Briefly: in our opinion, full (300% of the regular position size) speculative short positions in junior mining stocks are justified from the risk/reward point of view at the moment of publishing this Alert. In other words, I’m switching from a short position in silver to a short position in junior mining stocks.
Welcome to this week's flagship Gold & Silver Trading Alert. As we’ve promised you previously, in our flagship Alerts, we will be providing you with much more comprehensive and complex analyses (approximately once per week), which will usually take place on Monday.
Predicated on last week’s price moves, our most recently featured outlook remains the same, as the price moves align with our expectations. On that account, there are parts of the previous analysis that didn’t change at all in the earlier days, which will be written in italics.
Let’s start with a quick review of the key fundamental news that hit the market last week.
Payroll Problems
The US economy added only 194,000 jobs in September, falling short of expectations, but the Fed can still taper soon — and gold knows it.
Another disappointment from the economy! The September nonfarm payrolls came surprisingly weak. As the chart below shows, the US labor market added only 194,000 jobs last month, much below the expectations (analysts forecasted about half a million added jobs). The disappointing numbers followed the additions of 1,091,000 in July and 366,000 in August (after an upward revision). The most recent job gains were the weakest since December 2020.
However, the overall report was generally more positive than the headline. First of all, the unemployment rate declined from 5.2% to 4.8%, as the chart above shows. It’s a positive surprise, as economists expected a drop to only 5.1%. In absolute terms, the number of unemployed people fell by 710,000 - to 7.7 million. It’s a considerably lower level compared to the recessionary peak, but still significantly higher than before the pandemic (5.7 million and unemployment rate of 3.5%).
Second, taking revisions into account, the employment in July and August combined is 169,000 higher than previously reported. It means that the monthly job growth has averaged 561,000 so far this year and about 550,000 over the last three months.
Third, the main reason for the very weak nonfarm payrolls was a decline in local and state government education - by 161,000. Most back-to-school-hiring typically occurs in September, but the recruitment last month was lower than usual, which some analysts attribute to early retirement of some teachers, mask-wearing mandates and vaccination requirements. Another issue is that the report is based on data that was collected when the Delta variant of the coronavirus was reaching its peak, and now the situation looks better.
What does the recent employment report imply for the Fed’s monetary policy and the gold market? Well, Fed Chair Jerome Powell told reporters during his press conference in September that he would like to see a “reasonably good” or “decent” employment report before deciding that the Fed’s threshold for reducing its asset purchasing program has been met.
So, you know, for me, it wouldn’t take a knockout, great, super strong employment report. It would take a reasonably good employment report for me to feel like that test is met. And others on the Committee, many on the Committee feel that the test is already met. Others want to see more progress. And, you know, we’ll work it out as we go. But I would say that, in my own thinking, the test is all but met. So I don’t personally need to see a very strong employment report, but I’d like it see a decent employment report.
Now, the question is whether 194,000 job gains are decent enough to taper the quantitative easing. Interpreting words of an oracle is never an easy task. The September payrolls are neither strong nor a catastrophe. However, given the level of expectations and the fact that job gains were weaker than in August (commonly considered a great disappointment) I wouldn’t describe the latest payrolls as “decent”.
However, we have to remember that the overall report was much better than the payrolls analyzed in isolation. Given the significant decline in the unemployment rate, the September employment report can be defended as “decent”. So, the Fed can still taper in November, or announce it at least, especially that some members of the FOMC were ready to tighten US monetary policy already in September.
It seems that my line of thinking is in line with the market’s interpretation of the Fed’s likely course of action. The price of gold jumped briefly on Friday above $1,780, but it could not break the resistance or hold this position and returned quickly to its recent comfort zone of $1,750-1,760. The rather shy reaction of the yellow metal can be seen on the chart below.
Gold’s inability to shine in response to the second weak nonfarm payrolls in a row or to the inflation worries is quite disappointing. Well, Mr. Market decided that the September employment report wouldn’t restrain the Fed from tapering. The focus on the upcoming tightening cycle creates downward pressure on gold prices, which counterweighs worries about the labor market or inflation.
Medium-Term Gold Fundamentals
With the U.S. 10-Year Treasury yield rallying recently, the Treasury benchmark has moved incrementally closer to investors’ 10-year inflation expectations. However, with the former still demonstrating a wide divergence from the latter, a reversal of the imbalance could have a profound impact on the PMs.
For example, if (once) the two lines reconnect, the development will likely send shockwaves across the precious metals market.
To explain, I wrote on May 11:
The gold line above tracks the London Bullion Market Association (LBMA) Gold Price, while the red line above tracks the inverted U.S. 10-Year real yield. For context, inverted means that the latter’s scale is flipped upside down and that a rising red line represents a falling U.S. 10-Year real yield, while a falling red line represents a rising U.S. 10-Year real yield.
If you analyze the left side of the chart, you can see that when the U.S. 10-Year Treasury yield began its move to reconnect with the U.S. 10-Year breakeven inflation rate in 2013 (taper tantrum), the U.S. 10-Year real yield surged (depicted by the red line moving sharply lower). More importantly, though, amidst the chaos, gold plunged by more than $500 in less than six months.
Over the medium-to-long term, the copper/U.S. 10-Year Treasury yield ratio is yet another leading indicator of gold’s future behavior.
I wrote previously:
When the copper/U.S. 10-Year Treasury yield ratio is rising (meaning that copper prices are rising at a faster pace than the U.S. 10-Year Treasury yield), it usually results in higher gold prices. Conversely, when the copper/U.S. 10-Year Treasury yield ratio is falling (meaning that the U.S. 10-Year Treasury yield is rising at a faster pace than copper prices), it usually results in lower gold prices.
If you analyze the chart below, you can see the close connection:
Moreover, while gold was roughly flat last week, the copper/U.S. 10-Year Treasury yield ratio continues to move lower. And while the ratio now implies a gold futures price of roughly $1,650, many other indicators signal an even larger decline over the medium term.
Please see below:
Finally, the S&P GSCI (the commodity index) has decoupled from the U.S. 10-Year Treasury yield. And with the former moving in near lockstep with the latter since 2015, a reversal of the imbalance could increase the PMs’ troubles over the medium term.
On the flip side, if we extend our time horizon, there are plenty of fundamental reasons why gold is likely to soar in the coming years. However, even the most profound bull markets don’t move up in a straight line, and corrections are inevitable.
As it relates to the precious metals, a significant correction (medium-term downtrend) is already underway. However, the pain is not over, and a severe climax likely awaits.
For context, potential triggers are not always noticeable, and the PMs may collapse on their own or as a result of some random trigger that normally wouldn’t cause any major action. However, a trigger will speed things up, and that’s where the S&P 500 comes in:
Stock Market Signals
With the NASDAQ Composite coming under fire in recent weeks, the tech-heavy index caught a bid at its rising support line (based on its early and mid-2021 highs). However, with the dam poised to break over the medium term and the NASDAQ Composite showcasing a strong connection with mining stocks, a sharp drawdown of the former could sink the latter.
To explain, with mining stocks’ peaks often preceding the NASDAQ’s, the current price action is ominously similar to what we witnessed before the dot-com bubble burst. And while timing still remains uncertain, it’s important to remember that the XAU Index hit new all-time lows in 2000. As a result, mining stocks are likely far from a lasting bottom, and their 2021 weakness has likely been an appetizer and not the main course.
Please see below:
For more on the connection between the NASDAQ Composite and mining stocks, I wrote previously:
The PMs are ominously intermingled with the performance of Big Tech. For example, when the NASDAQ Composite fell off a cliff in 2000, the XAU Index plunged by more than 50%. And with today’s warning signs strikingly similar to its predecessors, another Minsky Moment could wreak havoc on the PMs.
With the MACD indicator recording an epic sell signal, the extreme reading can only be rivaled by the peak of the dot-com bubble.
While history might not repeat itself, though it does rhyme, those who insist on ignoring it are doomed to repeat it. And there’s practically only one situation from more than the past four decades that is similar to what we see right now.
It’s the early 2000s when the tech stock bubble burst. It’s practically the only time when the tech stocks were after a similarly huge rally. It’s also the only time when the weekly MACD soared to so high levels (we already saw the critical sell signal from it). It’s also the only comparable case with regard to the breakout above the rising blue trend channel. The previous move above it was immediately followed by a pullback to the 200-week moving average, and then the final – most volatile – part of the rally started. It ended on significant volume when the MACD flashed the sell signal. Again, we’re already after this point.
The recent attempt to break to new highs that failed seems to have been the final cherry on the bearish cake.
Why should I – the precious metals investor – care?
Because of what happened in the XAU Index (a proxy for gold stocks and silver stocks) shortly after the tech stock bubble burst last time.
What happened was that the mining stocks declined for about three months after the NASDAQ topped, and then they formed their final bottom that started the truly epic rally. And just like it was the case over 20 years ago, mining stocks topped several months before the tech stocks.
Mistaking the current situation for the true bottom is something that is likely to make a huge difference in one’s bottom line. After all, the ability to buy something about twice as cheap is practically equal to selling the same thing at twice the price. Or it’s like making money on the same epic upswing twice instead of “just” once.
And why am I writing about “half” and “twice”? Because… I’m being slightly conservative, and I assume that the history is about to rhyme once again as it very often does (despite seemingly different circumstances in the world). The XAU Index declined from its 1999 high of 92.72 to 41.61 – it erased 55.12% of its price.
The most recent medium-term high in the GDX ETF (another proxy for mining stocks) was at about $45. Half of that is $22.5, so a move to this level would be quite in tune with what we saw recently.
And the thing is that based on this week’s slide in the NASDAQ that followed the weekly reversal and the invalidation, it seems that this slide lower has already begun.
“Wait, you said something about three months?”
