$13 silver might be possible
- Thread starter leon1998
- Start date
TreasureHunter
Well-Known Member
Sounds horror, but by the end of the year, it's possible.
Pirocco
Well-Known Member
It's not horror, if you're able to identify the chance as such, keep the fiat throughout the dealers stock replenishment>hedging cycle, to then swap it at the better (read: lower) price for silver.TreasureHunter said:
What I'm wondering is what the physically backed silver ETF shareholders will do. Their shares have a 600 Moz sized silver stock link to the cash/spot silver market.
Their gold equivalents sold big time in 2013, and also in 2014. They didn't wait a decade to sell half, it took just the couple years after the 2012 peak year. Can't see why it would last a decade or so for the silver ETFs. I see 2 triggers for a next euro>silver swap (at least if I didn't need in meantime the euro's for something else): waning ETF stocks, stronger euro.
The futures market is just a rollercoaster superimposed on this underlying trend, albeit substantial, a typical futures market cycle has a price impact of 200 Moz. 3 price dollars. The lower the silver price, the more important it becomes.
sterling-nz
Well-Known Member
And you remain here to remind us all that those people are actually out there.Pirocco said:
I personally like your contributions to the site and have no doubt you will have an opportunity to PROFIT on those purchases.
It just may take a number of years .....
Pirocco
Well-Known Member
People learn from errors, especially if they cost them the ability to get back the value they produced for a paper or any monetary promise. That last is what matters. That "number of years" tends to be in terms of figures printed/stamped on the monetary promises. Errors made on the decades term, almost never get corrected in real terms.
Second, I don't see profit as a goal, if I'd made jewelry or so from silver, I'd want a profit for that job, but the dead metal I will sell is the same dead metal I bought. I just see that mentioned ability to buy back the produced value as goal. I made wrong decisions based on part of, not whole, stories, and I deserve the punishment to eat the resulting loss. I didn't became and will never become an "offloader" at higher price in a cycle to some other stacker. I'd prefer to inflict that to those that inflicted me a selected story part, but these tend to be smarter than doing that and too privileged to allow it. Too big too fail etc.
Instead, I publish here and there and now and then things I discover, pieces of information found here and there, and their place in the whole that drives the price (and the error). The cooperating central planning thieves and the parasiting gangs behind them need misleaded people, and the logical countermeasure is cooperating against them.
It's easy to improve when having started from scratch. "Scratch" is easily detected: just read the questions by many (newbies?). They visited zero hedgers and doctors and etcetera, alikt that "latest shift by the FOMC". That FOMC, and all their equivalents in the world, want their readers to make decisions that cost them their fiatsavings, because it's those high fiatsavings that is their capital reason for crisis generation. The reason for the ZIRP. We have had a couple decades of fiatsavings accumulation, decades during which those savings were spent by lazy butt kind lenders, with a gradually pushed down intrest rate to erase their debt in real terms. The goal of the FOMCs in the world is now to get rid of the fiatsavings of those whoms production they bought from. Direct measurement (overnight bank savings halving, confiscation, etc, would clearly identify them as thieves. Instead, they decided to achieve the same in a smarter way: a series of orchestrations that is ment to mislead the fiatsavers enough to make them waste the required part of their fiatsavings in a equal number of price cycles.
Making the fiatsavers aware of the strategy, is what I see as my counteraction and my error correction. Others would name it "revenge", but that word is way too "heavy-loaded" for what it is. If a king steals from farmers and the farmers cooperate to make that abit harder, then that's not revenge, that's just what people do all the time: live, and work, together. Including the work against thieves.
Second, I don't see profit as a goal, if I'd made jewelry or so from silver, I'd want a profit for that job, but the dead metal I will sell is the same dead metal I bought. I just see that mentioned ability to buy back the produced value as goal. I made wrong decisions based on part of, not whole, stories, and I deserve the punishment to eat the resulting loss. I didn't became and will never become an "offloader" at higher price in a cycle to some other stacker. I'd prefer to inflict that to those that inflicted me a selected story part, but these tend to be smarter than doing that and too privileged to allow it. Too big too fail etc.
