Silver to Gold ratio is screaming at me !

Prospecting Australia

Help Support Prospecting Australia:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Swinging & digging said:
GSR: Gold to Silver ratio,
How many ounces of silver to purchase 1 ounce of gold, historically it was a ratio of around 15 to 1.
For some strange reason Silver, ( It is produced as a by product in many mines, there are very few primary Silver mines these days ) is sold at less than the actual mining and production cost and over time silver is consumed, much has been waisted in scrap electronics
and now buried in landfills and is uneconomic to recover.

It is believed that if the dynamics for Silver Investing were to change, Investors could make better gains out of Silver than Gold, if Silver was priced taking into account, its usefulness, rarity & production costs its value would be much higher than it is now. It has been named the most unvalued asset of all time.

https://youtu.be/-IiarVvZguY
This link seems absurd in its statistics, unless I am tired late at night. It says available world silver is 500 Moz in 2010, which at my estimate is only of the order of 10,000 - 15,000T. Yet as I mentioned, Peru, Australia, Poland have reserves EACH of ten times that, the world fifty times that, and more than 30,000 T is mined each year. I think we basically just mine what silver we need, and don't stockpile it. But the world reserves of 500,000 T would indicate that we could readily produce lots of it if the demand was greater, and we could rapidly find much greater reserves if there was a reason to do so - it behaves like a normal commodity, unlike gold which we hoard. Since its uses are mostly industrial, unlike gold, since it is not sought so much for its beauty, and since it is destroyed over time by oxidation, I am not clear why one should assume it will suddenly become more valuable. China (Hong Kong) and India are outstandingly the largest importers of gold, followed by the UK as a poor third, and this has been the case for a long time - it is traditional, used as a store of wealth, mostly in jewellery (eg and in dowries). Why would these countries decide to change to major silver imports - and without that the silver price will simply fluctuate relative to annual supply and demand and not do any long-term climb (so mostly just useful for short-term speculation)? The USA, UK, Japan, Canada and India are the main silver importers, almost certainly for its main use (industrial), although I noticed that it is widely consumed as fine silver leaf on sweet cakes etc in India (presumably a uniquely Indian custom which I doubt would be a major demand).

The reason there are less silver only mines nowadays is that one requires very high grades to be economic on its own, unlike gold (i.e. relative to typical grades that occur in deposits of these metals). The preoccupation with gold seems very American, and presumably comes from the fact that many high-grade silver mines were mined in the Americas, originally mined by Spain until it lost/gave California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, Texas etc to the USA (Spain used to be to have a silver not gold standard because it had a bit of a monopoly on silver as a result, in central and South America as well (I have spent some time looking at these mines). But this silver standard was abandoned in favour of gold, and silver came to be a by-product of major lead-zinc mining, with a reliable constant supply, the reason Australia has huge silver reserves eg Mt Isa, Broken Hill, Cannington etc.). However the high-grade mines of the Americas tend to be narrow epithermal vein systems, that have poor economics in these days of large tonnage open-pit and block-cave type mining.

Silver and gold prices do tend to vary together:

1535116016_silver_price.jpg


I don't know the reason for this, but can only think that it might be related to its (subordinate) use in jewellery and (subordinate) by-product production from gold mines - it is a bit of a mystery to me.
 
I see twiggys just announced hes dropping 75 mil on a cuppla nickel operations over here,looks likes it might be about to take off again if hes stepping up to the crease theres something going on,i hope you havent all done ya doe on silver..... :lol:
 
These relationships intrigue me:

1535118005_goldvsoil.jpg


1535118049_silver_vs_oil.jpg


It shows the danger of making assumptions like silver price is RELATED to gold price - this would suggest that both simply follow the oil price. But I doubt that it is that simple, and I suspect that all three reflect some other issue such as economic activity....
 
If my memory serves me correctly, there were a number of separate and unrelated factors at play in the world economy during the 1970's that significantly affected the prices of the three commodities:

Oil: The Arab producers were the major force behind OPEC at the time and twice created 'oil shocks' by restricting supply as a retaliatory measure against Israel, after armed conflicts in the Middle East (the 'Six Day War', etc). As a result, the price rocketed upwards.