Yes, that’s approximately how long we had to wait for the final buying opportunity in the mining stocks to present itself based on the stock market top.
The reason is that after the 1929 top, gold miners declined for about three months after the general stock market started to slide. We also saw some confirmations of this theory based on the analogy to 2008. Consequently, we might see the next major bottom – and the epic buying opportunity in the mining stocks – about three months after the general stock market tops. The NASDAQ might have already topped, so we’re waiting for the S&P 500 to confirm the change in the trend.
The bottom line?
New lows are likely to complete the GDX ETF’s bearish H&S pattern and set the stage for an even larger medium-term decline. And if the projection proves prescient, medium-term support (or perhaps even the long-term one) will likely emerge at roughly $21.
But why ~$21?
- The target aligns perfectly with the signals from the GDX ETF’s 2020 rising wedge pattern. You can see it in the left part of the above chart. The size of the move that follows a breakout or breakdown from the pattern (breakdown in this case) is likely to be equal (or greater than) the height of the wedge. That’s what the red dashed line marks.
- The broad head-and-shoulders pattern with the horizontal neckline at about $31 points to the $21 level as the likely target.
Confronting a similar calamity, the S&P 500 also rallied off of its rising support line. However, the breakdown that materialized two weeks ago is a clear game-changer. To explain, a simple uptrend occurs when an asset makes higher highs and higher lows. And with the S&P 500 doing the opposite – by making lower highs and lower lows – the U.S. equity benchmark made new lows on both an intraday and closing price basis.
What’s more, the S&P 500’s recent weakness has also resulted in the formation of a bearish head & shoulders pattern. And while the S&P 500 moved higher last week, if the index breaks below the red declining support line on the right side of the chart below, a profound drawdown could follow. More importantly, though, silver and mining stocks are some of the worst performers when volatility strikes the general stock market.
For context, I wrote previously:
With its RSI mirroring the bearish behavior that we witnessed in 2019/2020 – though five moves are present this time, while two moves were present back then – the S&P 500 remains on a collision course lower. For context, similar behavior led to explosive drawdowns in early 2020 and in the second half of 2018. Moreover, with the Fed turning a bit more hawkish in recent weeks, volatility will likely erupt once the central bank’s taper timeline is finally revealed.
On top of that, the shape, the movement, and the drawdowns that occurred along the way during the S&P 500’s 2018-2020 rally all mirror today’s price action. To explain, the self-similar pattern from 2018-2020 saw the S&P 500 peak once the index rose slightly above the 1.618 Fibonacci extension level based on the size of the initial rally. On the above chart, you can see this as a move to the highest retracement in April 2019 – the full size of the rally compared to the 61.8% retracement is actually 1.618 of the initial rally, because 1 / 0.618 = ~1.618 (the Phi number).
And with the S&P 500 slightly exceeding this extension-based target on Aug. 13, we may have already witnessed the top. Back in 2020, the S&P 500 closed slightly above this level prior to the crash, and with an identical development playing out today, another drawdown could be right around the corner.
Keep in mind though: the PMs’ forthcoming slide is independent (and has been) of the performance of the general stock market – at least with regard to the existence of the PMs’ slide. However, due to the cross-asset implications and the interconnectedness of the financial markets, a severe correction of U.S. equities will likely supercharge the pace of the PMs’ implied decline (especially silver and mining stocks). If stocks continue to rally, PMs will likely still decline, but at a regular pace. As an example, we witnessed that behavior on Aug. 6. Even though the S&P 500 ended the day in the green, the PMs declined significantly.
For context, the precious metals used to bottom about 3 – 3.5 months after the top in the general stock market in some of the similar cases, for instance, in 1929. And with both major indices remaining resilient, the timeframe of the PMs’ final trough is still up in the air.
If – based on the analogy to 2013 that I’ll discuss later today – a bottom for the PMs materializes in December 2021 and (reverse engineering the forecast) the stock market peaks 3 – 3.5 months in advance, the top may be in (if the 1929 analogy holds — it could also be about a month away). As a result, if the general stock market continues its slide, it will further validate the thesis that the PMs will likely bottom in December.
For more context:
Why should we – precious metals investors and traders – be concerned with the performance of stocks? Because when stocks finally top and start to decline, it will likely make the decline in the precious metals market much more severe. For one, identical developments occurred in 2008, 2020 and 1929. Second, the precious metals often bottom about 3 – 3.5 months after the top in the general stock market. Third, the S&P 500’s 2020 analogue is becoming even more valid by the day.
(…)
The markets are self-similar (which is another way of saying that they have a fractal nature), which generally means that while the history tends to rhyme, it also tends to rhyme in similar shapes of alike or various sizes.
For example, the rally from 2018–2020 seems very similar to the rally from 2020 to the present. Both rallies started after a sharp decline, and the first notable correction took the form of back-and-forth trading around the previous high. I marked those situations with big rectangles.
Then the rally continued with relatively small week-to-week volatility. I created rising support lines based on the final low of the broad short-term consolidation and the first notable short-term bottom.
This line was broken, and some back-and-forth trading followed, but it was only about half of the previous correction in terms of price and time.
Then, we saw a sharp rally that then leveled off. And that was the top. The thing that confirmed the top was the visible breakdown below the rising support line right after stocks invalidated a tiny breakout to new highs. That’s what happened in February 2020, and that’s what seems to be taking place right now.
Back in 2020, the rally ended when the weekly RSI moved above 70 once again and when the S&P moved slightly to its new highs. While the history doesn’t have to repeat itself to the letter, if we see another small move higher – to new highs – that also takes the RSI above 70, please keep in mind that it’s not really a bullish development, but actually history forming its final rhyme. And the implications appear bearish for the precious metals sector, as it’s likely to be hit by the first wave of stock market declines – just like it was the case in 2008, 2020, and… 1929.
Furthermore, while the broker-dealer index (XBD) also rallied last week, the index still showcases the flat-top pattern that we witnessed before the crash in 2020. As a result, the bearish implications remain intact.
Please see below:
For context, I wrote previously:
One of the canaries in the coal mine is the financial sector. It indicated the 2020 slide by forming a relatively flat top and underperforming other stocks. That preceded the 2008 slide as well. Well, we’re seeing the financials underperforming once again. While the S&P 500 moved to new highs last week, the financial sector is more or less where it was in early March, below its June highs.
The bottom line?
It seems that history is indeed forming its final rhyme. However, can we start the 3-3.5-month countdown now? Well, while timing remains uncertain, the main drivers of the stock market’s success are beginning to sputter. With inflation running hot and employment likely to surge in the coming months (once enhanced unemployment benefits expire), all of the boxes should be checked for the FED to taper its asset purchases. And with investors largely averse to a reduction in liquidity, the outcome could have a profound impact on both the general stock market and the PMs.
Keep in mind though: a decline in stocks is not required for the PMs to decline. But a break in the former could easily trigger a sell-off in the latter, and if history decides to rhyme again, silver and the miners will be the hardest hit.
The USD Index (USDX)
With the USD Index shrugging off the weak U.S. nonfarm payrolls print on Oct. 8 and demonstrating more and more resiliency as the months progress, the dollar basket has not only verified the breakout above the neckline of its inverse (bullish) head & shoulders pattern, but it’s also finding higher levels of support.
To explain, after bursting through its rising resistance line (which is now support), the recent consolidation is perfectly normal within a medium-term uptrend. Moreover, mirroring the behavior that we witnessed in June, the USD Index’s small correction after its RSI (Relative Strength Index) hit 70 was followed by another sharp move higher. As a result, the greenback’s technical foundation remains robust.
For context, I wrote on Oct. 4:
While a short-term consolidation could ensue following the USD Index’s ferocious rally, a similar development occurred in late June. After a short-term corrective downswing proceeded the USD Index’s sharp rally, the USD Index continued its medium-term ascent soon after. And while gold demonstrated the opposite price action in late June – recording a short-term rally and following that up with a medium-term drop to lower lows – the 2021 theme of ‘USD Index up, PMs down’ should continue to play out over the next few months.
To that point, with gold, silver and mining stocks often moving inversely to the U.S. dollar, the greenback’s likely uprising could sink the precious metals over the medium term.
Please see below:
Equally bullish for the greenback, with the USD Index’s technical strength signaling an ominous ending for the Euro Index, the latter has struggled immensely in recent weeks.
And while the Euro Index bounced on Oct. 8 following the weak U.S. nonfarm payrolls print, the European currency closed at another 2021 low on Oct. 7 and has continued its freefall below the neckline of its bearish head & shoulders pattern. As a result, the next stop could be ~1.1500 (the March 2020 highs, then likely lower). For context, the EUR/USD accounts for nearly 58% of the movement of the USD Index, and that’s why the euro’s behavior is so important.
Please see below:
Adding to our confidence (don’t get me wrong, there are no certainties in any market; it’s just that the bullish narrative for the USDX is even more bullish in my view), the USD Index often sizzles in the summer sun and major USDX rallies often start during the middle of the year. Summertime spikes have been mainstays on the USD Index’s historical record and in 2004, 2005, 2008, 2011, 2014 and 2018 a retest of the lows (or close to them) occurred before the USD Index began its upward flights (which is exactly what’s happened this time around).
Furthermore, profound rallies (marked by the red vertical dashed lines below) followed in 2008, 2011 and 2014. With the current situation mirroring the latter, a small consolidation on the long-term chart is exactly what occurred before the USD Index surged in 2014. Likewise, the USD Index recently bottomed near its 50-week moving average; an identical development occurred in 2014. More importantly, though, with bottoms in the precious metals market often occurring when gold trades in unison with the USD Index (after ceasing to respond to the USD’s rallies with declines), we’re still far away from that milestone in terms of both price and duration.
