Eldo,
hab nichts zu verzeihen bei mahendra. Er geht short bei Silber.
Wenn er recht hat, was ich annehme in diesem Fall, dann fällt der silberpreis.
Also kann man Silber billiger physisch erwerben.
Das habe ich vorher (letztes posting) gemeint.
in der Eile (der gedanken) drücke ich mich manchmal schlampig aus.
Eigentlich öfters.
Tschonko
Auch wenn ich wieder mal anecken sollte:
Liebe User,
sicher habt Ihr ebenfalls heute eine freundliche und geistreiche Mail von unseren Moderatoren bekommen. Hier zu möchte ich folgendes feststellen:
Zitat:
Momentan läuft die IX. Runde im Webweit ältesten Silberspiel
Zitat:
Eine weitere Attraktion ist der wieder eingeführte Tipp auf den
Goldpreis, auch hier winkt ein Gewinn:
Ist es Modern Art, sich mit fremden Federn zu Schmücken? Auch im Thread" Preise, Kurse, Live" wurde der Threadstarter entfernt und umbenannt. Wann folgt der Thaithread? Sicher gibt es da auch ein begehren, bin gespannt wie lange noch, bis es tönt, der meistgelesene Thread bekommt einen neuen Namen!
Na ja, nach den letzten vibrationen im forum und momentan schlechten gold/silber preis mache ich erstmal eine grosse pause da ich eh nichts machen kann. Jetzt lese ich mal eine zeitlang was andere so denken.
Manche glauben ich moechte Forumsleiter werden, dazu habe ich bestimmt keinen bock.
Gone fishing ! 
Gruss Eldorado
General Editorial
Friday, March 25, 2005, 8:59:00 PM EST
Easter Roundup
Author: Jim Sinclair
Dear CIGA
It doesn’t seem appropriate on Good Friday and with the Easter weekend coming up to write too much, except to extend my best wishes to everyone for a quiet and peaceful beginning of spring.
All the bits and pieces are in place for a major extended bull market in the price of gold. Certainly there will be some drama and opposition along the way but all that can be described as short term storm clouds.
Jim Sinclair’s Commentary
Stop Press
Date: March 24, 2005
Pierre Lassonde Will Set The Industry Alight As Chairman Of The World Gold Council.
Hoffen wir mal !!!
Ein anderer schreibt ueber goldbugs:
Gold Bugs being people and not some subterranean spawn; are subject to the very "Greed and Fear" machinations of the human spirit; emotional and biased as the non-believers are about the paper promises made by presently insolvent parties steering the herd towards ruin.
Nell Sloane's daily comments
Monday Mar 28
GOLD: While the holiday continues to influence the gold market, it would seem like Chinese spot gold was lower overnight and that the Dollar looks to open the new week right at or into new highs for the move. Therefore, we have to think that the bear camp will retain an edge in the near term. While the small spec and fund long in the COT report is probably overstated due to the slide following the mark off date, we suspect that the market remains vulnerable to more stop loss selling. In fact, we suspect that the net spec long position still stands at 130,000 contracts or more, and that certainly puts gold in a potentially weak posture. Therefore, we suspect that June gold is poised to slide toward consolidations support down around $424. In fact, on a rise above 84.31 in the June Dollar we suspect that the selling pressure will increase in gold and that the market will pick up where it left off early last week. In order to turn the tide around in June gold, the market will have to manage a close back above $429.1.
SILVER: The silver market showed another downside failure in the early action this morning but did manage to reject part of those losses in the last hour or trade. However, the net spec long in silver was still overbought at 65,000 contracts in the last COT report but certainly that reading was overstated due to the 13 cent decline that took place after the COT report was measured. In other words, the silver market is still vulnerable to more liquidation and the fundamental setup would seem to favor the bear camp. Near term downside targeting in the May silver comes in at $6.88 but a decline to $6.80 would not be surprising when considering all the factors in place this morning.
When the Fed raises interest rates "trouble usually follows." According to the Wall Street Journal, "In 1987, the stock market crashed. In 1994, Orange County went bankrupt and Mexico devalued its peso, ravaging its economy. In 2000, the Nasdaq Stock Market bubble burst. And weak links are everywhere – from the current deficit, which could spur a sharp drop in the dollar and subsequent rise in gold and spike in interest rates – to bubble-like housing prices in parts of the United States."
The good news is that the stocks will firm up ahead of gold, telling us that the bottom is likely in. At some point the gold stocks will stop dropping, while gold will continues to drop. This may come with a large gap down in gold one morning and then an intraday reversal in the gold stocks or it may simply come with a day in which the gold stocks firm up in the afternoon while gold has one final 5 point plunge.
