Marketsurfer's bold gold proclamation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote from thriftybob:

and the piker is DONE.

Only off by 50%+
More...

I always wonder why people get satisfaction that others can be wrong?

I disagreed with ( I have bought physical) but respected the post and author.

The fact remains that the call was to short at 955 and looking at kitco as I write this I see spot gold is at 925 which by my math makes this a good call.

If someone had actually taken the opposite trade and went long at 955 what does that make their account look like??

RW
 
Quote from marketsurfer:

I still believe gold <= 600 before 1200--- however, timing obviously wrong this time---i admit it.

Next macro call--gold =< 600 prior to 1200. when?? i don't know.


regards,

surf [/B]
More...


I think this thread was entertaining. I say keep it going. When gold hits $1200, choose another target.
Right or wrong... Who the hell cares.. Have fun with this shit.

I will take the other side of that prediction for $1. Trading Places (1983).
I would also be willing to put another $1 on the line.
Gold doubles before $600.
 
i am a big fan of gold but a little leery given it won't crack 1000. how much more of a compelling case could their be for gold?

having said that the trend is my friend and $1030 (all time high) is withing spitting distance and if/when this bitch cracks $1000 - there are:

a: shorts that need out at any price and
b: a LOT of money that has no choice but to get long cause this could be an insane move

at the very least the risk to be short is too great imo.
 
Quote from Robert Weinstein:

I always wonder why people get satisfaction that others can be wrong?

I disagreed with ( I have bought physical) but respected the post and author.

The fact remains that the call was to short at 955 and looking at kitco as I write this I see spot gold is at 925 which by my math makes this a good call.

If someone had actually taken the opposite trade and went long at 955 what does that make their account look like??

RW
More...

Proclamations like this have no value in the world of trading. Rather, people make statements like this to gather/garner attention.

The OP may provide some tidbits of wisdom, but let's face it, he has something to sell.

As a trader (this isn't eliteinvestor) the opportunity cost of this trade is much too expensive regardless of the nominal gain of $30.

Hey Surf, I will bet you $300 an ounce gold goes to $1200 before it goes to $600. Are you ready to put you money where your rhetoric is?
 
Quote from LVMises:

Proclamations like this have no value in the world of trading. Rather, people make statements like this to gather/garner attention.

The OP may provide some tidbits of wisdom, but let's face it, he has something to sell.

As a trader (this isn't eliteinvestor) the opportunity cost of this trade is much too expensive regardless of the nominal gain of $30.

Hey Surf, I will bet you $300 an ounce gold goes to $1200 before it goes to $600. Are you ready to put you money where your rhetoric is?
More...

I think for the most part your statements are correct and I would agree. I am also a gold bull as well.

I would like to add that I sometimes will declare an opinion on a stock and I believe that when I do it adds value and gets people thinking in ways that they may not have before.

I would also say that while you have a very valid point about the opportunity cost for a straight posistion it does not have to be so.
I will almost always write options against a stock (like writting naked puts with USO).

Had someone agreed with Surf and wrote out calls against the commodity or an ETF they would have not only made money but the opportunity cost would not have been as much (none compared to any other trade) so there are many ways to catch the mouse.

For example I am currently short USO puts NTES calls and NFLX calls all naked because I believe thats better than being long/short the stock.

Again you make really good points and in general I agree with you. I just also know that this was a good call in that you could have made money or at least not lose money. That by my standards is a good call or at least not a "bad" call as several posts seem to imply.

Best to you

RW
 
"...gold will be sub 600 by 4.1.2009..."

That was the essence of the call & I am afraid that based on the above quote the call was pants. Yes, Surf did predict a decline pretty well, yet the above has totally negated Surf's analysis.
 
Quote from Robert Weinstein:

I think for the most part your statements are correct and I would agree. I am also a gold bull as well.

I would like to add that I sometimes will declare an opinion on a stock and I believe that when I do it adds value and gets people thinking in ways that they may not have before.

I would also say that while you have a very valid point about the opportunity cost for a straight posistion it does not have to be so.
I will almost always write options against a stock (like writting naked puts with USO).

Had someone agreed with Surf and wrote out calls against the commodity or an ETF they would have not only made money but the opportunity cost would not have been as much (none compared to any other trade) so there are many ways to catch the mouse.

For example I am currently short USO puts NTES calls and NFLX calls all naked because I believe thats better than being long/short the stock.

Again you make really good points and in general I agree with you. I just also know that this was a good call in that you could have made money or at least not lose money. That by my standards is a good call or at least not a "bad" call as several posts seem to imply.

Best to you

RW
More...

Much more dificult to disagree with your logic as it provides just that, a strategy which includes an if/then,else. You have proven on this board RW that your approach to the market is more logical than the OP. hats off to you.
 
I believe Surf's call was probably based on his expectation that dealer banks, and by extension central banks, through their naked shorting and other manipulation in the metal paper markets, would drive the prices down.

Yet clearly the demand for physical gold and silver is swamping that, with more and more investors demanding to take physical delivery of their gold contracts. Have a look at this:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/129...x-from-gold-default?source=article_sb_popular

That's some scary stuff, and it's just a matter of time before the dealer banks and central banks get overwhelmed by the physical demand that will only continue to increase, especially as articles like this exposing the fraud circulate more widely, and more participants pile on with demand for physical delivery.

So my bet is Surf will once again be wrong, and the dealer banks and central banks will not be able to suppress gold prices much longer. And when they stop naked shorting, and/or the paper markets go into default, gold and silver are going to rocket like nobody's business.
 
Quote from niceneasy:

cept ther printing press never runs out of ink. what is to stop the selling of gold with theoretical dollars?
More...

Because eventually if enough traders demand physical delivery of their gold contracts, and the banks don't have the physical gold available to deliver, the Comex goes into default, and then all hell breaks loose.

That's the beauty of gold, no matter how many paper dollars central banks may print, they can't create new gold out of thin air. So if there's enough demand on the paper markets for the physical stuff, the house of cards comes crashing down.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top