Moreover, as the journey unfolds, the bullish signals from 2014 have resurfaced once again. For example, the USD Index’s RSI is hovering near a similar level (marked with red ellipses), and back then, a corrective downswing also occurred at the previous highs. More importantly, though, the short-term weakness was followed by a profound rally in 2014, and many technical and fundamental indicators signal that another reenactment could be forthcoming.
Please see below:
Just as the USD Index took a breather before its massive rally in 2014, it seems that we saw the same recently. This means that predicting higher gold prices (or the ones of silver) here is likely not a good idea.
Continuing the theme, the eye in the sky doesn’t lie. And with the USDX’s long-term breakout clearly visible, the wind still remains at the dollar’s back.
Please see below:
The bottom line?
As the drama unfolds, the ~98 target is likely to be reached over the medium term, and the USDX will likely exceed 100 at some point over the medium or long term. Keep in mind though: we’re not bullish on the greenback because of the U.S.’ absolute outperformance. It’s because the region is fundamentally outperforming the Eurozone, the EUR/USD accounts for nearly 58% of the movement of the USD Index, and the relative performance is what really matters.
In conclusion, the USD Index remains ripe for an upward re-rating and the greenback’s ability to shrug off bad fundamental news has cemented its bullish foundation. Moreover, with the EUR/USD holding on by a thread, the currency pair’s pain is the USD Index’s gain. In addition, with the U.S. 10-Year Treasury yield closing the Oct. 8 session at its highest level since Jun. 3 and the Fed poised to announce its taper timeline in the coming months, plenty of reinforcements support a stronger U.S. dollar over the medium term. And since gold, silver and mining stocks have strong negative correlations with the U.S. dollar, the latter’s uprising could lead to the former’s downsizing.
The NASDAQ 100
As a secondary catalyst, a material drawdown of the NASDAQ 100 could eventually rattle U.S. equities.
Please see below:
To that point, given the USDX’s strong negative correlation with the NASDAQ 100, a material reset could propel the greenback back to its March highs. Moreover, following a short-term consolidation, the USDX could even exceed those previous highs.
Furthermore, relative outprinting by the European Central Bank (ECB) remains of critical importance. Last week, the FED/ECB ratio was flat, while the EUR/USD decreased by 0.21%. And given that the ratio has declined by nearly 20% since May 2020, the EUR/USD still has some catching up to do.
Please see below:
The key takeaway?
With the ECB injecting more liquidity to support an underperforming Eurozone economy, the FED/ECB ratio, as well as EUR/USD, should move lower over the medium term. More importantly, though, because the EUR/USD accounts for nearly 58% of the movement of the USD Index, EUR/USD pain will be the USDX’s gain.
In addition, the top in the FED/ECB total assets ratio preceded the slide in the EUR/USD less than a decade ago, and it seems to be preceding the next slide as well. If the USD Index was to repeat its 2014-2015 rally from the recent lows, it would rally to 114. This level is much more realistic than most market participants would agree on.
Very Long-Term Indications for Gold
With another month on the books and gold’s back-and-forth behavior whipsawing investors’ emotions, it’s important to remember that the long-term thesis remains intact: the MACD indicator still elicits a strong sell signal and gold’s monthly close has not changed the calculus. As a result, the PMs’ outlook still remains very bearish over the next few months.
To explain, I wrote previously:
With the month of June now on the books, the MACD indicator is still flashing red. And despite gold’s recent strength and all of the attention that has come with it, the MACD indicator has barely flinched. Furthermore, while a slight pause in the MACD indicator’s downtrend is clearly visible, an identical development also occurred in mid-2012. And what happened then? Well, if you analyze the chart below, you can see that gold’s joy quickly turned into sadness, and the yellow metal suffered a profound decline.
Even eerier, the MACD indicator’s recent pause has occurred at a level that also mirrors the analogue from 2012. And what happened back then? The yellow metal plunged by more than $600 before the bottom was finally reached. Likewise, the current position of the MACD indicator is also symmetrical to the 2008 top. And back then – during the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) – the yellow metal plunged by more than $334 from peak to trough (over 30%).
While short-term price movements often garner the most attention, it’s important to remember that gold’s long-term downtrend is also reminiscent of the second half of 2012. If you analyze the middle-right area of the chart below, you can see that the MACD indicator sounded the alarm in 2012. And while investors ignored the warning and gold moved higher, a profound plunge followed in 2013. Moreover, while the MACD indicator’s sell-signal was visible throughout gold’s entire journey – despite several ebbs and flows in the price action – the narrowing distance between the black and red lines actually preceded gold’s plunge. Thus, with gold’s swan song beginning to play at nearly the same level in 2013, the yellow metal’s recent strength is likely only the intermission.
The above-mentioned narrowing distance between the MACD lines can be seen clearly seen through the blue bars hovering around the 0 level on the indicator part of the chart. We now see the current blue bar move toward 0. We saw the same thing in the second half of 2012, which is when gold rallied for the last time before the huge slide.
Remember the huge gap between the U.S. 10-Year Treasury yield and the U.S. 10-Year breakeven inflation rate? The situation in the very long-term MACD indicator is yet another confirmation that what we saw recently is similar to what we saw before the huge 2012 – 2013 slide. We get the same confirmation from the gold to bonds ratio, and I’ll move to that a bit later.
Moreover, with the situation unfolding as it did in 2012, the recent pause in the MACD indicator has been followed by a continued move lower. And while we’re still in the early innings of the PMs’ likely slide, the analogue is, unsurprisingly, playing out as expected. To that point, despite last week’s rally, gold’s long-term MACD indicator hasn’t flinched. And with that, the yellow metal’s recent strength is largely immaterial from a long-term perspective.
Based on gold’s previous performance after the major sell signals from the MACD indicator, one could now expect gold to bottom in the ~$1,200 to ~1,350 range. Given the price moves that we witnessed in 1988, 2008 and 2011, historical precedent implies gold forming a bottom in this range. However, due to the competing impact of several different variables, it’s possible that the yellow metal could receive the key support at a higher level.
Considering the reliability of the MACD indicator as a sell signal for major declines, the reading also implies that gold’s downtrend could last longer and be more severe than originally thought. As a result, $1,500 remains the most likely outcome, with $1,350 still in the cards.
Furthermore, after gold’s triangle-vertex-based reversal point helped underwrite the recent corrective upswing, I warned on Sep. 13 and updated on Oct. 4 that while short-term strength could materialize, it’s largely immaterial.
I wrote:
With another triangle-vertex-based reversal point scheduled within the next two weeks, we may witness a decline shortly, and then a short-term corrective upswing during the back half of September. However, the medium-term implications remain intact and lower lows should still materialize in the months ahead.
To that point, while gold’s short-term corrective upswing may or may not be complete, the important point is that an immaterial short-term rally is largely inconsequential within the context of gold’s medium-term downtrend. As a result, even if the yellow metal recaptures $1,800 (which is possible, though not likely), lower highs and lower lows should dominate the headlines over the next few months.
What’s more, with gold still firmly below its rising support line (which is now resistance), the medium-term outlook remains profoundly bearish.
Please see below:
Likewise, gold’s weekly chart depicts the validity of the 2012 analogue. Whether it’s the RSI indicator (as visible on the chart below), the MACD indicator or the overall price action, the readings are profoundly similar, and the bearish implications remain intact.
To explain further, gold’s behavior is mirroring what we witnessed near the end of 2012. For example, following gold’s short-term corrective upswing nearly a decade ago, the yellow metal proceeded to fall off a cliff. And with the shape, the RSI, and the MACD indicators sending the same bearish signals that we witnessed back then (marked with the purple vertical lines and blue ellipses below), if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it’s probably a duck.
Furthermore, the recent breakdown also aligns with gold’s self-similar pattern from 2011 to 2013. For example, since we’re right after the point marked with the vertical purple line below, gold should now decline to its previous lows, correct, and then continue its medium-term slide. Likewise, with the duration of the analogue aligning as well, it took 56 weeks for gold to make an initial high and then form a final high from 2011-2013. And since we’re in the midst of a 43-week (76.8% of the 2011-2013 duration) top-to-top pattern, an interim bottom should (assuming that the 76.8% proportion in terms of time remains in place) form in mid-September (which also aligns with gold’s triangle-vertex-based reversal point that was mentioned above) and the final bottom should present itself in mid or late December.
What’s more, gold’s RSI and its MACD indicator are behaving exactly as they did in early 2013. If you analyze the chart below, you can see that gold’s RSI hovered at 50, while the MACD indicator kept moving lower. Moreover, a similar cocktail is present today. On top of that, the yellow metal is currently sandwiched between its 40-week and 60-week moving averages, and the consolidation in 2013 (prior to the plunge) occurred in between these two key levels. As a result, further weakness likely lies ahead.
To that point, while I’ve been warning for months that the 2013 analogue was already upon us, signs of the times are growing stronger by the day. And with the bearish orchestra now serenading the PMs in perfect tune with what I’ve been forecasting, the final act will likely result in new lows in the coming months.
For context, gold’s weekly RSI is still hovering above 40 and an initial bottom didn’t materialize in 2013 until the yellow metal’s RSI sunk below 30. As a result, while gold may have already formed a very short-term bottom, much lower prices will likely follow before the yellow metal records a lasting bottom.
Please see below:
If you analyze the long-term chart above, you can see that gold has invalidated the breakout above its 2011 high. More importantly, though, with its rising support line (on the right side of the chart) also coinciding with the 61.8% Fibonacci retracement level and the 2019 and 2020 lows, ~$1,450 to $1,500 is the most prudent medium-term price target.
And like two peas in a pod, the resemblance between 2011-2013 and 2020-2021 remains uncanny. To explain, while I mentioned above that gold’s triangle-vertex-based reversal point could underwrite short-term strength, it’s important to note that the recent move higher has been quite muted.
