’s friend is tomorrow’s enemy and vice versa.
  • The unsteady influences of a political class always quick to react with policy shifts to the latest dire news or purported outrage.
  • The media, a constant source of hysteria making headlines masquerading as news. And let’s not overlook the media’s role as active agents of the entrenched bureaucratic interests. In one now largely forgotten case, Operation Mockingbird, the CIA actually infiltrated the major US media outlets, specifically to influence public opinion.

    All you need to do to understand the bureaucratic agenda is to take a casual glance at the “news” about current events such as those transpiring in the Ukraine.
  • And, most important, human nature. We humans are the ultimate complex system, prone to a literally infinite number of strong opinions, exaggerated fears, mental illnesses, passions, vices, self-destructive tendencies, and stupidity on a biblical scale.
The point is that the average person assumes the powers-that-be actually know what they are doing and would never lead us into disaster, but quoting my breakfast companion, that would be a very poor assumption.

Simply, while mass war on the level of the wholesale slaughter commonplace in the last century is unimaginable to most in the modern context, it is never more than the equivalent of a faulty alarm system away from occurring.

Those history buffs among you will confirm that up until about a week before World War I began, virtually no one in the public, the press, the political class, or even the military had any idea the shooting was about to start. And 99.9% of the people then living had no idea the war was about to begin until after the first shot was fired.

Back to the Present


It is a rare moment in one’s life when the bureaucratic curtain falls away long enough to reveal something approximating The Truth. In my opinion, that’s what I observed over breakfast four years ago. That, right or wrong, the proactive military strategy of the US had been turned toward Russia.
Knowing that and no more, one can only guess what actual measures have been planned and set into motion to defang the Russian bear.

Based on the evidence, however, the events in Ukraine appear to be a bold chess move on the bigger board… and to be fair, a pretty damn effective move at that. The problem for the US and its allies is that on the other side of the table is one Vladimir Putin, self made man, black belt judo master, and former KGB spy master.

And that’s just scratching the surface of this complicated and determined individual. One thing is for sure: if you had to pick your adversary in a global geopolitical contest, you’d probably pick him dead last.
Which brings me to a quick mention of The Colder War, Marin’s book, which was released yesterday.
I mentioned earlier that the book had sucked me in and kept me in pretty much straight through until I finished. One reason is that while you can tell Marin has a great deal of respect for Putin’s capabilities and strategic thinking, he doesn’t shy away from revealing the judo master’s dark side. As you will read (and find quoting to your friends, as I have), it is a very dark side.

But the story is so much bigger than that, and Marin does a very good job of explaining the increasingly hostile competition between the US and Russia and the seismic economic consequences that will affect us all as the “Colder War” heats up.

Before signing off for now, I want to add that it is not Marin’s contention that the Colder War will devolve into an actual shooting war. In my view, however, due to the complexities discussed above, you can’t dismiss a military confrontation, even one involving nukes. Every complex system ultimately fails, and the more the US pushes in on Putin’s Russia, the more likely such a failure is to occur.

I recommend Marin’s book, The Colder War; here is the link.

We’ll leave the lights on down here in Cafayate.

Casey Research partner David Galland lives in La Estancia de Cafayate (www.LaEst.com).
The article Breakfast with a Lord of War was originally published at casey research.com.


Watch our new video "How you can Profit with ETFs from the Unexpected Move in the Dollar"....Just Click Here!

Friday, October 3, 2014

Bonds....the Fourth Quarter Trade of 2014

If you have been paying close attention to the stock market, market internals/breadth, and bonds for the past three months, you’ve likely come to the same conclusion that I have.

The US stock market is showing signs of severe weakness with the market breadth and leading indicators pointing to a sharp correction for stock prices.

With fewer stocks trading above their 50 and 200 day moving averages each week, while the broad market S&P 500 index continues to rising, this bearish divergence is a red flag for long term investors.

When a handful of large-cap stocks are the only things propelling the stock market higher while the majority of small-cap stocks are falling you should keep new position sizes smaller than normal and start moving your protective stops up to lock in gains/reduce losses in case the market rolls over sooner than later.

Small cap stocks are typically a leading indicator of the broad market. The Russell 2000 index is what investors should keep a close eye on because it’s the index of small-cap stocks. Since March of this year, the Russell 2000 been trading sideways and actually making new lows. This tells us that big money speculative traders are rotating out of the stock market and into other investments like high dividend paying stocks, blue chips, and likely bonds.

Looking at the chart below I have overlaid the S&P 500 index and the price of bonds. History has a way of repeating itself; although it may never feel the same and the economy may be different, price action of investments have the tendency to repeat.

In 2011 we saw the stock market and bonds form specific patterns. These patterns clearly show that money was rotating out of the stock market and into bonds. During times of uncertainty in the stocks market money has the tendency to move into bonds, as they are known as a safe haven. Bonds tend to reverse before the stock market does, so if you have never tracked the price chart of bonds before, then you should start.



From late 2013 until now bonds and the stock market have repeated the same price patterns from 2011. If history is going to repeat itself, which the technical and statistical analysis is also favoring, we should see the stock market correct 18% to 30% in the near future. If this happens bonds will rally to new highs.

It’s important to realize the chart above is weekly. Each candle represents five trading days, and four candles represents one month. So while this chart points to an imminent selloff from a visual standpoint, keep in mind this could take 2 to 3 months to unfold or longer. The market always has a way of dragging things out. If the market can’t shake you out, it will wait you out.

So if you are short the market or planning to short the market be very cautious as it could be choppy for the next several weeks and possibly months before price truly breaks down and we see price freefall.

To get my pre-market video analysis each day, and trade alerts visit: www.the gold and oil guy

Chris Vermeulen
Founder of Technical Traders

Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

Wednesday, July 9, 2014

Using Supply and Demand to Beat the Market: An Interview with Fund Manager Charles Biderman

By Dan Steinhart, Managing Editor, The Casey Report

It’s an investing strategy so simple, you’ll wonder why you didn’t think of it. Like any other market, the stock market obeys the laws of supply and demand. Reduce supply, and prices should rise. Therefore, companies that reduce their outstanding shares by buying back their own stock should outperform the market.

