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.

Strategies & Market Trends : MARKET INDEX TECHNICAL ANALYSIS - MITA -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SGJ who wrote (6448)	2/2/2001 11:06:00 AM
From: J.T.	Respond to of 19219

qcoman, we will soon find out on March 15th... See if da judge throws it out or tries the case based on its own merit. Best Regards, J.T.

To: SGJ who wrote (6448)	2/2/2001 1:11:56 PM
From: J.T.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 19219

NY Strangulation of World Gold Market – 1 Year gold-eagle.com It is one year since I first started collecting data documenting the conflict between rising prices overseas and their cancellation by selling on the NY spot market. Among all reported intervals of data collection the patterns of buying and selling have remained remarkably similar. Three tables presented below contain the data that continue to show upward buying pressure in the overseas markets and downward selling pressure in New York. At year-end we see, not only a continued canceling out of overseas gains, but also a slow beating of those buyers into submission. Table 1 shows that, at the end of 12 months, about 3 out of 4 of all changes in price are positive from the NY spot close to the London AM Fix. I have referred to this part of the 24-hour trading cycle as the overseas component. For the change in price from the London AM fix to the NY spot close we see, a mirror image, about 3 out of 4 resulting in losses. Table 2 indicates that of the 4 possible combinations in a complete cycle (e.g., overseas trading + NY trading) by far the most likely is a gain overseas followed by a sell off in New York. About 55% of all cycles follow this pattern. It is interesting to note that the least likely pattern is a loss overseas followed by a gain in New York. Only about 8% of all trading cycles follow this pattern. The pattern of selling down NY spot following an overseas gain is 3 times as likely as buying on top of that gain. Even though overall, losses in New York are more likely to occur than gains, they are MUCH more probable if there has been an Overseas gain. This is a highly likely combination of patterns if the goal is to keep the price of gold low. The pattern outlined above is more than just an ex-post facto description of data set relationships. The pattern of NY cancellation of overseas gains in the first 9 months is very highly predictive of the overall 12-month pattern. Table 3 is the one that shows the amount of gain or loss in each component of the trading cycle. In addition to 12-month totals, I have divided the number of trading cycles in half for a simplified look at the magnitude of gains and losses for the first 6 months Vs the last 6 months. Totals, means and standard deviations are given for each trading period. There are several effects that we can see reflected in these data: If by some slight of hand we could remove the trading in one part of the world we would see a large increase or a large decrease in the price of gold. The net increase from overseas trading alone would result in a gold price approximately $160/oz higher than on 01/25/2000 when the study was started. On the other hand, NY trading alone would have resulted in a net decrease of $173/oz. For the total 12 month period the average daily increase produced by overseas trading was $.64 while the average daily decrease occurring in NY was $.69. If someone a) bought at the NY close, then sold at the London AM Fix & b) placed a put at the London AM Fix, then covered at the NY close; they would have earned, before commissions, $1.33/oz per day over the 12-month period. Trading the first half of the time period would have yielded much greater success, $1.51 per cycle vs only $1.16 per cycle for the later 6 months. Gains and losses have been greatly reduced in their variation during the later trading period (standard deviations have been cut in half!). During the first half of the 12-month period Overseas-buying strength produced a net increase of $1.55/oz in the price of gold. During the second period NY selling pressure resulted in a net loss of $14.5/oz. As I said 3 months ago "What does this all mean? It seems that the NY trading is not only counteracting the overseas gains, but is starting to make them smaller. It is as if the constant New York selling into the gains has finally intimidated those overseas buyers. It appears to have had the desired effect and made overseas buyers less likely to go against the New York selling. Hence we see the shrinkage of the average daily overseas gains during the latter part of the time period and a lowering of the likelihood of a big buying day (i.e., smaller standard deviation)." The end result is the net loss in price/oz ($14.50) during the last 6 months that is 9 times as large as the net gain ($1.55) during the first 6 months. During the entire 12-month period I have seen many predictions of imminent gold price explosions. These predictions have been based upon a huge variety of "indicators" ranging from sophisticated mathematical models to the "moon is in the house of Jupiter bisected by Mars" superstitions. I will repeat my earlier prediction, which assumes that these data, other articles on the Gold-Eagle site, and various GATA findings point to a severely controlled market. The gold market is a relatively small market. The manipulators have huge resources. Small blips on the economic scene are not going to produce significant, lasting POG rallies. They will be easily controlled. Only that frightening, stomach turning, obviously out of control event will create the panic necessary to overwhelm the manipulators. It could be a Middle East war that threatens the oil fields, an extremely cold winter that strains the ability to deliver heating oil fast enough, or some currency crisis that is just too big to paper over. Whatever it is, no one will mistake it when it arrives." February 2, 2001 Harry J. Clawar Ph.D. HJC@angelfire.com Best Regards, J.T.