The US debate on climate change is heating up

Two different plans to attack the problem could be combined in a workable compromiso

Martin Wolf



Might the US move from being a laggard to a leader in tackling global climate change? Two recent announcements — the “economists’ statement on carbon dividends” and the Green New Deal — suggest that it might. Intellectually, these proposals are from different planets. But they could be a basis for something reasonable. More important, influential people at least agree that for the US to stand pat is unconscionable.

The economists’ statement has been signed by 3,333 US economists, including four former chairs of the Federal Reserve, 27 Nobel laureates and two former Treasury secretaries. It has four elements: a gradually increasing carbon fee, beginning at $40 a ton; a dividend paid “to the American people on an equal and quarterly basis”; border adjustments for the carbon content of imports and exports; and removal of unnecessary regulations. This plan is also to be proposed to “other leading greenhouse gas emitting countries”.





The Green New Deal comes from a group of House Democrats, led by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. It is a proposal to transform the US economy. Notable climate-related goals include “meeting 100 per cent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources”, “building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and ‘smart’ power grids”, and “upgrading all existing buildings in the US and building new buildings to achieve maximum energy efficiency”.

The US is a pivotal actor in global climate change discussions for four reasons: it is the world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, accounting for 14 per cent of the total; its emissions per head are very high; it has exceptional technological resources; and it has been highly recalcitrant. In brief, US participation is a necessary, though not a sufficient, condition for addressing the climate threat.




Alas, that threat has become imminent, as the Green New Deal notes. The rise in average temperatures above pre-industrial levels is already 1C. It will take dramatic changes to keep it below 2C, let alone 1.5C. The higher it gets, the more unpredictable and dangerous these irreversible changes will become. Above all, the trend to higher emissions must reverse very soon if the rise in atmospheric concentrations is to halt.

This is one reason why reliance on the calibrated price incentives beloved by economists is inadequate. The challenges here are irreversible changes in climate with uncertain effects, on the one hand, and the imperfectly predictable consequences of carbon pricing on emissions, on the other hand. Quantitative objectives are inescapable. Moreover, the needed changes in the way the economy works will demand changes in spatial planning, in building regulations, in regulation of nuclear power, in spending on research and development, and in spreading new technologies across the world. The price mechanism is powerful. But, as a report from the Energy Transitions Commission makes clear, it will not be enough. The economists’ plan might have been adequate if implemented worldwide three decades ago. Now, it is almost certainly not.




The Green New Deal recognises the need for regulatory intervention and infrastructure investment. Unfortunately, it places no weight on incentives at all. A letter from activists in support of the Green New Deal states that “we will vigorously oppose any legislation that . . . [includes] market-based mechanisms and technology options such as carbon and emissions trading and offsets, carbon capture and storage, nuclear power, waste-to-energy and biomass energy”.

This looks like a dialogue of the deaf. But the economists just might recognise that the urgency of the Green New Deal and its focus on regulation and investment have some important things to offer. Activist proponents of the Green New Deal might realise that incentives matter and that the proceeds of a carbon tax might help buy public support. Above all, they might recognise that seeing every social ill through the lens of climate change guarantees that they will fail to achieve anything useful. As the British socialist Aneurin Bevan said, “the language of priorities is the religion of socialism”.





Only a broad coalition can tackle the climate challenge. So plans that have a chance of being politically workable will be compromises. A good plan must be a blend of price incentives with command and control, and investment in research and development. The fact that people with different policy approaches agree that climate is an urgent threat is a step forward. More Republicans might accept that the threat is not a hoax and join in.

The US cannot solve a global threat on its own. But it could combine the best of the economists’ plan and the Green New Deal. It would then need to make it global. This could be done by a combination of carrots — exporting technology freely and helping poor countries — with sticks — carbon border taxes. This could also be an area where the US, the EU and China might co-operate. Of course, nothing so forward-looking can be expected from the Trump administration. But at least people can plan for the day when he is gone.




