Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

XMFSinchiruna (26.50)

A Little Blast From the Past



February 24, 2011 – Comments (29) | RELATED TICKERS: CEF , AUY , AEM

I just came across this post from deep in the Sinchi archives, and found it entertaining given what has followed.

It's from August 8, 2008. Gold was at $864.50. Silver was $15.76. Both would go a good bit lower still before finally bottoming out. Kudos to all who stood strong (kdakota, DemonDoug, etc.) through that intensely trying period for precious metal longs.


To put this all in perspective...

Commodity longs.. I too feel your pain... and then some (I'm 98% long commodities)!!  I have sold nothing, and I'm losing no sleep. This is a painful yet temporary phenomenon. The result will be to shake out all thye speculative hands and clear the way for the next phase of the multi-year bull market in commodities. I hope you're all staying aboard.

You don't lose a thing unless you sell.  :)

13 Comments – Post Your Own #1) On August 08, 2008 at 3:09 PM, TMFSinchiruna (99.16) wrote:


Report this comment #2) On August 08, 2008 at 4:23 PM, kdakota630 (99.80) wrote:

I'm riding everything right with you, Sinchy.

Enjoy your weekend.

Report this comment #3) On August 08, 2008 at 4:36 PM, DemonDoug (99.65) wrote:

I'm with you too man.

I've been positing for a few days now, I really think that China has almost completely shut down which has drastically reduced demand for all energy and metals, and I believe we will see further price declines until around 8/22-25, when china will be restarting their industrial machines.


Report this comment #4) On August 08, 2008 at 4:36 PM, goldminingXpert (97.28) wrote:

I bought some front-month Barrick calls this afternoon in hopes of a war bounce! I know, I know, I'm a bear, what the hell am I doing buying calls. I'll be out Monday after we get the bounce. No reason to think we stop declining here, key support levels are falling left and right. The drop in Nat Gas is particularly jarring.

Report this comment #5) On August 08, 2008 at 5:39 PM, Collin757 (< 20) wrote:

I got raped for $700 today but your steadfast faith in Gold after reading this has made it feel more like $699.  Im long just about every 4 or 5 star gold stock there is.  Ill ride it out(got no choice since my short term timing sux) and think about selling when it gets over 1k.  I need to find another hobby since watching my money go down doesnt keep me jazzed anymore.

Report this comment #6) On August 08, 2008 at 5:59 PM, goldminingXpert (97.28) wrote:

Collin, the odds of gold retesting $1,000 in the next say 12 months are low. Sell the next bounce we get, rough waters are ahead. This is a trader's market in commodities. The time for investors was back when the bull run was just getting go, say $500 an ounce an under. This is speculative froth now.

Report this comment #7) On August 09, 2008 at 1:14 PM, TMFSinchiruna (99.16) wrote:


I agree that we'll see demand from China pick up again after the Olympics, but that's not causing this. The plunge protection team together with the consortium of allied central banks are the master-minds of this commodities rout. It will not last.


Gold's going to $1,650 on its way to $2,000 and beyond, and silver to $50 on itsw way much higher. The path there could be quite interesting and will shake the confidence of many investors at times, but the future of the USD has been written in stone.


You have no idea what you're talking about. Advising someone to sell gold at these levels is irresponsible. I suppose you would have them buy treasuries? People... you lose nothing unless you sell. If you know where it's going, who cares how it gets there?

Report this comment #8) On August 09, 2008 at 1:46 PM, anchak (99.33) wrote:

Chris.....Honestly, man dont loose objectivity. Your point is logical - times like this gold should hold value. However, whether its plunge protection.... or goldminingexperts comments of being a traders market - both propagate and feed into the psychology that gold is tied to oil - because both are commodities. I don't necessarily toot my horn - but I have been saying this in multiple comments in the Fool - that gold takes a plunge with a correction in oil. In fact I was long DZZ and short OIL and USO from I think April in CAPS - always my amazingly wrong timing !

However, I recently as commented on your and other blogs -started Dollar costing into Gold ( CEF - your reco) and picked up a small position in AUY at around 12. I fully expect AUY to go into single digits - however I will buy AEM at that time - to diversify. BUT, I think one needs to see a decouple of Gold from Oil - otherwise there's a lot of pain ahead.

