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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Shining Tree Gold Camp -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: futrcash* who wrote (18)	1/1/2012 3:55:52 AM
From: sense	1 Recommendation Respond to of 260

I know there are a lot of SRSR followers watching here, so will start with what I see on the chart there... SRSR's chart is wildly manipulated, so it requires constant attention to note when there are changes in methods made that result in changed elements, and you have to look for them to see what's "really'" happening... On the last trading day of 2011, SRSR went MACD positive for the sixth time on the daily charts in 2011, the time prior being in May. The move it made in price at year end was somewhat exaggerated relative to prior chart associations in 2011... suggesting we might have a nice beginning of the new year with an accelerated move consistent with the "being wound tight" features apparent in the SRSR chart. In the two months before year end, SRSR had pinched, twice... showing a relative high in the ADX paired with a relative low in the MACD... that being the definition of a "pinch" chart. The second pinch on that chart was subdued... after I'd pointed it out previously, and traders tried to use adapted tactics to attempt to mask it. The result, ex manipulation, is that SRSR put in the chart equivalent, ex manipulation, of a double bottom which you see clearly reflected in the double pinch pattern... I'm tempted to claim that the patterns apparent now represent the efforts in manipulation and suppression encountering a minor failure mode... but, we'll have to wait to see if that proves out. On the comparable weekly chart, a look at the ADX/MACD pairing shows a pattern seen only one other time on the SRSR weekly chart, that being back in April of 2009. Make of that what you will, but, MACD positive on the daily charts, and MACD at crossover with the indicator line and moving up.on the weeklies makes for a nice looking chart set up, whatever you think the historical comparisons mean. I'll call SRSR as a SOLID BUY with good potential to run higher in the first days of the new year, even with a minor uptick in volume on the buy side. SRSR's price moves now are more dynamic than ever, with larger moves occurring on much lesser volumes.. which shouldn't surprise anyone following it. The trading history in SRSR is too hard to ignore. It can be enormously volatile when it decides to move... and there is ample reason to expect that "its due", again... while its never been close to being wound as tight as it is now. Until I see more evidence the suppression effort is breaking down, I'll skip picking a price target prediction high for SRSR beyond noting my (remarkably accurate) near term price target indicators have bottomed at $0.07 on the weekly charts and are pointing higher again... while the daily charts show much greater evidence of the effort in suppression... and have been holding around a penny higher than SRSR has been trading since Oct., they broke out again in the last week of the year and the daily chart price indicators are pointing at $0.058 and moving higher, almost vertically, now. Similar daily chart dynamics occurred in late April and late May in 2011. FWIW, my target price indicator concept model was developed using SRSR charts, specifically to account for the trading tactics apparent in the effort in suppression... and it is REALLY good at predicting prices at limits in SRSR's constrained chart dynamics... have called all the recent highs and lows within a tenth of a penny... ahead of the trade by a nice margin of time. It will still likely take something more than a chart based trade to move SRSR over $0.20 and break the range limit in the suppression effort, but, if/when that occurs... look out... SRSR has amazing chart potential... and I will leave it at that. And, then, that "release" from the effort in suppression will probably never happen... with it trading as SRSR ? Two days ago, GEYEF broke a pinch pattern it was forming, with the MACD turning up now, not yet crossing over the signal line... and the stock is up off the lows at $0.04 at $0.054 with room to move higher. Volumes are tiny. (NOTE: My charting of the U.S. tickers may not reflect what higher volumes traded on the Canadian exchanges might show, but, for now, I'm limited to charting the U.S. tickers on the systems that incorporate my proprietary tools. ) The weekly chart on GEYEF shows a dramatic pinch. I'll be surprised if the charts isn't pointing toward it turning higher and moving past $0.10 or better soon. GPXM weekly chart is ugly... it's been trying to find a bottom since January, and recently broke below the lower bollies. It's a chart showing it should be bottoming... but, it seems it hasn't found that bottom quite yet. My target price indicators are conflicted, between the daily and weekly charts. The daily keeps showing bottoms that don't hold, while the smoothed weekly data say it could trade higher within the bands, maybe $0.08 or $0.09 before finding a solid bottom... probably down around $0.02 or $0.03. That's what the charts say... and they don't show a predictable January effect... so, I think this one is a slave to metals and issue specific drivers, looking like it needs to experience a surrender event before the rallies will stick. PANXF is traded so infrequently here and on such odd volume that charting the US symbol seems pointless. Last trade was in August... so... ??? That