Gold: President Nixon took the US off the fixed price gold standard that had been in place since WWII and removed restrictions that had prevented private citizens owning bullion. As a result, the price rocketed upwards.

Silver: Two US billionaires, the Hunt brothers, bought and stockpiled huge quantities of physical silver as well as future production options, in an attempt to monopolise and control the global silver market. As a result, the price rocketed upwards.

Looking at the graphs/charts above with these contemporaneous historical factors in mind, I think it's useful to remember that correlation does not imply causation (https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3Wkn...iki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation.html).
 
Thanks for the acceleration of this thtead to what I thought would be the final explanation.

As a aside I did spend some time in an active silver mine in South America, child labor, disease, occasionally collapse, idol worship, opened my eyes up from my coddled existence I knew. Outright poverty is no joke, what it will motivate a person to do.
 
grubstake said:
If my memory serves me correctly, there were a number of separate and unrelated factors at play in the world economy during the 1970's that significantly affected the prices of the three commodities:

Oil: The Arab producers were the major force behind OPEC at the time and twice created 'oil shocks' by restricting supply as a retaliatory measure against Israel, after armed conflicts in the Middle East (the 'Six Day War', etc). As a result, the price rocketed upwards.

Gold: President Nixon took the US off the fixed price gold standard that had been in place since WWII and removed restrictions that had prevented private citizens owning bullion. As a result, the price rocketed upwards.

Silver: Two US billionaires, the Hunt brothers, bought and stockpiled huge quantities of physical silver as well as future production options, in an attempt to monopolise and control the global silver market. As a result, the price rocketed upwards.

Looking at the graphs/charts above with these contemporaneous historical factors in mind, I think it's useful to remember that correlation does not imply causation (https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3Wkn...iki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation.html).
Yes, as I said. I agree completely. It explains the 1970s peak - so what explains it now (scarey I think - oil issues, global instability, financial instability and speculation)?
 
grubstake said:
That is not big time - would have little effect (they have increased their holdings about 1,000 T in recent years, about two and a half years production from their gold mines, as they are about the third largest gold producer in the world). Not speculation or protection from a global crash, but to help insulate themselves against sanctions imposed on Russia.
 
It is saying that gold was only 3.6 times the price of silver then - must have been when silver hit $106 per ounce due to the Hunt Bros temporarily cornering the silver market, thus restricting supply (by March 1980 it was in free fall). Gold was around $400 per ounce at that time, so the ratio could not have been that low except momentarily. If you look at the ratio on either side of that point on this graph it looks in steady climb except for an instant.

Bit like a fishing story...

1535253955_gold_silver_ratio.jpg
 
The Hunt Brothers may have Rich, but for two people to corner the Silver market just shows how little above ground Silver there is? :idea:
Imagine what Silver would be worth if it reached its Inflation adjusted 1980 high now? :money:
 
Swinging & digging said:
The Hunt Brothers may have Rich, but for two people to corner the Silver market just shows how little above ground Silver there is? :idea:
Imagine what Silver would be worth if it reached its Inflation adjusted 1980 high now? :money:
The reason that there is little above ground is that silver is an industrial metal (unlike gold that is used mainly for jewellery etc). We just produce what we need since there is nothing to be gained by over-producing and bringing the silver price down - but as a result it was possible for the Hunt brothers to buy up what would normally have gone to industry in the near future and force the price up very briefly. Gold is different - if we increased gold mine production by a third overnight (virtually impossible because there is not enough in the ground for that) it would not send the gold price down much. We have been producing 25% less gold than demand for decades but it is easily made up by melting jewellery each year. There is plenty of silver in the ground, and we could drastically increase production in a short time if we wanted to, but it would send the price down because we already meet demand. So many myths about silver....

What is rarely mentioned is that it caused the silver price to crash and sent the Hunt Brothers broke.

