Posts by quiettrucker12

vividgull10 said:Let’s keep it simple: take a hypothetical scenario where the Federal Reserve's Balance sheet hits $10^{100} today.
Can you actually prove a correlation between that event and the resulting inflation? (Measure it however you want)

PS.
Disclaimer: I don't have a bias toward anything—from dollars to gold. I think like a trader; I just want to see things move. To me, this is all just about picking the best entry and exit points.
I'm saying this just so there's no misunderstanding—I'm not rooting for a rally or a crash.

And then you realize a bull market will always hunt for an excuse. It’ll find any reason to do what it was going to do anyway. There's no debate here: Federal Reserve "liquidity" will eventually flow into stocks, Commodities, and even gold, but gold isn't really an (anti)inflation tool anymore.

We're looking at a commodity bull run, which includes a gold bull within it.

Since 2001, Commodities (CRB) have grown by a factor of 1.5.

Gold, meanwhile, has shot up 6.8 times since 2000.

Sure, we'll see commodity inflation again in the next period, and it's tied to the gold bull, but gold is singing its own tune.

gold/crb:

the ratio of gold to the commodity index

The ratio of the gold price to the CRB commodity index went from 1.1 back in 2000/2001 to today's 5.8 (we even touched over 6 recently).

If what the Federal Reserve is doing right now isn't the perfect excuse for the gold bull to keep climbing, I don't know what is.

Liquidity finds a way into everything. Their biggest headache is oil prices; they couldn't care less about gold. There isn't any massive manipulation happening, just the usual occasional trader activity you see everywhere else.

If gold were being manipulated, the ratio between Commodities and gold wouldn't have swung over 5x in favor of gold over the last 12 years.

If you want to look for manipulation, look at other Commodities—specifically oil—in the coming period.

People use those tired old theories about gold being manipulated downward as a convenient excuse for when their predictions fail miserably. Watch out for those folks.

vividgull10 said:That's exactly why I'm asking, obviously.

Look, as long as we're closing above the 75 SMA, nothing changes. These are just the rules of the game for now.

vividgull10 said:Just a quick technical question here...

What’s your logic for deciding which MA to actually watch? Are you looking at it purely from an empirical standpoint—basically picking one that’s historically hit the mark so you expect it to hold up down the road? Or are you playing by a different set of rules?

Good question. I think the answer is partially baked into the post above; the chart itself basically pointed out those three WMAs, and the 100 DMA fits the pattern perfectly. You can learn a ton from the last major wave, but keep in mind the rules of the game can change. A different indicator might take center stage next time.

Sure, but we haven't even reached a consensus on that yet, considering plenty of people were betting that Quantitative Easing 3 wouldn't even happen. I personally expected it this fall, but it showed up a little early.

Check this out, this is interesting:

10 wma, 75 wma, 100 wma

You can clearly see how gold swapped riding the 100-week moving average (back in May, June, and part of July) for riding the 75-week one (which has been the case for about 7 weeks now).

In July, during the 11th week, it finally broke above the 10 wma, but it immediately hit the 75 wma wall. It took another 3-4 weeks to break through that, so we might have about 3 more weeks of crawling along the 75 wma. That said, the gap between the 10 wma and the 75 wma is pretty tight, so things might pick up speed.

After that, just like the 100 wma was replaced by the 75 wma, the 75 wma will eventually be replaced by the 100 dma:

100 dma which is steeper and will ultimately define the "slope" of the entire major wave, much like before:

The 100 dma provides the big picture, showing a segment of the previous major wave that lasted until September 2011.