Pessimism about humanity’s ability to address climate change is understandable. Time is limited, talk plentiful and action negligible. But we can only start from agreement that there is indeed a threat worth addressing. That may now be emerging, even in the US. Turning such a consensus into a workable, globally replicable and politically acceptable plan is going to be very hard. But despair is not an option. We can see some movement. Let us push hard for more.


Bond Investors Shouldn’t Fixate Too Much on the Alphabet

Corporate debt graded BBB has become investors’ bogeyman, but higher-rated paper isn’t always safer

By Jon Sindreu

This week, ratings agency Moody’s placed Nissan Motor on review for a credit downgrade.
This week, ratings agency Moody’s placed Nissan Motor on review for a credit downgrade. Photo: Koji Sasahara/Associated Press



Just like a teapot that never whistles while you are looking at it, perhaps the most maligned bit of the corporate bond market isn’t where investors will get burned.

This week, ratings agency Moody’splaced Japanese auto maker Nissan Motoron review for a credit downgrade, amid trouble surrounding its former Chairman Carlos Ghosn and economic uncertainty affecting the automotive industry.



Analysts and investors have focused most of their concerns on the increasing amount of debt rated just a notch above “junk” status—a grade often called BBB. Yet S&P Global rates BBB bonds as only having an 11% probability of being downgraded. It is below that of higher-quality issuers—for example Nissan, which is graded single-A.

The fact that downgrade probabilities are low across the board is no guarantee: They were also low in 2006. What is different is that, back then, the worsening outlook for BBB debt warned of the impending debt crisis.

The global share of almost-junk bonds dropped after 2009, but it has now rebounded to a record high of almost 50%, according to the International Monetary Fund. It is the result of investors’ scramble for returns after a decade of ultralow interest rates and tax laws that benefit borrowing. But the outlook for these bonds isn’t worsening.



As Citigroup strategist Matt King points out, BBB firms are under so much scrutiny that they are less likely to be the ticking bombs they are assumed to be. Companies now trading at this level include General Electricand Ford Motor .These are large established firms in trouble that are willing to go to great lengths not to lose their investment-grade status—the only type of paper that many institutional money managers are allowed to buy.

By contrast, downgrades of single-A companies have received less attention, even though they are often the result of corporations happily spending cash. In October, International Business Machinesbought Red Hatand was downgraded to A from A-plus.

Single-A bonds don't outperformmuch in good times, but still sell off alot during the badAverage of yearly total returns forinvestment-grade corporate bondsSource: Bank of America Merrill Lynch (FactSet)Note: Data between 1991 and 2018



A recession in the U.S. would ripple through investment-grade bonds across all ratings. Even if BBB ones are likely to be among the hardest hit, single-A bonds typically lose almost as much in selloffs, and deliver less in rallies. Now they are trading much closer to debt issued by top-rated AAA firms—the few that are left—than they are to BBB paper, at levels that have historically suggested a reversal.

Despite recent weakness in the global economy, corporate debt might do better this year, after suffering in 2018 due in part to earlier overbuying and higher currency-hedging costs.

In either of the two scenarios, buyers of corporate paper should be as concerned about the first letter of the alphabet as they are about the second.


Miami Battles Rising Seas

In 2017, voters agreed to finance adaptation efforts through property taxes. Now the first phase of those projects is underway.

By Ban Ki-moon and Francis Suarez


Homes in North Miami, Fla., were damaged by floodwater from Hurricane Irma in 2017.CreditCreditKevin Hagen for The New York Times


Climate change is not a distant threat for Miami; it’s a daily presence in people’s lives. The city has been fighting to stay above water for decades. It knows that its future as a vibrant international hub for business, tourism, arts and culture depends on making the city more resilient to the impact of global warming.