doesn't mean much about the value... but, the lack of liquidity in the trade here looks like a price risk in the market that has nothing to do with the issue. TRLDF pinched in Oct and bounced from $0.10 to $0.15 out of the pinch, but it didn't hold or continue, and the last trade was at $0.09 on Dec 23rd, with MACD turning down, and the chart looking like the pinch will widen out again. Similar liquidity risks here as PANXF, but, at least it makes a coherent chart... Daily and weekly charts agree on seeing a target price low around $0.06 to $0.09... if you can get it filled... but, those indicators are weak, tending to follow the price with a narrow lead, if any, rather than anticipating it by weeks and months with real authority, which is what I like to see. Other chart indicators also support it as being at/near a bottom, but, the chart doesn't seem compelling... suggesting it might be worth waiting to see what happens. A solid move in the metals that might help to close the pinch with authority, and you'd expect to see it at $0.20 or better just on the technical move. CRXEF chart is another pincher... if the ADX portion is a bit weak... and not as dramatic in the pinch as TRLDF, but it has a much better trading dynamic, with a fluid chart showing decent upside within the range of what the chart says it will support. Came out of the pinch with a bounce from $0.10 to $0.14, but last trade was at $0.12 on Nov 29... so, who knows ? Looks like its bottoming, with not enough data on the weekly charts to be meaningful, but the daily charts were predicting a low at $0.10, and both the first and second derivative bollies are pinching, too. Call it a solid BUY at or below $0.10... but, again, not seeing a dynamic in the chart saying you need to hurry... and I'd check the Canadian ticker charts before pulling the trigger... I'm reluctant to say what upside the price targets are, given the data are weak and incomplete... but, call it $0.45 TMXRF daily and weekly charts agree on the recent target price at a bottom at $0.15, but it hit that in mid December and we missed it... Otherwise, MACD just turned up and it still looks oversold...but, trading volumes are light enough that you're fishing for shares, whatever the price. Still not seeing any indications its going to do more than trade within the bands immediately, but, it shows a solid double bottom in Sept and Dec... and seems to have gotten past the pressures forcing it lower. Call it a solid buy, small caps, at $0.18. but wish I bought it at $0.15. Things in the longer term charts aren't as impressive... and if the markets melt down, we could see this down at a target price low of $0.06 to $0.07... but, that won't happen if the markets melt up instead of down. Still, not being clairvoyant, I'll defer to the charts ambivalence on that point and wait for it. MNRLF is another with a chart too sparse to predict. Last time it traded at $0.30 the next trade was at $0.60. Not sure that means much, given the 7 month gap between the trades. Looks to me like the data going into making the charts on this one is probably screwed up... so.. whatever... Will have to look for chart data for trading where it actually trades... ADTFF only trades a couple times a month, but it looks like a steal at $0.04 or below with a major pinch formed, and it looks like a double just on the technical bounce. CNSNF was a pincher that hit the strongly predicted price low at $0.07 the 1st of Dec, hit $0.11 on the technical bounce, and is showing its ready to move higher, after hitting the low target. How much higher, and when, probably depends on the markets more than the CNSNF chart now, with daily chart price indicators pointing higher, but weeklies just following the price like a puppy, showing not much energy behind it... wait for conviction to show... and, then, it should move smartly, but the chart is mushy, for now. PROBF has a dangerous looking chart... hit a double top in Nov and Dec and the indicators are pointing lower. Will look again if/after if drops. TWNNF had a nice pinch in Dec at $2.30, but has already bounced out of it at $2.90, might trade a little higher short term, but, nothing too interesting in the potential, probably half of the move already done, and the longer term weekly charts say its going a lot lower... look again at $1.25 to see what it looks like. AUQ had a beauty of a pinch on Dec 29 below $7.50, hit its price target of $7.30 and is back at $8 already... could still easily trade back up to $9 but longer term charts say its going a lot lower. and it probably will, unless there is an unexpected outbreak of unrealistic optimism, and the larger markets turn around and move higher. LSG daily charts are saying it has hit its short term lower price targets in Dec at $1.08 and is ready to move higher with a January effect. If the market cooperates and moves higher, this will too. Weekly charts suggest that on a bad day in the market you might get some as low as $0.96... or as low at $0.50 given a bad week or two, but, if there's not a bad day or week in the market soon, it will probably be at $1.40 to $1.80 first in the short term. Longer term, there's still not any conviction in the chart yet, and the price target indicators are just not pointing higher, yet. I'd rather buy it now at $1.25 than at the $4.25 it was in April, but, $0.50 would be great... It had a similar chart pattern in 2008... and it hit the $0.50 predictor, then.... so, call it a solid buy when it gets to $0.55... but, that was December bottom, so... ?