What’s more, even though gold recorded a small breakout above its declining resistance line (the dashed red line on the right side of the second chart below), a similar short-term breakout occurred in 2012-2013 before gold moved sharply lower. As a result, the recent strength is nothing to write home about.
For an in-depth explanation of the self-similarity pattern, I wrote on Sep. 10:
The history repeats itself to a considerable degree, and you will soon see that the fact that gold was unable to hold its breakout above its 2011 highs was not accidental. It’s not a coincidence that gold is now about $300 lower than it was when it reached its August 2020 high, even though the USD Index is trading approximately at the same levels as it was trading in August 2020.
Even without zooming in on the chart above, you can clearly see that both areas marked in yellow are similar (please note that you can click on the chart to enlarge it).
Before discussing gold’s price moves, please note that the positions of the indicators (the RSI in the upper part of the chart, and the MACD in the lower part of the chart) are almost identical now and during the 2012-2013 decline. The areas marked with red and blue correspond to each other.
To make the analogy clearer, I’ll zoom in on them separately, using two charts below.
Both yellow areas start with a small consolidation that takes place after a big rally and right before an even more profound rally, which takes gold to a spike-like high.
Then gold declines. After the first drop and a quick rebound (in both cases), we get the first local top, where gold shows that it’s unable to reach the previous high, let alone break above it. We saw that in November 2011 and in early November 2020.
Then we see another decline in gold’s price. This time, it takes gold below its 40-week moving average (marked with red). Both bottoms form quickly, and the comeback is swift. That happened in December 2011 and in late November 2020.
Then we see another move higher – right to the most recent local high. That happened in February 2012 and in early January 2021.
And then we see another slide lower. In this case, gold bottoms close to the small consolidation that preceded the final (2011, 2020) top. The bottoms were broad and took place between May 2012 and July 2012, as well as between March and April 2021.
Then we get yet another rally that takes gold relatively close to the previous local tops (October 2012 and May 2021). In both cases, the shape of the top is broader than it was in the case of the previous two tops.
After that top, a huge decline in the price of gold begins, but it’s not clear at first, and many people still think it’s just a consolidation that will be followed by more rallies.
During this time (October 2012 – early 2013, and May 2021 – now) gold moves back and forth with lower lows and lower highs. Gold stocks underperform gold in a clear manner in both periods.
So far, the moves have been extremely similar, and if the history simply continues to be similar, we can estimate what’s ahead by extrapolating what we already saw in 2013. Based on this analogy, it seems that we’re about to see one final correction when gold once again moves to its previous (2021) lows, but this correction won’t be significant. It will be the final good-bye to the current trading range before gold truly slides – just as it did between April and June 2013.
Now, this is what the situation looks like right now, and the above outlook is based on much more than just the above (extraordinary, but still) single analogy. The remarkable self-similarity is present also in the HUI Index, and what’s likely to take place in the case of gold’s arch-nemesis – the USD Index – fully corresponds to the above-featured scenario. Silver’s performance confirms it as well. (By the way, have you noticed the fact that even though gold temporarily moved above its 2011 high, neither gold stocks nor silver managed to do the same thing? They were not even close. This should make even the most bullish precious metals investors concerned.)
If that wasn’t enough, the gold/ Dow Jones Corporate Bond Index (Total Return) ratio has fallen below its rising support line. And when this occurred in 2012, the most violent part of gold’s decline was already underway.
Please see below:
To explain, if you analyze the middle of the chart above, you can see that the ratio recorded a countered rally, jumped back above its rising support line and 50-week moving average and then… collapsed. And with a similar pattern forming on the right side of the chart, the ratio is looking more and more like a widow-maker. Furthermore, when factoring in mining stocks’ bearish H&S patterns, the fundamental headwinds confronting gold and the strong likelihood of a medium-term swoon in the stock market, you can already hear the yellow metal’s death knell tolling in the distance.
Gold’s Short-and-Medium-Term Outlook
For a clearer visual of gold’s short-term breakout, the daily chart below paints the portrait. Despite that, though, after gold’s sharp rally on Oct. 8 failed and reversed on relatively high volume, the price action signals more downside in the coming weeks.
To clarify, a move to my target area implies that an $80-$100 decline could materialize before the end of October. More importantly, though, with an $80-$100 decline in gold implying much steeper losses (on a percentage basis) for silver and gold mining stocks, the latter’s potential underperformance makes the risk-reward of shorting the GDXJ ETF more promising.
Please see below:
For more context, I wrote on Sep. 27:
After an early-week rally, gold gave away its gains and ended the week only $0.30 higher. This may not seem like a big deal, until one notices that it means that we saw another weekly close below the April and August lows in terms of the weekly prices. In other words, last week’s “inaction” was bearish.
The thing that might appear perplexing at this time is gold’s upcoming triangle-vertex-based reversal. The perplexing detail is its exact timing. Looking at the exact moment when the lines cross, we get a point that actually somewhat between the previous week and this week. This, plus the fact that these reversals might work on a near-to basis suggests that we might see an important bottom sometime this week. It’s not crystal clear, but it appears quite likely.
In fact, gold miners’ weakness suggests exactly that.
On a short-term basis, gold hasn’t changed much – it moved to its recent September lows, but based on the weekly chart, we know that there was actually a more important breakdown. Please note that gold’s back-and-forth decline (three local tips in September) is in near-perfect tune with how gold declined initially in 2013.
Between September 2012 and February 2013, gold declined in a back-and-forth manner as well, and the current situation seems to be analogous to what we saw in February 2013. At the time, the final short-term upswing took gold to its 50-day moving average (marked with blue), and we saw something very similar recently. The recent high ($1788.40) was very close to gold’s 50-day moving average too – less than $10 from it.
You can see the comparison even more clearly in the video that I posted on Wednesday (Sep. 22) – on a side note, I was recording this when gold was moving higher - right to its Sep. 22 top. So, it turns out that I said that gold might top close to its 50-day moving average instead of rallying higher, right before exactly that happened.
To that point, while 2013 still provides us with the clearest roadmap of gold’s next move, 2008 shouldn’t be dismissed. And why is that? Well, with a profound drawdown of the S&P 500 present during the latter and not the former, if (once) the general stock market plunges, the pace of gold’s forthcoming decline could be expedited.
To explain, I wrote previously:
Back in 2008, gold corrected to 61.8% Fibonacci retracement, but it stopped rallying approximately when the USD Index started to rally, and the general stock market accelerated its decline.
Taking into consideration that the general stock market has probably just topped, and the USD Index is about to rally, then gold is likely to slide for the final time in the following weeks/months. Both above-mentioned markets support this bearish scenario and so do the self-similar patterns in terms of gold price itself.
What’s more, there are many other layers to the analogue from 2008 that are extremely important.
Please see below:
Please note (in the lower part of the above chart) that back then, the final huge slide in the mining stocks started when the GDX ETF moved back to its previous highs, while the USD Index moved a bit below its rising support line based on the previous tops. That’s exactly what happened recently as well. The final bottom in the GDX ETF formed about 3 months later at about 1/3 of its starting price.
The recent high was $40.13 and 1/3 thereof would be $13.38. While I don’t want to say that we will definitely see the GDX ETF as low as that, it’s not something that would be out of the ordinary, given the analogy to 2008. Now you see why the large bottoming target on the GDX ETF chart with the lower border in the $15s might actually be conservative… As always, I’ll keep you – my subscribers – updated.
“Ok, but what price level would be likely to trigger a bigger rebound during the next big slide?”
Well, the 76.4% Fibonacci retracement level (it’s visible as the 23.6% Fibonacci retracement level on the above chart as inverting the scale is used as a workaround) also coincides with gold’s April 2020 low. Taken together, an interim bottom could form in the ~$1,575 to $1,600 range.
For context, back in early March, the yellow metal continued to decline after reaching the 61.8% Fibonacci retracement (visible as 38.2% Fibonacci retracement) level, while, in contrast, the miners began to consolidate. Gold finally bottomed slightly below the retracement – at its previous lows. This time around, we might witness a similar event. And while the story plays out, the miners’ relative strength should signal the end of the slide (perhaps with gold close to 1,600), while gold will likely garner support sometime thereafter (at $1,575 – $1,580 or so).
Remember though: this is only an interim target. Over the medium term, the yellow metal will likely form a lasting bottom in the ~$1,350 to $1,500 range.
Finally, adding credibility to the analogy from 2013, long-term interest rates helped push gold off the cliff. And with the U.S. 10-Year Treasury yield bouncing off of its 50-week moving average, a similar development in 2013 (the red shaded area on the right side of the chart below) preceded the most violent part of gold’s medium-term decline. As a result, whether the S&P 500 leads the move lower (like in 2008) or further momentum persists in long-term Treasury yields (like in 2013), gold confronts a challenging environment over the next few months.
The Gold Miners
While the HUI Index showcased short-term strength last week, the gold miners’ relative outperformance is largely immaterial from a medium-term perspective. Moreover, the recent optimism further highlights the HUI Index’s breakdown below the neckline of its bearish head & shoulders pattern, and the current verification is par for the course. Breakdown’s verification is a bearish development, not a bullish one.
Please see below:
Furthermore, while I’ve also been warning about the ominous similarity to 2012-2013, the HUI Index continues to hop into the time machine. To explain, the vertical, dashed lines above demonstrate how the HUI Index is following its 2012-2013 playbook. For example, after a slight buy signal from the stochastic indicator in 2012, the short-term pause was followed by another sharp drawdown. For context, after the HUI Index recorded a short-term buy signal in late 2012 – when the index’s stochastic indicator was already below the 20 level (around 10) and the index was in the process of forming the right shoulder of a huge, medium-term head-and-shoulders pattern – the index moved slightly higher, consolidated, and then fell off a cliff. Thus, the HUI Index is quite likely to decline to its 200-week moving average (or so) before pausing and recording a corrective upswing. That’s close to the 220 level. Thereafter, the index will likely continue its bearish journey and record a final medium-term low some time in December.
