The only thing that’s free right now is the air that we breathe. Other than that it costs to manufacture every object and commodity in the world. It takes a certain amount of money to extract a barrel of crude in Saudi Arabia, to make a car in Detroit, or produce an iPad in China.

There is also a certain cost to producing an ounce of gold. It doesn’t grow on trees. Tiny nuggets don’t rain down from the sky. It costs to explore. It costs to extract. It costs to finance loans and it costs to pay royalties. There are additional costs such as administration, equipment, environmental remedies and others. These are called the “all-in” costs.   

Mines age and get depleted and extracting the gold gets more challenging and costly over time. Average grades of ore have fallen by 30% since 1999, according to GFMS, a consulting group, making it more difficult to extract gold and from ever greater depths. Finding new deposits is becoming harder. If in 2002 gold miners spent $500 million on exploration, by 2008 they were spending $3 billion, but finding much less.

So how much does it cost to make an ounce of gold today?

That is an interesting question because just like a car manufacturer will not sell a car for less than it costs to produce it, neither will mining companies sell gold for less than it takes them to extract it from the ground. And the cost of production is rising due to lower grade ore and the rise in the costs of compliance and remediation. As gold prices soared over the past decade, production costs inched higher including the prices for equipment, materials, labour and energy.

According to a recent Forbes Magazine article both Barrick Gold and Goldcorp, the largest mining companies, project that their all-in cash costs will be between $1,000 and $1,100 an ounce for 2013.  In 2012, mining companies reported all-in costs such as: GG $1,082,  Barrick Gold, 1,227, Yamana Gold $1,247,  IAG $1377, and Agnico-Eagle, $1,343.

According to the Forbes article, a survey of 60 gold mining companies, apparently less efficient than the giants, resulted in an average production cost of $1,391. That is uncomfortably too close to where the price of gold was at the bottom this year.

Of course, it’s possible that if the price of gold were to drop, mining companies could become more efficient and thus cuts their costs and be more profitable. It makes sense that the inverse may be true as well, that as prices were rising, mining companies expanded and perhaps operated at high capacity the mines that are the most expensive to run.

World gold production is currently around 2,500 metric tons per year. The all-time high was reached in 2001, with 2,600 metric tons of gold production worldwide. It is interesting to note that production in 1900 was around 400 metric tons per year when the price per ounce was about $19 an ounce.

A Financial Times story last month says that earnings data are confirming that the decade-long expansion in the mining services industry is all but over.  The reduction in mining investment is severely affecting demand for equipment such as trucks, shovels and underground machinery. Caterpillar, the world’s largest manufacturer of earthmoving equipment, has reported a 45 per cent drop in profits in the first quarter.

Does the cost per ounce of mining an ounce of gold provide a floor for the price? One can argue that theoretically the price could go lower than the cost of manufacture, but it couldn’t stay there for long. Mining companies would have no incentive to extract the gold and it would remain buried underground. They would have to cut capital spending, defer exploration and capital development programs and probably cut dividends.  There would be a decline in supply and after a while, when demand would outstrip supply, the price would climb up again.

The abovementioned facts suggest that sooner or later the price of gold (and – with it – the whole precious metals sector as well) will start to rise again, to cope with the rising costs. But these facts alone cannot help us estimate the turning point itself – let us then move on to the technical part of today’s essay to see what immediate future holds for the yellow metal.

The precious metals sector moved higher on Thursday, but the question is if the move was significant enough to change the short-term outlook for gold and silver. It has been – as we wrote in our previous articles – bearish, as far as short and medium term are concerned. Let’s examine the situation.

1. There was a breakout above the declining resistance line in gold and silver – however, it was invalidated on Friday.
2. The volume in GDX was significant during Thursday’s rally but it was surprisingly small in case of GLD ETF. It was average in case of the SLV ETF. Therefore, the breakout (even though it was not invalidated on Friday in case of the mining stocks) is not that reliable in our view.
3. The USD Index declined quite significantly on Thursday and yet we saw a rather average move higher in gold, so we decided to analyze the relative performance (USD – precious metals) more thoroughly. USD closed approximately at the 83 level, something it had previously done on May 10. On May 10 gold, silver and the HUI Index closed at: $1,448, $23.88 and 280, respectively. This means that mining stocks are where they were back then and gold and silver are considerably lower now. This does not bode well for the precious metals in the short and medium term.
4. We have previously mentioned the reverse parabola in the GLD to GDX ratio which meant that miners were declining more and more rapidly relative to gold. This parabola was broken on Thursday, which is a bullish sign – not a strong one, but still.
5. The move higher in silver just ahead of the cyclical turning point is actually a bearish phenomenon. If the price is to reverse its direction shortly, then if the most recent move is up, then the reversal should take the market lower. The previous cyclical turning point in silver worked in this way and it worked only too well. Silver’s price plunged at the cyclical turning point after moving slightly higher – to the 20-day moving average. The chart below illustrates the situation (charts courtesy by http://stockcharts.com.)

