GOLD

[romans holiday]

According to IG it is 752 at the close of Globex. Silver down over 5% in day. If this was any of the "hated" assets (property, cash, equities) their would be "black xxxday" threads. Why the difference? It just looks like denial to me. Luckily, people don't vent here when they reach the anger stage, they just politely move on. That's what it looks like from here, FWIW.

 

Whenever are you going to get it? The reason that some here just "politely move on" is that they do not take a dollar-centric view towards their investments. Comprendo?

 

[Steve Netwriter]

anyone calling the bottom - or is that a pointless exercise...

 

I'm in a rush, but I think this looks like a very interesting read.

 

Check out the US$ chart

 

Leverage Hedge Funds are Major Drag on Commodities

-- Posted Wednesday, 10 September 2008

http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1221074991.php

 

Leveraged hedge funds are selling billions of dollars worth of commodities investments to meet their redemption demands, and this is another severe short- term factor driving down prices. Our funds own similar stocks, and thus we are caught up in this powerful force that some have described as a “mechanical sell-off” by hedge funds and banks that need liquidity.

 

Adding to the downward pressure are other rumors that “rogue” hedge funds are attacking like sharks when blood is in the water. These predators are allegedly aggressively short-selling the stocks that are in the portfolios of their vulnerable peers, which sends prices even lower.

 

These hedge fund sharks don’t care about fundamentals or portfolio turnover; they’re just short-term traders hungry for a quick profit.

 

We do care about fundamentals, and the long-term fundamentals for the commodities sector stocks look healthy. These stocks are trading at very low price-to-earnings ratios and at large discounts to cash flow. As we have published in the past and featured in these special commentaries, different commodities rotate in leadership each year; however, long-term supply constraints have not disappeared, and demand from global infrastructure spending continues to remain robust.

 

Morgan Stanley recently published a research report on the global mining sector that concludes that we are still in the early to middle years of a commodities supercycle. We agree with this viewpoint, given that many of the key fundamental drivers that have sustained this trend remain intact.

 

Everyone should read that last paragraph

 

[romans holiday]

There are a lot of people out there, who, rightly or wrongly, feel "pumped and dumped". There is a vocal handful of uberbulls on here, but I just wonder what it will take to attract back the hot money needed to form a new bubble.

 

WM, you do a disservice to yourself. This comment is hardly worth a reply and is the sort of thing you hear from the talking heads on CNBC. Now if you asked what it would take to attract hot money needed to form new highs....

[drbubb]

I found Jim was repeating the fundamental facts of the bull market again and again last week, i think he will again. He prides himself in the pursuit of knowledge and is surely bleeding himself now too.

 

Thing is ... Jim and John are OLD, they have been around, they LOVE the markets with a passion,they have SEEN it all before as has jim sinclair.... there is nothing new under this sun.

 

Eric King is an inspirational speaker, Jim calls him in now again to lift up the vibe, Jim for sure knows what is coming, he is unable to time it perfectly, noone is. This is why he ALWAYS says stick to the primary trend.

 

BTW.. i don't you should depend on jim puplava as to when to get out, Peru Saxona called it this time DYODD is key as to when to get out of the parabolia.. this site will be key.

 

I agree with all this.

 

BUT the big drop does show the risks inherent in the "stay long, buy the dips strategy".

I may say more about this later, since I think the point should be developed here

 

[drbubb]

I'm in a rush, but I think this looks like a very interesting read.

 

Leverage Hedge Funds are Major Drag on Commodities

 

Frank holmes is a serious guy with plenty of "skin in the game", and years experience.

His thoughts arewell worth reading

[Steve Netwriter]

Frank holmes is a serious guy with plenty of "skin in the game", and years experience.

His thoughts arewell worth reading

 

OK, I have some time now

 

Leverage Hedge Funds are Major Drag on Commodities

-- Posted Wednesday, 10 September 2008

http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1221074991.php

 

 

Frank Holmes is CEO and chief investment officer at U.S. Global Investors, a Texas-based investment adviser that specializes in natural resources, emerging markets and global infrastructure. The company’s 13 mutual funds include the Global Resources Fund (PSPFX), Gold and Precious Metals Fund (USERX) and Global MegaTrends Fund (MEGAX).