Instead, I publish here and there and now and then things I discover, pieces of information found here and there, and their place in the whole that drives the price (and the error). The cooperating central planning thieves and the parasiting gangs behind them need misleaded people, and the logical countermeasure is cooperating against them.
It's easy to improve when having started from scratch. "Scratch" is easily detected: just read the questions by many (newbies?). They visited zero hedgers and doctors and etcetera, alikt that "latest shift by the FOMC". That FOMC, and all their equivalents in the world, want their readers to make decisions that cost them their fiatsavings, because it's those high fiatsavings that is their capital reason for crisis generation. The reason for the ZIRP. We have had a couple decades of fiatsavings accumulation, decades during which those savings were spent by lazy butt kind lenders, with a gradually pushed down intrest rate to erase their debt in real terms. The goal of the FOMCs in the world is now to get rid of the fiatsavings of those whoms production they bought from. Direct measurement (overnight bank savings halving, confiscation, etc, would clearly identify them as thieves. Instead, they decided to achieve the same in a smarter way: a series of orchestrations that is ment to mislead the fiatsavers enough to make them waste the required part of their fiatsavings in a equal number of price cycles.
Making the fiatsavers aware of the strategy, is what I see as my counteraction and my error correction. Others would name it "revenge", but that word is way too "heavy-loaded" for what it is. If a king steals from farmers and the farmers cooperate to make that abit harder, then that's not revenge, that's just what people do all the time: live, and work, together. Including the work against thieves.
Pirocco said:People learn from errors, especially if they cost them the ability to get back the value they produced for a paper or any monetary promise. That last is what matters. That "number of years" tends to be in terms of figures printed/stamped on the monetary promises. Errors made on the decades term, almost never get corrected in real terms.
Second, I don't see profit as a goal, if I'd made jewelry or so from silver, I'd want a profit for that job, but the dead metal I will sell is the same dead metal I bought. I just see that mentioned ability to buy back the produced value as goal. I made wrong decisions based on part of, not whole, stories, and I deserve the punishment to eat the resulting loss. I didn't became and will never become an "offloader" at higher price in a cycle to some other stacker. I'd prefer to inflict that to those that inflicted me a selected story part, but these tend to be smarter than doing that and too privileged to allow it. Too big too fail etc.
Instead, I publish here and there and now and then things I discover, pieces of information found here and there, and their place in the whole that drives the price (and the error). The cooperating central planning thieves and the parasiting gangs behind them need misleaded people, and the logical countermeasure is cooperating against them.
It's easy to improve when having started from scratch. "Scratch" is easily detected: just read the questions by many (newbies?). They visited zero hedgers and doctors and etcetera, alikt that "latest shift by the FOMC". That FOMC, and all their equivalents in the world, want their readers to make decisions that cost them their fiatsavings, because it's those high fiatsavings that is their capital reason for crisis generation. The reason for the ZIRP. We have had a couple decades of fiatsavings accumulation, decades during which those savings were spent by lazy butt kind lenders, with a gradually pushed down intrest rate to erase their debt in real terms. The goal of the FOMCs in the world is now to get rid of the fiatsavings of those whoms production they bought from. Direct measurement (overnight bank savings halving, confiscation, etc, would clearly identify them as thieves. Instead, they decided to achieve the same in a smarter way: a series of orchestrations that is ment to mislead the fiatsavers enough to make them waste the required part of their fiatsavings in a equal number of price cycles.
Making the fiatsavers aware of the strategy, is what I see as my counteraction and my error correction. Others would name it "revenge", but that word is way too "heavy-loaded" for what it is. If a king steals from farmers and the farmers cooperate to make that abit harder, then that's not revenge, that's just what people do all the time: live, and work, together. Including the work against thieves.
That's pretty deep bro... I'm just in it to make or keep my hard earned working hours value. I haven't read much of zero hedgers. You know when the market dumps 1.3 trillion dollars, it doesn't disappear, some ahole cashed out and locked in profits before anyone else could. My thought is, some mofo's are raping the system at the expense of pensions, 401k's, and regular vested folks. Since wealth is only transferred, some mofo's are getting extremely rich and sitting on cash, or as some of you would call Fiat money. They have a lot of leverage to move whatever markets they want. At this point, the big fish are controlling the game.
