The Morning Line

The speculative frenzy in silver has provided welcome relief from AI claptrap, but will it last?  There are a hundred theories about why silver has come exuberantly to life after lagging gold for so long.   I've been puzzled myself, since my technical runes suggest that gold futures could make an important top at $5132, about $800 above Friday's settlement price.  Silver would likely peak at the same time, unless the squeeze on physical supply were to pick up enough climactic energy to cause an historical readjustment in the gold:silver ratio. The Founders thought 15:1 was the correct peg, implying silver could be trading for $342 with gold at $5132. That sounds farfetched, but stranger things have happened in the financial world, especially in markets caught in short squeezes. What is most peculiar about the current run on silver is that it probably couldn't have occurred without Trump's blessings.  He has said he wants a much higher gold price in order to monetize America's few remaining, unhocked assets (including residential real estate). Letting silver off the leash would make almost everyone feel at least a little richer.  The problem is, some of Trump's most powerful buddies in the banking business are short silver up the wazoo.  Citi and B of A alone reportedly have loaned out at interest $4.5 billion of silver they do not possess, exposing themelves to potentially catastrophic losses if AG quotes should soar anew. Trump's Fortunes And what if gold goes no higher than $5132?  A corresponding top in silver followed by a steep slide in both could cap Trump's fortunes. It would certainly destroy the comforting illusion that financial markets are under control.  Of course, crazy ideas like that can only persist in bull markets.  If stock averages were to sell off by 30%-40%, which they

My best wishes to you all for the holiday season and the New Year. May you and yours enjoy good health, prosperity and serene contentment in 2026.  My regular weekly commentaries will resume with the edition scheduled for publication on Sunday, January 4.  In the meantime, trading 'touts' (see below) will update as usual late Sunday afternoon.

The widespread notion that a U.S. president can significantly influence the economy is mistaken. In observable fact, the broad cycles that bring us good times and bad, booms and busts, are vastly larger and more powerful than the presidency, too overwhelming to even affect, let alone command. Even the radical policies of Roosevelt's New Deal were insufficient to end a depression that had taken more than a generation to gather force. America's eventual emergence from those very hard times happened gradually during the administrations of Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy. Moreover, the post-war rebuilding process that made Europe and Japan America's best customers arguably would have happened cyclically without a Marshall Plan, and the U.S. financial system would have receded naturally from the fiscal excesses of a war that itself was an uncontrollable cyclical event. In this view, Kennedy, Clinton, Obama and Biden were simply lucky to have been elected with the economy and the stock market at cyclical lows. For in no way did they cause the upswings that shone on their terms in office, nor the felicitous shifts in the mood of consumers. The bullish cycle had to have been particularly strong to survive the misbegotten policies of Obama, the first president to revile  American exceptionalism, if not America itself. Surfing the Big Wave  Which brings us to Trump, the president who has come closest to affecting the economy both inside and outside the U.S.  Trump inherited a fiscal blowout impelled by the covid hoax, but he has since turned it into a credit and fiscal bonfire that can only end in ashes.  Trump has merely extended an especially powerful upswing that he did nothing to cause. It should have ended with the senile Biden and his autopen administration, but Trump's aggressive economic activism kicked already booming asset values

Just one more push could exhaust a bull market that is coming up on its seventeenth year. Although that's only about three dog years, it equates to about 120 human years.  In fact, no other bull market has lasted even remotely that long. The next-oldest, birthed at the low of the October 1987 Crash, was 13 years old before a crash in tech-sector stocks ended the dream for millions of investors grown stupid on greed. Could it happen again?  Only a fool would ask that question. My recent commentaries have warned with increasing shrillness that stocks are in a topping process. I have purposely left the details vague, since bull-market tops are notoriously full of deceptions.  However, the chart above provides a compelling number for the party to end, a 7492 Hidden Pivot target for the E-Mini S&P futures that lies 8.6% above. Last week featured the second straight Friday on which bulls and bears did little more than screw the pooch. Usually, Fridays are fun, or at least interesting, for one group or the other. But lately it's been like watching a heavyweight slugfest that turned bloody in the seventh round. Bears have lacked the guts to deliver the haymaker, but the buy-the-dips junkies, who have been winning on points since 2009, seem too fatigued and lacking in conviction to counterpunch. Thus did stocks fall to end the week, although not enough to worry anyone, much less spook the herd. Paralyzed by Doubt All the excitement was in gold and silver, which have been rising since early 2024 in a steepening trajectory. The uptrend is practically vertical now and in need of a rest. But that is not how bull markets work, as many bulls are discovering. Although they've been praying for a big move for years, now that