 

Frank Holmes is CEO and chief investment officer at http://www.usfunds.com

 

For more insights and perspectives from Frank Holmes, visit his investment blog "Frank Talk" at http://www.usfunds.com/franktalk/

 

A few charts to encourage you to look.

First the US Dollar chart

 

We use oscillators as a tool to monitor price movements over a rolling 60-day trading period. The intensity and magnitude of these price swings, which we measure in bands representing standard deviations above and below the long-term mean, can provide a clue that a price reversal may occur.

 

On the gold and crude oil oscillators above, it appears that those two natural resources are deeply oversold. Gold’s price is more than two standard deviations below the long-term mean over the past 60 trading days, and oil is nearly that far down. The price drop has had a profound impact on the price of the equities linked to these resources.

 

 

 

Now the the gold chart:

 

 

 

And finally the commodity cycle chart:

 

 

-----------------------

 

You may also care to listen to this:

 

http://www.usfunds.com/landingpages/TurbulentMarketConfCall/

 

Where you can download the mp3 file and slides from the conference.

 

August 12, 2008

Insights on a Turbulent Market

 

Last week, U.S. Global Investors hosted a special conference call, “Insights on a Turbulent Market,” to offer our thoughts on current conditions in the global commodities and emerging markets sectors.

 

The call featured Frank Holmes, CEO and chief investment officer; and Brian Hicks and Evan Smith, co-managers of the Global Resources Fund (PSPFX).

 

A wide range of topics were discussed during the presentation and the Q&A session that followed. Below are excerpted answers to key questions asked by listeners.

 

-----------------------

 

Gold and silver have obviously been knocked down quite a bit.

What would be so funny if it were not so sad is that IMO those who have not yet bought have a once in a lifetime opportunity to buy at a very low price.

You can see that silver was ~$20 and is now available (if you can get it) at ~$10. You can see where it's been, and where it will return to without even breaking new ground, if you believe this is a long-term bull market.

 

Why is it so sad ? Because many of those who have not yet bought will be looking at the drop and saying "see, I told you, I'm glad I didn't buy".

And not have the sense to realise what an opportunity they have. Having potentially considered buying at a higher price, they will now have flipped into definite non-buyers. Exactly the wrong way to think.

 

But, it has always been so.

[hotairmail]

And finally the commodity cycle chart:

 

 

-----------------------

 

 

Looking at that chart, it seems to me you tend to get more bangs for your buck on the upside if you invest in oil.

[Steve Netwriter]

Looking at that chart, it seems to me you tend to get more bangs for your buck on the upside if you invest in oil.

 

Yes, and with peak oil I wouldn't be surprised to see an even bigger one this time.

Why aren't I in oil

 

[Steve Netwriter]

I say again, listen to Ian MacDonald's "testimony" on this week's Financial Sense Newshour. He's a respected gold market expert employed by the government of the United Arab Emerates and (almost) speaking on their behalf. And if you're fed up with the american bias, it should please you to know he's a Brit.

 

Which starts at 39 mins in.

 

Listen: http://www.netcastdaily.com/broadcast/fsn2008-0906-3a.mp3

 

Read: http://www.dmcc.ae/en/precious-commodities...ities-gold.html

 

Ian MacDonald,

Executive Director - Gold & Precious Metals,

Dubai Multi Commodities Centre

 

Ian MacDonald, the Executive Director of the Gold & Precious Metals division at Dubai Multi Commodities Centre, is a leading expert in investment banking, commodities and futures markets, and a member of the international gold and precious metals community with over 30 years experience.

[ChrisP]

Looking at that chart, it seems to me you tend to get more bangs for your buck on the upside if you invest in oil.

It looks to me like the main trend changer is war. Is that what we're building up to?

[wrongmove]

??

 

Who has been pumped and dumped?

 

Short-termers will probably screw themselves. But they have only themselves to blame.

 

If you want to call the top of the precious metals markets, do so.

 

Has the top of the precious metals passed now? (11 September 2008).

 

Or has it not?

 

Call.

 

I didn't say people had been pumped and dumped, I said that some people feel they have been pumped and dumped.

 

I'm not going to call a top. I do not have a crystal ball. I do not say "when" instead of "if" when speculating about the future.

 

I did say that the chart looked ugly when that double top formed, and broke through the base on volume. But no-one knows the future, and certainly not me.

