Still time to buy gold imo. - Page 61 - Economics -- Two Plus Two Poker Forums

Two Plus Two Forums Archived Forums Economics

Still time to buy gold imo.

...

Page 61 of 206

First

11 41 51 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 71 81 111 161

Last

Page 61 of 206

First

11 41 51 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 71 81 111 161

Last

04-02-2010 , 04:47 PM

#1501

General Tsao

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 30,586

Anyone want to buy some APMEX silver 1oz coins from a friend of mine who bought but now wants to sell them?

send a PM plz

04-02-2010 , 11:37 PM

#1502

Mrmusicrecorder

veteran

Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 3,361

guess I have to get AIM or something, firefox can't PM you...
interested in the numbers...

nevermind, got it

Last edited by Mrmusicrecorder; 04-02-2010 at 11:44 PM.

04-03-2010 , 06:16 PM

#1503

wiper

still catching up

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 42,898

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProfessorPain

i registered at 2, or did you mean the initial site? i dont see any forum available for that site?

yeah, i meant 2. i think they kept the original open for a couple days to transfer info.

04-06-2010 , 03:17 PM

#1504

J.R.

Econ Forum Czar

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 8,292

Quote:

Originally Posted by J.R.

...
Hyperinflation or a currency collapse is entirely different from inflation. Its what happens when a fiat credit system can't create more inflation. Inflation and a hyper are way different.

A hyper is basically monetary panic on the face of deflation. Yes will won't have credit inflation, but rather deflation in credit. And yes the G will keep printing. to counteract this credit deflation.

Nits like the above writer argue, "OMG we can't have inflation, the credit bubble is done, look those hyperinflationsista are wrong."

Those familiar with the argument laugh at the nit and his linguistics name game of nonsense, knowing 1) he doesn't know what hyperinflation means, and 2) he is making the case for hyperinflation.

Another simple way of looking at this is that G can't make the exponential credit growth system restart at will. The deflationary strawman argument is to make that point and go, see, I win, they can't restart it. The other side sits there and laughs and goes of course, you are making my case for me. They can't restart it, but they will print money and go to crazy lengths to try to, and while they can't restart the exponential credit bubble machine, they can break the currency trying.

"The wavelike movement affecting the economic system, the recurrence of periods of boom which are followed by periods of depression, is the unavoidable outcome of the attempts, repeated again and again, to lower the gross market rate of interest by means of credit expansion. There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved."

smart guy

04-06-2010 , 08:24 PM

#1505

Mrmusicrecorder

veteran

Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 3,361

http://www.gata.org/node/8511

Quote:

And there you have it. It's simply a matter of protocol and Mr. Sprott not adhering to it. For Sprott to buy up 191.3 metric tonnes, which is equal to 6,747,908.92 ounces, in US dollars at the current price of $1129.40 would cost him, well, a lot. More than anyone can afford. Perhaps he should go the route of buying through central banks. That or he could always hit the Yukon with a pan.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/eric-...#ixzz0kMxYSJTs

If you want a million ounces of gold, you simply can't get it.

Mises article JR... nail on the head.

04-07-2010 , 07:21 AM

#1506

clowntable

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 45,557

Lol I checked the goldprice for the first time since buying my coin. Good to know spot is already >> what I payed...pictures of shiny coint to follow whenever I have some time to take them

04-07-2010 , 10:11 AM

#1507

J.R.

Econ Forum Czar

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 8,292

Mencius Molbug

Quote:

...
The question is: are bullion banks net short in the metals market?

Let me deal with the question first. First, I know that bullion banks (ie, financial intermediaries which maintain a balance sheet in gold and/or silver - which, these days, are generally subsidiaries of much larger, more important banks specializing in funny-looking little pieces of paper) are transforming maturity in gold and/or silver. This is why they're called "banks." My question is not whether they are transforming maturity, but whether they are (as some claim) net short.

The conventional explanation of the bullion bank is that the bullion bank is not net short. Rather, it has a neutral position, with gold assets balanced by gold liabilities, so that the bank does not suffer automatic and trivial gains and losses, as accounted in either dollars or gold, when the gold-dollar ratio goes up and down. Similarly, a regular bank which calculates its accounts in dollars does not balance these with loans in euros, because then its solvency would be exposed to a highly unstable variable, the dollar-euro exchange rate.

