Silver down 9%, Gold down 2.3%, Crude down 2.2%

bengals

would it make sense to buy some silver (SLV) now?

unknowncomic

Im waiting till it hits $12.00. Then watch it drop to $5.00. I bought gold at around $870.00 and it dropped. Why would silver be any different?

BobaFett72

be nice if Oil dropped quite a bit more so i could fill my tank for the winter without getting raped.

bengals

can you guys think of a reason why silver would be down so much more than gold? i'm really thinking of buying SLV at ~$12.70 right now....

LALASD4

Got a little SLV at $12.68. So we'll see.

bengals

i'm thinking that $12.68 is a good entry point. i simply don't understand why silver is down so much more today...

LALASD4

<< <i>i'm thinking that $12.68 is a good entry point. i simply don't understand why silver is down so much more today... >>



Maybe it is the thin volume on a Friday?

storm888

SHORT more SLV on ANY strength.

fc

i bought a bit a few days ago. i will buy a bit more later on. etc...

start getting in slowly. don't bet the whole farm on it.


SHORT more SLV on ANY strength.

this has been solid advice for the last month!

---
if silver interests you, like i said above, put in 10% of what you
were thinking and wait a month to see what happens. adjust
accordingly.

markinsd

I just added SLV also.. I think the price is very attractive today!! I don't see the economy troubles or recent world issues over, and there is an election coming up. How long is the dollar going to be strong when its been declining for years?

I could be wrong but sold the recent run ups in my tech stocks the past week and jumped into SLV..

I sold all my gold in July at 960ish and all my silver bullion at 19++ with a great premium.

I think this sell off in silver is way over done so had to get back in the game.

Feel free to short.. it will just get more attractive and we should get a nice short covering rally..

Good luck to all!

jmski52

If you are inclined to invest in silver, do yourself a favor and buy the physical metal. Buying the SLV ETF is only likely to support further manipulation of the silver market, whilst buying the physical metal puts pressure on the shorts to perform delivery in a tight market.

Another hint, don't buy if you don't plan to hold. There is no upside to the ETF, except in very brief exposures in my opinion. The CFTC is allowing naked shorts to determine the market price, and you could very likely be one of the targets for the shorts.

Take delivery, or don't buy at all. It's in your best interest.

bengals

both GLD and SLV are backed by the actual metal. These ETFs are not like the oil ETFs

jmski52

both GLD and SLV are backed by the actual metal. These ETFs are not like the oil ETFs

You might want to read the feel-good prospectus very carefully.

storm888

<< <i>both GLD and SLV are backed by the actual metal. These ETFs are not like the oil ETFs >>



////////////////////////////////////

IF anybody has any information that SLV and GLD are not fully funded as provided
in the prospectus, the SEC would love to hear from you.

FACT: The ETFs ARE fully funded.

LALASD4

Either way, like everything else that are traded, it could be manipulated if the big boys wants to move it.

markinsd

I've had plenty of actual silver bullion.. It's a pain in the ass to sell then you have to pay a fee if you used ebay and you have to ship it and deal with actual people. If you go to a dealer they give you bid which is a joke. With SLV there is no cost besides the trade which is nothing compared to fees on ebay or difference in dealer bid.. Thats just my opinion based on my relatively short time in silver bullion/etf's.

jmski52

IF anybody has any information that SLV and GLD are not fully funded as provided
in the prospectus, the SEC would love to hear from you.

FACT: The ETFs ARE fully funded.

Fact: The chain of custody in the ETFs is fairly complex and there is a lag between the purchase of the shares and the purchase of the physical metal.

Fact: The CFTC isn't at all hyped about naked short sales in the Futures markets or the ETFs as the SEC is about naked short selling of the big investment banks' shares. WHY???

The ETFs might be fully funded, but they lend themselves to manipulation, and there is no reasonable way for the average investor to verify that they are in compliance with either their own prospectus or the regulations that apply.

Why are naked shorts allowed in commodities, but not in bank shares? Isn't the principle the same in both markets, as far as price discovery and investor protections are concerned?

Don't say you weren't warned.

LALASD4

<< <i>IF anybody has any information that SLV and GLD are not fully funded as provided
in the prospectus, the SEC would love to hear from you.

FACT: The ETFs ARE fully funded.

Fact: The chain of custody in the ETFs is fairly complex and there is a lag between the purchase of the shares and the purchase of the physical metal.

Fact: The CFTC isn't at all hyped about naked short sales in the Futures markets or the ETFs as the SEC is about naked short selling of the big investment banks' shares. WHY???

The ETFs might be fully funded, but they lend themselves to manipulation, and there is no reasonable way for the average investor to verify that they are in compliance with either their own prospectus or the regulations that apply.

Why are naked shorts allowed in commodities, but not in bank shares? Isn't the principle the same in both markets, as far as price discovery and investor protections are concerned?

Don't say you weren't warned. >>




I believe Naked shorts are allow in all securities except for the 20 or so stocks that was named by the SEC.

jmski52

I believe Naked shorts are allow in all securities except for the 20 or so stocks that was named by the SEC.

Exactly my point. There is no difference, except for the vested interests of a few rich boy bankers and otherwise-connected big shots. It is corrupt to the core.

The principle is the same. The enforcement is selective.

LALASD4

<< <i>I believe Naked shorts are allow in all securities except for the 20 or so stocks that was named by the SEC.

Exactly my point. There is no difference, except for the vested interests of a few rich boy bankers and otherwise-connected big shots. It is corrupt to the core.

The principle is the same. The enforcement is selective. >>



I believe the point was to not to let anyone destroy the banking system like they destroyed Bear Stern.