Month: March 2014

Article by Investazor.com

In this article I will show you how to trade using a strategy which combines the candlestick patterns with the moving averages. For better understanding I would recommend you to read also:

Candlesticks In Day To Day Trading

Candlestick Patterns In Technical Analysis

Trading Candlestick Patterns At Key Levels

In the articles above I have introduced the candlestick chart and motivated why it is one of the most used type of charts. I have explained how candlesticks are formed and which are the most important and frequently used patterns as well a strategy on how to use this type of patterns at key levels.

Let us talk a little about Moving Averages before getting to discuss about the trading strategy. A widely used indicator in technical analysis that helps smooth out price action by filtering out the “noise” from random price fluctuations. A moving average (noted MA) it is a trend following indicator, or also known as lagging indicator. It is one of the most known and used indicator among technical analysts and not only.

The post Trading Candlestick Patterns With Moving Averages appeared first on investazor.com.

By John Mauldin

 

All eyes are on Ukraine as the drama continues to unfold. Today, for an early Outside the Box, I’m going to offer three sources on Ukraine. The first is a note that I got from the head of emerging-market trading at one of the world’s largest hedge funds. This is what he sent out last week, ahead of any real action:

My view, Putin is stuck now, cannot easily de-escalate. Further escalation is a possibility, with Ukraine cracking along the obvious ethnic fault lines and the West reacting with measures such as sanctions and visa restrictions. Tit-for-tat follows; gas supplies to the EU are disrupted. Russian capital outflows accelerate and the RUB [ruble] quickly gets to 40/$, fuelling inflation and unnerving the Russian banking system, and also infecting the European banking system, in the manner that Chris Watling has envisaged. Meanwhile, the Chinese liabilities residing inside the European banking system are also in trouble, of course, and will continue to deteriorate. The CBR [Central Bank of Russia] hikes repeatedly with very little effect on slowing the RUB slide, further hurting GDP growth and economically sensitive segments of the market. The Russian RTX index revisits the GFC lows of 2008, Gazprom ADR’s are already within shouting distance of their 2008 lows today. In such a scenario, there is an obvious risk of market contagion spreading throughout Eastern and Western Europe, and in fact the rest of the world. It is likely to resemble something on the order of the 1998 LTCM + RUB collapse + Asian financial crisis magnitude. In fact, a number of hedge funds will fail precisely because they have loaded up so heavily with European debt instruments which will unravel.

Meanwhile, politically, the US ends up looking weaker and weaker, and getting less and less respect internationally. The US-Russia confrontation is taking place under the critical gaze of the leaders of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Syria, Turkey and Hizballah in Lebanon.

They are seeing the following:

1. President Obama is now seen backing off a commitment to US allies for the second time in eight months. They remember his U-turn last August on US military intervention for the removal of Syrian President Bashar Assad for using chemical weapons. They also see Washington shying off from Russia’s clear and present use of military force and therefore concluding that Washington is not a reliable partner for safeguarding their national security.
2. The Middle East governments and groups which opted to cooperate recently with Vladimir Putin – Damascus, Tehran, Hizballah and Egypt – are ending up on the strong side of the regional equation. Others such as Turkey and Qatar are squirming.
3. American weakness on the global front has strengthened the Iranian-Syrian bloc and its ties with Hizballah. Assad is going nowhere.
4. Putin standing behind Iran is a serious obstacle to a negotiated and acceptable comprehensive agreement with Iran, just as the international EU- and US-led bid for a political resolution of the Syrian conflict foundered last month, and now is unlikely to ever be revisited.

Notice what he said about European banks. Their exposure to emerging-market corporate debt, Chinese debt, and Russian liabilities is going to weaken their balance sheets just as the European central bank stress test will be kicking off.

This is going to be a very interesting period of time and potentially quite dangerous. Very few people saw US market vulnerabilities in early 1998 coming from outside the US. As I said in my 2014 forecast, the United States should be all right until there is a shock to the system. We have to be aware of what can cause shocks. Ukraine in and of itself might not be enough, but notice that the Chinese are preparing to slow their economy down as part of the process of reducing their dependency on bank debt and foreign direct investment in construction and other projects. China has been one of the main engines of global growth, so a slowdown will have effects. It’s all connected, as I wrote in the 2007 letter we reprinted this weekend.

I should note that other very savvy investors and managers think there will be no contagion from current events. That’s what makes a market. It’s why we need to pay attention to Ukraine.

In the second part of today’s Outside the Box we visit a short essay on Ukraine by Anatole Kaletsky, which talks about timing investments during market crises:

Financial markets cannot afford to be so sentimental. While we should always recall at a time like this the famous advice from Nathan Rothschild to “buy at the sound of gunfire,” the drastically risk-off response to weekend events in Ukraine makes perfect sense because Russia’s annexation of Crimea is the most dangerous geopolitical event of the post-Cold War era, and perhaps since the Cuban Missile crisis. It can result in only two possible outcomes, either of which will be damaging to European stability in the long-term.

Finally, I got a piece on Ukraine from my friend Ian Bremmer, who says, “[W]e are witnessing the most seismic geopolitical event since 9/11.” His analysis plus background data help us understand what is really going on in Ukraine.

Ian will be at my conference in San Diego, May 13-16, and you should be too. If you don’t have a plan for dealing with what happens when the midterm forecasts begin knocking on the door, you won’t know what to do when the time comes. Our conference offers a wonderful opportunity to bring your plans into focus and perhaps make a few new ones. You can find out more here.

I’m feeling a lot better today than I did this weekend. I am stuck in Miami due to the cancellation of my flight but hope to be able to get to Washington DC tomorrow morning to experience the East Coast version of the polar vortex. But, for the nonce, I guess I will be forced to sit outside at the pool or on the beach and continue my research, which is once again stacking up. You have to love iPads, which are for me great productivity enhancers. I did finish George Gilder’s brilliant must-read book Knowledge and Power this weekend, and I highly recommend it. And I suppose I should research the gym facilities here later this afternoon. I have mastered the trick of reading on my iPad while walking on the treadmill. No excuses. Have a great week.

Your enjoying the Miami weather analyst,

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box[email protected]

Stay Ahead of the Latest Tech News and Investing Trends…

Click here to sign up for Patrick Cox’s free daily tech news digest.

Each day, you get the three tech news stories with the biggest potential impact.

---

Realpolitik In Ukraine

By Anatole Kaletsky, Gavekal

Oscar Wilde described marriage as the triumph of imagination over intelligence and second marriage as the triumph of hope over experience. In finance and geopolitics, by contrast, experience must always prevail over hope and realism over wishful thinking. A grim case in point is the Russian incursion into Ukraine. What makes this confrontation so dangerous is that US and EU policy seems to be motivated entirely by hope and wishful thinking. Hope that Vladimir Putin will “see sense,” or at least be deterred by the threat of US and EU sanctions to Russia’s economic interests and the personal wealth of his oligarch friends. Wishful thinking about “democracy and freedom” overcoming dictatorship and military bullying.

