u/SDBcop

September employment fell by 68,000 and Canada's unemployment rate rose to 6.5%, according to today's StatsCan release. Both full-time and part-time jobs declined.

I can see the argument for easier Bank of Canada policy. I have a harder time jumping from that to better financing terms for a TSXV explorer. A company that has no operating cash flow still needs someone willing to fund its next program.

The counterargument is that a strategic investor can fund a good project regardless of the macro backdrop. A stronger metal price can also improve the economics enough to attract capital. Those are real exceptions to a broad cautious view, and I have exposure to gold-related companies myself.

What keeps me cautious is the US ten-year real yield, which ended this week at 2.91%, barely below 2.92% last Friday. Canadian policy rates are only one part of the financing environment. Equity appetite, project risk, warrants and the price of a placement still determine what existing shareholders retain.

My working thesis is that weaker Canadian employment can support the case for monetary easing without immediately fixing exploration finance. I would change that view if completed financings started showing materially better terms across a range of companies, especially alongside a sustained fall in real yields. A single gold rally would be a weaker signal.

US CPI is due October 14, before the Bank of Canada's October 28 decision. When you assess a Canadian junior's financing, what tells you that capital is becoming easier to obtain: the placement discount, warrant coverage, investor quality, or something else?

Ten of our fourteen documented entries fell this week. Gold recovered, but that did not carry the whole register with it.

Canada lost 68,000 jobs in September and unemployment rose to 6.5%. My first question for Canadian miners is whether weaker employment actually improves the terms of their next financing. A possible rate cut and a funded drill program are different stages of that argument.

The objection is that a strategic partner or a completed financing can move one company forward even while the wider backdrop stays difficult. I would not dismiss that just because real rates are high. I have exposure to gold-related companies, so I also need to avoid treating every gold rebound as confirmation.

The US ten-year real yield eased only from 2.92% to 2.91% this week. My view is that funding terms still deserve as much attention as the metal price. That caution would weaken if lower real yields persisted and companies secured capital with less dilution or fewer claims on future project cash flow.

Here is the full record through October 9. Across all 14 entries, the weekly mean was -3.24%, median -4.35%, with four gains, ten losses and none flat. Best was +4.35%; worst was -10.53%. Since the individual documented references, the mean was +3.05%, median -3.71%, with six gains, eight losses and none flat. Best was +58.59%; worst was -37.23%.

All original calls and the four documented holdings from before the tool remain included. References range from June 16 to August 4, 2026; the weekly baseline is October 2. These are equal-weight CAD price returns before dividends, fees and taxes, not my account return. A positive average does not erase the negative median.

The September 30-day research-pass signup window is closed. That offer is not accepting new activations.

US CPI on October 14 is the next test. What financing evidence would make you more confident that a gold rebound can translate into value for existing shareholders?

Two decisions from our review, and the next step for Bullish Edge

As part of the month-end review, I’ve made two decisions for the next member update: move one speculative buy to Watch, and remove another company from active monitoring.

The first still deserves attention, but I need stronger evidence that the economics justify the valuation.

For the second, I’d rather spend our research time on opportunities I find more promising. Neither decision represents a personal sale. The original buy call and its performance will stay in the record.

Our existing positions are unchanged. Keeping a position doesn’t mean ignoring disappointing developments: the follow-up needs to explain why the remaining potential still warrants attention and what evidence could change that view.

I’m also preparing to make the daily end-of-day scanner free.

Detailed company research, our personal ratings and ongoing follow-up would remain in the paid membership.

Public reviews will cover the market backdrop, aggregate results including losses, and the reasoning behind our decisions in general terms. Current names and detailed updates will stay with members.

When do you stop following a company: when the thesis breaks, or when you find a better use of your research time?

I’ve added a new company to our member Watchlist. It’s one of the more interesting businesses I’ve researched recently.

The appeal is a product aimed at cutting a recurring cost for customers, with the possibility of repeat purchases. But customer savings still need to translate into steady orders, healthy margins and cash for the company.

That’s why the file is a Watch. I want to see broader commercial adoption and how much of that growth shareholders actually keep after financing and dilution.

The member note covers what the company sells, the evidence behind the product, the limits of the latest announcement and the risks I’m tracking. You’ll also find the developments that would strengthen or weaken the thesis.

