Bill - article yesterday entitled "Gold Supply Likely to Swamp Demand" at: http://www.thestreet.com/pf/markets/commodities/10318321.html

.....

"Although the supply of gold looks set to drop by 159 metric tons for 2007, demand will plummet even faster, lower by 313 tons when compared to revised estimates for the whole of 2006, according to a new study scheduled for publishing Monday morning by Fortis Bank. The report was authored by a team of analysts led by veteran gold market watcher Jessica Cross, CEO at Virtual Metals, a London-based specialty consulting firm.

Gold prices will likely fall to $580 an ounce by year-end and then to around $550 in 2007, says Matt Turner, commodities analyst at Virtual Metals and a co-author of the report. "A lot will depend on the dollar," he cautions, noting that a weaker greenback could bolster prices."

......
Would be interested in your thoughts/opinions on such.

Thank you,
Learn2Invest

Stocks in U.S. May Have Further to Fall.

This Bloomberg article writer could have been reading Bill's weekend review.

http://tinyurl.com/txrk4

Through some genetic deficiency, I was perusing FRED's (Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis) website yesterday. I admit that I'm experiencing an unhealthy preoccupation with loan loss reserve trends. They have a wealth of schedules that report on such (in total, by region, by bank size).

Loan loss reserves are at historic low points (and they only show commercial and total losses, no consumer losses insofar as I can see). Anyway, I may just do something really geeky and start tracking these losses by bank size and region. If there is a credit problem as some have suggested, we should see it creeping in these numbers. It will be a bellweather of sorts. We'll see what develops.

Leisa - I'm sure that I am not alone in thanking you for the genetic deficiency. I also have my ear to the ground in this area and will post any trembling if it should occur.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/NPCMCM?&cid=23

Here's something worth a look. It's the non-performing commercial loans. What is noteworthy are two things (1) the upswing during recessionary periods; and (2) the peaking after the recessionary periods.

Leisa - No reason to appologize for getting geeky. Geeky is GOOD; fat, dumb, and happy is bad ... If America would only get a little geekier ....

Here's a bit of arcane data that you can surely work into pleasant cocktail conversation. For you single guys and gals looking for a unique conversation starter, I offer this.

Did you know that from 1984 to 2004 the number of US Banks decreased 53% from 14,388 to 7,617? I suppose I knew that there was consolidation, but I don't know that I would have guessed this. Also, the number of banks >15B in assets increased from 17 to 61. Here's a slice of the data for that time period (1984 ====> 2004)for other size classifications. LT, GT, less than, greater than

[No. of Banks LT $300M in assets: 13,700 to 6,6268]
[No. of Banks GT $300M LT $1B in assets: 435 to 954;]
[No. of Banks GT $1B LT $15B in assets: 237 to 334]

Useless information--but I found it interesting.

Okay Leisa, now I AM a bit worried about you. ;)

MarkM...hah! I'm sneakily going somewhere with this, but I have to warm up the audience! These cross sections will be the backdrop of our credit loss watch. I'll at least slip this bit of erudition into my next conversation with my banker. Now that will impress them!

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/061030/crystallex_venezuela.html?.v=1

An update on KRY. I'm not sure what to make of it. It seems to be more of the same...hurry up and wait.