After the next bottom, I expect the stocks to act much in the same way they did before they broke out in 2003 - they should go sideways and start to outperform gold, leading to a pivotal breakout of the XAU/gold ratio.
It is this breakout of the XAU/gold ratio that will be the FINAL and most safe buying opportunity. But this dip here will be an excellent opportunity to average in at low prices. By buying here and then later on the XAU/gold ratio breakout one can have a large gold position that will rise in value on the next leg up in gold. You buy the dips during bull markets.
Interessant für mich ist die Analyse von (Prof.) Roy Jastrams "The Golden Constant" und ihre kurzfristigen Unzulänglichkeiten.
Im Folgenden habe ich mir erlaubt dieses essay im original weitezugeben, wissend dass James es begrüssen würde.:
Letter No. 361
March 28th, 2005
My Response to Tim Wood
by James Turk
Copyright © 2005 by The Freemarket Gold & Money Report. All rights reserved.
Tim Wood is the founding editor of Resource Investor, (http://www.resourceinvestor.com) an online newsletter focusing on junior mining stocks. It is a newsletter that I find informative and filled with generally good research, so I read it regularly.
Every once in a while Tim strays from the resource stocks in order to shoot arrows at the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee (http://www.GATA.org), and he has done so again. His first article appeared on March 20th, and can be found at the following link: http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=8768 Then his second article followed on March 24th and can be found at this link: http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=8831
It is the first article that I will focus upon because in it, Tim challenges GATA’s claim that gold’s lagging price performance relative to other commodities was "more powerful evidence of surreptitious intervention by central banks in the gold market". GATA’s claim is one to which I wholeheartedly agree. I even helped to support it with an article written for my last newsletter (Is the Gold Price Being Managed?), which can be read at this link: http://www.kitcocasey.com/displayArticle.php?id=49).
At the heart of the matter is the CRB Index of seventeen commodities (this index is owned by Reuters and often referred to as the Reuters/CRB Index). By presenting the relationship between gold and the CRB Index since 1980, I set out to explain two things. First, gold in recent years was diverging from its historical record and underperforming the CRB Index, which provides more evidence of government intervention to keep the gold price artificially low. Second, governments were doing us a favor because by their intervention. They are making gold cheap for us to buy because gold is well below the natural market price that would prevail absent government intervention.
Tim dismissed the possibility of government intervention out of hand, blaming gold’s underperformance instead on the CRB Index itself. As a consequence, I feel compelled to respond to Tim, lest anyone reading my article and his believe that I accept his point of view, and ‘point of view’ it is. His article is an opinion piece that rests upon one premise. As he explains it: "There is no iron law requiring the Reuters/CRB Index to sustain fixed price relationships for time immemorial."
Tim doesn’t provide any references to support this premise. It’s an indefensible oversight because absent any support, his premise degenerates into just his opinion, rather than sound research. This point is particularly important for there is indeed an ‘iron law’, which I will explain in a moment, but first I need to address Tim’s comments about the CRB Index.
Clearly, this index is not perfect. As Tim rightly points out, the "CRB Index has not kept pace with changes in the world economy" and "That is why so many trade-weighted commodity indices have started to emerge to compete with Reuters/CRB." It’s true, but then again, the same thing could be said for the venerable Dow Jones Industrial Average. So while I follow other commodity indices – just as I also follow the S&P 500 and other market cap weighted stock indices – there is nothing inherently wrong or inappropriate in comparing gold’s relationship to the CRB Index anymore than there is in comparing gold’s relationship to the Dow Jones Industrials. But this is not Tim’s only ad hominem attack.
Tim goes on to say: "History shows that relationships between components of the CRB Index are always in flux." But this statement is self-evident and adds nothing to support his argument. Again, think about what happens within the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Exxon and Citicorp are always "in flux", and so are the other twenty-eight stocks, but so what? Does that mean that the message of a rising or declining DJIA should be ignored? Or that gold’s relationship to the DJIA is not meaningful? Of course not, which brings me back to the basic, underlying premise of Tim’s article and his contention that there is no ‘iron law’ about gold and the price of commodities.
I assume that Tim is not aware of "The Golden Constant", a wonderful book written in 1977 by Roy Jastram, at the time a statistics professor at the University of California, Berkeley. He proves that there is indeed an ‘iron law’, or in other words a ‘constant’, in gold’s purchasing power, notwithstanding the historical fluctuations that do occur.
