That article you link is dated April 9, 2013 and references sales begin april too. It's now end may 2013. Looks like you missed this?
Maybe if you had better reading comprehension you would have understood that i did acknowledge the article was in past tense. As i wrote Still being the key word, as it means they were doing it back then and Still doing it now. Also i wouldn't call a 2 month article old
On 9 april, the price was $28. For every ASE monsterbox shipping out then, the receiver gets 136 ASE's more today. In silver in recent years, 2 months is as old as your grandaddy. And my poor reading comprehension didn't see any past time reference. No 'back then' alike you say now. Instead you quoted only this sentence from the article: And about that 'still', do they 'still' limit sales? Do they say 'no' to primary dealers demanding more? So far every month of 2013 had higher sales numbers than any month in 2012 except january (due to a returning end of year reason), but 2013 january even beated that too. January-may 2012 sales were a combined 14,534,000 January-may 2013 sales were a combined 21,768,500 So apparently, the US Mint has no problem meeting the higher demand. They produced 7,234,500 ASE's (225 ton silver) more and you talk about rationing and sales limits? And even IF the US Mint would have refused some primary dealer orders, how relevant is a limit that is 50% higher than a year earlier? Maybe SilverDoctors find it relevant, but ohwell, they find it always relevant, no matter whether price is $20 $30 $40 or $50.
Sounds like blank supply is the sticking point. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/05/gold-mint-coin-idUSL1N0EH1JR20130605
What is also interesting in that article is this: Why does a company not like having a stock as buffer? Because it foresees a price fall of the stocked product? Maybe the US Mint foresaw the mid april price drop, causing it to not stock much, causing that december premature runout of ASE's. Same in january. And indeed, has been good decision to keep stock low. Imagine that the US Mint had bought X tonnes silver/gold in november last year, good enough to meet demand for months ahead. To then see a 25% lower price. And that is what is behind the bold. That 'not going to be using' is obvious bullshit. Of couse they gonna use any inventory laying around. It's not like that US Mint would stop existing / stop producing coins. The obvious reason is price anticipation, but for equally obvious reasons he didn't like to say that, haha.
My concern is that the 2013 SAEs which I have bought many rolls of,will be stuck as the highest mintage ever.Possibly with the lowest premium.But hey no worries...since I will consider them as a pure bullion play.
It's bullion. Mintage matters much less to its specific coin sale price / premium. Especially considering a metalbased price fluctuation that is way bigger. By the way, since some month the US Mint site now requires 3 dropdown combo selections (type coin / type sales / year) to show the very same combined page. Before just visiting the url sufficed to see the same as now, no further clicks/selections needed. How silly is that?
Has anyone looked at the silver sales for July atm =D because it says its 27,575000 oz! I'm guessing someone made a mistake LOL [imgz=http://forums.silverstackers.com/uploads/339_silver.jpg][/imgz]
An interesting thing about ASE sales.. People tout these numbers all the time.. To show one fallacy of the silver investor I merely state that more people bought them when silver was $30 in January than when it was $20 in June. One would think if silver were so great of an investment at this time that sales should increase each time it goes down.
Compare total sales for the period in 2011, 2012, 2013 Silver went down, total sales went up How to you know how many people bought silver before?
Silver investment is pretty well recorded . Investment silver has been the one bright spot in declining total demand for silver... Sadly silver bought for investment is only roughly 25% of the market.. ASE sales figures are on the mint website...
here is a chart i did that shows it better. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17998991/silver_year.jpg
BLAH BLAH BLAH! If you don't like silver so much you sure waste a lot of time talking about it on a silver forum. GET A LIFE RETARD! If you don't like it don't buy it maybe you need to spend more time trying to get laid or something.
A good illustration of this is a weight comparison with other market sides. In recent years: 2007 9,887,000 2008 19,583,500 2009 28,766,500 2010 34,662,500 2011 39,868,500 2012 33,742,500 ...ASE's were sold. That's a total of 166,510,500 or 166 Moz over this period of 6 years. Now pick another market side: the Comex with its 5000 ounce futures positions. 16/07/2013 11322 $19,965 Producer/Merchant/Processor/User Long 16053 Short 45498 Net: -29445 SwapDealer Long 35470 Short 17347 Net: 18123 LargeTraders Long 27430 Short 22983 Net: 4447 OtherReportables Long 9345 Short 7157 Net: 2188 SmallTraders Long 18873 Short 14186 Net: 4687 09/07/2013 6898 $19,07 Producer/Merchant/Processor/User Long 16191 Short 43503 Net: -27312 SwapDealer Long 36278 Short 15864 Net: 20414 LargeTraders Long 27462 Short 23527 Net: 3935 OtherReportables Long 9098 Short 8012 Net: 1086 SmallTraders Long 18367 Short 16490 Net: 1877 Their total net position increased last week from 6898 to 11322. That's a difference of 4424 contracts, or 4424x5000=22,120,000 or 22 Moz, over this period of 1 week. The rate at which ASE's get bought, is 166 Moz / (6 x 52) = 0,532 Moz / week. That's just 2,4% of last weeks Comex position buying rate. It's like focussing on a duck crossing the street while ignoring the cow.
Are you comparing AS sales to comex trading? Wouldn't a apples to apples comparison be ASE sales v/s total silver for physical investment sales?
Yes. No, because regardless whether delivery happens now ('physical') or later ('physical' settlement) or never (cancel contract), the price is adjusted alike the demand is there now. The spot price already incorporates the silver agreed (but cancellation possible and most of the time also the case) to buy in the future. So, when talking about the price trend, both 'physical' and 'paper', is, relevant, regardless the 5000 troy ounce being 10 delivered monsterboxes ASE's, or 5 remote/undelivered 1000 ounce bars, or just refused/cancelled when/before futures contract expires.