Naturally, silver (and, naturally SLV ETF) moved lower on Friday, which may mean that the next downleg has already started.

Summing up, at this time we still think that the breakout in precious metals is not in and that lower values of silver will be seen before the next big rally emerges. So far the USD-gold link is a strong indication against going long and we don’t think that the odds for the decline have really changed. Not only have we seen a long-term breakout in the USD Index, but we also see that gold and silver are responding more significantly to dollar’s rallies than to its declines. 

Thank you for reading. Have a great and profitable week!

Przemyslaw Radomski, CFA

Founder, Editor-in-chief

Silver Investment & Gold Investment Website – SunshineProfits.com

* * * * *

Disclaimer

All essays, research and information found above represent analyses and opinions of Przemyslaw Radomski, CFA and Sunshine Profits’ associates only. As such, it may prove wrong and be a subject to change without notice. Opinions and analyses were based on data available to authors of respective essays at the time of writing. Although the information provided above is based on careful research and sources that are believed to be accurate, Przemyslaw Radomski, CFA and his associates do not guarantee the accuracy or thoroughness of the data or information reported. The opinions published above are neither an offer nor a recommendation to purchase or sell any securities. Mr. Radomski is not a Registered Securities Advisor. By reading Przemyslaw Radomski’s, CFA reports you fully agree that he will not be held responsible or liable for any decisions you make regarding any information provided in these reports. Investing, trading and speculation in any financial markets may involve high risk of loss. Przemyslaw Radomski, CFA, Sunshine Profits’ employees and affiliates as well as members of their families may have a short or long position in any securities, including those mentioned in any of the reports or essays, and may make additional purchases and/or sales of those securities without notice.

I hope you saw this week’s amazing interview on gold that Larry gave to former British MP John Browne.

But if you didn’t — or you’d like to review the highlights — here’s an abridged transcript …

GOLD: Four Secret Signals 
How to Know When It’s Time to Buy or Sell

John Browne: Hello and welcome to Money and Markets TV! My name is John Browne, former member of British Parliament and its Treasury Select Committee.

In this video, we’re going to take a close look at how a top analyst identifies the major tops and bottoms in the gold market, and my guest today is the ONE man I can honestly say has absolutely nailed just about every major turn in the gold market over the past 12 years.

His name is Larry Edelson, and when it comes to gold and commodity investments, he has the kind of credentials that other analysts can only dream about. In the mid-1980s, he was one of the world’s largest gold traders, handling an average of more than $1.9 billion worth of gold in today’s money, every single day. As a result, Forbes, Bloomberg, CBS Marketwatch, CNBC and many other major financial programs and publications often turn to him for his analysis of the gold markets.

In his 35 years in finance, Larry has managed several investment funds and founded his own brokerage and money management firm with offices in New York, Hamburg, Dusseldorf, Vienna, and Osaka, Japan.

Our mission today is to show viewers how they can identify major tops and bottoms in gold, by showing them how you have done it since 2000. In 2000, with gold at $260 per ounce, you became one of the first analysts in the world — perhaps even THE first — to urge investors to buy gold. Larry, what did you see that nobody else did?

Larry Edelson: Gold had fallen for 20 years. Its decline was so persistent that most analysts were expecting gold to fall to below $100 an ounce. So the negativity was huge.

John: So your first clue was that gold was an obvious contrarian play at the time.

Larry: Exactly. Plus, at the same time, the bullishness in the stock market back then was also off the charts.

John: Are these kinds of extremes in investor sentiment easy to spot?

Larry: If you can keep an open mind, yes. But most people tend to get caught up in the emotions of the times, and that can cloud their vision.

