Top 7 Reasons I'm Buying Silver Now Jeff Clark| August 11, 2014 - 2:00pm .I remember my first drug high. "No, it wasn't from a shady deal made with a seedy character in a bad part of town. I was in the hospital, recovering from surgery, and while I wasn't in a lot of pain, the nurse suggested something to help me sleep better. I didn't really think I needed itbut within seconds of that needle puncturing my skin, I WAS IN HEAVEN. The euphoria that struck my brain was indescribable. The fluid coursing through my veins was so powerful I've never forgotten it. I can easily see why people get hooked on drugs. And that's why I think silver, purchased at current prices, could be a life-changing investment. The connection? Well, it's not the metal's ever-increasing number of industrial uses or exploding photovoltaic (solar) demand nor even that the 2014 supply is projected to be stagnant and only reach 2010's level. No, the connection is Financial Heroin The drugs of choice for governmentsmoney printing, deficit spending, and nonstop debt increaseshave proved too addictive for world leaders to break their habits. At this point, the US and other governments around the world have toked, snorted, and mainlined their way into an addictive corner; they are completely hooked. The Fed and their international central-bank peers are the drug pushers, providing the easy money to keep the high going. And despite the Fed's latest taper of bond purchases, past actions will not be consequence-free. At first, drug-induced highs feel euphoric, but eventually the body breaks down from the abuse. Similarly, artificial stimuli and sub-rosa manipulations by central banks have delivered their special effectsbut addiction always leads to a systemic breakdown. When government financial heroin addicts are finally forced into cold-turkey withdrawal, the ensuing crisis will spark a rush into precious metals. The situation will be exacerbated when assets perceived as "safe" todaylike bonds and the almighty greenbackenter bear markets or crash entirely. As a result, the rise in silver prices from current levels won't be 10% or 20%but a double, triple, or more. If inflation picks up steam, $100 silver is not a fantasy but a distinct possibility. Gold will benefit, too, of course, but due to silver's higher volatility, we expect it will hand us a higher percentage return, just as it has many times in the past. Eventually, all markets correct excesses. The global economy is near a tipping point, and we must prepare our portfolios now, ahead of that chaos, which includes owning a meaningful amount of physical silver along with our gold. It's time to build for a big payday. Why I'm Excited About Silver When considering the catalysts for silver, let's first ignore short-term factors such as net short/long positions, fluctuations in weekly ETF holdings, or the latest open interest. Data like these fluctuate regularly and rarely have long-term bearing on the price of silver. I'm more interested in the big-picture forces that could impact silver over the next several years. The most significant force, of course, is what I stated above: governments' abuse of "financial heroin" that will inevitably lead to a currency crisis in many countries around the world, pushing silver and gold to record levels. At no time in history have governments printed this much money. And not one currency in the world is anchored to gold or any other tangible standard. This unprecedented setup means that whatever fallout results, it will be of historic proportions and affect each of us personally. Specific to silver itself, here are the data that tell me "something big this way comes" 1. Inflation-Adjusted Price Has a Long Way to Go One hint of silver's potential is its inflation-adjusted price. I asked John Williams of Shadow Stats to calculate the silver price in June 2014 dollars (July data is not yet available). Shown below is the silver price adjusted for both the CPI-U, as calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the price adjusted using ShadowStats data based on the CPI-U formula from 1980 (the formula has since been adjusted multiple times to keep the inflation number as low as possible)...." for the entire article: http://www.silverseek.com/commentary/top-7-reasons-i’m-buying-silver-now-13465
Good read. Some if's what's and maybe's added just to tantalise the tastebuds but overall a good read.
Well, I read it too and, while it rings true, I think that's just confirmation bias. It's nice reading things that tell you what you want to hear. What makes a better read is something that challenges your view, or the prevailing zeitgeist.