I do not see Gold crossing $1000/oz in any perceivable vicinity either.

Doug, I like and respect you everday. Wonderful insight - because its definitely an angle traders would play. By your own admission you work in the Healthcare sector - how come your Economics fundamentals are so good?

Report this comment #9) On August 10, 2008 at 10:25 AM, TMFSinchiruna (99.16) wrote:


My objectivity is as intact as ever.

The only thing linking gold and oil is the USD. The fall of the USD in recent years has been very much a related story to gold's ascent, but supply and demand are much greater factors when analyzing the oil market as compared with the gold market. 

I study the technical correclations between oil and gold as a matter of personal curiosity, but I do not view them as inextricably linked, and the fact that they share common timing in corrections sometimes does not make gold a commodity. And as for decoupling, one need go no further for evidence than the mid-March correction in gold, when gold plummeted from $1,030 to a low of $847 in 1.5 months while oil ascended from $100 to $115 on its way to the $140s.

Looking at the charts for gold and the USDX, however, we see a direct correlation between the reversal of the USDX on July 15 and that of gold on the same day. In contrast, oil had already shown its bias toward correction in the preceding 2 weeks by re-testing the $130s.

Gold and oil are not technically coupled. Gold is much more directly coupled to the USD than oil will ever be. Since the USD is important to the oil market, though, we will always see SOME correlation. In point of fact, over the course of this bull run in gold, the currency has been closely correlated to the USD/Euro relationship, and it is precisely the self-administered slaughtering the Euro has undergone in recent weeks that sparked the dollar rally. Now, some have argued that oil has effectively become a currency as people fearing the effects of inflation pour assets into oil. Wishful thinking. There is only one currency that offers protection from the vagaries of unbacked fiat currency in hyperinflationary mode... gold.

In the short term, the actions of central banks affact the gold market. Over the longer term, in terms of the inevitability of the dollar's trajectory now given the ballooning of the monetary supply and the impact of systemic deleveraging of securitised instruments... the actions of central banks are powerless to affect the long-term trajectory of gold.

As a result, I own almost no oil now. All my energy plays are focused on natural gas and coal. Gold and silver, meanwhile, constitute somewhere in the neighborhood of 2/3 of my portfolio. Despite having all my assets riding on this, I do not lose my objectivity. I also lose no sleep. I know where this is going. Gold will take out $1,200 much sooner than you and some others seem to think. I have taken a notewhorthy beating in recent days, and my CAPS score shows it all too well, but I've not lost a single penny... because I have not sold a thing.  :)

Thanks for the discussion. These are certainly historic times, and nothing short of fascinating to watch. I continue to worry for the financial well-being of countless people out there, though. After all, not everyone is as fortunate as we CAPS members to have an online forum where so many smart and talented people come together to debate these complex issues at length.


Report this comment #10) On August 10, 2008 at 4:33 PM, anchak (99.33) wrote:

Chris....based on your comments and my own painful memory of the last major Gold correction - 5/10/2006 I spent looking at some charts. I was not as informed an investor as today - all relative - meaning no claims of expertise.

However, the main driver was Commodities were on a tear - and the Fed raised rates and I think changed some verbiage. That led to a sell-of - which lasted about 1 month precise dates 5/10 -6/13. But the interesting thing to note is a double top with the immediate preceding top happening on 4/19. As I recall now - it was the small 2 week first correction in commodities which had prompted my first Gold ETF buy in first week of May,2006. Anyway different story.

My point is you could almost see the same pattern today - namely 5/20 and 6/17 - and given now it will be 2 months since the last stop - I am not a Techno expert like other folks - it seems to me - gold might reach that near 850/oz figure and bounce off.

The strange thing is - last time the Fed was actually raising rates ie incentivizing the dollar - this time its all speculation - which makes me think - as and when ECB actually cuts ( reverse incentive) - there would be another leg. However, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if we see a bounce

Your thoughts appreciated


Report this comment #11) On August 11, 2008 at 9:06 AM, TMFSinchiruna (99.16) wrote:


I can't call a bottom here. I have ventured to do so on other occasions where I thought traceable fundamentals were at play, but when you have orchestrated interventions of this magnitude I believe we can throw our charts out the window for the time being.