So I’ve developed a proprietary system that helps me identify and quantify extremes in sentiment, and to do so on a daily trading basis, a monthly basis, a quarterly basis, and even an annual basis. That way, there’s no guessing involved.

So these were my first signals — extreme pessimism in gold and extreme optimism in stocks. When you get those kinds of extremes, it almost always signals an imminent turn.

Second, my study on gold’s long-term trading cycles told me a bottom was due.

Third, back in 2000, volume was drying up near the $260 level in gold, which told me the turn was here.

Fourth, it was also clear that the U.S. dollar had entered a long-term bear market. So that made buying and holding gold all that much easier.

John: In hindsight, it’s clear that you were right about the dollar. In fact, over the following 11-years, the dollar lost 43 percent of its purchasing power.

Larry: Yes, and the final confirmation of a bottom came when gold failed to fall below its critical support levels for the entire year of 2000. That’s when I concluded we were within inches of the bottom.

John: That was the bottom. Now let’s fast forward to September 2011. That was a time when nearly everybody else was saying gold was headed to thousands of dollars an ounce, but you warned that a major correction was just ahead.

In fact, in a widely published bulletin dated September 18 — just 12 days after gold’s record high at $1,920 — you announced that you had turned bearish and urged your readers to HEDGE their gold positions. Once again, you saw something that others didn’t. What was it?

Larry: I saw the exact opposite of the signals that had told me gold was set to soar in 2000.

First, it was a contrarian play. Nearly everybody else was bullish on gold at the time — extreme optimism on gold. That told me that there was a good chance that everyone who was going to buy was already in the market. My computer confirmed it. A big correction was likely.

Second, my study of cycles told me that after 11 years of rising gold prices, a decline was inevitable, and that it would likely last two years.

Third, at the $1,920 high in September 2011, volume and open interest in the futures markets were contracting, the exact opposite of what was happening at the bottom back in 2000, also indicating the top was at hand.

And finally, it was clear that troubles in the euro zone were creating a strong new source of demand for U.S. dollars, likely to drive the value of the dollar higher against the euro, a major negative for gold at that time.

So in my September 2011 issue of the Real Wealth Report, I told my subscribers to hedge up with inverse ETFs.

John: Again the major indicators that warned you of the correction were (1) sentiment, (2) cycles, (3) trading volume, and (4) the U.S. dollar. And sure enough, gold subsequently plunged a couple of hundred dollars.

Larry: Yes. But gold’s decline was just getting started. So I instructed my readers to add MORE hedges in October and December 2011. Plus, in December — immediately after the mining sector peaked — I recommended that my readers sell ALL of their mining shares.

John: Since you issued your now-famous warning on gold, the yellow metal has fallen as low as $1,310 — a 31.7 percent decline.

Larry: And the average mining share has fallen even farther, declining a whopping 61 percent.

John: So relying primarily on these same four major indicators, you have remained bearish on gold since its record high, repeatedly warning your readers that it still had farther to fall.

Larry: Yes, I have.

John: In recent months, though, most other analysts have been saying that the trillions of dollars being printed by the Fed — PLUS massive money-printing by the Bank of Japan and the European Central Bank — would instantaneously push gold prices through the roof. Yet, you’ve continued to tell your readers that the correction would not end anytime soon.

Larry: Right. And believe me, lots of people really hated me for that forecast. Many gold bulls were out to have my head. Others said I must have lost my mind.

John: So how and why did you stay bearish?

Larry: Simply because I didn’t see any major reversals in the four major signals that caused me to forecast a correction in the first place. I’m not always right — but the markets are. They are never wrong. When they don’t respond to what should be extremely bullish developments or forces, it’s clear that the character of the market has changed.

John: So let me ask you the question that I get asked most often today: When is Larry Edelson going to turn bullish on gold again? When are you going to issue your long-awaited “BUY” signal?

Larry: I can’t tell you until the market tells me. I can tell you, however, that we’re getting very close. As I said before, gold’s two-year correction ends this year.

John: That leaves two remaining questions: When during this year will gold bottom? And second, atwhat price level?

Larry: For the answers to these questions, I don’t guess. I don’t have opinions. But I do have my cycles and trading models. So when they tell me to start buying, you can bet that I’ll be buying with both hands and that I’ll start backing up the truck. Personally, I am super excited about it for three reasons:

It will be the most important buy signal in gold since my buy signal way back in 2000, 13 years ago.