The bank is a maturity transformer, however. It sells gold short and buys it long. Again, this is what a bank does. So, for instance, it balances a liability, such as a promise to deliver Comex gold in 3 months, with an asset, such as a promise by a gold miner to grind up that mountain over there and suck it through a pond of mercury, 3 years from now. The only difference between this and regular banking is that gold is a natural currency, not a fiat currency.

I respect this explanation considerably. One, it is very plausible. Two, I once asked a fellow blogger whom (a) I greatly respect and (b) has experience (albeit from the '80s) in bullion banking, and he confirmed that, from his perspective, it would be shocking if a bullion bank were to carry such a dangerous exposed position.

Against this we have the various disclosures made from GATA etc - including, most recently, the strange story of Andrew Maguire. The best I can say is that this is a noisy, untrustworthy source. For one thing, it does not appear to me that they have any individual or collective clarity on the distinction between maturity transformation (which is bad) and net shorting (which would be really bad). They strike me as honest, but not entirely and completely clueful.

For instance: when Jeff Christian says that there are "multiples of hundred times" more "paper gold" than actual gold in London, by "financial gold" does he mean "unbacked promises to deliver actual gold" (ie, "naked shorts") or "forward contracts to deliver actual gold?" Of course, mountains are hard to grind and so on, and not all contracts will be delivered. However, there is a very important qualitative distinction between these answers.

For those who feel the bullion banks are neutral, I ask: if Comex gold shorts are balanced by long forward hedges, why does the Comex open interest of commercial sellers, that is, bullion banks, fluctuate dramatically on a short-term basis? Forward mining sales, etc, wouldn't do that.

Where are all these legitimate hedges? How much gold has actually been sold forward? For the past few years, gold miners have been shrinking their hedgebooks. Has the amount of "paper gold" in London decreased accordingly? According to GFMS at the link above, there are only 236 tons of legitimate commercial promises to ship forward gold, half of which are financial in nature. There are 25 tons of actual gold due and presold from the gold mines in 2010; 30 in 2011. Annual gold production: 2,000 tons.

Why does bullion banking even still exist? And what was Jeff Christian thinking when he said, under oath,

Quote:

August of 2008 when there was an explosion in the short positions in gold and silver held by the bullion banks on the futures market and he seemed to imply that that was somehow driving the price down. If you understand how those bullion banks run their books, the reason they had an explosion in their short positions was because they were selling bullion hand over fist in the forward market, in the physical market, and in the OTC options market. Everyone was buying gold everywhere in the world, so the bullion banks who stand as market makers were selling or making commitments to sell them material and so they had to hedge themselves and they were using the futures market to do that.

Translation: the short position of the bullion banks exploded. To balance this short position, they purchased a long position... from whom? "Themselves" is not a valid answer.

Everyone was buying gold. Therefore, the bullion banks had to sell a lot of paper gold. They sold so much paper gold that, even though everyone was buying gold, the gold price went down. Everyone was buying gold, but the bullion banks wanted to sell even more paper gold than everyone wanted to buy. Hence, in the unified actual-gold-and-paper-gold market, demand increased, but supply increased even more than demand increased. Hence the price went down.

Christian's theory, expressed later as a correction, that other random investors in August 2008 were liquidating long positions, does not strike me as reasonable. Who, exactly, holds all these long forward positions in gold? There is a name for an entity which holds long forward positions in gold: a bullion bank. Ordinary large investors, when they hold gold, seem to generally hold futures, sometimes ETF shares. (In the first case a dreadful mistake, in the second demanding strong due diligence.) If futures are liquidated, open interest goes down, not up. If ETF shares are turned into metal and sold to India, it does not change. But in fact, it went up.

This seems like convincing evidence that the bullion banks are net short. However, it just does not make sense to me that the bullion banks are net short. For one thing, I trust my source. For another, gold prices have generally been rising over the last decade. If the bullion banks were net short, they would have been losing money continually throughout this period. This perhaps could be offset by some pattern of manipulation, but it seems like a very ugly, un-bankerly way to make a dime.

