fishtaco said:
If the latter was true then the amount ounces hedged on the futures market would have stayed while the price increased. It didn't.Theantifunie said:
Pirocco said:If the latter was true then the amount ounces hedged on the futures market would have stayed while the price increased. It didn't.Theantifunie said:
Since futures positions almost always end in fiat instead of metal ownership transfer, and without others buying more silver, the share they represent in the spot price is bound to vanish again.
To give an example of what those others do, this is the biggest silver ETF that links to the price not through futures but along actual purchases/sales of the commodity:
date, ounces stock, LBMA silver fix that day:
2014/09/30 350,086,379.20 $17.11 <- a peak stock
2014/10/02 349,934,915.40 $17.09
2014/10/09 347,633,848.20 $17.64
2014/10/10 345,716,364.20 $17.26
2014/10/13 344,565,893.00 $17.41
2014/10/17 343,415,513.00 $17.36
2014/10/31 344,373,965.00 $16.20
2014/11/10 344,888,300.20 $15.67
2014/11/14 346,900,654.60 $15.35
2014/11/21 349,296,169.60 $16.3
2014/11/25 347,954,751.20 $16.66
2014/12/01 350,158,280.00 $15.73
2014/12/02 347,427,315.10 $16.16
2014/12/04 345,223,919.70 $16.42
2014/12/11 342,350,201.70 $16.98
2014/12/12 341,009,164.10 $17.07
2014/12/17 338,997,763.10 $15.95
2014/12/19 338,135,759.30 $15.86
2014/12/23 332,293,606.30 $15.71
2014/12/24 330,569,731.90 $15.77
2014/12/26 330,138,768.70 $15.77
2014/12/30 329,564,166.70 $15.79
2015/01/07 328,457,815.00 $16.33
2015/01/09 327,979,086.00 $16.24
2015/01/15 325,011,041.00 $17.12
2015/01/23 319,314,728.30 $18.23 <- a bottom stock
During 2009 and 2010, the opposite happened. They bought during the price uptrend. Now they sell.
We know what two effects do when they work in the same direction: they add up to a double effect in that direction.
So my opinion, based on this data, for what it's worth, is that we will see a lower spot price revisited and maybe (again) lower.
If I calculate it, it would be low $13's.
About key events, a recent key event is the EU central banks decision to create over a trillion euro's to buy governments bonds.
It is widely announced as money printing in the media and all over the bullion dealer sites (haha).
But this is reality:
http://www.ecb.europa.eu/mopo/implement/omo/html/key.html
These are the previous such operations:
20120034 LTRO EUR 01/03/2012 26/02/2015 1092 529.53081 bn Ann. All.
20110149 LTRO EUR 22/12/2011 29/01/2015 1134 489.19075 bn Ann. All.
Note when the loan terms end. Over a few days, and end next month.
The total is about the same as the now announced total.
So what do we have then?
Two loan rounds get paid back over a few days and end februari.
Two new loan rounds replace them.
This doesn't add more euro's in the system.
It just replaces existing, nearly exactly the same as prolonging existing loans terms.
But it's "sold" as money creation, to make speculators make bad decisions that make them wasting their bank savings on temporary bloated prices, the very goal of the central banks to begin with. The only problem they have to increase intrest rates (their normal control method) is that people (excluding their parasites ofc) have too much savings, the more, the bigger the annual intrest payment, and people tend to not like seeing their bank savings partly erased just like that (as in Cyprus) so the general price inflation scaremongering just serves to make them waste the required part of it, and their crisis will last until that happens. So the wiser speculators become, the longer their crisis will last.
The thing is, looking at past data is looking at what has been done in the past. It's not a 'maybe' and not a prediction. It's just how it was, and the positions on the futures part of the market , for the duration of their existence, just hide what happened. When they're dumped, reality kicks, once again, in the cash/spot price.fishtaco said:
Pirocco said:The thing is, looking at past data is looking at what has been done in the past. It's not a 'maybe' and not a prediction. It's just how it was, and the positions on the futures part of the market , for the duration of their existence, just hide what happened. When they're dumped, reality kicks, once again, in the cash/spot price.fishtaco said:
In order to see your prediction coming true, we should see the opposite (buying) in the data. ETF stocks should increase with the price. They drop. Rings a bell!