That’s the basic theory that Charles Biderman, who was recently featured in Forbes and is chairman and founder of TrimTabs Investment Research, follows to manage his ETF, TrimTabs Float Shrink (TTFS).
And it works. Since its inception in October 2011, TTFS has beaten the S&P 500 by 15 percentage points. That’s no small feat, especially during a bull market. Most hedge fund managers would sacrifice their firstborns for such stellar performance.

There are, of course, nuances to the strategy, which Charles explains in an interview with Casey Research’s managing editor Dan Steinhart below. For example, companies must use their own money to buy back shares. Borrowing for buybacks is a no no.

It’s also worth mentioning, you can meet and learn all about Charles’ strategy in person. He’ll be available at  Casey Research’s Summit: Thriving in a Crisis Economy in San Antonio, TX from September 19-21 where he’ll be working with attendees to teach them how to beat the market using supply and demand analysis.

And Charles is just one of many all stars on the faculty for this summit—click here to browse the others, which include Alex Jones, Jim Rickards, and, of course, Doug Casey.

Also, you can still sign up for this Summit and meet some of the world’s brightest financial minds and receive a special early bird discount. You’ll save $400 if you sign up by July 15th. Click here to register now.
Now for the complete Charles Biderman interview. Enjoy!


Using Supply and Demand to Beat the Market: An Interview with Fund Manager Charles Biderman

Dan: Thanks for joining us today, Charles. Could you start by telling us a little bit about your unique approach to stock market research?

Charles: Sure. I’ve been following the markets for 40 years. Everybody talks about earnings and interest rates and growth rates and what the government is doing. But here’s the thing: the stock market is made up of shares of stock. That’s it. There is nothing else in the stock market.

So my firm tracks the supply and demand of the stock market. The number of shares outstanding is the supply. Money is the demand. We discovered when more money chases fewer shares, the market goes up. Isn’t that shocking?

Dan: [Laughs] Not very, when you put it that way.

Charles: Whenever I talk with individual investors, I tell them that there’s only one reason for them to listen to me: that they think I can help them beat the market. I’ve spent 40 some years looking at markets in a different way than other people. I’ve found that the market is like a casino: it has a house and players. You know the house has an edge, because if it didn’t, the stock market wouldn’t exist.

Who is the house in the stock market? Not brokers, or even high frequency traders. Companies are the house. As investors, we’re playing with their shares, and the companies know more about them than we do.
I’ve discovered that companies buy back their own shares because they think the price is heading higher. So when a company buys back its own shares using its own money, you should buy that stock too. But only if the company uses its own money. Borrowing money to buy shares is a no-no.

Conversely, when companies are growing their shares outstanding by selling stock to raise money, they don’t like where their stock price is headed. If they don’t want to own their own stock, you shouldn’t either.
My basic philosophy is to follow supply and demand of stocks and money, and you can’t go wrong.

Dan: Your theory has worked very well in practice. Your TrimTabs Float Shrink ETF (TTFS) beat the S&P 500 by an impressive 12 percentage points in 2013. And that’s really saying something, considering how well the S&P 500 performed.

Charles: Yes, and we’ve outperformed the S&P 500 over the past year as well.

Dan: What specific investment strategies did you use to generate that return?

Charles: Our fund invests in 100 companies that are growing free cash flow—which is the money left over after taxes, R & D, capital expenditures, and dividends—and using it to buy back their own shares.
We modify our holdings every month because we’ve discovered that the positive effects of buybacks only last for a short time. So when a company stops shrinking its float, we kick it out. Our turnover is about 20 stocks per month.

Dan: The supply side of the equation seems pretty straightforward. What do you use to approximate demand? Money supply numbers?

Charles: Sort of. Institutions own around 80% of the shares of the Russell 1000, so we track the money that flows through them into and out of the stock market.

We also track wage and salary growth. We’re not interested in income generated by government actions, but rather by the wages of the 137 million Americans who have jobs subject to withholding. Money for investment comes from income. People can only invest the money they have left over after they cover expenses.

Income in the U.S. is currently around $7.5 trillion per year. That’s an increase of around $300 million over last year, or a little under 3% after inflation. That’s not sufficient to generate money for investment.

However, the Fed’s zero interest rate policy has showered companies with plenty of cash to improve their operations. As a result, many industries have record high profit margins. But at the same time, most management teams are still afraid to reinvest their profits into expanding their businesses because they don’t see final consumption demand growing. So these companies have been buying back their shares instead. The total number of shares in the market has declined pretty much consistently since 2010.

An investment institution typically targets a specific percentage of cash to hold, say 5%. So when a company buys back its own stock from these institutions, the institutions now have more money and fewer shares. To meet their cash allocation target, they have to go out and buy more shares. So the end result is more money chasing fewer shares.

This is why we’ve been experiencing a “melt-up” in the market. It has nothing to do with the economy—it’s solely due to supply and demand. And as buybacks continue, stock prices will continue to rise.

The caveat is that unless the economy recovers in earnest, the gap between stock prices and the real-world economy will continue to grow. At some point, it will get too wide, and we’ll get a bang moment similar to the housing crisis, when everyone realized that housing prices were too far above their underlying value in 2007.

Dan: Do you monitor macroeconomic issues as well?

Charles: Yes, but as I like to say, all macro issues manifest as supply and demand eventually. Supply and demand is what’s happening right now. All of those other inputs get us to “now.”

Dan: I understand. So you’re more concerned with the effects of supply and demand than the causes.

Charles: Right. Price is a function of the world as it exists right now. If you don’t have cash, it doesn’t matter how fantastic stock market fundamentals look. Without cash, you can’t buy, no matter how compelling the value.

Dan: Could you share a preview of what you’ll be talking about at the Casey Research Summit in San Antonio?

Charles: I’ll be giving specific advice to individual investors on how to beat the market. Outperforming the overall market is very difficult to do, and earnings analysis and graphic analysis has never been proven to do it over a long period. Supply and demand analysis has. So I will work with attendees and show them how to apply those strategies to beat the market going forward.

Dan: Great; I look forward to that. Is there anything else you’d like to add?

Charles: The phrase “disruptive technology” is popular today. I think investing on the basis of supply and demand is a disruptive technology compared with other investing strategies, most of which have never really worked. Cheap, broad-based index funds are so popular because very few investing strategies offer any real edge. I believe supply and demand investing gives me an edge.

Dan: Thanks very much for sharing your insights today. I’m excited to hear what else you’ll have to say at our Thriving in a Crisis Economy Summit in San Antonio.