When the impossible is eliminated, all that remains is the improbable. Therefore, my guess is that "paper gold" is effectively, although perhaps tacitly, backed by sovereign gold reserves, many of which were "leased" (ie, balanced with short sales - or, if you prefer, traded for paper gold, or "gold deposits," at bullion banks) in the '80s and '90s.

It is not clear whether the US gold reserve has ever been so encumbered. It would not need to have left Fort Knox to do so - given modern financial engineering. After all, by holding 8000 tons of gold, USG is long 8000 tons of gold. It can certainly afford to sell a few paper promises of gold, future or present. It is not exactly authorized to do so, but words have been bent before.

This would require a remarkable amount of collusion between bullion banks and governments - in the case of 2008, for instance, it would mean that it was actually USG (and friends) that was minting the paper gold, the banks just being low-level pushers of this paper. Without being net short, the bullion banks cannot manipulate the market; they can only profit (perhaps with a bit of front-running) from higher powers which manipulate the market. Short of aliens or Elvis, this can only be the OECD governments. It can only happen with at least the consent of Washington.

If this is a fact, it is not a fact calculated to attract serious and thoughtful investors to "paper gold." Basically, it means that these governments are surreptitiously using (and, inevitably, consuming) their gold reserves, to artificially increase the price in gold of their paper currencies. It is very easy for people who want to hold gold to exit from this scheme, by holding actual gold and not paper gold.

On a historical scale, this is not shocking at all. We know that the same thing was going on as recently as the '60s, with the London Gold Pool. But on a historical scale nothing we mention here at UR is shocking. On the scale of current events, this conclusion is quite shocking - because no such scheme can withstand any serious exposure. Again, those who want to get out, can get out. (Even the fact, acknowledged by all, that gold futures are maturity-transformed, is more than enough reason not to hold gold futures. RIP, bullion banking.)

Moreover, if my supposition is indeed correct, there are two questions. One: are the OECD governments, themselves, net short? Ie: have they issued less paper gold than the actual gold they hold, the same amount of paper gold, or more paper gold? The last would be madness for a mere private enterprise, but a sovereign can get away with a lot. Heck, it's pretty much the way we got the fiat currency we have. Also note that these governments have quite a bit of gold - but very little silver. And the same patterns are seen, even more distinctly, in the silver market.

The most significant fact about this mess, which I think almost everyone has ignored, is that USG and its little friends just do not have the political and economic strength to either (a) peg the price of metal to dollars, etc, (b) make dollars, etc, freely competitive with metal, or (c) prevent private citizens from hoarding metal (eg, with a 1933 style gold confiscation). Is there a (d)? There must be, but here my magic 8-ball becomes quite murky. It is also very unclear how long this game, if it is the game, can continue.
...

04-07-2010 , 12:31 PM

#1508

J.R.

Econ Forum Czar

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 8,292

Ruh-roh, CEF too?

04-07-2010 , 01:09 PM

#1509

tolbiny

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 10,448

Gold has made a nice run the past few days and is now at 3 month highs. Another surge and we are testing $1200 and then its to $1300 and beyond. Come on baby.

04-07-2010 , 01:46 PM

#1510

buccobaseball24

banned

Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 1,542

Quote:

Originally Posted by J.R.

Ruh-roh, CEF too?

That is crazy. I don't think people realize how screwed they are. If you own GLD, or gold stored in a vault somewhere on your behalf, or a paper promise of gold, or probably even gold coins in your IRA, you're not actually going to see that gold if and when there is a run on paper gold.

The only way to actually own gold and not get screwed is to hold it in your own hands. I'm very, very interested to see the price action in GLD as well as the spread between spot price and the price dealers are charging for coins. Right now it's around $50 over spot.

But the scary part is that most people don't know or care about owning gold. They have blind faith in the US government and its fiat. The small % of people who do think gold is a smart play is split between people who actually have gold bars/coins they can hold, and those who have stakes in stuff like GLD. There is just so much risk in paper gold I don't know why anyone would own it. Physical gold surely has some downside risk, there is no automatic play by a long shot, but I would think that it is certainly the safest investment out there. At least you know you can't get screwed by a bank or investment firm who points to some fine print in the contract and converts you into paper dollars and sends you a check.