Financial markets cannot afford to be so sentimental. While we should always recall at a time like this the famous advice from Nathan Rothschild to “buy at the sound of gunfire,” the drastically risk-off response to weekend events in Ukraine makes perfect sense because Russia’s annexation of Crimea is the most dangerous geopolitical event of the post- Cold War era, and perhaps since the Cuban Missile crisis. It can result in only two possible outcomes, either of which will be damaging to European stability in the long-term. Either Russia will quickly prevail and thereby win the right to redraw borders and exercise veto powers over the governments of its neighbouring countries. Or the Western-backed Ukrainian government will fight back and Europe’s second-largest country by area will descend into a Yugoslav-style civil war that will ultimately draw in Poland, NATO and therefore the US.

No other outcome is possible because it is literally inconceivable that Putin will ever withdraw from Crimea. To give up Crimea now would mean the end of Putin’s presidency, since the Russian public, not to mention the military and security apparatus, believe almost unanimously that Crimea still belongs to Russia, since it was only administratively transferred to Ukraine, almost by accident, in 1954. In fact, many Russians believe, rightly or wrongly, that most of Ukraine “belongs” to them. (The very name of the country in Russian means “at the border” and certainly not “beyond the border”). Under these circumstances, the idea that Putin would respond to Western diplomatic or economic sanctions, no matter how stringent, by giving up his newly gained territory is pure wishful thinking. Putin’s decision to back himself into this corner has been derided by the Western media as a strategic blunder but it is actually a textbook example of realpolitik. Putin has created a situation where the West’s only alternative to acquiescing in the Russian takeover of Crimea is all-out war.

And since a NATO military attack on Russian forces is even more inconceivable than Putin’s withdrawal, it seems that Russia has won this round of the confrontation. The only question now is whether the new Ukrainian government will accept the loss of Crimea quietly or try to retaliate against Russian speakers in Ukraine—offering Putin a pretext for invasion, and thereby precipitating an all-out civil war.

That is the key question investors must consider in deciding whether the Ukraine crisis is a Rothschild-style buying opportunity, or a last chance to bail out of risk-assets before it is too late. The balance of probabilities in such situations is usually tilted towards a peaceful solution—in this case, Western acquiescence in the Russian annexation of Crimea and the creation of a new national unity government in Kiev acceptable to Putin. The trouble is that the alternative of a full-scale war, while far less probable, would have much greater impact—on the European and global economies, on energy prices and on the prices of equities and other risk- assets that are already quite highly valued. At present, therefore, it makes sense to stand back and prepare for either outcome by maintaining balanced portfolios of the kind recommended by Charles, with equal weightings of equities and very long-duration US bonds.

Looking back through history at comparable episodes of severe geopolitical confrontation, investors have usually done well to wait for the confrontation to reach some kind of climax before putting on more risk. In the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, the S&P 500 fell -6.5% between October 16, when the confrontation started, and October 23, the worst day of the crisis, when President Kennedy issued his nuclear ultimatum to Nikita Khrushchev. The market steadied then, but did not rebound in earnest until four days later, when it became clear that Khrushchev would back down; it went on to gain 30% in the next six months. Similarly in the 1991 Gulf War, it was not until the bombing of Baghdad actually started and a quick US victory looked certain, that equities bounced back, gaining 25% by the summer. Thus investors did well to buy at the sound of gunfire, but lost nothing by waiting six months after Saddam Hussein’s initial invasion of Kuwait in August, 1990. Even in the worst-case scenario to which the invasion of Crimea has been compared over the weekend—the German annexation of Sudetenland in June 1938—Wall Street only rebounded in earnest, gaining 24% within one month, on September 29, 1938. That was the day before Neville Chamberlain returned from Munich, brandishing his infamous note from Hitler and declaring “peace in our time”. The ultimate triumph of hope over experience.

Special Eurasia Group Update – Ukraine

By Ian Bremmer, Eurasia Group

dear john,

russia is conducting direct military intervention in ukraine, following condemnation and threats of sanction/serious consequence from the united states and europe. we’re witnessing the most seismic geopolitical events since 9/11.

a little background from the week. russian president vladimir putin provided safety to now ousted ukrainian president viktor yanukovych. the ukrainian government came together with broadly pro-european sentiment…and with few if any representatives of other viewpoints. the west welcomed the developments and prepared to send an imf mission, which would lift the immediate economic challenge. and then, predictably…the russians changed the conversation.

the west – the us and europe – supported the ukrainian opposition as soon as president yanukovych fled the country. that also effectively breached the accord that had been signed by the european foreign ministers, opposition and president yanukovych (a russian special envoy attended but did not add his name). the immediate american perspective was to take the changed developments on the ground as a win. but a “win” was never on offer in ukraine, where russian interests are dramatically, even exponentially, greater than those of the americans or europeans. for its part, the new ukrainian government lost no time in antagonizing the russians – dissolving the ukrainian special forces, declaring the former president a criminal, and removing russian as a second official language. the immediate russian response was military exercises and work to keep crimea. president vladimir putin kept mum on any details.

let’s focus on crimea for a moment. it’s majority ethnic russian, and ukrainians living there are overwhelmingly russian speaking (there’s a significant minority population of muslim crimean tatars, formerly forcibly resettled under stalin – relevant from a humanitarian perspective, but they’ll have no impact on the practical political outcome). crimea is a firmly russian oriented territory. crimea has a russian military base (with a long term lease agreement) and strong, well organized russian and cossack groups – which they’ve supplemented with significant numbers of additional troops, as well as military ships sent to the area. russia has said they will respect ukrainian territorial integrity…and i’m sure they’ll have an interpretation of their action which does precisely that. moscow will argue that the ouster of president yanukovych was illegal, that he’s calling for russian assistance, that the new government wasn’t legally formed, and that citizens of crimea – governed by an illegal government – are requesting russia’s help and protection. all of which is technically true. to be sure, there are plenty of things the russians have already done that involve a breach, including clear and surely provable, given sufficient investigation, direct russian involvement in taking over the parliament and two airports in crimea. but that’s not the issue. it’s just that if you want to argue over the finer points, the west doesn’t have much of a legal case here and couldn’t enforce one if it did.

and the finer points aren’t what we’re going to be arguing about for some time. president obama’s response was to strongly condemn reported russian moves, and to imply it was an invasion of sovereignty…promising unspecified consequences to russia should they breach ukrainian sovereignty. if that was meant to warn the russians, who have vastly greater stakes in ukraine (and particularly crimea) than the americans and the europeans, it was a serious miscalculation, as putin already controlled crimea, it was only a question of how quickly and clearly he wanted to formalize that fact. there’s literally zero chance of american military response, with the pentagon quickly clarifying that it had no contingencies for dealing with moscow on the issue – that’s surely not true, they have contingencies for everything. but secretary of defense chuck hagel just wanted to ensure nobody thought the president meant that all options were on the table. instead, we’re seeing discussions of president obama not attending the g8 summit in sochi and targeted sanctions against russia.

putin has since acted swiftly, requesting a vote from the russian upper house to approve military intervention in ukraine. it was approved, unanimously, within hours. it’s a near-certainty that the russians now persist in direct intervention. the remaining related question is whether russian intervention is limited to crimea – putin’s request included defense of russia’s military base in sevastopol (on the crimean peninsula) and to defend the rights of ethnic russians in ukraine…which extends far beyond crimea. putin’s words may have been intended to deter the west, or he may intend to go into eastern ukraine, at least securing military assets there. given that pro-russian demonstrations were hastily organized earlier in the day in three major southeast ukrainian cities, it seems possible the russians are intending a broader incursion. if that happens, we’re in an extremely escalatory environment. if it doesn’t, it’s still possible (though very difficult) that the west could come in financially and stabilize the kyiv government.

