Are they really "Awaiting Stock"?
Or are they hoping/waiting for the price will increase so that they are making more profit on the the price they bought them in at before the recent drop?
The articles and comments about when people say "I've never seen it this busy before" generally make me cringe.
Those comments are by themselves meaningless. I don't care if a guy has been in business for 50 years, the recent history of gold or silver buying is really irrelevant to the prices, availability, or premiums. They are also not indicative at all of future pricing or availability.
The gold and silver markets by themselves are extremely tiny as compared to many other markets. Witnessing shortages, or delivery delays is not at all surprising, nor is any indication of anything, other than a very under-developed supply chain. I mean, what does it tell you, when you have to go to some po-dunk coin shop, in an out of the way strip mall, to buy something like this that is supposedly this 'valuable.'
Most art has a better supply chain. And many on-line dealers aren't a whole lot better.
When you start seeing coins offered at banking institutions and a far better means of exchange, then MAYBE you can make some indicative observations about supply/demand fundamentals.
Now, by no means am I saying not to buy either of these commodities, as now could be as great as time as any. Just please don't ramp up rhetoric on speculative items like these and expect those judgements to be of any relevant value. I can find you just as many people not to say buy gold now, both famous personalities, and unfamous more obscure personalities, as I can say TO buy gold now.
And again, as always consider the source. Just like Bill Gross of Pimco repeatedly is accused of "talking his book" on bonds, so are every other marketer and seller of every other good on the planet.
As far as I am concerned, I treat every article as if the words are coming from a whore. With these currency "wars" and manipulation, everything on the planet is considerably mis-priced, and relative to time, no one has any idea whether everything could get a WHOLE LOT CHEAPER in the near future.
The environment right now, is like buying clothing at a Kohl's. You often see mark downs of 40 to 50%, then they have a 'sale" offering another 30%, and then on top of that, they'll offer the exact same stuff with cash back coupons. You'll thus have an item that you thought was a great deal, having an original price of $100, then after all is tolled, ends up being $25. Was it really a great deal at $50 ? Would it have EVER sold at $100 ? Just like retail, markets all over the world are so totally distorted, if not corrupt, there isn't a price right now for anything that is low enough to be of a "true" value, and most people wouldn't even recognize true value, because the US and much of the world has been living in such a heavily manipulated environment for more than 30 years now, and we have lost all perspective for purchased goods.
As I accumulate gold or silver right now, my current highly skeptical view, is that I am equally at risk of the price dropping to 20% of what I bought it at, as I am of having it appreciate to 5 times what I am buying it at. Its a HUGE RISK, either way. But the same can be said for holding dollars, keeping money in ANY bank, or buying any product. In otherwords, if you truly cannot afford to "lose it" then you truly shouldn't be buying much of it.
After the Boston bombings, and many other incidents in recent months, if you can't accept the premise that our entire world is a total crap shoot, then you'd be best to go into lockdown and hunker down mode, and come back up when the sun shines permanently again. For all intents, we are living in what used to be referred to as the Wild Wicked West, back when there were barely any laws, any sheriffs, and you fought for your survival nearly every single day. I have absolutely no clue whether gold or silver will provide ANY sense of security or means of economic survival. None. Its only a hunch, and its one of many several different bets I am making. Anybody who says they know otherwise, and are supremely confident about their prognostications, you need to run from, big time. They dont know any better than you do. No one can, in this environment.
I have to tell my wife, rather often, that these are just all bets. There are zero guarantees. I think she gets that now finally. If we lose it all, economically speaking, we have to start over. Like anyone else would. And we may not be able to do a damn thing to prevent any of the financial chaos from occuring and then ultimately affecting us. No amount of "prepping" is a guarantee of anything, and actually might be an adverse thing to be doing, depending where you live, and how others around you react when or if the SHTF. We dont own guns either, and I am fully comfortable with that. Sometimes the best defense is to be as low under the radar as humanly possible. In fact, the best off, may be the folks who dont have any connection to the internet, credit cards, yet live right next to a nuke plant or in the midst of a heavily populated city.
Mike R.
For those that didn't hear about CBS-Canada's show on gold last night here is the video. You might want to download them because they'll probably be taken off youtube soon.
http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1366397576.php
I am curious. Control S does not save this video. Let us see how long it stays up.
