Please Join Jay Taylor as he interviews professional commodities trader Michael Oliver why were moving higher in gold and what to look for even as the dollar also moves up.
Michael Oliver entered the financial services industry in 1975 on the Futures side, joining E.F. Hutton’s International Commodity Division, NYC. He studied under David Johnson, head of Hutton’s Commodity Division and Chairman of the COMEX. In the 1980’s Oliver began to develop his own momentum-based method of technical analysis. In 1987 Oliver, along with his futures client accounts (Oliver had trading POA) technically anticipated and captured the Crash. Oliver began to realize that his emergent momentum-structural-based tools should be further developed into a full analytic methodology. In 1992 he was asked by the Financial VP and head of Wachovia Bank’s Trust Department to provide soft dollar research to Wachovia. Within a year Oliver shifted from brokerage to full-time technical research. MSA has provided its proprietary technical research services to financial and asset management clients continually since 1992. Oliver is the author of The New Libertarianism: Anarcho-Capitalism. Oliver is the author of The New Libertarianism: Anarcho-Capitalism.
Offering random people a free 1/10 ounce gold coin (worth around $140.00) or a free Snickers bar, this social experiment explores what the average person knows about the value of precious metals.
In this Interview Cris Sheridan of Financial Sense talks with one of the leading global precious metal expert's Jeff Christian of the CPM Group
Jeff goes on to tell us that gold will move sideways to higher in the first half of 2016 and then the second half of the year, once the people understand what the Trump administration means to the U.S. economy gold will move sharply higher.
As the world's elite gather in Davos to decide for the minions what the world should look like, The IMF has taken a far dimmer view of global (and by that we mean Trumpian) economic growth than markets appear to be. In addition to slashing Brazilian, Mexican, and Saudi Arabian economic growth forecasts, Lagarde's lackeys are taking a cautious stance toward the policies of U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, who takes office this week, assuming only a modest boost to the U.S. economy from his promise of fiscal stimulus.
As Bloomberg reports, The IMF maintained its forecast for global growth in 2017 of 3.4 percent, the Washington-based organization said Monday in a quarterly update to its World Economic Outlook. Expansion for 2018 is forecast at 3.6 percent, also unchanged from the fund’s previous forecast in October.
After a lackluster outturn in 2016, economic activity is projected to pick up pace in 2017 and 2018, especially in emerging market and developing economies. However, there is a wide dispersion of possible outcomes around the projections, given uncertainty surrounding the policy stance of the incoming U.S. administration and its global ramifications. The assumptions underpinning the forecast should be more specific by the time of the April 2017 World Economic Outlook, as more clarity emerges on U.S. policies and their implications for the global economy.
With these caveats, aggregate growth estimates and projections for 2016–18 remain unchanged relative to the October 2016 World Economic Outlook. The outlook for advanced economies has improved for 2017–18, reflecting somewhat stronger activity in the second half of 2016 as well as a projected fiscal stimulus in the United States. Growth prospects have marginally worsened for emerging market and developing economies, where financial conditions have generally tightened. Near-term growth prospects were revised up for China, due to expected policy stimulus, but were revised down for a number of other large economies—most notably India, Brazil, and Mexico.
While the balance of risks is viewed as being to the downside, there are also upside risks to near-term growth. Specifically, global activity could accelerate more strongly if policy stimulus turns out to be larger than currently projected in the United States or China. Notable negative risks to activity include a possible shift toward inward-looking policy platforms and protectionism, a sharper than expected tightening in global financial conditions that could interact with balance sheet weaknesses in parts of the euro area and in some emerging market economies, increased geopolitical tensions, and a more severe slowdown in China.
In a welcome move to Brexiters the IMF hiked its outlook on UK growth, saying "domestic demand held up better than expected in the aftermath of the Brexit vote", but warned that while it was upgrading its outlook on China GDP, it warned that China's "sugar-rush" growth presents risks to future stability.
The growth forecast for 2017 was revised up for China (to 6.5 percent, 0.3 percentage point above the October forecast) on expectations of continued policy support. However, continued reliance on policy stimulus measures, with rapid expansion of credit and slow progress in addressing corporate debt, especially in hardening the budget constraints of state-owned enterprises, raises the risk of a sharper slowdown or a disruptive adjustment. These risks can be exacerbated by capital outflow pressures, especially in a more unsettled external environment.
