Capstone Mining recovering well. Any fool looks good in a bull (with the emphasis on 'fool')

Right now, Capstone Mining up 15.5% at $1.34. Here's what I wrote on December 31st:

There are plenty of beneficiaries from this base metals move, but one that's caught my eye is Capstone (CS.to), up 8.75% at $0.87. According to company literature, today's copper spot is around the point that CS.to has its cash cost.

And here's what I wrote on January 1st:

Last but not least, Capstone Mining (CS.to) up 10% today, the base metals play that was mentioned earlier this week. It's the right size and with the right costs make-up to get good leverage from any BM upmove. Here's the five day chart that might not be as spectacular as BWR.to but it's still very cool; a win is a win.

Since then, the chart has done this. That's a nice gain for sure..... $0.75 to $1.34 in five trading days works for me anytime.
So what's the point here, apart from pointing out that I nailed a good trade in the "Trading Post" series and then preening and crowing like the arrogant git that I am in front of my audience? Here are a few bullet points:

• Any fool looks good in a bull market. Those with short memories will at this time be sharpening their pencils to write their own versions of "hey look at me" for online consumption.

• BUT THIS IS NOT A BULL MARKET! To follow the example above, it's great to point at the 20% rebound in copper but that doesn't suddenly make copper exposure a sure-fire winner. So very cool to point to a stock that gains 50% but let's not worry about where the stock was this time last year. We're currently enjoying a relief rally in a bear market. It's very welcome all the same, but that's all it is and anyone telling you otherwise is just plain wrong. Copper at $1.50/lb isn't going to get a single financier thinking about throwing a billion at an unbuilt mine, I promise you.
  

• In my opinion, the rebound so far has been for monetary reasons and not based on true supply/demand factors. For sure supply is being restricted (see the post earlier this morning about Volcan for a topical example) but there's not much sign of demand pick-up as yet. We need to see a change in direction of macrofundamentals before we're allowed to change our minds again.
  

• You should expect pullbacks to happen in the current atmosphere because that's what happens during a bear market. Period. So the logical conclusion to that is to say loudly and clearly, "DO NOT BE AFRAID TO TAKE PROFITS." If you make good coin in a bear market trade, take it. Cash it in. Bank it. Keep a chunky position on the sidelines for the next opportunity. Be nimble. I could come out with a dozen other clichés, but you should have the message by now.

• Selling well is, of course, even more difficult than buying well. On a personal level, very occasionally I get a call just right (e.g. this recent one on GORO.ob), but more often than not calling "take profits" at the very top of the price curve is either luck based or impossible. As a recent example, I said that taking profits on GRZ would be wise with the stock at $0.95, and since then it has motored on to stand at $1.21 right now. So be it, but the main thing here is that you take YOUR profit. Not his, or hers, or watch the thing keep on moving and shout "D'OH!" all week, cos that's silly. Baruch was one of the most successful stock market players of all time and he said, "I made a fortune by selling too early." Think about that one.

The bottom line here is that it's not some kind of ego-based "you-vs-them" game here. This is not a drill (as Gary Biiwii likes to say). Be clear that the tactics used by successful investors in bear markets are wholly different to those needed during a bull. Bear markets are rarer than bulls and this one is a nasty example, too. That means there are a lot of things you're used to doing that should be ignored right now. In my case, when I see a great, undervalued mining company such as Capstone my temptation is to stay inside my value investor's shell and say "yeah, it's up 50% but the numbers say that if copper keeps moving like it's moving I'm holding a potential 5 bagger" or variations thereof. So I buy and hold, then buy again and hold some more and then buy another value stock and hold that and suddenly my cash reserve has gone and I'm trading on margin. Trading on margin in a bear market is NUTSO.

Moral of the story is be conservative, take a chunky profit and thank the market gods when you do. Don't look back in anger and PRESERVE YOUR CAPITAL. The time to buy and hold will come eventually, as day follows night.

DYODD, dude.

Now six weeks later......

Yep, it's that 22nd October post again, reposted because I've yet to hear a single argument that makes sense against it. The dollar is still strong, and commodities are still being beaten up so the way the story is unfurling also backs up my thoughts here.