The bounce will occur whenever the gold longs grow some courage and resume buying. I have read several experts' commentaries in recent days suggesting this whole event for gold was a panic liquidation by inexperienced gold longs trading on margin that were freaked out of the market in ever-increasing droves as the dollar staged a mini-rally. When you have large numbers of leveraged investors, those liquidations can happen in a hurry. That assessment of the past week makes the most sense to me, especially with respect to the multiplied impact on shares of miners.

One thing I know for sure... physical demand for gold and silver bullion has heated up substantially in recent days. Bullion dealers are issuing statements about being out of supply, Indian bullion brokers are struggling to keep up, raising premiums, and extending delivery times.

I noted a similar disconnect between the physical and futures markets at the onset of this correction in March.

This is all just a great big bear trap

Report this comment #12) On August 12, 2008 at 12:23 PM, FleaBagger (99.25) wrote:

I've said before that the political reality in the U.S. is such that severe inflation of the money supply is the only way to get re-elected. The panic buying of gold and silver that caus them to beat inflation in highly inflationary times might not come, however, if politicians continue to get away with underreporting inflation with that "core inflation" crap.

Still, I'm holding a lot of CDE calls. What I like about them is that they don't hedge, which signals to me that they have an idea of the long-term outlook for silver. Also, they're trading well below their book value (based on a low price for silver and gold) and they seem to be somewhat competent acquirers/miners.

Bottom line, if anything close to my thesis for silver comes about, share dilution concerns and mining cost concerns won't stop CDE from returning 200-300% from $2 (more for call holders, i.e. moi).

Report this comment #13) On August 12, 2008 at 2:29 PM, TMFSinchiruna (99.16) wrote:


I hold a lot of CDE too. I just published the following about their recent earnings.

The numbers from Washington amount to crap when it comes to the effect on consumers. We're looking at double-digit hyper-inflation in the near future.


29 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On February 24, 2011 at 2:24 AM, goldminingXpert (28.67) wrote:

I think you identified the one and only time I ever said anything nice about Barrick. Interesting. Nice calls you made on that thread ... interesting digging from your archive.

Report this comment
#2) On February 24, 2011 at 3:16 AM, mhy729 (30.29) wrote:

Whatever happened to DemonDoug?  He's not around anymore, but his CAPS player is holding up quite well.

Report this comment
#3) On February 24, 2011 at 12:43 PM, dragonLZ (86.06) wrote:

Wow, TMFSinch, great, great call.

It's incredible how right you were (and still are) about commodities.

However, I find it also incredible how wrong you were about equities. 

Having said that, I do realize that people who followed you made a lot of money, and that's what it's all about.

Great job. Congrats.


Report this comment
#4) On February 24, 2011 at 1:23 PM, bothisellhigher (29.23) wrote:

If it wasn't for your posts on Gold (and Binve's) I would have given up on AUY long ago...Certainly am glad you two are around.  And really, certainly think AUY has a lot more upside to travel.  Thanks again.

Report this comment
#5) On February 24, 2011 at 1:41 PM, XMFSinchiruna (26.50) wrote:


Thanks, I think. :P

I would like to challenge your assessment of my record on equities. That's the second time I've seen you say that, and I think it's fair to ask for some supporting evidence. By my recollection, aside from one moment in mid-2009 when I grew utterly incredulous at the willingness of the market to overlook persistent risk and paltry fundamental support, I have made very few explicit calls regarding equities. If you have some specific comments of mine in mind to back up that characterization, I would honestly like to see them.

For the record, I called the equity collapse years before it occured, so one needs to be specific when making such a claim that I've been "wrong on equities".

My pm calls have easily outperformed broader equities, as my silverminer portfolio attests. I invest where the fundamentals are, and I see this Fed-led rally as deeply susceptible to violent reversal (thereby challenging the Fed to oince again up the ante with ever more intervention to kick the probglem further down the road).

For the record, I still see this entire equity rally as perilously lacking in sustainable, fundamental underpinning. Systemic risk has not abated, and I personally think investors are at significant risk without substantial protection from precious metal equities.

And while the Fed may have taken Dow 4,000 off the table from a nominal perspective, I would certainly not rule out that it may reach equivalent levels as priced in gold using the intra-crisis Dow:gold ratio as a reference point.