Charles: I’m looking forward to the Summit as well. I hope the aura of the San Antonio Spurs’ victory will rub off on all of us.

Dan: Me too. Thanks again.




Get your seat for our next free webinar "Low VIX and What It Means to Your Trading"....Just Click Here!


Wednesday, May 14, 2014

Gold Prediction using Statistics & Technical Analysis

Here is my gold prediction (silver and gold mining stocks, should be the same) looking forward 24 months.
Since the top in gold in 2011 gold has been selling off. Depending on how you analyze the market, this 3 year sell off could be seen as consolidation within a major cyclical bull market or that it’s in a bear market. But know this, either way, the outlook is bullish, and all gold has to do is find a bottom here and rally above the $1400 per ounce level. This would kick start a major feeding frenzy of gold buying.

Gold bear market in the past have on average corrected 33% and lasted a total of 550 days. So if we look at the stats of the current pullback in gold it has dropped 38% and about 700 days long. Time for a bottom and bull market? It sure seems like it.

You can see my recent report on the U.S. Dollar and Gold Forecast.
 

Gold Prediction Technical Outlook:

Gold remains in a down trend, but looks to be starting a possible stage 1 basing pattern. Technical analysis is pointing to strength as the MACD moving higher, relative strength, and the down trendline show price and momentum being bullish.

A few weeks ago the chart completed a Golden Cross. This is not shown on the chart, but it is when the 50 SMA crosses above the 200 SMA. Investors tend to look at this as a major long term buy signal, although I do not use it for any of my analysis or timing of the market.

If historical data, statistics, and technical analysis prove to be correct we can expect gold to rise. My gold prediction is for price to reach $2300 - $2500 per ounce within 24 months.

Gold Prediction

Gold Prediction Conclusion:

The average gold bull market last roughly 450 days and posts a gain of 95%. So with the current correction which is beyond these levels already, expect price to firm up this year and complete the stage 1 base. Note that until gold breaks out of its Stage 1 Basing pattern, I will remain bearish/neutral on the metal. There is a huge opportunities else where unfolding.

Chris Vermeulen

Join my email list FREE and get my next article which I will show you about a major opportunity in bonds and a rate spike – The Gold and Crude Oil Guy


Make sure to sign up for one of our Free Trading Webinars....Just Click Here!


Wednesday, March 12, 2014

Elliott Wave Theory - Keys to Investor Success

Elliott Wave Theory - Plenty of people will freely offer you advice on how to spend or invest your money. “Buy low and sell high,” they’ll tell you, “that’s really all there is to it!” And while there is a core truth to the statement, the real secret is in knowing how to spot the highs and lows, and thus, when to do your buying and selling. Sadly, that’s the part of the equation that most of the advice givers you’ll run across are content to leave you in the dark about.

The reality is that no matter how many times you are told differently, there is no ‘magic bullet.’ There is no plan, no series of steps you can follow that will, with absolute certainty, bring you wealth. If you happen across anyone who says otherwise, you can rely on the fact that he or she has an agenda, and that at least part of that agenda involves convincing you to open your wallet.

In the place of a surefire way to make profits, what is there? Where can you turn, and what kinds of things should you be looking for?

The answers to those questions aren’t as glamorous sounding as the promises made by those who just want to take your money, but they are much more effective. Things like careful, meticulous research. Market trend analysis. Paying close attention to extrinsic factors that could impact whatever industry you’re planning to invest in, and of course, Elliott wave theory. If you’ve never heard of the Elliott wave, you owe it to yourself to learn more about it.

Postulated by Ralph Nelson Elliott in the late 1930’s, it is essentially a psychological approach to investing that identifies specific stimuli that large groups tend to respond to in the same way. By identifying these stimuli, it then becomes possible to predict which direction the market will likely move, and as he outlined in his book “The Wave Principle,” market prices tend to unfold in specific patterns or ‘waves.’
The fact that many of the most successful Wall Street investors and portfolio managers use this type of trend analysis in their own decision making process should be compelling evidence that you should consider doing the same. No, it’s not perfect, and it is certainly not a guarantee, but it provides a strong framework of probability that, when combined with other research and analysis, can lead to consistently good decisions, and at the end of the day, that’s what investing is all about. Consistently good decision making.

We use Elliott Wave Theory in real time by looking at the larger patterns of the SP 500 index for example. We deploy Fibonacci math analysis to prior up and down legs in the markets to determine where we are in an Elliott Wave pattern.  This helps us decide if to be aggressive when the markets correct, go short the market, or to do nothing for example.  It also prevents us from making panic type decisions, whether that be in chasing a hot stock too higher or selling something too low before a reversal.  We also can use Elliott Wave Theory to help us determine when to be aggressive in selling or buying, on either side of a trade.

For many, its not practical to employ Elliott Wave analysis with individual stocks and trading, but it can be done with experience.  We instead use a combination of big picture views like weekly charts, Wave patterns within those weekly views, and then zoom in to shorter term technical to determine ultimate timing for entry and exit.  This type of big picture view coupled with micro analysis of the charts gives us more clarity and better results.

One of our favorite patterns for example is the “ABC” pattern.  Partially taken from Elliott Wave Theory, we mix in a few of our own ingredients to help with timing entries and exits.  This is where you have an initial massive rally or the “A” wave pattern. Say a stock like TSLA goes from $30 to $180 per share, which it did.  The B wave is what you wait for and using Fibonacci analysis and Elliott Wave Theory we can calculate a good entry point on the B wave correction.  TSLA dropped from $180 to about $ 120, retracing roughly 38% (Fibonacci retracement) of the rally $30 to $180.  The B wave bottomed out as everyone was negative on the stock and sentiment was bearish. That is when you get long for the “C” wave.  The C wave is when the stock regains momentum, good news starts to unfold, and sentiment turns bullish.  We can often calculate the B wave as it relates often to the A wave amplitude.  Example is the TSLA “A” wave was 150 points, so the C wave will be about the same or more.

When TSLA recently ran up to about $270 per share, we were in uber bullish “C” wave mode, and we had run up $150 (Same as the A wave) from $120 to $270.  That is when you know it’s a good time to start peeling off shares. Often though, the C wave will be 150-161% of the  A wave, so TSLA may not have completed it’s run just yet.

