_________________________
In fact, it may only be around temporarily this morning, but silver has dropped about 1% this morning in early trading (due to a slight uptick in the dollar) while gold has held pretty much flat. That puts our new Gold/Silver ration at a hair over 67.2x , and I So I’m going to take this opportunity to load up on some more select names in bullion [[AGQ]] — and in miners, with [[EXK]] , [[SVM]] , [[CDE]] , [[PAAS]] and yes, even Silver Wheaton Corp. (USA) [[SLW]] again.
I will not be pulling the trigger all at once, as I would like to see if we get more dollar strength in the day, but given the strength of gold in this downdraft, I don’t believe this divergence will hold for very long. Either gold will drop down to a low 60’s POG/POS ratio, or silver will rise. In either case, I think our safer bet will be silver again.
Also, I may dabble in some more [[PTM]] here, which has shown very good relative strength through this whole dollar strenghthening period, as has the platinum/palladium miner [[PAL]] .
Best to you all.
_____________________________________________________
If you enjoy the content at iBankCoin, please follow us on Twitter
From Purdy’s 7:15 AM post, previous entry:
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.
Are you really a libertarian or was that all just bee-ess?
You need to spend a couple of weeks over at the Reason Magazine site, perhaps, — just for a touch up.
As to your alleged objections — they sure seem a lot more libby than liberal–
Corps are owned by NON-citizens as well as by citizens.
First off, there are restrictions against foreign owned corporations already in place, even though I don’t agree with those either. Second, who cares? Since when does the right to free speech end at US citizenship? Again, this is “Libertarian 101,” so your problem with it gives me pause.
The way I look at it is thus — if a corporation is doing business in the U.S. and subject to US laws and regulations, they should have the ability to make their thoughts known to their customers and suppliers about what their government is doing to threaten jobs, commerce, etc.
As long as its fully disclosed as to where the speech is coming from, I think voters can make their own decisions as to the credibility of the message. Remember, libs always have the tried and true “eeeevil corporations” card to play, so I don’t know what’s got you shaking in your boots about letting them speak their mind.
Subsidiaries of foreign corps controlled by gov’ts can spend on political speech under the law you defend.
First, let’s be clear, the only “law I’m defending” is the First Amendment, which is a natural right of man, not a US “law” per se. In the case we are talking about, the suit was brought AGAINST the law that made restrictions on speech. So to be clear, these are laws put in place in direct contravention of the First Amendment.
But as to your point, the “throw out” of the certain provisions of BCRA does now allow some foreign sub speech, subject to aforesaid limitations. I think they should be even more free than Citizens v. United allows.
And unions in non-RTW states can extort money from members and spend it against the wishes of the union member.
Extort? I think it’s called union dues, and even in commie non-right to work states like yours, union membership is still voluntary. Again, I urge everyone in a commie non-right to work state to protest this sop to the extortianate unions (isn’t everything unions do some form of extortion? 😉 ), but until then, no one is holding a gun to anyone’s head to take a union job and pay the union dues that union bosses use to (they hope) keep union jobs in place.
More Purdy: 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.
If you’d read any of the links I’ve provided over the last couple of days, you’d know right away that isn’t true. Again, I’m being completely serious here — I humbly submit that you spend a couple of days over at Reason.com researching the issue.
The fact is, the most “distant and hidden political speech” is going on right now, via lobbyists and clandestine 527 organization with hidden benefactors (Soros runs about 12 of them). “Influence peddling scumbaggery” goes on RIGHT NOW, without the baleful light of public cognizance to reveal it.
The great thing about public speech is… IT’S PUBLIC. And if it’s disclosed as to its origin, then I don’t see how you can claim it’s a worse form of advocacy than back room lobbyist cash being stuffed into iceboxes, etc.
McCain Feingold and other such limitations on speech act like big regulation does with large US corporations — it shuts the little guy out by forcing a Byzantine regulatory process on their ability to get the word out.
Remember, the plaintiff in “Citizens” was not IBM or some large corporation, but a loose conglomeration of citizens who did not have the same resources — or avenue to lobbying organizations — as large donors currently do.
More sunlight, more speech, more liberty — individual and otherwise.
_______________________
“As long as its fully disclosed as to where the speech is coming from, I think voters can make their own decisions as to the credibility of the message.”
Ah, but that’s the rub ….
When MA was considering a seat belt bill the public was inundated by advertising from both sides of the issue and one ad was sponsored by some arbitrary group like “Citizens for a Safe Driver.” Turned out that the sponsor wasn’t MADD or some such group but the insurance industry yet viewers had no idea where the message was coming from and the true intent of it’s sponsor.
Political ads are notorious for being deceptive already, so opening up Pandora’s box via unlimited corporate spending will add to voter knowledge or hinder it? Who would monitor the full disclosure that you suggest be apart to this revised supreme court ruling? More govt employees or some independent private service company appointed or contracted by whom?
“the only “law I’m defending” is the First Amendment, which is a natural right of man, not a US “law” per se.”
Guess you have a “liberal” definition of the word “man” otherwise you get my point ….
E8, read your Constitution. There’s no mention of “man” in the First Amendment, nor woman, nor person, entity, etc.
It’s a restraint against GOVERNMENT. Note: You are now arguing for government restraint of free speech. Let me know if I’m breaking through any time soon.
Would that you were half as frightened of them as you are of the insurance industry and others who would like to make their arguments known against Big Brother.
Who would “monitor” this full disclosure? Howabout the public, or the opposition? What cracks me up is that you think the gov’t can do a better job of policing (and fact checking) speech than can a robust and interested counter-party.
____________________
The public never finds out until after the fact as was the case here with the insurance industry.