The new file is in the Watchlist inside The Bullish Edge member desk.

When you study a business built around repeat purchases, what evidence gives you confidence that customers will keep coming back?

Source https://x.com/judyshel/status/1781472967282598175?s=46

With here here recent nomination of counselor to Bessent and saying…

Reposting on X: « 1971 Nixon abolished the Gold Standard. 2024 we reintroduce it? »

Then saying « Thinking something like that. But in 2026. Stay tuned. »

Bringing gold backed bond would be extremely bullish for Canadian gold miners… feel like it’s coming more and more plausible.

We’ve been posting less frequently lately, so I wanted to give everyone an update. We’re still very active: scanning the market daily, following the companies we cover, and working through new research. Expect fewer routine posts as we put more time into the individual company work and our weekly market review.

Lake Victoria Gold (TSXV: LVG) is one company we’re watching. Its September 24 update reported improved gold extraction after pretreatment of clay-rich material from the Imwelo project in Tanzania.

The important limitation is in the same release: those results apply to the pretreated fractions. The company still needs to establish the mass and gold balance across the process. Gold lost in material removed during pretreatment matters just as much as gold recovered from what remains.

That’s why we’re following the next steps. We want to see how the processing work feeds into an updated project budget, and what the final financing terms leave for shareholders. The company also cautions that its production decision is not supported by a current feasibility study establishing mineral reserves and economic viability.

There is enough progress to keep researching. There are also meaningful ways the case could weaken, including poor overall recovery, higher costs or financing that leaves shareholders with much less of the upside.

We’ll share substantive developments as the evidence changes. The research continues between posts, including the work that ends with a decision to wait.

For those following small gold developers, what evidence gives you the most confidence that a project can move from promising test results to a mine that consistently generates cash?

TL;DR: I see gold’s ability to remain above US$4,300 with the US ten-year yield above 5% as worth watching. Gold still fell this week, and eleven of our fourteen positions fell too.

December gold settled at US$4,321.20 on September 25, down from US$4,424.90 on September 18, a 2.34% decline. Over the same dates, the Treasury’s official ten-year par yield rose from 5.01% to 5.17%. It was already above 5% at the start of that window.

My interpretation is that gold may have support beyond the hope of cheaper money. I own gold-related stocks, so assume bias. One week cannot establish that thesis, and a nominal yield alone leaves out inflation expectations, real yields and the dollar. Calling this resilience is a hypothesis about the pressure gold is absorbing, not a claim that it rose.

The distinction matters for our mining exposure. A company can deliver useful drilling results while its share price falls. An explorer still needs financing, and a producer still needs margins. A resilient metal price does not remove either problem.

For September 18 to 25, all 14 dated positions averaged -3.39%, with a -5.10% median: two gains, eleven losses and one unchanged. Best: +9.52%. Worst: -7.75%.

At September 25, returns since their individual documented reference prices averaged +15.17%, with a +13.28% median: eight positive, six negative, none unchanged. Best: +67.44%. Worst: -28.72%. Reference dates run from June 16 to August 4. All four pre-tool holdings are included. These are equal-weight CAD price returns, excluding dividends, fees, taxes and FX, not my account return or a common-period portfolio return.

PCE on September 30 and employment on October 2 are the next tests. Repeated gold weakness as real yields and the dollar rise would weaken my reading. Holding up through further pressure would make it more interesting, without proving why buyers are there.

The Research Pass is open, subject to cohort availability: 30 days from activation, no card and no automatic charge. The individual positions and dated follow-up remain in the member section.

What evidence would make you distinguish durable demand for gold from a temporary pause in selling?

I’m changing the publishing rhythm here. I’ve gone back to work full time, and between work and the kids, writing a market recap every evening has been taking time away from the research I built this for.

The daily scanner stays. It will keep running each market day, with the results published automatically in the members’ area once the data checks are complete. Those are scanner signals, not researched calls.

The macro read is moving to a weekly update on the blog and by email. That gives me room to look at the whole week, what changed and what matters next, instead of trying to turn every session into an article.
In-depth company write-ups will go to members as they’re ready during the week. There’s no need to wait for the Weekly when a research piece is finished, and no need to force a new pick because Friday has arrived.

