Options
Performance of gold vs other assets...
mariner67
Posts: 2,746 ✭✭✭
Just quoting from an article on gold in today's WSJ.....
"Since 1975, the beginning of the period in which private ownership of gold has again been legal in the U.S., the metal has returned an average of 0.8% annually after inflation, compared with 5% for bonds, 8.3% for stocks and even 1.1% for cash..."
Food for thought and reflection.
"Since 1975, the beginning of the period in which private ownership of gold has again been legal in the U.S., the metal has returned an average of 0.8% annually after inflation, compared with 5% for bonds, 8.3% for stocks and even 1.1% for cash..."
Food for thought and reflection.
Successful trades/buys/sells with gdavis70, adriana, wondercoin, Weiss, nibanny, IrishMike, commoncents05, pf70collector, kyleknap, barefootjuan, coindeuce, WhiteTornado, Nefprollc, ajw, JamesM, PCcoins, slinc, coindudeonebay,beernuts, and many more
0
Comments
BST Transactions (as the seller): Collectall, GRANDAM, epcjimi1, wondercoin, jmski52, wheathoarder, jay1187, jdsueu, grote15, airplanenut, bigole
<< <i>1.1% cash. Hah. Right. >>
Better change your tag line, if and when you ever figure it out...
Interestingly, the S&P500 had lost 29.7% the year before and then gained back 31.5% in 1975.
Anybody can cherrypick data.
I knew it would happen.
The 73-75 recession exacerbated by the oil embargo, was a severe bear market for stocks, losing 50% from the highs, being a kid at the time, I wasn't very concerned ;~
<< <i>Just quoting from an article on gold in today's WSJ.....
"Since 1975, the beginning of the period in which private ownership of gold has again been legal in the U.S., the metal has returned an average of 0.8% annually after inflation, compared with 5% for bonds, 8.3% for stocks and even 1.1% for cash..."
Food for thought and reflection. >>
Better food for thought: You could have owned US gold coins for your collection in the 1960's and early 1970's....when gold was still $35/oz. and you could buy BU $20 Saints for $38-$42 and legally own them. Let's use 1970 instead as the start date ($35-$40/oz). How does that change the % gain on gold? By using "since 1975" they have conveniently picked the very top of the first gold rally into Dec 1974 at $190/oz....certainly skewing the results. Pittman and others were collecting gold coins in the 1950's at not much more than their melt value in many cases. You could have done it too in the 1960's or early 1970's.
Food for thought? I think not. Fwiw, from 1970 to date gold has returned about 8% per year compounded annually (4% after inflation). I find it absurd that cash has returned a positive value of 1.1% AFTER inflation. $1 today doesn't buy >$1 worth of "notional" stuff from 1975....let alone compensating for the 344% price inflation that has occurred since 1975 (515% since 1970). So $100 cash from 1975 (same FRNs) buys >$444 today? I'd like to see that. The dollar buys <5% of what it did back in 1913. How did it reverse course and violate the laws of inflation? And this from the WSJ????
<< <i>1.1% annual return for cash >>
Somebody is spinning the facts.
Might be true if that cash was all 90% silver.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
<< <i>They would define "cash" as interest bearing deposits or short term Treasury Bills. >>
Many fail to realize this.
We all know that when comparing the performance of gold to other assets, the proper time frame is 2000-2011
If you're gonna start at 1975 you have to at least end at 1979.
geez
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
<< <i>Up to about 6 years ago, I did very well in "cash".... MM funds, Notes & Bills. Even now, with interest rates at historically lows, those insured funds, unlike PM's, are still providing gains. >>
At increasing counter party risk.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
<< <i>
<< <i>Up to about 6 years ago, I did very well in "cash".... MM funds, Notes & Bills. Even now, with interest rates at historically lows, those insured funds, unlike PM's, are still providing gains. >>
At increasing counter party risk. >>
That hypothetical risk, I'm willing to take.
<< <i>1975 to date!?! Where do they get 1975 as the start date and now as the end date? Sounds arbitrary and capricious.