It will represent the beginning of gold’s next major leg higher, which will take it to over $5,000 an ounce in the next three years.

And, I personally plan on making more money in gold over the next three years than I did over the last 13. So it’s going to be hugely rewarding and a lot of fun.

John: Thank you, Larry. We’ll see you then.

Junior’s are on “a gigantic sale on assets I want to own” – Rick Rule

Jeff Clark: First, Rick, what’s your basic explanation as to why gold crashed a few weeks ago?

Rick Rule: I think there are two parts to the answer, maybe three. First, the gold market was technically weak. The second thing is that there were a lot of institutional players long gold on leverage, using capital that was borrowed rather than their own, so when the price crashed they had to unwind very rapidly.

The fact that there was a very large futures player who attempted to come out of the market all at once during a period in time when the market was extremely illiquid is, of course, also very suspect. I know that most Internet articles are focused on the one large 400-tonne sale at a very odd point in time, and I would certainly agree with the suspicion that if I were a holder of that size and I was looking to sell or had to sell, I probably wouldn’t have chosen to do it all at once or in a very illiquid time in the market.

I think that one of the things you have to look at in the gold market is that we are changing the nature of ownership, from institutional momentum holders who are leveraged, which is a long way of saying “weak hands,” to physical individual buyers on a global basis, which is a different way of saying “strong hands.” So one of the things that happened in the gold smackdown is that gold did what many things do in bear markets: it went from weak hands to strong hands.

Jeff: I saw a BNN video where you said the capitulation process isn’t over. What makes you say that?

Rick: I don’t know if I have an opinion regarding the capitulation process in gold and silver, but I certainly think that the lows are yet to come for the junior mining equities. My experience in 35 years in junior equity markets is that bull markets end in an upside blowout, and bear markets end in a downside puke. I think we were partway through that a couple weeks ago, but I think it got interrupted. I haven’t seen the sort of cataclysmic capitulation selling that usually marks a bear market bottom. It doesn’t mean that just because it has always happened that way that it will happen this way again, but I haven’t seen the capitulation selling. What I have seen, for example, is mutual funds being forced to sell to meet redemptions – but I haven’t seen the no-bid market that usually marks the cataclysmic bear market bottom.

Jeff: And the point is that you expect that.

Rick: I do.

Jeff: That was a record selloff a few weeks back.

Rick: It didn’t have the duration that one would have expected. These things are usually two or three week long sell-fests. I forget what month it was in the year 2000, but there was an absolutely comical selloff. People who were on margin didn’t find it funny at all, but because I was cashed up and I was extremely experienced, it was just an absurd theater that I took advantage of. There were a bunch of people who didn’t know much about these stocks that bought them in 1996, and that same group of morons that knew nothing about what they owned or why they owned them and so puked them out in 2000. Your job as a speculator is to be on the other side of both of those trades.

Jeff: This implies that gold returning to the $1,900 level and going higher could be a couple of years away.

Rick: I have no opinion on that. It’s important to note that most of the juniors are nonviable at any gold price. When people ask me what would happen to the price of Amalgamated Moose Pasture if gold went to $2,000, I’m forced to say to them, “Well, it really shouldn’t matter. Amalgamated Moose Pasture doesn’t have any gold. They are looking for gold, and if the price of something that you don’t have any of goes up, it shouldn’t make any intrinsic difference.”

The truth is, we need to unwind the excesses of the last decade in the junior market. We’ve done a pretty good job of that, but we need to finish it.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m a gold bug. But if you think gold is going higher, buy gold. If you are going to buy gold stocks, buy them because there is some internal reason to own that company and why it is becoming more valuable. Never confuse the two.

Jeff: Good point. What do you make of the record insider buying in the junior market?

Rick: I think there are two things to consider there. The first is that the high-quality gold juniors are very cheap. We believe, statistically, that the high-quality gold juniors are the cheapest they’ve ever been since 1992. So you are seeing very sophisticated buying of the gold juniors to match the selling from other places.

The other thing you’re seeing with insider buying are financings where they issue God knows how many millions of shares at a nickel to raise $300-400K, which are basically going to pay insiders’ salaries. These people are basically putting the money from one pocket into another pocket, and issuing themselves 10 or 11 million shares in the process. There are hopefully 500 or 600 companies headed to extinction.

Both of those things are happening. One of them is bullish, and the other is just the way these junior markets work.