Elliott Wave Theory

Knowing when to enter and exit a position whether your time frame is short, intermediate, or longer… can often be identified with good Elliott Wave Theory practices.  Your results and your portfolio will appreciate it, just look at our ATP track record from April 1 2013 to March 3rd 2014 inclusive of all closed out swing positions.  We incorporated Elliott Wave Theory into our stock picking starting last April and you can see the results:

ATP Elliott Wave Trading



Join Us Today And Start Making Real Money Trading - Click Here


Sincerely,

Chris Vermeulen
Founder of Technical Traders Ltd. - Partnership Program


Thursday, March 6, 2014

How Much Will a 15% Hair Cut Cost Your Investment Capital?

Over the past few weeks I have been watching the DOW and Transportation index closely because it looks and feels like the Dow Theory may play out this year and the stock market could take a 15% haircut.

But what if you skipped on the haircut and opted for a 40% refund?  What? Keep reading to find out how.

Keeping this post short and sweet, I think the U.S. stock market is setting up for a sharp selloff. And it will look a lot like the July 2011 correction. If my calculations are correct this will happen in the next 3-9 weeks and we will see a 15% drop from our current levels. Only time will tell, but I have a way to hedge against this with very little downside risk to you ETF portfolio.

The Dow Theory Live Example for ETF Portfolio

The daily chart of the SP500 index below shows our current trend analysis with green bars signaling an uptrend, orange being neutral, and red signaling bearish price action. Currently the bars are green and we can expect prices to have an upward bias.

The Dow Theory could be  in play. When both the Transports (IYT) and the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DIA) cannot make higher highs and start making lower lows, according to the Dow Theory the broad stock market is topping.

We are watching the market closely because they have both made lower highs and lows.  This rally could stall in the next couple weeks and if so we expect a 15% correction.



Model ETF Portfolio



Take a look at the 2011 Stock Market Crash

Model ETF Portfolio Trading

The chart above shows how fearful traders have a delayed reaction to moving money from stocks to a mix of risk-off assets.

The choppy market condition during August and September clearly helped in frustrating investors and created more uncertainty. This helped prices of this ETF portfolio fund rally long after the initial selloff took place. This is something I feel will take place again in the near future and subscribers of my ETF newsletter will benefit from this move.

Because we have a Dow Theory setup, our risk levels are clearly defined as to when to exit the trade if it does not play out in our favor. But with the potential to make 40% and the downside risk only being 4%, it’s the perfect setup for a large portion of our ETF portfolio. And just so you know this is not a precious metals trade as we are already long that sector and up 10% in that position already.

Get My Daily Video Forecasts & ETF Trades Today


Chris Vermeulen
The Gold & Oil Guy.com




Tuesday, February 11, 2014

A Most Dangerous Era

By John Mauldin



"In the economic sphere an act, a habit, an institution, a law produces not only one effect, but a series of effects. Of these effects, the first alone is immediate; it appears simultaneously with its cause; it is seen. The other effects emerge only subsequently; they are not seen; we are fortunate if we foresee them.

"There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen.

"Yet this difference is tremendous; for it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favorable, the later consequences are disastrous, and vice versa. Whence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good that will be followed by a great evil to come, while the good economist pursues a great good to come, at the risk of a small present evil."

РFrom an essay by Fr̩d̩ric Bastiat in 1850, "That Which Is Seen and That Which Is Unseen"

The devil is in the details, we are told, and the details are often buried in an appendix or footnote. This week we were confronted with a rather troubling appendix in the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis of the Affordable Care Act, which suggests that the act will have a rather profound impact on employment patterns. You could tell a person's political leaning by how they responded. Republicans jumped all over this. The conservative Washington Times, for instance, featured this headline: "Obamacare will push 2 million workers out of labor market: CBO." Which is not what the analysis says at all. Liberals immediately downplayed the import by suggesting that all it really said was that people will have more choice about how they work, giving them more free time to play with their kids and pets and pursue other activities. Who could be against spending more time with your children?

Paul Krugman noted that the data means that potential GDP will be reduced by as much as 0.5% per year, which he dismissed as a small number. And he states that people voluntarily reducing their work hours does not have the same economic effect as people being laid off or fired. Which is true, but not the point nor the import of that pesky little appendix.

Where Will the Jobs Come From?

To me the economic and employment effects of Obamacare are another piece of the larger puzzle called Where Will the Jobs Come From? This may be the most important economic question of the next 30 years. Because this topic has been the focus of my thinking for the past few years, I could be reading more into the CBO's report than I should, but indulge me as I make a few points and then see if I can tie them together in the end.

First let's look at what the report actually said. The CBO stated that the implementation of the Affordable Care Act will result in a "substantially larger" and "considerably higher" reduction in the labor force than the "mere" 800,000 the budget office estimated in 2010. The overall level of labor will fall by 1.5% to 2% over the decade, the CBO figures. The revision was evidently driven by economic work done by a professor at the University of Chicago by the name of Casey Mulligan. (When you do a little research on Professor Mulligan and look past the multitude of honors and awards, you find people calling him the antithesis of Paul Krugman. I must therefore state for the record that I already like him.) For you economics wonks, there is a very interesting interview with Professor Mulligan in the weekend Wall Street Journal. For those who don't go there, I will summarize and quote a few salient points.

Let's be clear. This report and Mulligan's research do not say Obamacare destroys jobs. What they suggest is that Obamacare raises the marginal tax rates on income, and to such an extent that it reduces the rewards for working more hours for marginally higher pay at certain income levels. The chart below does not pertain to upper-income individuals but rather to those at the median income level.



What Mulligan's work does demonstrate is that the loss of government benefits has the same effect on an individual as a tax increase. If you lose a government subsidy because you work more hours, then for all intents and purposes it is the same as if you were taxed at a higher rate. Quoting now from the WSJ piece:

Instead, liberals have turned to claiming that ObamaCare's missing workers will be a gift to society. Since employers aren't cutting jobs per se through layoffs or hourly take-backs, people are merely choosing rationally to supply less labor. Thanks to ObamaCare, we're told, Americans can finally quit the salt mines and blacking factories and retire early, or spend more time with the children, or become artists.

