NUGT is now $140, up 10% today. So much for a barbaric relic (this ETF actually is based on gold miners, not the price of gold). It's up 100% since a Jun 1 selloff and a 7 bagger (up from 20) since January. Put that in your Total Return calculator. That even beats the total return on FRO. LOL!
Looking on a longer term chart, this was, get this, over 8000 in 2012. Must have had some reverse splits or something. I doubt it gets back to that level, but it could see 500. It's not really overbought yet with the RSI at 68 and it is trading in a nice channel with a width of about 20 bucks.
Similarly, USLV traded as high as 600 back then and the next area for resistance is near $50.
Silver is now catching up to gold and over the last couple of days has taken out some resistance from early 2015. It's way overbought now, but the expectation seems to be that the central banks are going to have to pump in more money to keep equities elevated and keep the myth of the wealth effect going. Rumors of bank bailouts in Italy. The triple ETF on silver is USLV and it is very overbought having rallied from 10 to 24 this year. USLV traded as high #$%$ last year. As with NUGT, once these triple ETFs get going, they can really sky, but timing is important.
I wonder how the central banks are going to both keep precious metal prices down and keep equities up at the same time. Seems they cant do both.
I think Ed first mentioned silver in the beginning of the year. He doesn't like to brag much.
I know. We've mostly stopped talking about AAPL as Sarge finally sold his long position and most everyone now agrees that their tree has stopped growing to the sky for now.
Just to contest the narrative of one poster that "there's no better place than US equities," here are the first half returns on various indices and sectors:
Brent oil +36%
Yen vs. dollar +17.2%
German bunds +10.6
US Treasuries +6.4%
Global High yield bonds +8.3%
EM equities +3.5%
Eurozone stocks -10.3%
shanghai stocks -19.1%
This isn't the full list of all the various sectors but it does give a flavor. Now will the money chase momentum and follow the current leaders or will it move to those sectors that have been pounded down to the bottom of the list and possibly represent better valuation. In either case, since US stocks, represented by the S&P, are in the middle of the pack, it is difficult to make the argument that money is going to chose the middle of the pack. BTW, I didn't see silver listed as a separate item, but it is catching up to gold.
But don't they still have to sell it to someone? I read that they have fixed contracts, but we know that the strength of those depend on who is on the other side.
i could be wrong, but AAPL looks to be forming yet another head and shoulders pattern with the head at 100, the shoulders at 97 and the neckline at 92. When they miss their next earnings, the stock would have downside risk to 84.
Bob, first congrats to William if he bought this lower as it is up from under $5 and was over 12 at one point. While it is was overbought in May, it is no longer overbought and seems to have run into resistance at that $12 level. They did affirm their guidance and their coverage level is good, but they are also getting support from the parent on an IDR waiver. They have bought back bonds, so unitholders can expect to get some CODI income on their K-1 (if you owned at the time they bought back the bonds).
The obvious problem with anything coal is that it moves with whatever is happening with China, so it could move up if China makes a positive announcement and it could move down if some negative stat gets released. After such a big run, SXCP could trade in a range between $10 and 12. It might run up into the distribution announcement since it is expected to be maintained. I might take a look at those bonds since they might be trading at a discount and the company seems to be buying them back.
It always pays to be on the lookout for a stock or sector that has gotten killed, but will survive, especially when technically oversold. The trick of course is to make sure you aren't buying a pig in a poke.
I have no idea. We will see in good time. I have also noticed nat gas rising but my research shows that this happens seasonally at this time and then the price falls in the fall. Can't get into etrade to see the bond prices.
Stagg, those start dates still put them in the current bull market (I would put the start date of the current bull at March 2009). Bear markets are typically characterized as a 20% decline, so I don't think 2015 qualifies as a bear market. The test will come when we actually have a bear market, which may not be identifiable until it comes and runs it course.
This distinction between "investors" and "traders" or whatever other category is phony. Most of us have limited funds to some extent and want to buy at the best risk/reward point to maximize gains, whether we count those in terms of income or capital gains. Despite a 100 year Dow chart, most of us don't have a 100 year investment horizon. DH's theories about "momentum" are only supported by his posts. At least if he showed some stats, it would be worth considering. He has no counter for the historical fact that valuations are stretched, that the bull is long in time as well as other economic stats about debt, corp earnings declines etc.
As for his statement that he "doesn't see the need to find better opportunities" on when to invest, that is just bunk and contrary to his posts. As DH has posted numerous times, he trades often, selling stocks that become overbought and buying when they are oversold. He often reminds us that he has a bunch of money that he would invest if the market dropped. So if he didn't see the need to trade at better risk/reward, guided by technicals, then why does he do it?
Finally, DH offers no empirical proof that US equities are the best value. In fact, with the recent plunge in various emerging and other markets, on a pure valuation basis, those options are becoming better opportunities, and that can be supported by empirical facts.
Many think I have some axe to grind with DH. I do not. He brings a lot to the board in terms of his investing experience and his use of technical analysis. But when he starts to stray into these unsupported theories of valuation and market history, I fear he might be leading some investors to think that they should through caution to the wind and just invest all of their money right now at these levels because, from his posts, that appears to be what he is doing, when in fact, he is not.
Stagg, you mistake my "bad mood" for trying to bring a dose of balance to the discussion. You offer no proof that high yields do better in a slow growth or bear market (unless you are counting this current period and only counting your winners and not the stocks that you dumped when they tumbled -- and you know the list). As an experiment, one could run the Total Returns for stocks which you categorize as either high yield or low yield during both a bull and bear market and see what the results show. The main point though is that you are happy with your strategy and that is all that should matter to you. You shouldn't have the need to find validation by trying to convince others that your model works and that everyone should follow you. As I said, most of us our opportunists, with some longer term holdings and some trading, and we try to find what works best and when it works best. Having lived through several market cycles, I know that "trees don't grow to the sky" and the real risk in investing is thinking that we have it all figured out and nothing can go wrong. That's called complacency and it usually leads to overconfidence and ignoring risks. The fact of the matter is that the current bull is long by historical measures and valuations are near all-time peaks and the world order is starting to show some cracks, so despite feeling like everything is great, there are real risks at this point in the cycle, whether you recognize them or not. I note that many of your current holdings are recent inventions (BDCL, CEFL and DVHL are all new double ETFs that were created in this bull cycle) with no track record during a down period. In my investing experience, we get into trouble when we ignore risks, not when we appreciate them. As I said before, almost everyone on this board invested in some stock that totallybombed, and that was despite many posts that said that that particular stock was golden and worth the risk. The goal should be to try to avoid bombs.
Read a post on s.a. about WNR which has been taking a big hit lately. Article said they could be going lower as overseas supply of gas hurts their margins. Wonder if SUN is going to feel the same effects. On the opposite side, a different article a few weeks back on the ethane dynamics was positive for SXL as they will be moving a lot of ethane.
To continue, I won't bother to point out "low yield" growth stocks like AAPL and MSFT, to name just two, for which early investors made a ton.
As to moods, you have been enjoying a nice run lately, but back in January you were singing a different tune and some of your prior holdings did not turn out well. You may be able to forget them, but those of us who follow your posts know that they did not work out so well even though they were high yields. So again, the point comes down to stock selection and cycles. We don't know how these high yield holdings did during the last downturn in stocks back in 2008, but we know that the market always has bull and bear cycles.
Finally, there is really no one on this board who is strictly a day trader, so there is really no distinction between your characterization of trader and investor. We are all opportunists.
stagg, a couple of comments that bear repeating. First, interest rate hikes are probably dead for now. The odds are actually swinging to interest rate cuts instead of hikes. Second, high yield investing works in the right cycle and with the right stocks. It doesn't work with all high yield stocks and during all cycles. For example, many energy MLPs were high yield and that didn't stop them from collapsing and cutting their divies. Same for some BDCs and some mREITs. We have been in a yield chasing environment in which high yield stocks that can maintain their divies continue to get buys. But if a stock can't continue its high yield, well you know what has happened to some of those. The key is being able to know whether a stock is at risk for cutting its divy.
Today I sold a closed end muni fund, VCV with a 40% gain, not counting that I have been receiving 6% tax free each year for about 3 years (I sold it because I wanted to take this gain and because it was overbought). While there was interest rate risk associated with this holding because they lever up their muni bond holdings by borrowing at the repo rate in order to earn more income, that risk was easier to understand by just watching the yields on Treasuries. I didn't have to study each municipality to know what their tax collections and expenditures were. I didn't have to learn about shipping rates and contract extensions or the supply and demand of energy markets or how collateralized loan obligations work or how prepayment speeds and spreads effect mREIT divies.
There are some lower yielding div stocks that have been huge performers over both a short and long period. Bayman made a mint on PM and only sold it because of potential bad consequences of Brexit. Bob has about a 10 bagger on ED. My mom has a 13 bagger on SCG and her yield on cost basis is 46% with a current yield of 3%. Too bad she had to live on her divies as the reinvestment would have made this a 20 or 25 bagger.
I've been casually looking at the triple and inverse triple ETFs on nat gas, UGAZ and DGAZ. UGAZ has nearly doubled THIS MONTH from 23 to 43, while DGAZ has collapsed from 30 to 7. I have not played them but did some research on nat gas price movements and saw that prices tend to increase going into summer and then pull back in fall. I guess the demand comes from the need to fill the storage prior to the draw season in winter.
I've been casually watching some of the triple and triple inverse ETFs. The latest big move is the triple "Up" ETF for nat gas, UGAZ. This has practically doubled from 23 to 43, in THIS month. Seems odd that nat gas prices have been going up, but much of the production had been shut in with the low prices and seasonally nat gas seems to move up in the summer months, even though the winter months are when the big draws on supply occur. Not sure these increases can continue, in which case, the DGAZ might be a better play since it has gone from 30 to 7 since March and is now under RSI 30.
It will also be interesting to see how some of the e&p MLPs fair after their restructurings if the nat gas futures start to move back toward $3.50. There are some unsecured bonds selling for 10 cents on the dollar.
Huff, forget about all this option talk and tell us more about your neighbor.
Wish DH had mentioned HAIN earlier. I know he owned it once before and it had a nice run before collapsing from 70 to 35. Looks like it bottomed at 34 and had a nice run back to 52 before the recent decline. However, this move from 35 to 52 represents a 50% fibonnacci retracement, so maybe it has had its run.
DH seems to assume that the big money is investing in individual stocks, but do we have any proof that that is the case. Sure, mutual funds invest in stocks, but more and more pension funds are investing in hedge funds. Are those hedge funds actually buying individual stocks or are they using trading strategies using ETFs, futures (which are leveraged 20 to 1) and other momentum and quant strategies that do not actually involve investing in individual stocks. Why buy 500 names when you can buy a futures contract that is based on the 500 names in the S&P?