rigger

For a lot of minorities ,Trump would be the choice as they'll be more chance of rising wages in a restricted labour market.

Thanks for that Doc. When I trade political bets I do it for money-I'm currently backing Corbyn for Labour leader- I can't help that I soemtimes want my bet to win eg Leave I have to say that my sympathies lie with Donald.That video lays out how I saw,all the global banker class screaming for cheap labour and high house prices.ALl the young kids being sold a pup.The stirking thing about that campaign was that the further you went up the age ranges the more likely you were to find Leave voters.They've seen it all before. Clinton has failed to do any press conferences fr a reason,she doesn't want to pay the piper.

That's my point Doc. I think Trump will improve more as a candidate,there's loads of room and I agree,the trip to louisiana and recent town halls have shown he gets that he had to raise his game

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/2016-election-numbers-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-tv-advertisement-spending/ 24/8/16 'Thus far, Clinton’s team announced, they’ve spent approximately $70 million on television ads in the general election. And according to Advertising Analytics and NBC News​, outside groups supporting her candidacy have spent just over $45 million on the race. Trump, by contrast, hadn’t spent a dime on television advertising for the general election through the end of July.' Simply stunning that some polls have him within 3 points.Hillary should be very worried. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/

I think Hillary-who hasn't done a press conference in something like 260 days+-is basically hoping that she'll get to the finish line without having to answer unmoderated(read scripted) questions. She's been helped by Trump to some degree who's been struggling to find his feet.My view is that he'll find them and I often wonder how truly unexpected some of his personnel changes are.I mean the guy has underspent Hillary by 80% in terms of TV and he's within 3 to 4 points on polling.Said polling is being gamed to suit Hillary as we see the MSM for what they are. What makes me laugh is the aristocracy in the GOP keep making noises that they may not support Trump if he doesn't buckle down,completely unaware that that is exactly what he wants. If he wins this-and I think it's a 45% chance he will,then political scientists will be studying his campaign for decades. In terms of the betting,I wouldn't be backing a liability like Hillary at 1.3 with 2 months+ to go.Aside from Assange,the legions of hackers who hate her and the clearly gaping holes in her internet defences,she's yet to do a presser.There's every possiblity that she won't be able to move them off the subject of her private server.

Furthermore,I'm genuinely stunned that with Trump polling within the margin of error,punters are taking the other side of the bet at 4.8. It all hinges on Penn and Virginia I know but all it takes is Trump to surprise in Minnesota as per Mish Shedlock's piece and it's wide open. Saw a similar level of disconnect between reality and the polls with Brexit. A friend has just returned from Florida and said all she ran into was Trump voters.....not scientific I know.

I'm in already(so talking my book I guess-but my average price is 4),but not loading any more until a few days before the close of play. I've been really surprised by how the US media and polling is so biased against Trump.Very reminiscent of Brexit in terms of likely underpolling.

Trump still 4.8 on BF which seems like good value.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/ worth noting that Trump is now ahead in Florida,Arizona and tied in North Carolina.

I'm actually beginning to think of buying some BP shares.Am I mad?

'3. According to FactSet, "short [managed money] positions in gold have overtaken long positions for the first time in more than 10 years". Social media is abuzz with these types of facts, which again tells me that a short-term pop in gold prices could be possible.' From the Daily Shot email ie Sober Look

All I can say Van is that I hope so.There are going to be some amazing buying opportunities over the next few years http://uk.investing.com/equities/newmont-mining

http://www.icis.com/blogs/chemicals-and-the-economy/2015/03/oil-price-rally-head-fake-says-international-energy-agency/ ' “HEAD FAKE “Behind the façade of stability, the rebalancing triggered by the price collapse has yet to run its course, and it might be overly optimistic to expect it to proceed smoothly. Steep drops in the US rig count have been a key driver of the price rebound. Yet US supply so far shows precious little sign of slowing down. Quite to the contrary, it continues to defy expectations. Output estimates for 4Q14 North American supply have been revised upwards by a steep 300 kb/d. The projection of 1Q15 supply has also been raised. Plunging US crude throughputs – due to seasonal and unplanned refinery outages, as well as weak margins and high gasoline stock builds in December – have seen US crude inventories soar, compounding the impact of robust supply growth. At last count, total US crude stocks stood at 468 mb, an all-time record.” The chart above highlights the key issue. It shows oil prices in dollars of the day, and $2015, since oil was first commercialised in 1861: They were very high in the first 20 years, and volatile, as exploration and refining were very new Then they settled down into a sustainable range around $20/bbl until the mid-1970s The arrival of the BabyBoomers in the 25 – 54 Wealth Creator cohort caused demand to surge OPEC took advantage of this to boost prices back to their mid-19th century level But this proved only temporary, and prices fell back again to normal levels in 1985 Why should central banks prove any more successful than OPEC in keeping asset and commodity prices high? That is really the question. They can create temporary once-off wealth effects by adding debt. But once the wealth has been spent, it has gone. Only rising incomes can create sustainable new demand. As the IEA notes, data on falling rig counts is irrelevant to current prices. Instead, we need to focus on what is actually happening on the ground in terms of the fundamentals of supply and demand. The central banks’ misguided stimulus policies have destroyed price discovery mechanisms in many major markets. But now, as I have argued since August, the Great Unwinding of these policies is well underway. The oil price is falling again, and the dollar is rising sharply. And as the IEA suggests, this is not going to be an easy ride.'

