At the long beach coin show right now and im kinda looking to buy 10kish worth of physical silver, palladium, gold, platinum but im kind of a metals donk, can someone explain why anyone might expect any of these metals to match or exceed the S&P the next 10 years (about how long im looking to hold these bars). Kind nervous with all these metals being so much higher than they were 5-10 years ago. Especially silver. Nobody's mentioned platinum in this thread, what makes silver more attractive?

best quoted prices so far:

gold: 5$ over spot (but its a 10oz bar which is a biggish commitment to me and probably particularly illiquid)
palladium:$10 over spot
platinum:$15 over spot
silver:$1 over spot

these prices reasonable? i asked one guy was spot was for a particular metal and he gave me the after hours (i think) ASK price rather than the closing price/last trade price. is this standard? if so that a little extra vig on the transaction...

I've always heard that there are numerous industrial uses for silver, far less of it, and it is much less expensive than gold. I was told all of this buy a guy who told me to stock up on much silver as possible when it was at $6/oz...

I'm sure most of the big players trade silver in the futures market and its pretty much the public that uses SLV to gain exposure.

I personally have no opinion on where silver is going but I'd like to point out that no one has given a legitimate reason for it go higher.

Freakin the problem is that fact was true 50 years ago as well as today. Like emet suggests in the last post why are we to believe this isn't already priced in, what thesis going forward will propel silver to 70 or gold to 2000? and yea perhaps silver is set to outperform gold, but that doesn't imply either are going to outperform some nonmetal asset.


and yea buying silver at 6/oz sounds genius but so does buying apple, dell, berkshire etc 10-20 years ago.

fyp

Not really, though "most major banks is an understatement, the major banks have been shorting silver "hard" (and other metals). Look at any concentration of traders breakdown in the COT reports in the last decade.

We had a thread. If you trade and are bullish on the G word or the S word or either of the two P's... post in that one thread. Even though you are talking about the greatest preforming assets that decade, that year, that day etc. So many threads, I can't complain, but it would be more efficient to have a couple prominent threads like this silver one and a gold thread. Or it all ends up in Econ where no one sees it, so the questions are repetitively posed in BFI.

Obv. mean overstatement above not understatement.

Institutional investors and retail "big players" trade SLV.

1. 16 out of the last 20 years silver demand exceeded silver supply and physical supply shortages are obviously in the not to distant future at this pace. To make matters worse the decrease in funding of precious metals operations in the 90's is still wreaking havoc on the industrial supply side's sustainability to some degree (though new mines are set to increase production, demand is rising to meet it).

2. Silver mining production is 8:1 against gold, the natural ratio of silver to gold in the earth's crust is 8:1 and the monetary ratio is 16:1 or 15:1 long used and based on Sir Issac Newton's 15.5:1 edict. We are currently seeing a GSR of 46.90 trending down from the low 80s and the last time we had a major bull market in the precious metals the GSR dipped below 20:1.

3. Most all easily accessible (economic) silver has been mined, 70% of silver comes from mining other metals (copper 25% Lead 30% Zinc 30% Gold 15% as rough estimates of those base metals in the 70%).

4. Excess "money printing" across the globe and steadily increasing appetite for commodities in emerging and advanced economies.

5. Comex has no way of ever making good on their contracts with physical silver, just as of the last (Jan 28th) COT report silver shorts would need over 300,000,000oz to cover and roughly the annual mining production is traded.

7. Silver vs LCNS have completely diverged and as the price broke $24. The last time this happened was the start of a very bullish move nearly doubling in 2 years. It is quite possible that this move will be greater as the environment is less sound today.

8. I said the same sh** last year except #7(which is very bullish) and we are up 70%.

I could go on for a while... just off the domeslot

Maybe you can answer your own questions. Why have these two precious metals outperformed the market for a decade? Why have these metals gone up at almost equal percentages in all major currencies?

Hint hint (devaluation).


So you wouldn't buy apple or berkshire at $28.87...?

A lot of noobs ITT, hope I helped.

The last bit of your argument doesn't make sense. I don't own apple or berkshire so I guess I wouldn't buy them at todays prices despite them being very good buys in the past. So despite metals performing well the last ten years why should I buy them today at market prices? Yea, if I found some source to buy silver at a deep discount I would, as I would with if someone gave me 50% off some stock purchase.

I'll spend sometime looking up the points you made, but again as I asked the OP do you think all the points you mentioned (if in fact they are correct) are unknown to professional and institutional investors? I just don't see how dollar devaluation and supply/demand isn't priced into a commodity such as silver already.