Memberships stay in place, along with the research archive and the dated record of our decisions. The aim is to spend more of my time looking for overlooked businesses and testing the thesis behind them.

That’s why I started The Bullish Edge, and that’s where I want the work to go.

Feel free to ask any questions if you have any!

The more people subscribe and support the site, the more features it’ll allow me to build like live data scanners, alerts and much more!!

Service is still very cheap and will increase with time so lock your spot now and guaranteed locked price as long as you stay registered!

TL;DR: Gold recovered sharply from an intraday low on September 22 as oil retreated and the two-year Treasury yield fell. That is a plausible relief mechanism after last week's inflation and Fed scare, but spot gold still finished slightly below September 21. This was a bounce within the day, not a clean daily gain for everything.

The tension starts with oil. Middle East supply fears had pushed crude higher and revived concern that inflation would keep the Fed restrictive for longer. As oil pulled back, that particular pressure eased. The U.S. two-year Treasury yield fell from 4.76% on Monday to 4.71% on Tuesday, while the ten-year held at 4.96%. Lower short rates reduce some of the opportunity cost of holding gold, which pays no interest. They can also help growth stocks, whose valuations are sensitive to interest rates.

That is my best reading of why gold could rebound off its low while parts of the equity market held up. It is an inference from prices and rates, not proof of who bought gold or why. The World Gold Council has also noted that gold recently held up even when yields and the dollar rose, pointing to demand that a single rate move cannot explain.

The close matters. In Investing.com's XAU/USD history, spot gold ended at $4,363.14 versus $4,369.00 on September 21, down 0.13%. Some stocks rose, but the U.S. market was mixed. Calling this an all-assets rally would erase the most useful distinction: relief from one macro pressure can lift several trades intraday without settling the bigger inflation or geopolitical questions.

The next test is whether oil keeps easing and short yields stay lower. If either reverses, the simple relief explanation gets weaker. What do you think is doing more work for gold right now: the rates repricing or demand that has become less sensitive to rates?

TL;DR: The Fed raised rates against my pause scenario, December gold gained 0.36% for the week, and our complete register had seven gains, five losses and two unchanged positions. Funding remains a company-specific test.

My previous Weekly favoured no hike. That call was wrong for this meeting. Gold holding up afterward does not make the forecast right.

The useful discoveries this week were not all price moves. Completed acquisitions and closed financings removed specific uncertainties. Announced placements, visual mineral observations and conditional agreements left work to be done.

That distinction kept us from treating every busy trading day as new proof. Higher financing costs can matter even when the metal holds up. Political support can help a project find partners, but it does not settle the drawdown terms.

For September 11 to 18, all 14 dated positions averaged +0.84%, with a +0.16% median. Seven rose, five fell and two were unchanged. Best: +9.32%. Worst: -5.51%.

At September 18, returns since their documented reference prices averaged +18.92%, with a +14.51% median. Eleven were positive and three negative. Best: +75.19%. Worst: -27.66%.

Those references span June 16 to August 4. The register includes the four personal holdings documented before the tool. These are equal-weight CAD price returns, excluding dividends, fees and taxes, not my actual account return. Losses stay in the denominator.

Next: August PCE on September 30. We will be looking at the combination of inflation and activity, without pretending one report decides the next Fed move.

The Research Pass is open for 30 days from activation for the first 50 verified accounts, with no card or automatic charge. The member section keeps the individual positions and ongoing updates.

Educational content and personal assessments, not financial advice.

Gold recovered today after the Fed raised rates yesterday. My first reaction was that the market was calling bullshit on the idea that another hike settles the inflation problem.

That is my read, and there is a simpler objection: yields eased too. This could be relief after the announcement rather than a lasting vote against the Fed.

Higher rates can squeeze borrowing and demand. They cannot directly repair an oil pipeline or restore disrupted supply. Gold can still find buyers when investors worry about persistent inflation and weaker growth at the same time.

The uncomfortable part for gold holders is that tightening can still work through weaker demand, a stronger dollar and better inflation expectations. Today's rebound does not remove that risk.

I hold gold-related equities, so assume bias. I want to see how gold behaves if the dollar and yields start climbing again.

