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 : Strictly: Drilling II -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (24082)	12/23/2002 12:07:36 PM
From: Silver Super Bull	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36161

RE: <"if they were in trouble the last time the yellar dog went to $330, surely they would have covered much if not all of their risk on the recent downturn to $309. There was certainly plenty of supply from the public at that point."> I'm not sure that at $309 there was enough supply to buy the quantity they would need. One of the central tenets behind the hyper-bullish "gold short-squeeze" theory is that vastly higher prices would be needed for adequate supply to become available for the shorts to cover. DB

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (24082)	1/3/2003 5:31:26 AM
From: Steve Lee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36161

Have just seen the Investors Intelligence numbers for 1/1. Still a lot of bulls. I haven't followed II closely but have referred to it from time to time and it has served well in the past as a contrarian view. Thus it would indicate shorting is in order right now. However, The Rydex Nova/Ursa ration and the Hulbert Stock Newsletter Sentiment Index are both showing bearish sentiment that verges on extreme. These are generally good for contrarians to follow, particularly the latter index. The Hulbert index is especially interesting because it tracks newsletter writer sentiment. It was recently at a bullish extreme, as per II as been for some time. But now, like Nova/Ursa, it is showing bearishness. Have you any idea why the dicergence between the Hulbert index and the II index if they are seemingly measuring the same thing?