2013 ASE sales.
- Thread starter Silverthorn
- Start date
Pirocco said:
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
Pirocco
Well-Known Member
On 9 april, the price was $28. For every ASE monsterbox shipping out then, the receiver gets 136 ASE's more today.leo25 said:Pirocco said:
Maybe if you had better reading comprehension you would have understood that i did acknowledge the article was in past tense. As i wroteStill 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
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.
Silverthorn
Well-Known Member
Sounds like blank supply is the sticking point.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/05/gold-mint-coin-idUSL1N0EH1JR20130605
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/05/gold-mint-coin-idUSL1N0EH1JR20130605
Pirocco
Well-Known Member
What is also interesting in that article is this:
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.
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.
mike titanic
New Member
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.
Pirocco
Well-Known Member
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?
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?
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.
One would think if silver were so great of an investment at this time that sales should increase each time it goes down.
worldbubble
Active Member
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 went down, total sales went up
How to you know how many people bought silver before?
worldbubble said:
here is a chart i did that shows it better.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17998991/silver_year.jpg
Dirty White Boy
New Member
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.BamaGuy said:
Dirty White Boy said:
Have a re-read of the forum rules please.
Pirocco
Well-Known Member
A good illustration of this is a weight comparison with other market sides.BamaGuy said:
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.
TreasureHunter
Well-Known Member
They sold less and less silver since the mid-April gold crash. Less in May, June, July.
Pirocco
Well-Known Member
Yes.BamaGuy said:
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.