I see several indications that gold tracks silver rather than the opposite. The underlying reason could be that the central planning thieves buy/sell it in such a way that it makes gold not look too sissy compared to silver. There are two quite remarkable major examples of this: 1979 21.793 306.68 14.07 1980 16.393 612.56 37.37 and 2011 35.1192 1571.52 44.75 2012 31.1497 1668.98 53.58 In both cases, silver's year average price peak was a year earlier than golds year average price peak. So the statement that silver shadows gold, this indicates the very opposite.
Figured it would be worth posting an overlay of silver to the Gold/Silver ratio. Silver in red, and the ratio in green. The near perfect mirror image is amazing. Proof silver outperforms gold, up and down, within spitting distance of 100% of the time. Gold has been outperforming silver recently, so maybe its gold "starts" the move first, but silver gets to the finish line first? Or maybe its silver is first to move down, and second to move up. Whereas gold is second to move down, and first to move up? If gold continues higher from here then history shows that eventually silver will wake up and cruise past gold.
No, as said, and also what 'shadowing' means, it appears as silver price changes first, then gold followed a year later , for tops aswell as bottoms. This topic isn't about 'performance', it's about two price trends that are generally similar, but one is lagging the other about a year, golds price trend is lagging silvers, indicating that the claims that silver "follows" gold, is wrong, and the opposite is true. And everything has a reason, so one may wonder here why. A theory I have is that the central planning thieves, that own a large gold stock and thus can control its price better, thus want people chosing gold, are the actual reason: if the price of silver rises too much relative to gold, causing more people to opt for silver, they 'help' golds price. But like any regulating device: they need a time to measure and act, causing the gold price trend 'lag' on silvers.
ok well I posted the chart because I thought it was interesting and somewhat related to your topic. I wasnt trying to debate you on the topic. One example of silver peaking before gold is just one example, a big example no doubt, but still just one example. However, couldnt you also make the case that gold started its current bull market move in April 2001, while silver didnt start moving up until 7 months later in November 2001? From April 2001 to November 2001 gold moved up about 10% and never looked back, while silver lost about 7% in that time. Also the way you post numbers is confusing. It would help if you organized the numbers better.
The chart is interesting, of course, in the end, the gold to silver ratio trend indicates the lagging, but you maybe didnt notice that my posts 4th number: IS the GSR. So your chart is redundant, its time resolution too high to make clear these examples, it should use 1 average GSR per year plot, since only then the graphical surfaces are proportional to the average prices trend. It's not about peak or bottom prices, peak or bottom GSR, but about averages. And on a chart, an average is a surface, and the more time plots you use, the harder it becomes to measure, and judge. Since the lagging ofcourse becomes best visible around big price fluctuations (as around 1980 and 2011), and both 'big cases' show this, so it's not your 'just one example' but two major examples. And I wasn't talking about 10% and 7% moves. I talked about multiplications and divisions. Doubling, tripling, quadrupling... Halving... quarter... so on. The most price changing cases do matter most, do you agree? For a logical reason: if a price is flat, then lag between price changes becomes "not applicable".
In current markets, silver will move more then gold almost all of the time. When the market drops, silver will fall a higher % and when PMs rise, silver will outperform. This is why the GSR is high when PMs are low and visa versa. So it isn't that gold is following silver but just that gold has a heap more resistance to movements. Probably because the most part of gold is hoarded and not traded, but I really don't know. See this comparison chart that demonstrates silvers volatility over gold. p.s. I also am not sure what all of those numbers represent, Pirocco. Maybe you should at least tell people what the columns are when you dump data like that.
