Krull Leaves the Poker Game for a Quick Smoke Break
_________________________________________________________________________________
Up 3% yesterday, even with all my hedges still in place, I must bow to the volcanic power of the precious metal rebound we experienced yesterday.
That doesn’t mean I’m abandoning my post on the 12th slippery rung of the main municipal sewer — the cosy seat next to the extrusion pipe but before the extrusion weld. No, I’m still expecting a pullback today from yesterday’s Ode to Joy/Bunny Rabbit Massacre, unbounded.
But the dollar (seen on the intraday as [[UUP]] or DXY) still continues to fall off here, and I’m wondering if we will ever get back up to that $80.10 or so pivot (on DXY) I’d talked about as a trigger for another downturn last week. I won’t be surprised, however, if we get another exogenous shock out of Davos, the PIIG’s or even President Obama’s recently unveiled near $4 trillion FrankenBudget.
For now, I’m liking what works on the rebound, and thus far, it’s the fast movers of the junior golds like Allied Nevada Gold Corp. [[ANV]] , Eldorado Gold Corporation (USA) [[EGO]] and “the X-factor” — Exeter Resource Corp. [[XRA]] . I also like IAMGOLD Corporation (USA) [[IAG]] and Royal Gold, Inc. [[RGLD]] of course, and Lindsay made a nice rec yesterday on the nicely pivoting Taseko Mines Limited (USA) [[TGB]] .
Of course silver is my true Tsar Bomba play in 2010, as it has been lagging the 2009 move in gold, along with platinum [[PTM]] , Stillwater Mining Company [[SWC]] and palladium [[PAL]] . Right now, in this first updraft, I like the double silver play [[AGQ]] a whole lot, and of course my core group of miners — in order — Silver Wheaton Corp. (USA) [[SLW]] , [[EXK]] , [[PAAS]] , [[CDE]] , [[SVM]] , Silver Standard Resources Inc. (USA) [[SSRI]] and the lowly Hecla Mining Company [[HL]] .
All of these should be gnawed at opportunistically, as one would a bread wheel from the boulangerie, deep under the steam pipes of Manhattan.
I am still not taking down my hedges (in [[SPY]] puts and [[QID]] and [[BZG]] ), and will happily bleed money on them here, as that insurance policy has served me well these last weeks. Nothing could please me more than taking them down at lower balances, however, as that would mean all of my other plays are working well, as they did yesterday.
Don’t forget about the banks, here, as they’ve never really suffered much of a pullback, even in last week’s deluge. Today, they seem to be leading the red dogs, which may turn out to be an opportunity for you. Again, I like BB&T Corporation [[BBT]] for the longer term hold, Fifth Third Bancorp [[FITB]] and Huntington Bancshares Incorporated [[HBAN]] for the Ohio pop, and Pacific Capital Bancorp [[PCBC]] for the lotto play (stay small and remember, it’s only a game).
Best to you all, First Amendment scholars.
___________________________
If you enjoy the content at iBankCoin, please follow us on Twitter
thanks but jcvtwo called out TGB (good catch jcvtwo). I just tried to interrupt your historical Super Bowl fun w query on yesterday’s 100 day MA index charts by Mr. Lee.
by the way, copper had some very strange very large price swings in the middle of the night (as I tried to use hang seng live charts to put me back to sleep)-gold and silver were staying relatively stable while this was happening– maybe hang seng data feed was malfunctioning
Copper is a lot more sensitive to Chinese markets. Gold and silver not so much.
I thought you were the one who brought up TGB originally, but maybe I’m thinking of SVM.
Apologies to JCVTwo.
_____________
You missed this:
http://ibankcoin.com/jakegint/2010/02/01/just-get-in-the-manhole/#comment-11841
Jake, watched Cards pick apart UCONN ….they are a mess sans Calhoun.
That Lullville crowd is awfully dry??? Are any students allowed access to the game $$$$ ?
