With the continued disintegration of the economic and financial system in 2021, investment demand for physical precious metals continues to be strong. After the U.S. Mint posted a stunning 2.7 million Silver Eagles sold during the first week in January, they just posted another update, which already blew past last year’s figure by a wide margin.
Remarkably, just the U.S. Mint Silver Eagle sales for the first two weeks in January accounts for 7% of the average monthly global silver mine supply. That’s a lot of silver demand, considering the U.S. Silver Eagle sales are only a small segment of the total global silver market. As I have mentioned in several articles, if we see another record year of physical and ETF silver demand this year like we had last year, the silver price will likely surpass the $35 level.
Now, according to the U.S. Mint’s most recent update, they sold almost 2 million more Silver Eagles this week to the Authorized Dealers. Total Silver Eagle sales as of Jan 12th, are 4,646,000. Already, for the first half of the month, the U.S. Mint sold 800,000 more Silver Eagles than during the entire month last year.
What’s interesting about Silver Eagles, even though the quality of .999 silver is less than its closest competitor, the Canadian Silver Maple coin at .9999 silver, the premium is higher. Silver Eagle premiums can run $1+ more than a Canadian Silver Maple. But, for whatever reason, Americans continue to buy a lot more Silver Eagles than Silver Maples.
With demand for silver investment reaching a record last year, Silver Eagle sales surpassed 30 million in 2020.
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
srsrocco report, us silver eagles, silver, silver coins, precious metals,
Marketwatch: Commentary Censorship
February 2, 2021
Marketwatch: Commentary Censorship
Yesterday (February 1, 2021), MarketWatch published an article on why the short squeeze on silver being discussed by some on WallStreetBets/Reddit would be short-lived. Having read a number of articles on the issue it was not difficult to identify some misleading/faulty statements in the article. I sent a comment through to point out these inconsistencies in the article only to receive a message back that my comment “has been rejected as it contains content that is in breach of our community guidelines.”
Here is the comment:
__________________
Some misleading and missing ‘facts’ in this story.
First, the gold-to-silver price ratio is not ‘historically’ 60-1. That is only a relatively recent ratio. Historically, the ratio is about 15:1. (https://www.mining.com/web/alert-gold-silver-ratio-spikes-highest-level-27-years/)
Second, the argument that the WallStreetBets/Reddit crowd is justifying its position based on the industrial use of silver in electronics/technology is only partially accurate. Several others justifications have been forwarded: the ratio of silver mined to gold mined is even lower than the price ratio, about 8 ounces of silver to every 1 ounce of gold (https://www.jmbullion.com/investing-guide/james/silver-supply/); and, most importantly, there are 100s of paper ounces of silver to every actual physical ounce in existence, so taking physical deliver, as many are suggesting, will expose the fraud that is the precious metals market (https://www.goldbroker.com/news/paper-silver-market-250-times-size-physical-silver-market-526#:~:text=This%20would%20mean%20that%2C%20for,circulating%20in%20several%20financial%20products.)
And finally, many simply want to expose the fraud and manipulation by the Big Banks that has been going on for ages. (https://www.reuters.com/article/jp-morgan-spoofing-penalty/jpmorgan-to-pay-920-million-for-manipulating-precious-metals-treasury-market-idINKBN26K325)
__________________
The community guidelines are fairly extensive, but I can find no where in my comment where I was in breach of them, except maybe “excessive links to external websites”; but is 4 excessive?
Blatant censorship? It seems so to me.