This an article I had read earlier from him (since its subject is 1 of the elements I consider as having a high weight on the gold price): http://www.financialsense.com/contr...ntral-bank-gold-buying-signal-the-top-is-near I ceased to attach much informative value to Casey Research but here he said something that hit the nail I also hammer: Article dated 07/13/2012. Jeff Clark denies this along a 35 years trend of central banks gold stocks (see article), which shows the net buying as a still "small" reversal relative to the dropping trend over that long term. By doing this, he suggests that central banks may buy their gold stock back up to 1980 levels. Is that realistic? Why would they? Remember, in 1971 the Bretton Woods gold standard, fixing dollar to gold price, was dumped. That standard already wasn't a real gold standard anymore, since the redeemability by any holder of dollars, was not allowed, only by governments/central banks/their institutions. So actually, the real gold standard was already dumped further decades earlier. So if there is one thing clear: governments will do all they can to NOT be again limited in their money creation. And that leads to a next, and critical question: 1980-2000 was about a flat gold price. Other/general prices rose alot. First from the 198x lagging sellers (read: the losers) then from 1990 onwards central bank sales, as shown in Jeff Clarks chart. According to this chart, with as Source: World Gold Council, central banks continued selling 2007 then became net buyers in 2008. Yet, according to World Gold Council (and referenced by aLOT sites) figures: they only became net buyers in 2011. Net Government Sales (positive means it's [SUPPLY], negative means it's [DEMAND]) year / tonnes sold / average price US$ 1997 326 330.98 1998 363 294.24 1999 477 278.88 2000 479 279.11 2001 520 271.04 2002 547 309.73 2003 620 363.38 2004 479 409.72 2005 663 444.74 2006 370 603.46 2007 484 695.39 2008 236 871.96 2009 30 972.35 2010 77 1224.53 2011 -455 1571.52 2012 -544.1 1668.98 2013 -368.6 1411.23 For what this couple years bias net sell > net buy matters. To me, not much. What matters are the amounts, a zero crossing itself is of little importance. And there, we see that the highest central bank net purchases were in 2012, the very same year that golds average price had its peak over the entire term of the chart. It clearly shows that central banks purposely 1) sell gold when speculators buy least / sell most. 2) buy gold when speculators buy most / sell least. And 2013 already confirms this: the central bank purchases already dropped, the average gold price of 2013 was lower than 2011, and central bank purchases of 368.6 were indeed also already lower than 2011's 455.1. If there is anything that proves how relevant Doug Casey's "scare" was, it's this. And, at the same time, Jeff Clark denial was already proven wrong by 2 years. And even aside this, just think about his claim / chart based suggestion. If central banks would really want to bring their gold stocks back to 1980 levels, why on Earth do they buy more at higher prices? They receive less ounces then, and reaching that 1980 level won't go faster like this lol. Oh wait! Right! Central banks can print any money they need to buy gold at any price including peak prices! And maybe that's not even needed, just use the money chewed out from the real suckers, those that purchase gold at high and are forbidden to print money so have to produce and earn first, in order to do so. And then the governments club buys their production with their own earnings>savings. No need to print / spend new money. Wipe out existing. And the sad thing is, this Jeff Clark, vested interest or not vested interest, with his suggestion, may help - and since 2012's price is already dumped far away - already may have helped, central planning crappers succeeding. Disclosure 1: I was never a gold sucker. Disclosure 2: I was, and maybe still are (depending on future), a silver sucker (most ounces purchased when spot was $32, average now still 'according to' $29) Disclosure 3: What is sure: I now suck LESS.
For this silver case/claim, he uses this chart to claim a long term silver stock bottom: Notice here, that in order to "see" that bottom, you can only use "Implied Unreported Stocks" as a reference. ALL other trendlines show the current Z/total of the trendlines as a PEAK instead. So, his entire claim, stands and falls with the accuracy of that "Implied Unreported Stocks", which is according to its title, no direct but an indirect measure (hence the "Implied"). Well, the Silver Institute used that term too until and including 2012. They digged it in World Silver Survey 2013. https://www.silverinstitute.org/site/supply-demand/ Remember that topic I created abit over a year ago? http://forums.silverstackers.com/to...vises-data-5-years-later-normal-business.html Especially post #12 there, where I started to understand what was happening. It proved that that "Implied Investment" actually wasn't "Implied". An implication means a sure thing derived from another thing. This data revisions case proved that ordinary lack of data was the cause. Post #12 makes that clear by the example I gave: See, this is the crucial difference between investment stockpile and industrial consumption: - a stockpile returns for sale without costs involved (and no link to general prices trend (inflation) - industrial usage, may never return for sale, or require scrap recycling, and thus a cost, and a link to general prices trend (inflation). So, this "Implied Unreported Stocks" from Jeff Clark, can hold an unknown amount of silver that actually wasn't stockpiled, but consumed. And, the more you go into the past (as his chart does), the bigger that unreported "stock" (or industrial/whatever consumption) may have been, simply because the gradually lower going degree of computers / internet made reporting a bigger cost than it is today, and also governments forced less reporting duties too. But Jeff Clark uses exactly this "Unreported" element as the key for his claim for a multidecade low silver stockpile. As a note: that chart origins from what is named "The CPM Silver Yearbook 2013" I searched the web for it. This is one of the first hits: http://www.silverdoctors.com/cpm-group-misleads-the-public-about-silver-investment-demand/ The title says it all. Our Silver Medics don't agree. Yet, aboves Jeff Clark, which can be classified in the same camp, uses a chart from CPM, to claim the same as the Silver Medics. This is another hit: http://www.cpmgroup.com/ Being the source. "The CPM Silver Yearbook 2013" "Regular price: $150.00" "Sale price: $125.00" "Qty: ADD TO CART" It would be interesting to see THEIR comments on their chart. But it's $125 and my last bucks went to Cook Islands Paint Your Coin - First Love silver so unfortunately ( ) I had to refuse the offer. This was noob Pirocco from the SS Flame Division! For those that bother / want an alternate read to a Professional Research Company, and can find it in the Deeper Innards of the Internet. btw these Professionals probably researched the same to act themselves, and publish different because they need others for the counter-act (a cheapskate buyer needs a cheapskate seller and an expensive seller needs an expensive buyer). In case that wasn't clear! In a future article I will dig deeper into the subject of "Implied Unreported Stocks". Hang on! Or don't!
