It seems to me that someone is pushing the price of silver up every time it reaches 19.50 or so. I guess there is a way to do it AND make money in the process by bidding for a price increase in the futures market, and buy a lot of physical metal, at the same time, when the price reaches 19.50 or so. Is that so? How much money does it cost to do it, and how much money does one make? I guess since there is a relatively small amount of silver around, the amount of money needed is "finite"? Still, it should be possible for regulators to spot it, right? Or maybe they are looking somewhere else? Also, who is doing so? The usual suspects would be Goldman Sachs, institutional investors, and funds? What do you think?
Oh you mean the CFTC - Commodity Futures Trading Commission Run by ummmm.... Gary Sensler for the past 5 years.... http://www.cftc.gov/About/Commissioners/FormerCommissioners/ggensler Yep I'm sure Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan could not possibly be involved in any sort of manipulation or they surely would have gotten caught by now
Average price 1997-2003 was $4.92 Stockpiling rate 1997-2003 was 98.843 Moz per year. Price over this period can be called stable, so stockpiling rate must have mathed consumption rate. Average price 2004-2012 was $17.23 Stockpiling rate 2004-2012 was 288.855 Moz per year Price rose from $5 to $31 So on average, 9 years long, 190 Moz was annually added to the stockpile, totaling to 1710 Moz, which increased the price with 25 price dollars. So one needs to buy 68.4 Moz to move the price a dollar up. An alternate way is the Comex position, preferably in a fast price uptrend: 25/02/2014 38985 $21.81 04/02/2014 14852 $19.525 = 24133 positions corresponds 2.285 price dollars. That's 10561.5 positions per price dollar. 10561.5 x 5000 = 52.807 Moz to move the price a dollar up. So if you want a rude figure as the average of above 2 samples, it needs about 60 Moz to move a dollar. Using this figure, the $32 > $50 price move of 2011 must have been near exactly a whole annual world production bought in 2.5 months. Then again sold in a couple days. Rather funny eh? Remember how forums were flooded with positivity and $100 and $1000? One may have thought lol there is nobody that thinks of selling. But apparently, the opposite must have been true. They all sat on the edge of their chair with their finger hovering above the SELL button. Deciding 'bout 30000 tonnes silver.
Well said.... It is because talks like this, Big Brother doesn't want that to happen. If it happens which I think it will inevitably happen. It will be sudden. Or else why bother stacking?
Or maybe we all got on the wrong boat and now it's sinking.. Somehow something like, graphine will replace silver in the next few years.. and silver will loose a lot of industrial uses. Nah.. stuff that. $1000 Silver and were rich like pirates!!
Now? It started to sink on 1 may 2011. And the closer it comes to the bottom of the sea, the better it is to jump on! Because just like in my 2011 hurah train leaving the station, the inverted is also true, when everybody sits with a sad smiley, it's about the best moment to buy more. If you can. i.e. if you didn't listen to Silverdoctors / Zerohedge etc, and didn't shoot it into their pockets.
Is anybody actually listening to zerohedge? I think they ALWAYS get it wrong, because they only publish either plain lies or gross exaggerations.
If I visit the dozen dealers in my country and a neighbor one, their blogs and info pages are cluttered with (references to) silverdoctors/zerohedge articles. Makes it pretty clear doesn't it? It's obvious that they try to hype precious metals. I have no problem with a business advertising its product. That's just normal and I'm happy to know about alternatives/choices. But this is different, they construct bogus stories to mislead people, and that makes your 'they're always wrong' statement not even relevant. Somebody that is wrong, still says what he think, and does himself, so the being wrong also inflicts that somebody the corresponding nasty consequences. But that zerohedge/silverdoctors/etc club, isn't 'wrong' as such. They trick others into errors on purpose, and themselves they do not do what they suggest others. And it works, just look at the amount posts on forums, by oldies as well as newbies, that believe what they read there, because it's well packaged in a 'professional' appearing sphere, with enough complex terminology to make readers think that they are 'insiders' that share their good knowledge with the good people out there. But put this next to the ever returning false stories, alike comparing a mined silver production amount with a daily trading volume (if me and you sell a single kilocoin 10 times to eachother on a day, then we generated a trading volume of 10 kilo with just 1 kilocoin needed for it), as to suggest silver shortages, and you quickly realize that something is seriously wrong with their 'good knowledge', serious enough to render out even stupidity, to leave only misleading.