 

 

[wrongmove]

I wonder how vociferous the detractors will be when gold reaches $1200.

 

I look forward to reminding them of their recent posts when that happens

 

I suspect they will go awfully quiet.

 

Why should they? The vociferous bulls are still here after they have tanked.

 

And I could easily dig up loads of old posts stating "you will never see $850 gold again" etc, but I haven't.

 

 

If the detractors go long near the bottom, when they see value, based on their assessment of the fundamentals, what will you say to them then?

 

 

[wrongmove]

WM, you do a disservice to yourself. This comment is hardly worth a reply and is the sort of thing you hear from the talking heads on CNBC. Now if you asked what it would take to attract hot money needed to form new highs....

 

The old high was formed at a time when physical demand from traditional gold purchasers was on the floor. The buyers were speculators. A bit like housing, where the BTLs displaced the FTBs and drove up prices too high.

 

Now the hot money has run to the exits, the price is back down, and the Indian's are buying again.

 

That's a bubble, in my book, now deflated.

 

How do you define a bubble?

[G0ldfinger]

I agree with all this.

 

BUT the big drop does show the risks inherent in the "stay long, buy the dips strategy".

I may say more about this later, since I think the point should be developed here

If you started this strategy years back (2001?) like Jim Puplava, there is not all that much risk in it. Even someone who only started averaging in over the, say, last two years should be OK. Of course, if someone starts losing their convictions about the fundamentals at this time, then it looks differently. I think the fundamentals look better in place than ever.

[Perishabull]

Yes it certainly has bubble characteristics, it's difficult to call though as the factors that influence the market are many (inflation/deflation/geopolitical etc) making it difficult to call (unlike the housing market for example). So wrongmove, hypothetically, if you had funds to invest in gold at what price point would you feel content to invest for a long term hold?

 

PB

[wrongmove]

Yes it certainly has bubble characteristics, it's difficult to call though as the factors that influence the market are many (inflation/deflation/geopolitical etc) making it difficult to call (unlike the housing market for example). So wrongmove, hypothetically, if you had funds to invest in gold at what price point would you feel content to invest for a long term hold?

 

PB

 

I don't think I would ever commit more than 10% or so. Commodities (and PMs) are boring, in reality. What I mean is, in a "normal" market, their price is constrained by supply and demand. Things like oil are hard to cut back on, but not impossible, but most will simply stop being used if the price gets too high. This even happens to gold (e.g. gold is old)

 

So commodities generally chug along, providing decent yield (unlike gold which actually costs money to hold, either through storage costs, or massive spreads on physical. Even lease rates can go negative! Some point at this as evidence of the bogey man. Many of the same people lend their gold/silver to BV or GM, and pay them for the privilege!).

 

Occasionally, they become flavour of the month, and a bubble forms. I am not good at playing bubbles.

 

The jewelry buyers are back in gold, and are currently supporting the price by buying some of the gold that speculators are selling. But the gold season ends in a month or two. So by my way of looking at things, gold may not be far off "fair value", but still historically expensive (if we ignore that one and only gold bubble that many seem to take as a reference point).

 

Silver would have me more concerned. One of the main uses was photography, both in film and in prints. Now people use CCDs and printers, so I don't know where "fair value" is for silver. It has a long history of doing nothing for years on end, so without yield, I don't really see the point in holding long term.

 

 

So I am not a big fan, based on what I call fundamentals, but if the price dropped to near or below the cost of production, I might have a punt. But not a big one. And I wouldn't be expecting a quick return. If I had a big wad, I would hold maybe 5-10% as a hedge, buying more if the price dropped to maintain the percentage, and selling if it rose strongly, again to maintain the percentage. I am not very convinced that PMs would be much use is TSHTF big time. We would not revert to gold, IMHO, we would evolve something new, if we have to abandon "fiat". Even a cursory look shows that gold is totally unsuitable as money in the 21st century. (I have elaborated on this elsewhere)

 

What does make me laugh is the stupidty of some of the arguments. I have seem comments like "every country in the world has a fiat currency, but none have ever survived" Looks to me that they are all currently surviving (except Zimbabwe), and in fact it is true to say that "all the world once used a gold system, but none have survived".