Just to be as clear as possible: THERE IS NO REASON TO EXPECT THE IMMINENT COLLAPSE OF THE DOLLAR. Remember what JM Keynes said about irrational markets and stop listening to the "we're all gonna die" crowd.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED OCTOBER 22ND

I just received another one of those "It's mystifying how gold and silver have sold off" mails this afternoon. So let's put some broadstroke ideas out on the blog (even though this isn't really LatAm material). It's really pretty simple. It's not about gold, silver or any other commodity, it's about the US Dollar. In simple bullet-point form:

1) Under normal circumstances, any country faced with recession needs its currency to devalue relative to others to make its country, products, goods, services etc competitive in the world market, therefore grow out of recession. It's the typical cycle....no brain surgery needed.

2) When its currency drops, it also puts up a de-facto imports restriction (i.e. locally produced goods and services become more attractive than more expensive items imported from overseas). As an example of the flip-side, Venezuela is the classic overvalued currency at the moment and its internal industry suffers as a consequence.

3) However the country in question this time is the USA. Firstly it is a net importer on a vast scale. Secondly its exports tends to be cutting edge sectors in tech, biotech, pharma and finance that hold their competitive edge at whatever dollar ticket price.

4) Therefore it is perhaps...repeat perhaps...unnecessary for the dollar to go through its weak phase to bring the country out of recession.

5) Meanwhile, the USA is the implicit "world leader" and does not want to lose that position. If its currency weakened sufficiently it would mean that:

• net exporting countries would look for new markets more vigorously

• commodities prices would revalue in dollar terms and bring more wealth to the net exporters and imply less wealth for the net importers (eg W Europe, Japan, USA)

Or put simply: If the current "leaders of the world" (for want of a better phrase) make a concerted effort to keep the dollar strong, they will not lose their place as the most important nation(s) on earth.

As a by-product, the economies of the traditional net exporting nations (for example Peru) and the commodities in which they deal (for example silver) are suppressed.

Conclusion: It seems to me that the USA has two ways of going through its recession. It can either take the logical/natural (in economics terms at least) road and pass through its recessive phase with a weakened currency. Or it can pass through recession with a strong currency. With a weak currency the rest of the world is less affected but the after effect is a less influential USA on the world stage. With a strong currency the USA drags the rest of the world into its recession, but the after effect is that it remains the top dog as people will continue to want to sell plastic dolls and things to its market and will be actively hoping that the USA improves as quickly as possible (so that its most profitable market is quickly restored).

Therefore, the USA is doing everything in its power to maintain a strong dollar, because it doesn't care so much about the whole world suffering as long as it remains the world's most important once the recession is finished. It will probably be encouraged in this effort by the other main industrialized countries that will also benefit from status quo. I repeat; the USA is and will continue to base its whole plan around one thing; "keep the dollar as strong as possible". It is the number one basic element of all its crisis planning.

UPDATE: I'm writing an update on this post at 7:41am this next morning because I'm already fed up about having to multi-answer the same counter-argument via mail. Yes, there's all that carry-trade thing, isn't there? But if you think that explains things then you also say that once the carry trade phenomenon is done there will be an equal and opposite downside to the dollar. Ok, that may happen, but it ain't necessarily so, either. What I'm proposing here is the carry trade explanation puts the cart before the horse. It's not the cause, but the effect. It's how it's happening, but not why.

When the dollar returns to USD72, write me and tell me how wrong I was. Until then, don't you think that all experts saying exactly the same thing at exactly the same time is a little suspicious, especially given those same experts' recent track record in understanding world finances?

UPDATE 2: This is most definitely the final update on this issue. Instead of getting on with my job the e-mail exchanges have continued for the last two hours with several people. I can distill my position in those mail exchanges into the following:

I just don't buy all the "it's carry trade" chorus. It fits, yes. But it's also the new chorus coming from a bunch of people who have been scrambling behind the curve for weeks, months or even years; why should I or anyone else blindly accept they should suddenly be ahead of the curve with this explanation? The carry trade explanation is choosing yet another after-the-fact scenario that fits. What I'm proposing is an a priori scenario that also fits the evidence we see around us.

I repeat the basics here;

The USA will benefit from a strong dollar policy going fwd.

If the dollar drops to sub 78USD (or so) then I'm wrong, it was pure carry trade and there is nobody at the helm of this dollar move.

Whether by accident or design, the current dollar strength will keep the USA and the industrialized nations in the box seat and will suppress the net exporting nations' economies.