Pirocco
Well-Known Member
We're now another 2.5 months later.Pirocco said:
Update on the bold.
(date) (total net position on the Comex for silver) (London Fix that day) (price associated to a 10000 position bottom)
03/11/2015 67141 $15.38 > $11.30
27/10/2015 69373 $15.80 > $11.56
20/10/2015 66800 $15.86 > $11.80
13/10/2015 58626 $15.61 > $12.14
06/10/2015 49502 $15.67 > $12.85
29/09/2015 30106 $14.56 > $13.12
22/09/2015 31314 $14.94 > $13.42
15/09/2015 22255 $14.35 > $13.475
08/09/2015 25560 $14.63 > $13.52
01/09/2015 24566 $14.68 > $13.64
25/08/2015 23970 $14.87 > $13.87
That $13.6 mean ceased holding.
During october 2015, it dropped to $11.30 now.
The forward / future component in the spot price now sits on the level of decade-high.
Without their long/short positions / contracts that nearly never get delivered in metal - nearly always in dollars, the silver price would now be $10.58.
What does make them dumping positions: more sales back from speculators - then they quickly dump their futures positions as to inflict the speculators less dollars.
What does make them taking positions: more purchases from speculators - then they quickly take futures positions as to inflict the speculators less ounces.
If speculative demand stays what it is, then they just can hold their futures contracts and thus keep the price on the corresponding higher level and for a same amount ounces reap more dollars from speculators. This is what they could during the bull market period (see surface between green trendline and X axis). Changed in 2011, where that series of major fluctuations started.
For the rest, it just depends on all of us speculators. For ex, I didn't buy a single ounce so far this year. I'm part of the reason for the drop of the price. Apparently I'm not alone haha. What I do notice is that alot dealers now offer buy back on their sites. In 2011-2012 nearly none did. One did, but not guaranteed (ie he left himself the option to refuse, which pretty comes down to the same as not buying back since speculators prefer to sell higher).
This is the long term evolution of the futures market - hedge:
http://finviz.com/futures_charts.ashx?t=SI&p=m1
(green, or sum of blue+red, trendlines there below the price chart)
About a couple major silver stockpiles:
- IShares Silver Trust: 2015/11/04 313,681,057.20 (314 Moz)
- Comex depositories: 2015/11/05 161.812.610.040 (162 Moz)
I don't know if there is an overlap (ie Comex depository figure holding (part of) IShares Silver Trust stock). Historical data indicates a "no" answer.
To place these figures in a context:
- IShares has hung around 314 Moz in 2012. And 305 Moz in january 2010 (yes, 5 years ago). The peak was in april 2011 at 366 Moz. But has been 350 Moz on 1 december 2014 (less than 1 year ago)
- Comex depositories held 112 Moz on 15 december 2011. Quickly jumped to the 140 Moz level, lasted entire 2012. Then 160 Moz in 2013. Still hangs there, now in 2015.
For informative purposes.
Pirocco
Well-Known Member
An obvious explanation for that behaviour is that they "make" money from selling silver regardless price. Ie, the price difference matters, not the absolute (relative to zero) price.SilverPete said:
In order to judge an eventual Comex depository correlation with the price trend, I'd need decades data for it, and I don't have, just started monitoring it end 2011.
What I do have is the general Thomson Reuters data:
Inventory Build (ETF + Exchange) (positive = DEMAND, negative = SUPPLY) DERIVED
2004 -20.3
2005 15.9
2006 148.8
2007 76.3
2008 94.2
2009 138.5
2010 125.2
2011 -11.8
2012 117.3
2013 10.4
2014 -7.5
These figures are the Moz "build" = added that year. So negative = removed.
This is the ETF side of the story (of which IShares is part):
ETF Inventory Build (positive = DEMAND, negative = SUPPLY)
2004 0.0 $6.6711
2005 0.0 $7.3164
2006 157.8 > 126.8 $11.5452
2007 54.8 $13.3836
2008 101.3 $14.9891
2009 153.8 > 156.9 $14.6733
2010 132.6 > 129.5 $20.1928
2011 -24.0 $35.1192
2012 55.1 $31.1497
TOTAL2004-2012 631.4 RATE 70.156/YEAR
2013 1.6 $20.0858
2014 1.4
(other data is just my comments, price, calculations, > = old figure revision in later year...)
