Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

MichelGJulien

A Rally Led by "Goldman Sachs" on the Oil Market Today?

Recommended Posts

A few minutes after the open of the pit session (unintended timing for sure) ZeroHedge tweeted on its stream that Goldman Sachs had just issued a statement regarding the oil market that went like this: "Oil price risks skewed to the upside". That's it! Seven words. But coming from Goldman, there's really never anything that is "unintended". Of course, like magic, the market started to rally substantially. In fact, it never really retraced for the rest of the pit session, closing almost $2.50 from the open price. My guess is they had some pretty massive longs to cover and needed a "little push" to the upside. How convenient! Of course, I can't be 100% sure of what I'm saying but, hey, this wouldn't be the first time such a thing happen. Especially considering the COT large speculators heavy net long position of late. Those positions have to be unwinded at some point, right?

 

Anyway, for today, forget about ebb and flow as the market was rather unidirectional. Shorts didn't stand a chance to win anything of value in this type of environment. They had to run for the hills instead. The market opened at 103.76, a tiny bit above and outside of yesterday's range and value area, and as I said started immediately to go up and never looked back. All of the major resistances including yesterday's gap at 104.37, Wednesday's VPOC at the 104.82/98 level and 105.75 (a main resistance area of prior sessions), were all blown to pieces by the Goldman train. An hour into the pit session, the volatility was already high with the initial balance registring at 127 ticks. A big 33% above its 10-day average. Talking about volatility, I think we are going to get a lot more in the course of next week because the market stands at a very important junction again, where it either blows through the roof (the Goldman call) or correct more than it had over the last 3 weeks (my take). In any case, I like to trade when the market is volatile as it gives me more opportunities to find good long and short entry setups.

 

attachment.php?attachmentid=36823&stc=1&d=1376091367

After a retest of 108, we may drop to 100 longer term

 

I took 2 trades today:

 

1. Long 104.34 at 9:21, exit 104.55 at 9:26 for a +21 ticks profit.

2. Short 105.75 at 11:55, exit 105.50 at 12:07 for a +25 ticks profit. Results: +46 ticks today, +193 ticks this week. Have a nice weekend!

 

More articles on my blog

Or on my Tweeter stream

5aa711f921eee_DAILYANALYSIS.thumb.png.8ab5a6dcef0c922e1dbdbfba0f344af9.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  sergso said:
Trading on news is like trying to figure what happens in the universe now by looking at the stars. What you see is what happened millions of transactions before.

 

Hi sergio

How do you think the Big Boys trade., with 3 moving averages and RSI?

Nope. They trade from fundamentals... earnings..... news....GDP.....and that early billionare, JP Morgan used the stars.

So , not so fast.

regards

bobc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  ntrader said:
It is really frastrating when the big guys move the markets, SEC must monitor these guys very closely and punish them

 

On Friday, China reported an increase of 5.5% in OIl usage for the year to July.

Together with a 7.5% increase in exports reported earlier.

There is strong demand.

Goldmans get this info FIRST and reacts accordingly.

RULE No. I

When an institution tells you something is a BUY, you know they bought yesterday.

So maybe Sergio is right

regards bobc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  bobcollett said:
On Friday, China reported an increase of 5.5% in OIl usage for the year to July.

Together with a 7.5% increase in exports reported earlier.

There is strong demand.

Goldmans get this info FIRST and reacts accordingly.

RULE No. I

When an institution tells you something is a BUY, you know they bought yesterday.

So maybe Sergio is right

regards bobc

 

Guys,

Goldman Sachs has a long history of misleading the market to achieve its short term objectives. If they say buy, it's because they want to get out of their longs. So they are selling all the way while creating the impression they recommend buying. That's what my post was all about. Judging by some of the comments I read here, I think I wasn't very clear. I'll try harder for my next post. :-)

