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

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.

Thunderbirdy
Selbstverständlich ist mir nicht entgangen, daß Thaiguru den physischen
Kauf meint. Und natürlich mag es sein, daß für diejenigen die noch
KEIN physisches Silber haben, dies eine attraktive Kaufgelegenheit wäre.

Attraktiv aber nur dann, wenn denn die These richtig ist, daß der
Silberpreis wirklich mittel- oder langfristig ansteigen wird. Und hier
können wir es nun drehen oder wenden wie wir wollen:

Das werden wir erst im Nachhinein wissen.

Wer z.B. im März bis Anfang April physisches Silber gekauft hat, würde
HEUTE dafür einen viel geringeren Preis beim Verkauf (sogar bei Ebay)
erzielen und sitzt somit auch physisch auf einem Verlust (ja ja, von mir
aus in Euros oder Dollar gerechnet, aber davon kauft man nun einmal
momentan noch die Brötchen...)

Momentan sind das alles nur - sicher gutgemeinte - Durchhalteparolen,
die wohl oder übel darüber hinwegtrösten müssen, daß all diejenigen,
die schon jahrelang schreien, daß Silber nun so eine tolle unterbewertete Anlage sei, einmal mehr einen ganz herben Enttäuschung erlitten.

Ich erinnere mich noch an den triumphal-schreienden Newsletter von Weigl, just genau zum Höhepunkt von Silber bei ca. 8,4 Dollar..
Und wo ist Herr Weigl jetzt - schweigt schweigt schweigt...

Ob er sich freut, daß ein Traum in Erfüllung gegangen ist, daß es Silber
nun ca. ein paar Dollars günstiger gibt als neulich ? Kann ich mir nicht so recht vorstellen.

Ich möchte nur ab und zu mal daran erinnern, ganz einfach, damit hier
nicht nur noch positive Meldungen zu Gold und Silber stehen.

Ich bin selbst - um das ganz klar zu sagen - seit Herbst 2001 durchgehend (!) in Gold und Silber investiert. Bin aber der Meinung,
man sollte nie den Blick für die Gegenargumente verlieren. Ob ich selber überhaupt noch objektiv bin, weiß ich nicht...

Darum auch gleich ein Artikel nachfolgend, der sicher Anlaß

für Diskussionen liefern wird:

Grüße vom Spieler

I think a close look at silver's short history in the free market is imperative when trying to determine whether or not it is, or has been manipulated by any party be it governmental or private. So first we should look at a long term chart to see when any significant price changes occurred. Well needless to say there were several. According to the chart, silver began trading in the 1960's and stayed in a range of around $2 for 6-7 years. Then along comes the stock market bear of the 1970's, (which in reality was reflecting a contracting economy) and with it an inflationary policy to correct the misfortune. Silver responded and quickly began trading at $5. It would be quite a task to determine whether silver began its accent as a result of the stock market bear (a flight to safety) or if it were in response to inflation. We should probably assume it was both. Nevertheless silver did find a new range that the market felt comfortable with. It traded there for 5 years before the first outright manipulation occurred. We know who pulled that one off, the Hunt Boys. From the perspective of a buyer at $40 an ounce, a horrible 10 year bear correction resulted. There were two bounces off of the $5 level in the 80's, but it matters little to me whether those bounces were in response to other manipulative forces within the market or simply "dead cat bounces" off the bottom. The fact is, silver was re-establishing a trading level that would remain in tact for 14 years. Until late 2003, there was only one significant point in which silver traded out of its range; Warren Buffet told the world he had been buying silver. What ever his motives, his stature in the investment world is what caused the temporary spike in prices. Being the "world's greatest investor", it is likely that he did the same thing I did, unloaded a lot of $5 silver while the price was rising towards $7.50.

Chart courtesy of Sharelynx
Then there is GATA, whining for years on end that someone is manipulating the POG and the POS. Their arguments are groundless and fly in the face of "indisputable evidence" (to which they themselves refer) as to the availability of silver, who has been selling it, and when. I refer you to Ted Butler 1997 and his weak and blatant attempt to distort the facts concerning an ongoing deficit in supply vs. demand, governmental sales and or leasing of silver, and the availability of the metal. His reference to the Barron's article (which contains outright lies and misrepresentations) is reprehensible and reflects on his ability or willingness to present his argument in an unbiased and factual manner.

As seen here, The Silver Institute records no deficit in supply vs. demand. Their studies conclude that over the past 10 years, (5 years prior to and including Butler's '97 claim) all demand was met by several means of supply. One of which (governmental sales) lays waste to Butler's claim that Central banks were dumping silver. Butler made his claim in 1997 at a time when Governmental sales had not once (in a 5 year period) exceeded 4% of total supply that fed overall market demand. It was not until a year later (and reported in 1999) that Governmental sales rose sharply. We'll discuss who was and continues to sell and how they impact the market a little later. Butler continued to reference the Barrons article saying there was an imminent danger of silver being completely unavailable within 3-4 years. As I said before, The Silver Institute's data shows no deficit in supply that would allow for such a scenario. Both Butler and Barrons Magazine have been proven wrong, 7 years later I can buy all the silver I want, and so can you. I'll give Butler this leeway; Central Bank leasing could have entered the supply side through Implied Disinvestment. However it cannot be proven, nor should it be implied that if any Central Bank silver did enter the market through legitimate leasing, that the Lessees were selling for any other reason than that of profit and to fill a void that would have had to been filled through an unprofitable and impractical mining operation. In other words, why dig it up at a loss, when we already have so much above ground?

It is a constant complaint of the GATA crowd that we have no silver, it's all gone and we are in deep trouble unless we let the price rise unabated. "$150.00 an ounce sounds about right!" Well one of their favorite references tells a completely different story. Again, The Silver Institute's 2003 summary tells all in 2002, 75% of all silver acquired in mining operations was a secondary recovery while the primary operation of mining copper, zinc, and lead were underway. It is astounding, while mining copper, lead, or zinc the producers dig up 439 million ounces of silver in the process. It leads one to believe that there is a lot of silver in the ground doesn't it? A report from the Nevada Mining Association discusses the closure of mines. It is the ever growing energy costs, insurance bonds, exhaustion of high grade ore, and the low price of silver that cause mines like McCoy/Cove, Bee, Ruby hill, and Denton-Rawhide to shut down prematurely. It is simply not profitable to operate silver mines once the number of ounces per ton of material gathered falls below a given level.

When we look at the Silver Institute's ten year summary, we can see that a huge seller came on line in the late 90's. That was China. In the 2003 report the Institute discusses China and their capabilities. China has been taking up the slack of Implied Disinvestment. However the Institute also makes no suggestion that China will overproduce in the 2003 report. Many GATA boys make the assertion that it is China's hunger for precious metals that will drive the price. This is not true; China sells much more of their metal than they keep. A recent update describes the potential for China to do just what the silver price fears; they are going to open a huge mining operation and might increase their sales this year. Even though the article says China might increase sales, if the market can absorb the new production without much damage to the average mean price of silver, they will sell.

Ok that's enough for now, I think it is pretty evident why the price of silver stays in a range of around $5 an ounce, it is not because Central Banks are controlling the price or because of Commercial hedging.....it is just that silver is very abundant, it is everywhere. Which leads me to wonder, what motivates Butler and others like him to continue in their attacks and claim that there is no silver to be had? Are they as smart as Mr. Buffet? I imagine to a degree they just might be. So what are you doing right now, buying at higher prices or following the golden rule of investing and selling at higher prices?

Remember, successful investing is a matter of knowledge, not luck. So rather than closing with the usual "good luck all".... I'll stick with good day....luck is for rabbits.

Mark Taylor

ThaiGuru
Ich glaube, ich habe Deine Position stets sehr gut verstanden.
Gestatte mir aber eine Frage: Hast Du denn jetzt in den letzten Monaten so viel Geld dazu verdient, das danach schreit, in Silber investiert zu werden ? Wenn ja: Glückwunsch - dann wäre es für Dich ein Traum.
Wenn Du das Geld aber schon vorher hattest, das Du dann investieren willst, dann mußt Du Dich fragen, warum Du nicht schon vorher das Geld in Silber investiert hast.. wir waren ja jahrelang bei diesen Traumpreisen...

Ich weiß im übrigen nicht, wer von uns beiden eher hardcore-mäßig Silber- oder Goldpositionen hält
Aber wie gesagt: Ich meine, wir, Du und ich und alle hatten nun lange genügend Zeit, Positionen in Gold und Silber aufzubauen... und daß haben wir ja wohl auch getan.

Jetzt zu sagen: Hey, wenn Silber noch mal abstürzt, dann geht ein Traum in Erfüllung, tut mir leid, das kann ich nur als Mittel zur Selbstberuhigung (was ja legitim ist ) aktzeptieren...

Nichts für ungut,
Spieler