That’s why the city of Miami is moving aggressively to adapt; in 2017, its citizens voted to tax themselves to build resilience against flooding and storm surges by approving a $400 million bond issue that is financing projects across the city.

Miami is not alone, of course, in facing these threats. Around the globe, some 800 million people in hundreds of coastal cities are at risk from storm surges and rising seas. We want to share what we have learned in building resilience against the changing climate.

One reality we have come to understand is this: Our current efforts to protect coastal cities will fall short of what will be required in decades to come. For in spite of global efforts to rein in carbon dioxide emissions that cause global warming, they continue to rise and expose coastal cities like Miami to more extreme weather events and rising seas. And yet, the world’s biggest economies invested only about $25 billion on adaptation overall in 2014, despite losing many times that amount to floods, storms, wildfires and droughts. Clearly, more investment is needed to build resilience, especially to protect the world’s coastal regions and cities.




We have also learned that there is strength in numbers. Miami can access a wealth of resources, including sea level rise projections, thanks to its membership in regional bodies like the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact. The city has also gained a broader perspective on urban resilience challenges and approaches by joining global networks such as the Global Commission on Climate Adaptation, where we both serve as board members, and 100 Resilient Cities.

Finally, we have learned that effective adaptation is a collective endeavor. It requires a holistic, long-term approach that takes into account the needs of our citizens today and in the future. This requires robust and meticulous long-term planning, informed investment in resilient infrastructure, adapting land use and building policies to address the climate challenge, advancing new transportation solutions, educating and informing citizens about climate change, training and mobilizing volunteers during emergencies, informing private property owners of climate risks, and forging partnerships with research institutions and business innovators. As this long list makes clear, there isn’t a single aspect of our daily lives that isn’t affected by climate change.

Perhaps one of the reasons there is so little investment in adaptation is the lack of financial incentives. Unlike a wind farm, for example, that can earn a steady return for investors, the monetary benefits of adaptation are less straightforward. Investing in resilience protects businesses and communities from devastating losses, so it must be measured in the lives saved and businesses that remain open. We are only now learning how to quantify these benefits to communities. Florida’s Division of Emergency Management, for example, calculated that projects to reduce wind and water damage avoided $81 million in losses when Hurricane Matthew struck in 2016, while costing only $19 million to carry out. The projects included raising buildings, improving drainage, and buying and demolishing properties in vulnerable areas.

That is why leadership, particularly from city governments like Miami’s, is so important in driving investment in adaptation. After Hurricane Irma in September 2017 — one of the costliest in United States history, leaving a $50 billion trail of destruction — there was both a moral and a fiscal obligation to act. That’s why two months later, Miami voters approved the $400 million Miami Forever Bond.

The program is the city’s answer to the shortfall of investment in adaptation. It brings together city planners, private sector innovators and citizens to build a stronger, more resilient future for Miami. Almost half this amount is being invested in flood defenses and other measures to combat the effects of rising sea levels. The remaining funds will be invested in affordable housing, tree planting, road work and an innovative approach to urban landscape design that will allow residents to continue enjoying waterfront access while improving drainage and sea wall defenses.

On Tuesday, we had the opportunity to visit resilience projects financed by the bond in the heart of Miami’s Brickell financial district. They include expanding drainage capacity to reduce flooding and new pumping stations to collect storm water runoff and discharge it into the Miami River and Biscayne Bay. In addition, a project along Brickell Bay Drive will raise the elevation of nearly one and a half miles of sea wall on Biscayne Bay to prevent flooding from storm surges, and a redesign of Jose Marti Park along the Miami River will reduce flood risk.

We hope that along with these projects, Miami’s resilience bond will become a catalyst for greater private sector investment and innovation in climate adaptation. We also hope it will spur similar initiatives in coastal cities around the globe.


Ban Ki-moon, a former secretary general of the United Nations, is a co-chairman of the Global Commission on Adaptation. Francis Suarez is the mayor of Miami.