By analyzing 633 years of commodity prices in England as well as 176 years of commodity prices in the United States and their relation to gold, this statistics professor presents two important conclusions. First, "gold is an ineffective hedge against yearly commodity price increases", which is a somewhat surprising conclusion that I’ll get back to in a minute. But despite this limitation demonstrated by his statistical analysis, professor Jastram concludes "gold does maintain its purchasing power over long periods of time. The intriguing aspect of this conclusion is that it is not because gold eventually moves toward commodity prices but commodity prices return to gold."
To explain this last point, the good professor was speaking in a ‘politically correct’ way, which no doubt was required for college professors in state-run schools in the years immediately following President Nixon’s ‘demonetization’ of gold. Jastram does not accept the view that gold is money, and he does not as a result refer to commodities and their price in terms of gold (e.g., the price of wheat or coal in terms of ounces of gold). As he puts it: "The purchasing power of gold is…how much it can be sold for, translated into how much can be bought with the proceeds of its sale." Using national currencies an as intermediary requires an added step in his calculations, but it doesn’t detract from his basic conclusions. So to translate, here is what he is really saying in his second conclusion: when commodity prices are expressed as a weight of gold, they remain unchanged over long periods of time. Or in other words, over long periods of time, his work demonstrates that commodities cost the same weight of gold. But why does the professor conclude that gold is not effective "against yearly commodity price increases"?
It’s a good question, and the professor does not attempt to answer it. Why? Probably because he taught statistics, and not political science.
Jastram noted that for periods of time – like the during the Napoleonic Wars and more recently, during the period of the London gold pool in the 1960’s – gold did not keep up with inflation. But he remained focused on the statistical anomaly, rather than the reason it occurred. Yet the reason for gold’s underperformance is obvious. These are periods during which there was active government intervention – for example, suspension of redeemability in England during the time of Napoleon and dishoarding from Ft. Knox during the gold pool days. This active government intervention was aimed to keep the ‘gold price’ artificially low because a rising gold price would bring attention to the prevailing monetary turmoil of the day.
So for periods of time, gold is, in the good professor’s words, "an ineffective hedge against yearly commodity price increases". And it remains an ineffective hedge until, and this is the professor again, "commodity prices return to gold". In other words, gold measures the true price of commodities. But during periods of government intervention, gold purchases fewer commodities, meaning its ‘price’ does not keep up with inflation. In time, however, government intervention in the gold market becomes unsustainable, and commodity prices return to their historical norms, i.e., commodities eventually again cost the same weight of gold.
Thus, the relationship between gold and commodity prices is well established, except during periods of government intervention in the gold market, which is the basic conclusion of my previous article. And it is this basic conclusion that Tim Wood tried to refute, but he comes up short given the absence of any supporting evidence, which brings me to one more point.
Tim ends his article with the following chart, challenging the reader with these parting words: "It is interesting how gold has reasserted its monetary role since 2001. If the CRB Index is proof of a conspiracy, then this chart must be sufficient proof of the contrary."
I really pondered his message thoughtfully. His point was not obvious to me, so I looked for and expected some deep hidden message. But it seems to me there is none.
All this chart shows is that gold and the euro have more or less moved in tandem with one another. It doesn’t disprove that central banks are intervening to keep the gold price artificially low, disrupting gold’s long-term relationship to the CRB Index. All it does is to establish that commodity prices are low in terms of the euro. Now why might that be?
Here’s what Bloomberg said in its interview on March 26th with Ottmar Issing, chief economist of the European Central Bank: "He also noted that Euro strength was paramount to the region's ability to secure discounted prices for key commodities, such as crude oil, which is trading at record highs in U.S. dollar terms, but remains historically inexpensive in Euro terms."
This statement makes it clear that cheap commodity prices are to Europe’s advantage. So why should the ECB be concerned if the US is intervening in the gold market? In fact, Issing’s statement would indicate that Europe is happy that gold and the euro are tracking one another, making commodities and gold relatively cheap in euro terms. But this advantage is temporary, just as it was in all other periods where government intervention for a time adversely affected gold’s purchasing power. As the good professor irrefutably demonstrates, "commodity prices return to gold", thus proving there is indeed an ‘iron law’. But why does gold maintain its purchasing power over time?
Professor Jastram doesn’t have an answer, but I do. The aboveground stock of gold grows at approximately the same rate as world population and world wealth.
In a world of uncertainty, one thing is certain – it’s this ‘iron law’ of gold’s purchasing power. But I suppose on reflection there is also one other certainty – that governments will intervene in the gold market in a vain attempt to prove they are more powerful than gold.