04-07-2010 , 01:48 PM

#1511

buccobaseball24

banned

Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 1,542

I've been keeping tabs on silver as well, it seems a lot of the same elements are in play in that market. I'm pretty torn at this point between silver coins and gold coins. I guess a 50/50 split makes some sense.

04-07-2010 , 05:30 PM

#1512

J.R.

Econ Forum Czar

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 8,292

Quote:

Originally Posted by tolbiny

Gold has made a nice run the past few days and is now at 3 month highs. Another surge and we are testing $1200 and then its to $1300 and beyond. Come on baby.

04-07-2010 , 05:32 PM

#1513

J.R.

Econ Forum Czar

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 8,292

Quote:

Originally Posted by J.R.

Ruh-roh, CEF too?

Apparently the CEF/Central Fund connection may be in error. Scotia Bank is shady but CEF appears to not use them. Either way, not good for paper gold.

04-07-2010 , 05:32 PM

#1514

J.R.

Econ Forum Czar

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 8,292

Quote:

Originally Posted by buccobaseball24

+infinity

04-07-2010 , 11:16 PM

#1515

nuclear500

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 10,516

Why oh why didn't I take the blue pill?

So APMEX.COM? I should check out some local shops first I suppose. I never would have thought I'd be considering this a couple years ago...

04-08-2010 , 12:40 AM

#1516

Mrmusicrecorder

veteran

Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 3,361

Quote:

Originally Posted by buccobaseball24

But the scary part is that most people don't know or care about owning gold. They have blind faith in the US government and its fiat. The small % of people who do think gold is a smart play is split between people who actually have gold bars/coins they can hold, and those who have stakes in stuff like GLD. There is just so much risk in paper gold I don't know why anyone would own it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by buccobaseball24

I will list a few personal reasons for being a silver bull right now:

Silver is currently more rare than gold.

Industrially with the on going advancements in nano-technology, silver could approach $3000 before many of it's applications would be rethought.

Silver is a natural antibiotic and antimicrobial, cleans water, is the greatest conductor of electricity of any element, one of the best heat conductors, and it is a monetary metal.

Both silver and gold have been manipulated downward by central banks.

Historically the 60+ to 1 ratio is very high.

If the growing rural Chinese (or Indian) population ever plan to get microwaves and toasters silver will reach somewhere between 75-100.

The price of sliver does not warrant recycling, a precious commodity that has had a production/demand deficit for about 15 years straight.

Only 20% of silver mined comes from silver mines, 80% is mined as a byproduct of other metals, so if production slows for other metals for one reason or another, the supply would shrink dramatically, unless the price were at a rational level where silver mining would be expected to be profitable.

Let us remember it takes 5+ years from discovery to mining output... if it works out.

Plain and simple we are running out of silver, and most of the gold is secretly stashed.

Still time to buy silver imo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nuclear500

Why oh why didn't I take the blue pill?

So APMEX.COM? I should check out some local shops first I suppose.

Welcome aboard nuc500, I'm glad you took the red pill.
http://www.tulving.com/goldbull.html
Check out tulving while you are browsing, I try and buy private goods but I have never had a bad experience with APMEX.

Quote:

I never would have thought I'd be considering this a couple years ago...

I said that exact same thing three years ago.

Last edited by Mrmusicrecorder; 04-08-2010 at 01:00 AM.

04-08-2010 , 10:15 AM

#1517

goomba

centurion

Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 166

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrmusicrecorder

I am sure you know, but to be clear GLD merely attempts to mimic a tenth of current gold price, there is NO option of good delivery, GLD has been built to sucker folks into a derivative of the actual metal.

I will list a few personal reasons for being a silver bull right now:

Silver is currently more rare than gold.

Industrially with the on going advancements in nano-technology, silver could approach $3000 before many of it's applications would be rethought.

