'Tis said "the market is never wrong", that instantaneously "priced-in" is everything known ... and beyond! Markets characterized as such tend to be actively liquid as is the case for Gold (GLD), the futures of which traded this past week at an average of 3.5 contracts -- each one controlling 100 ounces of the yellow metal -- per second. That's liquid.

To be sure, Gold's week prior to this one just past was its worst in three months, yet such net loss of -1.2% was itself lost unnoticed in the shuffle. In other words, hardly did it stand out, as was the case for this most recent week with Gold posting a net gain of +0.8% in settling yesterday (Friday) at 1587. 'Twas initially at 1587 (within the overall run up from the lows of December back in 2015) just this past 06 January. Since that date we've had (in cinématique terms) "Assassination in Baghdad" and "Killer Virus", both box office blockbusters abruptly sending Gold spiking only to see price then settle back to where 'twas. The point is: given "the market is never wrong" and that everything is "priced-in", both referenced films -- and they're quite serious -- are being taken in stride, the market telling us they'll (thankfully) be resolved, fade from the newswires, and we'll move on to the whatever the next event may be. Indeed as we write, another asteroid "near-miss" is passing us by thus keeping at bay the ultimate headline: "World Ends, Dow +2". Moreover, Gold's net change since 06 January is essentially "unch". Ho-hum.

Fact is, prior to 06 January, the last time Gold traded above the present 1587 level was nearly seven years ago on 10 April 2013, (just prior to it all going wrong). Does anyone recall the US money supply as measured by M2 on that day?

"$10.57 trillion, mmb."

Well done, Squire. And today 'tis 47% higher at $15.54 trillion. Were Gold higher in tandem "as it ought be" by same, price today would be 2333. And that is modest per The Gold Scoreboard at the top of these missives by which present valuation is over 3000. As we thus oft query: "Got Gold?"

What we've got for Gold at present is its attractively ascending parabolic Long trend in looking to the weekly bars from a year ago-to-date. To reach down to the steadily streaming blue dots would require Gold to trade below 1501 in the new week; we rather doubt 'twill so do -- even in this new year -- especially given our forecast high for 1675:

That anticipated, 'tis rather unusual to uncover this case of strange bedfellows all trending somewhat together. Year-to-date, the S&P 500 is +4.6%, the Bond is +4.5%, Gold is +4.4% and the Dollar Index is +3.0%. Yer gonna have to break out the Britannica to research any prior stretch of such phenomena. But 'tis not a stretch in viewing the percentage tracks of Gold vs. the S&P from one month ago-to-date (21 trading days) to note their combined picture is that of an easterly-gazing camel. "Oh hello, Omar, Sugar? One hump, or two?":

An easternmost hump may be in the making for our Economic Barometer, this past week's reports coming in comparably namby-pamby across the board. One bright -- and perhaps telling -- spot was the University of Michigan's Sentiment Survey topping the 100 level for the first time since last June. The Survey has not consistently stayed above 100 whatsoever (on the few occasions it has been that high at all) since the months leading toward the (deep breath) DOT.COM crash into the turn of the millennium. And you know how it is with sentiment: when everybody's feelin' great, come time to sell, we're all too late:

And yet through it all, nobody's throwing in the equities towel. As we penned a week ago with respect to the S&P 500 (SPY), "...money is being thrown at this market..." Have a look at this next graphic from the website: in the upper panel, the red line is the cumulative change in the S&P 500 from a month ago-to-date (+91 points); the blue line is the cumulative change in the S&P's moneyflow (+286 points). The interpretation thus per the lower panel is that the S&P "ought be" +195 points higher than 'tis! And having tracked this comparative analysis for better than 14 years, the moneyflow, at least directionally, will out. 'Course the big "Uh-Oh..." is that earnings, too, will out. And the earnings ain't there. A battle royale, mes amis: the mo-mo from the money managers versus the no-dough from the income statements. How's that price/earnings (trailing 12 months) ratio workin' out for ya from General Electric (GE) (563x)? Or from FedEx (FDX) (548x)? Ford Motor (F) (277x)? Aren't these supposed to be "blue-chips"? Well, there's always that for good ole Salesforce (CRM) (196x). Have a nice day:

To Gold and the two-panel graphic of its daily bars from three months ago-to-date on the left and 10-day Market Profile on the right. The baby blue dots of linear regression trend consistency are looking a bit squeamish through here, lost, directionless, lacking puff. Per the Profile, the 1570s now appear as the dividing line toward maintaining the rally, else concluding it:

As for Silver (SLV), one only need note the still historically-high Gold/Silver ratio -- 89.6x -- to know she's not keeping pace with Gold. Here are her like panels to Gold, but the performance therein unlike that for Gold. The yellow metal's 21-day regression trend is up; the white metal's is down, her own "Baby Blues" depiction as presently patternless as is possible; and her price per the Profile is trapped within the 17.75-17.65 support shelf. Poor ole Sister Silver!