Thomson Reuters didn't give these figures before 2014 (or Silver Institute decided to not pass them to us), they were "inside" something named "implied net investment".
One may wonder why they hided it inside a class that included error (lack of - incomplete data, as indicated by inequal supply / demand totals). They do publish that older years data now, so they DID know it. Thomson Reuters, or whoever that decided to not pass the data to the market investigation company, rather preferred speculators to NOT know haha.
sterling-nz
Well-Known Member
I appreciate Pirocco going to the trouble of a detailed answer , but the simple answer is Harvey Organ is a nutjob that tries to get attention with nonsensical predictions of which NONE have ever come to fruition.SilverPete said:
Pirocco
Well-Known Member
As indicated by a number of articles, Harvey Organ knows alot data about the silver market, enough to make one wonder how he comes to the public claims he makes.sterling-nz said:
There is another explanation than "nutjob" "attention whore" and "nonsensical": misleading to find suckers enough willing to pay the temporary higher price levels. What he thinks himself, versus what he wants others to think. My "detailed answer" wasn't Harvey Organ - specific, it was general, he isn't alone, and the motivations behind the "why" SilverPete asked for, may well fit best with just 2 words: "vested interest". That is even shorter than your less detailed answer!
I have a vested interest as well. There will be times I sell silver. Of course. But it doesn't make me trying to mislead others. As a kind of "revenge" for my buy-high, I publish data I found, as to make misleading a tad harder. For the rest, I just eat the loss and try to do better now. Still happy sitting on a silver pile, that is intended to grow at better times. Waiting for a stronger euro / weaker dollar, and if I see reason to cease the wait, I'll do so. Todays selling to dealer price may be halve what the buy from dealer price it was (for me) in 2011, but if silver could hang around $5 for 2 decades until 2003, why wouldn't it hang in these times around $10-15 for enough time to place some orders?
Pirocco
Well-Known Member
For ex, one can get the end-2014 ETFs stock as followed:
ETF Inventory Build (derived as Inventory Build minus Exchange Inventory Build)
2004 0
2005 0
2006 132.9
2007 54.8
2008 101.3
2009 153.8
2010 132.6
2011 -11.8
2012 -24
2013 1.6
2014 1.4
Total2004-2014: 542.6
So end 2014, there was 542.6 Moz silver stored for Exchange Traded Funds like IShares Silver.
This is the story for gold, as assembled by Thomson Reuters and published by the World Gold Council:
ETFs and similar products
(year) (tonnes added) (avg price that year) (total US dollar value at avg price that year)
last figure after > is most recent updated one.
1997 0 $330.98
1998 0 $294.24
1999 0 $278.88
2000 0 $279.11
2001 0 $271.04
2002 3 $309.73 $0.030b
2003 39 $363.38 $0.456b
2004 133 $409.72 $1.752b
2005 208 $444.74 $2.974b
2006 260 $603.46 $5.044b
2007 253 $695.39 $5.656b
2008 321 $871.96 $8.999b
2009 617 $972.35 $19.288b
2010 367.7 $1224.53 $11.822b
2011 154.0 $1571.52 $4.951b
2012 279.1 $1668.98 $8.973b <- +2634.8 (=total tonnes 2002-2012)
2013 -880 > -916.0 $1411.23 -$41.561b > -916.3 (2015Q2)
2014 -159.1 > -183.8 $1294.64 -$5.909b > -184.2 (2015Q2)
So 1100.5 tonnes sold during 2013-2014.
As of end 2014, silver ETF's didn't even start selling yet.
But sooner or later, just like us and any speculator, they will.
And the effect on the price will depend on the willingness of others to buy it at that price.
