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.

mohsinqureshii

Gold Bullish or Bearish

Recommended Posts

  Patuca said:
Gold remains bullish. It has been bullish for years.

Such a comedian. :haha:

 

Yeah its still above the price it was FOUR YEARS AGO.

 

But bullish while in a bear trend of lower lows and lower highs - no such thing.

 

Keep hoping and wishing and holding your breath.

 

Though I think might be better if you looked at a chart every once and awhile before posting any more bullish nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  SunTrader said:
Such a comedian. :haha:

 

Yeah its still above the price it was FOUR YEARS AGO.

 

But bullish while in a bear trend of lower lows and lower highs - no such thing.

 

Keep hoping and wishing and holding your breath.

 

Though I think might be better if you looked at a chart every once and awhile before posting any more bullish nonsense.

LOL :rofl: its a pullback LOL :helloooo: that is what the chart says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never mind the resident Little pretender, he forgot to put stop loss...

 

 

  MightyMouse said:
If it didn't look like a buying opportunity to some, then price would be a whole lot lower than it is right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  SunTrader said:
Isn't it "wait till next year"?

 

Or 2016 or ....

 

:)

could be LOL a body might wish to make haste and buy some. You never know. :shrug::shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fund Managers Cut Overall Exposure To Precious Metals, Go Short Silver - CFTC Data

Another price drop for most precious metals encouraged large speculators to continue reducing their net-long positions across the board in precious metals futures and options positions on the Comex division of the New York Mercantile Exchange and Nymex.

 

Fund managers cut bullish exposure to gold and the platinum group metals in disaggregated and legacy weekly commitments of traders report from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, while turning net-short silver for both reports. In copper they cut bullish positions in the disaggregated report and added to bearish trades in the legacy report. The data is as of June 3.

 

Except for palladium, metals prices fell during the time period covered by the latest CFTC report. Comex August gold fell $21.20 to $1,244.50 an ounce. July silver fell by 30.40 cents to $18.763. July platinum slid by $28.80 to $1,433.50 an ounce, while June palladium rose $5.15 to $836.70. Comex July copper fell 4.05 cents to $3.1370 a pound. After the reporting period closed, precious metals prices rebounded slightly, but copper prices plunged after news reports of a financial probe at copper and aluminum warehouses in Qingdao, China.

 

In gold, managed-money traders cut 847 gross longs and added 16,482 gross shorts, lowering their net-long position to 51,064 contracts, the smallest since Jan. 21. This was the second week of a sizable build in gross short positions for fund managers. Producers’ net-short position fell again as they added gross longs and cut gross short positions. Swap dealers also saw their net-short position drop for the second week as they cut a large number of gross shorts and added longs.

 

The non-commercials action was similar in the gold legacy report as they also lowered their net-long position to the smallest since Jan. 21. They cut 1,527 gross long contracts and added 14,287 gross shorts. They are now net-long 76,895 contracts. Commercials are net-short and cut that position by cutting gross shorts and adding gross longs.

“Gold specs (speculators) continued to build short side positions with pressure mounting to the downside as U.S. economic data continues to look strong,” said TD Securities.

 

Analysts at Citi Research said the CFTC data show the fall in gold’s open interest and price during the reporting period was not just funds liquidating long positions, but it was also funds establishing new short trades.

 

Yet, the Citi analysts pointed out, funds have scaled back positioning on both sides in gold. “Given the 15% decline in combined OI (open interest) since mid-March and a very tight gold trading band in 2Q until the recent break lower, it is no surprise that gold positioning in affinity to gold price, lack a clear direction,” they said.

 

Managed-money accounts added to their net-short silver position by adding 680 gross longs and 4,286 gross shorts. Their net-short stands at 10,602 contracts, the third week they have been net short. This is the largest net-short position for the disaggregated report since the CFTC started the calculation in September 2009. Producers decreased their net-short position when they cut more gross shorts than gross longs. Swap dealers increased their net-long position by adding gross longs and cutting gross shorts.

 

TDS noted the funds’ move to a record net-short position came “with prices moving down to critical lows.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Patuca said:
could be LOL a body might wish to make haste and buy some. You never know. :shrug::shrug:

A body? I prefer using my mind to make decisions.

 

And as you know, I believe there is plenty of time to buy Gold ... and at a much lower price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  SunTrader said:
A body? I prefer using my mind to make decisions.

 

And as you know, I believe there is plenty of time to buy Gold ... and at a much lower price.

Have you not heard of theory about catching a falling knife? Or averaging down? Yes i know both are no no's in the world of trading rules..BUT as we know via a cursory glance at any and every chart, that, price cycles..rotates...up and down. So a body may want to go long as prices are dropping and short short as prices are rising (i am not recommending this..just saying). Why? Well the end conclusion of going up is a going down. And the end conclusion of going down is a going up. Sooner, or later. True, the variables can there..i.e. it may go down then down some more and down some more and more before turning up or vice versa, but it will turn and when it does a body has loaded the boat and has a good average price...and it will be nice sunny sailing for bit littered by visits to the bank retrieving funds from brokerage between ports. Naturally, breaking the rules is not for any and everybody however, if one is able to do so it can be profitable. If one is not able to do so it can be the sinking of the sailboat.

 

Gold remains bullish regardless of what the pundits say. As a matter of fact it tis more bullish now than it was 6 months ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One could possibly look at it this way...every time price goes against ones position it is actually getting closer to going in favor of ones position. So..down can be the path to up and up can be the path to down......could it be that things are not as they seem but they are as they seem not? ..in the markets could it be squares are circles and circles are squares ...bearish is bullish and bullish is bearish?