http://www.icis.com/blogs/chemicals-and-the-economy/2015/07/iran-deal-highlights-massively-oversupplied-oil-market/ 'The oil market was the first to feel the impact of the Great Unwinding of policymaker stimulus nearly a year ago. It had completely lost its key role of price discovery due to the liquidity being supplied by the central banks. This had overwhelmed the fundamentals of supply/demand. And we are still living with the consequences today. Many traders have only ever known a world where central banks aim to dominate the financial markets – and so they jumped on the recent technical rally in the belief that somehow markets would repeat the 2009 rally. What it is about the world “massively oversupplied” that these traders find so difficult to understand, you might ask? This, after all, was the phrase used by the International Energy Agency (IEA) last Friday to describe the current state of oil markets. And yet prices actually ended higher on the day, even though the IEA’s monthly report was crystal clear on the outlook: “It remains that the oil market was massively oversupplied in 2Q15, and remains so today. It is equally clear that the market’s ability to absorb that oversupply is unlikely to last. Onshore storage space is limited. So is the tanker fleet. New refineries do not get built every day. Something has to give.” Now a further test of oil markets is underway, with today’s historic agreement between Iran and the major global powers on the nuclear issue. As The Guardian reports: “In terms of Iran’s ability to sell crude, I think that is where we will see the most immediate loosening up of restrictions. Iran has between 40 and 50 million barrels of crude at sea. Expect this crude to come to the market in short order. They will start competing fiercely to regain market share that they have lost to their Persian Gulf neighbors. Unfortunately for Iran the timing couldn’t be worse. Oil prices are depressed and already there is a glut of oil on the market. Adding Iran’s crude will put further downward pressure on oil prices.” The Guardian thus confirms that Iran already has around 40mb of oil in floating storage, as I noted 2 weeks ago. It will not be long before this oil starts finding its way to market, even if sanctions are still officially in place. And this volume will be appearing as we move into the seasonally weaker Q3 period for demand. Plus the IEA forecasts that Iran could increase production by up to 800kb/day within a few months of sanctions being lifted. I have forecast for some time that oil prices would return to their historical $30/bbl or lower level, I see no reason to change my mind today.'

Interesting piece.His comment on Jim Rogers made me laugh

Thanks Carlton.

54% the place in fulham is off the scale.

http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/analystResearch?symbol=NG 'NovaGold Resources Inc. (NovaGold) is a precious metals company engaged in the exploration and development of mineral properties in North America. The Company has a portfolio of mineral properties located in Alaska, the United States and British Columbia,' I know it's one consideration of many,but I'll be adding to the list gradually. Parameters?I'm thinking.

http://seekingalpha....rce=google_news 'The World Gold Council recently published Q2's Demand and Supply Statistics, detailing supplier and demand sources. Year over year technology is up 1%, jewelry is up 40%, central bank demand is down -57% and investor demand down a whopping -402%. The cost of gold The cost of gold isn't the spot price found on Bloomberg. It takes money and resources to get gold out of the ground and to market. That cost is around $1200-1300 and ounce. The all-in cost of gold can be found by examining a few domestic mining companies' 10-Qs: McEwen Mining INc (MUX), Allied Nevada Gold Corp (ANV), and Newmont Mining Corp. We found the all-in cost of gold was on average $1261 for the 6 months ending in June 2013. The all-in costs include direct and indirect costs attributable per ounce. Putting it all together An intelligent investor can deduce that we are likely at the end of the business cycle for the gold industry and it could be a great time to invest evidenced by the following: 1) Speculative demand is low (investor, central banks). The feedback loop has silenced leaving a clear view of what the commodity is actually worth in real demand. 2) Functional demand is healthy (jewelry, technology). 3) The average cost of gold is roughly equal to its spot price. This suggests that many mining operations are insolvent and will shut down their operations, thus consolidating the industry. 4) Post-bubbles are the best time to invest. Investing in a stock, instead of the commodity directly, can produce steady dividends and provide fundamental measures. Newmont Mining Corp has been publicly traded since the mid-80s and has a long history of operational strength. It currently pays over a 3% dividend, trading at 1.15x to net tangible book value and has a strong outlook for the future. A look at NEM's financials Newmont wrote down over $2 billion in impairments due to the drop in gold prices during the second quarter. This impairment took about a 10% bite from the company's Property, Plant and Mine Development asset on the balance sheet, causing a downshift in the company's overall book value. The 10-Q breaks down the impairment by showing new assumptions for variables in a discount cash flow (DCF) analysis of mine development. The big assumption change used in the DCF analysis was a decrease in the assumption of gold prices to $1400 an ounce. Therefore, the balance sheet's asset values for Property Plant and Mine Development is being based on an assumption of $1400 an ounce. Even though spot prices are lower, we think $1400 is a healthy assumption looking forward. Newmont did post a huge loss on its income statement for 2nd quarter 2013. The impairment used to write down its asset holdings is also deducted from income as a non-cash expense. This amount then gets to be deducted from taxable income even though no actual dollars are lost, only value. A look at the company's statement of cash flows for Q2 shows this non-cash adjustment being added back to operation cash. The net effect from this, along with depreciation and changes in operating activities, leaves the company with a positive cash flow from operational activities, even though the price of the commodity is at 3 year lows. These types of adjustments are normal accounting activities and are transparent on its fillings with the SEC. The adjustments illustrate a downshift in the industry as a whole more so than a downshift in the company's operations and performance. At the end of the day, Newmont has productive proven mines, operational experience, and low cost (as an industry comparison) cost of revenues.' Stocks looking good.....

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/DGS10/ 10 yr constant maturity at 2.65%.Doesn't look like an aggressive move higher.