Briefly: In our opinion, speculative short positions (full) in gold, silver and mining stocks are justified from the risk/reward point of view.
Gold and mining stocks rallied yesterday and GDX even managed to move to new highs. Gold retraced some of the upswing, but it still closed the session $22 higher (even though the USD Index didn’t decline). There are some important implications of what happened yesterday and in today’s alert we discuss the details.
It may appear surprising (especially given gold’s rally despite a pause in the USD Index), but yesterday’s session actually has bearish implications. In yesterday’s second alert, we wrote the following:
If it turns out that today’s volume is relatively low (compared to the previous days), the implications of today’s move higher might actually be bearish. We will not have meaningful volume data until the session is over, though. We’ll let you know our thoughts on the above in tomorrow’s alert.
The volume was indeed low: in gold, silver and mining stocks. Silver didn’t do much (closing only 11 cents higher), but gold and miners moved much higher and the fact that the volume was low is significantly bearish. To be precise, the volume was not tiny in absolute terms, but it was relatively low compared to what had happened in the previous days and it was very low when we take into account the sizes of rallies. Such big rallies should be accompanied by significant volume and average levels could even be viewed as a bearish sign – and it was not average, but relatively low.
Let’s take a look at the details (charts courtesy of http://stockcharts.com).
In Wednesday’s alert we commented on the above chart in the following way:
(…) In other words, this is an indication that we should be considering doubling the size of the short position, but this signal is not bearish enough to really justify such action. We could also see a move to $1,236 (61.8% retracement) and it would also not change anything in the current outlook. What we would like to see is for instance a major daily reversal on strong volume or – even better – a move higher on weak volume. At this time it’s too unclear to double the position, but clear enough to keep the half of it (in the case of gold and silver) intact.
We have just seen exactly that – a move higher on weak volume, which serves as a bearish confirmation.
Moving back to the 61.8% Fibonacci retracement – practically all recent major upswings have ended in this way: the initial top, then a sharp decline and then a corrective – and usually very temporary – upswing to or slightly above the 61.8% Fibonacci retracement. We marked the similar cases on the above chart. What’s next? The decline is likely to resume.
The “bullish” factor that we would like to address is the fact that yesterday’s rally took place along without a decline in the USD Index, which normally implies strength of the gold market. However, we are right after a major upswing and then a sharp downswing and it’s critical to see what happened in previous such cases. Did gold get a boost from the declining USD to correct to the above-mentioned 61.8% retracement? Let’s take a look at the gold chart once again – this time with the USD Index plotted on it.
In all 3 cases that we marked on the above chart (the ones that we plotted the Fibonacci retracements for) the corrective upswing in gold materialized without a decline in the USD Index. Even in early 2015 – the upswing in gold took place on the day when the USD did more or less nothing – it declined relatively shortly thereafter, but on the day that gold rallied sharply, it didn’t do much, if anything.
Consequently, the fact that gold rallied yesterday without a decline in the USD Index is not a bullish divergence – it’s the normal way in which gold corrects after the initial sharp slide. Therefore, it is not currently bullish that gold rallied without the USD’s help.
As mentioned above, silver didn’t do much, so let’s move on to what happened in mining stocks.
The GDX ETF rallied significantly and closed a little above the previous high. What’s the problem with this breakout? Everything – it’s not significant, it was not accompanied by significant volume and it was not accompanied by an analogous breakout in the HUI Index. Conversely, the volume was relatively low. It was not as tiny as what we had seen in late December 2016, but comparing the rally to a similar (with regard to size) decline that we saw on Tuesday shows that the volume was indeed much lower yesterday.
The mentioned factors are enough to make the outlook much more bearish than it was in the previous days, but there’s also one additional factor. While the volume was not big in the precious metals sector, it appears that a very significant amount of individual investors bought yesterday (or at least was very interested in the precious metals sector). How can we know that? Well, we can’t know for sure without tracking all orders, but we think there is a quite good proxy to see what the current “hot” investment among the investment public is.