To: futrcash* who wrote (18)	1/1/2012 6:22:34 PM
From: sense	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 260

"Would be interesting to see if any research organization has attempted to correlate the amount of bullion ostensibly held in escrow for the purported purpose of backing the "paper" ETF trade/versus the documented fact thereof?" I think that information is "out there"... The problem is acute in silver... for a couple of reasons that aren't an issue in gold... First, gold doesn't have the industrial uses that silver has... Second, silver has been devalued as a monetary metal over time... both in parallel with the effort to devalue gold as a monetary metal, and in terms of its relationship to gold... which you can see as recent extremes in the deviation from historic norms in the gold:silver ratio, from the historic 1:10 ratio. It's interesting for market historians to note... the initiation of the deviation from 1:10 is largely a legacy of the Spanish exploitation of the new world silver mines, that proves markets work, including in the fact of monetary metals values not being immune to the impact of "price inflation" when supply increases anomalously... while also showing that market inefficiencies can be sustained for a LONG time... given that the imbalances in supply and demand imposed by the conquistadors success in forcing slaves to produce silver for Spain, has long since been absorbed by the market and, in fact, the trends have reversed. Toss in a bit of impact from the U.S. subsidies to silver producers in the period from the 1880's to the start of WWI... and what you have is a market that is still poised to expect and still reflects the expectation in the market of a permanent surplus in supply of silver. Supply reality is dramatically different... we've been working off a 500+ year surplus... and, right about NOW, we're at the point where the reality is DEFICIT, not surplus... in silver. The factors that matter: Silver as a monetary metal is regaining its luster, in spite of the effort to suppress the monetary value of precious metals... and that trend is likely to accelerate as monetary metals increase in price relative to fiat currencies. That is more true, in silver, for the same reason that you need more $1 dollar bills in circulation than $1000 dollar bills, to meet the demand for currency, and more true given the historic imbalances that exist between gold and silver now. So, silver should benefit in parallel with gold as precious metals are remonetized... which is happening, in spite of the efforts in denial and resistance, and, silver has upside in relation to gold... by a factor of a 3X to 6X multiplier, or more. Silver IS an industrial metal, too, and, unlike gold, which sits around in repositories and accumulates over time, we've been actively using up the silver supply over time, with a trend that accelerates in parallel with the growth in the markets for things based on electronics. Secondary supplies of silver depend on production of base metals like copper, lead and zinc, so the heavy industrial metals demand has a relationship as a driver in relationship to the supply of metals used in electronics, while growth in electronics markets is diverging from growth in heavy industry, and isn't overly dependent on the fortunes of heavy industries. Slow downs in mining copper and zinc as heavy industry slows, shrink the silver supply, while not altering the silver demand in parallel with demand for copper and zinc, and reversing the trend in slowing the secondary supply will take YEARS. We've been closing the gap between supply and demand for silver for a long time... while the market's focus is still tied to an expectation that demand depends on western economic performance, that is no longer true... so, in the short term, recent performance in western economies tends to generate expectations that understate the pace of demand for physical silver. If we'd not had the "slow down" in 2008/2009 we would have crossed over the supply demand imbalance in silver already... to put the market in deficit supply... so, there are MAJOR issues in the awareness, or not, of the balance that exists... relative to the fact of consumption vs expectations, the fact of supply vs expectations, and the proximity to "tipping points" we may be crossing, as the markets focus is on "slowing" and not on timing the cross over in having consumed a 500 year legacy of surplus in supply... We're probably in silver deficit now... missing only market recognition of the fact... at a time that the markets have a couple of problems in parallel with excesses in the derivatives trade in general, that have... ahhh.... ummm... "over-hypothecated" the supply of real things in the interest of expanding profits based on trading... The physical supply of "things" isn't big enough to maximize the value potential in trading profits based on trading larger volumes of "things" in those markets... so, the traders have fabricated additional supply to facilitate trading more of those "things" than actually exist... by declaring paper representations equally valid as real things... for the purposes of trading. They don't CARE what the actual prices of the things ARE... they only care about the volume of them in the market, as THEIR profits are tied to expansion in trading volumes, not changes in prices ? So, a "perfect storm" is brewing... On the supply side: the 500 year (Spanish mining) and 100 year (American mining) sources of surplus in silver are gone, the surpluses absorbed, as the secondary metals supply has evaporated with the slow down of heavy industry in the shorter term, as base metal production has slowed. On the market expectations side, the markets haven't absorbed awareness of the shift in reality in long term supply fundamentals, while they're focused on the western economies as the drivers of demand and markets, while ignoring divergences between heavy industry and electronics markets, and between western economies and demand based in emerging market growth. That, at the same time that excesses in market "over-hypothecation" are being forced