Report this comment
#6) On February 24, 2011 at 1:42 PM, XMFSinchiruna (26.50) wrote:


Watch for my Yamana report to be out in a few hours

Report this comment
#7) On February 24, 2011 at 2:23 PM, XMFSinchiruna (26.50) wrote:

Report this comment
#8) On February 24, 2011 at 2:41 PM, XMFSinchiruna (26.50) wrote:

Why Diana Still Refuses to Pounce

Report this comment
#9) On February 24, 2011 at 4:28 PM, XMFSinchiruna (26.50) wrote:


OK, I found a prior post of mine that could be called an incorrect call on equities between mid-2009 through Fall 2009.

If that's what you're referring to, I partially concede your point. You might find it interesting to note, however, that my framework for interpreting the equity rally has not altered one iota from that post to the present day (as conveyed in comment #5 above). You may find it interesting to compare my comment from September 2009 to my above remarks, as I think you'll agree they are wholly unchanged.

#21) On September 23, 2009 at 10:21 PM, TMFSinchiruna (99.08) wrote:

The equity rally is a manufactured entitiy ... manufactured by stimulus, bailouts, backstops, guarantees, loans, swaps, incentives, exemptions, and anything else needed to make it happen and create the fleeting image of recovery. It was enhanced further by an 11% devaluation in the USD. As such, it was an extremely difficult market movement to forecast a terminal morraine on.

Extreme market dislocations will occur regularly in the midst of massive intervention into capital markets. Those are the consequences of intervention ... it breeds dislocations ... generating unforeseen consequences in the form of new speculative excess and resulting market dislocation from any semblance of actual economic conditions on the ground.

I saw the same thing happen on the reverse side when precious metal miners fell to extreme depths amid a counter-trend USD rally.

Equities are experiencing first hand an enormous intervention-fed counter-cyclical rally that presents a most dangerous condition for the unprotected. The inflation impact upon share prices remains the unknown wild card, but it's safe to say that equity markets will be heading substantially lower before conditions improve in a sustainable way.


Report this comment
#10) On February 24, 2011 at 4:47 PM, XMFSinchiruna (26.50) wrote:

Let me just say, too, that I am well aware I have made several incorrect calls over the years here. Fortunately, I've been right on the one that mattered most, that being the continuation of the multi-year pm bull market. But, for example, I failed to raise cash in the initial stages of the 2008 correction because I never imagined it could prove so deep nor long-lived. [I happen to think gold and silver were deliberately struck down by market-making shorts during that period, but that's beside the point]. :)

I also learned over the course of 2008 the sheer folly in attaching precise timeframes to any major prediction. I have learned that there is virtually no limit to how long markets can remain disjointed from fundamental drivers, and there is certainly no way to predict the timing of the momentum-chasing professional money.

Report this comment
#11) On February 24, 2011 at 5:57 PM, dragonLZ (86.06) wrote:

Here is one I found (don't have much time now, but will post them as I find them, if you want me to continue) from GMX's post It May Be Coming to An End:

#28) On September 01, 2009 at 12:30 PM, TMFSinchiruna (99.09) wrote:


Refreshing to have your voice on the blogs once more.

I agree 100% with your assessment, though I stop short of making specific projections for the indeces. I think we will have a massive correction characterized by some measure of panic, but I think the situation has grown too complex to permit me to make a target call on the broader indeces.

Here are my musings on the topic from this morning.

________(end of comment)_______________________

For some reason the links don't work.

Report this comment
#12) On February 24, 2011 at 6:10 PM, dragonLZ (86.06) wrote:

Once again, just to be clear, I think it's incredible how right you were on the PM's. Best call that I've seen anywhere. Ever. Even better than checklist34's call on the equities.

I just think I've seen a few too many of your comments about extreme risk/panic/possible collapse in the equities, when we experienced nothing but straight line up - just like we did in PM's.

I also think you are overly advertising PM's great run like it's way, way better than the bull market we experienced in the equities (and many people believe you), when in fact that's not the case (looking at the last two years).

Report this comment
#13) On February 24, 2011 at 6:25 PM, dragonLZ (86.06) wrote:

Sinch, I checked your Silverminer portfolio, and your best performer is SLW at +1200% (let's call it a twelve-bagger).

After SLW, your best performers are all two-baggers. I assume you probably have a few more 5-baggers in that portfolio, just closed them too early.