Mr. Mulligan reserves particular scorn for the economists making this "eliminated from the drudgery of labor market" argument, which he views as a form of trahison des clercs [loosely translated, "the betrayal of academic economists" – JM]. "I don't know what their intentions are," he says, choosing his words carefully, "but it looks like they're trying to leverage the lack of economic education in their audience by making these sorts of points."

A job, Mr. Mulligan explains, "is a transaction between buyers and sellers. When a transaction doesn't happen, it doesn't happen. We know that it doesn't matter on which side of the market you put the disincentives, the results are the same.... In this case you're putting an implicit tax on work for households, and employers aren't willing to compensate the households enough so they'll still work." Jobs can be destroyed by sellers (workers) as much as buyers (businesses).

He adds: "I can understand something like cigarettes and people believe that there's too much smoking, so we put a tax on cigarettes, so people smoke less, and we say that's a good thing. OK. But are we saying we were working too much before? Is that the new argument? I mean make up your mind. We've been complaining for six years now that there's not enough work being done.... 

Even before the recession there was too little work in the economy. Now all of a sudden we wake up and say we're glad that people are working less? We're pursuing our dreams?" The larger betrayal, Mr. Mulligan argues, is that the same economists now praising the great shrinking workforce used to claim that ObamaCare would expand the labor market.

Paul Krugman interprets the CBO estimates to mean a loss of the number of hours that would be equivalent to the loss of 2 million jobs. The Wall Street Journal sees that same number as equivalent to 2.5 million jobs. Professor Mulligan's research suggests that they are still off by a factor of two and that it could be closer to 5 million job equivalents.

That means a drop in potential GDP growth of somewhere between 0.5% and 1% per year. A small price to pay for universal healthcare, suggests Krugman. I would personally see it as a large price to pay for structuring healthcare reform the wrong way. That we need healthcare reform and that we as a country want it to be universal is clear. But the CBO report makes it evident that there is a hidden economic cost to the country in the way healthcare reform is currently structured. Dismissing potential GDP growth loss of 0.5% per year as "not all that much" is simply not intellectually sufficient.

(And that is taking Krugman's estimate of 0.5% to be the actual negative effect. There are other economists who can produce credible estimates that are much higher, but for the purposes of this letter Krugman's lower estimate will do.)

Doug Henwood over at The Liscio Report produced some fascinating research this week on what it has meant for our economy to be growing at a lower rate since 2007. In another report, the CBO offered its own estimate of future growth, which the normally sanguine Henwood thinks has the potential to make us complacent. Let's jump right to his impact paragraphs (emphasis mine):

Another way to measure where GDP is relative to where it "should" be is by comparing the actual level to its long-term trend. [That's what's graphed below.] This technique shows the economy in a much deeper hole than the CBO does.


By this method, actual GDP at the end of 2013 was 86.7% of its trend value. That's actually 3 points below where it was when the recession ended. Consumption was 87.4% of its trend value; investment, 75.1%; and government, 84.5%. (Note that government, despite perceptions to the contrary, has been falling, not rising, relative to its trend.)

These are huge gaps. In nominal dollar terms, per capita GDP is $8,278 below its 1970–2007 trend. Using the CBO's less dramatic gap estimate works out to an actual per capita GDP $2,141 below its potential. Either way, that's a lot of money. One way of reconciling the $6,137 disparity between the figures derived from CBO's method and the trend method is by pointing to the long-term economic damage done by the financial crisis and recession.

The hit to investment, productivity, and labor force participation is enormous and long-lived. To put that $6,137 number in perspective, it's very close to the per capita GDP of China. That is not small, and if the CBO is even half right, it's not going away any time soon.

By the way, Casey Mulligan argues in his 2012 book, The Redistribution Recession, that the expansion of the welfare state through the surge in food stamps, unemployment benefits, disability, Medicaid, and other safety-net programs was responsible for about half the drop in work hours since 2007, and possibly more.

The CBO is de facto admitting that the increase in the entitlement spending due to Obamacare is going to reduce GDP. If Mulligan's larger projection is right, we could lose roughly 10% of GDP potential over the next decade. That means the pie in the future will be smaller by 10%. That is a huge difference, not an inconsequential one. It means tax revenues needed to pay for government benefits will be 10% smaller. I am not arguing for or against whether such benefits are a proper expenditure of money; I'm simply saying that we cannot ignore the economic consequences simply because they may be politically inconvenient.

Think about this for a moment. We have lost the equivalent of Chinese per-person GDP in the space of seven years as a result of policy choices made by both Republican and Democratic administrations and due to the financial repression visited upon us by the Federal Reserve – which, by the way, has created multiple bubbles. The way we structure our policy decisions has consequences beyond the obvious.

More Unintended Consequences

Rather than immediately jumping to some kind of conclusion on employment that simply offers a number and doesn't offer insight, I want us to look at the larger picture of work and what we get paid for it. We are rightly concerned in the developed world about the concentration of income and wealth in the top fraction of the population. When 85 people own 46% of the world's wealth, as we've repeatedly heard the past few weeks, what does this portend for the future?

To continue reading this article from Thoughts from the Frontline – a free weekly publication by John Mauldin, renowned financial expert, best-selling author, and Chairman of Mauldin Economics – Please Click Here.


Posted courtesy of our trading partner John Mauldin at Thoughts from the Frontline


Wednesday, February 5, 2014

Doug Casey on Gold Stocks

By Doug Casey, Chairman

The following is an excerpt from famous contrarian speculator and libertarian freethinker Doug Casey's latest book, Right on the Money. The interview with Casey Research Chief Metals & Mining Analyst Louis James took place on September 30, 2009, when gold stocks were clearly rebounding from their post-crash lows. Doug's thoughts are just as timely and true today as they were then, presenting a perfect picture of this most volatile and most rewarding of sectors.....



Louis: Doug, we were talking about gold last week, so we should follow up with a look at gold stocks. If one of the reasons to own gold is that it's real, it's not paper, it's not simultaneously someone else's liability, why own gold stocks?

Doug: Leverage. Gold stocks are problematical as investments. That's true of all resource stocks, especially stocks in exploration companies, as opposed to producers. If you want to make a proper investment, the way to do that is to follow the dictates of Graham and Dodd, using the method Warren Buffett has proven to be so successful over many years.

Unfortunately, resource stocks in general and metals exploration stocks in particular just don't lend themselves to such methodologies. They are another class of security entirely.

