Briefly: in our opinion, full (300% of the regular position size) speculative short positions in mining stocks are justified from the risk/reward point of view at the moment of publishing this Alert.
In yesterday’s analysis, I wrote that the market situation is likely to become more specific right before, during, and perhaps shortly after the U.S. presidential elections. And by “specific”, I mean that the markets could begin moving against their previous trends.
That’s precisely what we’re witnessing right now.
Yesterday, I commented on the chart above in the following manner:
(…)
In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a corrective move lower that would trigger a brief move higher in the precious metals and mining stocks. However, that would only be temporary, and not likely to last more than several days.
That’s what we see right now – it’s not a game-changer, but instead, it’s a relatively normal uncertainty-based phenomenon.
Gold is moving higher, but not dramatically so. This is in perfect tune with yesterday’s comments.
And what about gold miners?
Miners rallied – which is also in tune with what I wrote previously in my analyses. On Thursday, after gold had declined significantly (on Wednesday), I’ve indicated the following:
Miners have been undermining gold, which is bearish, and they have also broken below the recent lows, which is also bearish. Moreover, miners have just declined on strong volume after opening the day with a price gap, which at first sight, is bearish.
The theory is that such sessions are particularly bearish, as they supposedly show the bears' strength. But, before applying any trading tip into practice, it’s important to check if it had indeed worked on a given market, especially in the recent past. And the aforementioned did work… In the opposite way!
For the third time, miners are declining substantially during one day on a strong volume. We saw the same thing happening in mid-August and late-September. None of them were followed by lower miner prices. Instead, we’ve witnessed corrective upswings that didn’t change the overall downtrend.
So, from here on in, will miners rally or decline? Overall, the very near term (until the elections in the U.S. and a day-two after that) is unclear. At this point, a temporary rebound here would not surprise me at all, and if we see one, I expect it to be followed by a major slide. That’s precisely what happened right before and after the elections in 2016.
The summary above remains 100% up-to-date. Miners moved a bit higher, and given today’s pre-market upswing in gold, they might also rally during today’s session. Still, the aforementioned is likely nothing more than a pre-election uncertainty that drives the prices and will most probably subside shortly.
Finally, let’s look at how gold performed after the previous U.S. presidential elections in 2016.
It turns out that on average (the thick red line is the average) based on the elections, nothing really happened. However, if we look at the individual price paths, it is evident that gold reversed its course on election day in 2008 and 2004. The link to 2004 and 2008 might not be as important, due to the fundamental similarities in both years including massive stock price plunges, and precious metals.
Furthermore, since the chart above is based on closing prices only, it misses one major point – the huge 2016 intraday (actually, overnight) reversal, when gold moved over $50 higher only, to slide shortly thereafter.
So, what does all the above mean for gold? Well, it means that my previous comments are completely justified and legitimate. The trend (which right now is down in the short term) is likely to remain intact. But, a counter-trend pop-up is quite possible, and if it is visible, we shouldn’t attribute any major implications to it.
Letters to the Editor
Q: I like your analyses and have followed you for nearly two years now and appreciate your honesty and integrity.
It’s interesting that right now there are conflicting signals between the USDX looking poised for a major breakout to the upside, while the GDX stochastic graph appears to show a readiness to correct to the upside—within an overall downward trend.
My question is: are these two signals—the U.S. dollar index, and GDX stochastics—reconcilable, or is there something else going on?
A: Thank you for the kind words – much appreciated. I think that this has a lot to do with the current uncertainty in the marketplace, mostly predicated on the U.S. presidential elections. PMs and miners tend to move up right before a major announcement (even if it’s “just” about the interest rates) only because of the unknown. And now, there’s quite a significant uncertainty for markets to digest. After all, four years ago, it became clear that the pre-election polls are not as useful as they were expected to be.
Moreover, please note that the USD Index breakout is of a medium-term nature (the most important one), and the bullish indications for the GDX ETF are of a short-term nature. Consequently, it seems quite likely that after a brief pop-up higher, as the USDX continues to rally, miners will decline.