Now take a look at my real life buys made at the beginning of 2009.

LVS 22-bagger (+2200%), FNSR 15-bagger, MIC 14-bagger, SOA 7-bagger, SLG, AIV, DDR, TCK, GNW, all 5-baggers.

Now, why is it that it was so much better investing in PM's at the end of 2008 (that's how you make it sound) than it was investing in equities at the beginning of 2009?  

Report this comment
#14) On February 24, 2011 at 8:50 PM, XMFSinchiruna (26.50) wrote:


I appreciate the kind words regarding my pm calls. 

Your paragraph #2 in comment #12 fails to take my above comments into consideration, where I discuss the reasons that I continue to distrust the equity rally's likelihood of persisting given the risks that remain. This was a fabricated rally from the get-go, which of course was bolstered by normalization of business activity from the paralysis of the full-on crisis mode, but without the Fed and Treasury's monster interventions you'd have no rally. You can judge my take as "wrong on equities" if you wish, but I feel justified in continuing to trust my capital in pm equities versus briad equity exposure given the relative fundamental frameworks beneath them. These are merely my personal considerations, and I don'tspend my time advocating for people to avoid equities by any means.

Again, aside from a couple of rants during that brief period in mid-2009 that I referred to above, I have not advocated avoiding broader equities, but rather have consistently left matters of allocation up to each individual inverstor. I have scores of instances, in fact, where I make clear that all I advocate is some inclusion of pm exposure within everyone's portfolio. Everything else you attribute as representing my message to investors is a misinterpretation.

But since you brought it up, there have indeed been some great recoveries in individual stocks from the bottom of the panic. But, that doesn't change the fact that gold, silver, and related equities at large outperformed each of the major stock indeces over the past 5 years. One can cherry pick timeframes, especially since pms and equities bottomed at different times during 2008, but as long-term investor I find the 5-year relative performance far more interesting.I've been at this for more than 5 years, with a consistent message that seeks only to encourage investors to consider some measure of precious metal exposure, so I think the longer timeframe is an appropriate measure of the performance. Your individual stock picks are laudable, but that is not likely to be indicative of the average investor's experience.

Aside from that, let me remind you that gold and silver have not yet completed their run. We can't really close the book on relative performance until my targets of $2,000 gold and $50-$100 silver have been reached.

Anyway, I refute your characterization that I was broadly "wrong about equities". A statement like that requires far more specificity and context. If you mean to say I was wrong about the sustainability of the equity rally between mid-2009 and late Autumn 2009, I will concede that freely. After witnessing the power of Bernanke's meddling to lift the markets well past my expectation of fundamental support, I ceased underestimating the market-propping power of limitless liquidity and QE to infinity.

Report this comment
#15) On February 26, 2011 at 2:06 PM, dragonLZ (86.06) wrote:

This was a fabricated rally from the get-go, which of course was bolstered by normalization of business activity from the paralysis of the full-on crisis mode, but without the Fed and Treasury's monster interventions you'd have no rally.

I think you are very wrong about that.

When I called the bottom in March of 2009, I had no idea what the Fed will or won't do. Still, I called it, and many other people did. 

I'm convinced when the time is ripe for a bull market, it will happen no matter what the Fed will do.

Same for bear markets. When the market is ripe for a correction, it will go down on news there was an earthquake in a country nobody ever heard of. All of a sudden, everybody's talking about why that country is so important to the World, and two days before nobody ever heard of it. 


But since you brought it up, there have indeed been some great recoveries in individual stocks from the bottom of the panic. But, that doesn't change the fact that gold, silver, and related equities at large outperformed each of the major stock indeces over the past 5 years.

OK, let's check back in 3 years.


Again, aside from a couple of rants during that brief period in mid-2009 that I referred to above, I have not advocated avoiding broader equities, but rather have consistently left matters of allocation up to each individual inverstor. I have scores of instances, in fact, where I make clear that all I advocate is some inclusion of pm exposure within everyone's portfolio.

That's exactly why I respect you a lot, and why I think your call on PM's was/is so great. If you remember, I mentioned checklist34 above as another person who made a great call. However, in my opinion, his scepticism of PM's has tarnished his great call on equities a little bit.

