I realize that these two charts are only guides for the GDX/GLD
and not mechanical systems. But I was wondering
if any subscriber was diligent enough to record the dates
for when these systems went on a buy and a sell for 2016 and
2017. As the charts are now it is very hard
to decipher when those trade dates occur. I have already
checked with Matt and that was a no go. So any help from
anyone who has the trade dates would be much appreciated.
Can anyone tell me if there is an Oil/Oil Stocks ration similar
to the GDX/GLD ratio which Matt uses on him gold and gdx
charts. Can you please tell me what it is and if possible
post a chart of such. Much appreciated.
The community is delayed by three days for non registered users.
Is intraday Zoom access down?
Posted by tad51 on 12th of Feb 2021 at 01:13 pm
Is intraday Zoom access down? Can't access.
Can't access Zoom Intraday room.
Posted by tad51 on 4th of Feb 2021 at 01:07 pm
Can't access Zoom Intraday room. Is Zoom Intraday access down for anyone else?
Matt is having major ISP
Posted by tad51 on 21st of Jan 2021 at 03:24 pm
Matt is having major ISP issues today. Saw his note in the thread. Zoom is down.
Is Zoom intra day access
Posted by tad51 on 21st of Jan 2021 at 12:47 pm
Is Zoom intra day access down for anyone else?
Are Zoom charts working. I
Posted by tad51 on 19th of Jan 2021 at 12:47 pm
Are Zoom charts working. I try to log on and it says "Invalid ID". Anyone else having difficulty logging on?
Zoom Screen black here also.
If anyone is in NCTY take some profits or move ...
Posted by tad51 on 4th of Jan 2021 at 03:42 pm
Zoom Screen black here also.
Matt, I emailed you a
Posted by tad51 on 20th of Jul 2018 at 07:07 pm
Matt, I emailed you a week ago regarding the RENKO charts you put up. Did you see it?
I see not only tow
SPX 5 min follow up
Posted by tad51 on 9th of Feb 2018 at 04:13 pm
I see not only tow patterns but two patterns.
also see tow W patterns
SPX 5 min follow up
Posted by tad51 on 9th of Feb 2018 at 04:12 pm
also see tow W patterns in there. That's probably what you meant by zig-zag
I posted and received my
Can anyone tell me if all posts are posted at ...
Posted by tad51 on 24th of Jan 2018 at 04:54 pm
I posted and received my answer.
Can anyone tell me if
Posted by tad51 on 24th of Jan 2018 at 04:53 pm
Can anyone tell me if all posts are posted at ET or another time zone?
Matt, Sent you an private message
Posted by tad51 on 12th of Jul 2017 at 11:19 am
Matt,
Sent you an private message and an email the other day. Please take a look.
On daily QQQ also
GDXJ coiling on daily chart
Posted by tad51 on 28th of Jun 2017 at 03:30 pm
On daily QQQ also
I realize that these two
Posted by tad51 on 29th of Mar 2017 at 01:21 am
I realize that these two charts are only guides for the GDX/GLD and not mechanical systems. But I was wondering if any subscriber was diligent enough to record the dates for when these systems went on a buy and a sell for 2016 and 2017. As the charts are now it is very hard to decipher when those trade dates occur. I have already checked with Matt and that was a no go. So any help from anyone who has the trade dates would be much appreciated.
Matt, Sent you a PM. Can
Posted by tad51 on 28th of Mar 2017 at 03:19 pm
Matt,
Sent you a PM. Can you please take a look at it and get back to me when you can.
Oil/Oil stock ratio
Posted by tad51 on 21st of Mar 2017 at 12:32 pm
Can anyone tell me if there is an Oil/Oil Stocks ration similar to the GDX/GLD ratio which Matt uses on him gold and gdx charts. Can you please tell me what it is and if possible post a chart of such. Much appreciated.
Regards,
tad51
Hedgeye Guest Contributor
Posted by tad51 on 27th of Dec 2016 at 10:25 pm
Guest Contributor: The Fed’s Impending Inflation Disaster?
by Dr. Daniel Thornton, D.L. Thornton Economics
The Fed engaged in a massive bond-buying spree following the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy announcement on September 15, 2008. The bond-buying program, commonly referred to as quantitative easing (QE), ended October 2014. However, the Fed pledged to maintain its balance sheet at the $4.5 trillion level indefinitely.
QE was intended to reduce yields on long-dated Treasuries, mortgage-backed securities, and agency debt. The effect on these yields would spread to other long-term yields through arbitrage, or what chairman Bernanke called the portfolio balance effect.
There is considerable debate whether or to what extent QE reduced long-term yields. But there is another effect of QE that is unassailable, although it has received almost no attention. Specifically, QE produced a massive increase in the M1 money measure. M1 increased by $1.9 trillion from August 2008 to October 2016—more than it increased during its previous 48-year history. This is shown in Figure 1 (the vertical line denotes September 2008).
On October 3, 2008, Congress passed The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 which permitted the Fed to pay interest on excess reserves (IOER). It was thought that IOER would enable the FOMC to control the federal funds rate, while at the same incentivize banks to hold the reserves created by QE as excess reserves in order to avoid a massive expansion of the money supply.
This didn’t happen. Here’s why:
FIRST
Banks had so many reserves that they no longer financed lending by issuing large negotiable certificates of deposits (CDs) and by borrowing continuously in the overnight federal funds market. Prior to QE, only a small fraction of loans were financed by reserves. Now, reserves finance nearly all bank lending.
SECOND
Banks have an incentive to make any loan with a risk-adjusted interest rate higher than IOER. This is not a difficult task. Many loans are at least partially collateralized and are made at rates significantly higher than the IOER. Hence, banks are making all high-quality loans as well as some risker loans than they would were they not holding massive amounts of excess reserves.
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ, July 23-24, 2016) reported that some banks were lowering the credit score requirements and making even riskier loans. Other banks were bolstering their reserves in anticipation of higher loan losses on the loans they had already made.
THIRD
The Fed has a fractional reserve system. This means every dollar of reserves can finance multiple dollars of loans and the corresponding amount of checkable deposits — the core component of M1. Total checkable deposits increased by $1.3 trillion since August 2008, more than twice the increase during the past 48 years.
The Fed’s highest reserve requirement, 10 percent, means every dollar of reserves could support $10 of checkable deposits. But the Fed’s system of reserve requirements is complex so the ratio is not 10. The ratio of checkable deposits to required reserves has been higher than 10 since 1991. It has trended down somewhat since August 2008 because all loans have been financed with reserves, but averaged 11.5 during the past year.
All of this means...
... that as long as banks continue to make loans, the money supply will continue to expand. The potential expansion is finite, but incredibly large! Banks still hold nearly $2 trillion in excess reserves. This means that banks would have to make additional loans of $23 trillion in order to convert all of their excess reserves into required reserves, an impossible task — the national debt is $19.3 trillion.
Many economists believe that banks are holding excess reserves because of the IOER. This is ridiculous. The FOMC increased the IOER to 75 basis points last week. But that won’t halt the rapid growth of M1. The IOER would have to be much higher than 75 basis points. Moreover, as George Selgin has pointed out (WSJ, Sept. 27, 2016) there appears to be a legal barrier to having the IOER high enough to achieve this objective.
The Fed could prevent further growth of M1 by imposing 100% reserve requirements; banks would only be able to increase loans and the money supply by $2 trillion. But increasing reserve requirements above 12% requires amending the Federal Reserve Act. This would take time and it is unlikely Congress would do it.
Alternatively, the FOMC could shrink its balance sheet. It has done this to a limited extent by continuously rolling over about $400 billion in reverse repurchase agreements. But to be completely effective, the balance sheet needs to be reduced to a level where banks finance nearly all of their lending as before.
As long as banks have more excess reserves than they would like to hold and they can make loans with a risk adjusted rate of return higher than the IOER, they will continue to finance lending with excess reserves, and the money supply will continue to increase.
Some may argue that the size of M1 is not a problem because inflation is below the FOMC’s 2% target. Others might suggest that M1 is not a problem because spending is more closely tied to broader monetary aggregates, like M2. While the growth of M2 is not as dramatic, it has increased 70% over the past 8 years.
In any event, the recent growth in M1 is unprecedented, so we have no idea what might happen. I don’t believe its effect will continue to be reflected only in equity and real estate prices. It seems likely that it will eventually inflate a broad range of consumer prices as well. Should this happen, the FOMC will find it nearly impossible to shrink its balance sheet fast enough to avoid further large increases in M1.
Moreover, the FOMC will find it extremely difficult to reduce M1; draining excess reserves is one thing, draining required reserves is another. Indeed, all new lending would cease because banks would have to issue large amounts of CDs just to finance their existing loans; the multiplier works in reverse, too.
Consequently, the FOMC may be unable to avoid an inflation disaster.
EDITOR'S NOTE
This is a Hedgeye Guest Contributor research note written by Dr. Daniel Thornton. During his 33-year career at the St. Louis Fed, Thornton served as vice president and economic advisor. He currently runs D.L. Thornton Economics , an economic research consultancy. This piece does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Hedgeye.
Matt, can you please check
Posted by tad51 on 26th of May 2016 at 03:51 pm
Matt, can you please check your PM and emails. Thanks
Looks like commercials have had
COT data is in Tradestation for futures symbols
Posted by tad51 on 13th of May 2016 at 01:24 pm
Looks like commercials have had it right since OCt. 2015 on this chart at least.
AMD AH
Posted by tad51 on 21st of Apr 2016 at 08:42 pm
Anyone see AMD AH? Blastoff. Guess some analyst liked it after earnings report.