The Crowd you see on the tv is the richie donors in the first couple of rows… the student sections are behind either basket. They should change that, as West Va. has, and of course, Puke.
Nevertheless, there are 20k people in that house (22k next year when they open the new arena) so that scheit gets pretty deafening at times.
________
ROFL – Surprised you haven’t mentioned this –
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2510700
Ringing endorsement of Canada’s Healthcare System: N.L. Premier Williams set to have heart surgery in U.S.
I did see that, and figured I didn’t want to open another front with the leftists while I was still trying to defend the First Amendment.
It’s not like it’s uncommon for rich Canucks to go to the U.S. for the best care, it’s just uncommon that this guy is (was?) Canuckistans’ “favourite politician” (and a rich sumbo, too).
_______
He’s a douchebag, but he should still have the wherewithal to recognize that this doesn’t help anyone up here. Canada’s system works fine for 90% of the people who use it, I can attest to that personally, having gone through 2 surgeries in the last 4 years. A public system will never be perfect, but I’d still take it over that mess you guys enjoy down there. Up here, no one will turn you away from an emergency room or doctor’s office just because you have the wrong plan. Rich assholes like Danny Williams simply can’t wait their turn.
I do support what we call a two-tier system: private enterpise health providers along with the public system, in parallel. It’s complete anathema to a Canadian politician to even mention that. We’ve had a Conservative government since 2006, I believe, and it has never even been mentioned.
They don’t turn you away down here, either. It’s just that the gobmint is not on the hook for it.
Of course no one mentions it anymore, because you– and your politicians — are now held hostage by your healthcare system. You are on the front end of the death spiral, and the pols are only hoping it twirls slowly so you don’t notice how crappy it’s getting.
That’s what we are trying to avoid down here. And believe me, without our robust system, yours will get even worse than it is now, shortage wise.
_______
ROFL @ “They don’t turn you away down here”
You mean unless you don’t have the proper insurance. Or can’t afford to pay for the service to be provided.
@Dpeezy. I don’t know where you live, but they don’t turn you away in any hospital I’ve ever seen. The hospital (ie, the paying customers) eat it.
Not the most efficient system, but no one goes away untreated, and it’s the best care in the world.
___________
“Not the most efficient system” …. ROFLMAO again!
Ya think that’s why they (Dems anyway – don’t think the GOP wants reform) want a system where all the people are covered by a plan, so real costs are applied to each patient rather than the exponentially calculated bills sent to the Health Care Providers now?
Only problem from experience here in MA is that when everyone is covered the costs may be “actual” but there is more cost as more people start utilizing the system. That in turn means higher cost of the plan per individual or more subsidy by govt. for those not earning enough. Sort of a Catch22 until everyone reaches equilibrium as far as health care needs are concerned.
As they say, Insurance only works if everyone is covered and the costs are spread equally among the participants … it’s quite a challenge to meet when you are talking nation rather than state or company employees.
Personally I haven’t heard enough about any plan yet to feel that there’s a chance of it working but I do know that the current system (as good as it is) can’t continue as too many (self employed, unemployed & underemployed) can’t afford or find a plan that works for them.
The Dems want to control healthcare through the government so as to secure themselves an ongoing enslaved electorate for the duration.
Let’s not make it any more complicated than that.
Don’t you live in Taxachusetts? How’s that far milder form of Obamacare working out for you?
Be honest, I have friends who live there.
Try to think always — “more freedom, less tyranny,” and your thinking will come around, I’m sure of it.
Anyone who wants the government to run our healthcare system after they see what the gov’t has done with GM/Chrysler and any bureaucracy they’ve ever touched is certifiable.
IMHO 😉
_______
_________________
Guess your reading/comprehension skills are called into question yet again as I did answer that question in my opine above already.
“The Dems want to control healthcare through the government so as to secure themselves an ongoing enslaved electorate for the duration.”