A whole walk through: YEAR SILVER GOLD GSR 1970 1.635 35.94 21.98 1971 1.394 40.80 29.27 1972 1.976 58.16 29.43 1973 3.137 97.32 31.02 1974 4.391 159.26 36.27 <- peak silver 1975 4.085 161.02 39.42 <- peak gold 1976 4.347 124.84 28.72 <- bottom silver AND bottom gold 1977 4.706 147.71 31.39 1978 5.930 193.22 32.58 1979 21.793 306.68 14.07 <- peak silver 1980 16.393 612.56 37.37 <- peak gold 1981 8.432 460.03 54.56 1982 10.586 375.67 35.49 <- peak silver 1983 9.121 424.35 46.52 <- peak gold 1984 6.694 360.48 53.85 1985 5.888 317.26 53.88 1986 5.364 367.66 68.54 1987 6.790 446.46 65.75 <- peak silver AND peak gold 1988 6.108 436.94 71.54 1989 5.543 381.44 68.81 1990 4.068 383.51 94.27 1991 3.909 362.11 92.63 1992 3.710 343.82 92.67 <- bottom silver AND bottom gold 1993 4.968 359.77 72.42 1994 4.769 384.00 80.52 1995 5.148 384.17 74.63 <- peak silver 1996 4.730 387.77 81.98 <- peak gold 1997 5.945 330.98 55.67 1998 5.549 294.24 53.03 1999 5.218 278.88 53.45 2000 4.9506 279.11 56.38 2001 4.3702 271.04 62.02 <- bottom silver AND bottom gold 2002 4.5995 309.73 67.34 2003 4.8758 363.38 74.53 2004 6.6711 409.72 61.42 2005 7.3164 444.74 60.79 2006 11.5452 603.46 52.27 2007 13.3836 695.39 51.96 2008 14.9891 871.96 58.17 2009 14.6733 972.35 66.27 2010 20.1928 1224.53 60.64 2011 35.1192 1571.52 44.75 <- peak silver 2012 31.1497 1668.98 53.58 <- peak gold 2013 23.7928 1411.23 59.31 2014 20.3715 1294.64 63.55 There is not a single trend reversal with peak gold > peak silver or bottom gold > bottom silver, and it would be interesting to find out if the years with both peak or both bottom, also show the same order WITHIN the year. By the way, just found something very weird: above gold price averages are taken from http://www.kitco.com/charts/historicalgold.html a month or so ago. When I created this post, and had Kitco open, I noticed a difference in 1986. My file had 367.66 as year average, but Kitco showed 367.53 now. That wondered me, because I rechecked back then if I hadnt made a typo. Apparently I had. So I corrected it and guess what, I came across another one different, upon which I decided to check more others, and guess what, alot changed. A decade gold changes example (didnt check silver yet): YEAR OLD NEW 1980 612.56 612.56 1981 460.03 459.71 1982 375.67 375.81 1983 424.35 424.18 1984 360.48 360.42 1985 317.26 317.22 1986 367.66 367.53 1987 446.46 446.48 1988 436.94 436.98 1989 381.44 381.44 1980 and 1989 is same, all others different. It's just impossible that I made that much typoes and failed rechecks. So Kitco has recently revised specific (not all) gold price figures of 30 years ago? A while ago I discovered that Silver Institute revised figures of 7 years old, and now this?
It's not about volatility, its about the price of gold following the price of silver, the opposite of what is often claimed (as recently in the topic about graphene). And right, I should have named the columns as to make clear what the numbers are. But I thought that was obvious, a column 1970-2013 must be years, no? Second number silver price, third number gold price, then GSR. So if it wasn't clear, it should be now?
Let's start from post #7, columns named, as to make clear what figures are, and the average annual prices commented in such a way that they make clear that gold peaks happen the year after silver peaks, 5 big examples, not any where a silver peak follows a gold peak. And I need to check INSIDE the years where both gold and silver had a peak (and maybe also when both had a bottom), as to check if the same peak silver>gold order ALSO existed INSIDE those years. Out of my head I know at least one example, 2011, where silvers $49.5 peak happened end april, and golds $1900 peak end august / begin september. And the same year, silvers $32 bottom occurred start may 2011, while golds $1480 bottom happened start juli. So at least in 2011, that INSIDE year was also gold shadowing silver, just like the year averages were too (2011 peak average silver, 2012 peak average gold) So, as far as I looked by now, gold is shadowing silver, not vice versa. And those recently revised Kitco annual price averages of the 198x years, is also worth some attention. Are they adjusting the historical prices according to some dollar inflation calculation? If so, wouldn't that result in ALL figures having changed? Because two just stayed.