I think the clip right at the begining of the video where Moses the Lawgiver smashes the tablets because of the worship of gold illustrates my position.
Hitler melted the Jews down for their gold content.
I repeat. Gold is for Kings.
I wonder how the transmutation efforts at Mitsubishi are going? I do know that they are transmuting calcium. Will the Kings allow transmutation? Would they insist on it? Gold is just another element on the periodic table.
To be certain it has artistic virtues. I would like to see enough of the element so that that is it's only attraction.
Hi Mark,
With regard to your statement:
When you start seeing coins offered at banking institutions and a far better means of exchange, then MAYBE you can make some indicative observations about supply/demand fundamentalScotiamocatta, one of the few institutions on the LBMA, is hardly a small player. If there are indications from the staff of a major bullion dealer like this that there are some supply issues, then I think that is something to make note of. Also, with regard to this statement:
As far as I am concerned, I treat every article as if the words are coming from a whore.This is in really poor taste, and I think you can find a better way to say what you want to say. We are striving for a higher standard on this site and I for one find that a bit on the gutter side. No need for it to make a point. You otherwise make some good points here and there. There is no need for herd mentality or head for the hills and hide because it is doomsday. Each of us is different, and one person's "deal of the week" is another person's "high risk purchase", just as one person thinks "the world is a total crap shoot" while another thinks it is the garden of Eden. The point is to find the balance in between all the good, the bad and the ugly, and yes, flying below the radar by not living one's life on either end of the extreme spectrum is always a good thing. Jan
my bad - need put my glasses on when typing
I am having some trouble with this paragraph,
So on the one hand you acknowledge the danger of holding your savings in dollars... and then in your last sentence, you say that, if you can't afford to lose it (meaning the buying power, right?) then you shouldn't be buying much of it. This is internally inconsistent advice, because by taking the advice you give in the last sentence... i.e. not buying "it", then you are staying in cash. And cash is also risky, right? Your last sentence is twisted.. it says that, in effect, if you cannot afford to "lose it" then you should stay in cash. That is BS, because cash is the only place you can lose it ALL. It seems to me that the purpose of your post is to scare folks out of PM's and to make the case for cash in an offhanded way. The fact is that paper money can and has many times over history gone to zero. Gold and Silver will never go to zero. Which is more risky, really? The thing that can go to zero, or the thing that cannot?
As I accumulate gold or silver right now, my current highly skeptical view, is that I am equally at risk of the price dropping to 20% of what I bought it at, as I am of having it appreciate to 5 times what I am buying it at. Its a HUGE RISK, either way. But the same can be said for holding dollars, keeping money in ANY bank, or buying any product. In otherwords, if you truly cannot afford to "lose it" then you truly shouldn't be buying much of it.
[quote=Ocnamor]When you start seeing coins offered at banking institutions and a far better means of exchange, then MAYBE you can make some indicative observations about supply/demand fundamentals.
[/quote]
Supply/demand fundamentals? When the Federal Reserve Bank of New York can't deliver Germany's gold in 1 week we already know about the fundamentals. Germany demands gold. Federal Reserve of New York has no supply (7 year delivery = no gold) Anyone paying attention has connected the dots.
Gold and silver generally move together, but they tend to move at different rates. One way to look at this is through the lens of the gold:silver ratio. Currently it stands at 60.50; that means it takes 60.5 ounces of silver to buy one ounce of gold. At the beginning of Feburary 2012, that ratio was 52. In May of 2011 when silver hit its peak of $50, the ratio was about 32. So as PM has fallen, silver has fallen further, and recovered less than gold.
http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=$GOLD:$SILVER&p=W&b=5&g=0&id=p23705085253
In this week's Weekly Metals Wrap at KWN, Bill Haynes described the level of metals purchases at his PM business: gold buying outnumbered silver buying by a factor of 3:1. This is unusual, normally purchases run about 1:1 - on a dollar volume basis. Judging from the rebound of the two futures markets, this has borne itself out there as well, with gold's rebound looking substantially better than silver's.
