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.
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'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.