Look, Robert Vaughn10, there’s obviously occasional manipulation happening. For instance, what happened overnight and what we saw today looks more like blatant manipulation than anything else yet. Or look at oil prices lately right before the new Quantitative Easing announcement. Even that Goldman Sachs report dropped just before the FOMC meeting. It makes you wonder whose side ZeroHedge is actually on. I heard—this is unverified since I don't obsessively read ZH, but I caught a headline or a comment—that they once dropped negative news about gold at a critical moment when the sentiment needed a boost, and it supposedly wasn't the first time. That info comes from trader circles, so it carries some weight with me. I never really viewed CNN as an alternative to ZH; maybe the only real alternative is 😉. As for manipulation, it happens in everything. Honestly, I find it hard to believe the Federal Reserve is running some massive scheme against gold for several reasons: first, the bull market seems to be moving quite naturally so far; second, gold prices have skyrocketed over the last decade; and third, China is a massive buyer, and I can't see why the Federal Reserve would let the Chinese get their hands on cheap gold. The issue with "manipulation" claims is that analysts cry foul the second things don't go their way. Add to that the fact that questioning the manipulation narrative is a total taboo in gold bug circles, and you've got the perfect excuse. Last night, I mentioned we might test the 100 DMA or even the 75 WMA, but I didn't expect it to happen this fast. Overall, gold's reaction to this Quantitative Easing announcement (4/beskonačno2) is a bit weird, but what happened overnight and today is the strangest thing I've seen yet. And one more thing: whenever someone tries to move an asset through manipulation, the market always snaps back with interest.

Also, how is it that nobody calls out someone like Jim Sinclair for his massive misses? Not just on gold price predictions—which aren't off by $100, by the way—but on all his other claims, like predicting major banks would collapse within days of him saying they would. Or ZeroHedge—how many fake news stories have they pushed?

I post a prediction here, and then people ask, "do you doubt it or not?" whether it's up or down a couple of dollars... it feels weird. It's like logic doesn't apply anymore. It's still not even certain if we've collectively "agreed" that Ben Bernanke is printing trillions...

Patrick Moore3 said:It broke the 100-day MA. We were down at 1694 early this morning! If we crack the 75-week WMA, how low can this thing actually go?

If that happens, we’ll likely need to slice through the 300-day moving average (1674) and hit the 200-day at $1664. That would set a new floor instead of the November 5th low. Honestly, all of that could happen in a single session. Testing the 75-week moving average is the realistic scenario here. Like I said, I don't care where gold goes over the next couple of days. Everyone is confused, everyone set their stops too high, and the "boys" (and girls, since I don't want anyone getting offended) took advantage and pushed gold down overnight. Now we're way too close to the 75-week moving average not to test it, especially since that was always an option on the table (check my post from last night). I'm only looking at the February-March target, which is getting close to 1900.

We’ve got a gold triangle forming. The top edge is set by the peaks on Oct 5th and Nov 22nd, while the bottom is anchored by Aug 31st, Nov 5th, and Dec 7th.

Looking at the weekly chart, that bottom edge is basically acting as the 75-week moving average. So, testing that lower boundary is effectively a test of the 75 WMA. For this breakout to actually hold, we’d need to see prices hit somewhere around $1,687. I’m personally not rooting for—or expecting—a dip lower than that, because if we slide past that, we’re almost certainly dropping below $1,673. But hey, that's the market for you. Anything can happen.

dustyheron5 said:quiettrucker12, you have my support... anyone who hasn't attempted projections or forecasts in a market this volatile knows just how thankless the job can be.

Personally, I tip my hat to your estimates—both the short-term and long-term views... you deserve every bit of credit for what you bring to this discussion.🙏

The situation is far more complex than it looks on the surface. To be blunt, the fiscal cliff is almost certainly going to act as a deflationary force—and this announcement regarding QE is essentially an attempt to neutralize that deflationary pressure from the fiscal cliff and those shaky global economic trends. It isn't easy to predict exactly how the market will react to all of this... Mr. Market always gets the final say.

By the way, we also need to factor the debt ceiling increase into the equation.

My own take? I think this decision is incredibly bullish for metals, but we'll just have to wait and see.

Of course it is. I don't get why everyone is acting "disappointed" when we actually got exactly what we wanted—I'd go further and say we got a trillion bucks a year. 🙄

Anyway, the focus shifts to the stock market now (looks like we closed just under 1430 today); technically speaking, it needs a correction over the next few days. Gold will likely have to sit on its hands for a bit too, but those are just technicalities.

As for the support levels, they look fine. But I honestly don't get why I've suddenly become "interesting" to some people in this group out of nowhere... I post my thoughts, others post theirs, it’s all good. It's not like anyone took offense because of ZeroHedge and Jerry Falwell a few days ago. Karl was the one under fire then, so maybe times are just changing.