For gold there was, in a degree: central banks came to the rescue (otherwise golds price would by now probably be $800 or so)
Central bank & other institutions
- positive figure means total net = selling
- negative figure means total net = buying
year / tonnes / average gold price that year
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 365 $603.46
2007 484 $695.39
2008 235 $871.96
2009 34 $972.35
>>> 5592 tonnes gold sold over the period 1997-2009
2010 -77 $1224.53
2011 -455 $1571.52
2012 -544.1 $1668.98
2013 -386.6(2014Q1) > -409.3(2014Q2) > -625.5 (2015Q1) $1411.23
2014 -477.2(2014Q4) > -588.0(2015Q1) > -590.5 (2015Q2) $1211.71
>>> 2290 tonnes gold bought over the period 2010-2014
So we gonna need to find ALOT nice folks - silver stackers to make the price hold.
In terms of ounces, to "assimilate" that ETF stockpile, a fat 500 Moz. That's 1 million monsterboxes folks!
ETF Inventory Build (derived as Inventory Build minus Exchange Inventory Build)
2004 0
2005 0
2006 132.9
2007 54.8
2008 101.3
2009 153.8
2010 132.6
2011 -11.8
2012 -24
2013 1.6
2014 1.4
Total2004-2014: 542.6
So end 2014, there was 542.6 Moz silver stored for Exchange Traded Funds like IShares Silver.
This is the story for gold, as assembled by Thomson Reuters and published by the World Gold Council:
ETFs and similar products
(year) (tonnes added) (avg price that year) (total US dollar value at avg price that year)
last figure after > is most recent updated one.
1997 0 $330.98
1998 0 $294.24
1999 0 $278.88
2000 0 $279.11
2001 0 $271.04
2002 3 $309.73 $0.030b
2003 39 $363.38 $0.456b
2004 133 $409.72 $1.752b
2005 208 $444.74 $2.974b
2006 260 $603.46 $5.044b
2007 253 $695.39 $5.656b
2008 321 $871.96 $8.999b
2009 617 $972.35 $19.288b
2010 367.7 $1224.53 $11.822b
2011 154.0 $1571.52 $4.951b
2012 279.1 $1668.98 $8.973b <- +2634.8 (=total tonnes 2002-2012)
2013 -880 > -916.0 $1411.23 -$41.561b > -916.3 (2015Q2)
2014 -159.1 > -183.8 $1294.64 -$5.909b > -184.2 (2015Q2)
So 1100.5 tonnes sold during 2013-2014.
As of end 2014, silver ETF's didn't even start selling yet.
But sooner or later, just like us and any speculator, they will.
And the effect on the price will depend on the willingness of others to buy it at that price.
For gold there was, in a degree: central banks came to the rescue (otherwise golds price would by now probably be $800 or so)
Central bank & other institutions
- positive figure means total net = selling
- negative figure means total net = buying
year / tonnes / average gold price that year
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 365 $603.46
2007 484 $695.39
2008 235 $871.96
2009 34 $972.35
>>> 5592 tonnes gold sold over the period 1997-2009
2010 -77 $1224.53
2011 -455 $1571.52
2012 -544.1 $1668.98
2013 -386.6(2014Q1) > -409.3(2014Q2) > -625.5 (2015Q1) $1411.23
2014 -477.2(2014Q4) > -588.0(2015Q1) > -590.5 (2015Q2) $1211.71
>>> 2290 tonnes gold bought over the period 2010-2014
So we gonna need to find ALOT nice folks - silver stackers to make the price hold.
In terms of ounces, to "assimilate" that ETF stockpile, a fat 500 Moz. That's 1 million monsterboxes folks!
sterling-nz
Well-Known Member
Experience or history.SilverDJ said:
Take your pick.
Silver will have its day (many others) in the future, but after the ramp up it will crash again JUST LIKE ALL THE OTHER TIMES.
Silver will only gain and HOLD value when it becomes rare and that is decades off.
Pirocco
Well-Known Member
There are some signs of long term bottoms.
1. This forum is visited by 4 folks
2. Most dealers that became dealer the last decade run companies like luxe cab renting, pizza tents or drive a truck.
3. Silverinstitute.org redirects to a warez site
4. The world is rosy with lotsa flowers and bees
1. This forum is visited by 4 folks
2. Most dealers that became dealer the last decade run companies like luxe cab renting, pizza tents or drive a truck.
3. Silverinstitute.org redirects to a warez site
4. The world is rosy with lotsa flowers and bees
sterling-nz
Well-Known Member
FabulousPirocco said: