Thai Guru's Gold und Silber ... (Informationen und Vermutungen)

Why is Europe breaking into its gold vaults?

25/04/04 00:00

Gold has always attracted its fair share of eccentrics. More than any other commodity in the financial markets, it has provided a haven for oddballs and conspiracy theorists, writes Matthew Lynn.

Right now, they can have a field day. Something strange has been happening in the gold market. Europe looks to be bailing out of the metal as gold prices soar and politicians squabble with central bankers over how to make use of the proceeds.

In France, the new finance minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, is arguing for the Bank of France to sell some of its gold.

A hundred metric tons of gold is worth about €1 billion, which would yield from €35 million to €40 million a year if the proceeds from the gold's sale were invested in assets earning interest, Sarkozy told France's parliament last week.

The bank's governor, Christian Noyer, has already said he will decide before October whether to start selling as much as 100 tons of gold annually, and invest the money instead in assets yielding interest, according to the French newspaper Le Parisien.

It sounds like Sarkozy has already made up his mind. In Germany, Ernst Welteke resigned as Bundesbank president last Friday after being embroiled in a rowover a hotel bill in Berlin.

Behind that may be a disagreement about Germany's gold reserves.Welteke's son, Hans, has claimed his father argued with German Finance Minister Hans Eichel over how to use the money raised from selling some of the country's gold reserves.

This year, Welteke said he won an option to sell 600 tons of gold or as much as 20 per cent of the country's reserves over five years. The Bundesbank has disposed of only 29 tons of gold coins since 1999.

Welteke's option to sell more gold was part of an accord between the euro-region's national central banks, the Swiss National Bank, Sweden's Riksbank and the European Central Bank last month.

Under the agreement, the main European central banks may sell as much as 500 tons of gold between them each year - an increase on the annual limit of 400 tons agreed to in 1999.

With so much gold coming onto the market, NM Rothschild & Sons, the world's second-largest closely held investment bank, may even regret the decision announced last week to pull out of commodities trading and withdraw from the London gold fix, the price-setting institution it hosted for 84 years.

If both France and Germany start selling gold, it may have a big impact on the market. According to World Gold Council figures, both countries are among the largest holders of gold in the world.

The US is the largest, with more than 8,000 tons. Germany comes next, with about 3,400 tons, followed by the International Monetary Fund with more than 3,200 tons.

The French have about 3,000 tons. The next largest holders are also European: The Italians have 2,451 tons, and the Swiss 1,592 tons.

The Swiss have been selling some of their gold. The Italians may have to do the same. Given the size of that country's budget deficit, and with Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's determination to push through tax cuts, all that shiny metal must be looking very tempting.

The gold holdings of the big European countries have been remarkably stable over the past 30 years. Take a look at the French and German figures.

According to the World Gold Council, the French held 3,139 tons in 1974 and Germany had 3,658 tons. Since they've kept it for so long, why are European countries looking to get rid of their gold now? Would it be wise?

There are three obvious reasons why Europe is thinking hard about emptying its gold vaults right now. And one subtle one.

Let's start with the obvious. One, the gold price is high. At more than $400 an ounce, the precious metal is at its highest in years. Back in 1999, gold went as low as $252 an ounce. UBS AG predicts it could reach $480 an ounce within a year.

Two, unless you melt it down for rings, it's useless. Gold no longer has any formal role in the monetary system. And, unlike some other assets, it doesn't really pay much in the way of dividends. Instead you have to pay guards to look after it.

Three, some EU countries need the money. France and Germany, and most of the other European nations, are running big budget deficits. Economies are weak. There is no scope for tax increases.

Why not sell some of that gold?

All three of those are good reasons for running down central bank holdings of gold. Indeed, the British have already acted on precisely that basis.

Under a 1999 agreement, the Bank of England disposed of 395 tons of gold in 17 separate auctions completed in March 2002, unfortunately before the steep price increase.

There is another more subtle reason: the euro. Rationally, there is no special reason to have vaults full of gold, certainly not to the extent the European national central banks still do. Gold represents 46.5 per cent of Germany's total foreign reserves, and more than half of France's, according to the World Gold Council.