Overview of the Upcoming Decline
As far as the current overview of the upcoming decline is concerned, I think it has already begun.
During the final part of the slide (which could end later than in 6 weeks, perhaps near the end of the year – just like it happened in 2015), we expect silver to decline more than miners. That would align with how the markets initially reacted to the Covid-19 threat.
The impact of all the new rounds of money printing in the U.S. and Europe on the precious metals prices is incredibly positive in the long run, which does not make the short-term decline improbable. Markets can and will get ahead of themselves and decline afterward – sometimes very profoundly – before continuing with their upward climb.
The plan is to exit the current positions in miners after they decline far and fast, but at the same time, silver drops just “significantly” (we expect this to happen in 0 – 5 weeks). In other words, the decline in silver should be severe, but the decline in the miners should look “ridiculous”. That’s what we did in March when we bought practically right at the bottom. It is a soft, but at the same time, a broad instruction, so additional confirmations are necessary.
I expect this confirmation to come from gold, reaching about $1,800. If – at the same time – gold moves to about $1,800 and miners are already after a ridiculously big drop (say, to $31 - $32 in the GDX ETF – or lower), we will probably exit the short positions in the miners and at the same time enter short positions in silver. It will be tempting to wait with opening the short position in silver until the entire sector rebounds, but such a rebound could last only a couple of hours, so it would be challenging to successfully execute such a strategy.
The precious metals market's final bottom is likely to take shape when gold shows significant strength relative to the USD Index. It could take the form of a gold’s rally or a bullish reversal, despite the ongoing USD Index rally.
Summary
Summing up, the next big move in the precious metals market is likely to be to the downside (as further indicated by action in crude oil), but how metals’, miners’ and the USD Index are behaving right now as well as the analogy to 2016 (previous presidential elections in the U.S.) suggest that we might see one final pop up higher in the next few days before the slide gains momentum.
Considering gold's breakout invalidation above the 2011 highs, it's evident that the big rally (that ended $4 above our upside target) is entirely over. Given this invalidation and the confirmed USD Index breakout, gold will probably slide much lower over the next few weeks. There are indications that the corrective upswing in the precious metals market and the pullback in the USDX are close to being over. Thus, the decline could resume any day – or hour – now.
Naturally, everyone's trading is their responsibility. But in our opinion, if there ever was a time to either enter a short position in the miners or increase its size if it was not already sizable, it's now. We made money on the March decline, and on the March rebound, with another massive slide already underway.
After the sell-off (that takes gold to about $1,700 or lower), we expect the precious metals to rally significantly. The final decline might take as little as 1-6 weeks, so it's important to stay alert to any changes.
Most importantly, please stay healthy and safe. We made a lot of money on the March decline and the subsequent rebound (its initial part) price moves (and we'll likely earn much more in the following weeks and months), but you have to be healthy to enjoy the results.
As always, we'll keep you - our subscribers - informed.
To summarize:
Trading capital (supplementary part of the portfolio; our opinion): Full speculative short positions (300% of the full position) in mining stocks is justified from the risk to reward point of view with the following binding exit profit-take price levels:
Senior mining stocks (price levels for the GDX ETF): binding profit-take exit price: $32.02; stop-loss: none (the volatility is too big to justify a SL order in case of this particular trade); binding profit-take level for the DUST ETF: $28.73; stop-loss for the DUST ETF: none (the volatility is too big to justify a SL order in case of this particular trade)
Junior mining stocks (price levels for the GDXJ ETF): binding profit-take exit price: $42.72; stop-loss: none (the volatility is too big to justify a SL order in case of this particular trade); binding profit-take level for the JDST ETF: $21.22; stop-loss for the JDST ETF: 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. In our view, silver has greater potential than gold does):
Silver futures downside profit-take exit price: unclear at this time - initially, it might be a good idea to exit, when gold moves to $1,703.
Gold futures downside profit-take exit price: $1,703
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: 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 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.
Sincerely,
Przemyslaw Radomski, CFA
Editor-in-chief, Gold & Silver Fund Manager