Some numbers might illustrate this: gold dropped $239 and recovered $86 [36% bounce], while silver dropped $5.70 and recovered $1.23 [22% bounce]. Silver's bounce has absolutely been more anemic. Gold's chart just looks better as a result. It is normal to have some kind of rebound after a fall like this; the key test comes once upward movement begins to slow down. Shorts see an opportunity to sell again and that's when we see if the demand at these levels is strong or not.
Based on the recent price movements, I see a danger in silver that it could go lower. That danger is less with gold, in my opinion. I base this on a healthy gold trading market in Asia (India, China, Hong Kong, Thailand) as well as that gold:silver buying ratio from Bill Haynes. There appears to be more buying support for gold than silver at this moment.
Many people in asia treat gold jewelry as a form of savings. Take Thailand. You can take a gold chain that you bought (or were given!) for 19,500 baht and if you return it to the same shop, you will receive 18,700 baht back - only a 4% haircut. That's less than the premium on a US Gold eagle!! Gold bars are even more liquid - the haircut is only 0.5%. In Thailand, gold may not be money, but its definitely seen to be a culturally acceptable form of savings. The spreads are set throughout the day, nationwide, by the gold trading organization. I'm guessing the words "sold out" on the following page indicates the current level of demand at the wholesale level on Friday.
To give you a sense of perspective, the Gold:Silver ratio peaked at 82 in the 2008 crash and bottomed at 32 when silver hit $50, so the value of 60 right now is in the upper range, but not near the peak. It could definitely go higher.
Something to keep in mind in order to set your own expectations about how the various metals perform both in relation to each other, and also vs the dollar. It can help you to understand "why my silver is doing so poorly" and conversely, why it did so incredibly well in 2011.
Interesting documentary, although most of what they discuss has at least been speculated upon around the internet for years. One point of fact. The documentary states that when FDR "confiscated" gold, the owners were paid $35/oz. As I understand that incident, owners were paid the going price, $20.67/oz at the time, and the price was raised to $35 after the fact.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102
That one fact probably doesn't have a lot of meaning on the overall allegations of the documentary, but small errors of fact always raise suspicions about motives and truth of the rest of the facts.
Doug
[quote=davefairtex]In this week's Weekly Metals Wrap at KWN, Bill Haynes described the level of metals purchases at his PM business: gold buying outnumbered silver buying by a factor of 3:1. This is unusual, normally purchases run about 1:1 - on a dollar volume basis. Judging from the rebound of the two futures markets, this has borne itself out there as well, with gold's rebound looking substantially better than silver's.
Some numbers might illustrate this: gold dropped $239 and recovered $86 [36% bounce], while silver dropped $5.70 and recovered $1.23 [22% bounce]. Silver's bounce has absolutely been more anemic. Gold's chart just looks better as a result. It is normal to have some kind of rebound after a fall like this; the key test comes once upward movement begins to slow down. Shorts see an opportunity to sell again and that's when we see if the demand at these levels is strong or not.
[/quote]
This may be true, but I would note here that silver product disappeared fastest and more completely than gold during the post-slam buying spree. Silver is by far 'the more rare' of the two PMs in dealer inventory right now. That's why the physical premiums are so much higher for silver.
Your second point that silver has rebounded less vigorously is true, but that's paper silver, not physical silver. I remain cautious about reading the paper markets signals as being the right ones, as I think they are grossly distorted by all sorts of factors, not least of which is the dominant presence of a group of large players that have figured out how to repeatedly make money via bear raids that have all the hallmarks of being coordinated, collusive, or whatever term you prefer (whether or not the signals to guns the stops are actually communicated using words, or are simply transmitted by watching the tape).
The day that I have long predicted, is the day when the paper market for silver (or gold) is flashing us one signal, but the physical market is flashing another. We might be there…or at least we are close, the next couple of weeks will tell the tale. Either physical silver availability increases while premiums decrease, or conditions remain tight and high, respectively.
If the latter, then I would expect the paper shorts to really double or triple down to see if they can scare even more people away from physical. If they fail at this, the price explosion should be substantial while physical availability plummets until prices are high enough to release some of the private holdings.
A personal moment of frustration will ensue for me if during the price explosion the CFTC once again comes to the rescue of the silver shorts by changing the rules in such a way as to benefit the shorts and limit the gains of the longs. It won't surprise me because that's the sort of rigged universe that we happen to live in, but it will annoy me, as it should everybody. Let's hope I am being entirely too cynical on that front, but there's nothing in the recent past to indicate that I have slipped too deeply into jaded territory. We'll see.