We all know that when comparing the performance of gold to other assets, the proper time frame is 2000-2011
If you're gonna start at 1975 you have to at least end at 1979.
geez >>
The logical start point for gold analysis should be August 1971 (gold window officially closed). Anything else makes less logical sense. Competing currencies to a floating gold have only been occurring since 1971, though I could also choose 1961 or 1968 as the start date since that's when the London Gold Pool was in operation to suppress the international price of gold by selling thousands of tonnes on to the open market. But I can certainly see why the fiat bugs chose 1975 as the start day....lol. Rubin and Summers were in full gold manipulation mode during the 1994-2001 period (gold carry trade) very similar to the work of the 1960's London Gold Pool. And that's no surprise considering a much younger Rubin manned Goldman Sach's London gold desk during the 1960's interventions.
They clearly state above they used that date because that is when the private ownership of gold in the US again became legal again.
1962
Gold 35.23
Silver 1.00
S&P 69.07 (Jan 1, 1962)
Today July 22, 2015 as this is written 11:39 AM EST
Gold 1,090.00
Silver 14.815
S&P 2,116.64
Now you can argue with some of the dates and numbers, but effectively, gold and the stock market have both gone up around 31 times while silver has gone up approximately 15 times. It seems to me that it is all about when you get into the market and when you get out. I have tried not to bias this analysis from any perspective other than my weak ability to gather the data.
What is more interesting to me is that over time, gold has been much better to hold than silver. Most folks who follow these things remember the gold / silver ratios that held for many years and now are substantially different from what they were.
The one other thing that is different between gold and stocks is that stocks provide dividends, so that the value is more than just the selling price. If you had an ounce of gold and the equivalent value in stocks in 1962 and held both all these years, you would still have the same valuation for liquidation for both assets, but in the 53 years that passed there would have been dividends paid to the stock holder. I am NOT going to attempt to quantify that value, but just to observe the condition.
Either way, you would have been way ahead of someone who had the same starting value in silver.
Just a data guy's view of the whole gold versus silver
<< <i>"<< 1975 to date!?! Where do they get 1975 as the start date..."
They clearly state above they used that date because that is when the private ownership of gold in the US again became legal again. >>
Because that matters, because a lot of people bought all their gold on that day, have not bought or sold any since, and still hold the same amount today, that's why it's a relevant time period?
I agree wholeheartedly with derryb, what matters is the buy and sell dates for a person and their specific piece(s) of gold they traded.
the rest is just statistical noise
edit: however, I disagree about the relative risks. Does the "counterparty risk" of T-bills exceed the market risk of buying and holding a commodity?
no. The profit potential with metal is higher than T bills, but so is the risk of loss
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>Well when the WWW goes poof and we have a reset. I will still have my shinney yellow metal
Simple as that
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Imagine that....major asset classes with similar performance over ones lifetime. I never heard that concept before.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>
<< <i>"<< 1975 to date!?! Where do they get 1975 as the start date..."
They clearly state above they used that date because that is when the private ownership of gold in the US again became legal again. >>
Because that matters, because a lot of people bought all their gold on that day, have not bought or sold any since, and still hold the same amount today, that's why it's a relevant time period?
I agree wholeheartedly with derryb, what matters is the buy and sell dates for a person and their specific piece(s) of gold they traded. >>
You really think a "LOT" of people bought all their gold on that date (Jan 1st 1975) as gold was peaking to essentially the very day following a 4 year rally from $35 to $195? From early 2000: Hey, I just heard the NASDAQ went from 1,000 to 5000, where can I buy some? That's no different than watching gold having gone up from $252 to $1404 from 2001 to March 2011...and then buying ALL your gold in one fell swoop after buying nothing for 10 years. Finding the people who bought "everything" in early January 1975 would be like finding hen's teeth. And then they rode it all the way down into the bottom of August 1976 at $103 to boot? I say BS to this argument. Show me one person who bought their gold on that date and still hold the same amount today. They are as plentiful as the people who bought all their gold on Sept 6th, 2011 at $1923/oz....and still hold it all today. Spinning tall tales here. The more logical path was that the majority who bought around Jan 1st 1975 probably bailed out on the way to the bottom at $103. And if they didn't? They probably unloaded as soon as they were break even again around $190/oz. And if they were smart enough to hold on longer, they probably bailed out in the $400+ range in 1979-1980. And to those very few who still didn't do any of that? They probably got tired of seeing gold do little in the 1980's and sold for a small profit in the $300-$500 range. 1983 and 1987 both offered opportunities to get out at $500+. ALL of 1980 and 1981 offered continuous chances to get out above $400 and double up. All of 1980 gold was >$500. End of story. It already happened so it can't be rewritten.