The homepage of stockcharts.com provides a tag cloud where tags are symbols of stocks, ETFs and ETNs that have been most popular recently. Guess what – the most popular symbols are related to the precious metals sector: GLD, GDX, NUGT, and even GDXJ and ABX.
If metals and miners got so popular among individual investors, then why was the volume not huge? Because it was so extremely popular only among small investors – the general public – and not among the most wealthy and institutional investors (on average, of course, there are exceptions in both cases). This is what happens at tops and therefore, the combination of the level of volume and the popularity of precious-metals-related symbols has bearish implications and serves as another bearish confirmation.
Summing up, it’s likely that precious metals are starting a big decline here, and the short-term outlook deteriorated based on yesterday’s price-volume action and other factors and it seems that the risk to reward ratio has now moved to the level that once again justifies having a full speculative position open in gold, silver and mining stocks. This implies doubling the size of the position in the case of gold and silver (as the position in the mining stocks had already been full previously).
As always, we will keep you – our subscribers – updated.
To summarize:
Trading capital (our opinion): Short positions (full) in gold, silver and mining stocks are justified from the risk/reward perspective with the following stop-loss orders and initial target price levels:
- Gold: initial target price: $973; stop-loss: $1,274, initial target price for the DGLD ETN: $94.27; stop-loss for the DGLD ETN $52.44
- Silver: initial target price: $12.13; stop-loss: $16.14, initial target price for the DSLV ETN: $77.53; stop-loss for DSLV ETN $42.69
- Mining stocks (price levels for the GDX ETF): initial target price: $9.34; stop-loss: $19.63, initial target price for the DUST ETF: $17.31; stop-loss for the DUST ETF $4.14
In case one wants to bet on junior mining stocks' prices (we do not suggest doing so – we think senior mining stocks are more predictable in the case of short-term trades – if one wants to do it anyway, we provide the details), here are the stop-loss details and initial target prices:
- GDXJ ETF: initial target price: $14.13; stop-loss: $26.53
- JDST ETF: initial target price: $36.46; stop-loss: $8.34
Long-term capital (our opinion): No positions
Insurance capital (our opinion): Full position
Plus, 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: UGLD, DGLD, USLV, DSLV, 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” (DGLD for instance), but not for the “main instrument” (gold in this case), we will view positions in both gold and DGLD as still open and the stop-loss for DGLD would have to be moved lower. On the other hand, if gold moves to a stop-loss level but DGLD doesn’t, then we will view both positions (in gold and DGLD) 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 sings 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 on a daily basis 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. Additionally, our preferred ETFs and ETNs can be found in our Gold & Silver ETF Ranking.
As always, we'll keep you - our subscribers - updated should our views on the market change. We will continue to send out Gold & Silver Trading Alerts on each trading day and we will send additional Alerts whenever appropriate.
The trading position presented above is the netted version of positions based on subjective signals (opinion) from your Editor, and the Tools and Indicators.
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.
=====
Latest Free Trading Alerts:
There might be some legal and practical problems associated with the introduction of NIRP. What does it mean for the Fed’s policy and the gold market?
Can Fed Introduce NIRP? Implications for Gold
Many gold investors believe that precious metals are systematically suppressed by the commercial banks creating tons of paper gold. We invite you to read our today’s article on the divergence between the paper and physical price of gold, find out whether such discrepancy really exists, and draw proper investment conclusions.
Is the Gold Price Manipulated? Part III
=====
Hand-picked precious-metals-related links:
Gold Bulls Feast as More Central Banks Drive Rates Below Zero
INFOGRAPHIC: Currency and the collapse of the Roman Empire
=====
In other news:
Once Upon a Time, There Came a Negative Interest Rate...
Federal Reserve playing with fire on bank capital
China leads global U.S. debt dump
China’s Foreign Exchange Reserves Dwindling Rapidly
Tough road for Venezuela after dire data, inadequate measures
=====
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Przemyslaw Radomski, CFA
Founder, Editor-in-chief
Gold & Silver Trading Alerts
Forex Trading Alerts
Oil Investment Updates
Oil Trading Alerts