Robert Vaughn10 said:Ben admitted quite plainly that it counts as monetization as long as they don't sell those bonds later—or if they just hold onto them indefinitely. So, by his logic, it’s only monetization until the sale happens. But who on earth is going to buy all that massive pile of paper? Gold didn't even flinch at the news.😉
I'll bet my bottom dollar we see a correction by late 2013.
Honestly, quiettrucker12, I'm starting to doubt your forecasts, and I suspect you're starting to doubt them too.😉
Those short-term moves were solid, but now I'm skeptical about hitting $1,900 USD by March. Maybe I'm wrong; we'll see.
With news like this, gold should have jumped at least a few dozen dollars, if not more. This kind of action has to show up in the CPI with at least a couple of percentage points.
None of this changes my conviction, though: over a 5 to 10-year horizon, gold and silver will be more expensive. Significantly more expensive. Everything being done right now, announced in September and continuing today, is eventually going to blow up in their faces. In about 10 years, finally. You can only push a boiling pot so far before it overflows. And with these kinds of moves, the dollar is losing purchasing power—there's no question about it. Sure, the dollar might still hold its own for a year or two, or we might even hit a deflationary shock, but looking at the long term—say, 5 to 10 years—I don't see how the dollar maintains any real purchasing power.

Why on earth would you think I’d doubt it? What gave you that idea? Come on, you're a rational guy. I called the bottom at 75 WMA and the floor at 1686 in real time—fine, we hit 1685 the next day, whatever. It was a gutsy call considering the FOMC meeting was only a couple of days away. Of course I left a tiny bit of room for error in case Ben Bernanke decided to shake things up.

Robert Vaughn10 said:Ben admitted quite plainly that it counts as monetization as long as they don't sell those bonds later—or if they just hold onto them indefinitely. So, by his logic, it’s only monetization until the sale happens. But who on earth is going to buy all that massive pile of paper? Gold didn't even flinch at the news.😉
I'll bet my bottom dollar we see a correction by late 2013.
Honestly, quiettrucker12, I'm starting to doubt your forecasts, and I suspect you're starting to doubt them too.😉
Those short-term moves were solid, but now I'm skeptical about hitting $1,900 USD by March. Maybe I'm wrong; we'll see.
With news like this, gold should have jumped at least a few dozen dollars, if not more. This kind of action has to show up in the CPI with at least a couple of percentage points.
None of this changes my conviction, though: over a 5 to 10-year horizon, gold and silver will be more expensive. Significantly more expensive. Everything being done right now, announced in September and continuing today, is eventually going to blow up in their faces. In about 10 years, finally. You can only push a boiling pot so far before it overflows. And with these kinds of moves, the dollar is losing purchasing power—there's no question about it. Sure, the dollar might still hold its own for a year or two, or we might even hit a deflationary shock, but looking at the long term—say, 5 to 10 years—I don't see how the dollar maintains any real purchasing power.

1870–1800... if we actually hit those numbers, we aren't just talking about short-term fluctuations anymore. With all due respect, after today's FOMC meeting, there’s zero room left for this "maybe" nonsense. 😉.

Robert Vaughn10 said:Ben admitted quite plainly that it counts as monetization as long as they don't sell those bonds later—or if they just hold onto them indefinitely. So, by his logic, it’s only monetization until the sale happens. But who on earth is going to buy all that massive pile of paper? Gold didn't even flinch at the news.😉
I'll bet my bottom dollar we see a correction by late 2013.
Honestly, quiettrucker12, I'm starting to doubt your forecasts, and I suspect you're starting to doubt them too.😉
Those short-term moves were solid, but now I'm skeptical about hitting $1,900 USD by March. Maybe I'm wrong; we'll see.
With news like this, gold should have jumped at least a few dozen dollars, if not more. This kind of action has to show up in the CPI with at least a couple of percentage points.
None of this changes my conviction, though: over a 5 to 10-year horizon, gold and silver will be more expensive. Significantly more expensive. Everything being done right now, announced in September and continuing today, is eventually going to blow up in their faces. In about 10 years, finally. You can only push a boiling pot so far before it overflows. And with these kinds of moves, the dollar is losing purchasing power—there's no question about it. Sure, the dollar might still hold its own for a year or two, or we might even hit a deflationary shock, but looking at the long term—say, 5 to 10 years—I don't see how the dollar maintains any real purchasing power.