Furthermore, I warned previously that the miners’ drastic underperformance of gold was an extremely bearish sign. There were several weeks when gold rallied visibly, and the HUI Index actually declined modestly. And now, gold stocks are trading close to their previous 2021 lows, while gold is almost right in the middle between its yearly high and its yearly low.
And why is this so important? Well, because the bearish implications of gold stocks’ extreme underperformance still remain intact.
Let’s keep in mind that the drastic underperformance of the HUI Index also preceded the bloodbath in 2008 as well as in 2012 and 2013. To explain, right before the huge slide in late September and early October 2008, gold was still moving to new intraday highs; the HUI Index was ignoring that, and then it declined despite gold’s rally. However, it was also the case that the general stock market suffered materially. If stocks didn’t decline so profoundly back then, gold stocks’ underperformance relative to gold would have likely been present but more moderate.
Nonetheless, broad head & shoulders patterns have often been precursors to monumental collapses. For example, when the HUI Index retraced a bit more than 61.8% of its downswing in 2008 and in between 50% and 61.8% of its downswing in 2012 before eventually rolling over, in both (2008 and 2012) cases, the final top – the right shoulder – formed close to the price where the left shoulder topped. And in early 2020, the left shoulder topped at 303.02. Thus, three of the biggest declines in the gold mining stocks (I’m using the HUI Index as a proxy here) all started with broad, multi-month head-and-shoulders patterns. And in all three cases, the size of the declines exceeded the size of the head of the pattern. As a reminder, the HUI Index recently completed the same formation.
Yes, the HUI Index moved back below the previous lows and the neck level of the formation, which – at face value – means that the formation was invalidated, but we saw a similar “invalidation” in 2000 and in 2013. Afterwards, the decline followed anyway. Consequently, I don’t think that taking the recent move higher at its face value is appropriate. It seems to me that the analogies to the very similar situation from the past are more important.
As a result, we’re confronted with two bearish scenarios:
- If things develop as they did in 2000 and 2012-2013, gold stocks are likely to bottom close to their early-2020 low.
- If things develop like in 2008 (which might be the case, given the extremely high participation of the investment public in the stock market and other markets), gold stocks could re-test (or break slightly below) their 2016 low.
In both cases, the forecast for silver, gold, and mining stocks is extremely bearish for the next several months.
For even more confirmation, let’s compare the behavior of the GDX ETF and the GDXJ ETF. Regarding the former, the GDX ETF failed to close the day (Oct. 8) and the week above the neckline of its bearish H&S pattern. As a result, the previous breakdown was not invalidated, and again, a back-test is perfectly normal within the context of a medium-term decline. Monday’s move lower further confirms the above narrative and the bearish outlook.
Please see below:
As for the GDXJ ETF, short-term strength also occurred and the junior miners ended the week above their August lows. However, the development is much less important due to the fact that the GDXJ ETF materially underperformed in August. Thus, outperforming now is merely a reversion to the mean.
On top of that, the GDXJ ETF still remains below its March and July lows, and the junior miners are right up against their 50-day moving average (which marked the top in early September). As a result, further weakness should materialize sooner rather than later.
Please see below:
Finally, while I’ve been warning for months that the GDXJ/GDX ratio was destined for devaluation, the downtrend remains intact. And with the ratio now at its declining resistance line and its RSI also at its 2021 highs (which should act as resistance), underperformance by the GDXJ ETF should soon follow and the likely development is an ominous sign for the precious metals sector.
For context, I wrote previously:
When the ratio’s RSI jumped above 50 three times in 2021, it coincided with short-term peaks in gold. Second, the trend in the ratio this year has been clearly down, and there’s no sign of a reversal, especially when you consider that the ratio broke below its 2019 support (which served as resistance in mid-2020). When the same thing happened in 2020, the ratio then spiked even below 1.
The bottom line?
If the ratio is likely to continue its decline, then on a short-term basis we can expect it to decline to 1.27 or so. If the general stock market plunges, the ratio could move even lower, but let’s assume that stocks decline moderately (just as they did in the last couple of days) or that they do nothing or rally slightly. They’ve done all the above recently, so it’s natural to expect that this will be the case. Consequently, the trend in the GDXJ to GDX ratio would also be likely to continue, and thus expecting a move to about 1.26 - 1.27 seems rational.
If the GDX is about to decline to approximately $28 before correcting, then we might expect the GDXJ to decline to about $28 x 1.27 = $35.56 or $28 x 1.26 = $35.28. In other words, ~$28 in the GDX is likely to correspond to about $35 in the GDXJ.
Is there any technical support around $35 that would be likely to stop the decline? Yes. It’s provided by the late-Feb. 2020 low ($34.70) and the late-March high ($34.84). There’s also the late-April low at $35.63. Conservatively, I’m going to place the profit-take level just above the latter.
Consequently, it seems that expecting the GDXJ to decline to about $35 is justified from the technical point of view as well.
For more context on the GDXJ/GDX ratio, I wrote previously:
The GDXJ ETF remains a significant underperformer of the GDX ETF. Despite sanguine sentiment and a strong stock market creating the perfect backdrop for the junior miners, the GDXJ ETF hasn’t lived up to the hype. To that point, it’s important to remember that small fakeouts in the juniors to seniors ratio often occur right before medium-term tops. Why? Because juniors tend to catch up with seniors, somewhat similarly to silver.
In addition, once one realizes that GDXJ is more correlated with the general stock market than GDX is, GDXJ should be showing strength here, and it isn’t. If stocks don’t decline, GDXJ is likely to underperform by just a bit, but when (not if) stocks slide, GDXJ is likely to plunge visibly more than GDX.
Expanding on that point, the GDXJ/GDX ratio has been declining since the beginning of the year, which is remarkable because the general stock market hasn’t plunged yet. However, if the S&P 500 proceeds to decline, the junior miners will likely underperform the senior miners. As a result, the GDXJ ETF has a lot more room to fall than the GDX ETF.
Why haven’t the juniors been soaring relative to senior mining stocks? What makes them so special (and weak) right now? In my opinion, it’s the fact that we now – unlike at any other time in the past – have an asset class that seems similarly appealing to the investment public. Not to everyone, but to some. And this “some” is enough for juniors to underperform.
Instead of speculating on an individual junior miner making a killing after striking gold or silver in some extremely rich deposit, it’s now easier than ever to get the same kind of thrill by buying… an altcoin (like Dogecoin or something else). In fact, people themselves can engage in “mining” these coins. And just like bitcoin seems similar to gold to many (especially the younger generation) investors, altcoins might serve as the “junior mining stocks” of the electronic future. At least they might be perceived as such by some.
Consequently, a part of the demand for juniors was not based on the “sympathy” toward the precious metals market, but rather on the emotional thrill (striking gold) combined with the anti-establishment tendencies (gold and silver are the anti- metals, but cryptocurrencies are anti-establishment in their own way). And since everyone and their brother seem to be talking about how much this or that altcoin has gained recently, it’s easy to see why some people jumped on that bandwagon instead of investing in junior miners.
This tendency is not likely to go away in the near term, so it seems that we have yet another reason to think that the GDXJ ETF is going to move much lower in the following months – declining more than the GDX ETF. The above + gold’s decline + stocks’ decline is truly an extremely bearish combination, in my view.
In addition, I warned on Jun. 1 that the HUI Index/S&P 500 ratio invalidation of the breakdown below its rising support line (which became resistance) would be short-lived.
I wrote:
[The invalidation] doesn’t outweigh the myriad of other indicators – both technical and fundamental – that signal further weakness. In other words, the ratio should move back below its rising support/resistance line shortly.
And going from “maybe” to “likely” to “happened” once again, the HUI Index/S&P 500 ratio is now back in the bearish zone. Thus, the medium-term implications remain extremely bearish.
Please see below:
On top of that, the countertrend upswing actually mirrored the behavior that we witnessed in 2018. If you analyze the left side of the chart, you can see that the ratio flirted with its rising support line before eventually rolling over. And with the current price action looking eerily similar, the ratio’s final act could be just as painful.
For more context:
When the ratio presented on the above chart above is rising, it means that the HUI Index is outperforming the S&P 500. When the line above is falling, it means that the S&P 500 is outperforming the HUI Index.
The target for the ratio based on this formation is at about 0.05 (slightly above it). Consequently, if the S&P 500 doesn’t decline, the ratio at 0.05 would imply the HUI Index at about 196. However, if the S&P 500 declined to about 3,200 or so (its late-2020 lows) and the ratio moved to about 0.05, it would imply the HUI Index at about 160 – very close to its 2020 lows.
Moreover, while last week’s price action elicited mixed signals, the outlook is still bearish, in my opinion. However, more data will follow in the coming weeks, and I’ll keep you, our subscribers, updated.
Let’s take a look at another important ratio – the one featuring gold stocks performance relative to gold. (I discussed that in this video as well.)
For context, I wrote previously:
A major breakdown occurred last week after the HUI Index/gold ratio sunk below its rising support line (the upward sloping black line on the right side of the chart above). Moreover, with the bearish milestone only achieved prior to gold’s crash in 2012-2013, the ratio’s breakdown in 2013 was the last chance to short the yellow metal at favorable prices. And while I’ve been warning about the ratio’s potential breakdown for weeks, the majority of precious metals investors are unaware of the metric and its implications. As a result, investors’ propensity to ‘buy the dip’ in gold will likely backfire over the medium term.
Also signaling an ominous outcome, the HUI/XOY (gold stocks to oil stocks) ratio is stuck in a profound medium-term decline. For context, the last two times gold stocks underperformed oil stocks to this magnitude (2011 and 2013), further downside followed, and the HUI Index underperformed for weeks, months and even years. However, this time around, the amount of money printed by central banks signals that monthly underperformance remains the most likely outcome.