Why so much? The Swedes have only 11 per cent of their reserves in gold, and the Irish just 1.7 per cent - and both have strong economies.

When euro-region countries had their own national currencies, there was a temptation to keep some gold in re-serve. It was a financial security blanket. You never know when the world might be plunged into chaos. You might need that gold to support your currency.

The euro has changed that. France and Germany, and the rest of the euro nations, no longer have to defend a currency on their own.

And if the euro were to collapse during a crisis, a few thousand tons of gold here or there probably wouldn't make much difference.

The creation of the euro has severed the emotional ties between Europe's central banks and their gold vaults. They probably can't be restored now ^ and the market should expect to see a lot more of the metal sold under future accords.

Matthew Lynn is a columnist with Bloomberg News

---> Jetzt das hier lesen:
http://www.goldseiten.de/ansichten/meier-01.htm

Warum Deflation und Rezession, wenn Inflation doch viel einfacher ist ? --- Allianz der Schuldenmacher

von Andreas Middel (Die Welt)

Die Achse Berlin–Paris verheißt derzeit wenig Gutes in Brüssel, in Europa, in der Nato. Die Partner in beiden Institutionen stehen erstaunt bis erbost vor der neuen deutsch-französischen Selbstherrlichkeit. Geradezu leichtfertig verspielen beide Hauptstädte derzeit die Zukunft der Nato. Und selbst in der EU, wo der deutsch-französische Motor lange Zeit schmerzlich vermisst wurde, ist kaum jemand begeistert über den wieder gefundenen Schulterschluss beiderseits des Rheins. Die deutsch-französischen Vorschläge zur EU-Doppelspitze waren mit keiner anderen Regierung abgesprochen. Entsprechend har*** war der Verriss der Vorstöße.

Als neuerliche Bedrohung darf der Rest Europas die „Planspiele“ in Berlin und Paris verstehen, den Stabilitätspakt aufzuweichen oder gar auszusetzen. Auch wenn die Finanzminister beteuern, es ginge nur um Überlegungen im Falle eines Irak-Krieges, so hat es bereits viel Glaubwürdigkeit gekostet, über den „starren“ oder gar „dummen“ Pakt laut nachzudenken. Denn für solche Krisen sind in dem Abkommen ohnehin Ausnahmeregelungen vorgesehen, dazu bedarf es keiner Initiative der Regierungen.

Viel wahrscheinlicher ist, dass Frankreich und Deutschland just in dem Moment den Pakt aushebeln wollen, wenn der Vertrag beide Regierungen zu ernsthaften Strukturreformen und schmerzlichen Einschnitten zwingt.

Paris und Berlin reklamieren für sich eine Sonderrolle, die anderen Ländern nicht zugebilligt wird. Während Spanien, Finnland und Österreich sich in den vergangenen Jahren den strikten Spielregeln des Paktes unterworfen und ihre Staatsfinanzen weit gehend saniert haben, sind Paris und Berlin den Nachweis schuldig geblieben, dass sie ernsthaft an einer Konsolidierung ihrer Staatsfinanzen arbeiten. Nicht nur deshalb wäre auch London, das angeblich die deutsch-französischen Pläne unterstützt, gut beraten, sich zurückzuhalten. Diese Intervention ist erst dann angebracht, wenn
die Briten das Pfund gegen den Euro eingetauscht haben.

Experten befürchten, dass die europäische Wirtschaft durch einen Irak-Krieg stark in Mitleidenschaft gezogen werden könnte. Angesichts dann möglicherweise höherer Ausgaben in den Staatshaushalten würde die Einhaltung der Drei-Prozent-Marke vor allem für Deutschland und Frankreich in diesem Jahr deutlich erschwert.