 

I may be totally wrong about PMs, but my views are based on my instincts and my research. I am not trolling, just trying to broaden the debate. If you are in PMs because of your instincts and your research, then the very best of luck. But even if we are in a secular bull market, there is no harm in avoiding some of the dips. What is wrong with a wide, trailing stop?

[warpig]

I am a fiat refugee not an investor. My Grandfather came to this country after the war with nothing but a rucksack, worked hard and put all of his savings in to gold and silver. I grew up listening to war stories and have always understood the primary use of gold, but I can understand why you don't. You appear to have investment interest only, but I suspect for many here with mainland European ties, their views may be similar to my own.

 

I don't think I would ever commit more than 10% or so. Commodities (and PMs) are boring, in reality. What I mean is, in a "normal" market, their price is constrained by supply and demand. Things like oil are hard to cut back on, but not impossible, but most will simply stop being used if the price gets too high. This even happens to gold (e.g. gold is old)

 

So commodities generally chug along, providing decent yield (unlike gold which actually costs money to hold, either through storage costs, or massive spreads on physical. Even lease rates can go negative! Some point at this as evidence of the bogey man. Many of the same people lend their gold/silver to BV or GM, and pay them for the privilege!).

 

Occasionally, they become flavour of the month, and a bubble forms. I am not good at playing bubbles.

 

The jewelry buyers are back in gold, and are currently supporting the price by buying some of the gold that speculators are selling. But the gold season ends in a month or two. So by my way of looking at things, gold may not be far off "fair value", but still historically expensive (if we ignore that one and only gold bubble that many seem to take as a reference point).

 

Silver would have me more concerned. One of the main uses was photography, both in film and in prints. Now people use CCDs and printers, so I don't know where "fair value" is for silver. It has a long history of doing nothing for years on end, so without yield, I don't really see the point in holding long term.

 

 

So I am not a big fan, based on what I call fundamentals, but if the price dropped to near or below the cost of production, I might have a punt. But not a big one. And I wouldn't be expecting a quick return. If I had a big wad, I would hold maybe 5-10% as a hedge, buying more if the price dropped to maintain the percentage, and selling if it rose strongly, again to maintain the percentage. I am not very convinced that PMs would be much use is TSHTF big time. We would not revert to gold, IMHO, we would evolve something new, if we have to abandon "fiat". Even a cursory look shows that gold is totally unsuitable as money in the 21st century. (I have elaborated on this elsewhere)

 

What does make me laugh is the stupidty of some of the arguments. I have seem comments like "every country in the world has a fiat currency, but none have ever survived" Looks to me that they are all currently surviving (except Zimbabwe), and in fact it is true to say that "all the world once used a gold system, but none have survived".

 

I may be totally wrong about PMs, but my views are based on my instincts and my research. I am not trolling, just trying to broaden the debate. If you are in PMs because of your instincts and your research, then the very best of luck. But even if we are in a secular bull market, there is no harm in avoiding some of the dips. What is wrong with a wide, trailing stop?

 

[wrongmove]

I am a fiat refugee not an investor. My Grandfather came to this country after the war with nothing but a rucksack, worked hard and put all of his savings in to gold and silver. I grew up listening to war stories and have always understood the primary use of gold, but I can understand why you don't. You appear to have investment interest only, but I suspect for many here with mainland European ties, their views may be similar to my own.

 

I have explained elsewhere why I think that PMs as global money are as relevent today as horses are to transport. Of course I may be wrong, but I just see no evidence that a) they would make a good money, and b ) that the market takes this view or is likely to any time soon.

 

edit: I do not see an end to the credit crunch btw. The situation is a total mess. My main disagreement with many here is on how bullish this is for PMs, not the underlying situation

[romans holiday]

The old high was formed at a time when physical demand from traditional gold purchasers was on the floor. The buyers were speculators. A bit like housing, where the BTLs displaced the FTBs and drove up prices too high.

 

Now the hot money has run to the exits, the price is back down, and the Indian's are buying again.

 

That's a bubble, in my book, now deflated.

 

How do you define a bubble?

It is ludicrous to say gold was in a bubble.

 

A bubble involves a manic phase where everyone is certain it is a sure bet. Anyone who could, and many did due to easy credit, bought houses without even bothering to ask what the real value of them were. People were "panicked" into buying and lost sight of fundamentals.

