anotherone Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 Do ya think the Japanese people pushers have crammed enough sheeple into the tram cars or is there one more up day ahead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anotherone Posted July 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 Oops. lost count. Was looking at bases on the ID charts rather than days. That should be 4/4, though Tuesday was kind of Neutral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrStool Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 Devil In the Details – Professional Edition by Lee Adler, Wednesday, July 15, 2009, in Money and The Fed, Professional Edition | Permalink |Comments (0) Edit Mortgage applications rose last week, but the devil is in the details. Only refis increased in response to lower rates. Purchase apps fell sharply again, with the index still refusing to break a 19 month downtrend line. Meanwhile, the Treasury market has had another vicious turn. Click here to download complete report in pdf format (Professional Edition Subscribers). Try the Professional Edition risk free for thirty days. If, within that time, you don’t find the information useful, I will give you a full refund. It’s that simple. Click here for more information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdporter Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 SRS clubbed for -7% today. Perhaps we revisit the $16 and change low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 According to the funny mentals, fair value for the S&P 500 is about 550 to match the level of dividends currently being issued against the historic levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 But the fundamentals really do give a funny mental number when comparing the fair value of the S&P500 to earnings. That is because according to the estimates created by Standard and Poor, earnings are about to go negative for the first time in the history of the index. Certainly not bullish information, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brick Stoolhouse Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 Oops. lost count. Was looking at bases on the ID charts rather than days. That should be 4/4, though Tuesday was kind of Neutral. Nope. Tomorrow at this time Chunky Sue Hererra will be saying "Profit takers came into the market today" Every day the market goes down they trot that one out. The scam week damage has already been inflicted. When the market was trading at 870 a couple of weeks ago one of the Lost Money guys said that someone with deep pockets came in and bought 100000 880 Calls on the S and P. Tip of the cap to that guy. He'll have the nicest rental at the Hamptons this summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 The funny metals approach to the price of gold supposes a global return to the gold standard. If it was based on global M1 the price of gold should be about $1,400/oz, and if it was based on M2 it should be about $7,800/oz. On the chart below, the next resistance line corresponds to about $3,000/oz and a 1980 style blowoff to the top of the channel corresponds to $5,000/oz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shorty Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 another routine that-time-o'-month scam week option jam bohnar-fest bear-reamin' CONtest never anything new under the sun the same dreary sordid machinations, reampeated ad nauseum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 The ratio graph below is based on monthly average prices. A move to the red oval is a SP500/gold ratio of 0.28. If we retest the SPX lows of 666 and post that price on average for a month, this ratio equates to a gold price of about $2,400/oz. On the other hand, if gold only gets to the M1 fundamental price of $1,400/oz, then this ratio equates to an S&P 500 value of about 400. The ultimate price low for the S&P500 depends on the maximum deflation point; and the price high for gold depends on the maximum inflation point. Both depend on how much the Fed prints. But the ratio graph should look the same regardless. I am currently long GLD and SLV, and short SPY. My price target for gold is a minimum of $1,400, and for SPY it is a retest of the lows already seen. Gold could go higher (inflationary outcome) and SPY could go lower (deflationary outcome) but that is harder to target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 The price of gold relative to oil reached an extreme back in February, but it has since corrected to the middle of the channel which is often a reversal point. If we assume oil stays about where it is ($70) which is reasonable from a consumption/production viewpoint, then this suggests we are at a reasonable point for gold to resume climbing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 If you are long-term bullish on gold, then you should be more bullish on silver, which is relatively low compared to gold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungster Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 It pains me to show these next two charts...I hope I'm wrong....I really do....bearz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
byhiselo Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 don't think its safe for the bears until the traditional sept/oct panic or SPX close under 900, whichever comes first lots of bear tragedy on boards this week... place your bets...something for both bears and bulls...from sentimentrader.com: There have only been six other days since 2002 that the STEM.MR Model has dropped under 10%. Those were: * 01/03/03 (the market dropped soon afterward) * 12/18/03 (a kickoff to a major thrust higher) * 10/27/04 (a kickoff to a major thrust higher) * 07/08/05 (the market rallied for another couple of weeks before rolling over) * 12/26/07 (the market rolled over immediately) * 01/05/09 (the market rolled over almost immediately) There wasn't much in-between about these occurrences - either the market rallied strongly without much of a blip over the next couple of weeks at least, or it rolled over within a day or two and suffered pretty hefty losses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimi Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 Nice perspective, Scully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.