It is simply market dynamics. While the perception is often 'smackups', there was no such thing not so long ago. :|
Tongue in cheek, or seriously? So tell me, in your playbook, doesn't "market dynamics" include player manipulation, often referred to as 'smackups'? That is, intentional buying, selling, and related activities, to influence market prices. I mean, surely 'market dynamics' includes more than - mother nature, and activities independent of attempts to influence market prices. Aren't some silver transactions done with 'ulterior motives'? Weren't the Hunt Brothers part of market dynamics?
Don't say 'thievery on a marketplace'. Say 'market dynamics'. Political correctness on the market of the shinies!
From what I can piece together - just a hunch - it seems to me the 'real cost to produce' - is around $19.50 U.S. All those mines producing silver as a by-product (or not), decide at some point to stock pile, instead of releasing to buyers. Make more money in the end by holding for awhile. Nothing nefarious, just good business practice. JMO
Makes me remember those IMF words in its beginning days (when the US government was abit wary 'bout it). They would let the gold market 'free', but with the 'system' having a huge stockpile to start with, and with the 'system' making sure that gold trading would stay mainly in the 'public' (read: system) sphere, and do all they can to avoid too much of it going to people on markets. And that's what they did since. Drive the price down when people on markets want to sell, and drive the price up when people on markets want to buy. Much similar to the ever-returning so-called 'Snake in the Tunnel' multicurrency control method, as to shape the whole of the currency market in such a way that intra competition is limited by defining min and max levels, and interfere everytime one seems to go 'out the tunnel'. One may wonder who sits behind those 'Swap Dealers'. And what is traded on those so-called Dark Pool markets. A while ago I collected all data I could find about it, and to my surprise, the whole of it appeared as very experienced / specialized in a high degree, as indicated by maturity of related software. Yet, few to nobody knows about them. I never came across any reference in any 'common' newspaper / tvnews, they all act like they don't exist, and their 'financial news' is like all there is out there. Yet, if you look at the amounts liquidity moved there, as occasionally mentioned, the 'visible' market is like a dwarf next to it. Then look at the names of the involved entities. The same names that popped up as key ones in the crisis. The same names that are present in the list of we-all-bail-out-eachother, with that bailing out masked even as penalties. Still, we, have still something to say there. Whether we buy or not buy at the price they try to inflict us.
Yes, I think that is called 'producer hedging', yet there are different exact explanations of it out there, that seem to 'fight' eachother. But it doesn't appear to be in a degree that matters alot, and there is alot + and - so it happens on a relatively short term. Producer Hedging (positive means it's [SUPPLY], negative means it's [DEMAND]) 1997 68.1 1998 6.5 1999 -16 2000 27.4 2001 -18.9 2002 24.8 2003 -21.0 TOTAL1997-2003 70.9 RATE 10.129/YEAR 2004 -2.0 2005 45.9 2006 -11.6 2007 -24.1 2008 -8.7 2009 -17.4 2010 50.4 2011 12.2 2012 -41.5 Yet, things may have been different in earlier years (where I lack data for). For ex, I found this about gold http://www.x24kgold.com/2011/05/producer-hedging.html (caution: possible vested interest site): Producer hedging (positive means it's [SUPPLY], negative means it's [DEMAND]) All data I have (most from World Gold Council source), didn't search very well yet: (tonnes) 1995 475 http://www.x24kgold.com/2011/05/producer-hedging.html 1996 ? 1997 504 1998 97 1999 506 2000 -15 2001 -151 2002 -412 2003 -289 2004 -438 2005 -92 2006 -410 2007 -447 2008 -346 2009 -252 2010 -116 This makes clear that there was alot producer hedging in the nineties. To give some context to estimate above figures: Mine production 1997 2527 1998 2574 1999 2602 2000 2618 2001 2645 2002 2618 2003 2621 2004 2493 2005 2548 2006 2486 2007 2476 2008 2409 2009 2584 2010 2659 2011 2839 2012 2864.1 2013 3018.6 Net Government Sales (positive means it's [SUPPLY], negative means it's [DEMAND]) 1997 326 1998 363 1999 477 2000 479 2001 520 2002 547 2003 620 2004 479 2005 663 2006 370 2007 484 2008 236 2009 30 2010 77 2011 -455 2012 -544.1 2013 -368.6 Recycling 1997 631 1998 1108 1999 620 2000 619 2001 749 2002 872 2003 985 2004 878 2005 897 2006 1126 2007 956 2008 1217 2009 1672 2010 1653 2011 1611.9 2012 1590.8 2013 1371.4 For ex, the 504 tonnes producer hedging (supply) in 1997 was then 20% of a worlds total annual traded. Since 2000, they are dehedging.
