Compared to silver, gold is significantly over-valued

L

leon1998

Member
gold-to-silver price ration is teetering around 70;

although silver's worldwide annual production is only about 15 times of gold's.




Russians, Chinese and Indians have been buying gold; and this will not end well. :rolleyes:
 
I thought you were going to ruin everyone's spirit with a detailed financial-scientific analysis work shared here.

Phew... it's just a humble personal opinion.

I stick to 'silver is undervalued'.
 
Silver is indeed undervalued; many silver miners have been relying on gold by-product to stay alive.

That's why I chose to short gold whenever it pops radically. Gold is the enemy of central bankers; not silver though :P
 
History showed that whenever Chinese were on any buying spree; that thing would crash into pieces.

Think about it. :P
 
Leon I thought and I thought and I thought and ...... What was the question again ? Oh yes silver is undervalued and gold is overvalued and what must we do about it ???? .... Oh yes SELL ???? Get rid of it ! Get rid of what ??? Oh yes it's clear now ........
Get rid of Leon's stupid comments .... That is it :D
 
58936209.jpg
 
The central planners will always support gold in favor of silver, to draw people from silver to gold, because they have the gold stocks to control the price anytime, and they can drive the price of gold to whatever without hurting much 3rd parties (the industrial usages of silver). They don't want to hurt the industrials or those that buy those products. So that over-valued may be as true as a duck quaks, it's how it is, and saying that gold is overvalued won't change that.
My reason to chose silver above gold has nothing to do with temporary over or undervaluations, but because I find it a 'no' to try to evade the central planned theft along the fiat market, by entering another market (gold) they control aswell.
 
leon1998 said:
Silver is indeed undervalued; many silver miners have been relying on gold by-product to stay alive.
Click to expand...
Out of interest, any sources for that last? If you say "silver mine" then I assume a so-called "primary silver mine", so if a part of their ore is gold, and it's needed to "stay alive", then that would deliver an interesting figure: the % of gold in the ore that makes that difference.
Also, primary silver mining accounts for like 20% of total supply, with the latter thus including recycling and disinvestment. So, that primary silver mining represents a quite minor part of the price trend, so drawing any price conclusions from it is ignoring the other 80%.
 
Silver is mostly bought to flip later for a profit. Gold is mostly bought to keep as reserves by China, India, Russia or by Central banks to strengthen their currency zone or by the rich to hold as inter-generational wealth. This difference makes the mining ratio irrelevant, we are heading to 150:1 ratio. If gold stays at $1500 silver will fall to $10, If silver stays at $20 gold will head to $3000. You may be able to flip silver on a temporary spike to $35 but gold is likely to be stable at $3500 before that even happens.
 
yeah I agree with that, I was thinking 100:1 for a while but now i'm thinking 150:1 is not far away and it'll happen in one big hit.
that might not mean silver will go down but silver will stop following gold just like the other industrial metals do, gold can go up or down and copper will sit there and not budge, same with silver in the future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top