Please see below:
You will find more details on the above chart in one of my latest videos.
As another reliable indicator (in addition to the myriads of signals coming not only from mining stocks, but from gold, silver, USD Index, stocks, their ratios, and many fundamental observations) the Gold Miners Bullish Percent Index ($BPGDM) isn’t at levels that trigger a major reversal. The Index is now at ~17. However, far from a medium-term bottom, the latest reading is still more than 7 points above the 2016 and 2020 lows.
Also noteworthy, if you analyze the left side of the chart below (2012-2013), you can see that when the BPGDM declined to zero (it can’t go below), it actually marked the beginning of gold stocks’ bottoming process (meaning that gold miners still moved much lower). As a result, even if the BPGDM declines further, it may only signal a short-term bottom and not the true medium-term bottom. Due to that, other indicators should take precedence over the BPGDM (at least in the short term).
The excessive bullishness was present at the 2016 top as well, and it didn’t cause the situation to be any less bearish in reality. All markets periodically get ahead of themselves regardless of how bullish the long-term outlook really is. Then, they correct. If the upswing was significant, the correction is also quite often significant.
Please note that back in 2016, there was an additional quick upswing before the slide, and this additional upswing had caused the $BPGDM to move up once again for a few days. It then declined once again. We saw something similar also in the middle of 2020. In this case, the move up took the index once again to the 100 level, while in 2016 this wasn’t the case. But still, the similarity remains present.
Back in 2016, when we saw this phenomenon, it was already after the top and right before the big decline. Based on the decline from above 350 to below 280, we know that a significant decline is definitely taking place.
But has it already run its course?
Well, in 2016 and early 2020, the HUI Index continued to move lower until it declined below the 61.8% Fibonacci retracement level. The emphasis goes on “below” as this retracement might not trigger the final bottom. Case in point: back in 2020, the HUI Index undershot the 61.8% Fibonacci retracement level and gave back nearly all of its prior rally. And using the 2016 and 2020 analogues as anchors, this time around, the HUI Index is likely to decline below 231. In addition, if the current decline is more similar to the 2020 one, the HUI Index could move to 150 or so, especially if it coincides with a significant drawdown of U.S. equities.
With all of that said: how will we know when a medium-term buying opportunity presents itself?
I view price target levels as guidelines and the same goes for the Gold Miners Bullish Percent Index (below 10), but the final confirmation will likely be gold’s strength against the ongoing USDX rally. At many vital bottoms in gold, that’s exactly what happened, including the March bottom.
Silver
With silver’s long-term cycle implying a surge above $75 (and even $100) over the next several years, the white metal’s secular uptrend remains intact. However, with an epic collapse likely to precede the forthcoming Renaissance, volatility presents us with ample opportunities.
Case in point: silver cycles last roughly two years and the turning points culminate with extreme volatility in both directions. Sometimes ferocious rallies follow, and other times the white metal falls off a cliff. In the here and now, with silver approaching the end of its current cycle, a supreme climax could be around the corner. Moreover, when we combine the myriad of technical and fundamental indicators signaling the same outcome, the white metal could get cut in half over the next few months.
Furthermore, with the white metal declining sharply after reaching its long-term turning point, silver is mirroring its behavior from past cycles. And with the historical shifts ending with profound drawdowns, another major decline should commence in the coming months.
Please see below:
As for the short term, analyzing silver’s historical fakeouts has proven quite valuable. For example, while many investors chase the white metal’s upward momentum only to find little light at the end of the tunnel, I’ve warned on several occasions that falling for the seduction is an extremely costly mistake.
To that point, since the white metal’s immense volatility often results in sharp rises and sharp falls, we witnessed another example on Oct. 8. Like gold, silver initially spiked higher before closing near the lows. And with the initial fervor likely the result of a short-covering rally, the whipsaw was actually bearish, not bullish. As a result, the white metal still remains on track to fall below $20 over the medium term.
Please see below:
To explain, based on the above breakdown as well as multiple other bearish factors described previously, silver is likely to challenge the ~$19 level in the coming weeks before a corrective upswing ensues. For context, the range coincides with the 61.8% Fibonacci retracement level and the September 2019 highs. To clarify: in my view, silver is very likely to soar in the following years, but timing matters, and ignoring cycles, trends, and technical patterns is what could make people lose a lot of capital.
Further supporting the thesis, the SLV/GLD (silver/gold ETF) ratio signals that silver’s peak is likely on the horizon. If you analyze the chart below, you can see that the pink horizontal bars depict periods where the ratio’s uptrends end, reversals occur and silver underperforms.
Please see below:
Even more revealing, though, the GDXJ/SLV (gold stocks to silver) ratio is extremely important. For context, by exiting our short position in the GDXJ ETF and shifting the position to the SLV ETF, it’s similar to going long the GDXJ/SLV ratio. And with the ratio moving higher last week – meaning that the GDXJ ETF outperformed the SLV ETF – the recalibration worked out quite nicely.
To explain, with the ratio rallying in February/March, both the GDXJ ETF and the SLV ETF moved higher. However, the SLV ETF underperformed. And with a similar development occurring last week, the SLV ETF’s underperformance means that shorting silver was a relatively better decision than shorting gold mining stocks. And with that, recording smaller losses when the position goes against us and recording larger gains when it moves in our favor results in asymmetric payoffs that lead to long-term outperformance.
You will find more details on the above chart in one of my latest videos.
To that point, with the GDXJ ETF’s recent outperformance offering a nice re-entry point to short the junior miners once again, I believe that exiting the short position in the SLV ETF and repositioning the short position in the GDXJ ETF now offers the best risk-reward ratio. As a result, in my opinion, closing short positions in the SLV ETF (/ silver) and opening identical short positions in the GDXJ ETF is justified from the risk to reward point of view.
Please see below:
Moreover, please note that recalibrating the short positions does not change my medium-term outlook for silver. The white metal is still likely to decline profoundly. However, the GDXJ ETF should suffer a larger decline in the short term.
On September 28, I wrote about switching short positions in the junior miners to a short position in silver. In particular, I wrote the following:
At the time of writing these words, the SLV ETF is trading at $20.81 and the GDXJ ETF is trading at $38.22. The downside target for the SLV ETF (based on the $19 - $20 target area for silver) is $17.40 - $18.35, and the downside target area for the GDXJ ETF is $34.84 - $36.67.
As of Friday’s closing prices, we had the SLV ETF at $20.88 and we had the GDXJ ETF at $40.62.
So, while the SLV ETF moved higher by just $0.07, the GDXJ ETF moved higher by $2.40.
In other words, our short position in silver was almost flat, while we managed NOT to be affected negatively by the $2.40 rally in the GDXJ ETF, and now we are able to get back in the short position in junior miners at much better prices, with almost the same amount of capital that we had while making the switch. In other words, we “saved” over 5% on this move in the case of unleveraged positions, and over 10% in the case of 2x leveraged positions (in the JDST, for example).
The best part is that we did that while still being positioned to take advantage of the big slide in the precious metals sector. It didn’t happen, but we were prepared for that, which allowed us to avoid the risk of missing out on the profits that we could have made on this move if it had indeed happened.
So, in dollar terms, getting out of the short position in juniors on Sep. 28 might seem like a better choice considering the risks, and looking at what was really taking place from the risk to reward point of view, it seems that we made the most of the recent correction.
Likewise, with silver’s 2008 analogue signaling more trouble ahead, the dam should break sooner rather than later. Also, please note that gold is the canary in the coal mine, and the yellow metal’s behavior will likely signal the shift in silver’s sentiment.
For more context on silver’s self-similarity patterns, I wrote previously:
If you analyze the left side of the chart above, you can see that silver moved back and forth before breaking toward its September highs. However, after failing to complete the milestone, the white metal eventually collapsed. As a result, with the pattern on the right side of the chart eerily similar, investors’ optimism has occurred at what’s likely the worst possible time.
To that point, with its current behavior also mirroring 2008 – where silver fell below and then rallied back above its 50-day MA before plunging – the white metal remains on a journey of self-destruction.
If we zoom in on the white metal’s price action in 2008, you can see that an immaterial bounce also occurred right before silver fell off a cliff.
The final corrective upswing of early 2020 took place in very late February and early March, while the two – normal – tops that created the red-line rectangle formed more or less at the turn of the year and in late February. This year, it’s all taking place at almost exactly the same time of the year.
Let’s be realistic - so far, the analogy (to what happened in 2019 and 2020) might seem too unclear to be viewed as a reliable base for making a silver forecast.
But what if… What if there was a very similar pattern in the past that also preceded a massive decline? This would greatly increase the reliability of the above self-similarity.
There was indeed such a pattern!
That’s what silver did in 2008 before it declined.
The August 2007 – March 2008 rally (please note the interim top in November 2007 that was followed by a zigzag decline, more or less in the middle of the rally) is similar to the March 2020 – August 2021 rally (please note the interim top in June 2020 that was followed by a zigzag pattern, more or less in the middle of the rally).
Afterwards, we saw a double top in both cases that was followed by a sizable slide. Then silver formed a specific U-shaped broad top, where the final top was below the initial one (exception: in this case the forum-based rally took silver slightly above the previous high, but due to the specific / random nature of the move, it “doesn’t count” as something that invalidates the analogy).
After the top, silver declined, and the final corrective upswing took place approximately between the 50- and 200-day moving averages.
