Jim Sinclair Is Calling Prechter Out

[Guest sigmoidoscope]

From Jim Sinclair:

 

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

[GregFokker]

Fokker wants to tip his hat to Jim Sinclair for having some stones in this biz. He might be a crusty ole coot, but he doesn't hedge his calls and he's offering to put his money where his mouth is. Contrast his gravelly voice with the average poodit's double-hedgespeak, and you'll get my point. Givem hell, Jim!

[Guest]

Hmm, I am wondering whether there is a way to hedge this bet. For instance, one could take the bet and go long gold - so that if gold doesn't trade at $401 or above in 2003, one recovers the losses from one's long gold position from the proceedings of the bet. If, OTOH, gold does go to $401 (or above) in 2003, one makes money from the long gold position to pay for the bet.

 

Of course, Mr. Sinclair could have hedged his bet in the opposite way, too.

 

Ain't hedging fun?

 

Regards,

Vesselin

[Goldilocks]

Leave it to a frosty computer geek to ruin everyone's good fun with some cold hard logic.

:grin:

[mjkst27]

someone needs to investigate Sinclair's net worth. He must be hurtin for cash.

[Pretzel Logic]

That's great! Gotta love that type of attitude.

 

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.

[Goldmember]

Prtzl- From the look of GS earnings this month I'd say the GS trading department DID JUST THAT!

[SusanJBear]

If Jim Sinclair thinks that Elliott Wave is WRONG about gold, why does he even CARE?

 

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?

[mjkst27]

SJB - agreed. Sinclair is putting what reputation he has left on the line here. He is gonna look dumb when things don't go according to his neat plan. But it will be fun to watch. :grin:

[Slothrop]

It could trade at 200 early in 2003 and at 400 late in 2003. In which case, they're both right.

[SusanJBear]

It could trade at 200 early in 2003 and at 400 late in 2003. In which case, they're both right.

Very good! Even if the $200 gold scenario came to pass, I doubt it would last for long at that level.

[GregFokker]

SJB - agreed. Sinclair is putting what reputation he has left on the line here. He is gonna look dumb when things don't go according to his neat plan. But it will be fun to watch. ?:grin:

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.

[mjkst27]

Fokker you are right, I am painting with broad strokes. I was referring more to Sinclairs 12/23 editorial on the gold cover clause. He seems to have the future of the world all figured out, down to the nth degree of detail. When someone writes like this about the future, with total cocksuredness, I simply think "OK, what's he forgetting that's going to bite him in the ass?"

 

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

[ThorAss]

Every bull market needs something to worry about. That's why I engineered the whole $200 thing. A bit of subliminal seduction, late night phone calls to Prechter's castle and voila he comes up with a count which takes us to $200. No problem that it flies in the face of everything else that is happening and really contradicts all his other forecasts, such is the power of a voo-doo doll. So the bull will march on always looking over its shoulder. 18 years of bear builds a lot of mistrust. The old-timers are waiting for the smackdown, they've been here before but the problem is they haven't been HERE before. No one has. Of course, there will be corrections and seasonal factors and manipulation and gaming and opex nonesense but if you're waiting for 200 or even 250 to get aboard forget it. If you're looking at physical take possession. Average in, buy and hold. Trade the miners or just hold them as well. Short the $ and the broads when they get overbought and you will have a happy and prospero new year.

 

'Nuff sed?

[Guest AssMaster]

If we are to believe recent history, gold is countercyclical to the stock market and the dollar. So if the dollar and stock market are (of course) about to head into 3 of 3 down, why would gold do so as well?

 

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.