Louis: "Security" may not be the right word. As I was reading the latest edition of Graham and Dodd's classic book on securities analysis, I realized that their minimum criteria for investment wouldn't even apply to the gold majors. The business is just too volatile. You can't apply standard metrics.

Doug: It's just impossible. For one thing, they cannot grow consistently, because their assets are always depleting. Nor can they predict what their rate of exploration success is going to be.

Louis: Right. As an asset, a mine is something that gets used up, as you dig it up and sell it off.

Doug: Exactly. And the underlying commodity prices can fluctuate wildly for all sorts of reasons. Mining stocks, and resource stocks in general, have to be viewed as speculations, as opposed to investments.

But that can be a good thing. For example, many of the best speculations have a political element to them. Governments are constantly creating distortions in the market, causing misallocations of capital. Whenever possible, the speculator tries to find out what these distortions are, because their consequences are predictable. They result in trends you can bet on. It's like the government is guaranteeing your success, because you can almost always count on the government to do the wrong thing.

The classic example, not just coincidentally, concerns gold. The U.S. government suppressed its price for decades while creating huge numbers of dollars before it exploded upward in 1971. Speculators that understood some basic economics positioned themselves accordingly.

As applied to metals stocks, governments are constantly distorting the monetary situation, and gold in particular, being the market's alternative to government money, is always affected by that. So gold stocks are really a way to short government—or go long on government stupidity, as it were.

The bad news is that governments act chaotically, spastically. The beast jerks to the tugs on its strings held by its various puppeteers. So it's hard to predict price movements in the short term. You can only bet on the end results of chronic government monetary stupidity.

The good news is that, for that very same reason, these stocks are extremely volatile. That makes it possible, from time to time, to get not just doubles or triples but 10-baggers, 20-baggers, and even 100-to-1 shots in these mining stocks.

That kind of upside makes up for the fact that these stocks are lousy investments and that you will lose money on most of them, if you hold them long enough. Most are best described as burning matches.

Louis: One of our mantras: Volatility can be your best friend.

Doug: Yes, volatility can be your best friend, as long as your timing is reasonable. I don't mean timing tops and bottoms—no one can do that. I mean spotting the trend and betting on it when others are not, so you can buy low to later sell high. If you chase momentum and excitement, if you run with the crowd, buying when others are buying, you're guaranteed to lose. You have to be a contrarian. In this business, you're either a contrarian or road kill. When everyone is talking about these stocks on TV, you know the masses are interested, and that means they've gone to a level at which you should be a seller and not a buyer.

That makes it more a game of playing the psychology of the market, rather than doing securities analysis.

I'm not sure how many thousands of gold mining stocks there are in the world today—I'll guess about 3,000—but most of them are junk. If they have any gold, it's mainly in the words written on the stock certificates. So, in addition to knowing when to buy and when to sell, your choice of individual stocks has to be intelligent too.

Remember, most mining companies are burning matches.

Louis: All they do is spend money.

Doug: Exactly. That's because most mining companies are really exploration companies. They are looking for viable deposits, which is quite literally like looking for a needle in a haystack. Finding gold is one thing. Finding an economical deposit of gold is something else entirely.

And even if you do find an economical deposit of gold, it's exceptionally difficult to make money mining it. Most of your capital costs are up front. The regulatory environment today is onerous in the extreme. Labor costs are far above what they used to be. It ’s a really tough business.

Louis: If someone describes a new business venture to you, saying, "Oh, it'll be a gold mine!" Do you run away?

Doug: Almost. And it's odd because, historically, gold mining used to be an excellent business. For example, take the Homestake Mine in Deadwood, South Dakota, which was discovered in 1876, at just about the time of Custer's last stand, actually. When they first raised capital for that, their dividend structure was something like 100 percent of the initial share price, paid per month. That was driven by the extraordinary discovery. Even though the technology was very primitive and inefficient in those days, labor costs were low, you didn't have to worry about environmental problems, there were no taxes on whatever you earned, you didn't have to pay mountains of money to lawyers. Today, you probably pay your lawyers more than you pay your geologists and engineers.

So, the business has changed immensely over time. It's perverse because with the improvements in technology, gold mining should have become more economical, not less. The farther back you go in history, the higher the grade you'd have to mine in order to make it worthwhile. If we go back to ancient history, a mineable deposit probably had to be at least an ounce of gold per ton to be viable.

Today, you can mine deposits that run as low as a hundredth of an ounce (0.3 g/t). It's possible to go even lower, but you need very cooperative ore. And that trend toward lower grades becoming economical is going to continue.

For thousands of years, people have been looking for gold in the most obscure and bizarre places all over the world. That's because of the 92 naturally occurring elements in the periodic table, gold was probably the first metal that man discovered and made use of. The reason for that is simple: Gold is the most inert of the metals.

Louis: Because it doesn't react easily and form compounds, you can find the pure metal in nature.

Doug: Right. You can find it in its pure form, and it doesn't degrade and it doesn't rust. In fact, of all the elements, gold is not only the most inert, it's also the most ductile and the most malleable. And, after silver, it's the best conductor of both heat and electricity, and the most reflective. In today's world, that makes it a high-tech metal. New uses are found for it weekly. It has many uses besides its primary one as money and its secondary use as jewelry. But it was probably also man's first metal.

But for that same reason, all the high-grade, easy to find gold deposits have already been found. There's got to be a few left to be discovered, but by and large, we're going to larger volume, lower grade, "no see um"-type deposits at this point. Gold mining is no longer a business in which, like in the movie The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, you can get a couple of guys, some picks and mules, and go out and find the mother lode. Unfortunately. Now, it's usually a large scale, industrial earth moving operation next to a chemical plant.

Louis: They operate on very slender margins, and they can be rendered unprofitable by a slight shift in government regulations or taxes. So, we want to own these companies… why?

Doug: You want them strictly as speculative vehicles that offer the potential for 10, 100, or even 1,000 times returns on your money. Getting 1,000 times on your money is  extraordinary, of course—you have to buy at the bottom and sell at the top—but people have done it. It's happened not just once or twice, but quite a number of times that individual stocks have moved by that much.

That's the good news. The bad news is that these things fluctuate down even more dramatically than they fluctuate up. They are burning matches that can actually go to zero. And when they go down, they usually drop at least twice as fast as they went up.