Laut Eichels Ministerium soll im Rat der EU-Wirtschafts- und Finanzminister (Ecofin) am kommenden Dienstag auch über die Finanzlage der Länder und über mögliche Risiken durch einen Krieg gesprochen werden. Auch beim Treffen der G-7-Finanzminister am 21. und 22. Februar in Paris werde wahrscheinlich über die mit einem Krieg verbundenen Risiken beraten. Eichels Sprecher sagte, es gehe um die Frage, „wie wir in Europa ein nachhaltiges Wachstum erreichen“. Der Pakt solle so angewendet werden, dass er sich an den ökonomischen Notwendigkeiten orientiere. Es solle möglich sein, bei unerwartet schlechter Konjunktur die Neuverschuldung auszuweiten und nicht durch Einsparung bei den Investitionen Wachstumsimpulse zu behindern. Ähnlich werde sich die Bundesregierung auch im laufenden Jahr verhalten, „sollte das Wachstum stärker sinken als prognostiziert“.

Bei Aufstellung des Haushaltes 2003 war Eichel noch von einem Wachstum von rund 1,5 Prozent ausgegangen. Inzwischen hat die Bundesregierung die Wachstumsprognose auf ein Prozent gesenkt. Einige Experten halte das noch immer für zu optimistisch. Eichels Konsolidierungskurs war zuletzt in der SPD kritisiert und für die Niederlagen bei den Wahlen in Niedersachsen und Hessen mit verantwortlich gemacht worden. Die SPD-Linken hatten einen „Kurswechsel in der Finanz- und Wirtschaftspolitik“ gefordert. Zur Belebung der Wirtschaft sollte unter anderem die Steuerreform vorgezogen werden.

Dieser Vorschlag war bei den Grünen auf Unterstützung gestoßen. Allerdings knüpften sie ihre Zustimmung an eine Einigung auf ein Programm zur Senkung der Lohnnebenkosten noch vor der Sommerpause. Dann wären die Grünen einverstanden, den Sparkurs „im Jahresverlauf zu lockern beziehungsweise die Steuerreformstufe 2005 auf 2004 vorzuziehen“, sagte die haushaltspolitische Sprecherin der Grünenfraktion, Antje Hermenau. Sparen in konjunkturellen Krisenzeiten sei nicht der einzige Weg. Das hätten die Grünen verstanden. Das Bundesfinanzministerium wies den Vorstoß zurück. (mit AFP)

DEFLATION HAS ARRIVED

By Bob Prechter

"The deflationary potential is historically large...we risk overwhelming deflation in every corner of the globe."
- Conquer the Crash (2002)

Virtually everyone - and I do not use that word lightly - believes that inflation will accelerate. Stock-market bulls think that the economy is going to boom, bringing inflation. Economic bears expect an inflationary, if not hyperinflationary, monetary crisis. Economists believe that the Fed can inflate at will and is committed to an inflationary policy. The general population is convinced that prices of their homes and property can only go up. The few articles mentioning deflation in recent months have declared the prospect for it "dead."

This consensus is not merely overwhelming but reflects a belief as vast and deeply held as a religion. Investment News in September reported a survey by the National Association for Business Economics in Washington. It revealed, "None of the respondents to the May survey, all of whom were responsible for making macroeconomic predictions, predicted a decline in the consumer price index during the next two years." USA Today confirmed the fact, reporting, "Not one economist [of 67 surveyed] said it was 'very likely' the economy would slip into deflation." That is a consensus!

Against this backdrop of opinion, M3 since September has fallen over two percent, its largest decline in 60 years. This is different from a lack of inflation. It is real, actual, deflation. What's more, M3 has declined despite the strongest quarter of economic growth in decades, the lowest interest rates in half a century and a central bank committed verbally and by action to facilitating the expansion of credit! There is no interest rate spike or recession to explain away the decline in the money supply.

The dichotomy between what is happening and what people think will happen is colossal. Inflation is dead. Deflation is here, now. The monetary trend is no longer close to the edge of the cliff; it is beginning to slide down its face. As this is written, not a single major newspaper, magazine or TV network has done a story on the dramatic contraction in M3. People are so drunk with inflationary certainty that they can't even see that deflation is happening. And if they do, they don't believe that it is meaningful.