My take on the choice of Jan 1st 1975 on the gold ownership was for the boyz that helped run it up +457% were looking for someone to unload it on. And to pick that day for evaluating gold's longer term returns is just bogus. Who cares about Jan 1st 1975 as a gold ownership date? Any US citizen could have been buying $20 Saints for $40-$50 back since the 1960's. Pittman was buying gold coins in the 1950's and 1960's, some of them not much above their melt value. There were also some foreign bullion coins such as pre-1960 British sovereigns you could have owned since 1964. The interpretation of the 1934 GRA changed dramatically by 1964. The people that knew the gold market was on the rise since 1970 were already buying gold coins that were exempt from the 1934 gold reserve act....and common $20 Saints were one of them. Most or all pre-1933 US gold coins were on the list. You could have built a collection of any common year date $5, $10, $20 Libs/Indians and collected quite a stash at not much over melt. Ganz: "In 1973, gold regulations were eased slightly, to allow more gold coins minted between 1933 and 1961 to be admitted to the country as “rare” coins, however, a drive in Congress to reverse the action of four decades before failed when the House failed by a single vote to call for immediate ownership." Most gold coins in the world by 1964 were considered "rare and unusual" (even if they weren't) and qualified as an exception to the 1934 GRA. So-called private ownership of gold by Jan 1st 1975 was true for gold bars, nuggets, etc. But for pre-1960 sovereign gold coins, gold certificates, jewelry, and other gold sources, you could have bought as much as you wanted years before 1975.
"Gold ownership" on Jan 1st 1975 was a red herring and a perfect hand off to the gullible US consumers who didn't know they could already own legally minted US gold coins. Ask any of the old time dealers around during the later 1960's and early 1970's will tell you that stacks of $20's were quite common. If you wanted gold, you could buy some. As I already mentioned, a better start day would be August 15th, 1971 when gold was still <$45/oz when the international gold window closed.
1974 gold chart
1971 gold chart
David Ganz on gold coin confiscation
Many collectors subsequently sought to acquire post-1933 coinage, which they claimed was rare and unusual, and eventually, the Treasury Department set up an Office of Domestic Gold & Silver Operations (ODGS) to deal with the many claims. Into the 1970's, the ODGSO was still opining which gold coins were legal to own, and which were not.
In May of 1969, the Treasury clarified (by issuing a list) of those coins that were eligible for importation as "rare and unusual"; more than 200 gold coins made this list. By 1971, Mexican gold coins came off because the country was issuing restrikes. Then, starting in 1972, intense pressure began to mount in Congress to repeal the gold ownership prohibitions; this would become a keen political issue in conjunction with the debate concerning America's bicentennial coin program.(12) But it was in December,1973 that the ODGSO issued a famous memo that every collector of gold coins issued prior to 1960 should remember even today:
The GOLD COIN STATEMENT was specific in stating that
"All foreign gold coins minted 1934 through 1959, if genuine and of legal issue, are now considered to be of such recognized special value to collectors of rare and unusual coins as to warrant the issuance of a general license for their importation into the United States under section 54.20(e) of the gold regulations for numismatic purposes."
That was a wrap, for it meant that importation of coins made prior to 1960 were "rare and unusual" and thus exempt under the 1933 and 1934 Executive Orders. It would be highly unlikely that the government would put somebody to his or her detriment after giving it an "okay", which is why, even today in 2011 and beyond, such importance is placed in these coins.
No. That was sarcasm.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>You really think a "LOT" of people bought all their gold on that date (Jan 1st 1975) as gold was peaking to essentially the very day following a 4 year rally from $35 to $195?
No. That was sarcasm. >>
It was very obvious you were being sarcastic!
<< <i>You really think a "LOT" of people bought all their gold on that date (Jan 1st 1975) as gold was peaking to essentially the very day following a 4 year rally from $35 to $195?
No. That was sarcasm. >>
You forgot your
The Jan 1st 1975 date is almost irrelevant other than to mark J6P's official bag holder date. This got all the weak hands out of the gold market, most all of whom didn't participate in the final rise from $103 to $875.