Michel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Thx for reminding us... I don't bang that drum often enough anymore Another part for consideration is who that money initially went to...
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • How long does it take to receive HFM's withdrawal via Skrill? less than 24H?
    • My wife Robin just wanted some groceries.   Simple enough.   She parked the car for fifteen minutes, and returned to find a huge scratch on the side.   Someone keyed her car.   To be clear, this isn’t just any car.   It’s a Cybertruck—Elon Musk's stainless-steel spaceship on wheels. She bought it back in 2021, before Musk became everyone's favorite villain or savior.   Someone saw it parked in a grocery lot and felt compelled to carve their hatred directly into the metal.   That's what happens when you stand out.   Nobody keys a beige minivan.   When you're polarizing, you're impossible to ignore. But the irony is: the more attention something has, the harder it is to find the truth about it.   What’s Elon Musk really thinking? What are his plans? What will happen with DOGE? Is he deserving of all of this adoration and hate? Hard to say.   Ideas work the same way.   Take tariffs, for example.   Tariffs have become the Cybertrucks of economic policy. People either love them or hate them. Even if they don’t understand what they are and how they work. (Most don’t.)   That’s why, in my latest podcast (link below), I wanted to explore the “in-between” truth about tariffs.   And like Cybertrucks, I guess my thoughts on tariffs are polarizing.   Greg Gutfield mentioned me on Fox News. Harvard professors hate me now. (I wonder if they also key Cybertrucks?)   But before I show you what I think about tariffs… I have to mention something.   We’re Headed to Austin, Texas This weekend, my team and I are headed to Austin. By now, you should probably know why.   Yes, SXSW is happening. But my team and I are doing something I think is even better.   We’re putting on a FREE event on “Tech’s Turning Point.”   AI, quantum, biotech, crypto, and more—it’s all on the table.   Just now, we posted a special webpage with the agenda.   Click here to check it out and add it to your calendar.   The Truth About Tariffs People love to panic about tariffs causing inflation.   They wave around the ghost of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff from the Great Depression like it’s Exhibit A proving tariffs equal economic collapse.   But let me pop this myth:   Tariffs don’t cause inflation. And no, I'm not crazy (despite what angry professors from Harvard or Stanford might tweet at me).   Here's the deal.   Inflation isn’t when just a couple of things become pricier. It’s when your entire shopping basket—eggs, shirts, Netflix subscriptions, bananas, everything—starts costing more because your money’s worth less.   Inflation means your dollars aren’t stretching as far as they used to.   Take the 1800s.   For nearly a century, 97% of America’s revenue came from tariffs. Income tax? Didn’t exist. And guess what inflation was? Basically zero. Maybe 1% a year.   The economy was booming, and tariffs funded nearly everything. So, why do people suddenly think tariffs cause inflation today?   Tariffs are taxes on imports, yes, but prices are set by supply and demand—not tariffs.   Let me give you a simple example.   Imagine fancy potato chips from Canada cost $10, and a 20% tariff pushes that to $12. Everyone panics—prices rose! Inflation!   Nope.   If I only have $100 to spend and the price of my favorite chips goes up, I either stop buying chips or I buy, say, fewer newspapers.   If everyone stops buying newspapers because they’re overspending on chips, newspapers lower their prices or go out of business.   Overall spending stays the same, and inflation doesn’t budge.   Three quick scenarios:   We buy pricier chips, but fewer other things: Inflation unchanged. Manufacturers shift to the U.S. to avoid tariffs: Inflation unchanged (and more jobs here). We stop buying fancy chips: Prices drop again. Inflation? Still unchanged. The only thing that actually causes inflation is printing money.   Between 2020 and 2022 alone, 40% of all money ever created in history appeared overnight.   That’s why inflation shot up afterward—not because of tariffs.   Back to tariffs today.   Still No Inflation Unlike the infamous Smoot-Hawley blanket tariff (imagine Oprah handing out tariffs: "You get a tariff, and you get a tariff!"), today's tariffs are strategic.   Trump slapped tariffs on chips from Taiwan because we shouldn’t rely on a single foreign supplier for vital tech components—especially if that supplier might get invaded.   Now Taiwan Semiconductor is investing $100 billion in American manufacturing.   Strategic win, no inflation.   Then there’s Canada and Mexico—our friendly neighbors with weirdly huge tariffs on things like milk and butter (299% tariff on butter—really, Canada?).   Trump’s not blanketing everything with tariffs; he’s pressuring trade partners to lower theirs.   If they do, everybody wins. If they don’t, well, then we have a strategic trade chess game—but still no inflation.   In short, tariffs are about strategy, security, and fairness—not inflation.   Yes, blanket tariffs from the Great Depression era were dumb. Obviously. Today's targeted tariffs? Smart.   Listen to the whole podcast to hear why I think this.   And by the way, if you see a Cybertruck, don’t key it. Robin doesn’t care about your politics; she just likes her weird truck.   Maybe read a good book, relax, and leave cars alone.   (And yes, nobody keys Volkswagens, even though they were basically created by Hitler. Strange world we live in.) Source: https://altucherconfidential.com/posts/the-truth-about-tariffs-busting-the-inflation-myth    Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/       
    • No, not if you are comparing apples to apples. What we call “poor” is obviously a pretty high bar but if you’re talking about like a total homeless shambling skexie in like San Fran then, no. The U.S.A. in not particularly kind to you. It is not an abuse so much as it is a sad relatively minor consequence of our optimism and industriousness.   What you consider rich changes with circumstances obviously. If you are genuinely poor in the U.S.A., you experience a quirky hodgepodge of unhelpful and/or abstract extreme lavishnesses while also being alienated from your social support network. It’s about the same as being a refugee. For a fraction of the ‘kindness’ available to you in non bio-available form, you could have simply stayed closer to your people and been MUCH better off.   It’s just a quirk of how we run the place and our values; we are more worried about interfering with people’s liberty and natural inclination to do for themselves than we are about no bums left behind. It is a slightly hurtful position and we know it; we are just scared to death of socialism cancer and we’re willing to put our money where our mouth is.   So, if you’re a bum; you got 5G, the ER will spend like $1,000,000 on you over a hangnail but then kick you out as soon as you’re “stabilized”, the logistics are surpremely efficient, you have total unchecked freedom of speech, real-estate, motels, and jobs are all natural healthy markets in perfect competition, you got compulsory three ‘R’’s, your military owns the sky, sea, space, night, information-space, and has the best hairdos, you can fill out paper and get all the stuff up to and including a Ph.D. Pretty much everything a very generous, eager, flawless go-getter with five minutes to spare would think you might need.   It’s worse. Our whole society is competitive and we do NOT value or make any kumbaya exception. The last kumbaya types we had werr the Shakers and they literally went extinct. Pueblo peoples are still around but they kind of don’t count since they were here before us. So basically, if you’re poor in the U.S.A., you are automatically a loser and a deadbeat too. You will be treated as such by anybody not specifically either paid to deal with you or shysters selling bejesus, Amway, and drugs. Plus, it ain’t safe out there. Not everybody uses muhfreedoms to lift their truck, people be thugging and bums are very vulnerable here. The history of a large mobile workforce means nobody has a village to go home to. Source: https://askdaddy.quora.com/Are-the-poor-people-in-the-United-States-the-richest-poor-people-in-the-world-6   Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/ 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.