I'm calling BullSh*T! Sinclair is ---> %$#@. Also his report is OLD NEWS ........... ................. ..........
Look we have to be careful with the news and the timing of such. Old news posted after the latest news as a counter argument can be misleading and is wrongly focused. Let me dissect Sinclair's comments that were based on Monday's data. My comments in a prior post (1) today are from Tuesday's data and I believe that data render's Monday's data moot.
The front April OI fell by 954 contracts from 6,601 down to 5647.
Apr is the "front" only in some technically obscure notion. The driver of the COT COMEX situation is now the June contract. What happens with the 266K of OI in the Jun, and with 165K of Jun volume, sure seems more likely to drive the POG and the market than the Apr OI of 5K and 2.3K of volume.
What IS surprising is the fact that we went into April with 6601 of OI in the Apr contract. That is a rather high per an expected 3-4K that a historical look back would suggest, as I mentioned at the end here:
Message 28798105
Perhaps that abnormally high OI going into the period where Apr contracts are callable IS an indication of some desire to take possession of the gold bars? But the add yesterday of 10,064 of Open Interest far exceeds in significance any level Sinclair was talking about.
The next non active contract month is May and here the OI fell by 25 contracts.
Who cares, Jim. I don't even look at these interim months because their size is so freaking small, that then tell little about the overall play of the market. May'13 OI is 750 (0.18% of overall OI). Sure, some traders or flippers play in these VERY thin contracts, but they don't move the needle much, if any on the overall market. What is driving this market is the play in the Jun OI and perhaps some play in the Aug OI. So why does Sinclair mention such trival stuff?
The next big contract month is June and here the OI again retreated by 607 contracts from 258,508 down to 257,901.
Can't tell how a guy like Sinclair can miss the significance of this....Yes, on Monday, the Jun OI fell by 607 OI, this on an OI of 258,508. So what is the point in recognizing a drop of 0.2%? Huh? Just how significant is that? But wait! Monday is the day that COMEX POg rose by 5.60. What seems significant to me is the fact that the real front month contract (Jun) contracted (dropped) on a day when POG rose. Ouch. That isn't the kind of "buying support" I'd like to see under the market. What case is one trying to make with the Jun OI data, data that appears to have quite the opposite story to tell?
The estimated volume today was fair at 158,635.
Sh*T Jim! The actual volume on Tuesday was 178,168. What this comment from Sinclair indicates to me is that he is working off the "preliminary data" that COMEX publishes, the last one at 10:30 PM. I have commented from time to time here about preliminary volume but have always been keen to annotate such. The difference between actual and preliminary data shown above is not unusual. I have frequently seen instances where the preliminary OI is one figure and the actual final OI another, such that the day flips from a positive add of OI to a negative drop in OI. That is one reason I try to keep from making decisions based on the "preliminary" data. So it appears as though, Sinclair is making "decisions" and calls off "preliminary data" that regularly is wrong, inaccurate and a mess?
But Sinclair's view is old news from YESTERDAY before he would have seen the OI report that was published at 10:30 AM today. I posted my chart shortly thereafter (1). If one wants to trade or act on Sinclair's "stale" news, be my guest.
Look an increase of 10,064 in OI as the POG drops $25 is certainly something to take notice of. Me thinks it is more important than some weak volume on Thursday (pre-holiday day) or some drop of 25 contracts in a non-active contract month!
Sure the BIG rise in OI and POG falls could be a bunch of bargain hunters backing up the truck buying POG at low levels. But the problem is that there is someone on the short side of that trade, who at least should have some brains or reason for the trade. Recent history suggests the rise in OI is not bullish for POG. Shoot even Sinclair admits the bears are in charge of the market these days. Bears increasing their short exposure as POG starts to roll-over - not good as we saw in Jan-Feb.
Me thinks in the long run Sinclair could be right directionally as to QE and POG, but if he is using analysis like that which Ames posted as proof of something, it appears he's desperately grasping at straws to make a case. Perhaps he fools those with no real view of the market and blind followers. His comments make little sense to this chair and the data as presented. They appears to be sad pathetic attempts to manipulate opinon and appear to be what I interpret, perhaps wrongly, to be propaganda.
H3
1. Message 28813354 |