Stocks looked leaden as the week ended, adding to the impression that the aging bull market is topping. The Dow tacked on a perfunctory 104 points, or 0.22%, and it wasn't pretty. There was little life in the lunatic sector (aka 'the Magnificent Seven'), which until recently could be relied on to celebrate its wildest flights of fantasy on Fridays. The biggest winner in the bunch was META, which rose 1.80% on news that Zuckerberg is having second thoughts about his all-in bet on a metaverse. If you're unfamiliar with the term, it refers to a virtual world in which users interact online through avatars. Zuckerberg evidently thought there were hundreds of millions of us, if not billions, eager to escape the pain and drudgery of day-to-day life. He was so certain about this that he changed the name of his company in 2021 from Facebook to Meta.  But after sinking $70 billion into the concept, there has been precious little payback. Even more troubling to investors is that there are no obvious ways to make back what has been spent already, nor to recoup any further sums Meta might pour into the idea. Counting on Investors' Stupidity   To cover up this boo-boo, and to avoid being thought clueless, Zuckerberg did what any muckety-muck CEO in the digital world would have done: a twisting somersault onto the AI bandwagon.  "AI is the most important technology we are working on," he said, evidently hoping investors have forgotten that he spent the last four years taking pains to separate the supposed;y lucrative potential of metaverse from the vague and so-far profitless promises of AI.  This latest statement to the press was a smart move if you believe that the $10 gain recorded by META on Friday was the beginning of a lasting

Like UFOs and Bigfoot, far more bear market sightings are imagined than real. I thought I'd spotted Papa Bear myself when Nvidia announced terrific earnings a couple of weeks ago, only to see their shares reverse and dive sharply after a deceptive spike higher. Was this the needle prick that burst the AI bubble? It certainly seemed like it; for it was not merely plausible, but logical, given that Wall Street and the entire investment world were desperately counting on a single company, albeit a $5 trillion one, to turn sagging markets around. They got their wish, but it was a delayed reaction that must have spooked many investors. Stocks plunged for several days after the announcement before catching a bottom and reversing steeply. Your editor was one of the non-believers who were certain stocks had entered a bear market that was long overdue. It wasn't just Nvidia's performance, either. Trump's fortunes, if not to say his very credibility, seemed to be ebbing, in part because his nemesis Epstein was creeping back into the headlines. The President was uncharacteristically back on his heels, seemingly in synch with falling stocks. But within a few days, NVDA appeared to be basing, Trump was masterfully diverting the news media toward a possible peace pact between Russia and Ukraine, and stocks were in a steep recovery. It was sufficiently ferocious to seem like a classical bear rally, and that's what I assumed it was  -- until, that is, in just three days, the broad averages had already maneuvered to within easy distance of new highs. That was on Friday, and there's no point pretending the rally is a fake, destined to end with a whimper. Place Your Bets I continue to believe, nonetheless, that stocks are in a topping process. However, a bear market