Why is there such a consensus that deflation is unlikely, if not impossible? Many people believe that the Fed is virtually omnipotent and can manipulate the money supply (and therefore the stock market and the economy) at will. Is that so? On June 25, 2003, the Fed lowered the federal funds rate for the 13th time in a row, to one percent.

Most observers think that the Fed still has that one percentage point of "ammo" left. But consider: The U.S. has a thriving money-market fund industry, which costs one percent of assets per year to administer. As it stands now, investors are getting extremely low returns from money- market funds. If the Fed were to let its funds rate drop to zero and other short-term rates fell along with it, money- market investors' return after fees could go negative. This event would make holding cash more attractive than holding debt, a situation the Fed surely wants to avoid. The monetary system appears to have reached the point at which pesky reactionary forces will come into play if the Fed tries any more "deflation fighting," no matter what the mechanism.

Why did I put the term "deflation fighting" in quotes? Commentators tell us that the Fed is fighting deflation by aggressively lowering its interest rates, but is that an accurate assessment? After all, the result of deflation - its primary outward symptom - is lower prices. And what has the Fed been doing? It spent over a year lowering the price of renting money. Within that period, in fact, the Fed lowered prices more than anyone! It has participated in the initial phase of the deflationary process as if it were a merchant on the street discounting its wares to a disinterested public. It did so in response to slack demand for its product - credit - just as the auto manufacturers and others are doing with their products. Deflationary psychology brings about lower prices, and the Fed has been lowering its prices. It is powerless to stop the trend.

A persistent decline in the money supply will have consequences. Some things will have to give. One of them will be prices for goods and services. To the astute observer, a change in prices has been in the wind for some time. The PPI has been flat for three years, and now even the CPI has had a down quarter. A severe deflation will also devastate the economy, as it has done in each of the rare times it has occurred over the past 300 years. With M3 dropping, it should be only a matter of months before the economy follows suit.

Are economists concerned? Well, besides the deflation opinion cited above from last year's polls, the only other time that I have ever seen a 100-percent consensus in a survey was...a few weeks ago! In separate year-end surveys of economists, The Wall Street Journal and Business Week independently reported unanimity that the U.S. economy would expand throughout 2004. That's right: not one dissenter. If it is usually wise to bet against a large majority in finance, what does it mean when there is no detectable minority?

I think that the continual denials that deflation can happen, against a backdrop of evidence to the contrary, appear to be part of a typical social psychological progression toward a credit crisis, which in turn will lead to economic contraction. The money supply might rebound for a quarter or two as the stock market and economy top out this year, but at the largest degree of trend, the credit bubble - 70 years in the making - has burst.

In 2001, there was little talk of deflation. Statistics relating to newspaper stories show that by late 2002/early 2003, it had become a commonly used word, even if most writers used it simply to dismiss the idea.

The next word that should begin to slide into the public lexicon is depression. I would like to offer quotes from authorities on the low likelihood of depression, but my diligent staff can find literally no mainstream economists, academics or Wall Street strategists even discussing the possibility. It is too remote even to mention! The term "depression" is where the word "deflation" was a few years ago, i.e., outside the general consciousness. Although no one is using that term now, in coming years it will be everywhere. The first phase will be widespread insistence that a depression can't happen, which will be a big clue that it is happening.

The two "d" words at the end of the subtitle to Conquer the Crash, i.e., "Deflationary Depression," were anticipatory. The book was published at a time when the likelihood of these two events occurring was (and still is) considered - as one economist said at the time about deflation - as remote as "being eaten by piranhas." My advice: Keep your toes on the riverbank.

Regards,
Bob Precher,
for the Daily-Reckoning

[Blockierte Grafik: http://www.dhm.de/lemo/objekte/statistik/infstad/index.gif]
http://www.dhm.de

Hat jemand den aktuellen SMART-INVESTOR in der Hand?

Sehr interessantes Interview mit Ian Gordan, dem Kondratieff-Wellen-Experten!