Jeff: A lot of analysts, especially the CNBC types, claim the gold bull market is over, that we’ve entered a bear market and it’s time to get out.

Rick: I disagree with that on many levels. The narrative associated with gold and the narrative associated with the resource story hasn’t changed. How many of your readers – in fact, how many listeners to CNBC or CNN – believe that the Western world’s financial crisis is over? How many believe that any of the G20 nations can balance their budget? How many believe that central bank liquidity is a substitute for solvency, owing more than you can pay back? How many people would deny that physical gold demand has been strong?

The point is that the narrative that drove the gold market in 2006 and 2010 is very much intact. Nothing, in fact, has changed. The only thing that has changed is the perception and the price, both of which are lower, which is better. So yes, I am absolutely a gold bug, particularly when you compare it with the alternative, the US 10- or 30-year Treasury, which Jim Grant famously describes as “return-free risk.” Does return-free risk sound attractive to you? It doesn’t to me.

Jeff: Right.

Rick: I also need to say that my 30-year track record and Eric Sprott’s 30-year track record are a function of being extremely aggressive buyers in very bad markets. The $10 billion business that is now Sprott, Inc., is really a consequence of aggressive investing during bear markets. In periods like the 1990 bear market and the year 2000 bear market, it is precisely markets like these, when we have taken pain but have also taken aggressive action. And the rebound coming back out of markets like these can be very violent. You don’t have the ability to reap the rewards of those upturns if you are not an aggressive investor in downturns like these.

Jeff: I’ve heard you say that you’ve made the biggest part of your wealth during big selloffs. This has been one for the record books, so are you viewing this as being another one of those opportunities?

Rick: Absolutely, Jeff. Let’s face it, I’m 60 years old. This is probably my last major market cycle. I’m going to make the most of it. I can tell you that I’m having the most fun I’ve had in my career for 13 years. I have spent all my life honing my skills, building up the capital, building up the client base – this is tailor-made for me. I realize this period is unpleasant for some people, but the market doesn’t care if it’s unpleasant. The market doesn’t care if it’s inconvenient. You take what the market gives you – and this market is giving me a gigantic sale on assets I want to own.

Jeff: It’s very exciting from that perspective. It begs the question, though: how do investors know when to reenter the market? How do we know when to buy?

Rick: You know, Jeff, I’m always early. Your friend Doug Casey will tell you that about me. I have a very logical mind. I believe if A is true, B is true, and C is true, then X will be the result. And when I reach that conclusion, I often confuse imminent with inevitable. So I don’t know the answer to that.

What I do know is that my own net worth seems to go up fivefold coming out of a bear market and going into a bull market. Suppose it took 18 months longer than I had hoped; does that really matter, given the magnitude of the outcome? When there is a sale at a store for goods that you want, do you really worry too much about the fact that there might be another sale two weeks from now? I don’t think you do. When goods that you want to own are attractively priced, you buy them.

Jeff: What about the investor who has already built a full position in a high-quality company; how does someone take advantage of what you’re essentially calling a lifetime buying opportunity?

Rick: I think a key part of the answer has to do with “high-quality company.” Most investors, particularly in the junior sector, are very bad at stock selection, and they don’t have a good sense of what constitutes a high-quality company. If, in fact, I am to answer the question precisely as you asked it – what does a person do if they already have a full position in a high-quality company – then the answer is easy: relax. But if the question goes to somebody who has a laundry list of 20 companies and doesn’t really remember why he or she bought the companies and is not aware of the fundamentals of the company and hasn’t bothered to benchmark those companies against other companies that exhibit similar characteristics, that’s a very different question.

In bull markets and in bear markets, one must continue to high-grade one’s portfolio. One must make oneself at least once a year sell at least 20% of the portfolio. If you have 20 names in the portfolio, you have to make yourself sell four or five of them, and increase your positions in your best names. And you don’t just do that in bull markets, you do it in bear markets, too.

Jeff: It’s critical to be selective with stock picking.

Rick: It is absolutely critical. You’ve heard me say this before: if you merged every junior exploration company in the world into one company, that company would lose somewhere between $2 billion and $5 billion a year. So how do you price the industry… do you price it at five times losses? Ten times losses? The question, of course, is apocryphal.

What you need to remember is that all of the performance that gives the sector its occasional luster is concentrated in the top 10% of companies. People who are going to participate in the sector need to either spend the time or spend the money to have their portfolio selectively high-graded on a consistent basis. It’s all about stock selection. If you want the extra leverage inherent in equities, do securities analysis and pay attention to those equities.

Jeff: Someone wrote to me recently saying, “I thought I was going to get rich in gold stocks, and here they are plummeting.” What is your response to the investor who makes that kind of comment?

Rick: That’s easy. Natural resource businesses and precious metals businesses are capital intensive and extraordinarily cyclical. Somebody in the sector must always remember, you are either a contrarian or you will be a victim. It’s funny; people only want to be contrarians when it’s popular. The fact that the narrative hasn’t changed, the fact that the facts haven’t changed, the fact that nothing has changed except the TSX.V being off by 60%, means that the same goods that appeared attractive to people at twice current prices must be more attractive now.

The gentleman or the lady who wrote to you is probably somebody who only believed in the narrative when it was being reinforced by the market. That’s not being a contrarian, that’s being a victim. If you came into a market when it was popular in 2010 and then you exit the market when it’s unpopular in 2013, that’s a classic example of buying high and selling low, a silly thing to do.

Remember the take-home phrase: you are either a contrarian or you are a victim. To buy low, you have to buy in markets that don’t have competition. To sell high, you have to be a seller in markets where other people are greedy. It’s that simple.

Jeff: Are there any specific catalysts you’re looking for to turn the gold market around, as well as gold stocks?

Rick: There are three catalysts in every market. First, markets work, and the cure for low prices is simple: low prices. Bear market pricing causes bull market pricing. And the overvaluations of bull markets cause bear markets.

With regard to gold itself, I think the real catalyst will be the fact that on a global basis, people are mistaking liquidity – counterfeiting, if you will – with solvency. The truth is that the Western world has lived beyond its means for some substantial period of time, and they are attempting to engineer a default by depreciating the purchasing power of the denominator – the currency – so I think that’s the ultimate catalyst for gold.

With regard to the stocks, which are a very different set of circumstances, I would suggest that one catalyst may be an increase in the gold price, but a much more important catalyst is the fact that high-quality gold companies, in our opinion, are selling at the best price they have sold at for 20 years. They are simply too cheap. It won’t be immediate, but it will cause some of the higher-quality names to be taken over, because it’s cheaper to buy gold than it is to go find gold.

And the third thing that’s really going to surprise people in the juniors is that we are slowly coming into a discovery cycle. There is nothing that adds hope and liquidity like a discovery. People talk about what a pathetic market we had last year, but if you happened to own Reservoir Minerals before its discovery, the stock went from $0.26 to $3.50. Africa Oil went from $0.80 to $10. This is a market that will reward performance, but it’s a market that has been starved for performance, too.

Jeff: Okay, last question. I’m a planner, so I want to write down in my calendar what year I’m going to be sitting on a beach sipping a mai tai with you after we’ve sold our junior stocks for 10 or maybe even 100 times our original investment. What year should I write in my calendar?

Rick: I suspect it will be in the epicenter of a bull market five years from now. It might be sooner, frankly, but I’ve found that these cycles take four or five years, and we’re sort of two and half years into the cycle.

First, though, we need a cataclysmic selloff to mark the bottom. Then we’ll go sideways for a while. I certainly think that people who are involved in the gold stocks that don’t have a two- or three-year time horizon are delusional.

Jeff: Okay, it’s in my calendar. Thanks for the insights, Rick.

Rick: It’s an enormous pleasure for us, Jeff. We have done this for 30 years in the Sprott organization, and this is our third big decline. And as I said, the fact that we manage $10 billion is due to bear markets, and your speculative readers need to remember that.

Jeff: Good point. Where can readers go if they want to learn more about Sprott?

Rick: We would love for people to come visit us at Sprott Global. We encourage them to sign up for our daily Sprott commentary by hitting the subscribe button at Sprott’s Thoughts on the website.

Jeff: Very good. Thanks again, Rick.

Rick: Always a pleasure, Jeff.

As Rick pointed out, knowing the timing of a cycle is only one part of profiting: a successful investor also needs to differentiate winning companies from failures. He, Doug Casey, John Mauldin, and others discussed these issues and much more in the recent Downtown Millionaireswebinar. If you want to be positioned for maximum profits in the junior metals sector, you need to see this video today.