In the meantime, I will just restate the most important point which is that even just a little bit more buying than usual was enough to completely strip the silver shelves bare at the retail level, and so we might ask ourselves what would happen if/when even 5% of the population decides they want to own some physical silver?
Premiums are a good indication of that divergence you talk about. The channel for obtaining physical silver takes about 30 days. If the COMEX refuses to cough the silver up, you can always buy PSLV and take delivery of your PSLV shares for about $0.50/ounce - minimum 10,000 ounces. Schedule it on the 12th, receive it on or about the 10th of next month. So if premiums are too high, they won't stay high for long - either that, or those premiums will be transmitted straight through to PSLV.http://sprottphysicalbullion.com/media/1397/Sprott-Physical-Silver-Trust-Prospectus-US.pdf - see page 55.
So for me, one signal for the long awaited, much talked about, but never seen Commercial Signal Failure - the holy grail of all silver owners - may be signaled first by the blowing out of the PSLV premium to NAV. Its the only place that I know of that guarantees to deliver silver on demand for a small premium. At one point it was 20% a few years back, but now its trading at a slight discount. Perhaps that's the real bargain.
It will take some weeks before all this sorts itself out. By all means let's watch the premiums and see where they go.
But I for one won't be surprised if the price of silver futures drops further. I'm not betting on it, but I'd say its 50-50, and it largely depends on how the rest of the commodity complex fares. Copper is looking bad, the buck is rallying, the long bond is moving up, and if this pressure on commodities continues I believe silver will retest 22, and I'm not sure 22 holds.
I know we sometimes tend to look at PM in isolation, but they are really just players in a larger game, and sometimes that larger game ends up driving the direction of play.
Almost a 60% haircut , tax , confiscation . Call it whatever you want. The government is very hungry!!!Sonya
The CBC doc was really good. Thx
In your own myopic and naive little world, you'd probably only think cash versus gold.What I am saying, and there is no inconsistency whatsoever, is there are absolutely no guarantees in life.
If you are foolish enough to believe that one currency (gold or whatever) versus another is going to help protect you, then you deserve to have your head handed to you on your plate.
To me its extremely foolish to believe that much in gold, or for that matter believe that much in material wealth of any form. There are many circumstances where no amount of wealth in any form will protect you. There are many instances where it may be a hindrance, or even result in your untimely death. (i.e. if you are approached by a gun wielding robber, who sees your "wealth," and wants some.)
I do go over the top sometimes when I sense someone is espousing the paperbug position. I guess based on your post I was smart to spend the day at the range… the new Mini-14 is still having failures to extract way too often… it may need to go back to Ruger. The HiPoint .45 carbine was sweet, but I still like the 9mm version better as the mag's hold 10 instead of 9, and for some reason you have to engage the mag release button on the .45 to get the mag in, while on the 9mm version you can just smack it in, leading to much faster mag swaps.
As long as there is paper that can be bought that supposedly represents a commodity, that commodity can easily be manipulated by the ones controlling the printing of the paper. How long can the price of gold stay down?.. … Forever!
As I watch metals futures trading today, I'm struck by the continued relative weakness in silver. As an example, both gold & silver are down in afternoon trading in asia; gold is off -0.46% while silver is down -2.31%. The charts of the two just look different too.
Lest you feel the urge to blame those pesky manipulators, copper is off -1.34%, oil down -0.90%, platinum down -1.43% and palladium -0.95%.
It will be a good sign for silver when the gold:silver ratio peaks and starts to reverse. Until then, I think silver will do poorly. Since I have long silver positions this outcome is not something I want, but its something I must consider.
The good news: you might be able to get your silver at an even bigger discount soon!
Martin Armstrong has been making some blood-curdling forecasts for gold to possibly sink into to three digit territory.
Be that as it may, he also raises in his "The Myth of the One-sided Trade" blog entry the point that for every seller of a short position on the PMs there is a buyer implying that selling naked shorts therefore is not necessarily bearish for PM prices.
I am surely missing something but does he have a point? Who is buying all of those shorts and what should the impact be on the gold/silver price?