Having said that, I still think that your comments / posts are sending a message to your followers that PM are much, much superior to equities (even if you don't say it directly).


Aside from that, let me remind you that gold and silver have not yet completed their run. We can't really close the book on relative performance until my targets of $2,000 gold and $50-$100 silver have been reached.

That's true, but DOW still hasn't reached 17,000 - 18,000 (my target) either. Let's see at that time how did your PM related picks perform versus my equity related calls.

(this doesn't mean I don't believe in gold, especially silver).


Thanks for taking the time to comment, and good luck in the future.

Report this comment
#16) On February 27, 2011 at 11:05 AM, XMFSinchiruna (26.50) wrote:


You are constructing a straw man.

1. I have recommended countless non-pm equities over the past 2 years, and those picks likewise carry a solid record of outperforming the market. Among them: BIP, SCHN, CSX, CNI, DVN, PWE, PVX, BTU.On countless occasions, I also pinpointed specific stocks to avoid rather than the sort of blanket aversion to stocks that you seem to want to attribute to my writings. I warned investors away from DRYS, USG, CX, BAC, and a host of names that have vastly underperformed the market.

2. It has never been about stocks vs. pms, or vice versa. That is not the paradigm within which I operate. I simply advocate for pm exposure.

3. I have no interest in comparing my performance in pm equities to your performance in non-pm equities. No interest whatsoever. I have an interest in helping Fools to select individual stocks that will outperform the broader markets, period.

You need to cease trying to characterize my record on "equities" in such uselessly non-specific terms, and you need also to cease trying to hold me up as some sort of posterchild for non-pm equity aversion. It's inaccurate, careless, and highly offensive.

In other words, move on, and kindly cease your unjustified references to me being somehow "wrong on equities". 

Report this comment
#17) On February 27, 2011 at 10:22 PM, dragonLZ (86.06) wrote:

#18) On December 22, 2010 at 10:13 AM, silverminer (99.87) wrote:


I am 100% aligned with your concerns, and the clear inevitibility of further quantitative easing as the default response. The looming crisis is of large enough scale, furthermore, to spark another major bank failure or something of its ilk ... with all the associated repercussions for systemic risk, uncontrolled deleveraging, etc.

It's reported we came within a few hours of complete financial devastation in the wake of Lehman. Will we be so fortunate on a second time around? For all of our sake, I hope we manage to avoid such a perilous precipice, because the fall from these heights after all that has been done would be truly unthinkable in scope.


And you posted this as a response to a post that said:

So what happens? A double dip followed by a huge QE3 is what I think happens.


If that screems Buy Stocks to you, then I guess I'm wrong.

Also, have you ever wondered why majority of your followers are shorting the market for the last two years (at least here on CAPS)? Because your message is that is safe to buy stocks?

Report this comment
#18) On February 27, 2011 at 10:37 PM, dragonLZ (86.06) wrote:

#9) On November 04, 2010 at 3:14 PM, silverminer (99.87) wrote:


well said!


I just wish vindication could be enjoyed. I can't enjoy it, because it means I'm correct about the direction our nation is heading in. Even on a day like today when my stock portfolio is up 6%, and although I'm thankful that I made the decision to go long gold and silver with about 80% of my capital, I find no cause for real celebration. I view my precious metal gains as a small consolation prize for being forced to endure the economic #$@!storm that awaits.

Jim Sinclair is absolutely correct: it's QE to infinity. State and municipal deficits, pension defaults, mortgage mayhem, and all manner of mounting crises continue to ensure that reflating the beast will require countless trillions more of QE. It will never be enough, and so it will require ever more.

So while I will slap my fellow pm investors high-five for a sector well selected, I will also shed a tear for the future of my country.


Another one of your "It's safe to get into stocks" comments.

I just wonder how did I ever get an impression that you were thinking the future is bleak and people should not invest in equities (non-PM-related ones). I guess you have every right to be mad at me for "unjustified references" I'm making.


I suggest from now on you include a disclaimer at the end of your posts: "Don't you even try to say I was wrong on anything. If you don't think I'm the gretest thing since sliced bread, and are not willing to kiss my ass 100%, don't you dare commenting."

It will help keep people like me away...

