by EnergyHog » Wed 14 Jun 2006, 09:56:01
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dukat_Reloaded', 'E')nergyHog, it was market sediment, everyone became overly bullish. You can see the responses of people right at the start of this thread. I read an artical saying that 18 out of 23 traders recommended to buy gold (at over $700), remarks that trading in commodites highly fassionable and traders are all jumping in. All the market analyists quickly dropped their constant stance that the average price of gold would be $525-$550 for 2006 and said gold $1000. Where we go from here I don't know, alot of people probably got burn't and still the analyists are still staying higher prices, alot of the burn't people won't touch gold again, we may not reach the bottom until these guys say gold is going down, I mean these tv/celebrity analyists are almost allways dead wrong and it's almost a sure bet to do the opposite.
This seems to imply that the US is the driving force behind the gold/silver price and that small investors have a significant impact on the gold/silver price. Do you believe that to be true? I don't know who the market makers are but I assumed that drastic price changes such as what we just witnessed were mainly due to selling/shorting by very large investors such as governmental institutions. I was thinking that this looks like market manipulation by some very large investor (Ted Butler article:
http://www.investmentrarities.com/06-12-06.html ) and that the mainstream analysts had little impact. Buffett and Bernanke certainly didn't help but I have a hard time believing that just a few words from these guys could bring such a precipitous drop in commodities or anything for that matter. The market didn't take a dive after the "irrational exuberance" speech and I believe it was because you can talk all you want but as long as there is cheap money (low interest rates here and at the BOJ) to be had, it will be had. Just my thoughts at this time as I've found, the more I learn, the more I realize I don't know shit.