What would convince you that this rebound reflects more than relief after the Fed announcement?

I own Canadian miners, so I have a reason to like this week's investment news. But the nearly C$500B in commitments announced after the summit doesn't tell me what any individual mining shareholder is getting.

There could be a real benefit here. A European customer willing to buy a mine's output for years could help convince a lender to fund construction. That would be a useful step beyond another company appearing in an investment prospectus. Europe's proposed closer partnership with Canada gives that possibility more attention, but it still needs contracts behind it.

Then there's the September 16 Fed hike of 25 basis points. It doesn't automatically add the same amount to every Canadian company's borrowing cost. US-dollar floating-rate debt is more directly exposed, and a project looking for fresh money still has to compete for investors' capital.

The part I keep coming back to is how much of the eventual mine is left for existing shareholders. More expensive debt, more shares issued, or a stream sold over future production can all help get construction funded. They also change what shareholders end up owning economically.

For a company already generating cash, this is a different problem than it is for a developer trying to fund its first mine. I don't think the same investment headline deserves the same reaction across both.

I'm encouraged by the effort to bring more buyers and financing partners into Canadian projects. I'll be more convinced when companies disclose signed funding terms, including what they still have to raise themselves.

What financing terms have made you reconsider a mining project you otherwise liked?

The Fed raised rates by 25 basis points today. Canada is trying to attract investment at the same time. For a mining project, those forces can pull in opposite directions.

My first objection to the bullish Canadian story is the obvious one: a summit announcement does not put cash in a junior's bank account.

Mark Carney, Canada's prime minister, announced nearly C$500 billion in new investment commitments after the summit. That is not an immediate government spending package. Today's closer-partnership offer from Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, could also widen the pool of buyers and industrial partners. It is still a proposal.

The useful distinction for me is access to capital versus the price of capital.

A project might become easier to finance because a customer wants a secure supply of metal. But higher interest costs, tougher lending conditions or more shares issued can still leave less value for existing shareholders. Both things can happen at once.

I hold Canadian mining exposure, so I have a reason to like the investment story. I also need to see signed agreements, conditions for drawing the money and how much equity the company must contribute.

The dollar argument needs the same care. Higher US refinancing costs can worsen the fiscal problem over time. A rate hike can still support the dollar in the near term. Those are different timelines.

My takeaway: the Canadian opportunity is becoming more specific, but a funding headline has to survive the financing terms.

Which matters more to you at this stage: a committed buyer for the metal, or financing that can actually be drawn?

TL;DR: Zodiac and Orosur both reported gold mineralization today. The useful question is how much the results tell us about what extends beyond the samples already tested.

Zodiac Gold reported 58 metres at 3.15 g/t gold in a trench at Lewis North. Inside that interval sits one metre at 158 g/t. The published average is uncapped, meaning that very high value was not reduced when calculating the composite.

That matters because the headline average depends heavily on that single sample. It does not mean the result is worthless. It means I would want to see how consistently gold occurs along the structure and at depth before treating the average as representative of a larger body. Trench length is not established true thickness, and this is not a resource estimate.

Orosur Mining has a different missing piece. Partial assays from its first El Cedro hole returned 61.35 metres at 0.93 g/t gold from surface. The targeted deeper vein system was encountered near 100 metres, but those assays are still pending. The shallow interval cannot answer the question about those deeper veins.

Both announcements give a reason to follow the next results. A rich sample can be an important clue, and further drilling could strengthen either story. The uncertainty is whether the next samples establish repeatable mineralization, rather than simply another impressive isolated number.

The full Daily and follow-up on our tracked names are in the member section.

When you read an early exploration result, what evidence makes you comfortable that the headline grade represents more than a few exceptional samples?

Gold fell today while oil and bond yields rose. Reuters also reported pressure on AI-related stocks, so I wouldn't reduce the whole session to a single interest-rate story.

For gold miners, expensive energy can create two problems at once. It raises the cost of running equipment and moving material. If it also keeps inflation pressure high, it can support higher rates, making cash and bonds harder for gold to compete with.

I hold gold exposure, so the uncomfortable part matters: being right about long-term monetary risk doesn't guarantee that a mining business gets better margins this quarter. An exploration result can improve the geological picture while the cost of developing it gets worse.

