Interesting question, isn't it? Why is Sprott so concerned about the shareholders of a competing fund?
My concern with redemption is that anyone with enough dough can buy shares en masse, and then pull the physical bullion. To allow that to happen in an environment where a) the market price has the appearance of having been deliberately suppressed, and b) a physical shortage is suspected and purveyors of shorts would love to have a ready supply of cheap physical to lay their hands on, all seems bad management to me.
If the market price were "fair", and pulling physical from a fund was a non-event next to the price setting activity of mining producers and consumers, then I would have no issue with redemption. People should have access to what they own.
But the special allure of the CEF to me all along has been that it *can't* be raided at low prices by deep pockets who in all likelihood were actively working to aid the price lower in the first place.
Do a 5yr chart of FAX vs the dollar (I use UUP as a chartable proxy for the USD).
While it isn't a 1:1 inverse, by and large when the USD gets strong, FAX has price issues. (The rational for this escapes me; FAX doesn't have currency conversion issues with its distribution).
The relationship is pretty true everywhere except the summer of 2013, when FAX took a major multi-month dumping at the same time as a modest drop in the USD. My suspicion is that FAX was then being used as a money market surrogate for big trading money (hedge funds, private equity). And the rumors of a pending crash (not just a decline) in the $USD rose to the point where a lot of money tried to exit FAX at once, and the reputation of FAX among the big money player took a serious hit from which it is still trying to recover.
The $USD weakness did sort of materialize (see the protracted weakish bowl trough starting in summer 2013 and running to a low in the summer of 2015), but there are forces at play that seem to insist the dollar cannot be allowed serious declines at times, and the anticipated crash never happened.
Given the current cliff teetering of the EUR, the main counter-component in USD valuation, we may not see new USD weekness until some serious crises arises that is so bad the safe haven gets black and blue too. The only good news on FAX is that the dividend holds constant, so if you are re-investing at least new shares accumulate at about an 8% annualized rate.
Looks like it was a cut & paste from here: (dots etc spelled to dodge the yahoo link eater):
I bought more too. Brings my DCA up to $3.77. Remember things under $1.90 back in '08?
I've been running a who's gonna win big competition in my portfolio; exk vs my largest holding. Red heads as you mentioned. But this purchase puts them a bit closer in size; sort of evens the starting line for them both.
I'm ready for a race.
I've read that over 70% of all mined Ag comes from mining companies going after *other* ores: copper, moly, gold etc. For those producers, the money they get from Ag is a bonus; thus they don't care what the spot is, don't ever push to end the paper games hijinks, etc. If you look you'll find very few pure Ag miners; it's very hard to do it as a primary biz. Even they will often fudge their cost-per-oz claims in their favor through selling other ores that come up with the Ag.
When the cost of *other* commodities falls below production costs, *then* you'd expect to see a rapid decline in the supply of Ag, because then 70% of the producers might start idling their real production.
GGN makes "income" by selling covered calls (insurance that is valuable if there is a rapid price rise). Most of the time, the insurance expires worthless and GGN gets to pocket the money paid.
Should there be a "ballistic" spike in PMs or resources, GGN will likely be hurt by the event. They will then have many of their covered calls exercised; providing them a modest profit, but taking them out of now hot positions with a challenge of how to buy back in.
Point is: ballistic is maybe the worst market condition for GGN, terminal innui (flatline boredom) being maybe the 2nd. Best of all conditions is a market that seems sure to bust loose, but never does, but has a upward bias.
1) Bought NRGY in 2010. Small stake, but it paid me $120 per quarter.
2) SPH spun off in fall 2012. Combined pair paid me $82 per quarter.
3) NRGM spun off in mid 2013. Combined the three paid $73 per quarter.
4) NRGY- CEQP and NRGM- CMPL in fall of 2013. Still all three pay $73 per quarter.
Tax prep person charges by the K1.
Stop. Just stop.
We (the nice, rich 1st world countries) DIDN'T GET WHERE WE ARE AT BY TAX AND REDISTRIBUTION. THAT CAME LATER, and it is a risk to destroy what you admire, not a part of what makes what you admire great.
History says that cultures that promote the greatest amount of individual liberties, ones that allow rewards for entrepreneurship, ones that remain healthy from the risk of failure (on both the personal and business level) flourish. All boats rise begin caught up in vigor.
History also says that the continual creep and bloat of government and regulatory excess acts as a cancer. Asking the cancer to be a source of a cure for itself is rather short sighted.
You quote the eco-system as a model that must be respected, well trust me you, I, certainly politicians are not near enough omnipresent enough to successfully throw levels on our country's economic ecosystem, so let's just back off the centrally planned actions, okay? Ecosystems work best when they are left alone to be free, rich and diverse, not myopically forced.
Zack's notes on MDA crossovers are pretty much computer generated. It did occur just prior to June. The word "could" is weak in acknowledging that the 50 under 200 as an indicator works more than 50% of the time, but certainly doesn't work anywhere near 100% of the time.
They are different. When you short, you actually sell shares you don't own. (Supposedly, you "borrow" them from others at the same brokerage). You actually get a pile of money in your account at the time you short; and you can "use" that money to do other things, as long as your entire account value doesn't fall to a level where you start worrying the brokerage. You close the short at some point in the future by buying the shares back; or by just dancing a jig if the company goes under and the share price goes to $0.
A put is an option trade. The owner of a "put" has the right to sell shares at a predetermine price. You can sell puts (and assume the risk of paying that price for someone's shares if the share price plummets), or you can be a buyer of puts (and therefore purchase protection of loss mitigation of shares you hold should the share price plummet). Puts never actually have to be closed out with a counter order (unlike how a buy cancels a short), have time limits associated with them (shorts can run forever, in theory), and trade for small fractions of the actual leverage (shorts, like buys, trade 1:1 with the share price).
