![]() |
||||||
![]() |
![]() |
THE LOONIE WATCHERS COMMENTARY FOR FEBRUARY 6, 2006
|
![]() |
![]() |
||
![]() |
||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
||
![]() |
![]() |
THE LOONIE WATCHERS COMMENTARY FOR FEBRUARY 6, 2006 The market close on February 6, 2006, showed that the market conditions influencing the Loonie and the $USD
are unchanged from our last commentary (Feb 1, 2006) THE LOONIE The Loonie continues to reflect a lack of buying interest, as shown by the price charts. This lack of interest
was shown again today by the Loonie’s failure to hold today’s highs. No serious selling has appeared yet, but
a lack of new commitments is making the traders nervous. Continued weakness for the near term is forecast, especially when the Loonie is compared to the $USD. THE $USD The $USD again showed it’s muscle, easily closing higher today (Feb 6,2006) The day traders were caught on the short side, and there is continuing upward pressure on the $USD as new
buyers are being attracted by its favorable price action. The $USD will continue strong until it has absorbed all the new buying.This is setting the trap for the Momentum
traders. SUMMARY The combination of the political shift in Canada, and the new budget philosophy in the USA, have thrown a
monkey wrench into the business as usual assumptions. Smart money will wait to see how these significant changes translate into economic reality. Another wrinkle is the turbulence in the Middle East. Apparently, Europe and Scandinavia will be getting the
brunt of the drama, leaving the US to focus on internal affairs. Wayne N. Krautkramer onlypill@cox.net Pitagoras Internacional SA will not be liable for any liability, loss or damage directly or
indirectly caused, or believed to be caused, by THE LOONIE WATCHER (copyright 2006)
|
![]() |
![]() |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
||
![]() |
||||||
![]() |
![]() |
GO TO THE CUSTOMER GUARANTEE AND PRIVACY PAGE!
"All successful men have agreed in one thing -- they were causationists. They believed that things went not
by luck, but by |
![]() |
![]() |
||
![]() |
||||||
![]() |
||||||
![]() |
||||||