Louis: That's true, but as bad as a total loss is, you can only lose 100 percent—but there's no such limit to the upside. A 100 percent gain is only a double, and we do much better than that for subscribers numerous times per year.

Doug: And as shareholders in everything from Enron to AIG, to Lehman Brothers, and many more have found out, even the biggest, most solid companies can go to zero.

Louis: So, what you're telling me is that the answer to "Why gold?" is really quite different to the answer to "Why gold stocks?" These are in completely different classes, bought for completely different reasons.

Doug: Yes. You buy gold, the metal, because you're prudent. It's for safety, liquidity, insurance. The gold stocks, even though they explore for or mine gold, are at the polar opposite of the investment spectrum; you buy those for extreme volatility and the chance it creates for spectacular gains. It's rather paradoxical, actually.

Louis: You buy gold for safety and gold stocks specifically to profit from their "un-safety."

Doug: Exactly. They really are total opposites, even though it's the same commodity in question. It's odd, but then, life is often stranger than fiction.

Louis: And it's being a contrarian—"timing" in the sense of making a rational decision about a trend in evident motion—that helps stack the odds in your favor. It allows you to guess when market volatility will, on average, head upward, making it possible for you to buy low and sell high.

Doug: You know, I first started looking at gold stocks back in the early 1970s. In those days, South African stocks were the "blue chips" of the mining industry. As a country, South Africa mined about 60 percent of all the gold mined in the world, and costs were very low.

Gold was controlled at $35 per ounce until Nixon closed the gold window in 1971, but some of the South Africans were able to mine it for $20 an ounce or less. They were paying huge dividends.

Gold had run up from $35 to $200 in early 1974, then corrected down to $100 by 1976. It had come off 50 percent, but at the same time that gold was bottoming around $100, they had some serious riots in Soweto. So the gold stocks got a double hit: falling gold prices and fear of revolution in South Africa. That made it possible, in those days, to buy into short lived, high cost mining companies very cheaply; the stocks of the marginal companies were yielding current dividends of 50 to 75 percent. They were penny stocks in those days. They no longer exist; they've all been merged into mining finance houses long since then. Three names that I remember from those days were Leslie, Bracken, Grootvlei; I owned a lot of shares in them. If you bought Leslie for 80 cents a share, you'd expect, based on previous dividends, to get about 60 cents a share in that year.

But then gold started flying upward, the psychology regarding South Africa changed, and by 1980, the next real peak, you were getting several times what you paid for the stock, in dividends alone, per year.

Louis: Wow. I can think of some leveraged companies that might be able to deliver that sort of performance, if gold goes where we think it will. So, where do you think we are in the current trend or metals cycle? You've spoken of the Stealth, Wall of Worry, and Mania Phases of a bull market for metals—do you still think of our market in those terms?

Doug: That's the big question, isn't it? Well, the last major bottom in this sector was from 1998 to 2002. Many of these junior mining stocks—mostly traded in Canada, where about 75 percent of all the gold stocks in the world trade, were trading for less than cash in the bank. Literally. You'd get all their properties, their technology, the expertise of their management, totally for free. Or less.

Louis: I remember seeing past issues in which you said, "If I could call your broker and order these stocks for you, I would."

Doug: Yes. But nobody wanted to hear about it at that time. Gold was low, and there was a bubble in Internet stocks. Why would anyone want to get involved in a dead-duck, nineteenth century, "choo choo train" industry like gold mining? It had been completely discredited by the long bear market, but that made it the ideal time to buy them, of course. That was deep in the Stealth Phase.

Over the next six to eight years, these stocks took off, moving us into the Wall of Worry Phase. But the stocks didn't fly the way they did in past bull markets. I think that's mostly because they were so depleted of capital, they were selling lots of shares. So their market capitalizations—the aggregate value given them by the market—were increasing, but their share prices weren't. Not as much.

Remember, these companies very rarely have any earnings, but they always need capital, and the only way they can get it is by selling new shares, which dilutes the value of the individual shares, including those held by existing shareholders.

Then last fall hit, and nobody, but nobody, wanted anything speculative. These most volatile of stocks showed their nature and plunged through the floor in the general flight to safety. That made last fall the second best time to buy mining shares this cycle, and I know you recommended some pretty aggressive buying last fall, near the bottom.

Now, many of these shares—the better ones at least—have recovered substantially, and some have even surpassed pre-crash highs. Again, the Wall of Worry Phase is characterized by large fluctuations that separate the wolves from the sheep (and the sheep from their cash).

Where does that leave us? Well, as you know, I think gold is going to go much, much higher. And that is going to direct a lot of attention toward these gold stocks. When people get gold fever, they are not just driven by greed, they're usually driven by fear as well, so you get both of the most powerful market motivators working for you at once. It's a rare class of securities that can benefit from fear and greed at once.

Remember that the Fed ’s pumping up of the money supply ignited a huge bubble in tech stocks, and then an even more massive global bubble in real estate—which is over for a long time, incidentally—but they're still creating tons of dollars. That will inevitably ignite other asset bubbles. Where? I can't say for certain, but I say the odds are extremely high that as gold goes up, for all the reasons we spoke about last week and more, that a lot of this funny money is going to be directed into these gold stocks, which are not just a microcap area of the market but a nanocap area of the market.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: When the public gets the bit in its teeth and wants to buy gold stocks, it's going to be like trying to siphon the contents of the Hoover Dam through a garden hose.

Gold stocks, as a class, are going to be explosive. Now, you've got to remember that most of them are junk. Most will never, ever find an economical deposit. But it's hopes and dreams that drive them, not reality, and even without merit, they can still go 10, 20, or 30 times your entry price. And the companies that actually have the goods can go much higher than that.

At the moment, gold stock prices are not as cheap, in either relative or absolute terms, as they were at the turn of the century, nor last fall. But given that the Mania Phase is still ahead, they are good speculations right now—especially the ones that have actually discovered gold deposits that look economical.

Louis: So, if you buy good companies now, with good projects, good management, working in stable jurisdictions, with a couple years of operating cash to see them through the Wall of Worry fluctuations—if you buy these and hold for the Mania Phase, you should come out very well. But you can't blink and get stampeded out of your positions when the market fluctuates sharply.