I'm Buying Gold And Silver, But Not For The Reason You Think

by: Lyn Alden Schwartzer

 

Summary
 
- I'm accumulating gold, silver, and gold/silver stocks to maintain a 5-7% portfolio allocation to precious metals.

- I consider gold to be fairly valued or mildly undervalued at the current time. Not necessarily deeply undervalued like some argue, but a good long-term risk/reward opportunity.

- Streaming/royalty companies are my preferred choice.

- Silver and platinum are historically undervalued.
 
- Precious metals are a useful asset class within a diversified portfolio.
 
 
Gold is a store of wealth that protects against currency weakness, while gold stocks are investments (albeit historically not well-managed as a group). Silver and platinum are hybrids in the sense that they have a lot of industrial applications but can also serve as stores of wealth.
 
However, precious metals are a controversial subject. Many people invest in them heavily and have a strong attachment to them, while others consider them unsuitable for inclusion in any respectable portfolio.
 
I'm a moderate in this sense; I have no strong feelings either way but invest in precious metals when the price is right and the winds are in their favor. They're a defensive asset class that can provide good returns when appropriately priced and during times of turmoil.
 
In particular, I have a simple framework for determining roughly what I'm willing to pay for gold, which can then be extrapolated to other precious metals. I don't try to time or trade gold over the short term; I merely assess whether it's reasonably priced and worth holding for the long term.
 
Asset Price Inflation
 
As I have shown in a couple articles, net worth relative to income is at record levels in the United States, which some people refer to as the "Everything Bubble":
 
 
The combination of low interest rates and money-printing has inflated asset prices, even though it hasn't inflated consumer prices for everyday goods. Stocks, real estate, bonds, and gold have all been propped upto high levels in part by very easy monetary policy.
 
The broad money supply per capita of the U.S. has grown a lot more quickly than the consumer price index over the past 20 years. Due to the slowing velocity of that money and other factors, it hasn't translated into higher prices on everyday goods, but it has translated into higher prices of financial assets.
 
The U.S. economy is nearly ten years into what is likely to soon become the longest economic expansion in the United States. However, many late-cycle elements have built up, including record corporate debt-to-GDP, a flat yield curve, potentially peaking house sales and vehicle sales, and a central bank that is trying to gradually tighten monetary policy and finding it challenging to do. Most recession indicators aren't flashing red for the next two quarters, but many of them are flashing yellow for a slowdown over the next two years.
 
On top of that cyclical aspect, the U.S. has major structural deficits, including a very high fiscal deficit as a percentage of GDP compared to what it was during other bull markets, a steadily increasing federal debt as a percentage of GDP, a permanent trade deficit, a weaker middle class than most other developed countries based on median net worth, underfunded pension systems, and underfunded future liabilities for Medicare and Social Security. During the next recession or the one thereafter, there are 4 economic bubbles in particular that I'm concerned about unfolding.
 
Many investors who are bearish on the economy believe that gold (GLD) is the answer to these problems; that gold (especially physical gold but potentially also gold stocks and gold ETFs) can protect investors from unusually high asset valuations. They argue that everything is in a bubble, including stocks, bonds, and real estate, and that gold and some other commodities are among the only things that are not in a bubble.

The problem with that assessment is that, based on most measures, gold is part of the everything bubble, rather than left out of it. It has already inflated to high price levels. As a financial asset, its price has outpaced the consumer price index. Its price growth has even outpaced the median home price growth over the past 25 years. Compared to the growth of money supply per capita, gold does not appear to be particularly undervalued or overvalued in terms of USD, but rather somewhere in the range of fairly-valued compared to its multi-decade historical average.
 
This is why I titled the article the way it is; many gold bulls argue that gold is woefully undervalued and suppressed in price, but I think the data show otherwise. I merely believe it to be appropriately-priced or mildly/moderately undervalued and, thus, am moderately bullish on it in a world full of things that are overvalued. Silver, platinum, and several other commodities, on the other hand, are historically very inexpensive and arguably quite undervalued.
 