 

A bubble does not form when some see something as a sure bet, but when most do. This is what causes prices to become over-inflated.

 

The general public know next to nothing about gold. When they do, maybe then you could talk of a bubble.

 

 

Anyone who did their homework on gold should not too concerned with the volatilty we have seen. Rather, it was to be expected. We will continue to have a deflationary period which will most probably be followed by an inflationary period after the election.

[wrongmove]

It is ludicrous to say gold was in a bubble.

 

A bubble involves a manic phase where everyone is certain it is a sure bet. Anyone who could, and many did due to easy credit, bought houses without even bothering to ask what the real value of them were. People were "panicked" into buying and lost sight of fundamentals.

 

A bubble does not form when some see something as a sure bet, but when most do. This is what causes prices to become over-inflated.

 

The general public know next to nothing about gold, when they do maybe then you could talk of a bubble.

 

 

Anyone who did their homework on gold should not too concerned with the volatilty we have seen. Rather, it was to be expected. We will continue to have a deflationary period which will most probably be followed by an inflationary period after the election.

 

I disagree. Everybody buys houses. In a bubble, everybody buys more, and maybe a few are sucked in who would otherwise not buy. Very few trade gold, and in a bubble these very few trade more, plus a few are sucked in who would not otherwise buy.

 

And if you are expecting more deflation, I hope you are keeping your paper dry!

 

 

 

[mattyboy]

Anyone who did their homework on gold should not too concerned with the volatilty we have seen. Rather, it was to be expected. We will continue to have a deflationary period which will most probably be followed by an inflationary period after the election.

 

I believe it was Jim Sinclair who used the term 'esoteric volatility'. He got that right!

 

[Magpie]

It is ludicrous to say gold was in a bubble.

 

A bubble involves a manic phase where everyone is certain it is a sure bet. Anyone who could, and many did due to easy credit, bought houses without even bothering to ask what the real value of them were. People were "panicked" into buying and lost sight of fundamentals.

 

A bubble does not form when some see something as a sure bet, but when most do. This is what causes prices to become over-inflated.

 

The general public know next to nothing about gold, when they do maybe then you could talk of a bubble.

 

 

Anyone who did their homework on gold should not too concerned with the volatilty we have seen. Rather, it was to be expected. We will continue to have a deflationary period which will most probably be followed by an inflationary period after the election.

 

I'd argue that the rise to $1000+ wasn't really a bubble - a large part of the rise was an overdue correction, whether it overshot at the end or not is hard to say.

 

However I think what you say above is too restrictive as to what could be defined as a bubble. Bubbles don't have to involve the whole population to count. Property is obviously a market that a large part of the population are involved in. But you can have huge overpricing in a market based on speculative froth even if it is a fairly small proportion of the population who are interested in the first place.

 

 

 

[drbubb]

HISTORIC

Speaking of gold mining shares, the current ratio of XAU to the price of spot gold recently moved below 0.16--its lowest point since its all-time record depressed reading in November 2000. This means that if the price of gold is still in the low $800s a half year or so from now, while this ratio returns to its average historic level, gold mining shares and funds such as GDX will rise by 30%-35%.

 

/see: http://www.kitco.com/ind/Kaplan/sep082008A.html

[mattyboy]

here's a quite bizarre piece I picked up from the kitco forum - link to $ to gold at $500 per ounce? I wouldn't have thought there was anything like enough gold for that..

 

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2...ize_the_do.html

 

Congress Must Stabilize the Dollar

Rep. Ted Poe

On July 31, I introduced H.R. 6690, the “Sound Dollar and Economic Stimulus Act of 2008”. It is vital that this bill become law.

 

The U.S. dollar affects every American citizen and every American business. Our economy is totally dependent upon the dollar. To have a stable economy, we must have a stable dollar.

 

Unfortunately, for many years we have not had a stable dollar. Today, people are angry and afraid. The crumbling, gyrating dollar has created an economic crisis.

 

I was a judge for 25 years. I believe in law and order. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution provides that: “The Congress shall have Power…To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures…”

 

So, what has Congress been doing about the dollar? Nothing. Since 2001, Congress has stood idly by while the dollar has lost almost 70% of its value, whether measured against gold or retail gasoline.