Yeah I am being results oriented when I post that $6 spot buy recommendation. If it had tanked to $1 spot then I'd be calling the guy a fanatical idiot

BUY for both long term and short term gains,,,

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

eazy game

this snarky comment makes zero sense. by that logic which has been put forward several times in this thread the best way to pick stocks would be to pick whatever stock performed best in the past.

secondly obviously buying silver at six dollars an ounce is a good buy, but unless you have some special source that is something that happened in the past which is what makes it so obvious.

You didn't get it. Apple and Berkshire were a good deal (in retrospect) at $6/share, $30/share, $75/share etc as time carried on. I am saying $28/oz silver is a discount. Forget $6 silver unless you are talking about the per oz mining cost of Pan American. Forget freakin's anecdote.

Some, but not all, depending on the depth and quality of any due diligence performed.

The strong version of the efficient market hypothesis is proved wrong all day, everyday.

Bank of America, over 12,000,000 shares of SLV
Morgan Stanley, 6.7 mil
Aletheia Research, nearly 5.8 mil
Black Rock 4.6 mil
Royal Bank of Canada 3.8 mil
Wells Fargo, UBS, JPM etc etc

Much of those futures contracts are hedges as these guys are also bullion banks buying silver from miners.

Occam's razor makes more sense that shorting for the sake of shorting, like the Ted Butler/Gata manipulation.

Emet: MrMR's reason #4 is the primary reason.

"Much"... you should have just typed some, since you have no idea how many contracts are "hedges," it goes beyond that. Accountability level in relation to total world production is 1000% higher for copper. Also, very nice, use pure unbridled speculation just before citing Ockham's razor. They are using hedges as an excuse to avoid position limits (or accountability level) of 6,000 contracts or 30,000,000oz per trader, when in reality only what is reported, in retrospect, even gets a second look when it specifically pointed out that position limits have been violated and only the CFTC knows exactly who has those positions. So say Bank X holds 28,000 silver contracts with a CFTC per trader position limit of 6,000 silver contracts, Bank X doesn't need to do anything to prove their contracts are hedges. The market has a physical gap of over 100,000,000ozs (not including the London Metals Exchange or the Shanghai Futures Exchange) in part because they were not just hedges. Do the math.

Everything is simple when you don't perform ample due diligence, discount all trends, any intuition or industry experience.

ff2017 you are just speculating more, making it up as you go along. Especially considering you don't know my personal opinions or could gather that from what I posted (just a handful of reason silver will rise, note* you only asked for one). Invoke Ockham more imo.

A purchase of UltraShort Gold (GLL) and Ultra Silver (AGQ) at 1:1 ratio would be a good way for a less sophisticated investor to get exposure to this move right?

Thanks

The SLV/GLD trade broke out in Nov. AGQ/GLL has been +EV for even longer.

AGQ/GLL is up over 200% in 12 months before trading costs.

Twentyone, imo it looks great going forward into this year and would be a good way to gain exposure to what I have laid out (decreasing GSR with both in strong, near parabolic uptrends long term etc etc).

Very well put

Backwardation in silver, bullish.

No contango or to put it in terms of the layman, there are zero futures contracts above the spot price.

Too few sellers and not enough physical silver to deliver. COMEX has in depositories, enough silver to cover less than 7% (though they have another 8% "available") of the open interest as it stands right now.

When both of these situation coincide it is an inverse carry.

We'll call it reason reason #9 for now.

Thx Bonafone.

I never asked for a reason, I know the reasons.

In reference to Emet, I was writing that among your list of reasons, this is the primary reason for silver's move. Not that it is your primary reason. You know how the kids in 2+2 use the shorthand "+1", but I'm an old fogie, I write out sentences.

I'm not sure why you challenge me and then after a series of posts insulting me, then list the facts supporting my original comment. It makes you look belligerent and devalues the arguments you make in your posts that are correct, because how would newbies then be able to tell?

So looks like I'm right after all.

The only thing I disagree with (originally with FieryJustice) is that the banks are major net short. You are speculating as much as I am when I claim they are not hugely net short. I've been reading about this crap for 7.5 years and it makes no sense. JPM, for example would be wiped out if they were as short in silver as everyone speculated for the last 10 years and for what reason? You're saying the traders in the BBs are dumber than the hedgers in the gold miners? Even idiot Barrick finally covered their hedges. And this is what I meant is my use of Occam's Razor, it mores sense that the banks are not hugely net short over the past bunch of years as Ted Butler and his ilk claim because of some world wide conspiracy.