to come to grips with an actual PHYSICAL shortage developing, that will prevent continuation of "hypothecation" much less "over-hypothecation" in the future, when divergences between paper and physical are forced to be recognized. The market in silver WILL fail... because of the inability to deliver physical that "exists" in paper form only in the market. There is more "paper" silver being traded... than there is silver that exists. As producers withdraw real supply from markets that fictionalize and depress "prices", to benefit more from higher real prices than from participation in the markets... the markets that trade paper will fail, as the ability to trade paper is divorced from any real ability to deliver physical. That failure will occur when that reality that already exists is "recognized"... in a "recognition event"... and our slouching toward that may have been precipitated by the combination of the COMEX scandals and the recent MF Global failure's impact on the commodities trade. The markets HAVE failed already... now just missing the "push" necessary to have behavior change to reflect what people do know. On the demand side, photographic demand is gone... which was huge... so, an undercurrent in expectations of surplus there, that has now been overcome by persistent growth in electronics now, just as interest in forcing remonitization of precious metals begins to add a larger portion of investment demand for physical silver. In the short term, a market dynamic in place now that is tending to depress prices and market interest... Change in any of those elements... any increase in real growth and better economic performance in the west, a continuation and/or acceleration in demand in emerging markets, a reversal in the market decline occurring now, recognition of the fact of changes in demand/supply realities, accelerations in the trend toward remonetization, with necessary relative adjustments in silver in relation to gold ? Any one of those shifts are likely, and any one of them might force awareness of others, leading to recognition events in relation to the broken market functions that exist... And, of course... inflation... lurking out there... WILL bring recognition of some elements of the supply/demand imbalances that exist, whether the "market failure" I see occurring now is recognized or not... That's not to say that silver prices can only go up... Silver likely will continue the current trends... along with gold... until it finds a bottom... WHEN it finds a bottom though, there are WAY more drivers ready to drive it higher based on fundamental issues in the fact of supply and demand, than there are potentials that markets have to "create new supply"... Silver looks less like a "once in a lifetime" opportunity... than a "once every 500 years" type of opportunity. Other things we could discuss include market cycles, that suggest the next 50 years are going to be focused on the value in commodities... as shortages develop even without economic "growth" occurring, while economic growth IS occurring globally... peak oil... but, also peak everything, given the situations we've created... and "black swan" risks other than those we've discussed re market failures... wars and rumors of wars, etc. Time horizons ? Give it a decade or more for "all of the above"... with the money supply / inflation issues being ones with a shorter fuze, the currency regime issues being ones with a longer fuze, maybe twenty or thirty years to be resolved with the remonetization of metals occurring in fact ... But, as far as handicapping nearer term "recognition events" ? Expect QEIII coming early this year will drive... something... Expect the election in November this year... will cause change to occur that will have impact in Feb next year and beyond... NO MATTER WHO WINS... My synthesis... suggests three to five years is now a REALISTIC time frame in which you can expect momentous and transformational events must and will occur... at least in relation to the trade in silver. The above descriptions should make it apparent that there is a situation that exists that looks something like a string of dominoes lined up... where one event is likely to trigger others... And, in spite of the insistent tone I've adopted here, these "events" DON'T need to be traumatic or even particularly dramatic... to be recognized by those looking for them... The shift in silver producers bypassing the markets to sell directly to customers... and being rewarded with higher prices for doing so... is one of those things you need to recognize as as a "recognition event" that is NOT particularly dramatic... rather than a FACT that is showing producers have recognized the fact of the value equation in market participation now dictates a change in their behavior. That others are ignoring that, still, for now...? Heed that subtle shift... and be aware of the corrosive/erosive effects of it. It creates awareness of FACTS in market function, that will be recognized, INEVITABLY... because they are FACTS... showing that realignment of market behaviors have begun, to have behaviors begin reflecting changed awareness... with that change in behavior being rewarding... Whatever trauma results in terms of "disasters" that occur that cause market reactions... or wider market recognition events ? The dominoes are lined up in the silver market... and, the first domino has been felled... Others may not recognize that for a while... and probably will not... until there is a reversal in the direction of the markets... When that shift occurs ? The weaknesses apparent in the paper trade now are ones that make markets hugely vulnerable... and they are not dependent on any "black swan" events for recognition... only on recognition in the markets... that "what works" has changed, or that the direction of the trade has changed. Then, the failures in and of the trade in paper silver may become a black swan for other markets... When the dominoes fall... they may even drag gold and silver, or gold and silver stocks, down with them... giving that last chance to grasp that one per 500 years opportunity...