James Turk is the founder of GoldMoney http://www.goldmoney.com and the co-author of The Coming Collapse of the Dollar http://www.dollarcollapse.com.
***
PS: Just a thought ... Am Forum sind einige generelle - und vielleicht auch ausreichende Themen vorgegeben.
Kann man nicht innerhalb dieser Themenstellung eine fortlaufende Diskussion führen, ohne von neuen threads den Faden zu verlieren?
To many threads are threats to ongoing discussion ... says who?
Fresh news from Le Metropole:
For the third day in a row we see another sign the worst of the recent gold purge is over. Today, "Hannibal Lecter," or Goldman Sachs, was the noted featured buyer, and buyer of some size early during a quiet Comex trading session. A number of gold traders still have yet to return from an extended Easter holiday – London was shut down, government buildings closed in Canada, for example.
What else stood out was the way gold was able to buck the firmer dollar and turn around in euro terms. It closed at 330.40. We need a close above 331.35 to make a new recovery high. Sooner or later, the gold price will diverge from the dollar action. This will give us a clue The Gold Cartel’s price management is under a bit of siege.
The June dollar finished at 84.61, up .50, while the June euro lost .72 to 129.08.
Morgan Stanley was the featured silver buyer, stepping up to the plate when any kind of size was offered. The silver open interest dropped a considerable 3488 contracts to 99,349.
Potentially, we might have some extremely constructive silver goings-on. The silver stocks have dropped a considerable 1.6 million ounces the past two days and now stand at 101,453,481, multi-year low levels. Should they take out 100 million ounces in the weeks ahead, we should see some price fireworks to the upside. We have been waiting for further silver warehouse drawdowns for months now.
John B covers the gold open interest developments most appropriately in his commentary. As mentioned by me last week, the speed of the contraction, along with Goldman Sachs’ buying today suggests The Gold Cartel does not want to be too short at these price levels.
Ein Bericht in Deutsch zu dem Thema findet ihr auf den goldseiten heute:
The Fat Lady Isn't Even In The Building
Grandich Letter
Peter Grandich
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Grandich Publications
Other than believing a correction was due at certain times, I've maintained a bullish long-term stance towards gold. The latest "step back" in what I've constantly described as a "two steps up, one step back" trading pattern for gold, has once again brought fear to the hearts of many gold bugs and brought bearish forecasters to the forefront of their attention. The very fact that this is the case reassures me that nothing long-term has changed. It's when these corrections are met with excitement and contentment (versus concern and uneasiness) that I will likely have to rethink my position.
There's always a "major concern" during the step back part and this time is no different. The latest hiccup is the belief that the terminally ill U.S. dollar has had a "miracle" healing and has begun a long rise back to stardom. Now, I can give you a laundry list of reasons why such a belief is fantasy, not reality, but I will just rest my case on the words of Lyman Beecher who said, "Never chase a lie. Let it alone, and it will run itself to death."
The fall of the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency has already begun! The latest blip up is nothing more than a countertrend rally in a secular bear market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ein anderer kurzer Auszug von einen bericht heute auf 321 gold.com :
The most recent rate increase by the Federal Reserve is creating another buying opportunity for Gold investors. Foreign exchange markets often over react to interest rate changes, called "over shooting" in the literature. Recently the U.S. dollar has been stronger because of the U.S. interest rate increase. As a consequence, the U.S. dollar has become over bought. Gold has reacted as it should to this rising value of the dollar, and retreated in price. Such events have repeatedly been excellent buying opportunities.
Both Gold and Silver investors should be adding to their positions on this price weakness. Indicators are moving to buy signals on both metals, like those shown in the last chart. While the U.S. dollars is trading at an extended price, Gold and Silver should be bought. The Gold Super Cycle will not be thwarted by the "measured and meandering" policies of the Federal Reserve. Will you be profiting or watching?
Die ersten machen sich Gedanken, wann die Goldkorrektur vorbei ist:
http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_05/swanson032805.html
Ich würde sagen, dass man sich eher den Dollar ansehen soll und sich die Fragen stellt, wann die Edelmetallkurse vom Dollar entkoppeln.
Der Beginn des Silber Bullenmarktes:
http://www.321gold.com/editorials/watson/watson032805.html
basierend auf Elliot-Wellenanalysen
OOOOH, der greift ja ins universum mit seinen vorhersage.:
Er schreibt :
My own analysis suggests a final price target for silver of more than $750 
in our lifetimes as various factors drive investors to hard assets.
mfg
Eldorado