One day return in Amazon pretty nice... Pm's on way to Antarctica...
<< <i>Wonder if Glicker went belly up yet with Boeing going sky high and now Amazon with blow out numbers....
One day return in Amazon pretty nice... Pm's on way to Antarctica... >>
I thought Cohodk said the "bookstore" was dead in the water forever at $250/share back in 2011? Calling tops isn't easy.
Going to see some pretty unusual extremes in summer 2015....possibly not to be seen again for another 7-11 years.
But PMs...they can't adapt, can't change. They just sit there..doing nothing, hoping for other things to change. We are always taught to be proactive, not reactive.
I think cohodk also set up camp for the US dollar at 75, when you said it was going to 50.
I think cohodk nailed a $14 call on silver even with a specific timeframe. I think he said copper 2as going to 2 when it was 4. And to stay away from palladium. And recently said oil would barely get to 60 while others predicted 75.
He even said in march that global interest rates bottomed..I welcome you to chart rates since.
Even some of our farming members were cautioned on agricultural products.
Maybe its better to promote conspiracies since that forces one to prove s negative which is impossible.
Or maybe keep promoting the LIE that China is selling Treasuries. Even an idiot can research that Chinese holdings in May were the same as a year ago and HIGHER than 6 months earlier.
For a group of people who bemoan the feeding of information to the sheeple, some of you are first in line and back for seconds for misinformation. And never do you question it.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i> And never do you question it. >>
I just ignore it.
<< <i>That's the great thing about stocks Roadrunner. ..they are businesses. And business adapts, it changes and stands up to challenge. And this is why stock analysts can change their tune. If you look at the chart you will see a 20% decline in AMZN after my comment. >>
So did you buy that Amazon dip? In any case the bookstore wasn't cooked. Neither was Google years ago at $500 when you wrote that off. Did you ever change your "tune" on those two....as I didn't see anything.
Your long term gold call peak of $1300ish back in October 2009 is the cake-taker though. For every "great" call you made, there's are losers to go with them. This is mainly a PMs forum. And your PM calls during the 2004-2011 period were pretty lousy....but not unexpected from a card-carrying fiat bug. The beauty of PMs is that they don't have to change or adapt....they just react to other stuff going on. Doing nothing? Hardly. Their prices change every day. The annual world production of gold is traded every day on the LBMA. It could even be 10X that but we have to accept the #'s they put out. Doesn't seem like "nothing" to me. That's like saying the US dollar does nothing. It doesn't move around any differently than gold....most of today's transactions in both gold and dollars are digital key strokes in the cloud....same for the stock markets. By your definition, they all "sit there and do nothing." But one of them is on your alter and the other in your dungeon. And last I checked, the entire gold industry was a compilation of varied businesses, thousands of them....lol. I'd bet the millions of people in the Precious metals and mining business would be surprised to hear they just "sit there and do nothing" all day.....just like stock traders. You definitely have a strange fixation on gold bars and their meaning to the world. It would be no different than whittling down the entire stock market to the actual stock certificates. You're missing the 99% of what occurs to get to those two items. Fwiw, most commodities and things in this world just "sit there and do nothing" much of the time....even humans.....lol. Doing "nothing" is often very important. I wish our elected govt officials would do "nothing" a lot more of the time.
One can be either long or short PMs, hedged, or whatever. The US dollar still has a date with the 60's and probably 50's. It honestly doesn't matter whether 50 or 100, it could lose much of its purchasing power at either value. I've said many times, it can stay at 80 forever, and still lose 80% of its current purchasing power. The USDX is a comparative index of currencies that inherently heads towards zero over time. So even at a USDX of 80, the dollar could lose another 80% of its real purchasing power (ie 1% of 1913 levels). Don't get hung up on an index that is based on "free falling in air." There's nothing tangible that it's compared to. A piece of debt (FRN) is not a true asset. It represents someone's debt. Same for otc derivatives. The day before the USDollar is used for kindling in one's fireplace it could still be at 80....with all the other currencies being kindling as well. Those corporations that you say maneuver and adapt, are doing that in response to insane currency, bond, and commodity movements forced upon markets by governments looking only for short term improvements at the expense of the long term. That is not a good place to be. Yup, gold "just" sits there and reacts to that insanity.
Maybe its better to promote conspiracies since that forces one to prove s negative which is impossible.
