Jim Sinclair Is Calling Prechter Out Gold Will Trade at $401 in 2003
#1 Guest_sigmoidoscope_*
Posted 24 December 2002 - 03:51 PM
There is a major error circulating amongst our Elliot friends. That is deflation is negative to gold. The primary anti-deflation tool to be used during periods of threatened or real deflation price-wise is GOLD. I am willing to say that if the point of capitulation of opinion for the Elliot (Prechter)School of thought is $400 an ounce, I am looking for Prechter true believers to make a legally binding wager. I will wager in lots of $1000 up to 100 Elliot believers (total wager $100,000) that gold will trade at $401 in 2003.
To book the wager fax me at 860 364 0673. I will send you a contract for signature. To give our Elliot colleagues a fair chance, I suggest that they read my recent Editorial carried on www.financialsense.com, www.tanrange.com & www.lemetropole.com titled " Gold, the Deflation Solution." The Elliot Wave believers have not reviewed in detail the history of gold 1929-1940. May I suggest that you copy this gentlemanly challenge to the Elliot (Prechter) Doctrine and send a copy of it to all of the major Elliot web site and to Mr. Prechter himself. Mr. Prechter may wish to book the entire wager, himself.
Regards,
Jim Sinclair
#2
Posted 24 December 2002 - 05:02 PM
Naturally we believe the govt numbers... and Boobus Americanus sleepwalks off the edge of the energy-crisis cliff clutching his shares of "Crisco", Yoohoo and GooGah munching on his Yum Yums and Ho Hos. Future historians will have a hell of a time figuring out what the hell Americanus neanderthalus was thinking and exactly what brought on his sudden demise... - Henny Penny
Well, good night everyone. I gotta go lube up for tomorrow's regular end-of-week Gold Slapdown and Stock Index Bear Punishment Rally Weekend Greenprint. ...Probably another Shock-and-Awe Gap-Up-Open and Wire-to-Wire Meltup Runaway Bull Charge Mo-Mo Spike to Fresh New All-Time Lifetime Highs, culminating in a 4:15 yelping scalded dog runoff with panic short-covering and legal not-held bad double fills due to fast market conditions, plus quote system freeze-ups and trading platform lock-outs along the way. *yawn* typical gov't Friday. - Shorty
#3
Posted 24 December 2002 - 05:11 PM
Of course, Mr. Sinclair could have hedged his bet in the opposite way, too.
Ain't hedging fun?
Regards,
Vesselin
#6
Posted 24 December 2002 - 09:11 PM
Too bad you don't get those kind of wagers from Abby JustaColon and her ilk... I'd be a very rich man if I could bet against Abby on her SPX predictions.
They say the danger's gone away.
But I can see the fires, still alight,
they're burning into the night." - Genesis, Land of Confusion
#7
Posted 24 December 2002 - 09:30 PM
#8
Posted 24 December 2002 - 09:45 PM
Sounds like he wants to browbeat the last few remaining holdouts into the gold party. Reminds me of the bulls baiting the bears while Nasdaq was soaring to 5000, criticizing them for not joining the party. A behavioral thing.
If I were him and had a strong conviction about a new bull market in gold, I'd be quietly putting my money in gold and let Elliott Wave theorists go hang. Why does he need wager money from Elliotticians in particular?
#12
Posted 25 December 2002 - 12:04 AM
mjkst27, on Dec 24 2002, 09:40 PM, said:
MJ, you sound just as sure as Sinclair does. If you're that bearish on gold, and that certain that Sinclair is wrong, then it sounds like you should fax him for one of those 100 contracts. I have no way of knowing that he'll be wrong or right. But on a risk/reward basis, you'd have to be nuts to bet on a $147/oz down move over a $53/oz up move. I'd take the other side of that bet, particularly in this geopolitical and economic environment. No certainty for me... just risk reward. I don't think Sinclair is gonna look dumb at all, win or lose - he's offering what is for him a good odds bet. He's likely to win it on the numbers alone, and it's a bullish position in a bull market- even if he loses, it's the intelligent play.
Naturally we believe the govt numbers... and Boobus Americanus sleepwalks off the edge of the energy-crisis cliff clutching his shares of "Crisco", Yoohoo and GooGah munching on his Yum Yums and Ho Hos. Future historians will have a hell of a time figuring out what the hell Americanus neanderthalus was thinking and exactly what brought on his sudden demise... - Henny Penny
Well, good night everyone. I gotta go lube up for tomorrow's regular end-of-week Gold Slapdown and Stock Index Bear Punishment Rally Weekend Greenprint. ...Probably another Shock-and-Awe Gap-Up-Open and Wire-to-Wire Meltup Runaway Bull Charge Mo-Mo Spike to Fresh New All-Time Lifetime Highs, culminating in a 4:15 yelping scalded dog runoff with panic short-covering and legal not-held bad double fills due to fast market conditions, plus quote system freeze-ups and trading platform lock-outs along the way. *yawn* typical gov't Friday. - Shorty
#13
Posted 25 December 2002 - 12:37 AM
Also, no one from the "Elliot" camp has confirmed that 400 would be the magic number that invalidates their 200 count. IOW, the 147 vs. 53 thing is Sinclair's imagination, not based on any statement by EWI that I know of.
Anyway, this all seems so silly. 20% of my net liquid worth is in gold and silver. You know where I stand. Merry Crashmas.
Here's Sinclair's gold cover article
#14
Posted 25 December 2002 - 09:53 AM
'Nuff sed?
#15 Guest_AssMaster_*
Posted 25 December 2002 - 10:20 AM
What would decouple their inverse relationship at this point to allow for such a thing? How could the dollar fall without gold going up? Or could the market continue falling with the dollar becoming stronger? It makes my brain hurt thinking about it.
But at least it provides the wall of worry for gold to climb up. And Prechter will probably, yet again, be responsible for preventing many from making a boatload of money.
Sign In
Register
Help

MultiQuote