 

Markets cannot go straight up or down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you say is true ... except you still have time things.

 

Say if you started shorting in 2008 at $700 alllllll the freakin' way up till October 2011 at the alltime high of $1921 and then brilliantly :doh: started going long from then until now.

 

A body could become a buried body when they couldn't pay back the loan shark used to fund margin calls.

 

BTW averaging up or down is for suckers, plain and simple.

 

You put on a trade and let the stop do the work. Ain't no other way if you want to survive and more importantly thrive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  SunTrader said:
What you say is true ... except you still have time things.

 

Say if you started shorting in 2008 at $700 alllllll the freakin' way up till October 2011 at the alltime high of $1921 and then brilliantly :doh: started going long from then until now.

 

A body could become a buried body when they couldn't pay back the loan shark used to fund margin calls.

 

BTW averaging up or down is for suckers, plain and simple.

 

You put on a trade and let the stop do the work. Ain't no other way if you want to survive and more importantly thrive.

like i said it isn't for everybody. IMO averaging up or down being for suckers is no longer necessarily for suckers...markets have changed and the rule carved in stoned are somewhat outmoded...out dated...the persistant belief in this one thing has probally busted more accounts than one would attempt to count.....in recent years. The world of algos..hft's has busted some of the "carved in stone" rules to pieces. Traditional SL placement is probally also guilty of busting accounts IMO. I think if a body is daytrading...working off max stop limits (for daily loss) and doing some averaging up and down is more conducive to profitability in this day and age. But again, whatever FLOATS ones boat is the way to go.

 

As concerns long time frame investing via averaging down/up can also work IMO...but again you gotta have the $ to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Markets can remain irrational longer than most traders can remain solvent.

 

You always have the smallest position when you are immediately right and the largest position when you are completely wrong when averaging into losing positions. Letting the stop take you out of a position is a better idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  MightyMouse said:
Markets can remain irrational longer than most traders can remain solvent.

 

You always have the smallest position when you are immediately right and the largest position when you are completely wrong when averaging into losing positions. Letting the stop take you out of a position is a better idea.

I suppose if whipsawing is good.....:rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  MightyMouse said:
Traders add to their losers because it frequently works. The issue is when it doesn't work.

Point made. So....to employ averaging up/ down one must not go beyond max daily loss limit. That protects for time it doesn't pan out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scaling in is also a good idea imo. But if daytrading one has to be careful to not go too far with it when taking positions, especially if, price is approaching res/sup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Algo's and HFT's got nothing to do with - stops being hit, if they are placed correctly - or deciding whether or not to average LOSING trades.

 

Also timeframe matters not one bit to me. I use a max position loss, not what it does day to day.

 

I never, at least intentionally anyway, go beyond it. Never.

 

What is the sense of a having a limit but saying well just this one time. I promise. Really I do. Well ok most of the time. No, no really.

 

:roll eyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  SunTrader said:
Algo's and HFT's got nothing to do with - stops being hit, if they are placed correctly - or deciding whether or not to average LOSING trades.

 

Also timeframe matters not one bit to me. I use a max position loss, not what it does day to day.

 

I never, at least intentionally anyway, go beyond it. Never.

 

What is the sense of a having a limit but saying well just this one time. I promise. Really I do. Well ok most of the time. No, no really.

 

:roll eyes:

great! Maybe a good way to trade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Survey Participants See Higher Gold Prices Next Week

Gold prices may drift higher next week, the majority of participants in the Kitco News Gold Survey said, based on rising geopolitical tensions in the Middle East.

 

Out of 33 participants, 24 responded this week. Of those, 16 see prices higher, three see prices lower and five see prices trading sideways or are neutral. Market participants include bullion dealers, investment banks, futures traders and technical-chart analysts.

 

Last week, survey participants were bearish for this week. As of 11:30 a.m. EDT, Comex August gold was up about $21 for the week.

 

Those participants who see higher prices said the news out of Iraq, that insurgents seized Mosul, a town near one of Iraq’s biggest oil pipelines, underpins gold prices for the time being. However, most participants who see higher prices, such as Adam Klopfenstein, market strategist with Archer Financial Services, said they’re not seeing sizable gains next week because values are bumping into technical chart resistance. That ceiling starts around $1,280 an ounce.

 

“I’m mildly bullish,” Klopfenstein said.

 

Those who see weaker prices next week said gold’s strength based on geopolitical factors can be fleeting, especially if events change and the insurgency loses momentum. Additionally, there is the Federal Open Market Committee meeting next week and that may reinforce ideas that the U.S. economy is slowly strengthening.

 

“I think the Iraq situation shook everybody up. Oil rallied sharply and we were able to push gold higher…. But I’m not convinced that we won’t see more downside. I think you can cautiously sell rallies if we get to $1,280.

 

Thirteen hundred is the big resistance. If we don’t find any more news then we’ll probably go back to $1,240. There’s the FOMC next week; that’s worth watching. That could change things quickly. And it’s another reason why I would sell rallies,” said Afshin Nabavi, head of trading at trading house MKS (Switzerland) SA in Geneva.

 

A few survey participants said they see gold holding in a trading range as the geopolitical news isn’t enough to push it above current resistance levels between $1,280 and $1,300, while the FOMC meeting isn’t likely to be enough to push gold under support between $1,250 and $1,240.

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.