Doug: That's exactly right. At the particular stage where we are right now in this market for these extraordinarily volatile securities, if you buy a quality exploration company, or a quality development company (which is to say, a company that has found something and is advancing it toward production), those shares could still go down 10, 20, 30, or even 50 percent, but ultimately there's an excellent chance that that same stock will go up by 10, 50, or even 100 times. I hate to use such hard-to-believe numbers, but that is the way this market works.

When the coming resource bubble is ignited, there are excellent odds you'll be laughing all the way to the bank in a few years.

I should stress that I'm not saying that this is the perfect time to buy. We're not at a market bottom as we were in 2001, nor an interim bottom like last November, and I can't say I know the Mania Phase is just around the corner. But I think this is a very reasonable time to be buying these stocks. And it's absolutely a good time to start educating yourself about them. There's just such a good chance a massive bubble is going to be ignited in this area.

Louis: These are obviously the kinds of things we research, make recommendations on, and educate about in our metals newsletters, but one thing we should stress for non subscribers reading this interview is that this strategy applies only to the speculative portion of your portfolio. No one should gamble with their rent money nor the money they've saved for college tuition, etcetera.

Doug: Right. The ideal speculator's portfolio would be divided into 10 areas, each totally different and not correlated with each other. Each of these areas should have, in your subjective opinion, the ability to move 1,000 percent in price.

Why is that? Because most of the time, we're wrong when we pick areas to speculate in, certainly in areas where you can't apply Graham-Dodd-type logic. But if you're wrong on 9 out of 10 of them, and it would be hard to do that badly, then you at least break even on the one 10-bagger (1,000 percent winner). What's more likely is that a couple will blow up and go to zero, a couple will go down 30, 40, 50 percent, but you'll also have a couple doubles or triples, and maybe, on one or two of them, you'll get a 10-to-1 or better win.

So, it looks very risky (and falling in love with any single stock is very risky), but it's actually an intelligent way to diversify your risk and stack the odds of profiting on volatility in your favor.

Note that I don't mean that these "areas" should be 10 different stocks in the junior mining sector—that wouldn't be diversification. As I say, ideally, I'd have 10 such areas with potential for 1,000 percent gains, but it's usually impossible to find that many at once. If you can find only two or three, what do you do with the rest of your money? Well, at this point, I would put a lot of it into gold, in one form or another, while keeping your powder dry as you look for the next idea opportunity.

And ideally, I'd look at every market in every country in the world. People who look only in the United States, or only in stocks, or only in real estate—they just don't get to see enough balls to swing at.

Louis: Okay, got it. Thank you very much.

In 2009, at the time of this interview, Doug said it was not the perfect time to buy because "we're not at a market bottom." That, however, has changed dramatically. In the last two years, gold mining stocks have gotten slaughtered, and even the best companies with proven, high-grade gold deposits are now trading 50-75% below their actual value. 

The time where contrarian investors can literally make a fortune may be close: Right now, Doug and many other seasoned resource investors are seeing unmistakable signs of an imminent turnaround in the gold market. 

Find out how to play the turning tides of the precious metals market by watching "Upturn Millionaires," a free online video event hosted by Casey Research—featuring Doug Casey, Porter Stansberry, Rick Rule, John Mauldin, Frank Giustra, Ross Beaty, Louis James, and Marin Katusa.  

Click here to save your seat.


Subscribe to our Free Market Technical Analysis and Commentary


Monday, February 3, 2014

Is February a Risk On or Risk Off Trade: Equities or Gold & Bonds

Recent price action in the stock market has many traders on edge. With the market closing below our key support trend line last week, the market has now technically starting a down trend.

While trend lines are a great tool for identifying a weakening trend and reversals in the market, I do not put a lot of my analysis weighting on them.

Most of my timing and trading is based around what I call INNER-Market Analysis (Market Stages, Cycles, Momentum and Sentiment). Using these data we can diagnose the overall health of the market. Knowing the strength of the market we can then forecast short term trend reversals before they happen with a high degree of accuracy.

In this report I keep things clean and simple using just trend lines. During the last three weeks we have seen the price of stocks pullback. And because 2013 was such a strong year for stocks most participants are expecting a sharp market correction to take place anytime now.

So with the recent price correction fear is starting to enter the market and money is rotating out of stocks and into the Risk Off assets like gold and bonds.

Stocks tend to fall in times of economic uncertainty or fear. These same factors push investors towards the safety trades (Risk Off) high quality bonds and precious metals. As more money goes from risk on to risk off, stocks will continue to fall and the safety trades will rise. The move by investors to select the safety of gold and bonds compared to the volatility of stocks will result in these risk plays to moving in opposite directions.

Let’s take a look at the chart below for a visual of what looks to be unfolding…...

Gold Trading Newsletter

 

How to Trade These Markets:

 

While these markets look to be starting to reverse trends, it is critical that we understand how the market moves during reversals and understand position/money management.

Getting short stocks and long precious metals in the long run could work out very well, but if you understand the price action that typically happens during reversals you know that the stock market will become choppy and we could see the recent highs tested or possibly even a new high made before price actually starts a down trend. And the opposite situation for gold and bonds. Drawdowns can be huge when investing and why I don’t just change position directions when the first sign of a trend change shows up on the chart.

Price reversals are a process, not an event. So it is important to follow along using a short term time frame like the daily chart and play the intermediate trends that last 4-12 weeks in length. By doing this, you are trading in the direction of the most active cycle in the stock market and positioned properly as new a trend starts.

What I am looking for in the next week or two:

 

1. Stocks to trade sideways or drift higher for 3-6 days, then I will be looking to get short. Again, cycle, sentiment, and momentum analysis must remain down for me to short the market. If they turn back up I will remain in cash until a setup for another short or long entry forms.

2. Gold remains in a down trend but is starting to breakout to the upside. I do have concerns with the daily chart patterns for both gold and silver, so next week will be critical for them. We will be using some ETF Trading Strategies to take advantage of these moves.

3. Bond prices (not yields) look to be forming a bottom “W” pattern. They have had a big run in the last few weeks and are now testing resistance. I think a long bond position is slowly starting to unfold but if we look at the futures price charts for both bonds and gold, they have not yet broken to the upside and have more work to do. As mentioned before ETFs are not really the best tool for charting but I show them because they what the masses follow and trade.

Get these reports every week free at: The Gold & Oil Guy.com

Chris Vermeulen


Get our "Gold and Crude Oil Trade Ideas"

 


Stock & ETF Trading Signals