Please note that in both previous (2008 and 2020) cases silver then truly plunged, and it kept on declining until it moved below the 2.618 Fibonacci extension based on the initial downswing. The above charts illustrate that by showing the first decline at the 38.2% retracement (1 / 0.382 = approximately 2.618). Applying the same to the current situation (the initial decline took silver from below $30 to below $24) provides us with the minimum decline target at about $13.50. Will silver really decline as low? In my view, it’s imperative to watch other markets for indications as they might have more reliable targets (for instance gold), but I wouldn’t say that this target (or lower price levels) is out of the question. Of course, that’s just on a temporary basis – silver will likely soar in the following months and years (after this decline).
Highlighting the effect of WallStreetBets’ #SilverSqueeze, the SLV ETF’s volume spikes in 2020/2021 were nearly identical to the surges that we witnessed ~10 years ago. If you analyze the chart below, you can see that the massive inflows at the end of 2012 were not the beginning of a medium-term upswing. In fact, they coincided with silver’s final bounce before the white metal suffered a major decline.
Please see below:
If you analyze the volume spikes at the bottom of the chart, 2021 and 2011 are a splitting image. To explain, in 2011, an initial abnormal spike in volume was followed by a second parabolic surge. However, not long after, silver’s bear market began.
SLV-volume-wise, there's only one similar situation from the past - the 2011 top. This is a very bearish analogy as higher prices of the white metal were not seen since that time, but the analogy gets even more bearish. The reason is the "initial warning" volume spike in this ETF. It took place a few months before SLV formed its final top, and we saw the same thing also a few months ago, when silver formed its initial 2020 top.
In addition, the SLV ETF is also following the 2011 playbook. Back then, the SLV ETF recorded an initial spike in price and volume and followed that up with a parabolic spike in both that marked THE top. This was then followed by one last spike in price on relatively average volume. To that point, if you focus your attention on the right side of the chart above, you can see that an identical formation is present. After an initial spike in price and volume, the big one occurred in early 2021. And with silver’s latest rally occurring on relatively average volume, the price action looks a lot like the calm before the 2011 storm.
That third average-volume top in 2011 was the final chance to sell silver above $40 and perhaps to short it. It could be the same right now, but with regard to the $25 price level. Of course, silver is likely to soar well above $50 and $100 in the following years, but currently, the analogy points to lower prices in the medium term.
The history may not repeat itself to the letter, but it tends to be quite similar. And the more two situations are alike, the more likely it is for the follow-up action to be similar as well. And in this case, the implications for the silver price forecast are clearly bearish.
Based on the above chart, it seems that silver is likely to move well above its 2011 highs, but it’s unlikely to do it without another sizable downswing first.
Similarly, silver’s inverse price action also has bearish implications. Nearly identical to the inverted formation that emerged from 2006 to 2009, today’s chart looks eerily similar to its predecessor.
While it’s more of a wild card, the above pattern shows that silver’s 2020 top plots are nearly identical to the inverse of the 2006-2009 performance. I copied the 2006 – 2009 performance right below the regular price movement and inverted it. I also copied this inverted pattern to the last few years.
The similarity is quite significant. And whenever a given pattern has been repeated, the odds are that it could also repeat in the not-too-distant future. Of course, there is no guarantee for that, but once the same market has reacted in a certain way to a specific greed/fear combination, it can just as well do it again. And these similarity-based techniques work quite often. So, while it’s not strong enough to be viewed as a price-path-discovery technique on its own, it should make one consider some scenarios more closely. In particular, this means that the declines in the prices of silver, gold, and mining stocks could be bigger and take longer than it seems based on other charts and techniques.
The above is also in tune with the implications of the sell signal from the MACD indicator on the monthly gold chart.
The only thing that comes to my mind which could – realistically – trigger such a prolonged decline would be a major drop in the general stock market. Given what I wrote above, the latter is quite possible, so I’ll be on the lookout for confirmations and invalidations of this scenario.
If history rhymes, silver could be in for a profound decline over the next few months (beyond my initial target). Moreover, the development would increase the duration of the precious metals’ bear market (also beyond my initial forecast).
After all, gold did invalidate its long-term breakout above the 2011 highs, and the way gold reacted to a small upswing in the USD Index was truly profound…
Turning to cross-asset correlations, gold, silver, and the HUI Index’s 30 and 90-day correlations are performing as expected. The PMs still exhibit strong negative relationships with the U.S. dollar, and that’s what we should expect over the medium term. And with the U.S. dollar in season once again, an uprising could send the PMs running in the opposite direction.
For more context, I wrote previously:
Since gold, silver, and mining stocks have been strongly negatively correlated with the USD Index in the medium term, it seems likely that they will be negatively affected by the upcoming sizable USDX upswing.
…Until we see the day where gold reverses or soars despite the U.S. currency’s rally.
If that happens with gold at about $1,350 - $1,500, we’ll have a very good chance that this was the final bottom. If it doesn’t happen at that time, or gold continues to slide despite USD’s pause or decline, we’ll know that gold has further to fall.
Naturally, we’ll keep you – our subscribers – informed.
Overview of the Upcoming Part of the Decline
- It seems to me that the current corrective upswing in gold is over, and the next short-term move lower is about to begin. Since it seems to be another short-term move more than it seems to be a continuation of the bigger decline, I think that junior miners would be likely to (at least initially) decline more than silver.
- It seems that the first stop for gold will be close to its previous 2021 lows, slightly below $1,700. Then it will likely correct a bit, but it’s unclear if I want to exit or reverse the current short position based on that – it depends on the number and the nature of the bullish indications that we get at that time. Before the next big slide, I will likely prefer to get back to the short position in the junior mining stocks.
- After the above-mentioned correction, we’re likely to see a powerful slide, perhaps close to the 2020 low ($1,450 - $1,500).
- If we see a situation where miners slide in a meaningful and volatile way while silver doesn’t (it just declines moderately), I plan to – once again – switch from short positions in miners to short positions in silver. At this time, it’s too early to say at what price levels this could take place, and if we get this kind of opportunity at all – perhaps with gold close to $1,600.
- I plan to exit all remaining short positions when gold shows substantial strength relative to the USD Index while the latter is still rallying. This might take place with gold close to $1,350 - $1,400. I expect silver to fall the hardest in the final part of the move. This moment (when gold performs very strongly against the rallying USD and miners are strong relative to gold after its substantial decline) is likely to be the best entry point for long-term investments, in my view. This might also happen with gold close to $1,375, but it’s too early to say with certainty at this time. I expect the final bottom to take place near the end of the year, perhaps in mid-December.
- As a confirmation for the above, I will use the (upcoming or perhaps we have already seen it?) top in the general stock market as the starting point for the three-month countdown. The reason is that after the 1929 top, gold miners declined for about three months after the general stock market started to slide. We also saw some confirmations of this theory based on the analogy to 2008. All in all, the precious metals sector is likely to bottom about three months after the general stock market tops.
- The above is based on the information available today, and it might change in the following days/weeks.
You will find my general overview of the outlook for gold on the chart below:
Please note that the above timing details are relatively broad and “for general overview only” – so that you know more or less what I think and how volatile I think the moves are likely to be – on an approximate basis. These time targets are not binding or clear enough for me to think that they should be used for purchasing options, warrants or similar instruments.
Letters to the Editor
Q: Thanks again for the great analysis on a daily basis, you definitely made a difference in my trading style, specifically on holding on to profitable positions for longer. Also, it helps me in trading the currency pairs very effectively. Thank you and keep up the good work. I would like to know more about the chart you published at the end of the analysis with fib extension which captioned a general overview of gold. I understand that fib extension is applied down to up in an uptrend, but your chart is different, I would like to have more clarity on that.
A: Thanks, I’m happy to read that you enjoy my analyses. With regard to the Fibonacci-based extensions, it works based on the assumption that very often proves to be true, and that assumption is that moves tend to form in tune with the Phi (1.618) number, just like many things in nature. Retracements (1 / 1.618 = 0.618, so 61.8%) is one of the ways to apply that observation. Extending a move by 1.618 is another way to apply it. You can read more about this technique over here.
Q: Just a quick question please. I am based in the UK and don't have access to the Silver ETF that you have quoted for shorting Silver. I have been trying to maintain a short position in Spot Silver, but I am constantly having margin calls from my brokers because of Silver’s volatility! Would you be able to recommend a suitable UK ETF to enable me to maintain a short position in Silver please?
A: My first observation would be that if you are getting margin calls, then you probably took way too much leverage (bought too many contracts) for this trade. Just an observation – not investment advice, or a recommendation. The double-inverse ETFs limit the leverage, but with futures you can push it further – and it seems that you did just that. One way to deal with the situation would be to decrease the number of futures that you hold, perhaps cutting it in half, or making it even smaller.
Having said that, perhaps you would be interested in the ETFs provided by WisdomTree that trade on the LSE. They have -1x (unleveraged) silver ETF: SSIL and the -3x leveraged 3SIS.
Still, please note that I’m currently moving from shorting silver to shorting junior mining stocks once again.
Then again, I do think that all three: gold, silver, and mining stocks will decline heavily in the following months, and I think that silver and mining stocks will decline the most.
Q: Hi, I appreciate the heads-up that you are switching your short positions in silver to junior miners. I currently have a position in HZD at 24.75. If I cover now, I will have a substantial loss. If I continue to hold, instead of covering, do you think I would recover my loss or even make a small profit in the following months? Or do you think it's best to cut my losses now?
A: I do think that silver will decline substantially in the following weeks and months (before soaring in 2022 and in the following years). Therefore, I think that HZD will move higher in the following weeks/months and that a position in it that was entered recently will be profitable (likely substantially so).
I also think that in the short run, junior miners are likely to decline MORE than silver (which is also likely to decline). Therefore, in order to profit more, I am switching from shorting silver to shorting juniors, and whether that individual position in silver was profitable or not has absolutely no meaning for me. What is important is what kind of position is better with regard to future profits.
So, one option is to stick to a position in silver and (probably, in my opinion, no guarantees whatsoever) gain quite a lot without switching to junior miners and therefore without the psychological necessity of closing a trade that you’d be viewing as “taking a loss”.
