Bo Polny James Turk John Embry
John Hathaway Stephen Leeb Stewart Thompson
Martin Armstrong Silver Doctors Dave Kranzler
Bill
Holter
Jim
Rickards
David Morgan
If you'd like us to research specific others - please email us. |
Steve "St. Angelo" SRSRocco One particular PM analyst, an oddly-named Steve "St. Angelo" SRSRocco, seems to make some of the most ineffective predictions in recent years, stubbornly sticking with his premise that physical demand (coin sales etc.) has some effect on the paper-denominated price. Like a dog with a bone, he just won't give up on this theory no matter how wrong he is proven to be - year after year. He also frequently cherry-picks data to support his continued expectation of a price rise. You can't use supply/demand data to produce a viable result when you don't know how big SUPPLY can get! (ex. COMEX has gone from 124:1 to over 500:1 in 3.5 years. How can anyone know if it won't rise to 600:1? or 10,000:1?) 'Demand', in this case, becomes inconsequential. Hence, a community of failed predictions from the likes of Mr. Gold (Jim Sinclair) "Gold will never go below $1500" or Mr. Silver David Morgan "Silver will never go below $30" who continue to use irrelevant data. How many times do these analysts have to be wrong before they change the premise on which they base their prognostications? They blame 'manipulation' but never take it into account when making their videos, writing newsletters or being interviewed. They just keep stating an imminent price rise. In fact, they decidedly ignore their, previous, costly errors. It's not an occasional mistake - it's pathological in Rocco's case. One example of why I say 'cherry pick' was this January 2nd, 2014 article Rocco wrote: The Historic Gold-Oil Ratio Forecasts A Much Higher Price For Gold! - the price of Brent crude at the time was $110/brl BUT with the dramatic price drop of Oil - now $35ish/brl (that he also seemed clueless to predict) where is the article that says The Historic Gold-Oil Ratio Forecasts A Much LOWER Price For Gold? I guess it didn't support his thesis. Let's look at some of Rocco's
articles over the past 3+ years. The article titles are in bold and
my, occasionally smartass, comments in italics. NOTE: "In our current
dollar gold market, the less (physical) gold is supplied, the more
it pressures the (paper) price down! Players must create and sell
not just more contracts to cover expiring ones, but also sell enough
paper to force the price down further. In a market that's becoming
shorter of physical gold, this is the only way they can add equity
to cover rollover positions. "FOA - The Gold Trail, Feb 23, 2000 Rocco, physical buying (India, JP Morgan, whoever) won't make the paper-price go up... it will, potentially, only make it scarce to buy in extremis. As the paper demand increases - it only increases the ratio of paper-to-physical thereby diluting the paper value - which under true supply\demand should go down. When western investors buy gold - they buy paper gold - and so there is more pressure on paper gold the more in forces the paper-denominated price lower. Silver below $10 and gold below $500... and this should be encouraging to the gold holders as it announces the paper market is near breaking and you probably won't find any physical metals at those prices. It would probably indicate that a rest/revaluation is forthcoming if not imminent. NOTE: I have nothing against Mr.
St. Angelo - he seemed reasonably civilized in online discussions
(although wanting to lecture more than learn), but when I simply
reminded him of his June 19th, 2015 statement: He, then, banned me from his Forum.?!? If you have made one or two bad calls - that's one thing but Steve (Rocco) has made a database full and I think he should own up to them and be accountable explaining how and why his predictions are so far from reality of what is/has transpired. I have my own idea- if you start from a failed premise (his is supply/demand) and you refuse to shift gears - well, paraphrasing Einstein "Insanity is making the exact same failed predictions over and over again and expecting different results." . |