That logic just doesn't hold up. Markets aren't rational—they never have been. I can't believe that with news like this, you're still seeing this much skepticism on the forum, and now I'm seeing it from you too. It takes time for the moving averages to actually trend upward. We need to see at least the 10-day moving average shift before we talk.

----------------------------

I’m not even going to bother writing a whole new post. Honestly, I couldn't care less where gold heads over the next few days. If it dips a bit, it’s going to hit some serious resistance at the 100 DMA—it's sitting at 1705 right now, but the trend is up. There's a huge chance we'll see it testing that level pretty soon.

The 100-day moving average.

And now we’re looking at 75 bps. I really hope we don't have to put that theory to the test before February or March, but hey, anything can happen.

75-week price average.

Ben is sticking to his inflation play. We could easily drift toward the 1870-1880 range by February or March before seeing a correction back down to somewhere around 1760-1780. That’s a climb of "only" $160, but like I mentioned at the start of the year, it’s going to take a good eighteen months to get back to those 1930 levels. This gold bull run that kicked off in May at $1626 needs time to actually gain some serious momentum. As for the miners? They're a different story. They really ought to see a much sharper move during that same window leading up to spring.

Policy announcement at 6:30 PM

quiettrucker12 said:We’re sitting right here at 1709. If things hold steady, we might actually break 1720.

More like buying it more expensive... seriously, go back and read the last five or six pages of this thread.

As of 3:44 PM today, it’s hit 1720.35 $.

Melissa Sanchez17 said:So you get all worked up when I mess with you, yet you’re over here dropping completely different forecasts within a two-hour window—it's wild. Every single one of your predictions comes with at least three different "if/then" scenarios attached to it. Honestly, what's even the point of that? And why act offended if someone calls you out on it? I’m done chiming in on this thread—it’s lost its spark and just doesn't make sense anymore. Everything has devolved into this endless ego trip about who's the better trader, debating pro vs. con theories, or diving into whatever ZH conspiracy rabbit hole we're down today. Real discussion only happens when guys like Francisco, Machiavelli, or some random buyer jumps in and we all start bickering over the list Charles laid out. Personally, I think this whole thread would actually be decent if it were just your forecasts and Charles deciding when to jump in or bail.
Hey everyone! 🙂

That bit about the varying forecasts is wrong. Second, if things change, you change your mind—that's how it works. Third, nobody "called me out" for that; they called me out for other stuff.

I’ve been saying the same thing for ages. First, I called for a correction in Summer 2011, then I predicted a long consolidation. Your habit of hunting for mistakes in my posts just to be difficult is pure provocation. This whole "different forecasts within two hours" thing is a perfect example. Why don't you write your own stuff and just leave my posts alone?

hollowmoose21 said:Go ahead then, write your little essay on miners. I'm sure someone out there will be dying to read it. 😉

I’ve dropped several deep dives on this before, but honestly, it feels like I'm shouting into a void. Aside from a few folks here who actually know their stuff, most of the "gold bug" crowd seems obsessed with mining stocks rather than the actual metal. It really makes you wonder if the gold bull run is already running on fumes.

Since the mods are actually hanging around, I think it’d be nice to address the guy who decided to openly call Charles an idiot the other day. I'm not exactly sure what the rulebook says about this kind of thing, but honestly, it feels pretty toxic for a community like ours.

vividgull10 said:No need for all that, man.
Look, your posts can get a bit pretentious sometimes—trying to map out every single price movement or acting like the dollar's slow decline is some sudden apocalypse rather than a long-term grind. But even so, I still find your takes valuable. Even if we don't agree, having a different perspective serves as a solid reality check for our own ideas. 👍

Besides, that’s not really why people use forums anyway—to hunt for "the" idea or "the" solution. At least I hope nobody is actually pulling the trigger on trades based on what we say here. 😉

True enough. But you seem to have this weird compulsion to nitpick how I write, while I don't bother touching yours (honestly, the only thing I consistently call out here is the constant "zero-effort" posts).

vividgull10 said:No need for all that, man.
Look, your posts can get a bit pretentious sometimes—trying to map out every single price movement or acting like the dollar's slow decline is some sudden apocalypse rather than a long-term grind. But even so, I still find your takes valuable. Even if we don't agree, having a different perspective serves as a solid reality check for our own ideas. 👍

Besides, that’s not really why people use forums anyway—to hunt for "the" idea or "the" solution. At least I hope nobody is actually pulling the trigger on trades based on what we say here. 😉

Look, in my view, that peak at 84 on the Dollar Index was crucial for understanding the whole picture. Back in the spring, when everyone was panicking about the "collapse of the USD," I already wrote that the Dollar would basically just sit there until summer (not that I’m going digging for the post right now).