This all depends on what time frame you use. Going back as far as you can you can probably see silver leading gold on tops and bottoms that come every few years or more. Most in the pm community have only been in pm's for probably 10 years or less, so the recent run starting in the early 2000's is the relevant time frame for them when they say gold leads silver. Now maybe you can make a case for silver leading gold since the early 2000's, but its important to pick a time frame before you say that one leads the other. Maybe people claiming that gold leads silver are just guilty of omitting what time frame they are referring to.
This is the time frame I used: 1970-2013 Doesn't suffice for you? Does it matter to you? It's 43 years. You want more? Over those 43 years, figures show that gold shadowed silver, in the periods with bigger and big price movements. Outside those periods, it doesn't make sense to try to find out what shadows what. Why? Logic. A margin value to make it clear: imagine a 10 years period, with all the time $10 silver and $500 gold. There are no price fluctuations. Then it doesn't make sense to find out what shadows what. There are no changes. No light and no shadow.
I'm not saying your guilty of not specifying the time frame, I'm just saying that specifying it is important when talking about who leads who, and people saying gold leads silver may be right, but not being clear about what time frame they are using. You could probably use a 1 month up trend in the pm's and see that gold started the up trend first. Longer term it may very well be that silver leads gold. True the long term bottom in silver was Oct/Nov 2001, but for gold it looks like July/Aug 1999. However does the absolute long term bottom really matter when both metals didnt really start making any meaningful move higher until 1.5 - 2 years after they bottomed? Silver bottomed in Oct/Nov 2001, but traded pretty much sideways until mid 2003. Gold bottomed in July/Aug 1999, but after a short spike it traded sideways/down until mid 2001, back down to its ~$250 low. So I would argue that it wasnt until mid 2003 that silver started making any meaningful move to the upside in its current 10+ year uptrend, while for gold that meaningful move started mid 2001. Almost 2 years earlier for gold. So does the absolute long term bottom signify the start of an uptrend, or does the uptrend start when there is any meaningful move to the upside? Lets use this example (following didn't actually happen of course)... If the absolute bottom for... -silver was January 1st 2010 -gold was February 1st 2010 (1 month later) but by February 28th (2 months after silvers bottom, and 1 month after golds bottom) -silver only moved up 1% (in 2 months) -gold moved up 10% (1 month) Does silver still get the credit for starting the move simply because it bottomed first, even though gold was the first to make any meaningful move?
Hey, the figures are like they are. They prove what I said, since they made me saying it. Measured based on yearly averages (that's also what matters most since it reflects a demand ounces over a period. Unlike an event, that could be a day fly, of which the 1980 silver price average of $16.393 compared to the $50 peak, is a very good example - it showed that the amount ounces bought in 1979, with its $21.793 average, was bigger than in 1980. There is even not a single occasion where a gold peak average is followed by a silver peak average. When one choses shorter and shorter timeframes, one 'creates' more samples, and chance on exceptions, and using then that exception as to prove different, is just talking about a peanut, as to evade the "bigger" reality. That "bigger" reality, is a series year average figures. Half year would be a doubling so still representive enough, but a single month like you do here, actually happened or not example, is statistically a "nothingsayer" that would only be of importance to daytraders. And also irrelevant for my theory that some control golds price trend as to not appear too sissy compared to silver, as said, one needs to measure demand, amount ounces bought, not some peak or bottom on a day or month. If one did, his control actions (buy/sell) would become as hard as trying to shoot a fast moving target with a low velocity bullet and the amount of effort and degree of error would greatly increase, and make the control fail. So your post is just completely besides the subject. It can't be that hard to understand the reason for my choice of annual averages? The lower the timeframe I'd chose and the further I go away from chosing averages, the more useless it would become, I would be more busy tracking the bird than actually shooting, and I could even shoot wrong birds that occasionally entered a bullet path to the real target. Imagine one had to control the temperature in a room, and he places sensors before a window, mounted on the heating and cooling devices, and on a door. What would happen? Well, alot switching of the heating / cooling device, alot temperature fluctuations (upto even due to unneeded switching and nothing when it should). Well, that's what you do. The best 'place' to measure here, is a period that is not too long, to make the control not lag too much on reality, and not too short, to make the control not making things less under control instead of more, upto even worser than doing nothing at all, and that period is here the annual price average. And you just don't want to get that, do you?