I'm now going to crawl back under my stone and stick to all things LatAm, as mentioning to N. American readers that they might be wrong about their own financial analyses (after all the recent evidence too!) seems to rile too much from an outsider. I never mind about being proved wrong on these kind of things, but I'm always surprised about how religious other people get in defending hastily put together theories and daren't even think about any other logical alternatives.

Two weeks later and nothing has changed

Know your Beckett

On October 22nd I wrote this post pasted underneath. I got dozens (quite literally) of mails from people who told me how the dollar was at a temporary peak due to the carry trade (or something like that they'd probably heard on CNBC) and how the dollar was going to plummet at any minute and how gold was going to fly at any minute and how I should stick to LatAm things and not get involved in real men's work and this and that and the other.

At the time the USD index stood at 84. It's now at 86. Gold is still fiddling around at $730/oz and silver is at $10. Feel free to tell me how wrong I am again people, but make your arguments more interesting this time, please.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I just received another one of those "It's mystifying how gold and silver have sold off" mails this afternoon. So let's put some broadstroke ideas out on the blog (even though this isn't really LatAm material). It's really pretty simple. It's not about gold, silver or any other commodity, it's about the US Dollar. In simple bullet-point form:

1) Under normal circumstances, any country faced with recession needs its currency to devalue relative to others to make its country, products, goods, services etc competitive in the world market, therefore grow out of recession. It's the typical cycle....no brain surgery needed.

2) When its currency drops, it also puts up a de-facto imports restriction (i.e. locally produced goods and services become more attractive than more expensive items imported from overseas). As an example of the flip-side, Venezuela is the classic overvalued currency at the moment and its internal industry suffers as a consequence.

3) However the country in question this time is the USA. Firstly it is a net importer on a vast scale. Secondly its exports tends to be cutting edge sectors in tech, biotech, pharma and finance that hold their competitive edge at whatever dollar ticket price.

4) Therefore it is perhaps...repeat perhaps...unnecessary for the dollar to go through its weak phase to bring the country out of recession.

5) Meanwhile, the USA is the implicit "world leader" and does not want to lose that position. If its currency weakened sufficiently it would mean that:

• net exporting countries would look for new markets more vigorously

• commodities prices would revalue in dollar terms and bring more wealth to the net exporters and imply less wealth for the net importers (eg W Europe, Japan, USA)

Or put simply: If the current "leaders of the world" (for want of a better phrase) make a concerted effort to keep the dollar strong, they will not lose their place as the most important nation(s) on earth.

As a by-product, the economies of the traditional net exporting nations (for example Peru) and the commodities in which they deal (for example silver) are suppressed.

Conclusion: It seems to me that the USA has two ways of going through its recession. It can either take the logical/natural (in economics terms at least) road and pass through its recessive phase with a weakened currency. Or it can pass through recession with a strong currency. With a weak currency the rest of the world is less affected but the after effect is a less influential USA on the world stage. With a strong currency the USA drags the rest of the world into its recession, but the after effect is that it remains the top dog as people will continue to want to sell plastic dolls and things to its market and will be actively hoping that the USA improves as quickly as possible (so that its most profitable market is quickly restored).

Therefore, the USA is doing everything in its power to maintain a strong dollar, because it doesn't care so much about the whole world suffering as long as it remains the world's most important once the recession is finished. It will probably be encouraged in this effort by the other main industrialized countries that will also benefit from status quo. I repeat; the USA is and will continue to base its whole plan around one thing; "keep the dollar as strong as possible". It is the number one basic element of all its crisis planning.


UPDATE: I'm writing an update on this post at 7:41am this next morning because I'm already fed up about having to multi-answer the same counter-argument via mail. Yes, there's all that carry-trade thing, isn't there? But if you think that explains things then you also say that once the carry trade phenomenon is done there will be an equal and opposite downside to the dollar. Ok, that may happen, but it ain't necessarily so, either. What I'm proposing here is the carry trade explanation puts the cart before the horse. It's not the cause, but the effect. It's how it's happening, but not why.

When the dollar returns to USD72, write me and tell me how wrong I was. Until then, don't you think that all experts saying exactly the same thing at exactly the same time is a little suspicious, especially given those same experts' recent track record in understanding world finances?

UPDATE 2: This is most definitely the final update on this issue. Instead of getting on with my job the e-mail exchanges have continued for the last two hours with several people. I can distill my position in those mail exchanges into the following:

I just don't buy all the "it's carry trade" chorus. It fits, yes. But it's also the new chorus coming from a bunch of people who have been scrambling behind the curve for weeks, months or even years; why should I or anyone else blindly accept they should suddenly be ahead of the curve with this explanation? The carry trade explanation is choosing yet another after-the-fact scenario that fits. What I'm proposing is an a priori scenario that also fits the evidence we see around us.

I repeat the basics here;

The USA will benefit from a strong dollar policy going fwd.

If the dollar drops to sub 78USD (or so) then I'm wrong, it was pure carry trade and there is nobody at the helm of this dollar move.

Whether by accident or design, the current dollar strength will keep the USA and the industrialized nations in the box seat and will suppress the net exporting nations' economies.

I'm now going to crawl back under my stone and stick to all things LatAm, as mentioning to N. American readers that they might be wrong about their own financial analyses (after all the recent evidence too!) seems to rile too much from an outsider. I never mind about being proved wrong on these kind of things, but I'm always surprised about how religious other people get in defending hastily put together theories and daren't even think about any other logical alternatives.

Originally posted October 22nd

Fertilizer issues, soya harvests and all that jazz

Here's a bloomie story on Brazil soya pasted as stands. Zero in on the highlighted para 2, people. This could become a big problem going forward. Watch Argentina come out with lower crop forecasts in the next couple of weeks, too.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Brazil Cuts Soybean, Corn Forecast on Fertilizer Cost (Update1)

By Carlos Caminada

Nov. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Soybean output in Brazil, the world's second-biggest producer, will unexpectedly fall next year as farmers lack credit to buy more expensive fertilizer, the government said.

Soybean output will decline to between 58.4 million and 59.3 million metric tons, compared with 60 million tons this year, the Agriculture Ministry's crop-forecasting agency said today in an e-mailed report. The agency, known as Conab, last month forecast production to rise to between 60.1 million and 61.3 million tons.

The global credit crunch came as farmers in Brazil sought financing to finish buying fertilizers for planting this month. The lack of credit means some regions will cut planting, and the reduced use of fertilizers may trim yields, Conab said.

``Production costs are significantly higher during the planting season and there are difficulties to access credit,'' Conab said in the report.

Average soybean yields will drop 1.6 percent to 2.77 tons per hectare in next year's harvest, Conab said. A hectare is equal to 2.47 acres.

In the Center West, which accounts for half of Brazil's soybean output, farmers will reduce planting as much as 2.9 percent to 9.35 million hectares.

Corn production will fall to 54.3 million to 55.2 million tons, from 58.6 million tons, Conab said. That compares with the October estimate for a drop to 55 million to 56 million tons.

To contact the reporter on this story: Carlos Caminada in Sao Paulo at at ccaminada1@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: November 6, 2008 07:20 EST

Due to the drop in metals prices, Peru is now probably a net importer

This little post gives a general ballpark idea of some cold, unpleasant realities in the pipeline for Peru (and for LatAm in general):

1) Despite propaganda to the contrary, Peru is still heavily dependent on metals exports to maintain its growing economy.

2) The recent drop in world metals prices will hurt Peru badly.

3) Peru is now probably running a trade deficit with the rest of the world, as its demand for imports to fuel its growth now outweighs its exports.

Here we go with a couple of charts. This first one shows Peru's exports Jan 2006 to August 2008.

(click to enlarge)

As we can see, although non-mining exports have increased in the period the dominant sector is still mining. In August 2008, for example, metals exports accounted for U$1592.27m of the U$2943.2m in total exports (54%). You'll also notice that at the end of the chart I've made some estimations for October 2008, and it looks likely that it will be the first time in a long time that mining exports are lower than their non-mining counterparts.

This is because the prices for metals have slumped since August 2008 (as anyone holding mining stocks will quickly tell you). To give you some idea, here is a little table that shows how much each of the "big five" metals made in export revenues for Peru in August 2008, and then on the right hand side we apply October 2008 prices to the August 2008 production levels (by which I assume copper at U$1.80/lb, gold at U$730/oz, silver at U$9/oz, lead at U$0.50/lb and zinc at U$0.50/lb).

	Aug Exports (U$m)	Aug Prod at Oct prices
cu	721.17	452.65
au	432.35	376.48
ag	48.31	29.43
pb	76.05	40.64
zn	113.49	149.80
TOTAL	1391.37	1049.00
Difference = U$342.37m

The result is that for the same amount of production, Peru loses over U$342m in revenues simply due to the spot price changes. That's a theoretical 12% of the country's export revenue gone up in smoke, people. That's a lot.

It also means that Peru's trade balance is likely negative. Here's the monthly trade balance 2006 to Aug 2008, and you'll note that the average monthly trade surplue for 2008 is all but gobbled up by the projected deficit from just four major metals exports mentioned above.

(click to enlarge)

Forget iron ore, molybdenum, asparagus, fishmeal, mangoes, and all the other things Peru sells to the world; just the price slumps in copper, gold silver and lead are nearly enough to put Peru's accounts into the red.

The bottom line is that financial crisis is going to hit everyone. Peru is the example in this post, but consider that 60% of Chile's export FOB is just in copper and it doesn't need a brain surgeon's intellect to work out the rest. This is true for Argentina's soya. It's true for Venezuela's oil. It's true for Brazil's multiple soft and hard commodities. This slowdown will make no exception for left-wing or right-wing politics. The simple fact is that if these prices stay where they are, ALL of South America is in the toilet.

Last week President Twobreakfasts announced to his people that Peru would grow 7% in 2009. I have a sneaky suspicion that he's being a touch optimistic about things. What do you say?

Why the dollar is strong (and gold, silver etc etc are weak)

I just received another one of those "It's mystifying how gold and silver have sold off" mails this afternoon. So let's put some broadstroke ideas out on the blog (even though this isn't really LatAm material). It's really pretty simple. It's not about gold, silver or any other commodity, it's about the US Dollar. In simple bullet-point form:

1) Under normal circumstances, any country faced with recession needs its currency to devalue relative to others to make its country, products, goods, services etc competitive in the world market, therefore grow out of recession. It's the typical cycle....no brain surgery needed.

2) When its currency drops, it also puts up a de-facto imports restriction (i.e. locally produced goods and services become more attractive than more expensive items imported from overseas). As an example of the flip-side, Venezuela is the classic overvalued currency at the moment and its internal industry suffers as a consequence.

3) However the country in question this time is the USA. Firstly it is a net importer on a vast scale. Secondly its exports tends to be cutting edge sectors in tech, biotech, pharma and finance that hold their competitive edge at whatever dollar ticket price.

4) Therefore it is perhaps...repeat perhaps...unnecessary for the dollar to go through its weak phase to bring the country out of recession.

5) Meanwhile, the USA is the implicit "world leader" and does not want to lose that position. If its currency weakened sufficiently it would mean that:

• net exporting countries would look for new markets more vigorously

• commodities prices would revalue in dollar terms and bring more wealth to the net exporters and imply less wealth for the net importers (eg W Europe, Japan, USA)

Or put simply: If the current "leaders of the world" (for want of a better phrase) make a concerted effort to keep the dollar strong, they will not lose their place as the most important nation(s) on earth.

As a by-product, the economies of the traditional net exporting nations (for example Peru) and the commodities in which they deal (for example silver) are suppressed.

Conclusion: It seems to me that the USA has two ways of going through its recession. It can either take the logical/natural (in economics terms at least) road and pass through its recessive phase with a weakened currency. Or it can pass through recession with a strong currency. With a weak currency the rest of the world is less affected but the after effect is a less influential USA on the world stage. With a strong currency the USA drags the rest of the world into its recession, but the after effect is that it remains the top dog as people will continue to want to sell plastic dolls and things to its market and will be actively hoping that the USA improves as quickly as possible (so that its most profitable market is quickly restored).

Therefore, the USA is doing everything in its power to maintain a strong dollar, because it doesn't care so much about the whole world suffering as long as it remains the world's most important once the recession is finished. It will probably be encouraged in this effort by the other main industrialized countries that will also benefit from status quo. I repeat; the USA is and will continue to base its whole plan around one thing; "keep the dollar as strong as possible". It is the number one basic element of all its crisis planning.


UPDATE: I'm writing an update on this post at 7:41am this next morning because I'm already fed up about having to multi-answer the same counter-argument via mail. Yes, there's all that carry-trade thing, isn't there? But if you think that explains things then you also say that once the carry trade phenomenon is done there will be an equal and opposite downside to the dollar. Ok, that may happen, but it ain't necessarily so, either. What I'm proposing here is the carry trade explanation puts the cart before the horse. It's not the cause, but the effect. It's how it's happening, but not why.

When the dollar returns to USD72, write me and tell me how wrong I was. Until then, don't you think that all experts saying exactly the same thing at exactly the same time is a little suspicious, especially given those same experts' recent track record in understanding world finances?

UPDATE 2: This is most definitely the final update on this issue. Instead of getting on with my job the e-mail exchanges have continued for the last two hours with several people. I can distill my position in those mail exchanges into the following:

I just don't buy all the "it's carry trade" chorus. It fits, yes. But it's also the new chorus coming from a bunch of people who have been scrambling behind the curve for weeks, months or even years; why should I or anyone else blindly accept they should suddenly be ahead of the curve with this explanation? The carry trade explanation is choosing yet another after-the-fact scenario that fits. What I'm proposing is an a priori scenario that also fits the evidence we see around us.

I repeat the basics here;

The USA will benefit from a strong dollar policy going fwd.

If the dollar drops to sub 78USD (or so) then I'm wrong, it was pure carry trade and there is nobody at the helm of this dollar move.

Whether by accident or design, the current dollar strength will keep the USA and the industrialized nations in the box seat and will suppress the net exporting nations' economies.

I'm now going to crawl back under my stone and stick to all things LatAm, as mentioning to N. American readers that they might be wrong about their own financial analyses (after all the recent evidence too!) seems to rile too much from an outsider. I never mind about being proved wrong on these kind of things, but I'm always surprised about how religious other people get in defending hastily put together theories and daren't even think about any other logical alternatives.

LatAm commodities are now just one big sector

The squealing is coming from all sectors and all countries this morning.

Oil down (Therefore Venezuela, Ecuador and Brazil are toast)
Metals are down (Therefore Chile and Peru are toast)
Soft commods down (Therefore Argentina and Brazil are toast)

So it occurred to me to look at a few stocks that cover both LatAm and commodities of various shapes and sizes. What I saw was a real eye-epener:

This chart compares the ten day stock price performance of Southern Copper (PCU, the black line), soybean play Bunge (BG, the red line), iron ore and other metals play Vale (RIO, the blue line) and Brazil's Petrobras (PBR, the region's biggest traded oil play).

What this shows is that current share price action has nothing repeat nothing to do with real market forces like supply, demand etc. It shows that political risk factors are being totally ignored. It shows that the market has no idea about what it is truly buying or selling. This because the only thing that can be concluded from this chart is that all commodities are but one thing, and according to the crazy price action and the crazier people that drive it, all the LatAm states involved with their production are just one big, homogenous risk.

You telling me that chart up there is logical? Because if so, my investment recommendation to you is simple. Don't trade stocks ever again. Put your money in a time deposit fund and learn to surf, or play piano, or join a salsa dance class or something. You need a different pastime. However, if you agree with me and see the asinine way in which commodity stock are being treated right now, maybe you'll think about finding the arbitrage advantage amongst all that mess.

Personally, and as an example, I think PBR at U$28 is a great price now (if you take a medium-term perspective); It may go lower (re-test $25?) but oil has a profit floor these days, thanks to things like Canadian Oil Sands. And when Obama gets in, do you really think OPEC will keep the spigots wide open? Think about it.....

Gary's thoughts

There are only two technical analysts that I pay any attention to in this world, and Biiwii Gary is one of them*. As part of this post today in which he does his normal cool thing (i.e. slaps a couple of timely charts in front of us and then explains how he sees the market psyche) he comes up with a six point scenario that I can go for very easily. Gary sez:

1) Uncle Buck tops
2) Commodities bottom and rally... taking gold with them
3) Stock market legs down, eventually taking commodities down again and yes, gold too
4) Deflation Scare Central as Uncle Buck bottoms for next leg up and assault on 80/81
5) Euro goes pfffftt, oil down for a long count
6) Economic anxiety at a fever pitch accompanied by calls for government to DO SOMETHING. Gold says 'errr, I think that's my cue'

You rule Gary, I'll go along with your plan. As mentioned this morning it's getting near serious buytime, too. As for timing each step, anyone got any ideas?

*the other is you, Grin