Report this comment
#19) On February 27, 2011 at 11:12 PM, dragonLZ (86.06) wrote:

Nothing says I was never wrong on equities like "crash is a sure thing" just before market goes on a run up not seen in years:

#1) On May 19, 2010 at 11:46 AM, silverminer (99.87) wrote:

There's been a crash risk ever since the Dow re-took 10k, it's just that investors' eyes are too close to the screen to get the larger picture.


Now I believe you you were always right about equities. Whoever listened to you in May of 2010 sure couldn't wait to jump back into the market...

Report this comment
#20) On February 28, 2011 at 12:04 AM, XMFSinchiruna (26.50) wrote:


I am discovering it is impossible to reason with you. You continue to ignore everything I have wasted my time writing above. You continue to post unfair statement after twisted interpretation. I am the first to admit when I'm wrong, and I have repeatedly highlighted my past mistakes without any incitement by the likes of you.

You have erected a strawman... plain and simple. You ignored above where I have recommended numerous non-pm equities over the years, which immediately renders your characterization of me as patently anti-equity as a ridiculous non-starter. You make spurious assumptions of linkages between some CAPS members' decisions to short the market and my own macroeconomic views.

That comments you cite above are from November and December 2010, so it is not logical to use those as an example of me being "wrong on equities", as insufficient time has elapsed to render such a judgement.

I have spent years trying to reinforce the notion that viewing these issues as "stocks vs. pms" is a useless oversimplification. Your attempt to portray my perspective in such un-nuanced terms does a disservice to those efforts. 


That you have harbored some kind of resentment against me is no great secret:

From DragonLZ, October 2010:

It seems to me, based on the posts and comments I read over the last few months, that TMFSinchiruna (silverminer) thinks he is the best thing since sliced bread because of his great / correct call on commodities.

He forgot there was artificial Christmas tree in between...


I also think he thinks being right for 10 years means being right for another 10 years. Just my uninformed opinion...


If that still captures how you really feel, then please keep your empty words of accolade to yourself from now on.

Now, please stop wasting my time. I have my plate more than full trying to keep Fools well informed regarding stocks in numerous sectors both inside and outside of pms.

Report this comment
#21) On February 28, 2011 at 6:45 AM, XMFSinchiruna (26.50) wrote:


Those are painfully skeazy tactics there in comment #19 Dragon, first trying to pin a phrase on me like "I was never wrong about equities", which is so laughable when I freely conceded above that I was wrong with my market calls in mid-to-late 2009, and then by placing "crash is a sure thing" in quotation marks as if I had written them.

I have scarcely encountered a Fool who sought to condense all the color of another members entire collective efforts into such an insultingly black-and-white, and erroneously concocted straw-man rubric.

Your misguided efforts in this vane will not succeed.


Report this comment
#22) On February 28, 2011 at 12:44 PM, dragonLZ (86.06) wrote:


I guess you are forgetting how everything started.

I said you made the best call ever on PM's, and I also said you were wrong on equities (equities as in S&P500, not a correct term, as I didn't sepcify non-PM-related equiities, but I'm sure you knew what I meant).

You said that you are not happy with my statement and requested some supporting evidence. You also said that "aside from one moment in mid-2009" you weren't wrong on equities. (In case you were wrong at some other point in time, why would you say "aside from one moment in mid-2009"? I guess that's somehow my fault now).

Then I found some supporting evidenvce from 2010, but you say that doesn't count either.

"That comments you cite above are from November and December 2010, so it is not logical to use those as an example of me being "wrong on equities", as insufficient time has elapsed to render such a judgement."

Well, you are most likely right on this one. I just wonder how "insufficient time" rule doesn't work when you are right on your call - see Copper Fox in your Whoops post, but it doesn't when you are wrong. I guess, again somehow my fault.

OK, so what happened with your comment from May of 2010? Insufficient time or again "unfair statement after twisted interpretation"? You failed to address that comment.

All in all, why did you ask for supporting evidence if you don't allow it to be used in court?

It's clear you won't be ever wrong about equities (other than a brief moment in mid-2009), and there is nothing that will change that. Your words from the past don't count. I'm sure 99% of all the Fools have the same opinion of your point of view on equities (risky/double dip very likely/look for protection in PM's), but somehow I'm the one trying to do something that has nothing to do with reality.

Good for you.

This reminds me of your call on steel industry.