"In February 1985 the Hunt brothers were charged "with manipulating and attempting to manipulate the prices of silver futures contracts and silver bullion during 1979 and 1980" by the United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission. In September 1988 the Hunt brothers filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the Federal Bankruptcy Code largely due to lawsuits incurred as a result of their silver speculation. In 1989, in a settlement with the CFTC, Nelson Bunker Hunt was fined US$10 million and banned from trading in the commodity markets as a result of civil charges of conspiring to manipulate the silver market. This fine was in addition to a multimillion-dollar settlement to pay back taxes, fines and interest to the Internal Revenue Service for the same period. His brother made a similar settlement".

Laws were changed to stop others doing the same with silver futures again (i.e. the promising to pay silver producers a certain price for silver yet to be produced, thus making it unavailable for others to buy, so sending the price up so you can sell at a much higher price than you have promised to pay to buy it in the future). You can make a killing without any silver or your money actually changing hands (or you could at that time - no more).

So no one in their right mind would try the same trick again - so I don't know why people think the silver price will soar - it is quite common as silver in the ground still (unlike gold), so only an artificially-engineered method like this could make the price soar (no longer though). However precious metal dealers like to try and convince the public otherwise, thus sending the price they get up (slightly). Look who writes the articles...
 
I can't find the bit that differs - can you be a bit more explicit?

e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Bunker_Hunt

The only bit that I did not discuss (or know) is how much money they outlaid themselves to do it, and the proportion of physical silver they held (perhaps a third), but I was discussing a general process regarding futures manipulation, and I pointed out that one could tie up a lot of a commodity with little outlay, using futures (the reports I had read are not very specific regarding their exact methods). They may also have been hedging themselves a bit against the rampant inflation of that time, although " many view the Hunt brothers as members of a long succession of white collar crooks, from Charles Ponzi to Bernie Madoff".

"Bunker and Herbert owned 21 million ounces of physical silver each. They had even larger positions in the silver futures market: Bunker was long on 45 million ounces, while Herbert held contracts for 20 million. Their little brother Lamar also had a more modest position".

So a minority of it was held as physical silver - until when the futures came due they appear to have actually taken physical delivery of the silver (not mentioned in the article above). However they would have paid out at the low price they took the futures at (and bought the physical silver at), not at the high price their actions forced silver to attain.

"Of the $6.6 billion worth of silver the Hunts held at the top of the market, the brothers had only spent a little over $1 billion of their own money. The rest was borrowed from over 20 banks and brokerage houses".

However the important issues remain the same in the article you quote - use of futures, financial manipulation to deprive industry of needed silver supply, their bankruptcy, loss of 80% of their investment, laws to prevent it happening again.

The point being that gold mines produce as much as they can because they never satisfy gold demand, but any attempt to do the same with silver would crash the price. Silver production and its price matching demand (unlike gold). The Hunts chose silver because at the time it was illegal to do it with gold (and of course it was cheaper). Their action was only possible in the short term because given a year silver producers could have increased above-ground silver because of its increased price - and the price would have soon gone down again. It badly failed for them. It could not occur again because of subsequent legislation.

Naturally one can speculate with silver as with pork bellies, and if you get it right you can do well on the smaller but still significant movements in price (it is not as if one knows in advance what exact demand will be, and production is also not known in total as it is from a lot of mines who operate according to the prevailing and anticipated price without major collusion, so prices rise and fall). At no time before then or since has silver reached more than 50% of its price then. But any predictions of future possible price comparisons, or based on this past gold-silver ratio, ignore the fact that it could not be done this way in future (so lesser rises can be expected).

The situation with gold is now different to then (it was illegal to trade gold then) and to me it is a far more desirable investment (I still think it is a good hedge against inflation and an important buffer against major economic crises).
 
Look at the Gold to Silver ratio tonight ! almost 83 ounces of Silver to buy one ounce of gold.

Silver is so underpriced at this moment , It's bargain time ' consider getting a few bars before the Aussie Dollar keeps slipping down any further :Y:

This is not any form of financial advice ;)
 

Latest posts

Top