The Fed decision is scheduled for September 16 at 2 p.m. Eastern. I'll be watching the projections and bond-market response as well as the decision. A quick gold bounce would be encouraging, but the stronger test is whether that response lasts as energy costs develop.

The 30-day Research Pass is open for readers who want the dated company follow-up, subject to remaining places. No card and no automatic billing.

What would make you conclude that the energy shock is helping gold more than it is hurting mining economics?

TL;DR: Our mining-heavy ledger had a difficult week, and Friday’s gold rebound did not erase it. The next test is the Fed on September 15 and 16; my personal view is still no hike, against the market’s stronger expectation of one.

There was real company progress this week: a new resource, an engineering update, drilling results and financing news across our coverage. There were also falling share prices. Both belong in the review.

West Point Gold, one of our already public cases, announced a planned 30,000-metre drilling program at Gold Chain. Its shares still finished the week down 2.00%, from C$1.50 to C$1.47. That leaves +10.53% against our documented June 23 reference of C$1.33. A drill plan creates the opportunity for new evidence; it does not create proven ounces by announcement.

The complete 14-entry ledger fell 4.95% on an equal-weighted price basis between September 4 and 11. Median: -1.91%. Two rose, eleven fell and one was unchanged. Best: +5.00%. Worst: -22.37%.

Since the individual documented reference prices, the same ledger stands at +17.93%, with a +15.26% median, ten positive entries and four losses. Best: +70.54%. Worst: -28.72%. Those losses stay in the record. The references have different start dates; this is not my actual account return and excludes dividends, fees and taxes.

Gold’s spot series fell 1.84% for the week despite a Friday rebound. The TSX Composite lost 2.24%, and the S&P 500 lost 0.80%. Higher inflation can support the long-term case for gold while higher rates and energy costs still hurt mining economics.

Reuters reported Friday that CME FedWatch implied an 87% chance of a hike after CPI. I still think the Fed holds. That is my opinion, not a forecast I can guarantee. A hike would prove that near-term view wrong; a hold with hawkish projections would not automatically be bullish for gold either. I hold mining exposure, including West Point, so my bias is on the table.

The full member review follows every register entry and our Watch names. Eligible readers can use the free 30-day Research Pass to follow the research and dated updates: no card, no automatic charge, and the clock starts when you activate. Eligibility and availability are shown in the member area via the link in my profile.

For Wednesday, what would change your view more: the rate decision itself, or the projections that come with it?

Sorry for the delay guys! Here is the read of yesterday.

Gold rose after Friday's CPI. That doesn't settle the rate question.

US consumer prices rose 0.4% in August, and gold still rebounded on Friday. I wouldn't read that as proof that inflation has become an uncomplicated tailwind for gold.

Persistent inflation can support the case for holding gold while also keeping interest rates higher. The same report can pull on both sides of the trade. One afternoon doesn't tell us which force will dominate for the next year.

The monthly and annual numbers also deserve separate treatment. Core CPI rose 0.3% for the month, while its annual rate eased from 2.5% to 2.4%. Recent momentum and the comparison with a year ago are answering different questions.

I hold precious-metals exposure, so I have a reason to like Friday's rebound. That is also a reason to be careful about the story I attach to it. A producer collecting cash and a developer still raising construction money can face very different consequences from higher financing costs.

The next scheduled test is the Fed meeting on September 15 and 16. Which would make you reassess your gold thesis more: a change in the Fed's projections, or a sustained change in real yields?

A stock can trade several times its usual volume without becoming a better business. The activity is worth investigating. It does not tell you whether the company can fund its plans, whether existing shareholders face more dilution, or whether the news actually changes anything.

Waiting has a cost too. Sometimes the stock runs before the evidence catches up. I would rather acknowledge that tradeoff than pretend every interesting chart deserves a position.

That is what I want readers to judge inside The Bullish Edge: the research behind a decision, what remains uncertain, and how the view changes as new information arrives. The dated record includes losses and the names we passed on.

For anyone who wants to look around, the Founding Research Pass is still open. It gives eligible accounts 30 full days of member access from activation, not just the remaining days of September. No card is required and there is no automatic charge. After 30 days, the account returns to Free unless you explicitly choose a paid membership.