Sometimes those who short will end up also buying protection for their short positions, but I think those would be calls, which would give them a maximum price to buy shares at should their bet on a falling price go awry. But the volumes wouldn't match much at all, and I doubt a large percentage of shorter also work the options.
The options market has to have both sides show up for betting: somebody has to sell puts/calls for others to buy. If their isn't some certainty for the sellers, or perceived risk for the buyers, there just isn't much action.
Thanks for the link, I'll look into it!
Oh. You're not a bot? Those, I can at least understand. For pennies, you can spam thousands of board for you product. The "this pos sux!" crowd is mainly (I suspect) the day-traders-school-for-idiots crowd, doing their best to aid their $5 position. Between the two groups, they account for almost all of the traffic. So I guess that ends up with the bots trying to sway the daytraders; as the bots don't actually read the daytrader's posts...
??? $2.97 was last seen on 5/27. You have to go back to 2007 or 2008 to find ANV at $2.97, and even then only briefly. So if I read you right, you're suggesting holders of duration of 7 days or less be content with their profits and get out within a week's sight of multi-year lows, cause to do otherwise would be "greedy".
Thanks for the advice.
Your eyes see that the Central Banks of the world have been massively printing money, your wallet feels inflation, but your ears hear the great evil we must avoid is deflation.
Cool thing about (price) inflation: it happens and you can't hide it. Where money blossoms, and where the number of goods to spend it on remains relatively unchanged, you will get higher prices. So simply detecting *where* higher prices are occurring is a back door way to understanding where the money is flowing.
The old adage is that "newly minted" money is typically gifted to those at the top. And if you look, you will find plenty of stories about the insane wretched excess by the wealthy. There have been a flurry of stories about "record prices" being paid for homes in the Hamptons, flat in Manhatten, modern art at auctions, collectible cars, an hour with some football has-been. People who you would expect to be 'near the spigot' are spending and competing with each other.
A second major tell-tale for inflation is what is happening in the "emerging marktes". Much of the money that the banks feel compelled to invest flows overseas into the relatively tiny investing opportunities elsewhere. Where it proceeds to wreck havoc on the cost of labor/goods/services. A huge deal of the social unrest that has occurred in the middle east, southern asia and africa can be directly attributed to spill-over money from the Western QE experiment. Look for the cost of good imported from those locations to rise, and show up in higher prices of good and Walmat knicnacs here.
cb - You're doing fine, and things aren't upside down. You know that. The feeling of dislocation comes from being told one thing while observing something entirely different. My suggestion: put the world on "mute", stop listening, and just keep observing. Things make plenty of sense without the audio track.
"Will cash flow from the EU to the US?" Undoubtedly. In many respects, it has been all along. Back in the 1700s, Sir Issac Newton concocted the "Gold Standard" to be used by a collection of friendly European powers. They'd been having funding issues and wanted to straighten things out. His proposed (and adopted) gold standard had a 40% reserve requirement! This essentially meant that the club members partaking in the Standard were suddenly allowed to spend 60% more, across the globe, than they actually had in bullion. Sweet deal for the club members.
With the addition of the US in later centuries, the "club" still exists and still pretty much continues to abuse their privileges. The Western world Central Banks all "take care" of each other. (If you've ever wondered who the big buyers of sovereign debt are, whether US Treasuries or Greek bonds, you need look no farther than the club of Central Banks). They print, inflate, hold each other's currencies and debt in what looks to be reasonable balance, with the dual purpose of allowing their host governments to blissfully overspend, and themselves to maintain positions of extreme power.
Who audits the Central Banks? Answer: themselves. What media outlet cries "foul!" when Belgium recently stepped up and soaked up a few hundred billion in USTreasuries, and amount that represents *multiples* of Belgium's GDP? Answer: No one, other than those loony blog sites on the Internet. What media outlet cried "foul!" when it was learn that the Fed's actions during the TARP days didn't limit themselves to $750B as advertised, but actually were over $12T, much of which involved money to foreign banks?
I don't think so. The rate in question is the "deposit facility rate", which applies for deposits at the ECB from member banks. Setting it negative essentially beats the money out of the bushes and forces the banks to (maybe) start lending. I'd think they'd look at the risk of lending, vs the sure thing of dog piling into the euphoric markets, and would instead just start gambling in the market rather than lend.
Individual depositors (the likes of you and me) just continue to get hosed by 0% returns, and an annual loss of x% due to inflation. The usual pilfering will continue.
The real question (I think) is what are the unintended consequences of NIRP on European money markets? You'd think NIRP would be a stake thru the heart for them, and as we saw in 2008, money markets are vital to the day-to-day funding aspects of many many corporations.
The answer to this question is left as an exercise for the student. Read. Company web site, google analayst reports. It's all there in black and white, and if you are serious about your money, you'll DOYDD, rather than ask an ad-based msg board for insight.
It's been said that when big players want to establish a sizable position, the first action is often to sell, hard, and "soften" the price. Last few days, today in particular, really seem to point to some major money wanting to buy at a discount. They'll be our friends in the long run, if we can just hold thru the process of them getting comfy....
Div: $0.0728 5.4% yield annualized (against PPS), only 4.9% against a $5.94 NAV. And apparently the new policy is to withhold div announcements until 2 weeks prior to payout.
I can find *no* credible source claiming that voters were coerced, or brought in by soldiers. I find massive numbers of sources reporting that a landslide of voluntary voters opted to leave a state that in no way represented their heritage or interests.
If the facts are there to support whispered allegations of a rigged election, then that has bearing. But the opposite holds true as well; if the vote was by the people and sincere, then what business has the West in telling those voters that the West knows better and will intervene on the behalf of people who DON'T WANT intervention?