Silver ETF's already lost their importance a couple years ago, since 2011.phrenzy said:Pirocco said:The thing is, looking at past data is looking at what has been done in the past. It's not a 'maybe' and not a prediction. It's just how it was, and the positions on the futures part of the market , for the duration of their existence, just hide what happened. When they're dumped, reality kicks, once again, in the cash/spot price.fishtaco said:
In order to see your prediction coming true, we should see the opposite (buying) in the data. ETF stocks should increase with the price. They drop. Rings a bell!
Its also possible that the the US traded ETFs are losing their importance. New exchanges and physical buying overseas might be reducing their role. The numbers appear to bare this out even if they don't tell us why it's happening. We're 28Moz below where we were 8 weeks ago ETF wise and $1.20odd up according to your figures. We know the intuitions are putting up huge short positions but to no avail. If things keep going though they are going to have to exit their shorts, makes you think things are either going to keep going up in a similar rapid fashion or retreat as fast but not much room for sideways action.
It could go either way!Theantifunie said:
Pirocco said:Silver ETF's already lost their importance a couple years ago, since 2011.phrenzy said:Pirocco said:The thing is, looking at past data is looking at what has been done in the past. It's not a 'maybe' and not a prediction. It's just how it was, and the positions on the futures part of the market , for the duration of their existence, just hide what happened. When they're dumped, reality kicks, once again, in the cash/spot price.
In order to see your prediction coming true, we should see the opposite (buying) in the data. ETF stocks should increase with the price. They drop. Rings a bell!
Its also possible that the the US traded ETFs are losing their importance. New exchanges and physical buying overseas might be reducing their role. The numbers appear to bare this out even if they don't tell us why it's happening. We're 28Moz below where we were 8 weeks ago ETF wise and $1.20odd up according to your figures. We know the intuitions are putting up huge short positions but to no avail. If things keep going though they are going to have to exit their shorts, makes you think things are either going to keep going up in a similar rapid fashion or retreat as fast but not much room for sideways action.
Remember?
They ceased to add, and the volatile part of their silver is for the biggest one, an IShares, about 30 Moz, which is a mere 10% of their 320-350 Moz total.
Gold ETF's (SPDR, IShares Gold) on the other hand, had over 50% of their stock sold.
BUT, there is still over 300 Moz, 10000 tonnes silver, in IShares.
For sure, it will all be sold. No matter whether it's next year in one time, or over the next decade in 10 times.
So, that's a serious future price hammer to take into account.
All physical silver ETFs combined, hold about 500 Moz.
That's 50% of supply/demand.
If worlds production of silver would dead stop right now, they can deliver all current demand for the next 6 months so keeping the price where it was.
If worlds production of silver would halve (so drop to 500 Moz) right now, that period becomes 1 year.
If it would drop just 10% to 900 Moz (a much more plausible scenario than aboves margin cases), ETF stocks can compensate for 5 years and keep the price where it was that long.
All stockpiling implies destockpiling.
Is true for small fish stackers upto big fish funds like ETF's.
ETF's only came into existence less than a decade ago. IShares Silver Trusts case was april 2006.
A couple years after the price increase from $5 started.
They helped to drive the average price to $35.
We've seen $15 since, and it didn't even need them to start selling (in any higher degree).
Importance of a fund, of kind of funds, also includes potential.
500 Moz, a half supply/demand, is not exactly peanuts. It's over a decade of record high ASE sales years.
And the latter, is yet another form of stockpiling. Record high ASE sales to customers doesn't exactly sound like big ASE sales back from customers, no?
The IShares silver stock dropped 30 Moz while the price increased instead.
As the futures market total net position trend shows: they were, once again (since 2011), the capital price driver. They overruled IShares selling.
But those futures market positions are after dollars not the underlying product, it's bogus silver demand, it's just causing an extra price increase that, when speculators/stackers buy at those higher prices, delivers the dollars to pay the hedgers their compensation for their cash market positions.
So their price part is bound to go.
So, once that occurred (they dumped their positions / exposure), the spot price will tumble back to what it was.
Unless extra demand pops up. Do you see extra demand somewhere? I checked, and for sure, if it's there, it hide well!