---> "Zuerst Deflation, dann Inflation - und Gold wird in beiden Phasen steigen"...
hmmmm..... muss mal sein Buch lesen! interessanter Ansatz der Typ!

The US$ Short Position

Steve Saville
Apr 26, 2004

An extract from commentary posted at http://www.speculative-investor.com on 25th April 2004

We've recently received several e-mails from subscribers asking for our take on the idea that the huge amount of debt in the US represents a massive US$ short position. The idea, which is explained in detail by George Paulos and Sol Palha in their article, is that the US$ has the potential to move sharply higher at some point in the not-too-distant future as US$ debtors -- primarily those with large home mortgages -- scramble for dollars in order to meet the obligations to their creditors.

The aforementioned article is well thought-out and its central theme deserves consideration. Furthermore, one of the conclusions of the article meshes with something we've been emphasising over the past few months -- that now is a good time to be 'cashed up'. However, if US household debt represents a short position on the US$ it is a short position that will never be covered. And nor will there ever be a serious attempt to cover. That's because the SURVIVAL of the current monetary system relies on the continuing expansion of credit, that is, it relies on the continuing EXPANSION of the US$ short position.

Why the above is so can be gleaned by looking at a few figures. Total US debt (private + public) is presently about US$32 trillion, but the total supply of US dollars is only about $9 trillion. This means that if every US dollar in existence was put towards the repayment of debt the average creditor would only receive about 28c on the dollar. Also, if we assume an average interest rate of 6% on the $32T of debt then the annual interest bill is about US$1,900 billion. However, the increase in the total US money supply over the past 12 months was 'only' $420 billion. In a nutshell: there is nowhere near enough money in existence to pay-off the current debt and there is nowhere near enough new money created each year to even pay the interest on the debt.

But isn't the above an argument for massive deflation?

No, in a world in which there are no constraints on the amount of new money that can be created 'out of thin air' it's an argument for inflation as far as the eye can see. The crux of the matter is this: when you create a "Ponzi scheme" -- any scheme where money coming in from new investors is needed in order to meet the commitments made to current investors -- the scheme can't continue to function unless the new money keeps coming in at a fast enough rate. Once the rate of in-flow slows the scheme doesn't just experience a hiccup, it collapses. This is because the first failure to fulfill a promised return exposes the true nature of the scheme.

The current monetary system is effectively a Ponzi scheme whose survival relies on the total supply of credit and money -- the so-called US$ short position -- continuing to expand (the way the system is designed there can never be enough money to pay-off existing debts). So, don't expect that the major stakeholders in the system (the US Government, the Fed, the commercial banks, the GSEs, the money-market funds, the Wall St financial houses) will decide to just hunker down and weather a brief period of deflation. That's really not an option for them.

But if US consumers decide to stop increasing their debt loads or, heaven forbid, decide to start REDUCING their debt loads, what could be done to prevent a contraction in the total supply of credit?

At this stage there is no evidence that the credit expansion is about to go into reverse, but if a slowdown in credit growth did begin to become an issue then the Fed could follow through on its promise to push down long-term interest rates via the large-scale buying of bonds. The Fed would not necessarily limit itself to US Government bonds but might, if it perceived that the situation warranted more drastic action, also buy large quantities of agency debt and asset-backed securities. The likely SHORT-term effects of such action on the part of the Fed would be a) a reduction in the interest burden of US consumers, b) another mortgage re-financing binge, c) a monetary injection into the economy, d) higher inflation expectations, and e) a weaker dollar.

There are other ways to ensure a continuation of the inflation trend in the event that genuine deflation becomes a real threat, but the Fed's ability to monetise unlimited quantities of debt is by far the most potent inflationary weapon in the arsenal. A central bank that takes the 'printing press route' never has any trouble devaluing the currency. Instead, the problem they always end up having is figuring out how to prevent inflation expectations from spiraling out of control.

Something else that needs to be considered is that there is no precedent throughout history of a country at war experiencing deflation. The US is presently at war, the only difference being that this war is not being fought against a specific enemy. Rather, it is being fought against a methodology (terrorism). The nature of this war most likely prevents it from being won by military means, but this detail isn't stopping the US from TRYING to win it by military means.

One final comment: the financial-market and economic conditions during the second and third quarters of this year are likely to bring about the return of deflation as a 'hot topic'. This is what we warned about in our 22nd March commentary. However, a 20%-25% drop in the copper price following a 100% rally is not a sign of deflation, it's just a routine bull-market correction. A sharp decline in a drastically over-priced stock market is not a sign of deflation, it's just part of the natural process of reverting to the mean. A pullback in the gold price and a bounce in the US$ are not signs of deflation, they are just consequences of the fact that markets never get where they are going in a straight line. A slowdown in the reported economic growth rate is not a sign of deflation, it's just 'par for the course' because there wasn't much real growth to begin with.

Steve Saville
email: sas888_hk@yahoo.com
Hong Kong

Regular financial market forecasts and analyses are provided at our web site:
http://www.speculative-investor.com/new/index.html

One-month free trial available.

Copyright ©2002-2004 speculative-investor.com All Rights Reserved

bognair

Zu Deinen Zitaten oben:

---> Man kann nicht verkaufen, ohne dass es bereits einen Käufer gibt!
Deswegen ver/kaufen die ZB auch untereinander!!!
Hierzu Ferdinand Lips:
"Gold geht dahin wo in Zukunft die Macht sein wird!"

möchte ich aus Mahendras aktuellem Newsletter daneben stellen:

"Astrology made me laughed when I heard that French government have sold gold reserve because Jupiter (gold) says that don't sell me until you have last penny in your pocket and many people buy gold for solid investment or for rainy days and they don't sell till they have last penny.

In Indian culture if any body is selling has jewellery means he is fighting last battle for survival."

Warum soll das in Europa anders sein....

fragt sich
Spieler

spieler
ja!! wie recht Mahendra hat! Wie schlecht muss es Dtl wirklich gehn!?
ich frage mich wie "blöd" deutschland sein kann, Gold zu verkaufen bzw. ihre letzte anfassbare Reserve aufzugeben bzw. ihre letzte möglichkeit der wahren unabhängigkeit zu verscherbeln bzw. ihre goldene Zukunft so zu verprassen!? also deutschland wird "irgendwann - wenn mal wieder zu einem standard zurückgekehrt wird" wohl nicht zu den "mächtigen" gehören. wer wohl dann? bzw hat die USA schon jemals was von Goldvekaufen gesagt? Sollte DAS den deutschen nicht stutzig sein? Somit dürften nicht mal die Zentralbanken weltweit von dem "Master-Plan" wissen. welche perfekte, perfide "Gold-Verschwörung"...

Was sagt Ihr zur neuesten Silber-Chartanalyse von Godmode-Trader? Steht Silber nochmals eine Kaskade der sinkenden Preise bevor? Würde mich irgendwie erstaunen...:

"SILBER: 6,22 $

Aktueller Tageschart (log) seit 30.10.2003 (1 Kerze = 1 Tag) als Kurzupdate:

Oberhalb der beschriebenen hochgradigen charttechnischen Kreuzunterstützung bei 5,95-6,0 $ versucht sich der Silberpreis zu erholen. Bisher handelt es sich erneut um eine bearishe Flaggenkonsolidierung. Das bedeutet, daß jetzt sogar ein Bruch, - temporär oder aber signifikant, das wird sich zeigen -, des 5,95-6,0 $ Bereichs bevorsteht.

