Understood. I’m confused by gold too. Gold bugs got every possible thing they could have wanted this Feb. and it, as you say, seem to be correcting.

I don’t know how to read this so for me it might finally be time to watch gold from the sidelines.

In my attempt to prove my reflation thesis wrong gold is one thing that worries me. Just like every other asset, it went down as well and never really had, at least IMO, a blow-off top. Lots of the other commodities have gone down harder, but then again, they all went up more than gold did as well. Examples would be oil or silver.

gold’s a tough one for me at this point. I’ve sort of lost the plot on that one recently. I was bearish expecting one outcome. I was rightly bearish, but the whole pattern down from the recent highs has evolved in a way I didn’t expect. So…to be straight with you….I don’t know.

Essentially, the pattern down from the highs does not look “impulsive” to me. It looks “corrective” in nature…like we’re correcting the previous big move from 680′s to 1000 ish…. If that’s the case, then gold should hold 850 -812 zone and “find support.”

It should be noted I have an inherent bias against gold. I find myself to be a natural bear on gold. I know, I know…it’s supposed to be a great hedge in a portfolio, but I just don’t like it much. If we go to Mad Max beyond Thunderdome type stuff, do I want to be long Gold, or do I want to be long gasoline, food, and ammo?

At the end of the day, gold only has value because people “perceive” it to have value, similar to the U.S. Dollar or any other “stable” currency. I don’t want to start a fiat currency v. gold debate….just making the point that most “things” only have value because people believe it has value.

(1) As the author explains, the most ancient problem connected with combinatorics may be the house-cat-mice-wheat problem of the Rhind Papyrus (Problem 79), which occurs in a similar form in a problem of Fibonacci’s Liber Abaci and in an English nursery rhyme. All are concerned with successive powers of 7. (2) The first occurrence of combinatorics per se may be in the 64 hexagrams of the I Ching. (However, the more modern binary ordering of these is first seen in China in the 10th century.) A Chinese monk in the 700s may have had a rule for the number of configurations of a board game similar to go. In Greece, one of the very few references to combinatorics is a statement by Plutarch about the number of compound statements from 10 simple propositions; Plutarch quotes Chrysippus, Hipparchus, and Xenocrates on the subject, so all apparently had some interest in the subject. (Plutarch’s statement is also discussed in a recent article in the Monthly.) Boethius apparently had a rule for the number of combinations of n things taken two at a time. The author discusses interest in combinatorics in the Hindu world, by the Jainas, Varahamihira, and Bhaskara (the latter in the Lilavati). The work of Brahmagupta should be relevant, but is not currently available in English. The Arabs seem to have adopted their combinatorics from the Hindus. The author also briefly discusses some interest in combinatorics in the Jewish mathematical tradition; two examples are Rabbi ben Ezra and Levi ben Gerson. (3) Magic squares may first occur in the lo shu diagram, which is often linked with the I Ching. The author discusses how the idea of magic squares may have entered the Islamic world, was then improved, appeared in the work of Manuel Moschopoulos, and possibly through him entered the Western world. …
http://math.truman.edu/~thammond/history/Fibonacci.html

the above, to all those who so freely rip on ‘Astrology’..

further: http://clusty.com/search?input-form=clusty-simple&v%3Asources=webplus&query=Leonardo+of+pisa

AT,

as always, nice TA~

Curious if you have anything to say or share about gold since you had talked about maybe a month or two ago.

When i say 50-61.8% retracement of Fri highs I’m referring to the move from 875.63 (Fri. high) to 832.39 (the current low). So, right now, that’s 854 – 859. If we set another low tomorrow, then it will need to be measured from that low. The question though reveals an important concept that’s difficult for some to figure out: Where do you measure a retracement from – to? Alas…that’s an important part of the ‘special sauce’ of technicians……

Other than TA, or psychological manipulation of the market, or ZH’s explanation, I was completely and totally thrown off by today’s outcome. I expected more of last week’s same. Exactly what new information turned everything upside down?

The PPT never showed up, which I find fascinating.

Perhaps the week will shed some more light. But I suspect it’s a misdirection play.

Looking at the action in Japan and the currency movements, I think we will very likely see the SPX 815 area reached tomorrow. The bounce may not be immediate but it is very likely that some longs may attempt to re-enter there at the 50DMA and short covering will assist a modest move upwards, which is likely to be of only short duration.

Gold seems to have found support and is likely to have a good run here, along with USD and JPY.

Love your posts and eagerly anticipate them. I couldn’t care less if you concoct your analysis in a cauldron using Cramer blood and a protractor. But what exactly do you mean “any good 50%-61.8% bounce from the Fri’s highs” ? Are you saying 850-860 area?

Thanks again for sharing your TA