Instead of using yearly price average, why not just use the actual peak or bottom points? For instance the silver bottom points of... October 2001, April 2004, May 2006, September 2008, etc. and the high points of... January 1998, March 2004, April 2006, February 2008, etc. I don't have an argument against using yearly average price I just dont understand why you would use that instead of just the actual peak and bottom points. Also I'm not trying to offend you but its a bit difficult reading and comprehending the points you make because of your sentence structure, and listing numbers without telling us what the numbers stand for. I think many people lose interest in responding to your posts when its just a wall of text and numbers, with bad paragraph structure and no labeling of numbers. Using a yearly average price you can probably say that gold follows silver long term, and maybe theres a case for how its more equal or even silver follows gold if you just use actual peaks and bottoms as the start and end points. Whichever time frame you use, and whether you use yearly average or actual peaks/bottoms, the fact is that the metals move together almost all the time. If gold is up 2%, silver is probably up somewhere around 4%, and if gold is down 3%, then silver is probably down about 6%.
I just explained in my previous posts. Peak and bottom prices say nothing about the demand over a period. I used the 1980 silver case as 1 example, where the average price was lower than the NOT peak year 1979, meaning that the demand in 1979 was a bigger total than in 1980. And as second reason, also explained along the room temperature controller - it doesnt make sense for market 'makers' / price controllers to control based on peak / bottom prices, what they care is a total amount over a period, and that is reflected by averages price over a period. You keep on focussing on selected details, and keep on ignoring the bigger picture. I did the opposite: I took year averages over a multidecade term. That is the bigger picture, that is the end result of ALL your details and focuses together.
And about that Kitcomm historical prices (back in the eighties) apparently revised, as I coincidently discovered by comparing data I overtyped a few weeks ago, with now, I didn't forget, it's aside this topic, but certainly worth some attention, don't you think? Why on earth do they change average prices from decades ago? And as said, not all, for ex the sample 10 years 1980-1989 showed 8 having been revised, 2 not. I saw the similar happening on the Silver Institutes demand supply but not that long back, and that had some explanation behind it, being that they receive sometimes data from years back. But this is about average prices (and thus prices) like 30 years ago, can't even think about a motivation, it's just impossible that they detect 30 years later that spot prices in 1985 or so were wrong. I think I'm gonna revise my data updating, until now I copied the new numbers over the old, I will stop doing that, as to allow me to find out later an accumulated total revisions, as to get an idea about the magnitude of the revisions.
Whatever you discover about the historical data being changed, its probably worth starting a new thread about it. Its not obvious from the thread title that its being talked about in here, so people won't come into this thread looking for it.
"It"refers to what? Explanation for what? This topic was created after reading again the statement "silver tracks gold", but figures show the opposite. A price that follows another price should have its highs last. The annual averages clearly (it's not hard to see) show the opposite. About a topic for historical prices being changed, if this thread is considered not interesting, then I don't think it will be different. And who says people don't have interest, if I read a question, and I don't know an / the answer, then I have nothing to say haha. So the absence of replies probably just has this as reason. Apparently the current thread visitors don't know too, that's pretty much an answer too. It would have been easier for me, now I'll have to go after the explanation myself. Thanks guys for the help!
Nobody replies to your postss because your a self absorbed argumentative clown who refuses to acknowledge anyone elses opinions as having any validity. Your posting is dull, repetetive and tedious and less interesting than watching paint dry.