Aus charttechnischer Sicht können für Silber also noch immer keine Entwarnung geben. Unter 5,95-6,0 $ droht im Rahmen eines totalen Extrems ein Verfall bis auf 5,27-5,3 $."

bognair,

was hältst Du von der Chartanalyse von Ike Iossip:

[Blockierte Grafik: http://www.financialsense.com/…if/images/04/0427gold.jpg]

Notice that a 61.8% re-tracement of the rally that started in April of 2003 will take gold to 364.39. A 38.2% re-tracement of the entire bull move that started in February of 2001 will also take gold to 364.55. In addition, the 364.55 level represents "channel support." My point is this -- I believe that the 364-365 level represents very important support. In all likelihood it will be tested in the coming weeks [Blockierte Grafik: http://www.goldseiten-forum.de/images/smilies/frown.gif] and I would expect gold to bounce sharply from that level.

http://www.financialsense.com/Market/wrapup.htm

ThaiGuru
Du schreibst:

"Wenn Silber aber wirklich im Extremfall, wie Godmode Trader in Deinem Posting vermeldet, wieder zurück auf 5.27-5.30 "korrigieren", oder besser gesagt, "manipuliert" werden sollte,

ES WÄR EIN TRAUM!
ZUM PHYSISCHEN EIN/NACHKAUFEN VON SILBER!"

Also mal ehrlich : So positiv ich nun für Gold und Silber eingestellt bin:

Sind solche Aussagen nicht eine Art Selbstbetrug ???

Genauso wie das Geschreie von "Buy the dips" , wenn eine Aktie, die man im Depot hat, nun wider Erwarten runtergeht. Das schreien immer alle, die sich ärgern, daß ein Wert entgegen aller Prognosen dann leider nicht steigt, sondern fällt, um sich selbst zu beruhigen...

Wir alle hatten nun JAHRELANG wirklich AUSREICHEND Zeit, wenn man denn wollte, Silber physisch zu kaufen... Wer jetzt noch keines hat, wird auch keines mehr kaufen, meine Meinung.

Nun zu sagen, "es wäre ein Traum", wenn Silber so weit herunterfallen würde, ist m.E. wirklich dann Selbstbetrug und Schönrederei. (wobei ja nicht damit sagen will, daß ich glaube, daß es dazu kommen muß oder wird..)

Wenn Silber auf den Preis heruntergeht, dann muß man sich als Silberanleger eingestehen, daß man (wenn man schon investiert ist, insbesondere in den Minen) jede Menge Geld verbrannt hat. Und auch wer z.B. aktuell Kookaburras oder was auch immer gekauft hat, hat diese dann deutlich über dem Preis erworben, der dann aktuell sein wird.

Wenn Silber auf das Niveau zurückfällt, dann ist das sehr sehr bitter - ob nun manipuliert oder nicht...

Was nützt es, wenn man noch so lange ruft "Langfristig wird Silber steigen" - Schön und gut - Aber langfristig sind wir alle tot...

Schau auf den Silberlangzeitchart - Irgendwann sollte es nun aber langsam mal losgehen...

Also nichts für ungut, aber Sprüche wie, daß ein solcher Silberverfall ein "Traum" wäre, gehen m.E. an der Realität vorbei...

meint
Spieler, der auf diesen Traum GERNE VERZICHTET !

[Blockierte Grafik: http://www.drd.co.za/images/drd_logo.gif]

Durban Roodepoort hat im Märzquartal tatsächlich einen Gewinn gemacht:

Dez-Q Mrz-Quartal
( 0.7) 4.2 Basic profit/(loss) per share (cents)
( 0.7) 3.2 Diluted profit/(loss) per share (cents)

3,2 US-Cent im Quartal bei einem Aktienkurs von 2,80 $ ergäben ein KGV von 22.

Der durchschnittlich erzielte Goldpreis war 406 Dollar.

spieler

ThaiGuru spricht doch davon, daß es ein Traum für den PHYSISCHEN Nachkauf von Silber wäre und in dem Punkt stimme ich ihm voll zu.

Fallende Silberpreise bringen auch immer günstigere Einkaufspreise und es gibt auch noch viele, die bisher noch nicht ausreichend investiert sind, bzw. sich gerade erst mit dem Thema beschäftigen. Diese Gruppe und alle, die Nachkaufen wollen, würden sich über günstiger Preise natürlich freuen.

Du hast natürlich Recht, für diejenigen, die nicht physisch investiert sind wäre das von Nachteil, aber darauf bezog sich die Äußerung ja nicht.