There'll be more to say about the bear market as it develops. It has taken some baby steps so far, with a 2,100-point slide in the Dow over several days, then a stunning, 1,115-point reversal to the downside after Nvidia announced strong earnings last Thursday. Talking heads and editorialists opined that quarterly numbers were not quite as sensational as investors had anticipated, but they missed the point. For just as poor earnings barely fazed stocks during the 16-year bull market, merely decent earnings are unlikely to provide more than fleeting upticks in a bear market. Get used to it, because this new dynamic will be with us until shares hit bottom years from now. With respect to Nvidia, it didn't help that Wall Street and every investor on earth was desperately counting on their earnings announcement to reverse the slide of the broad averages in the days preceding the report. When the Dow notched a record high on November 12, pundits paid scant attention to the failure of the usually feisty Nasdaq Index and the 'Cubes' (QQQ) to follow suit. Six months from now, however, this divergence will be seen as one of those bells that supposedly doesn't ring at the top. Making Disney a Has-Been Although my vantage point on Nvidia is purely technical, others saw the stock's punitive reversal as related to the questionable way they report earnings. One analyst cited the exceptionally long lag time between billings and receipts. Were the global economy to fall into recession, he notes, the manufacturer could conceivably get stiffed by strapped customers, wiping billions of dollars in profits already recorded from Nvidia's books. 'Fundamentals' undoubtedly figured into NVDA's surprising plunge, but the long-overdue deflation of AI hubris was surely a more powerful factor. I address this subject in a recent interview

The ‘affordability' issue percolated to the top of the news last week, but in a peculiar way. On the right, the debate was not about whether things in general are becoming less affordable for most Americans, as they unmistakably are, but whether the left has blown the issue far out of proportion to create a wave of discontent ahead of next November's general election.  The discussion was catalyzed by abysmal consumer sentiment numbers that registered lows not seen since the Great Depression. Trump courted controversy over this in an interview with Fox’s Laura Ingraham. The economy is going great guns, he declaimed, and what’s the problem? He then stepped into quicksand by owning an issue far more real than political. Although he didn't say these words exactly, what America heard was:  "I'm going to give you affordability like you won't believe." This is a promise he cannot possibly keep, and his stumble on this key issue eventually will be seen as the beginning of the end for boom times on Wall Street and the Everything Bubble. In stark actuality, the Second Great Depression has already begun for half of America. As my colleague Charles Hugh-Smith notes, the rich have grown increasingly wealthy from a price bubble in real estate and financial assets while barely noticing the descent of the bottom 50% into penury. “While the top 10% busy themselves with using AI to improve work flow, obsessing over geopolitics and the decay of their perks of their Titanium credit card, other Americans are concerned with finding a second or third side-hustle as the soaring costs of utilities, rent, auto insurance and repairs, childcare and healthcare are forcing choices nobody wants to make: What [necessities to forgo.]” The Best of Times?  Trump risks failure by amping up his spiel about how

[ My friend Doug Behnfield, a wealth manager and senior vice president at Morgan Stanley in Boulder, has contributed many commentaries to Rick's Picks over the years. Below is the Q3 report he sent out to clients several weeks ago. Like many observers, he is troubled by the enormous concentration of investment capital in the AI space. Can the eventual payoff ever be big enough to justify the estimated $10 trillion that will flow into AI technology by 2030? Read why Doug thinks there are better places to park your money. With apologies to him, I have dispensed  with his meticulous footnotes and several graphs to simplify typography. The Jetson's illustration was also my idea, based on his original headline, 'Thoughts on the Jetsons and Rope-a-Dope'. RA ] In late 1962, CBS introduced the Hanna-Barbera evening cartoon The Jetsons. It was inspired by their hit series The Flintstones, but set in the future. It lasted for only 24 weekly episodes, but it made an indelible impression on the Baby Boom Generation. Along with flying cars and Rosie the robotic maid, George Jetson worked two days a week, one hour per day (not remotely), and all he did was go in and push a button to start and stop a machine. (the Referential Unisonic Digital Indexer Machine, at Spacely Sprockets). I was reminded of The Jetsons when reading a Wall Street Journal article describing the rivalry between Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk in developing robots. In it, Elon Musk predicts that there will be “at least 10 billion humanoid robots in the world, remaking the idea of work and life” by 2040 (The Jetsons was set in 2062). Zuckerberg’s humanoid robotic aspirations are dependent on gathering data from the microphone and camera in his Artificial Intelligence (AI) Glasses.  With them, he intends to