Create or sign into a verified Free account through the site in my profile, then activate the pass in the members section. The launch offer is limited to the first 50 eligible accounts.

What would make a research note useful enough for you to revisit after the initial stock move?

TL;DR: The scanner found 126 qualified anomalies, but the most important information change came from a stock that closed flat after a major technical update. Price reaction and thesis progress are different variables.

Today's qualified set contained 64 advances, 52 declines and 10 flat names. That looks active, but a long list of moving prices is not the same thing as a long list of better businesses or better projects.

The day's most useful example was a developer that finished unchanged after publishing a substantially more advanced engineering report. Its reserve base improved, the cost estimate became more detailed and the mine plan grew longer. At the same time, the initial capital requirement increased and the financing package is still not final. The report reduced some technical uncertainty while leaving the hardest funding and execution questions open.

The flat close does not make that information unimportant. It only tells us that the market did not reprice it decisively today.

At the other end of the tape, one exploration signal nearly doubled after the company reported visible sulphides and portable XRF readings from a newly identified intrusion. That is real geological evidence. It is also several steps away from an economic discovery. Certified assays, continuity, mineralogy and recovery still have to do the heavy lifting.

Both cases point to the same discipline. I try to separate the price event from the thesis event. A large move can arrive before decision quality evidence. A flat move can arrive beside a meaningful technical update. Neither one deserves to be treated as the conclusion.

Gold offered a smaller version of the same problem this morning. Investing.com showed spot gold at US$4,397.47 an ounce at 5:25 a.m. Eastern, while the December 2026 COMEX contract was quoted separately around US$4,468 at 10:00 a.m. Eastern. Those numbers describe different instruments. Combining them into one narrative would create movement that the data never measured.

The next scheduled macro tests are US PPI on September 10 and CPI on September 11. For the companies, the next useful evidence is more specific: final financing terms for the developer and certified assays for the explorer.

The complete company level review, including one new watchlist addition and an updated holding, is in today's member Daily.

I hold exposure to gold developers, so assume bias. When price and evidence disagree, which one do you make prove itself first?

Long weekend so sorry for the delay for the weekly but here it is!

TL;DR: The US added 162,000 jobs in August, but restaurants and local government education supplied 101,000 of them. That is 62.3% of the total gain. The headline was firm. Its composition limits what it can prove about the breadth of labour demand. Canada lost 42,000 jobs in the same month, yet manufacturing added 22,000. The lesson is simple: an aggregate is useful only when its composition stays visible.

US unemployment held at 4.1%. Average hourly earnings rose 0.3% during the month and 3.1% over the year. June and July payrolls were revised upward by a combined 55,000.

I would not dismiss those numbers. I also would not use them as proof that hiring accelerated uniformly.

Restaurants added 59,000 jobs and local government education added 42,000. Information employment fell by 23,000. Different parts of the same labour market were already moving in opposite directions inside one headline.

Canada made the point from the other side. Employment fell by 42,000, unemployment rose to 6.4% and annual wage growth slowed to 2.0%. Manufacturing still added 22,000 jobs while natural resources lost 7,700.

These surveys use different methods, so the comparison is not a contest. The useful question is how much confidence each total deserves as a broad signal.

The objection is obvious. One month is noisy, payroll estimates get revised and a few large categories can reverse. That is exactly why the conclusion must remain testable. A second US report with broad private-sector hiring would weaken the concentration argument. Broader losses would make today's caution look too mild.

The same rule applies to our public record. At the September 4 marks, our complete register of 14 dated positions had a +23.2% equal-weighted mean and a +23.1% median. Eleven were positive and three were negative. The best mark was +72.9%; the worst was -17.0%.

Every documented position stays in the denominator, including four holdings that predate the tool and all three negative marks. The mean combines returns from different dates and is not Simon's brokerage-account return or real-world sizing.

Our five scanner runs this week produced 625 qualified anomalies: 330 advances, 254 declines and 41 unchanged. Again, the total is a funnel. The underlying evidence determines whether any signal deserves conviction.

The next tests are US consumer prices on September 10, producer prices on September 11 and the Federal Reserve decision on September 16.

Would you trust a firm payroll headline less when two categories supply nearly two thirds of the gain, or is that concentration normal monthly noise?