Gold Appears Fairly Valued
 
According to the World Gold Council, less than 200,000 tonnes of gold have been mined in human history, with about 2,500-3,000 more tonnes being produced in a given year. Unlike most other commodities, almost all gold is thought to be maintained or recycled in perpetuity, with only trace percentages discarded in electronic waste.
 
With less than 200,000 tonnes of refined gold in existence and a 2,500-3,000 tonne/year global annual production rate, there is about one ounce of gold in the world for each human, and the amount of gold grows roughly as fast as the human population.
 
The U.S. broad money supply is growing quickly per capita, while the amount of gold per capita is relatively fixed. Thus, gold should gradually appreciate in price over time at a rate roughly equal to the growth of money supply per capita, which has averaged over 5% per year for nearly five decades now. Sometimes, gold gets ahead of this trend, and sometimes, it falls behind, but it logically and historically reverts to the mean.

Another way to put it is that dollars should gradually devalue such that it takes more of them to buy an ounce of gold, because the amount of dollars in existence per person is continually growing, while the amount of gold in existence per person is not.
 
This following chart shows the growth of broad money supply per capita in the U.S. (red line) compared to gold prices (blue line), indexed to 100 in 1995:
 
Chart Source: St. Louis Federal Reserve
 
 
When gold hit major bubbles in 1980 and 2011, its price growth had majorly outpaced the growth of money supply per capita. Investors at those times feared the possibility of a dollar crisis due to major inflation (1980) or money-printing (2011), so the price of gold was bid up in preparation for a dollar crisis. When that dollar crisis never fully came, gold gradually fell back to normal levels over time to continue to track the growth of broad money supply per capita.
 
The only lengthy period where the price of gold trended below the growth of per capita money supply was in the late 1990s and early 2000s. At that time, the economy was booming, money supply growth was stable and low, and real interest rates were rather high, meaning it was more attractive to hold cash in a bank or buy U.S. treasuries than to buy gold. Thus, gold was very much out of favor. This eventually proved to be among the best times to buy gold in modern history.
 
Right now, gold is fairly valued against the broad money supply per capita compared to how it was in 1995 or in the mid-1970s. Its current value has not dramatically outpaced money supply per capita like it did in 1980 and 2011, nor is it trending below the growth of money supply per capita like it did in the early 2000s. It has greatly outpaced consumer price inflation and has even outpaced the price growth of the median house.

This chart is the same as the one above but also adds the median house price over time, indexed to 100 in 1995 (green line):
 
Gold, Money Supply, and Houses Chart Source: St. Louis Federal Reserve
 
 
As a second valuation check, it's also, of course, important to pay attention to the supply/demand balance of gold and the profitability of gold miners. A supply reduction or a demand increase can cause spikes or troughs in the gold price.
 
I like to look at the AISC and free cash flows of the biggest miners in the gold stock ETF (GDX). If they are insanely profitable, that's a red flag that the price of gold may have gotten ahead of itself. If they are closing down and going bankrupt, then gold may be undervalued, and that higher prices would be needed to keep production online. If they are struggling somewhat but doing okay, gold is most likely in the ballpark of being appropriately-valued, which is what I see when I look at a variety of gold miners today.
 
More specifically, many of the gold majors I follow are profitable but have dwindling reserves, since recent gold prices have been enough to keep good miners profitable but have not been enough to justify major spending on exploration and development. As a result, there has been an increase in M&A activity within the industry as the companies try to consolidate their reserves. That's a case for at least mild undervaluation in gold.
 
A Note On Silver And Platinum
 
Silver (SLV), on the other hand, is trending well below average valuation. The gold-to-silver ratio is historically quite high at over 80, which when combined with the idea that gold is approximately fairly valued or mildly undervalued implies that silver is significantly undervalued.
 