After a stellar start in 2016 investors saw their gold holdings get hammered into the end of the year. But the gold bull market may see a resurgence in 2017 after President Trump takes office later this month.
As Future Money Trends highlights in the following video, there are a number of factors that will contribute to its next big move forward, including one particular indicator that has been so accurate in the past it’s impossible to ignore:
The reality is there is only one single indicator that has always pointed to the rise of gold… one that is a screaming indicator to buy or sell gold… the last time this indicator was this bullish for gold it surged from $175 per ounce to $850 in less than two years… that’s a 485% increase… A move that at today’s prices would take gold over $6,000 per ounce by 2019.
Following yesterday's 'panic' among mexican officials that Trump has considerably more leverage than the elites believed, the peso is soaring suddenly this morning as Banxico intervention took place. At the same time, following comments from official reserachers in China on capital controls and crackdown on 'virtual' outflows, Bitcoin is getting hammered - biggest drop in 2 years.
Initially it was speculation but now Bloomberg confirms a comment from the central bank:
*BANXICO IS INTERVENING IN THE MARKET, CENTRAL BANK GARCIA SAYS
Something just snapped...
This is the biggest drop in Bitcoin in 2 years and biggest rise in the peso since 11/15.
A “trust-building” measure after an enormous hullabaloo.
“In 2016, we brought back again substantially more gold to Germany than initially planned; by now, nearly half of the gold reserves are in Germany,” Bundesbank President Jens Weidmann told the German tabloid Bild in what has become an annual Christmas interview about gold – to soothe the nerves of his compatriots.
Because they’d been frazzled, apparently, by this whole saga.
The German Bundesbank, which is in charge of managing Germany’s gold hoard of 3,381 tons, the second largest in the world behind the US, got into hot water in 2012 when rumors were circulating that some or much of its 2,000 tons of gold stored in New York, London, and Paris might not be there anymore, that it might have been melted down, leased, or sold.
The ensuing hullabaloo left some folks at the Bundesbank red-faced. Then the Rechnungshof (the federal government’s independent office of financial control) told the Bundesbank to rethink its overseas gold hoard. So the Bundesbank got to work. And in January 2013, it promised that by 2020 it would bring back all 374 tons of its gold that it kept at the Banque de France in Paris and 300 tons of its gold at the New York Fed.
Bundesbank Executive Board member Carl-Ludwig Thiele told the German daily Handelsblatt at the time that these moves were a “trust-building” measure, and he tried vigorously to put the rumors about the missing gold to rest.
It was the end of the big year with three zeroes. The first X-Men movie had broken box office records. You couldn’t set foot in a supermarket without listening to Brittney Spears caterwauling, “Oops, I Did It Again.” And Republicans and Democrats had total control of both chambers of legislatures in the same amount of states. That was the way it was back in the distant days of the year 2000.
In 2016, Republicans control both legislative chambers in 32 states. That’s up from 16 in 2000.
What happened to the big donkey? Among other things, the Democrats decided to sell their base and their soul to a very bad billionaire and they got a very bad deal for both.
It was 2004. The poncho was the hottest fashion trend, there were 5 million new cases of AIDS and a former Nazi collaborator had bought the Democratic Party using the spare change in his sofa cushions.
And gone to war against the will of the people. This was what he modestly called his own “Soros Doctrine”.
“It is the central focus of my life,” George Soros declared. It was “a matter of life and death.” He vowed that he would become poor if it meant defeating the President of the United States.
Instead of going to the poorhouse, he threw in at least $15 million, all the spare change in the billionaire’s sofa cushions, dedicated to beating President Bush.
In his best lisping James Bond villain accent, Soros strode into the National Press Club and declared that he had “an important message to deliver to the American Public before the election” that was contained in a pamphlet and a book that he waved in front of the camera. Despite his “I expect you to die, Mr. Bond” voice, the international villain’s delivery was underwhelming. He couldn’t have sold brownies to potheads at four in the morning. He couldn’t even sell Bush-bashing to a roomful of left-wing reporters.