Silver is a natural antibiotic and antimicrobial, cleans water, is the greatest conductor of electricity of any element, one of the best heat conductors, and it is a monetary metal.

Both silver and gold have been manipulated downward by central banks.

Historically the 60+ to 1 ratio is very high.

If the growing rural Chinese (or Indian) population ever plan to get microwaves and toasters silver will reach somewhere between 75-100.

The price of sliver does not warrant recycling, a precious commodity that has had a production/demand deficit for about 15 years straight.

Only 20% of silver mined comes from silver mines, 80% is mined as a byproduct of other metals, so if production slows for other metals for one reason or another, the supply would shrink dramatically, unless the price were at a rational level where silver mining would be expected to be profitable.

Let us remember it takes 5+ years from discovery to mining output... if it works out.

Plain and simple we are running out of silver, and most of the gold is secretly stashed.

Still time to buy silver imo.

Welcome aboard nuc500, I'm glad you took the red pill.
http://www.tulving.com/goldbull.html
Check out tulving while you are browsing, I try and buy private goods but I have never had a bad experience with APMEX.

I said that exact same thing three years ago.

Hi Mrmusic,

I've been gobbling up silver all year, and agree with you it's extremely undervalued. What are your thoughts on palladium?

04-08-2010 , 10:20 AM

#1518

J.R.

Econ Forum Czar

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 8,292

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrmusicrecorder

I there is NO option of good delivery, GLD has been built to sucker folks into a derivative of the actual metal.

I agree with your sentiment 100%, but beware a paperbug may nit you up on this statement.

While it may not be London good delivery standards,

Quote:

Although ETF shares may be bought and sold on the exchange through any brokerage account, ETF shares are not individually redeemable from the Fund. Investors may acquire ETFs and tender them for redemption through the Fund in Creation Unit Aggregations only.

https://www.spdrs.com/product/fund.seam?ticker=GLD

What that means is that there is limited redemption for huge shareholders, i.e. bullion banks. For all practical intents and purposes, gld does not allow redemption.

Last edited by J.R.; 04-08-2010 at 10:31 AM.

04-08-2010 , 10:31 AM

#1519

J.R.

Econ Forum Czar

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 8,292

Unlike gold, which is stored as gold or in jewlery, silver is actually used, meaning unlike gold it acts more as a true commodity.

What this means is the suppression scheme for silver has the practical effect of artificially reducing the available stockpiles of silver.

Silver is used in electronics, medical equipment, etc. Roughly 850 million ounces are used every year and 600 million ounces are mined. Of the 850 million used, ~150 million are recycled which leaves a yearly deficit of ~100 million ounces. This physical deficit cannot proceed forever and, therefore, the silver price must justify further recycling, drive additional mine production, reduce demand, or some combination of all three.

Silver production/recycling is artificially suppressed by the depressed price and the low price means silver is being allocated to inefficient uses. That manipulation scheme = depleted silver stocks.

I understand the price at which it becomes feasible for massive silver recycling (i.e your mom's nice silverware and the removal of tiny silver prices in electronics and such that might otherwise be in a landfill) is way higher than $18, does anyone have any insight on this number?

04-09-2010 , 10:06 AM

#1520

J.R.

Econ Forum Czar

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 8,292

like today:

04-09-2010 , 10:16 AM

#1521

entertainme

The Poker Mom

Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 8,444

I, for one, welcome our evil manipulation overlords.

Spoiler:

BTW, I was in Hong Kong recently and tried to purchase gold directly at the Bank of China. My plan was foiled by two things. First, they don't sell Pandas. (Me like pretty Pandas.) Second, they do sell gold bars, but only when the spot market is open and I could only get there on Saturday.

Random jewelry stores did have Pandas in their cases, but due to other obligations I didn't have time to shop and haggle so I have no idea what kind of mark up they were charging.

I'd really like to do a bank direct coin purchase. Maybe I'll have to run up to Canada one of these days.

Edit: Sucks to live in a "we tax bullion coins" state.

Edit 2: I also stopped at an HSBC branch in Hong Kong. They only have gold accounts where they "hold your inventory." Yeah, right. (In case you never knew, HSBC stands for Hong Kong Shanghai Banking Corporation..)