I am now arguing for govt restraint of free speech ……… where did I say that (other than limitation on corp spending)? You said it would be fine “as long as it was fully disclosed” and I ask how you will enforce full disclosure …. we had none here despite a few very good citizen action groups that worked very hard to make sure the public knew what was going on but the sponsoring group was not made public till it was too late …. what is your check & balance to remedy that?
Wow. Lots of words. Could you post a “high level” summary.
Sure …. Corporation is not = Man
For Jake’s post, check your Ovaltine Decoder Ring
How does the saying go?
Never try teach a pig to dance…. ?
________
Got it, thanksTeahouse
“For Jake’s post, check your Ovaltine Decoder Ring”
beep, boop, churn
….megadittos to you too Jake.
Oh, um… Rush?
Okay… errr… whatever Olbermann says to his trogs right back atcha, Purdu.
____________
Trying to add more SLW here. Will take a look at the other silver names based on your post.
SLW is “hanging tough” as is the price of gold, even though the dollar decided to do a Viagra move this morning.
Those are both good signs.
Bot my first 800 (too high) of AGQ at $53.50 almost first thing. Fishing for more as we speak….
________
What a sparky little sucker SLW is. Sold mine yesterday – will hopefully buy half way back.
If there’s so much silver buying going on, who are the sellers? Someone must be unloading, if the price hasn’t reflected the acceleration in buying.
There isn’t “so much” silver buying going on — except here, of course.
You have to remember gold is a small market but silver is a TINY market, so any reaction to the dollar move is going to be that much more magnified. What puts my mind at ease here, is that gold is not even down $5 in the face of a 40 cent move in the dollar index (which is HUGE in dollar trade terms).
Silver is down much more precipitously, for the aforesaid reasons, but as TA notes, the miners are not getting beaten up much at all.
I think this may be the final pullback on the catapult before we go airborne over the castle walls.
(Gold currently trading at 67.75 x the price of silver… that’s just CRAZEEE in a market where gold is NOT dropping)
______________
Gotcha. Are you worried that UUP moved above the 200-day MA again? Seems to be trying for a breakout here.
Well, to a degree, I’m always worried about something w. regard to these crazy markets, but remember, last week we were pretty much “sure” that DXY would hit $80.20 or so. So UUP going along for that ride would be natural.
I just think there’s less chance of it today than say, Friday. That’s why I’m continuing to add here. If I’m wrong, I’m pretty firmly in the camp that it will be only because I’m a bit early.
Like usual.
_____________
I’m also understanding that your thesis is that the high gold:silver price divergence will correct, no matter the direction of the dollar. Correct? But couldn’t this also be achieved by a general weakening of the PM market, but with more weakness in gold? FWIW I bought some SLW this week. I was within inches of pulling the trigger at Friday’s low, but didn’t. Silly me.
Yes, if you look in the past, when BOTH silver and gold are plummeting, the ratio will widen considerably. In fact, when the scat was really hitting the fan at the end of 2008, the ratio got to 92 something.
However, I’ve found that when Gold is “holding firm” and the spread widens, that generally indicates that the spread will tighten in silver’s favor, which means silver will probably get hurt less on further pullback or else it will rocket up in a rebound move. In either case, it’s the less risky play in that situation.
The real hedge would be to short gold and buy silver, but I’ve no interest in doing that.
_____________
I’m not a fan of Gold fundamentally as everyone knows but there’s a text book perfect inverse H&S + bull flag on the weekly. As long as Gold doesn’t cross that neckline at 1000ish, it’s a major win.
Yep… tested the H&S too, week of 10/26/09.
____________
We could be setting up for another rocket move to new highs… that would be a real pleasure to play.
Not before some torture first, lol.
The funny thing is, if I could only tell you how much of a deja vu experience this is… literally once or twice a year for the last ten years or so….
________
From SOH:
‘My large short position on SLV, entered yesterday at 16.38 with a stop price at 16.48, is doing well, particularly in light of the fact that, as of this writing, SLV is down 1.4% while GLD is down only .28%. I like it!’
LOL.
Another ray of Hope. (no pun intended… well, kinda)
_________
Jake-
Have you heard of Gary T from Biiwii.com? He talks a lot about the GSR (gold silver ratio) and it being a signal of impending weakness in the overall market. His writing style is brutal and I have a hard time following him as I’m just a dumb guy. Basically, it’s a signal of liquidity being drained out of the system and the more risky assets(silver) signal the decline prior to gold and equities.
http://www.biiwii.blogspot.com/
Is that (your pic) the Great Santini?
Naw, that’s Lonesome Dove — Augustus McRae, I bet.
_______________
Yes, that would be Gus.
Jay – I guess it’s a matter of how you look at it. Yeah, I think there may have been some liquidity draining from the system at year end, but don’t see this recent move as much more than a consolidation.
If you look at a longer term view of the gold;silver ratio (or silver:gold, as he has it) you will see that we were only reverting to the mean in the recent return to the 200 day at 0.016 (62.5x is a depressed 200 day), and that longer term over the last ten years (even as silver has lagged historic numbers), the highs were closer to 50x.
____________
Justice Defends Court Ruling on Finance
“He added that the history of Congressional regulation of corporate involvement in politics had a dark side, pointing to the Tillman Act, which banned corporate contributions to federal candidates in 1907.
“Go back and read why Tillman introduced that legislation,” Justice Thomas said, referring to Senator Benjamin Tillman. “Tillman was from South Carolina, and as I hear the story he was concerned that the corporations, Republican corporations, were favorable toward blacks and he felt that there was a need to regulate them.” ”
It is thus a mistake, the justice said, to applaud the regulation of corporate speech as “some sort of beatific action.”