"As a technician, I feel that there are few analysts that offer value for me, but you do. Your work on Gold ratios has helped my analysis greatly." --Jordan Roy-Byrne, CMT (The Daily Gold) 4.9.10

Thursday, April 26, 2012

I Am Gold...

IAMGOLD Corp. has a lot of cash, no debt and a strategic plan to acquire cheap ounces in an epic and sold out environment for the sector.  In other words, IAG is thinking like a predator or a capitalist in exactly the same fashion NFTRH has been throughout this process. 

As a side note, I want anyone who is experiencing pain now due to the sector wide mini depression to please recall all sources that were pumping you in the opposite direction (that would be up) during the intense hype of last summer and compare that to what they may be saying now.

Disclosure:  I had a ridiculous (??) target of HUI 888+, but that was a technical measurement and was pending a breakout and hold above a certain level.  Short of that, all due risk management came into play every step of the way.  It's the only way you survive.

Additional disclosure:  I am so bullish now (unlike last September) I can taste it.

Anyway, this gold company now looks interesting, technically.  It is in a weekly Falling Wedge (more significant than a short term daily one), just above long term support and is in the grip of more negative momentum than in 2008, by MACD.  There is also a measurement to 11... former trading range high of 23 - trading range low around 17 = 6.  17-6 = 11.  Simple. 

While it may be a buy here and now, 10 to 11 bucks would be a no brainer from a technical standpoint.

Yet another disclosure:  I don't own IAG, but may soon.

http://www.biiwii.blogspot.com
http://www.biiwii.com

1 comment:

  1. Apparently a load of their value is tied up in Niobec, a niobium mine that apparently nobody is particularly interested in owning - including I!Am!Gold!.

    They're really interested in dumping it for $1.5 billion... but nobody's paying.

    I'd factor that in to a fundamental analysis of IMG.

    Then again, you don't have to cos the chart is the chart, right?

    ReplyDelete