04-09-2010 , 02:25 PM

#1522

Mrmusicrecorder

veteran

Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 3,361

Quote:

Originally Posted by goomba

Hi Mrmusic,

I've been gobbling up silver all year, and agree with you it's extremely undervalued. What are your thoughts on palladium?

China controls the rare earths and Russia controls the palladium. I got into palladium just under $300/oz, now imho, I see the $1000 level as a reasonable level to test if the auto industry does well abroad. Additionally, if there is a shortage of supply from Russia (real or perceived) we could see real gains exceed that and nominally double that is 5 years or less. The US does have the Johns-Manville Reef with, possibly the richest deposit of palladium in the world. See a company called Stillwater in Monatana (SWC P/E fwd 18). It kind of hinges on perception and if Russia really has 7 mil oz. hidden away in Zurich. So many other things to talk about... but quite simply, emerging markets desire for autos outweighs the weening want for jewelery where palladium sees much of it's demand come from and the price will rise with other platinum metal group members.

04-09-2010 , 02:39 PM

#1523

buccobaseball24

banned

Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 1,542

Re: GLD

Yes, I am aware that GLD isn't the same as a promise for physical. Which got me to thinking.

How can you possibly lose money on this trade? Short GLD, while buying and taking delivery of actual gold coins. Let's just assume coins sell for $50 above spot right now. So you invest 10k into GLD and buy $10k worth of coins, so 8 coins or so.

Gold price goes up: You make money on the gold coins, but lose money on the GLD. Gold price goes down: You make money on the short position, and lose money on the physical. Easy enough.

But what happens if the spread between GLD and physical coins widens? What happens if you have a huge run on paper gold? GLD might diverge greatly from your gold coins. You might see coins going for $300 above spot. It seems like that trade has all angles covered, minimizes your risk to almost $0, and could become a nice money maker if people wake up on the paper gold scam.

I just don't see any downside risk in this trade whatsoever. I am always verry skeptical of anyone or anything that claims to be "too good to be true" and I trust the market, probably more than I should. If I see a line in sports betting and think "how can that be" I usually end up betting that side and doing well. I trust the market makers, the bookies, and the smart money. Places like Pinnacle, Intrade, etc. They are groups of people with more money than me, and they know way more than me. All of the basic stuff (W-L records, weather, streaks, public money, etc) as well as the insider info such as injuries or late breaking news. With all that said, I am pretty convinced that going short GLD while taking delivery of gold is a +ev play. Someone tell me I'm wrong, and why.

04-09-2010 , 02:43 PM

#1524

buccobaseball24

banned

Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 1,542

I am very bullish on both silver and gold. Silver has a lot of stuff going for it, as was mentioned a few posts above. It also is going to be a lot easier to buy stuff in silver than it would be in gold, if need be. Silver dimes, quarters, and halfs are all the same or similar design to what we have now. People easily recognize them. A 1/4 oz gold coin is foreign to most people. Plus it's a pain to make change for gold, silver is easier. Of course that could all change if gas somehow hits $500 a gallon, but you would think silver and gold would easily outpace or at least keep up with prices in that environment.

Anyway I like silver and gold both. I am buying silver and have been simply because it's cheaper. If I have $200 to invest, I can get maybe a roll of 90% silver quarters and some 90% dimes. If I have $200 to invest in gold I can barely get 1/10 oz. So I just like silver because it lets me be protected if I'm investing smaller amounts. You pay a lot more above spot on 1/10 oz gold than you do on 5 ounces of silver, especially if you buy "junk" silver 90% coins.

04-09-2010 , 02:58 PM

#1525

goomba

centurion

Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 166

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrmusicrecorder

Thanks mrmusic! I think I'm going to snag an ounce. I've been buying almost exclusively silver all year, and will continue to do so until I hit my goal! I love my precious metals!

However, I am a bit reluctant to buy any more gold or platinum as the premium over the spot is just too high, particularly since I'd be buying fractionals with my budget.

Page 61 of 206

First

11 41 51 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 71 81 111 161

Last

...

Page 61 of 206

First

11 41 51 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 71 81 111 161

Last