Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pater tenebrarum who wrote (44497)	12/6/2000 1:20:19 PM
From: AllansAlias	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

Before I go, thought I would crow about the most recent BBA again: ADBE. Got volatility.

To: pater tenebrarum who wrote (44497)	12/6/2000 1:41:32 PM
From: oldirtybastard	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

heinz - I think I also read somewhere that purchases of US Gold eagle coins was much, much lower for 2000 than the previous two years...I think this was on a site selling bullion so I took it w/ a grain of salt.

To: pater tenebrarum who wrote (44497)	12/6/2000 1:43:31 PM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

<have never seen a 20% rally in the XAU off the lows being greeted with more skepticism than the current one. of course one can't rule out another smash down, but it's far from a certainty imo. gold bulls are well known for their speed... note: at this year's gold conference in Denver, attendance reached an all time low, and the mood was the gloomiest ever. HM's chairman babbled on about being 'humbled' and not wanting to forecast a price increase for gold anymore...> It's interesting to see Gold continued strong while the equity market rebounds... dollar weak as well. If equities remain stable through X-mas while this trend continues it could be very telling IMO. <i could go on and on....i have a whole collection of similar anecdotal evidence. > Which of course doesn't turn into 'hard' evidence untill after 'the fact'... which obviates it for next time around. Except it will be different then. :) DAK