* * *

before we get into implications, it’s worth taking a step back, as we’ve seen this before. in 2008, turmoil developed in georgia under nationalist president mikheil saakashvili, a charismatic figure, fluent english speaker, and husband to a european (from the netherlands). he made it very clear he wanted to join nato and the european union (the latter being a pretty fantastic claim). the russian government was doing its best to make georgia’s president miserable – cutting off energy and economic ties and directly supporting restive russian-speaking republics within georgia. for his part, saakashvili delighted in directly antagonizing putin – showing up late for a kremlin meeting (while he was busy swimming), insulting him personally, etc.

saakashvili was a favorite of the west, the us congress particularly feted him. the messages from the united states were positive, making it sound like america had his back. internally, there was a strong debate – vice president dick cheney led the calls to free himself from russia’s grip as fast and as loudly as possible, secretary of state condoleezza rice thought saakashvili unpredictable and dangerous, and wanted to urge him to back off (as did former secretary colin powell, who lent his view to the white house as well). the cheney view prevailed, georgian president already had a habit of hearing what he wanted to out of mixed messages, and he proceeded. on 8 august, the russian tanks rolled into georgia and then the united states was left with a conundrum –  what to do to defend america’s “ally” georgia.

as it turned out, nothing. national security advisor steve hadley chaired a private meeting with president bush and all relevant advisors, most of whom said the united states had to take action. bush was sympathetic. hadley stopped the meeting and asked if anyone was personally prepared to commit military forces to what would be direct confrontation with russia. he went around the room individually and asked if there was a commitment – which would be publicly required of the group afterwards (and uniformly) if they were to recommend that the president take action. there was not – not a single one. and then the meeting quickly moved to how to position diplomacy, since there wasn’t any action to take.

that’s precisely where we are on ukraine – but with much higher stakes (and with a united states in a generally weaker diplomatic position), since ukraine is more important economically and geopolitically (and to europe specifically on both).

* * *

the good news is that russia doesn’t matter as much as it used to on the global stage. indeed, a big part of the problem is that russia is a declining power, and the west’s response on ukraine was to make the west’s perception of that reality abundantly clear to putin. which, in putin’s mind, required a decisive response. but this has the potential to undermine american relationships more broadly. to say the us-russia relationship is broken presently is an understatement – the upper house also voted to recall the russian ambassador to washington (america’s ambassador to moscow had just this past week ended his term – the decision was unrelated to the crisis).

what will be much more interesting is 1) the significance of the west’s direct response; 2) whether the russians will cause trouble on a broader array of fronts for the west; and 3) whether a strongly-intentioned russia can shift the geopolitical balance against the united states.

taking each of these in order.

1) the west’s direct response. we won’t see much, although there will certainly be some very significant finger-pointing. president obama will cancel his trip to sochi for the upcoming g-8 summit and it’s possible that enough of the other leaders will join him that the meeting is cancelled. it’s conceivable the g7 nations would vote to remove russia from the club. the us would also suspend talks to improve commercial ties with the united states. it’s possible we see an emergency united nations security council session to denounce the intervention – which the russians veto (very interesting to see if the chinese join them, and who abstains…). hard to see significant european powers actually breaking relations with russia at this point, but an action-reaction cycle could spiral. also, nato will have to fashion some response, possibly by sending ships into the black sea. shots won’t be fired, but markets will get fired up.

2) international complications from russia. this will significantly complicate all areas of us-russian ties.

russia doesn’t want an iranian nuclear weapon, but they’ll be somewhat less cooperative with the americans and europeans around iranian negotiations…possibly making them more likely to offer a “third way” down the road that undermines the american deal. on syria, an intransigent russia will become very intransigent, making it more difficult to implement the chemical weapons agreement and providing greater direct financial and military support for bashar assad’s regime.

on energy issues, a russian invasion of eastern ukraine would put in play the integrity of major pipelines. moscow and kyiv would share strong incentives to keep gas and oil flowing, but in the worst case we could see disruptions. ukraine has gas reserves for a while, but then the situation could become dire. russia could divert some european-bound gas through the nord stream line, but volume to europe would drop. this is all in extremis, but out there.

3) geopolitical shift. russia will see its key opportunity as closing ranks more tightly with china. while we may see symbolic coordination from beijing, particularly if there’s a security council vote (where the chinese are reasonably likely to vote with the russians), the chinese are trying hard to maintain a balanced relationship with the united states…and accordingly won’t directly support russian actions that could undermine that relationship. leaving aside china, russia’s ability to get other third party states on board with their ukrainian engagement is largely limited to the “near abroad” – armenia, belarus, tajikistan –  which is not a group the west is particularly concerned with.

but it is, more broadly, a significant hit to american foreign policy credibility. coming only days after secretary of state kerry took strong exception to “asinine”, “isolationist” views in congress that acted as if the united states was a “poor country,” a direct admonition by the united states and its key allies is willfully and immediately ignored by the russian president. that will send a message of weakness and bring concerns about american commitment to allies around the world. g-zero indeed.

* * *

we’ll be watching this very closely over coming days. i’m flying to seoul for a conference on monday, where i’m meeting up with president george w bush. should prove interesting on russia, no question. i’m back on wednesday, but will be available by phone/email throughout, so feel free to get in touch.

yours truly,

ian

Like Outside the Box?
Sign up today and get each new issue delivered free to your inbox.
It’s your opportunity to get the news John Mauldin thinks matters most to your finances.

© 2013 Mauldin Economics. All Rights Reserved.
Outside the Box is a free weekly economic e-letter by best-selling author and renowned financial expert, John Mauldin. You can learn more and get your free subscription by visiting www.MauldinEconomics.com.
Please write to [email protected] to inform us of any reproductions, including when and where copy will be reproduced. You must keep the letter intact, from introduction to disclaimers. If you would like to quote brief portions only, please reference www.MauldinEconomics.com.
To subscribe to John Mauldin’s e-letter, please click here: http://www.mauldineconomics.com/subscribe
To change your email address, please click here: http://www.mauldineconomics.com/change-address

Outside the Box and MauldinEconomics.com is not an offering for any investment. It represents only the opinions of John Mauldin and those that he interviews. Any views expressed are provided for information purposes only and should not be construed in any way as an offer, an endorsement, or inducement to invest and is not in any way a testimony of, or associated with, Mauldin’s other firms. John Mauldin is the Chairman of Mauldin Economics, LLC. He also is the President of Millennium Wave Advisors, LLC (MWA) which is an investment advisory firm registered with multiple states, President and registered representative of Millennium Wave Securities, LLC, (MWS) member FINRA, SIPC, through which securities may be offered . MWS is also a Commodity Pool Operator (CPO) and a Commodity Trading Advisor (CTA) registered with the CFTC, as well as an Introducing Broker (IB) and NFA Member. Millennium Wave Investments is a dba of MWA LLC and MWS LLC. This message may contain information that is confidential or privileged and is intended only for the individual or entity named above and does not constitute an offer for or advice about any alternative investment product. Such advice can only be made when accompanied by a prospectus or similar offering document. Past performance is not indicative of future performance. Please make sure to review important disclosures at the end of each article. Mauldin companies may have a marketing relationship with products and services mentioned in this letter for a fee.

Note: Joining The Mauldin Circle is not an offering for any investment. It represents only the opinions of John Mauldin and Millennium Wave Investments. It is intended solely for investors who have registered with Millennium Wave Investments and its partners at http://www.MauldinCircle.com (formerly AccreditedInvestor.ws) or directly related websites. The Mauldin Circle may send out material that is provided on a confidential basis, and subscribers to the Mauldin Circle are not to send this letter to anyone other than their professional investment counselors. Investors should discuss any investment with their personal investment counsel. You are advised to discuss with your financial advisers your investment options and whether any investment is suitable for your specific needs prior to making any investments. John Mauldin is the President of Millennium Wave Advisors, LLC (MWA), which is an investment advisory firm registered with multiple states. John Mauldin is a registered representative of Millennium Wave Securities, LLC, (MWS), an FINRA registered broker-dealer. MWS is also a Commodity Pool Operator (CPO) and a Commodity Trading Advisor (CTA) registered with the CFTC, as well as an Introducing Broker (IB). Millennium Wave Investments is a dba of MWA LLC and MWS LLC. Millennium Wave Investments cooperates in the consulting on and marketing of private and non-private investment offerings with other independent firms such as Altegris Investments; Capital Management Group; Absolute Return Partners, LLP; Fynn Capital; Nicola Wealth Management; and Plexus Asset Management. Investment offerings recommended by Mauldin may pay a portion of their fees to these independent firms, who will share 1/3 of those fees with MWS and thus with Mauldin. Any views expressed herein are provided for information purposes only and should not be construed in any way as an offer, an endorsement, or inducement to invest with any CTA, fund, or program mentioned here or elsewhere. Before seeking any advisor’s services or making an investment in a fund, investors must read and examine thoroughly the respective disclosure document or offering memorandum. Since these firms and Mauldin receive fees from the funds they recommend/market, they only recommend/market products with which they have been able to negotiate fee arrangements.

PAST RESULTS ARE NOT INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS. THERE IS RISK OF LOSS AS WELL AS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR GAIN WHEN INVESTING IN MANAGED FUNDS. WHEN CONSIDERING ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENTS, INCLUDING HEDGE FUNDS, YOU SHOULD CONSIDER VARIOUS RISKS INCLUDING THE FACT THAT SOME PRODUCTS: OFTEN ENGAGE IN LEVERAGING AND OTHER SPECULATIVE INVESTMENT PRACTICES THAT MAY INCREASE THE RISK OF INVESTMENT LOSS, CAN BE ILLIQUID, ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE PERIODIC PRICING OR VALUATION INFORMATION TO INVESTORS, MAY INVOLVE COMPLEX TAX STRUCTURES AND DELAYS IN DISTRIBUTING IMPORTANT TAX INFORMATION, ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE SAME REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AS MUTUAL FUNDS, OFTEN CHARGE HIGH FEES, AND IN MANY CASES THE UNDERLYING INVESTMENTS ARE NOT TRANSPARENT AND ARE KNOWN ONLY TO THE INVESTMENT MANAGER. Alternative investment performance can be volatile. An investor could lose all or a substantial amount of his or her investment. Often, alternative investment fund and account managers have total trading authority over their funds or accounts; the use of a single advisor applying generally similar trading programs could mean lack of diversification and, consequently, higher risk. There is often no secondary market for an investor’s interest in alternative investments, and none is expected to develop.

 

By Investment U

A rogue gang of fat ladies is parked in the lobbies of the big five gold-dealing banks, and they’re clearing their throats and tuning up.

Here’s why: On Friday, researchers announced the London gold fix – the benchmark used since 1919 to set gold’s market price – may have been manipulated for the last decade by the very banks setting it.

Those five banks are Barclays Plc (NYSE: BCS), Deutsche Bank AG (NYSE: DB), Bank of Nova Scotia (NYSE: BNS), HSBC Holdings Plc (NYSE: HSBC) and Societe Generale SA (OTC: SCGLY).

Now, this is no news to gold bugs. We’ve suspected for years that the big gold banks were using the London fix to keep a lid on gold prices. Wall Street scoffed at the suspicions as “tin-foil hat territory.”

But now that research backs up the claims, it’s going to be a lot harder to smash down gold prices.

Boy, I’d hate to be a big bank with a large short position in gold that suddenly found itself under intense regulatory scrutiny.

The Findings

The research was written by Rosa Abrantes-Metz, a New York University Stern School of Business Professor, and Albert Metz, a managing director at Moody’s Investors Service. The conclusion:

Unusual trading patterns around 3 p.m. in London, when the so-called afternoon fix is set on a private conference call between five of the biggest gold dealers, are a sign of collusive behavior and should be investigated.

Bloomberg News reports: “Authorities around the world, already investigating the manipulation of benchmarks from interest rates to foreign exchange, are examining the $20 trillion gold market for signs of wrongdoing.”

The researchers told Bloomberg: “There’s no obvious explanation as to why the patterns began in 2004, why they were more prevalent in the afternoon fixing, and why price moves tended to be downwards.”

Yeah, I’ll bet. No obvious explanation at all.

The London gold fix is set in a telephone conference call twice a day at 10:30 a.m. and 3 p.m. London time. The banks declare how many bars of gold they want to buy or sell at the current spot price, based on orders from clients and themselves. The price goes up or down until the buy and sell amounts are within 50 bars of each other.

That’s when the “fix” is set.

The process is unregulated and the five banks can trade gold and its derivatives throughout the call.

It’s a far cry from how the London fix started nearly a century ago. In those days, dealers met in a wood-paneled room in London and raised little Union Jacks to indicate interest.

But 10 years ago, something changed.

Beginning in 2004, during the afternoon call to set the fix, there were large moves in the price of gold, the researchers found.

Most interestingly, these moves were overwhelmingly in the same direction: down.

“The structure of the benchmark is certainly conducive to collusion and manipulation, and the empirical data are consistent with price artificiality,” the draft report says. “It is likely that cooperation between participants may be occurring.”

I don’t expect the banks to be punished. Banks are never punished, except with laughably small fines. But I do expect the scrutiny to put the kibosh on any potential hanky-panky.

And that will throw off anyone who has the crutch of being able to manipulate prices.

We already saw the price of gold rise 7% in February. So if the price of gold really takes off… and the banks are short the yellow metal… and they can’t manipulate it like in the good old days?

Then, my friends, the fat ladies will well and truly start singing.

What You Can Do

Now is the time to make your shopping list of the best gold miners you want to buy for gold’s big rally… and the biggest may be yet to come. See short-term pullbacks in the gold price for what they are: buying opportunities.

This year could be one of extraordinary opportunity – and profit potential – if you’re holding the right stocks.

Good investing,

Sean

Article By Investment U

Original Article: Golden Smackdown for Big Banks

By CentralBankNews.info
    Poland’s central bank held its reference rate steady at 2.50 percent, as widely expected, but again pushed back any change in interest rates until the end of the third quarter of 2014 while it revised downward its forecast for inflation but raised its growth projections.
    The National Bank of Poland (NBP), which cut rates by 225 basis points from November 2012 through July 2013, also said the gradual economic recovery was likely to continue in coming months but inflationary pressures will remain subdued.
    After ending its easing cycle in July last year, the NBP said in September it would maintain rates at least until the end of 2013. But in November, the central bank said it would maintain rates at least until the end of June this year and it has now pushed back the timing for any rate rise until end-September.
    “In the council’s assessment NBP interest rates should be kept unchanged for a longer period of time, i.e. at least until the end of the third quarter of 2014,” the central bank said.
    In its latest monetary policy report, the central bank revised downward its 2014 inflation forecast to 0.8-1.4 percent, down from the November forecast of 1.1-2.2 percent, and the 2015 forecast to 1.0-2.6 percent from 1.1-2.6 percent. In 2016 the NBP expects inflation of 1.6-3.3 percent.

    Poland’s inflation rate was steady at 0.7 percent in January and December, well below the central bank’s target of 2.5 percent, plus/minus one percentage point. Core inflation fell, the bank said, confirming that demand pressures are weak and inflation expectations are low.
     Economic growth in Poland is accelerating, mainly due to higher exports with domestic demand also starting to rise due to accelerating consumption and investment, the central bank said. It added that industrial output and retail sales rose in January and business climate indicators suggest that the recovery will continue in coming quarters.
    The central bank revised upwards its growth forecasts, with Gross Domestic Product seen expanding by 2.9 – 4.2 percent in 2014, up from November’s 2.0 – 3.9 percent forecast, 2.7 – 4.8 percent in 2015, up from 2.1 – 4.5 percent previously, and GDP growing by 2.3 – 4.8 percent in 2016.
    In the fourth quarter of 2013, Poland’s GDP expanded by 0.6 percent for annual growth of 2.7 percent, the third consecutive quarter of accelerating growth.
    Although the unemployment rate is still rising, hitting 14 percent in January from 13.4 percent in December, the central bank said the number of people working was higher than a year before in the fourth quarter. But the elevated level of unemployment is hampering wage pressures in the economy.

    http://ift.tt/1iP0FNb

   
    www.

By Mike Baghdady

It sounds so seductive. Be your own boss. Work anywhere at any time. Unlimited income potential and a relatively short instruction period. Minimum capital requirements. No wonder so many people have tried to become day traders. However, the success rate has sent most would-be “retail” traders heading for the exits with their financial tails between their legs. Indeed, there is now broad cynicism about trading from the thousands of day traders who have been “seduced” by the possibilities trading offers. I say “retail” because most of the new breed of day traders are independent and either self- taught or have taken one or several of the myriad of online courses promising the necessary tools for trading.

I say “seduced” because the changing attitudes toward being an employee. Layoffs, burnout and the search for an alternative profession that allows for a more flexible life style have been leading many talented, educated and ambitious people to enter the world of trading. But so far, the data is a bit discouraging for the retail trader. Sadly, only about 10% of active traders consider themselves as “successful.”  In this short article, I will tell you why I think this dismal statistic exists and what can be done about it.

Investing vs. Trading

Over the last few decades, more and more people have been introduced to the Investment industry. This has happened for two main reasons: Affective marketing by the Investment and Banking industry and the age of the individual retirement accounts and non-defined pension plans. Many companies have moved away from the defined benefit retirement plans and transferred the burden of funding retirement squarely on the shoulders of employees. Indeed, millions of people have been forced to learn about investing. And, for the most part, the Investment and Banking industry has done an admirable job of educating the public on the concepts of long-term investing and the power of compounding gains over time.

The growth of the internet discount brokers and an oversupply of licensed equities brokers, financial planners, insurance agents and ex-institutional traders has fueled the exponential growth of online investment training and investing sites. And many of these programs are well designed and provide value. However, the Investment and Banking Industries are focused on long-term investing for wealth building and capital preservation.

The gospel for investing has been to learn how to identify investments that have certain fundamental and technical characteristics that will yield a positive rate of return over time. You see, the underlying premise is that growing demographics will push demand and well run and capitalized companies will be able to meet the demands of customers and competition. As the important mandate of job creation is at the heart of modern economies, inflation is a variable that greatly affects monetary policy. Indeed, inflation needs to happen but in a controlled fashion. That also implies long-term economic growth. This is at the heart of investing and the goal is to own shares in successful companies that will be profitable and beat the rate of inflation over time.

Not so for Trading.

Trading is the skill that looks for profits in short term price movements-up, down and sideways. The trader only cares about making a profit from PRICE Movement within a relatively short time period. It has nothing to do with value, industry or quality of companies.  A trader wants to be on the right side of the price movement at any point in time. If equities, currencies or any other tradable vehicle is losing value, the trader wants to be able to capitalize on the downside. Likewise, traders capitalize on upside moves. But here is the big difference: Successful traders learn that consistent profits are made from understanding how the human factors of fear and greed affect price behavior by using technical trading techniques. Technical analysis-a popular part of investing- is concerned with historical data based on past price behavior. Traders rely on real-time price movements and volatility. Indeed, traders adhere to the saying: “Trade what you see.”

When investors and traders are making solid gains and feeling good, what happens if the price starts to flatten out or retrace some of its prior gains? Is there fear that the paper profits will evaporate or even turn into losses? What happens then? Likewise, when traders find themselves caught on the wrong side of a trade, what happens? These are some examples of where successful traders go hunting because they know the high probability of how human emotions can affect prices.

Once the chart patterns show the proper signals, the trader takes premeditated action on real-time price movements. Whereas, investor mentality pins its hopes on historical data that attempt to correctly “guestimate” market direction. Indeed, once investors see movement against their expectations, fear and uncertainty can drive investors out of their positions. Traders are waiting to oblige their fear or greed by taking the other side to the trades.

What can be done?

Very few courses or software focus on how to trade; they are more dedicated to the idea of buying low and selling high. My thirty five years as a professional trader has taught me a lot about the rules of trading, and many of the golden rules taught about investing such as “the trend is your friend” or “let your profits run” do not apply to certain types of trading. In fact, they usually get in the way.

The good news is that the dream of independence and unlimited potential wealth building as a successful trader is not dead. You just have to learn how the rules of trading work and how to implement them in a consistent and disciplined manner. I have a fifteen year old successful trader on my staff and if he can do it, so can you.

Bio

Mike Baghdady is known as the foremost expert on Price Behavior Methodology. With thirty-five years of professional trading experience-and still trading-Mr. Baghdady has been a lead floor trader, trainer for major institutional Investment companies and the recipient of top trader awards. He is now the principal of TrainingTraders.com and developer of proprietary trading software used by many major Investment institutions. For more information, www.trainingtraders.com

By Jan de Wit

Great money is what we all want! And that is possible with binary options trading! That is if the ads and spam are to believe that regularly arrive in your inbox. By trading the stock market, you can earn a lot of money which is well known. The new Scorsese film The Wolf of Wall Street tells the true story of a wealthy stockbroker from the nineties. Leonardo DiCaprio plays Jordan Belfort who has earned fortunes by selling shares that are worth nothing to unsuspecting people. Funny detail is that the real Jordan Belfort has a cameo in the film. In the film the main character invests and sells pennystocks, not binary options or common stocks.

Binary Options Stock Exchange

Options along with stocks, bonds and securities are future contracts. On the stock exchange the price of securities is determined by supply and demand and are usually long-term investments. Stocks and bonds represent a value of paper, options give the right to buy or sell within an agreed period. Comparing with an option on a house: you still don’t buy the house, but you get some time. The seller keeps the house for your firm.

Binary options are also known as digital options. You can buy anything you put in the price of the option. The price goes either up or down. Binary options are short-term , so it is exciting to deal with it. Within an hour you know what you earn with your trading . It goes like this :

1. You buy an option
2. Select whether the price of this option will be higher or lower within the time frame
3. If your prediction was correct after the expiration time you get back the investment plus profit
4. If your prediction was wrong , you get nothing and you lose the deposit

Trading with a Binary Options strategy

There are several strategies to make money with binary options. For example, by consistently predicting higher. The percentage of binary options that closes with a profit exceeds the number of losses according to optimists. Only betting with money that you have won is also a strategy. Another strategy is to make an analysis of the stock and the company that plays a role in the index of that exchange or the financial news monitor and act on that basis is a strategy that may provide more structure .

There are many websites available which explain in detail how to trade binary options. You can also start by reading our extensive binary options broker reviews.

About the author: Jan de Wit is your forex and binary options blogger, bringing the best free tips, tools, ebook and more to his subscribers at his site.

By CentralBankNews.info
    Canada’s central bank held its target rate for the overnight rate steady at 1.0 percent, as widely expected, and said inflation is still expected to remain “well below” the bank’s target for some time so “the downside risks to inflation remain important,” while the risks from high household debt have not materially changed.
    The Bank of Canada (BOC), which has maintained its rate since September 2010, added that “the timing and direction of the next change to the policy rate will depend on how new information influences this balance of risks.”
    The BOC softened its earlier concern over inflation following an acceleration of inflation in January and December. In its previous statement in January, the central bank said the “downside risks to inflation have grown in importance.”
   

Source: Kevin Michael Grace of The Mining Report (3/4/14)

http://www.theaureport.com/pub/na/kiril-mugerman-graphite-investors-should-look-for-large-flakes-small-resources

Companies that boast 80,000 ton-per-year production or high purity levels don’t always impress Kiril Mugerman, mining analyst with Industrial Alliance Securities. Why? Because finding buyers for all those tons is a huge challenge, and thrifty end-users like to purify lower-grade graphite in-house. In this interview with The Mining Report, Mugerman explains why he looks for smaller projects that can hit revenue targets, and indicates which of the 176 graphite projects out there are worth your attention.

The Mining Report: In May 2012, you described graphite as “the black gold of the 21st century.” Do you still believe that?

Kiril Mugerman: By “black gold,” I was referring to both the rush-in exploration for graphite and to the potential high demand for it. I still believe in strong demand for graphite, and that could result from the proliferation of electric vehicles, new modes of power storage, graphene and many other applications.

TMR: Are new applications behind graphite demand?

KM: For new growth in demand, our main focus remains the increased use of graphite in batteries and energy storage. As for the more traditional demand, because graphite is a unique material, it is used in many different applications that contribute to a steady growth in demand over the long term. It’s used in refractories like crucibles and in blast furnaces, for friction materials like brake linings and pads in cars, as well as in lubricants, electrodes, steel making and nuclear reactors. Construction materials, industrial paints and heating and heat conductivity systems that use graphite are all already being used in the industry.

As far as exponential growth in demand goes, electrification of vehicles and energy storage are the two technologies most likely to accomplish this.

TMR: Graphene has been described as a material with almost unlimited potential. Do you think that’s true or hype?

KM: The potential is certainly there. I’ve had the opportunity to visit some of the private companies in this field and see some samples and applications they are working on. It’s fascinating. Unfortunately, it’s still in the R&D stage, and it’s too early to say which applications will become reality.

TMR: What’s your forecast for graphite supply and demand?

KM: Chinese growth slowed down over the last 18 months, and the steel industry slowed down with it. So, of course, demand for graphite for the steel industry declined as well. But as we expect to see increased growth from the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China), we should see short-term demand increase by 1–2%.

In the longer term, we model a 2.5% annual growth in demand and a 2% annual increase in production.

TMR: So graphite supply will not meet demand.

KM: We do expect some supply shortages. To balance that, we forecast four new mines to go into production between now and 2020, with average production per mine of 20,000 (20K) tons per year. In total, we see a shortage of 80K tons per year by 2020.

TMR: China is responsible for 70% of world production of graphite. Can the West depend on China for graphite?

KM: For now, definitely. If no mines open up in the next five years, China will still be able to increase production. However, the fact that we depend on China doesn’t necessarily mean we should. Many end-users have said they do prefer to have other options.

TMR: You wrote in November 2013 that graphite prices are “still looking for a bottom.” Why is that the case?

KM: We suspect it’s a result of weaker demand, increased production leading to the 2012 peak in prices and, of course, stockpiling.

TMR: Will this trend change, and, if so, when?

KM: First, we want to see some stabilization in prices. If prices level off more or less where they are right now, that would be a positive. It will persuade end-users that they can resume larger-volume buying, which would reverse the trend.

TMR: You also noted in November 2013 that in the 18 months since May 2012, the number of Western graphite companies and projects had effectively doubled from 36 to 73 companies and from 98 to 176 projects. How many of these companies and projects could be serious contenders?

KM: Of those 176 projects, we have isolated 17 that we actively track, and these are spread between the top four categories in our graphite pyramid diagram. Those projects are run by 16 companies.

TMR: Is it true that graphite projects can be brought to production much quicker than precious or base metals?

KM: This was the view presented in 2012 by many junior graphite companies. They argued that graphite projects require simple flotation and very basic beneficiation. But these companies discovered that this was not the case because many management teams lacked experience in industrial minerals. We see two main challenges industrial miners usually face. First, detailed end-user product specifications significantly affect the product asking price. Second, companies need to find buyers; there is no central graphite exchange or a refinery to buy a company’s entire output. So sales and marketing is a major risk when it comes to graphite.

Many graphite companies floundered with projects that required a lot of metallurgical processing in order to understand what kind of material they would be supplying and how much quality they could preserve. That delayed several projects significantly. In addition to that, because the projects tend to be fairly small, you need to keep capital costs low in order to keep the project economic.

TMR: There’s a great deal of confusion among investors regarding the relative importance of flake versus vein graphite. Could you provide some clarity here?

KM: Sure. Vein graphite is a niche market supplied exclusively by Sri Lanka. It differs from flake in its crystal structure, which gives it properties that allow end-users to use it in specific applications. Flake graphite is the more traditional material with a wider variety of uses.

Because industrial minerals’ end-users buy graphite based on its various properties, they cannot simply change their input materials without either having to tweak their production line or make decisions that affect the end product.

TMR: There is also confusion regarding the question of graphite purity.

KM: All graphite can be purified to 99% by either the wet chemical method or the dry thermal method. It’s only a question of cost.

End-users will often purify the concentrates they buy to the exact specification they require. They might decide that graphite purified to 99% by the miner is too expensive, and they won’t pay the premium. They might decide instead to settle for 94%, 96% or 98% purity and perform the additional purification themselves. Graphite miners will say that they intend to produce at 99%, but they still need to find buyers willing to pay the premium.

TMR: Is it particularly expensive for producers to bring their graphite up to 99% purity?

KM: I don’t think we have seen any costs officially declared by any of the juniors, but we expect that reaching 99% purity could add a significant portion to the operating costs.

TMR: So when graphite companies tout their particularly high purity, is this an empty boast?

KM: A junior that announces 99% purity does not stand out because, as I mentioned, end-users can do this themselves. To find a project that will be able to mine graphite directly at 98% or achieve 99% from floatation, that’s a different story. That demonstrates a potential low-cost operation that could sell at a premium.

TMR: In your evaluation of advanced-stage graphite projects, what criteria distinguish the best projects?

KM: We look at flake distribution and purity levels. The former is somewhat of a proxy for the latter. Larger flakes will tend to have higher purities. With both larger flakes and higher purities, companies can command higher prices. That’s the first criterion and a very important one.

Second, we look at the annual production the company is targeting. Many companies have issued studies suggesting they can produce 50K or 80K tons per year. But considering that the market for flake graphite is anywhere between 400K and 500K tons per year, that is a lot of product being added to the market from just one mine.

TMR: So you prefer smaller projects?

KM: We prefer a project that can give us 20% internal rate of return (IRR) at 20K tons per year instead of a project that will produce 80K tons per year, because being in industrial minerals means you must sell those 80K tons to a multitude of customers. As I mentioned earlier, unlike precious metals mines, you cannot ship all of it to one refinery that will buy it from you. The marketing risk becomes very high for projects that must sell a very large amount of product in order to reach high rates of return.

TMR: Is flake graphite typically mined in open pits?

KM: All current graphite projects in development will be targeting open-pit operations.

TMR: So, putting infrastructure questions aside, is there much variance in mining costs among the advanced projects you’ve examined?

KM: There are two factors to consider. First, strip ratio. Favorable geology will allow some projects to have low strip ratios, whereas projects dealing with much steeper geological structures will have high strip ratios.

Second, grade. For instance, a project like Northern Graphite Corporation’s (NGC:TSX.V; NGPHF:OTCQX) Bissett Creek in Ontario, will have to process many more tons to produce that graphite. Their costs will definitely be higher than a project that has, let’s say, 15–20% graphite.

TMR: So why do you name Northern Graphite as one of your favorite graphite companies?

KM: From the beginning, Northern Graphite has remained the most advanced project among the Canadian juniors that we’ve been following. The company did have some permitting issues over the last couple of years, but that has been taken care of. All the graphite produced at Bissett Creek will be 95%+ purity, so Northern Graphite will definitely target the premium markets. And it will produce only 18K–20K tons per year, so Northern Graphite only needs to sell a relatively small amount of graphite to reach its revenue targets.

TMR: What are Bissett Creek’s financials?

KM: According to the company’s October 2013 preliminary economic assessment, the after-tax net present value (NPV) will be $150 million ($150M), with an after-tax IRR of 22%. The waste-to-ore ratio is 0.24, and mill recovery is 94.7%. Initial capex is $101.6M.

TMR: How does Northern Graphite intend to pay for Bissett Creek?

KM: That’s a hard question. In my opinion, a graphite company at Northern Graphite’s stage needs to attract an offtake partner. The market will appreciate seeing end-users, such as an industrial minerals company, participate in the development of this project. In addition, Northern Graphite has been working to produce battery-quality graphite in-house, from its concentrate. This could allow Northern Graphite to attract a higher valuation for its material and help it secure a development partner.

TMR: What’s your rating for Northern Graphite?

KM: We rate it a Speculative Buy with a target price of $1.50.

TMR: You also follow Tasman Metals Ltd. (TSM:TSX.V; TAS:NYSE.MKT; TASXF:OTCPK; T61:FSE), which is primarily a rare earth elements (REE) company.

KM: Yes. Tasman Metals has the Norra Kärr REE project in Sweden. Last December, the company announced its intention to merge with Flinders Resources Ltd. (FDR:TSX.V), which has the Woxna graphite project in Sweden (scheduled to begin annual production of 10K tons in Q3/14). Since the initial announcement, there has been little news. So it’s too early to say whether Tasman will become a graphite company as well.

Having a combination of different industrial minerals, such as rare earths, graphite, tungsten and vanadium, is a good thing, in our opinion. The tricky part is getting started with one mineral, generating cash flow and then diversifying into other minerals, thus becoming a diversified industrial minerals company. Should Tasman and Flinders merge, they might be able to achieve this.

TMR: What’s your rating for Tasman?

KM: We rate it a Speculative Buy with a target price of $1.75.

TMR: You mentioned the advantage of diversity in industrial minerals. What about Energizer Resources Inc. (EGZ:TSX.V; ENZR:OTCQX), which is in Madagascar? That company’s original flagship was its Green Giant vanadium project. But in the last 18 months, it has pushed its Molo graphite project to the forefront. What do you think of Energizer’s prospects?

KM: Energizer is now focusing entirely on graphite. The company has presented a fairly ambitious plan to produce over 80K tons of graphite annually. My worry with Molo is infrastructure. With such high production volume, we expect marketing and logistics could be major risks. That said, based on metallurgical results the company published in 2013, we expect that Energizer will most likely scale down Molo based on improved flake distribution, which could improve the project significantly and reduce these risks.

TMR: Can you comment on some other graphite companies?

KM: Sure. Mason Graphite Inc. (LLG:TSX.V; MGPHF:OTCQX) has a very interesting deposit in northern Québec, Lac Guéret. Its experienced management team is targeting 50K tons annually. Mason will be able to supply the full spectrum of graphite, from minus-150 mesh to plus-50 mesh. But as with all large projects, marketing will present a challenge.

Syrah Resources Ltd. (SYR:ASX) also has a very interesting graphite-vanadium project, Balama in Mozambique. The company has the largest resource and the largest market capitalization in the graphite sector. Those advantages have resulted in very ambitious plans, in my opinion. The company intends to produce 220K tons annually, which is essentially half of current global flake production. We are following the Balama story closely to determine how it affects and develops the graphite market.

Focus Graphite Inc.’s (FMS:TSX.V) Lac Knife project in northern Québec has been in development for some time. I see it having some problems with infrastructure, although the company did produce improved metallurgical results last year. Focus has also announced an offtake with a Chinese company, although the company hasn’t provided many details on the pricing or the terms of the agreement.

TMR: All the companies we’ve talked about are aiming to produce flake graphite. Is there any news in vein graphite?

KM: Canada Carbon Inc. (CCB:TSX.V) has the past-producing Miller mine in Quebec. The company announced some compelling results recently. I haven’t had the chance to visit the project yet, but I did receive some samples. From what I’ve seen, it is indeed vein graphite at Miller. It’s early stages still, as the company has more lab work ahead of it. We are keeping an eye on that story.

TMR: Because vein graphite is currently mined in Sri Lanka, this would differentiate Canada Carbon from everyone else, right?

KM: Correct. That’s why are we are so interested in that company.

TMR: Many people in the graphite sector believe there will be a massive cull of the 73 junior companies. Do you agree?

KM: I’d say that is most likely. Many juniors will probably abandon graphite and go into precious metals, uranium or base metals exploration. A lot of juniors moved into the graphite sector because of peak prices in 2012. We’ve seen similar migrations to REEs and uranium. It’s just a question of time before we are down to a good 20–30 companies that will focus on a few main projects.

TMR: Kiril, thank you for your time and your insights.

Kiril Mugerman is a mining analyst with Industrial Alliance Securities Inc., based out of Montreal, Canada. He joined the IAS team in September 2011 and currently specializes in precious metals, industrial minerals and fertilizers with focus on graphite, rare earths and specialty fertilizers. He graduated from McGill University with Honors in earth and planetary sciences, after which he worked with Gold Fields Ltd. in mineral exploration and advanced projects development in West Africa, Central Asia and Latin America.

Want to read more Mining Report interviews like this? Sign up for our free e-newsletter, and you’ll learn when new articles have been published. To see a list of recent interviews with industry analysts and commentators, visit our Streetwise Interviews page.

DISCLOSURE:

1) Kevin Michael Grace conducted this interview for The Mining Report and provides services to The Mining Report as an independent contractor. He or his family own shares of the following companies mentioned in this interview: None.

2) The following companies mentioned in the interview are sponsors of The Mining Report: Northern Graphite Corporation, Tasman Metals Ltd., Energizer Resources Inc., Mason Graphite Inc. and Focus Graphite Inc. Streetwise Reports does not accept stock in exchange for its services or as sponsorship payment.

3) Kiril Mugerman: I or my family own shares of the following companies mentioned in this interview: None. I personally am or my family is paid by the following companies mentioned in this interview: None. My company has a financial relationship with the following companies mentioned in this interview: None. I was not paid by Streetwise Reports for participating in this interview. Comments and opinions expressed are my own comments and opinions. I had the opportunity to review the interview for accuracy as of the date of the interview and am responsible for the content of the interview.

4) Interviews are edited for clarity. Streetwise Reports does not make editorial comments or change experts’ statements without their consent.

5) The interview does not constitute investment advice. Each reader is encouraged to consult with his or her individual financial professional and any action a reader takes as a result of information presented here is his or her own responsibility. By opening this page, each reader accepts and agrees to Streetwise Reports’ terms of use and full legal disclaimer.

6) From time to time, Streetwise Reports LLC and its directors, officers, employees or members of their families, as well as persons interviewed for articles and interviews on the site, may have a long or short position in securities mentioned and may make purchases and/or sales of those securities in the open market or otherwise.

Streetwise – The Gold Report is Copyright © 2014 by Streetwise Reports LLC. All rights are reserved. Streetwise Reports LLC hereby grants an unrestricted license to use or disseminate this copyrighted material (i) only in whole (and always including this disclaimer), but (ii) never in part.

Streetwise Reports LLC does not guarantee the accuracy or thoroughness of the information reported.

Streetwise Reports LLC receives a fee from companies that are listed on the home page in the In This Issue section. Their sponsor pages may be considered advertising for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1734.

Participating companies provide the logos used in The Gold Report. These logos are trademarks and are the property of the individual companies.

101 Second St., Suite 110

Petaluma, CA 94952

Tel.: (707) 981-8999(707) 981-8999

Fax: (707) 981-8998

Email: [email protected]

By HY Markets Forex Blog

The Australian dollar dropped from its early gains on Wednesday, following the upbeat GDP release. While the Japanese yen dropped to its lowest in seven weeks against the US dollar as the tensions in Ukraine eases.

The Australian gross domestic product (GDP) expanded by 0.8% in the December quarter, rising higher than analysts forecast of a 0.7% rise, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics reports released. The annualized growth climbed by 2.8%, rising from the previous reading of 2.3% and surpassing analysts’ estimates of a 2.5% growth rate.

The Aussie dropped 60 pips, hitting a session low of $0.8934, after climbing an intraday high of $0.8995 per dollar. The Australian currency is currently at opening levels, rising 0.12% higher to $0.8958 as of 6:10am GMT.

The Japanese yen was at 102.21 per dollar at the time of writing, after dropping 0.7% on Tuesday, the most since January 14.

In the previous session the aussie was seen trading lower due to the speech given by the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) Governor Glenn Stevens, after he said in a statement that “ the exchange rate remains high by historical standards.”

Domestic consumption and net exports in Australia grew in as the nation’s economic output growth exceeded analysts’ estimates in the previous quarter, while investments dropped.

Policymakers from the National People’s Congress (NCP) meeting, which began on Wednesday;  said they would keep last year’s inflation target of 3.5%. The economy expanded at a steady pace of 7.7% in 2013, as inflation was last seen at around 2.5%.

Australian Dollar – China

In China, the HSBC PMI in services expanded, climbing to 51.0 in February and picking up from the previous reading of 50.7 seen in January.

Australian Dollar – Ukraine

On Monday, the crises between Ukraine and Russia escalated when the Russian President Vladimir Putin gave the Ukrainian troops the ultimatum to surrender.

The move was broadly condemned by western leaders, as the US Secretary of State John Kerry arrived Kiev on Monday and threatened Russia with visa bans, sanctions, trade restrictions and to remove Russia from the G8.

However, the Russian President ordered troops to return to base, the Russian news agencies quoted the Kremlin spokesman’s speech on Tuesday. The tension between Russia and Ukraine is still intense as measures of economic sanctions against Russia are still being discussed among the Western powers.

Visit www.hymarkets.com   to find out more about our products and start trading today with only $50 using the latest trading technology today

The post Australian Dollar Drops From Previous Gains as Economy Expands appeared first on | HY Markets Official blog.

Article provided by HY Markets Forex Blog

By HY Markets Forex Blog

The 18-bloc euro traded slightly flat against the US dollar after the eurozone’s largest economy, Germany; posted its final services PMI for February, showing another improved reading. While investors focus on the ECB meeting scheduled for Thursday.

Germany’s final PMI in the services sector climbed to 55.9 points in February, compared to the previous figure of 53.1 seen in January.  The preliminary data released two weeks ago showed the gauge at 55.4 points, a three month high and compared to market forecasts of 53.4 points.

The euro traded flat at $1.3741 against the US dollar at the time of writing, holding on to the previous session’s tight range.

The euro is expected to remain near $1.3750, according to a research note from UniCredit, ahead of the European Central Bank meeting, with the central bank expected to maintain its benchmark interest rate.

Euro – Ukraine

Following the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, the US Secretary of state John Kerry arrived Kiev on Monday and is expected to meet up with the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Paris on Wednesday, to discuss the situation after threatening Russia with visa bans, sanctions and to remove the country from the G8.

Meanwhile, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and Russia is expected to hold talks in Brussels regarding the turmoil with hopes to prevent any possible violence or war between the countries.

The euro dropped to its weakest level  this week against the US dollar on Wednesday, following  the release of the positive data from the eurozone’s strongest economy, Germany; while  the market focus on the European Central Bank (ECB) meeting  and their decision on its benchmark interest rate.

The market is also focusing on the conflict between Ukraine and Russia in the Crimea peninsula, which has stirred tensions between Russia and the western powers.

Visit www.hymarkets.com   to find out more about our products and start trading today with only $50 using the latest trading technology today

The post Euro Trades Flat After Positive German Services PMI appeared first on | HY Markets Official blog.

Article provided by HY Markets Forex Blog