But he could certainly fund those who would. And that’s exactly what he did.
Money poured into the fringe organizations of the left like MoveOn, which had moved on from a petition site to a PAC. In 2004, Soros was its biggest donor. He didn’t manage to bring down Bush, but he helped buy the Democratic Party as a toy for his yowling dorm room of left-wing activists to play with.
Soros hasn’t had a great track record at buying presidential elections. The official $25 million he poured into this one bought him his worst defeat since 2004. But his money did transform the Democrat Party.
And killed it.
Next year the Democracy Alliance was born. A muddy river of cash from Soros and his pals flowed into the organizations of the left. Soros had helped turn Howard Dean, a Vermont politician once as obscure as this cycle’s radical Vermont Socialist, into a contender and a national figure. Dean didn’t get the nomination, but he did get to remake the DNC. Podesta’s Center for American Progress swung the Democrats even further to the left. And it would be Podesta who helped bring Hillary down.
The Democrats became a radical left-wing organization and unviable as a national political party. The Party of Jefferson had become the Party of Soros. And only one of those was up on Mount Rushmore.
Obama’s wins concealed the scale and scope of the disaster. Then the party woke up after Obama to realize that it had lost its old bases in the South and the Rust Belt. The left had hollowed it out and transformed it into a party of coastal urban elites, angry college crybullies and minority coalitions.
Republicans control twice as many state legislative chambers as the Democrats. They boast 25 trifectas , controlling both legislative chambers and the governor’s mansion. Trifectas had gone from being something that wasn’t seen much outside of a few hard red states like Texas to covering much of the South, the Midwest and the West.
The Democrats have a solid lock on the West Coast and a narrow corridor of the Northeast, and little else. The vast majority of the country’s legislatures are in Republican hands. The Democrat Governor’s Association has a membership in the teens. In former strongholds like Arkansas, Dems are going extinct. The party has gone from holding national legislative majorities to becoming a marginal movement.
And the Democrats don’t intend to change course. The way is being cleared for Keith Ellison, the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus with an ugly racist past, to head the DNC. Pelosi will oversee the disaster in the House. And Obama will remain the party’s highest profile national figure.
There could hardly be a clearer signal that the left intends to retain its donkey herding rights. Soros and his ilk have paid for the reins. That is why Pelosi, with her access to donors, will retain her position.
The left had recreated the Democrat Party and marginalized it. Much of this disaster had been funded with Soros money. Like many a theatrical villain, the old monster had been undone by his own hubris. Had Soros aided the Democrats without trying to control them, he would have gained a seat at the table in a national party. Instead he spent a fortune destroying the very thing he was trying to control.
George Soros saw America in terms of its centers of economic and political power. He didn’t care about the vast stretches of small towns and villages, of the more modest cities that he might fly over in his jet but never visit, and the people who lived in them. Like so many globalists who believe that borders shouldn’t exist because the luxury hotels and airports they pass through are interchangeable, the parts of America that mattered to him were in the glittering left-wing bubble inhabited by his fellow elitists.
Trump’s victory, like Brexit, came because the left had left the white working class behind. Its vision of the future as glamorous multicultural city states was overturned in a single night. The idea that Soros had committed so much power and wealth to wasof a struggle between populist nationalists and responsible internationalists. But, in a great irony, Bush was hardly the nationalist that Soros believed. Instead Soros spent a great deal of time and wealth to unintentionally elect a populist nationalist.
Leftists used Soros money to focus on their own identity politics obsessions leaving the Dems with little ability to interact with white working class voters. The Ivy and urban leftists who made up the core of the left had come to exist in a narrow world with little room for anything and anyone else.
Soros turned over the Democrats to political fanatics least likely to be able to recognize their own errors. His protégés repeated the great self-destruction of the Soviet Union on a more limited scale
Soros fed a political polarization while assuming, wrongly, that the centers of power mattered, and their outskirts did not. He was proven wrong in both the United States of America and in the United Kingdom. He had made many gambles that paid off. But his biggest gamble took everything with it.
"I don’t believe in standing in the way of an avalanche," Soros complained of the Republican wave in 2010.
But he has been trying to do just that. And failing.