In the words of Ronald Reagan, "Well.... Mr. Cohodk, there you go again. " Pulling out the "C" word. It's now only used by fiat-bugs...usually as a last resort to try and buttress their current "argument."
We had this "gold does nothing" discussion back in December. Yourself and Baseball didn't fare well back then either. Dredge it back up if you like....or just use the "C" word....whichever is easiest for you.
And gold didn't do nothing.
It did worse than just sit there. It went down in value.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
However, there are several sure things in life
Death is the number 1 killer in the world and life is sexually transmitted. Don't worry about old age; it doesn't last that long.
<< <i>We had this "gold does nothing" discussion back in December
And gold didn't do nothing.
It did worse than just sit there. It went down in value. >>
Hold that thought until May 13th 2016. We will see if by then gold has done "anything," since apparently only price determines the utilities of gold in Baleyville. Gold jewelry cannot be worn if the price is dropping. And no mint bullion products can be purchased unless prices are rising (Baleyville Town Charter, section IX, paragraph 3.A.i.)
Dow transports "didn't do nothing" since December. They did worse than just sit here. They went down in value..................This stuff is just too easy....lol.
Transports -whoosh
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
This Homer was right again.
Someday you will be redeemed roadrunner.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
If roadrunner sold his holdings today, I doubt very much that he'd be saving on cap gains taxes. Nor would I.
Better sell your stock holdings now, cohodk - lest you be chided for holding them all the way down on the next stock market drop.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>The same transports that doubled over the past 5 years? >>
Haven't you guys been preaching lately that it's the next 2-5 years that matters in investing? And isn't it also true that the poorest performers in past years, are often the best performers in the next cycle? If you guys didn't keep dredging up old threads and old arguments there wouldn't be a need for myself others to follow through. It's the very reason that transports have doubled and stocks have nearly tripled in 6 years that makes them that much more likely to under-perform in the next 5 years. If you disagree with this please say so.
And if the transports falling off by 14% since December, while the S&P 500 and Nasdaq made new all time highs is a good thing, please state that too. The business/economic cycle that peaked in 2007, bottomed in 2011, is possibly peaking around 4 years later in 2015. What does that suggest about Transports by 2019? In looking at Transports, it looks very similar to the silver, gold, and miner charts from a few years back. The 2013 launch area was never back-tested....unlike previous break outs of the past 25 years. And that beautiful 5 yr H&S pattern from 2007-2012 has met a measured move projection. The usual fiat bugs around here are mum on these chart patterns. So I can only assume they are holding the line that things are still decidedly bullish for equities.
I think from 2015-2019 the Transports will chart similarly to what the PM sector did from 2011-2015. They could still have one more good bounce left in them to allow insider money to get out. Funny, that the same type of chart that wasn't sustainable for PMs 4 years ago, is apparently "full speed" ahead for Transports and the stock market in general. We're in a new paradigm. If Transports get halved from here, don't forget to dredge this thread up in 5 years.
Haven't you guys been preaching lately that it's the next 2-5 years that matters in investing? If you guys didn't keep dredging up old threads and old arguments there wouldn't be a need for myself others to follow through.
No, not preaching at all, simply comparing predictions made 2-5 years ago to what actually ended up happening. The next 2-5 years is up for grabs in the same fashion.
And isn't it also true that the poorest performers in past years, are often the best performers in the next cycle? It's the very reason that transports have doubled and stocks have nearly tripled in 6 years that makes them that much more likely to under-perform in the next 5 years. If you disagree with this please say so.
Certainly agree that over-performance of an asset, sector or index increases the probability of subsequent under-performance, and visa versa, aka "regression to the long term mean trend line"
In fact, have said so about metals, and say so now about stocks. Stocks are due for a correction. Have been trimming positions accordingly, and actively reallocating assets toward the tangible, including buying additional real estate, precious metals, furniture, art, and even some edged weapons for display.
And if the transports falling off by 14% since December, while the S&P 500 and Nasdaq made new all time highs is a good thing, please state that too.
The transports not confirming the broader market highs is not traditionally a bullish sign, yes. However, I do not tend to categorize facts and figures as "good things" or "bad things" in isolation, but instead to try to analyze in the greater contexts and systems of which those facts and figures attempt to represent aspects of reality.
The business/economic cycle that peaked in 2007, bottomed in 2011, is possibly peaking around 4 years later in 2015. What does that suggest about Transports by 2019? In looking at Transports, it looks very similar to the silver, gold, and miner charts from a few years back. The 2013 launch area was never back-tested....unlike previous break outs of the past 25 years. And that beautiful 5 yr H&S pattern from 2007-2012 has met a measured move projection. The usual fiat bugs around here are mum on these chart patterns. So I can only assume they are holding the line that things are still decidedly bullish for equities.
I think from 2015-2019 the Transports will chart similarly to what the PM sector did from 2011-2015. They could still have one more good bounce left in them to allow insider money to get out. Funny, that the same type of chart that wasn't sustainable for PMs 4 years ago, is apparently "full speed" ahead for Transports and the stock market in general. We're in a new paradigm. If Transports get halved from here, don't forget to dredge this thread up in 5 years.
There's a lot to dredge up, no promises on this specific thread. I have no bias one way or the other on the transports specifically, other than to think that the demographics of our population can be powerful enough to trump traditional technical analysis based on chart patterns and business cycles, and that trading of securities occurs in the aggregate, as a result of minute by minute decisions by buyers and sellers, and that what usually gets called out by guys like me are claims that "the big boys" or "the insiders" or "the banksters" or whoever are pulling all the strings with these prices.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>When you folks were saying gold was going to "save" you (in many contexts), I said only thing it would save you from was capital gains taxes.
If roadrunner sold his holdings today, I doubt very much that he'd be saving on cap gains taxes. Nor would I.
Better sell your stock holdings now, cohodk - lest you be chided for holding them all the way down on the next stock market drop.
Who said I own stocks? And I'm sure your PM positions have changed your lifestyle in the same way a good stock can.
Didn't the transports double last year?
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
"The law of supply and demand is the basis of economics. Yet the price of gold and silver in the Comex futures market, where paper contracts representing 100 troy ounces of gold or 5,000 ounces of silver are traded, is inconsistent with the actual supply and demand conditions in the physical market for bullion. For four years the price of bullion has been falling in the futures market despite rising demand for possession of the physical metal and supply constraints." >>
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
<< <i>Supply and Demand in the Gold and Silver Futures Markets
"The law of supply and demand is the basis of economics. Yet the price of gold and silver in the Comex futures market, where paper contracts representing 100 troy ounces of gold or 5,000 ounces of silver are traded, is inconsistent with the actual supply and demand conditions in the physical market for bullion. For four years the price of bullion has been falling in the futures market despite rising demand for possession of the physical metal and supply constraints." >>
>>
False.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Gosh Baley, it almost sounds like you think that fundamentals might be important in some small way. Extend your thinking just a bit to include the debt load and unfunded liabilities in your repertoire of data points, and we might start to agree more often.
I knew it would happen.
If supply & demand had anything to do with prices on Comex, most of the contracts would be used to take delivery. But they aren't. It's that simple.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>
<< <i>Supply and Demand in the Gold and Silver Futures Markets
"The law of supply and demand is the basis of economics. Yet the price of gold and silver in the Comex futures market, where paper contracts representing 100 troy ounces of gold or 5,000 ounces of silver are traded, is inconsistent with the actual supply and demand conditions in the physical market for bullion. For four years the price of bullion has been falling in the futures market despite rising demand for possession of the physical metal and supply constraints." >>
>>
False. >>
Manfred must have been thinking of you.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
<< <i>Supply and Demand in the Gold and Silver Futures Markets
"The law of supply and demand is the basis of economics. Yet the price of gold and silver in the Comex futures market, where paper contracts representing 100 troy ounces of gold or 5,000 ounces of silver are traded, is inconsistent with the actual supply and demand conditions in the physical market for bullion. For four years the price of bullion has been falling in the futures market despite rising demand for possession of the physical metal and supply constraints." >>
>>
TRUE. Blindness by Fiat.
And to boot, economists can't even figure out what supply and demand is, especially in PMs. And the totally corrupt and screwed up World Gold Council and GFMS have the dumbest inputs into their models to figure out PM's physical supply and demand.
Less money is being spent for both paper and physical products. Demand is not increasing.
Believe otherwise and continue to be in disbelief.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear