Mike L

Want to Own Silver? Forget About SLV

For Ed's comment

"..The USGS says total world production and demand has been equal thanks to scrap and government sales (production). Total Net Investment for 2006-2008 only totals 141.5 Moz, a third of what is supposedly in ETF hands. If production and demand are equal, where did the other 300 Moz come from?.."

Please look at some stats that are the most complete, well referenced, industry sourced, detailed, and specific...to the extent possible anyway in a global market like silver.

I've looked at the USGS, CPM, Silver Institute, et al but this link below has the best layman's summary of the current market stats...including supply / demand / references....And it shows 100 to 200 million ounces surplus silver annually for years now. (Which has been absorbed by ETF demand....and without the SLV ETF, investment demand, ironically, silver would very likely be much much lower in price)

www.virtualmetals.co.u...

Notice production is broken out into very specific sector and region mine supply, as well as reclamation, recycling, the same.

Using photography for an example once again, you can clearly see that the misleading liars who count the approx 135 million ounces silver used in photography as part of their 'deficit silver' equation, are ignoring the approx 73% reclamation of that same silver (approx 98 million ounces), on the 'supply' side of the equation, when they tell you the Ted Butleresque lie that silver is in industrial 'supply demand deficit', or 'structural deficit.

This is similar to the infantile kind of thinking that wonders why all rivers run to the sea but the sea is 'never filled up'. One must always look at both sides and all known factors to come to any meaningful conclusions about a market as complex and global as silver.

Cherry picking HALF the relevant data on one side of the equation to make a fraudulent point...is...well...po...

Want to Own Silver? Forget About SLV

Yet another 'analyst' who lowers the credibility of seeking alpha pieces.

Over and over you say they 'supposedly' hold massive bullion 'for free'. Get a clue buffoon. They charge (percentage basis) small administrative and management fees.

As to storage, the silver is already in the LBMA type repositories you dim bulb. It doesn't get 'moved' someplace else just because it is added to SLV inventory instead of whatever holder of record relinquishes it at current spot price.

Additionally, learn something about the Ted Butleresque 'fantasy' of deficit silver. He doesn't bother to count the approx 30 to 40% of annual silver supply which comes from reclamation. If you use 200 million ounces in photography for example, and recover 100 million ounces of it, Butler counts that as 200 million ounces GONE.... and then IGNORES the 100 million ounces recovered pretending it does not then become supply!

Similar to your hero Butler's deceptions in saying there is 'less above ground silver than gold'...

Once again that lying bag counts all the gold jewelry, gold artifacts, etc etc in that 'above ground' gold inventory...but IGNORES all the several BILLION Ounces of total above ground silver jewelry, silveware, silver artifacts, etc etc. (not to mention massive unknows such as the CHina silver hoard), when he makes such lying and deceptive statements.

Try and do some research that involves actual numbers from people without an agenda. Rather than being yet ONE MORE bleating sheep following after the totally non credible liar, Ted Butler.

China, Shipping and the Great Commodity Carry Trade

Mark Anthony states that "..How to play natural gas? Buying the United States Natural Gas fund (UNG) is the best way."

I wonder of he still feels that way now that it has totally collapsed since he wrote this? Indeed, in his next blog he said UNG was at 'rock solid bottom' and all over Yahoo he was crowing about having put massive new positions into UNG, and it was now his number 2 hold. SInce then it is in freefall..massive and horrific freefall.

Anthony in dialogue with Yahoo contributors, including myself who warned him of the huge counter party risks in UNG, stated there was no substantive 'counter party risk'...even though they couldn't issue shares anymore and a huge contango was occurring! (He claimed this was GOOD for UNG, lol!)

Of course, as we see now, UNG has collapsed badly since then and with further to fall. This is consistent with so very many other plays that Anthony has touted all over the web. Lots of hype just before a horrific collapse. (EXM for example, which he claimed to 'triple up' on the very day before it collapsed in freefall..due to his mis stating eand mis-understanding their earnings statement, plus their dilutive secondary).

Follow this guy's advice at your extreme peril.

Natural Gas ETF Premium Reaches 20%: Time to Unload?

Yes , time to unload. Now..or any day over the past year, the further back the better!

The Inflation / Deflation Debate and China's Commodity Carry Trade

Wow, let's just look at anthony's final paragraph about UNG for an example of how to treat the rest of his cobbled up screed. He states UNG is at rock bottom and has no more downside risk...and since he wrote this, it has collapsed horrifically and has much further to fall! Indeed, just about everything he predicted has gone in the opposite direction, or was flat wrong...(consistent with his previos track record of course).. and he has no idea what is meant by 'counter party risk'..which he ascribes to SLV, which holds silver bullion to fully back its ETF...yet he recommends UNG which has terrible counter party risks! as has been evidenced by its price action. Just see this excerpt for example re UNG, and you will see all you need to know about 'mark anthony's' credibility.

*************
UNG

Words like 'desperate' and 'counter party risk' are not what you want to see in what you invest in..

stocks.investopedia.co......

....The fund has also, for all intents and purposes, reached its position limits set forth by the CFTC, all but deeming UNG a closed-end fund due to its inability to issue new shares. The lack of new shares has led UNG to trade at an almost unheard of premium of 11% over its NAV.

Swaps
In a desperate maneuver to create more units, UNG's managers entered into a $250 million over-the-counter swap contract in July, and recently announced that they had also entered into a $500 million natural gas total return swap. By entering into these swap contracts, UNG has added significant risk to shareholders by introducing a large amount of counterparty risk into the equation. It's a desperate move by a desperate group.

Warnings to Precious Metal ETF Investors - Buyer Beware!

Gee "Mark"..I wonder why yahoo deleted all your thousands of posts as 'tellurium-003' on yahoo finance forums today? Could it be the hundreds of spam link violations to your 'mark anthony' pseudonym, or was it the actionably false misinformation posts by the hundreds?

In any case, it is good they saw the light.

No doubt a new handle will emerge... but it too will meet a similar end.

Warnings to Precious Metal ETF Investors - Buyer Beware!

And here is what 'mark anthony' now holds and recommends as his only big ETF and his stated 'second largest holding'. UNG. Yes, UNG. Can you say 'counter party risk?" ding ding ding!
...where's the 'article' on UNG's horrific 'counter party risk' ?

What a fraud

Aug 4, 2009, 5:21 p.m. EST
Speculation curbs..

By Moming Zhou, MarketWatch

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- A possible U.S. regulatory clampdown on big energy speculators could also hit exchange-traded funds backed by commodities..

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which will hold its last of three hearings on commodities speculation Wednesday, is considering setting strict caps on the number of contracts financial investors can buy in energy futures...

These ETFs .. Faced with limits on buying these contracts, their alternative would be to privately contract an investment bank, or swaps dealer, to buy the futures for them.
Entering swaps transactions in what's known as the over-the-counter market is more expensive and possibly MORE RISKY. What's more, dealers like Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan Chase Co. ..are facing their own limits on holding futures positions as the CFTC is considering withdrawing an exemption granted to them nearly two decades ago.

Setting position limits in futures markets could "increase ETFs' expense, their tracking error, and ultimately, it makes them less transparent, makes them a worse product," said Matt Hougan, editor of the Exchange-Traded Funds Report. "Eventually they will run out of bullets in ways to provide accurate exposure to commodities."

..That possibility has set off alarm bells at U.S. Commodity Funds, the Alameda, Calif.-based fund manager that runs the $2.5 billion USO and $4.5 billion UNG.

If the CFTC sets strict rules, it "would tend to drive ordinary investors out of the market,.."

UNG .. shares have fallen more than 4% in contrast to a 3% rise in the futures contracts. That gap may result from fluctuations in the futures market known as contango and uncertainty about the ETF's future.

Are GLD and SLV Legitimate Investment Vehicles?

Regarding Mark Anthony's reply to Michael Murphy, where he accuses SLV of creating a fraudulent bullion bar list. The methodology Anthony uses for his 'analysis' is very similar to J.S. Kim. i.e., no actual research at all. No knowledge of the subject matter (bullion bar serialization protocols), no effort to contact the ETF fund manager, the custodian, the trustee, the auditor or the refiners in question, and unsubstantiated nonsense allegations galore.

Basically, just serious unsubstantiated allegations of fraud, with zero but ignorance to go by. Anthony has been corrected on his assumption errors numerous times but to reply to him once again....

1) Clueless about bar numbering and date/lot codes. The simple 'bar number' he is looking at does not include alpha charater midifiers.

2) Clueless about refiners who have been refining for decades, many bars pre current serialization methods.

3) No 'duplicate' serial numbers have matching weights, thus not 'xeroxed', or computer generated redundancies as he claims.

4) Anthony did no research with the ETF fund managers, just doing baseless unsubstantiated speculation.

5) Anthony did no research with the ETF trustee, just doing baseless unsubstantiated speculation.

6) Anthony did no research with the ETF custodian, just doing baseless unsubstantiated speculation.

7) Anthony did no research with the ETF bar listed refiners, just doing baseless unsubstantiated speculation.

8) Anthony's first charge of fraud re the bar list, on another forum a few weeks ago, was that the first listed refiner "Amax" had never refined silver bars. It took about 1 minute of web research to ascertain that Amax had indeed refined silver bars, and that Anthony was as usual, making baseless false allegations based on his inability to do any research or know anything about his subject matter.

9) If Anthony's charges were true, this would mean a massive fraud involving dozens of people. Wall Street Journal reporters would be very interested, as would the New York Times, and dozens of financial publications. Perhaps Anthony should contact some of them with his 'concerns'.

10) It is tiresome to see a world so infested with those who make fraudulent, reckless, baseless, unsubstantiated 'fraud' allegations...particul... when those making the allegations, know virtually nothing about their subject matter, and have done zero by way of genuine research. This kind of approach is a shallow, vacuous, disingenuous approach to investment commentary.

It serves no one at all other than the accuser, who has his own agenda. Which in Anthony's case, happens to involve hundreds of posts all over the web attempting to scare investors out of their holds and into his picks.
..Which is really quite ironic since his article he links to above, is all about the dangers of 'counter party risk' with SLV and questions of not holding a commodity ETF due to that risk. Yet his top recommended buy right now, what he says is his second biggest position, is UNG! An ETF that holds NONE of the underlying commodity except in paper promise derivitave form, and has enormous 'counter party risk' associated with it. UNG is being investigated by Congress and the CFTC for potential market manipulation, and may be squelched in its ability to operate freely.

Speculations, guesses, un-reseacrhed and unsubstantiated allegations of fraud...all desiged to drive someone out of an investment and into THEIR picks, does not equate to integrity or credible analysis.

Expect this post to vanish quickly, as 'seekingalfa' believes strongly in free speech for fraudulent mis-information to be posted by its 'authiors' but immediate censorship for any factual contra data or correction. They have removed my posts 6 times now all for the same response to Mark Anthony's false and libelous charges of fraud re SLV, and for my response to his grossly incorrect, unresearched, and misinformed statements regarding bullion bar serialization.

Are GLD and SLV Legitimate Investment Vehicles?

Good lord, intelligent commentary that is spot on and given by a professional in the business. What a welcome breath of fresh air!

Thank you Mr. Murphy for the needed island of sanity in a market where delusional paranoic lunatic fringe nutballism is the norm rather than the exception.

Conspiracies and shenanigans certainly occur in finance, but this does not mean every fringe lunatic unsubstantiated accusastion should be treated with the equivelance of hard evidence and fact. Particularly when the accuser demonstrates they are totally clueless on their subject matter, such as Kim does when it comes to prospectus disclaimers.


On Jul 20 04:05 PM Michael Murphy wrote:

> I have recommended both GLD and SLV to my subscribers after reading
> the prospectuses, so I read this article carefully to see what I
> may have missed.
>
> 1. As may others have pointed out, the prospectus language the author
> quotes, “Neither the Securities and Exchange Commission [SEC] nor
> any state securities commission has approved or disapproved of the
> securities offered in this prospectus, or determined if this prospectus
> is truthful or complete. Any representation to the contrary is a
> criminal offense,” is boilerplate found in virtually every prospectus.
> It has no meaning for the truthfulness of the statements in the prospectus,
> and if any of them are ever found to be untruthful, the SEC can prosecute
> and jail people.
>
> 2. Also as others have pointed out, the two banks are simply custodians
> of the metals. They cannot buy or sell them, short them or borrow
> them. They are on the hook only to be sure all the gold and silver
> bars are there are at all times. If any bars went missing, the ETF
> could sue the custodian in a heartbeat.
>
> 3. It is true that if the independent auditors are incompetent or
> in cahoots with the custodian, bars theoretically could be stolen
> and covered up. This would require a large conspiracy, and after
> the Enron debacle my experience is that accounting firms go overboard
> in the opposite direction, with numerous checks and balances. I
> also suspect SLV and GLD have theft insurance. The probability of
> a theft or missing bars is minuscule.
>
> 4. The call for the CFTC to investigate is very strange, since these
> entities are not regulated by the CFTC. They are regulated by the
> SEC.
>
> 5. The focus on the fact that these entities are not regulated by
> the Investment Company Act of 1940 is equally strange, since they
> are not mutual funds.
>
> My conclusion remains that aside from a reasonable amount of junk
> silver for use in an emergency, it is safer and very effective to
> use GLD and SLV to protect your assets, especially in a 401-K, against
> accelerating inflation. While this article required me to spend
> an hour of research re-evaluating my position, and listening to contrary
> opinions usually is very beneficial, ultimately the hour was wasted
> time because the author's points were so inaccurate or irrelevant.

Are GLD and SLV Legitimate Investment Vehicles?

I think that Kim, and the vast majority of commentators here, need to re-evaluate the nature of investment research. Making wild unsubstantiated allegations of fraud, for an ETF, SEC listed security is an extremely serious charge that requires serious evidence. Not someone's 'feeling', supposition, speculation, and WAG.

Kim makes numerous statements that are simply either;

a) Flat out false, or
b) Totally unsubstantiated, but being stated as fact, or
c) Specualtion with no research or fact to back it up

This means Kim's credibility ranks very low on the esteem-o-meter for all but the most cynical 'conspiracy' fringe nutball crowd.

There is nothing wrong with owning physical metals, I own physical silver and gold myself... but there are numerous advantages to a safe, phsyically backed, ETF.

For example No storage problem, no insurance problem, no future assay problem, no massive spread, instant liquidity, margin account tradeability, leverage, stop and limit orders, trustees, custodians, no danger of home invasion to be killed for your metal, (which happens much more frequently than people realize) etc etc

Kim, has done no actual research into these ETFs , just made wild and reckless speculations, and unsubstatiated claims of fraud based on reading their prospectus. Incredible! And he seizes on the standard disclaimers that virtually ALL prsopectus have in them as his 'evidence'.

If these GLD and SLV ETFs were a fraud, it'd be the scandal of the century. If Kim had evidence of it, he could get wealthy overnight blowing the scandal open and writing his book. Guess what? This isn't going to happen.

I will comment on a few of KIM's statements;

>>.."First, let me preface this article by stating that it contains my opinions and speculation based upon no concrete evidence.."<<

This opening statement is the most credible in the article. It is all downhill from here.

>>>.."Ever since the launch of the US gold ETF, GLD, in November, 2004 and the launch of the US silver ETF, SLV, April 2006, a debate has raged in analyst circles regarding the legitimacy of these two investment vehicles.."<<

Actually, no. Only the ultra fringe nutball newsletter crowd of 'analysts' like Ted Butler (who is paid by IRI to steer people to physical and bash the ETFs) have any reservations about these 2 ETFs. Among credible and repsected analysts there simply is no such debate.

>>.."Let’s begin with the obvious. Is it not a huge conflict of interest that JP Morgan (JPM), a bank that perpetually ranks among the largest short positions against silver on the COMEX, is the custodian for the iShares Silver Trust (SLV)?.."<<

Where is KIM's evidence for this? Link please. This is simply speculation on his part being stated as fact. Very disingenuous and misleading.

>>.. According to silver analyst Ted Butler,.."<<

This is a very generous characterization of Butler, who is paid by IRI for his 'analysis' to steer people to physical purchases at IRI.

>>.." JP Morgan is consistently among the one or two U.S. banks that hold more than 80% to 90% of the entire commercial net short position in COMEX silver futures..."<<

Where is KIM's evidence for this? Link please. This is simply speculation on his part being stated as fact. Very disingenuous and misleading, again. You claim to want integrity Mr Kim in finance but you are demonstrating none.

>.."Is it also not a conflict of interest that HSBC (HBC) bank, a bank that allegedly holds some of the largest short positions against gold on the COMEX,.."<,,

Alleged by whom? Butler? Where is KIM's evidence for this? Link please. This is simply speculation on his part being stated as fact. Very disingenuous and misleading, AGAIN.

>>..."I have maintained for a long time now, ever since I carefully read the GLD and SLV prospectuses, that any investor that buys the GLD and the SLV and believes that these two investment vehicles are as risk-free and as sound as purchasing physical gold and physical silver is highly delusional. .."<<

At least KIM is stating opinion here, but he;

a) Fails to understand the prospectus, and
b) Fails to take into account the risks of physical I outlined earlier
>>>..."..I call the prospectuses of the GLD and the SLV “Alice in Wonderland prospectuses” because it is literally impossible to ascertain what information contained within them is fact or fiction. .."<<

This is simply a nonsense statement based on nothing. One could say the same about virtually any prospectus.

>>.."Does anyone else besides me not find it ludicrous that both the SEC and the CFTC have not examined either the GLD or SLV prospectus to determine if it is truthful or complete,.."<<

This could be said for every commodity ETF out there, the vast majority of which are derivitave based and don't even hold physical commodity. Is KIM kidding with this?

>>.."there is absolutely no way that you should believe that buying the gold ETF and the silver ETF is the same as buying physical gold and silver, or even a proxy for buying physical gold or silver..."<<

Completely unsubstantiated statement based on KIM's poor understanding of how prospectus must be written.

>>.."Elsewhere in the SLV prospectus, the following claim is also made: “Accordingly, the bulk of the trust’s silver holdings (emphasis mine) is represented by physical silver.” If the bulk of the trust’s silver holdings is represented by physical silver, what constitutes the “remainder”? .."<<

KIM is just so lost here. New shares are cash until the silver is purchased, which happens almost immediately. This is clear in the prospectus, as even the earlier paragraph KIM had cited in his article demonstrates.

>>..."Clearly, the SLV prospectus states that there is a “remainder”. If you read this statement carefully, the statement clearly refers to the “trust’s silver holdings.” Thus, this statement implies that some of the SLV’s funds are allocated to something else other than physical silver. So what is the rest of the trust’s silver holdings? Paper silver future contracts, air, or something else?.."<<

This is just plain silliness on KIM's part. Newly purchased shares do not result in silver bullion equivelance instantaneously, SLV makes purchases, or divestments..determining inflow or outflow...daily.

>>.."But even were the bulk of the SLV’s holdings physical silver, remember that this claim could be false and still contained in the prospectus due to their qualifying statement at the beginning of the prospectus that:.."<<

Good grief, they are regulated and would be guilty of massive fraud. Why doesn't KIM get 60 Minutes or the New York Times on this story then? I'll tell you why, KIM has done zero research and has no credibility here.

>>.."In fact, given the entirely suspicious elements of these prospectuses, were every investor to liquidate their positions in the GLD and SLV and take their cash and buy physical gold and silver instead, I would speculate that the price of gold and silver would rise substantially,.."<<

And most legitimate analysts have speculated that it was the inception fo the GLD, and SLV ETFs that CAUSED gold and silver to rise substantially be creating addition investment demand! This much is clear. The facts are the opposite of KIM's contention here.

>>." it appears that there may actually be grounds for my past speculations regarding the fact that the GLD and SLV funds may actually be used to help suppress the price of gold and silver on the futures markets..."<<

It appears? How about some hard evidence and fact? This is the problem with these kinds of articles. They are akin to the "Moon Wlak Fraud" theories. All smoke and mirrors, so substance.


>>..."The CFTC Should Investigate the GLD and the SLV, Audit their Holdings, and Report Their Findings to the Public

Thus, if the new CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler is truly sincere in his public comments about increasing transparency in the commodity markets, I suggest he begin with an investigation of the unregulated SLV and GLD ETFs to..."<<

Certainly nothing wrong with that. Let's bring on the investigation! But of course, if the CFTC found that GLD and SLV have all the phsyical gold and silver, you know KIM will come back (like Butler did re the Comex) , with an article that would then claim they didn't do teh investigation right, and the ETFs still don't have the bullion.
>>.."It is entirely ludicrous to allow the custodians of these two ETFs to operate with zero outside regulatory oversight .."<<

Simply a false statement. They are independantly audited.


>>.."There will always be vast amounts of paper gold and paper silver available to be sold, but only a limited amount of physical gold and physical silver. Perhaps this is why the real thing is becoming increasingly difficult to come by these days..."<<

Once again, a false statement. The precise OPPOSITE is true. The market has been flooded with gold and silver, suilver in particular the past few months, and premiums have dropped to the lowest levels in years, while retail shortages of coin and bullion have all but vansihed with a massive glut of available material.

>>.." On Tuesday, the US Mint once again reported that it has temporarily suspended minting of nearly all its gold uncirculated and proof coins and nearly all of its silver uncirculated coins due to very limited availability of blanks..."<<

This of course has nothing whatsoever to do with gold and silver availability as anyone who constantly studies the coin market knows. Who does KIM think he is kidding here? Unless he truly is unaware of the facts as to why the U.S. Mint has trouble with its supply chain. Please do try and do a little actual research Kim. Even the collapsed premiums and ready availability of massive amounts of gold and silver coin, (not to mention the glut at dealers and fire sale low premium prices) would be enough to fill you in. If you were willing to do some actual fact checking instead of speculating.

All in all, a very non credible piece by someone with an extremely shallow and un-researched approach to 'analysis'.

China, Shipping and the Great Commodity Carry Trade

Well, the inevitable collapse of SWC shares due to the GM BK announcement re their contracts, has now occurred. This is the news that Mark Anthony stated would be GOOD for SWC!

Instead it has tanked SWC very badly, as expected.

The Future of Cold Fusion Investing

Cold Fusion is a ridiculous pipe dream. As Bob Park said, 20 years of trying, dozens of experimenters later, and $ Millions $ wasted and they still can't heat a cup of tea.

The 60 Minutes story was exposed as a no credibility fraud, and 60 Minutes had to retract their claim of APS endosrement of a genuine physicist.

There is one set of true fusion experts in the world. Namely, physicists. Not one respected physics organization endorses 'cold fusion' as a potentially viable technology to mass produce future energy.

I mean think about it. We harness huge amounts of heat to mass produce energy. Whether coal, natural gas, solar, wind, nuclear fission. In all cases you are basically directly or indirectly either harnessing the massive heat and power of the sun, locked up in hydrocarbon molecules, or some similar massive force such as the gravity that drives hydropower turbines, or the fission that drives nuclear reactors.

Yet with 'cold fusion' all these hundreds of experiments have yielded...what? Barely detectable 'in the noise' thermal rise. Usually unreplicable. Atomic tracks, highly controversial even at that. Minute and barely detectable traces of helium, and of course helium measurements are notoriously unreliable.

A bunch of chemist (or alchemist), tinkerers, pretending to know something about physics.

This nonsense and controversial, barely detectable if at all phenomena is going to cheaply produce massive amounts of power generation? LOL! The so called 'scientists' making a living off this scam, don't even worry about wearing any protection from nuclear radiation, gamma rays, et all, because..IT JUST ISN'T THERE! (and if there is anything there, it isn't worth even talking about it is so small)

www.skepdic.com/skepti...

www.aps.org/about/pres...

www.librarything.com/w...

tripatlas.com/Cold_fusion

Short Squeeze in Silver - How to Profit

In making the case why I am silver bullish, 'a,b,c,d..' I of course left out a very important 'e'..

Namely, the printing of a few Trillion dollars in the years ahead and the additional trillions required to pay for the hyper exploding deficit, can't help but be an inflationary pressure in the long run, current commodity and real estate price deflation collapses notwithstanding.

Short Squeeze in Silver - How to Profit

User 514512xxx whatever..

You said;

"Mike L: I believe you are punishing Hommel and Butler needlessly. If your "reclamation theory" is even remotely accurate, I have one question for you to ponder: Is current silver usage matching current silver production?.."

My answer is no they don't match. Current silver consumption is substantially LESS than silver production/mining/recl... See ANY valid reference on the topic which uses the actual industry data including the Fortis link I posted.

I am bullish on silver ,..but not because of a phony and fraudulent 'deficit' story from Butler and Hommel. I am bullish because I believe that;

a) Investment demand will continue to grow and will more than absorb the surplus silver, via vehicles such as the SLV ETF, the most important single new demand side in years, ironically bashed by Butler and co., and

b) as the global economy improves, emerging market demand for silver will increase, and

c) 'easy' low cost mine production sources will eventually dwindle, and

d) Silver is a very important 'safe haven' PM worldwide as we see clearly currently.


Re your comment;
"..If you think silver production is EXCEEDING silver usage (in any form) including physical accumulation by investors/accumulators you need professional assistance..."

Of course that is not what I said and your comment there is pointless and irrelevant. Even is silver was produced in numbers of a BILLION surplus excess ounces a year, SOMEone, SOMEwhere, would be happy to accumulate it at SOME price. It would not be tossed in a garbage heap and buried just because it was industrial excess, so it is a pointless exercise to pretend that if anyone would be willing to buy it at ANY price then there is 'deficit' silver production vs consumption. By that definition, deficit silver is never possible, unless the silver price is ZERO 0.0 and remains ZERO 0.0 It is a totally illogical and pointless premise.

Therefore, with silver in industrial surplus, what will drive the price higher in the near term? Quite obviously, investment demand in excess of whatever the current price level is. The key component from 2006-2008 to investment demand, was the huge demand from the ETFs. Without that ETF, the investment demand would have been far lower and silver's price would be far lower. Now in 2008, retail physical demand kicked in as well, and that helped, but it still remains a a small fraction of the ETF inevstment demand growth.

SLV now has approx 257 million ounces of physical silver. And though it is the biggest silver ETF, that doesn't count the other ETFs and investment vehicles.

Growing investment demand is critical to silver's upward price. It does no one any good to pretend that;

a) industrial demand is higher than supply, and/or
b) If any investor, anywhere, is willing to pay more than .1 cent for surplus silver, than there is a 'deficit' supply/demand in silver.





your comments spring from a woeful ignorance about silver supply/demand fundamentals. You should do some research starting with the links I provided above.

Short Squeeze in Silver - How to Profit

Jason,

re your comment;

".. I can't find any physical count of the metal, nor any recording of serial numbers. If you can point us to this "full inventory list" of physical bars, with weights and serial numbers, I would be happy to retract my statement..."

OK, if you take the few seconds it takes to pull up the SLV ETF's website front page, and click on the link on the left there that says 'Silver bar list', you will find the inventory.

us.ishares.com/product...

This is the problem I have with folks who follow Butler/Hommel et all's 'conspiracy theory' based school of investment strategy. There just seems to be not the tiniest bit of factual research involved before all kinds of inferences, allusions, accusations, skepticism, etc is lobbed at the ETF, without even a minutes worth of actual valid research, or established FACT involved.

Butler's endless accusations for example about silver loans and such are completely 'fact free'. An analyst should write articles based on verifiable data, not baseless meandering speculative accusations.

Ditto the situation with silver industrial 'supply/demand' fundamentals. All these 'analysts' who have NO IDEA what the supply demand actual numbers are, are constantly making statements about there being a fundamental silver deficit 'shortage', when in fact there has been a surplus for years. They use the very deceptive and invalid technique as I stated before, of counting annual mine production, and ignoring annual reclamation production. So they for example, count an industrial silver demand of 100 million ounces for photography as a full demand number of 'used up' and gone silver, and ignore that 75% of that silver will be reclaimed/recycled and added back to supply! You can't trust ANYTHING that comes from an 'analyst' who uses such a fraudulently invalid methodology.

Here is a handy and well referenced summary of said fundamentals for silver.

www.virtualmetals.co.u...

Though the Fortis report is far from perfect or complete due to the nature of the silver market itself, I have been searching for years and have not found a better web based, more thorough, more comprehensive snapshot summary, and incidentally, it also agrees in the 'main' with the 'Silver Institute', 'CPM group' etc. as to deficit vs surplus silver.

I think investors should be very cautious about ever accepting any premise by 'analysts' as Ted Butler.

When a guy like Butler for example states that 'above ground' gold is far more plentiful then silver..and then you find out his methodology is grossly deceptive, and you see this kind of fraudulent thinking and methodology routinely from him, (i.e. he counts all the estimated GOLD jewelry and artifacts as 'above ground' gold, but FAILS to count all the SILVER jewelry, silverware, artifacts, et al .....which numbers in the BILLIONS of ounces.....in his above ground silver number!)..then you can count Butler and his offshoots out completely as to having any genuine credibility.

Again, we don't know what the total above ground numbers are, but rather than just lying to people as Ted Butler does, there are those who have actually done some research on the topic, like this silver bull here below, who at least has done some good research and used some data from which to draw inferences.

www.gold-eagle.com/edi...

www.safehaven.com/arti...

www.financialsense.com...

I don't mean to be harshly critical. But making false and spurious skeptic claims about the single most important new demand segment of the entire silver market, i.e. the SLV ETF, is destructive to silver investors. Butler and his ilk do so because he is PAID to make these kinds of claims by IRI, a physical bullion dealer, trying to capture investment money away from the ETF. Yet most of the important ETF demand, comes from investors unlikely to buy substantive physical bullion in any other form.

I am a silver LONG and will be for years to come,.... I own physical bullion in several forms (bars, Eagles, Numismatic), and I own SLV ETF, SLW, CDE, and SSRI. But I really hate to see the parroting of fraudulent nonsense by guys like Butler who give a black eye to the entire silver analysis and silver investment sector.

They are no friends to silver investors.