I guess that explains your stubbornness when it comes to unlimited corporate donations, huh?
Jake, anyone so blinded by the conservative right as you is certifiable … come to the middle my son, you may see things in a new light.
I don’t know where you lot get the impression that our healthcare is some savage system of unchecked greed; where innocent homeless men and women crying are turned away at the door.
Seriously, this fucking kind of shit doesn’t happen.
The only real big problem right now is that a bunch of gay attorneys are driving up the costs of ensuring casualty risk by something averaging just under 100% per claim. I’d bet you could slash 30% costs from our problems by just telling them to cool the fuck off with the lawsuits and informing judges that awarding plaintiffs twice the amount they could have possibly earned in their normal lifetimes is, in a work, retarded.
I agree with the slug, Danny is a total douche.
I also support a 2 tier system but too many losers think its taboo.
From Teahouse’s prior post:
“Like all other natural persons, every shareholder of every corporation remains entirely free under Austin and McConnell to do however much electioneering she pleases outside of the corporate form. The owners of a “mom & pop” store can simply place ads in their own names, rather than the store’s. If ideologically aligned individuals wish to make unlimited expenditures through the corporate form, they may utilize an MCFL organization
that has policies in place to avoid becoming a conduit for business or union interests. See MCFL, 479 U. S., at 263–264.”
I just don’t see why the arbitrary distinction is made. If “aligned individuals” can make expenditures through the MCFL organization, then what’s the difference?
Most important — why are certain corporations (again, Disney, Microsoft, GE, etc) allowed to have unlimited and unmitigated political speech while others are not?
It’s ridiculous, arbitrary, freedom denying and most important — UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
_________________
Manhole Covers Analysis – http://www.eliteskills.com/c/8295
I like these lines:
Like medals struck by a great savage khan,
….
But notched and whelked and pocked and smashed…
_______________
Also from Teahouse, previous:
You forgot the rest of the 1st amendment …. free press and right to assembly. Sure the press/media may be owned by corporations but they come under rigorous restrictions and reporting rules unlike Ross Perot.
No they absolutely do not. They are not restricted by any “rules” whatsoever. There are standards of professionalism, of course, but whether they adhere to them or not (and I would posit that rags like the New York Times and your Boston Globe — owned by the same nefarious CORPORATION, btw– have dropped those standards almost entirely) is up to them.
Are you telling me the National Enquiror adheres to any rules? They literally tried to extort John Edwards into giving them an interview (exclusive, of course) about his baby Mama problem.
If they were known Mafia associates, they’d be up the river right now. Rules? Ha!
________________________
As well, no part of the First Amendment obviates any other part. So just because we have an amendment guarding the rights of a free press does not mean that justifies muzzling non-press speech.
(Or Assembly)
______________
Yes they are covered by election law and commercial advertising rules … equal time for candidates, reporting of $ per party, etc all designed to maintain impartiality by the owning corporation. Sure when it comes to editorial rights they can impart their view a la freedom of the press but that is generally done by a local station mgr not the CEO of the owning corp.
Stop mixing journalism freedom with political free speech Jake, they are two different animals and you know that.
You are talking about the advertising part of the company — I am talking about their editorial pages, where they can spew whatever trash they like to get their candidate elected.
Increasingly, in rags like the Times and Globe, said trash is in the news section as well. NO RULES.
Your last comment had me ROTFLMAO. Thanks. Now, go read your Constitution 100x.
______________
When talking silly as you have been about freedom of speech for corporations you do need to distinguish between core political speech and commercial political speech …
Get down from your soap box cause there’s no justifiable reason to allow unlimited corporate spending on ads … it provides nothing new to the current system other than enriching the coffers of the media companies while intending to confuse the electorate.
Go challenge the supreme court for corporate voting rights if you feel so strongly about the rights of corporations when it comes to freedom of speech and see where that gets you!
it provides nothing new to the current system other than enriching the coffers of the media companies while intending to confuse the electorate.
Who is “intending to confuse the electorate” and why do you hold the electorate in such low esteem that you believe they cannot discern bullshit?
Again, you are not offering an argument in defense, you are merely making a claim of justification for limiting the rights to free speech.
Your claim — “people are too stupid, so they can only listen to the New York Times or Fox News” is specious and antithetical to exactly the aims of the Founding Fathers in establishing a country based on sovereign inalienable rights, not authoritarian rule.
And I don’t need to “go challenge” anyone, as I have the Bill of Rights in front of me, and the stricture against government limiting of speech — populist rulings from the early 20th Century’s “Progressive Era” of budding gov’t bureaucracy and control aside — cannot be any clearer.
“More speech, not less, and let freedom reign.”
___________________
Dayyyyummmm Gina!
Sounds like a Lefty to me, ROFLMAO!
Sorry Jake, I see no reason to treat an institution on par with people and have no trouble with restrictions on their contributions as they aren’t entitled to the same rights/freedoms as voters. I happen to think we already have enough political advertising and find that the message gets muddied (maybe not for me or you) for many voters as they don’t know who’s funding the ad and what their intent behind the message really is … seen lots of dirty tricks via advertising here in MA over the years and it can be very deceptive … nothing wrong with protecting the voter from being inundated with mixed messages unless you take comfort in a confused electorate going to the voting polls I guess.
I recommend you do some reading on “core” verses “commercial” free speech as it applies to institutions and historical rulings regarding FECA.
The Court concluded that limits on campaign contributions “serve[d] the basic governmental interest in safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process without directly impinging upon the rights of individual citizens and candidates to engage in political debate and discussion.” At the same time, the Court overturned the expenditure limits, which it found imposed “substantial restraints on the quantity of political speech.”
I see nothing wrong with that court ruling nor any infringement on free speech by imposing a limit on institutional spending nor do I see why it’s such an issue for a conservative unless you see a distinct political advantage to your party.
This is because you are a liberal and you do not even understand what “rights and freedoms are.”
This will probably surprise you, but they are not “given” by governments and governments taking them away has only one definition –that of ” tyranny.”
You “happen to think” we have too much political advertising? Then who shall be the arbiter of who speaks?
Shall you — because you seem to understand thing pretty well from your “muddied message” statement above — be the one who decides who’s speech is important and who’s is not?
Maybe you can establish a panel of solons who can decide who can talk about our politicians? Maybe they can make the wise decision for all of us about whose opinions and whose arguments we should hear?
As for your other straw man arguements about “my party” I already told you about Gene McCarthy (sorry, I think I said McGovern the other night) who challenged Hubert Humphrey in the ’68 primaries. He was a fringe lefty who had a limited number of very powerful backers who financed his campaign. After 1976, he could no longer pull off such a campaign because of limitations.
So my issue is not left or right, it is about openness of communication and more important –the right to speak out against incumbent elected officials, especially those — like John McCain, who have used these shibboleths about “institutions” and “persons” to obscure the fact that they just want everyone except the specific media organs they can cajole and controll to “STFU!”
That sir, is the essence of a corrupt polity.
_________
Never heard of a Liberal against free speech of any type … so at least you could give me credit for being more to the right.
The govt is not taking anything away ….. nobody is stopping free speech … the only question is whether institutions s/b limited on the amount they can contribute and you see that as tyranny and I see it as ensuring the integrity of a system that doesn’t need another torpedo fired at it.
Nobody is excluded from speaking …. corporations just shouldn’t be allowed to spend without limitation.
“Never heard of a Liberal against free speech of any type”
I suppose that, by definition, the above is true of any small “l” liberal. But many who call themselves liberal rail against truly free speech and are as guilty of vilifying the the non-compliant as is our bulging-veined host.
Case in point involves Jewish Americans, a majority of whom call themselves liberal, but who support organizations which attack anyone who reports honestly on mid-east affairs (e.g., the plight of the Gaza); calling them “anti-Semites” or accusing them of engaging in “hate speech”, or, if the speaker is himself Jewish, calling them “self-hating Jew”.
Leftists are at the head of the anti-speech movements since the get go. You think maybe the CP-USA was big on everyone getting their voice heard? The left leaning Brennen Court was the one who started all these speech restrictions in 1976 in Buckley v. Valeo, just fyi.
The “right” or “conservatives” as I expect you mean, has always been pro-Bill of Rights (they wrote it, after all), so I don’t know where you get your ideas from. You truly have been brainwashed by your Mass/left.
upbringing.
I mean how can you make this statement with a straight face?
nobody is stopping free speech … the only question is whether institutions s/b limited on the amount they can contribute and you see that as tyranny and I see it as ensuring the integrity of a system that doesn’t need another torpedo fired at it.
First of all, the limits are still there on contributing to candidates, and corporations are BANNED from doing that.
Who is to say what ensures what integrity? It’s a fool’s game. Why in the world would you give more creedance to the speech of corporations who own media properties to influence elections while banning others from giving similar input? It’s egregious, an inherently unconstitutional.
Another torpedo fired at it? Don’t you see the Byzantine structures that have sprung up as a result of all these attempts at stopping speech have forced influence underground where the public can’t monitor it?
A promise to promote open disclosure and free speech to all would let the public know who is behind what messages, rather than allowing influence to be peddled behind closed doors. Don’t you find that preferable?
_____________
“First of all, the limits are still there on contributing to candidates, and corporations are BANNED from doing that. ”
Corporations are banned from making political contributions? What country are you living in?
You might want to amend that statement ..
problems here … comments being deleted in a move by Jake to limit my freedom of speech … ironic!
I will try again ..
” Maybe you can establish a panel of solons who can decide who can talk about our politicians? Maybe they can make the wise decision for all of us about whose opinions and whose arguments we should hear? ”
ROFLMAO, talk about straw man scenarios, but sure I’ll take on that responsibility! Meanwhile you might consider concerning yourself with access to the media by Independents (McCarthy) rather than corporate spending that could preclude these candidates from getting air time competing with unlimited budgets for a smidgen of advertisement time or even the right to be included in a broadcast of a debate by a local media outlet. As far as McCarthy goes, expenditure limits have been raised since then and how can you be so sure that he wouldn’t be able to get the needed funding today via the internet if you’re indicating that personal donation limits would prevent him from running.
“So my issue is not left or right, it is about openness of communication and more important –the right to speak out against incumbent elected officials, especially those… ”
I don’t see how you can say we don’t have “openness” or “the right to speak out against incumbents” now let alone the answer to your concern is unlimited spending by corporations as though that will alleviate your concerns and mine.
Popping on my screen:
NGD
XRA
IAG
_________________
Jake, I bought into XRA and IAG from relatively higher levels and would like to average in down with a final position. I’m just wondering whether you think that the bottom’s in or we might have a chance to drop a bit more? Thanks for your patience in sharing your trading ideas with us.
There’s certainly a chance of one more elevator dropper to scare the pants off of everyone, but I’m seeing it as increasingly remote as the days go on. I would at least be nibbling here. I gorged myself last week, of course, but I may grab a little more AGQ here just to average in.
Keep an eye on DXY and UUP, that will give you an indication of what’s going to happen w. the PM’s.
FYI — the POG is now four basis pts below 67x the price of gold (Gold= 1,116.20 and Silver= 16.67).
Either gold is going to tumble here towards the end of the day, or silver is egregiously undervalued. That’s where I’d bet first, just on the basic rules of mean reversion.
_________________
Think gold will tumble with the market here as we’ve hit the 1090 pivot and 1100 and will see new lows shortly … keeping my powder dry for ANV, IAG, FRG & MVG
I’m hoping too, but this dollar tumble is not giving my the warm and fuzzies. I don’t know how gold is gonna get hit if the dollar drops much below $79 here.
_____________
If O’bama manages to steel [sic] the repaid TARP funds for distribution to community banks we could see the market sell off as the $ moves up again …. that’s why I’ve been buying the small community banks that are better capitalized. They should run on the govt cheese and loans by them to small biz on Main St will be the catalyst for the strengthening $.
If the large Regionals and IB’s refuse to provide the lending then the govt will somehow need to inject funds into local community banks to stimulate jobs … consolidation and FDIC transfers of deposits from failures will continue to prop up the small banks.
I can’t believe we’ve gone the entire day and no one has made a comment on my “Jefferson Krull” caption above.
Doesn’t that look like him??
_________
I think it looks more like Col. Walter Kurtz.:
“We must kill them. We must incinerate them. Pig after pig… cow after cow… village after village… army after army… “
Looks like I will be waiting a while to add to SLW or start new positions in ANV or IAG
Why so? I didn’t see today as anything but a consolidation today, from which we will launch, very shortly.
__________
Me too …..
Big gubment is back baby!
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/02/burgeoning-federal-payroll-signals-return-of-big-g/
The Obama administration says the government will grow to 2.15 million employees this year, topping 2 million for the first time since President Clinton declared that “the era of big government is over” and joined forces with a Republican-led Congress in the 1990s to pare back the federal work force.
Most of the increases are on the civilian side, which will grow by 153,000 workers, to 1.43 million people , in fiscal 2010.
problems here … comments being deleted in a move by Jake to limit my freedom of speech … ironic!
Ironic, or “idiotic?”
Accuse me again of “censoring” your asinine comments, and I really will ban your ass. If you are having problems with the software, you can send an email to Fly or Jeremy. Otherwise, STFU about being censored, you silly git.
You and Purdy are perfect statist foils. Why would I ever want to censor you when I can use your arguments to illustrate the general political, economic and historical misunderstandings of the typical left-leaning voter?
__________________
________________
FO ….. you don’t even have a sense of humor!
Hey, it’s your problem …. I’m just telling you that after posting comments they were chopped up or missing lines/paragraphs.
So when you don’t like the debate you threaten banning …. nice!
You truly are an idiot, E8. I “threatened bannning” for your whinging like the peasant in the Holy Grail sketch (“look! look! ‘E’s oppressin’ me!).
One thing I will not tolerate is whining.
Buck up, sappy.
____________
More Teahouse Erreur (sic) from above:
Corporations are banned from making political contributions? What country are you living in?
You might want to amend that statement ..
Umm, no.
It’s only been the law for about 100 years now., and it was unaffected by the Citizen’s United case, btw.
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=435cab18-4e57-4ce1-98d1-09052f79cf95
Excerpt:
Not at issue in the case are the limits on contributions to candidates: those are still limited to $2,400 per election from individuals and $5,000 per election from PACs (direct corporate contributions are prohibited).
(Emphasis, Jake.)
__________
That was exactly my point … PAC’s provide any officer, employee, bd member, spouse etc to pool their contributions in the name of the corp …. how can you say they are banned when that is not the case …
I urge you to re-read my post.
DIRECT corporate contributions are banned. Of course I know individuals can contribute to a PAC, but that’s not what I was talking about.
______________
Speech by individuals is different than speech by corps or unions. Corps are owned by NON-citizens as well as by citizens. Subsidiaries of foreign corps controlled by gov’ts can spend on political speech under the law you defend. And unions in non-RTW states can extort money from members and spend it against the wishes of the union member.
The more distant and hidden political speech is from the individual who funds, otherwise facilitates, or de facto endorses, that speech, the more subject speech becomes influence-peddling scumbaggery – and the more concentrated power becomes. Your position is anti-individual liberty.
So what does that say about the government? They are pretty far removed from the individual and control more money than any corporation or union.