Realcent.org

Mind your risk.
Cheers!

Or else you might risk your mind.

Good to hear from you, JFF. Don't be a stranger.

shinnosuke wrote:Good to hear from you, JFF. Don't be a stranger.

+1

Silver did not decisively break through $20; the same with gold and 1335. The makes me think that both metals could test (and perhaps even breach) their lows in the next few weeks.

Risk is only as relevant as your attachment to what you've got to lose. Give up the love of money and there is no such thing as risk in these markets. If nothing else, it sure makes the buy and hold strategy easier to stick to.

InfleXion wrote:Risk is only as relevant as your attachment to what you've got to lose. Give up the love of money and there is no such thing as risk in these markets. If nothing else, it sure makes the buy and hold strategy easier to stick to.

Well even if you just *like* money having less of it is less fun than having more of it.

barrytrot wrote:

InfleXion wrote:Risk is only as relevant as your attachment to what you've got to lose. Give up the love of money and there is no such thing as risk in these markets. If nothing else, it sure makes the buy and hold strategy easier to stick to.

Well even if you just *like* money having less of it is less fun than having more of it.

True, and of course not having it can be exceedingly problematic. I guess what I am saying is if you don't love it you won't chase it as much, so less riding on the return, and less likely to be shaken out of your position at a potentially inopportune time.

Still falling...thanks Jon for the heads up.

A little bit lower every day... still no new low and no dramatic crash... but it seems to be coming.

Oops... what's this? A reversal? But... but... no one predicted that!

Someone with clout is cycling the market and siphoning off the physical from the exchanges on the dips. look for exchange failures before end of the year, if not sooner.

beauanderos wrote:
Oops... what's this? A reversal? But... but... no one predicted that!

Maybe he meant to mind your risk to the upside. Or the risk of trading in a range? We'll have to wait and see.

Wow, that's quite a spike! Too bad it's already come half way down, or nearly so. I won't be impressed until it hits 21...

what should impress you is the cycling

68Camaro wrote:what should impress you is the cycling

I don't get it...

68Camaro wrote:what should impress you is the cycling

I refuse to be impressed by cycling shorts.

Engineer wrote:

68Camaro wrote:what should impress you is the cycling

I refuse to be impressed by cycling shorts.

Are you sure about that?

Cycling shorts?

Engineer wrote:

68Camaro wrote:what should impress you is the cycling

I refuse to be impressed by cycling shorts.

I knew you were teeing up one for Ray with this, and sure enough, he bit.

Then Peter started a potential landslide. More to come?

68Camaro wrote:.....More to come?

Hope so.

scyther wrote:

68Camaro wrote:what should impress you is the cycling

I don't get it...

Someone has been cycling the market off and on for a number of years. It was very pronounced in 2011 (and I made some paper money on it) - but during that period they were cycling in periods of 3+ days with amplitudes of $2-$5 or more. They've since succeeded in pushing the price back down from $49 > $19 in waves.

Now they are cycling in hours, with smaller amplitudes (in both absolute as well as percentage terms), and the behavior appears consistent with someone pumping the market down and then harvesting (and I would say they are knocking down the paper price then harvesting physical). I say that with no concrete physical proof whatsoever, but with the majors (JPM, GS, etc) exiting the commodities markets in some sense, combined with record outflow of physical from the exchanges, it is unusual behavior to say the least.

After a previous rise the price gets knocked back down sharply (say 3%), putts along with for a few hours where there is some semi-level give or take trading, then the available supply at that price after that action is sucked up and further buys cause the price to rise almost equally as sharply, in no more than hours, but often in minutes.

I happen to think that the Boyz getting out of the commodities business is merely a ruse to throw the regulatory dogs off the scent. There is any number of ways they could "sell" those trading desks to another entity, using shell corporations... and they still wind up the ones pulling the strings. As far as the bullion banks being long now? So what? They will still slam the prices and then scoop up physical, as others have already alluded to. Price stability is no certainty whether they are long or not, as long as physical supply is yet available. Should that change... then it could be another ballgame. Until then, expect more of the same. The volatility is so great it's almost impossible to trade... I've missed two buy points that would have led to some fast handsome profits. I'll just have to lower my expectations as to the magnitude of the moves and trade within a tighter band.

68Camaro wrote:

scyther wrote:

68Camaro wrote:what should impress you is the cycling

I don't get it...

Someone has been cycling the market off and on for a number of years. It was very pronounced in 2011 (and I made some paper money on it) - but during that period they were cycling in periods of 3+ days with amplitudes of $2-$5 or more. They've since succeeded in pushing the price back down from $49 > $19 in waves.

Now they are cycling in hours, with smaller amplitudes (in both absolute as well as percentage terms), and the behavior appears consistent with someone pumping the market down and then harvesting (and I would say they are knocking down the paper price then harvesting physical). I say that with no concrete physical proof whatsoever, but with the majors (JPM, GS, etc) exiting the commodities markets in some sense, combined with record outflow of physical from the exchanges, it is unusual behavior to say the least.

After a previous rise the price gets knocked back down sharply (say 3%), putts along with for a few hours where there is some semi-level give or take trading, then the available supply at that price after that action is sucked up and further buys cause the price to rise almost equally as sharply, in no more than hours, but often in minutes.

Ok. I'm familiar with that theory, I just wasn't familiar with the term.