You can't really grasp a gold bull run without seeing the bigger picture, which is almost entirely driven by currency fluctuations.

When it comes to the Dollar, there are basically two schools of thought here. First, you've got the Silver crowd, who have been shouting "the Dollar is dead" since the dawn of time.

Then there's your approach, which sounds to me like you think trying to actually understand the game is somehow sacrilegious.

You know exactly what I mean by "the abyss"—it's that "thin air" feeling Americans talk about when there aren't any major support or resistance levels in sight.

For me, a drop from 84 down to, say, 78 in just a few months is massive—just as significant as a drop from 84 to 73 over a year and a half—especially if it happens while news outlets are screaming that the USD is on its last legs.

I'm just defending myself against what I see as pointless criticism. I'm not interested in walking on eggshells with every word, like using "abyss." I've said it before and I'll say it again: the relationship between the USD and other currencies is cyclical. The boundaries of this "playground" are pretty clearly defined; we generally know the limits of how high or low the DXY can swing.

neondriver5 said:This thread hasn't seen anything fresh in about two years. We’ve got some guy tossing out mediocre forecasts, while Charles is out there successfully day trading—I have to hand it to him, because these gold speculators are just so painfully predictable. To be honest, I usually call the entry and exit points correctly in my head before anyone else even blinks. Then you have a few people posting just to hear themselves talk, and this one particular user who has been parroting the same lines for two years straight: that gold is the only real money and its ounce count is fixed, so the price can't drop. It's like listening to a broken record.

Is there going to be any actual refreshment here anytime soon?

For instance, nobody talks about the miners, even though they’re easily the most interesting part of this whole thing. You could write something about them, but why bother? It's much easier to just drop a critical post without adding anything useful to the conversation.

By the way, those 2014/2015 figures aren't mid-range forecasts; everything is relative, so even those can turn into short-term data before you know it. Lately, looking at comments like these, I'm starting to feel like posting here is just a massive waste of time, especially once you factor in the input from Silver Argentum and M. Kovac.🙄

Usually, this kind of weakness right before an FOMC meeting is actually a good sign.

Richard Perez3 said:

I don't even know where to start with this mess. It’s like nobody’s actually looking at the numbers anymore, just throwing darts at a board and hoping for the best. I was sitting there at the diner this morning, staring at my coffee, thinking about how much easier life would be if people just used some common sense for once. Instead, we get these half-baked ideas being pushed as gospel. Honestly, it’s exhausting. Everyone’s shouting, but nobody’s listening. Just more noise in an already loud world. kaže:
Alright, we’re sitting here at 1709. If things actually start behaving for once, we might just break past 1720.

It’s probably gonna be more expensive, not cheaper... (seriously, can we all just take a second to actually read the last five or six pages of this thread?)"

I read through it, but honestly? I have no clue what's going on. All these spikes, the random abbreviations, the endless stream of numbers... it's just total gibberish to me.😁

My bad, I’m being a bit slow on the uptake here.

I’m saying "cheaper" because look, if we're working under the assumption that we've hit the peak and things are about to tank, the logic is pretty simple: you sell now, then wait to buy back in at a discount later—especially once Goldman Sachs starts making their move.

Am I just doing this wrong? 🤔

Look, I try to keep my posts as simple as possible. My goal is to help people time their buys and potentially sell during major corrections—assuming everything plays out normally, we're looking at somewhere around 2014 or 2015. Right now, it's time to buy, not sell.

We’re sitting right here at 1709. If things hold steady, we might actually break 1720.

Richard Perez3 said:So I’m actually going back and forth with my husband about this news right now. His big theory? Sell everything immediately and just wait to buy back in when the price drops. Personally? I’m thinking we just hold onto what we’ve got, because I honestly don't see that dip happening.

Anybody else feeling this?

More like buying it more expensive... seriously, go back and read the last five or six pages of this thread.