 

When a currency begins to lose value, the effects show up first in the price of gold, followed quickly by other commodities, such as oil. However, eventually the inflation works its way through the entire economy, raising prices across the board. In the process, the hard-earned savings of Americans are devalued—or, the way I look at it, stolen.

 

Inflation creates turbulence in financial markets and provokes conflict between economic groups. People become angry because they feel that they are being robbed. They become afraid because they know that unchecked inflation can lead to economic collapse.

 

In 1913, Congress delegated its power over money to the Federal Reserve. Unfortunately, the Fed has been preoccupied with manipulating interest rates. Since 2001, the Fed has lowered its Fed Funds rate from 5.00% to 1.00%, raised it to 5.25% and then lowered it to 2.00%. Meanwhile, the value of the dollar has declined by nearly 70%.

 

Trying to regulate the value of the dollar by manipulating the Fed Funds rate makes no sense. The Fed Funds rate is the price of one type of capital. Because the Fed cannot supply capital (real resources) to the economy, it is not clear why it should be in the business of setting interest rates. Logically, interest rates should be set by the market—by the supply and demand for capital.

 

Unlike capital, the amount of money in the economy should not be limited by anything physical. It should be determined by the demand for money, which depends upon the transactions people want to do and how much money they want to hold.

 

What matters about money is not its quantity but its value. In this, dollars are no different than foot rulers. No one cares how many foot rulers there are in the world. What matters is that each one is the length prescribed by the U.S. Bureau of Standards.

 

My bill directs the Federal Reserve to bring the price of gold down to $500/oz and then to keep it there. The Fed would do this by announcing that its Open Market Desk was prepared to sell government bonds and contract the monetary base until the price of gold falls to $500/oz.

 

At last measure, the monetary base was about $872 billion. In December, 2005, which is the last time the price of gold was at $500, it was $827 billion. So, it is possible that the Fed might have to sell as much as $45 billion worth of bonds to implement the new policy. Because this is only about 0.8% of the total amount of bonds currently outstanding, this should not be a problem. However, I believe that the demand for the newly-stable dollar will be so great that the Fed will actually have to expand the monetary base to keep the gold price from falling below $500/oz.

 

Once the Fed implements its new directive from Congress, every dollar in the world will have the same market value as one five-hundredth of an ounce of gold. From then on, the monetary base will expand and contract automatically in response to market demand.

 

Why gold? My bill defines the value of the dollar in terms of gold because the financial markets want, and the American people deserve, a dollar that is “as good as gold”.

 

Why $500/oz? At $804/oz, the current market price of gold reflects the expectation (and fear) of future inflation. I believe that fixing the value of the dollar now in terms of gold at $500/oz will stop the current inflation without causing deflation. However, my bill also provides a powerful supply-side stimulus, in the form of first-year expensing of all capital investment, to ensure that economic growth accelerates at the same time that inflation is being stopped.

 

Bringing the dollar price of gold down to $500 will bring the price of gasoline down from its current $3.50/gallon to less than $2.50/gallon. It will strengthen the dollar against foreign currencies. Most important, it will prevent Americans’ incomes and savings from being stolen by inflation.

 

My bill will not put America on the gold standard, like we had in the early part of the 20th Century. Under the old gold standard, gold was money. Limiting the supply of money to the supply of gold was a huge mistake. It was the basic error that caused the Great Depression.

 

Under my bill, our money will be the same “legal tender” currency that we have now. There will be no limit on the number of dollars except market demand. The big difference will be that every dollar will always be worth the same as one five-hundredth of an ounce of gold.

 

When I became a Congressman, I took an oath to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution commands Congress to regulate the value of our money. My bill will do this. This is why it is essential that it become law.

Representative Poe, a former judge, is a member of Congress serving the 2nd district of Texas.

 

[mattyboy]

HISTORIC

Speaking of gold mining shares, the current ratio of XAU to the price of spot gold recently moved below 0.16--its lowest point since its all-time record depressed reading in November 2000. This means that if the price of gold is still in the low $800s a half year or so from now, while this ratio returns to its average historic level, gold mining shares and funds such as GDX will rise by 30%-35%.

 

/see: http://www.kitco.com/ind/Kaplan/sep082008A.html

 

ouch - so I'd still be under water on my gold shares by- lets see, well over 50%!