Historically, when gold price spikes higher, the gold-to-silver ratio shrinks, meaning there's a tendency for silver to spike even higher.

Indeed, the long-term expected demand growth for silver from electric vehicles, solar panels, and electronics in general, is bullish, for silver prices, but anything goes in the short term.
Chart  Data by YCharts

 
Platinum in the past several years has also become deeply undervalued in respect to its historical relationship with gold. The caveat with platinum and palladium is that their principal industrial use is in combustion vehicles which may face long-term gradual demand destruction by electric vehicles which don't need catalytic converters. In the meantime, it is unusual for platinum to be priced so much below gold and Palladium.
Chart  Data by YCharts

 
Gold stocks, additionally, are trading at historically low valuations compared to gold based on the XAU-to-gold ratio. In other words, gold miners are the second cheapest they've ever been relative to the price of gold, with the only cheaper period being a few years ago at the gold bottom in 2015/2016.
 
It's important to be picky with gold stocks, however, because, as a group, they've been historically bad managers of capital and have underperformed the metals they mine:
Chart  Data by YCharts

 
The Role Of Gold In A Portfolio
 
Rather than merely being an inflation hedge, gold serves a variety of purposes in a portfolio. Gold is insurance against a currency crisis, a nice hedge during recessions, and a play on perpetually low interest rates and quantitative easing going forward.
 
Unlike real estate, gold tends to appreciate in price during recessions due to investor fear.
 
However, on a fundamental basis, it's not currently any cheaper than median residential real estate relative to the growth of the U.S. money supply. Silver is a deeper-value play.
 
Some people point out that precious metals don't keep up with stocks over the long term, but it really depends on when you buy and how long you define "long" to be. Gold has outpaced the S&P 500 (SPY) and the Nasdaq 100 (QQQ) over the past 20 years due to how highly-valued stocks were at that time and how undervalued gold was. But if you measure from gold price peaks in 1980 or 2011, gold's returns have been bad. Gold historically gives good risk-adjusted returns when bought at cheap or moderate prices during times when equities are highly valued.
 
Moreover, I view gold mostly as competing for a spot in a portfolio against cash and bonds, rather than necessarily competing against stocks. And, on that front, it has done quite well:
Chart  Data by YCharts

 
 
I sold my gold and silver coins that I collected as a youngster to a local shop in 2011 when they became overvalued, went on to ignore the space for a few years, and started buying back in the past two years up to a 5-7% allocation when gold fell back to its trend against the broad money supply per capita comparable to its 1995 valuation, and as stocks became highly-valued based on a number of metrics.

I believe gold is a healthy part of a diversified portfolio, but I want to caution investors against the idea that it's the one magical asset class that can save them from economic calamity. Other hard assets like real estate outside of high-priced cities and infrastructure assets are desirable as well.
 
Good solid companies with in-demand products and services that produce strong free cash flows and have fortress balance sheets are also solid choices to hold through market turmoil.
 
Over the very long run, I expect gold to continue to appreciate in price in terms of dollars at about the same rate as the growth of per capita money supply (which has averaged over 5% per year), with occasional spikes over it due to fear, which are hard to predict. In comparison, Vanguard recently reported that they expect about 5% annual returns from U.S. stocks over the next decade.
 
When real interest rates are low like they are now, it would make sense for gold to err on the side of trending a bit above the growth of the money supply per capita since there is less opportunity cost for holding it compared to cash or sovereign bonds.
 
In contrast, during periods of high real interest rates and stable economic growth, it wouldn't be unusual to see the price of gold trend below the growth of the money supply per capita since the opportunity cost of holding it is significant.
 
Historically, gold price movements as a percent-change-per-year (red line) are inversely correlated with real treasury yields (blue line, scaled by a factor of 10 for clarity):
 
 
During periods of inflation in the 1970s, gold spiked higher when real treasury yields were negative.
 