When I called you out with facts (30-50% gain in stell stocks' prices), you said you don't care about increases in their stock prices - that doesn't prove anything.

Well, I just wonder then how come you show how right your calls were by using the same measure (see your Whoop post again - such and such stock up so and so much since I recommended it).

I know, I know, it's me again. I need to learn how the rules work, I guess... 

Report this comment
#23) On February 28, 2011 at 1:38 PM, XMFSinchiruna (26.50) wrote:

Dude ... move on with your life. Get away from me.

Report this comment
#24) On February 28, 2011 at 2:01 PM, dragonLZ (86.06) wrote:

Why did you ask for supporting evidence?

I'm sorry I made you so mad. I would never continue this discussion if you didn't say "show me where I was wrong".

I did, and you got all mad.

In the future don't write stuff you don't want posted/used by somebody else (just in case your calls turn to be wrong). First rule of internet use...

Report this comment
#25) On February 28, 2011 at 2:31 PM, XMFSinchiruna (26.50) wrote:


You showed nothing except ridiculous illogic and childish tactics, both here and in several previous encounters.

I wish no further communication with you. Please respect that. I will be responsible for accurately portraying my own comprehesive record in due time, and in the meantime your unwelcome attempts to reduce my nuanced perspectives into such simplistic black-and-white terms is unacceptable in a forum of intelligent adults.

I would have been more than happy to debate the finer points of these issues had you exhibited an intellectual curiosity for seeking an accurate portrayal of my record, but that was not forthcoming, neither here nor in our previous encounters.

Now kindly go away!

Report this comment
#26) On February 28, 2011 at 2:49 PM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:


Thanks for bringing GPL to my attention.  It is up about 11% today.  Now I wish I had bought more, lol.


Report this comment
#27) On February 28, 2011 at 3:52 PM, dragonLZ (86.06) wrote:

You showed nothing except ridiculous illogic and childish tactics, both here and in several previous encounters.

Chris, why are you not more specific? What did I do? You are the one accusing me without the supporting evidence.

I only presented your words, not mine.

If I had said you were wrong about PM's all along, I'm sure you would quickly post a few links to your old posts from Gold-$600-time in which you said Gold will be $1400 to show that the exact opposite is the case.

So far, you haven't posted even one link or your old comment where you said in 2009 or 2010 that it was OK to ease into (you didn't have to say jump into) the non-PM-related equities.

And you are mad because I think you were very wrong about equities?

Where is the proof, the supporting evidenc e(which you asked of me)?

If I was wrong, why didn't you show me instead of accusing me of this and that (I was just waiting when are you going to say I'm an infiltrated Al Qaeda member on an assignment to terrorise you).

And just so you know, I'm not a hater. I'm the one who said you made the best call ever, remember? You can turn me into your hater all you want, but I'm not (check comment# 6 from this post of mine).

But I am someone who still believes "if it  quacks like a duck..." it's a duck (however childish that might be to you).

If I think you were wrong on equities, I'm gonna say it no matter how much you hate it.

Btw., I also never insulted your intelligence, and never said you were this or that, never said you are trying to achieve this or that with your "tactics". I just was mean enough (I admit it) to dig through your records (after you asked to see some supporting evidence).

Having said all of this, I respect your wish to be left alone. I won't comment any more after this. You can have the last word,  if you want. I'll respect that, it's your post.

I will just be mean enough once again to leave you with a few words. Yours. From April of 2009. Keep in mind the market has roughly doubled since then. I'm sure you wouldn't be happy with people who told others to stay away from Gold when it was at $700 (rightly so - hmmmm, sounds familiar, GMX anyone?)

(The ending of your Danger: Step Away from the Railroad Tracks post). 

Something magical happened to railroad stocks on that date, sparking a 30% to 50% rally for the group. What happened on March 9? The Dow found a temporary bottom at a 12-year low. However, getting in now on a rally that I see as unsustainable is one case of spring fever you do not want to catch.

Report this comment
#28) On February 28, 2011 at 4:36 PM, XMFSinchiruna (26.50) wrote:

Do you speak English? Cease and desist!

Report this comment
#29) On March 08, 2011 at 7:53 PM, portefeuille (98.93) wrote:

so glad I don't get involved in discussions with gold bugs, hehe ...

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners