Symbol “GLD” for Gold is a good buy betwween $85 and $90

I just found this site, and it is a very good read. Take a look on his opinion on Gold and paper currency devaluation. I think it could happen.

Decision Moose, by William Dirlam

Check out his site at

Moose favorite, gold, is tightly linked to the health of the financial system. This week, as the threat of money center bank nationalization, and the uncertainties that “quick and easy” solution entails from a global perspective, receded, the price of gold also fell. A new UK bank bailout program right before their major banks began reporting also calmed the fear. (Gold is a more global story than the other assets in the model. Its demand is more universal.)

Gold has had a nice run, surpassing its July ‘08 high last Friday, but this week it lost in five straight sessions. That the stimulus package and now the new budget are raising interest rates, and will most likely weaken the US economy, remains a disinflationary concern for gold bugs. It is to gold bugs’ outright dismay that Treasury Secretary Geithner, who was closely linked to the Lehman decision, seems to be wary of taking any further chances that could lead us to another precipice.

The good news is that by maximizing the cost of government while minimizing the economic benefit, we should eventually debase the currency something fierce. Moreover, the higher interest rates implicit in this strategy are already hitting the mortgage market, reducing mortgage values, pressuring bank assets and working to reinvigorate systemic fear.

So the model continues to hold gold. It is a near term bet that the Feds will get the bank bailout wrong, but it is also a long term bet that, even if they do get it right, paper currency will become worthless in the process.

If you missed the Moose signal ($89.59), GLD has considerable technical support between 85 and 90.  While it could go lower than that, getting in mid-signal in that range might be reasonable. At the moment, very little else seems attractive, even though I continue to feel that the chances of severe near term economic weakness and possibly even deflation far outweigh any alternative.

Trading Wisdom of William Eckhardt

“Don’t think about what the market’s going to do; you have absolutely no control over that. Think about what you’re going to do if it gets there. In particular, you should spend no time at all thinking about those rosy scenarios in which the market goes your way, since in those situations, there’s nothing more for you to do. Focus instead on those things you want least to happen and on what your response will be.” – William Eckhardt

Bookmark and Share

Where the $200,000+ Crowd Lives

Where the $200,000+ Crowd Lives


by Paul Toscano
Friday, February 27, 2009
The White House’s budget for fiscal year 2010 calls for tax  hikes on wealthy Americans.  In this case, that means couples making over $250,000 a  year and individuals $200,000 a year. Under the budget plan, these households  (about 3 percent of the total) would experience tax increases of $318 billion over the next 10 years.  Here’s a look at the states that will be most affected by the tax hike and how they voted in the last presidential election.

Source: US Census Bureau (Housing Data), MSNBC (Election Data)

1. District of Columbia

% of Households Earning $200K+: 8.4%
Total Households: 251,039
Median Income: $50,318
Households Earning $200K+: 21,194

Election Results:
Obama: 93%
McCain: 7%

2. Connecticut

% of Households Earning $200K+: 8.0%
Total Households: 1,320,714
Median Income: $64,158
Households Earning $200K+: 105,433

Election Results:

Obama: 61%
McCain: 38%

3. New Jersey

% of Households Earning $200K+: 7.5%
Total Households: 3,149,910
Median Income: $65,249
Households Earning $200K+: 235,278

Election Results:
Obama: 57%
McCain: 42%

4. Maryland

% of Households Earning $200K+: 6.9%
Total Households: 2,082,458
Median Income: $65,552
Households Earning $200K+: 142,694

Election Results:
Obama: 62%
McCain: 37%

5. (Tie) Massachusetts

% of Households Earning $200K+: 6.2%
Total Households: 2,449,133
Households Earning $200K+: 152,348
Median Income: $57,681

Election Results:
Obama: 62%
McCain: 36%

5. (Tie) California

% of Households Earning $200K+: 6.2%
Total Households: 12,200,672
Households Earning $200K+: 757,411
Median Income: $56,311

Election Results:
Obama: 61%
McCain: 37%

7. Virginia

% of Households Earning $200K+: 5.7%
Total Households: 2,932,234
Households Earning $200K+: 165,998
Median Income: $58,950

Election Results:
Obama: 53%
McCain: 46%

8. New York

% of Households Earning $200K+: 5.6%
Total Households: 7,099,940
Households Earning $200K+: 399,014
Median Income: $49,267

Election Results:
Obama: 62%
McCain: 37%

9. Hawaii

% of Households Earning $200K+: 4.5%
Total Households: 439,685
Households Earning $200K+: 19,876
Median Income: $63,104

Election Results:
Obama: 72%
McCain: 27%

10. Illinois

% of Households Earning $200K+: 4.4%
Total Households: 4,759,579
Households Earning $200K+: 208,385
Median Income: $51,279

Election Results:
Obama: 62%
McCain: 37%

11. New Hampshire

% of Households Earning $200K+: 4.2%
Total Households: 501,505
Households Earning $200K+: 20,899
Median Income: $65,652

Election Results:
Obama: 54%
McCain: 45%

12. Colorado

% of Households Earning $200K+: 4.1%
Total Households: 1,859,965
Households Earning $200K+: 76,216
Median Income: $59,209

Election Results:
Obama: 54%
McCain: 45%

13. Washington

% of Households Earning $200K+: 4.0%
Total Households: 2,501,509
Households Earning $200K+: 99,636
Median Income: $57,178

Election Results:
Obama: 57%
McCain: 41%

14. Texas

% of Households Earning $200K+: 3.9%
Total Households: 8,244,022
Households Earning $200K+: 313,681
Median Income: $45,294

Election Results:
Obama: 44%
McCain: 56%

15. Minnesota

% of Households Earning $200K+: 3.8%
Total Households: 2,062,681
Households Earning $200K+: 77,772
Median Income: $57,932

Election Results:
Obama: 54%
McCain: 44%