Then, during the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s, the U.S. enjoyed a sustained economic boom with consistently high real interest rates, which kept the price of gold stable and low. During the global financial crisis and its aftermath, real interest rates became practically zero. In response to this, as well as global debt crises and quantitative easing, gold spiked high once again before gradually falling back to its trend as things stabilized against resumed economic growth.

Given that we seem to be perpetually in a low real interest rate environment for much of the developed world going forward (the existing high debt levels can't support higher interest rates at this point), and gold is at a balanced price relative to money supply per capita, gold appears to be a reasonably good investment that should continue to appreciate in the long term, even if it, of course, has various dips along the way.
 
I personally like to hold a little bit of physical gold, and then a broad array of gold streaming and royalty companies like Franco Nevada (FNV), Wheaton Precious Metals (WPM), Royal Gold (RGLD), Sandstorm (SAND), and Osisko Gold Royalties (OR). As a group, gold royalty and streaming companies have outperformed the price of gold and gold miners over the past decade because their diversified business model of financing gold mines is more stable than doing the dirty work of actually mining gold. They have less explosive upside potential but are better at riding out the downturns, which suits the purpose of my investment in them. Some of them became rather expensive years ago but have drifted down to better valuations in recent years.
Chart Data by YCharts

 
In addition, I am holding a select number of historically well-managed gold/silver miners.
 
Currently, I have small positions in the new Barrick (GOLD), Agnico Eagle (AEM), B2Gold (BTG), Fortuna Silver Mines (FSM), and First Majestic Silver (AG).
 
Summary Thoughts
 
Growth of the gold price logically and historically tracks the growth of per-capita money supply over time, which has averaged over 5% per year during the past several decades.
 
Compared to estimated stock, cash, and bond returns over the next decade, gold is a favorable risk/reward asset class currently to include within a portfolio.

Gold tends to deviate from the trend to the upside during times of currency uncertainty and low real interest rates. Inversely, gold has more rarely deviated from the trend to the downside during periods of high real interest rates and strong economic growth.
 
Shrinking in-ground reserves among gold majors, increased gold buying from central banks, perpetually low real interest rates, and the observation that we're likely relatively late in the U.S. business cycle are all bullish for gold.
 
There's a good case to hold some precious metals at this price point, and they're best thought of as competing against a portion of cash and bonds when deciding whether they fit within a portfolio. Gold stocks can be thought of as competing against traditional equities, but generally with just a small allocation at best.


Incredible Price Anomaly Setup in the NQ

The Technical Traders


Our research team has been alerting our followers to a potentially deep price retracement setting up in the NQ and other US stock market majors. Although the recent price activity has pushed to newer recent highs this week, as you will see in the chart below, our Adaptive Dynamic Learning (ADL) price modeling system is suggesting that a “price anomaly” has set up.

These types of price anomalies are indicative of when price moves in an extended way outside of or away from the ADL predicted price levels. On the chart below, of NQ (NASDAQ), you’ll see the current setup with the predicted price anomaly highlighted as a RED SQUARE. This NQ ADL price pattern consists of 13 unique previous ADL instances and suggests there is a greater than 65% likelihood the prices will fall towards the 6700 level in the NQ over the next few days.

Our ADL price modeling system also confirms this on the Weekly chart basis. With 84 unique instances of an ADL price pattern, we are expecting a 65 to 95% probability that prices will fall to below 6700 within the next 3 to 5 weeks.




Both the Daily and Weekly ADL predictive modeling systems are suggesting that the upside move is over. The price anomaly could continue for a few more days, we’ve seen it happen in the past where price continues to push away from the ADL levels – this is what makes a price anomaly so exciting. 

When price moves away from levels that our ADL price modeling system suggests going to happen in the future, it allows us to set up trades expecting the price to REVERT back towards the ADL levels. So in this case, we can start setting up trades near 7300 for the NQ to retrace back to near 6700 – a 600 point swing.