This is only the beginning and the real test will $1425..... Then we will see if the banks have lost their power of manipulation. Coming soon !
That's asking the same twice, the more it is smacked down the bigger the truck. If the silver price would be smacked down to $10, he'll need a truck twice as big as todays.
Because the banksters have suppressed it for a long time.. now the natural equilibrium price is much much higher so we are seeing a push up to where natural demand and supply fundamentals meet (actually no - that is not possible due to futures creating contracts for gold and silver that do not exist!).. Haha.. so there is todays supply of silver.. (real) and also 3 months time supply of silver which you can "speculate on" at multiple levels of quantities over today's supply.. We would need to remove all fictional silver supply for equilibrium talk to be valid.. hence.. INVALIDATED>... sorry to waste your time.. cant be rational in a world based on fictional quantities of commodities which may never exist! 1for1
Because they try to make you pay more. When they see you refuse, or start to sell instead, they gonna quickly sell all the Moz again. And then it's again sub $20. What else lol?
This is a common misunderstanding, and a quite misleading, but regularly used among the misinformed as a convenient theory for price suppression. Futures contracts are not created for metal that may not exist, or is yet to be produced. That isn't what a futures contract represents. The "future" in futures contract refers to future "price", not the future supply (commodity that is yet to be mined or yet to exist). Any existing metal can be delivered to fullfil any contract. The contract does not represent an underlying physical commodity, but instead the option to buy or sell a specific quantity at the defined price, should that option be exercised via the contract. There is a very significant difference.
Thanks for that, I was under the same impression. Maybe while you are around you can help me out with another understanding I have which might also be erroneous as it is along the same lines. I was under the impression that part of the problem was that people were selling silver multiple times and that more silver was being traded than actually existed. People were selling silver they didn't actually posess which is why a short squeeze can occur and people have to buy silver to cover their commitments. If that isn't true how was Max going to sink JP Morgan? mind you I haven't checked the news recently but I don't think JP Morgan was sunk by me buying an ounce...
Again, this assumes a futures contract represents underlying physical. It doesn't. It then follows that a short futures contract isn't synonymous with selling silver. It is merely selling the right to buy silver at a predetermined price. Thus, shorting a futures contract is not selling silver you don't own. It is infact not selling silver at all - unless you want to actually exercise that right. That is the same question I was asking myself. :lol: Not surprised it never happened.
Since futures contracts clearly do not represent the physical trading of the commodity, perhaps the commodity 'spot' price should not be based on the futures market then, hey ? The accepted 'spot' price of BHP is based on the trading of actual BHP shares - not BHP options.