Another option is to switch from a short position in silver and (probably, in my opinion, no guarantees whatsoever) gain more than in the case of the first option, but with the psychological necessity to close the existing trade that you’d be viewing as “taking a loss”.
Based on both options, it’s a matter of replying to a question, how valuable it is to you to avoid the psychological framing of the switch as “taking a loss”. Because, in my opinion, this action will lead to bigger profits. In other words, how much would you pay (in dollars) to avoid thinking to yourself “I just took a loss”? It’s up to you to decide.
Yet another option is to choose not to focus on naming the switch as a “gain or loss” at all because it’s managing a trade that’s based on a bigger downtrend that’s still in progress, and we’re simply moving from one part of the precious metals sector to another while remaining positioned to take advantage of the current decline. This way, you don’t even start considering whether it’s taking a loss or not because it’s not a separate trade. And, therefore, from this point of view, the decision to switch is obvious and easy. Of course, I’m not talking about some possible tax implications that might apply (long-term vs. short-term trades can be taxed differently in some jurisdictions), just about the psychological ones. I’m personally leaning toward the switching option.
On a side note, if this relatively small move higher in silver and lower in HZD caused what you personally viewed as a “substantial loss”, you might want to consider using smaller position sizes for the following trades.
Q: I would appreciate a discussion of these change from inverse silver to inverse gold miners in the flagship alert. I was already concerned on Friday when I saw that gold rose and then dropped back down again, while silver also rose but then did not retrace the entire move. I feel you should say something more to the people who rely on your information and expertise.
[A: I would love to help, but if you’d like me to clarify something more than I already did, I would appreciate a specific question so that I can indeed say more about what you find unclear or lacking justification. I wrote several paragraphs below the GDXJ:SLV ratio chart, and I hope that you found them useful.]
The email which describes the shifting relationship between gold and silver and suggests that now might be a good time to get out of ZSL also has this language:
“For-your-information targets (our opinion; we continue to think that mining stocks are the preferred way of taking advantage of the upcoming price move, but if for whatever reason one wants / has to use silver or gold for this trade, we are providing the details anyway.):ZSL profit-take exit price: $41.38
Gold futures downside profit-take exit price: $1,683”
This is very unclear.
[A: That’s exactly the same kind of language and format of providing trading summaries I’ve been using for many months, so I’m not sure what it was about that message that you found unclear. You are correct in saying that I think now is a good time to get out of ZSL (and out of shorting silver) and get back to shorting junior mining stocks. In other words, I’m reversing the recent switch from shorting junior miners to shorting silver.]
I guess that you are talking about two different time frames and suggesting we may make the switch from gold miners to silver again during the extended downtrend in precious metals.
[A: In the quoted fragment, I’m talking about the current trade. There are people who for whatever reason will prefer to stick to silver or wanted to trade silver or gold all along instead of participating in the junior miners’ trade. I’m providing these targets for those people as a courtesy. I continue to think that a short position in the junior mining stocks is the optimal way of shorting the precious metals sector in the short run. However, you are correct when you write that I expect to make the switch from junior miners to silver once again in the future – I don’t know exactly when that’s going to happen, though. Most likely when miners decline substantially, while silver doesn’t.]
It looks like you included your standard language in this email without making it clear that you are talking about two different things, a short-term move and a much longer-term move. This is the sort of thing that could be clarified in the flagship alert. I do appreciate your work, and I am learning a great deal from you.
A: I truly hope my above comments helped to clarify my position. If not, please let me know, ideally with specific questions, and I’ll be happy to explain it further.
Summary
To summarize, the outlook for the precious metals sector remains extremely bearish for the next few months. Since it seems that the PMs are starting another short-term move lower more than it seems that they are continuing their bigger decline, I think that junior miners would be likely to (at least initially) decline more than silver. Consequently, I’m closing the short position in silver, and I’m re-opening the short position in junior miners.
Since juniors have rallied more than silver recently, the recent switch helped us get an extra percent on this trade. Of course, exiting the short position at the short-term bottom and re-entering it now would have been better in dollar terms, but given the enormous strength of the downtrend, exiting the short position completely would have been too risky, in my view. So, it seems that we actually made the most of this corrective upswing from the risk to reward point of view, as we never risked missing out on the big downswing if it had happened, and we saved some capital anyway. And now we can move back to the asset that rallied more and is likely to decline more in the short term.
From the medium-term point of view, the key two long-term factors remain the analogy to 2013 in gold and the broad head and shoulders pattern in the HUI Index. They both suggest much lower prices ahead.
It seems that our profits from the short positions are going to become truly epic in the following months.
After the sell-off (that takes gold to about $1,350 - $1,500), I expect the precious metals to rally significantly. The final part of the decline might take as little as 1-5 weeks, so it's important to stay alert to any changes.
Most importantly, please stay healthy and safe. We made a lot of money last March and this March, and it seems that we’re about to make much more on the upcoming decline, but you have to be healthy to enjoy the results.
As always, we'll keep you - our subscribers - informed.
By the way, we’re currently providing you with the possibility to extend your subscription by a year, two years or even three years with a special 20% discount. This discount can be applied right away, without the need to wait for your next renewal – if you choose to secure your premium access and complete the payment upfront. The boring time in the PMs is definitely over, and the time to pay close attention to the market is here. Naturally, it’s your capital, and the choice is up to you, but it seems that it might be a good idea to secure more premium access now while saving 20% at the same time. Our support team will be happy to assist you in the above-described upgrade at preferential terms – if you’d like to proceed, please contact us.
To summarize:
Trading capital (supplementary part of the portfolio; our opinion): Full speculative short positions (300% of the full position) in junior mining stocks are justified from the risk to reward point of view with the following binding exit profit-take price levels:
Mining stocks (price levels for the GDXJ ETF): binding profit-take exit price: $35.73; stop-loss: none (the volatility is too big to justify a stop-loss order in case of this particular trade)
Alternatively, if one seeks leverage, we’re providing the binding profit-take levels for the JDST (2x leveraged) and GDXD (3x leveraged – which is not suggested for most traders/investors due to the significant leverage). The binding profit-take level for the JDST: $16.18; stop-loss for the JDST: none (the volatility is too big to justify a SL order in case of this particular trade); binding profit-take level for the GDXD: $32.08; stop-loss for the GDXD: none (the volatility is too big to justify a SL order in case of this particular trade).
For-your-information targets (our opinion; we continue to think that mining stocks are the preferred way of taking advantage of the upcoming price move, but if for whatever reason one wants / has to use silver or gold for this trade, we are providing the details anyway.):
Silver futures downside profit-take exit price: $19.12
SLV profit-take exit price: $17.72
ZSL profit-take exit price: $41.38
Gold futures downside profit-take exit price: $1,683
HGD.TO – alternative (Canadian) inverse 2x leveraged gold stocks ETF – the upside profit-take exit price: $12.48
Long-term capital (core part of the portfolio; our opinion): No positions (in other words: cash
Insurance capital (core part of the portfolio; our opinion): Full position
Whether you already subscribed or not, we encourage you to find out how to make the most of our alerts and read our replies to the most common alert-and-gold-trading-related-questions.
Please note that we describe the situation for the day that the alert is posted in the trading section. In other words, if we are writing about a speculative position, it means that it is up-to-date on the day it was posted. We are also featuring the initial target prices to decide whether keeping a position on a given day is in tune with your approach (some moves are too small for medium-term traders, and some might appear too big for day-traders).
Additionally, you might want to read why our stop-loss orders are usually relatively far from the current price.
Please note that a full position doesn't mean using all of the capital for a given trade. You will find details on our thoughts on gold portfolio structuring in the Key Insights section on our website.
As a reminder - "initial target price" means exactly that - an "initial" one. It's not a price level at which we suggest closing positions. If this becomes the case (like it did in the previous trade), we will refer to these levels as levels of exit orders (exactly as we've done previously). Stop-loss levels, however, are naturally not "initial", but something that, in our opinion, might be entered as an order.
Since it is impossible to synchronize target prices and stop-loss levels for all the ETFs and ETNs with the main markets that we provide these levels for (gold, silver and mining stocks - the GDX ETF), the stop-loss levels and target prices for other ETNs and ETF (among other: UGL, GLL, AGQ, ZSL, NUGT, DUST, JNUG, JDST) are provided as supplementary, and not as "final". This means that if a stop-loss or a target level is reached for any of the "additional instruments" (GLL for instance), but not for the "main instrument" (gold in this case), we will view positions in both gold and GLL as still open and the stop-loss for GLL would have to be moved lower. On the other hand, if gold moves to a stop-loss level but GLL doesn't, then we will view both positions (in gold and GLL) as closed. In other words, since it's not possible to be 100% certain that each related instrument moves to a given level when the underlying instrument does, we can't provide levels that would be binding. The levels that we do provide are our best estimate of the levels that will correspond to the levels in the underlying assets, but it will be the underlying assets that one will need to focus on regarding the signs pointing to closing a given position or keeping it open. We might adjust the levels in the "additional instruments" without adjusting the levels in the "main instruments", which will simply mean that we have improved our estimation of these levels, not that we changed our outlook on the markets. We are already working on a tool that would update these levels daily for the most popular ETFs, ETNs and individual mining stocks.
Our preferred ways to invest in and to trade gold along with the reasoning can be found in the how to buy gold section. Furthermore, our preferred ETFs and ETNs can be found in our Gold & Silver ETF Ranking.
As a reminder, Gold & Silver Trading Alerts are posted before or on each trading day (we usually post them before the opening bell, but we don't promise doing that each day). If there's anything urgent, we will send you an additional small alert before posting the main one.
Thank you.
Przemyslaw Radomski, CFA
Founder, Editor-in-chief
