Articles & Blogs - Silver Commentary

User Rating: / 314
PoorBest 

When I first began examining supply/demand data on the silver market several years ago, I was somewhat hesitant to form conclusions, as silver (and gold) have traits which are very different than ordinary commodities – which affects supply/demand analysis. The second factor which made such analysis more difficult was that supply and demand are reported much differently than for ordinary commodities.

Generally, the supply/demand equation for a commodity is very simple: “supply” is the total amount produced, while “demand” represents consumption. When supply exceeds demand, the remainder is added to inventories, while when demand exceeds supply, the deficit must be taken from inventories.

Reporting of supply and demand for the silver market is totally different. While I originally deferred to such reporting as reflecting the different nature of the silver market, it has now become obvious that the convoluted manner in which supply and demand is reported is simply another deliberate attempt at deceit in this market. In fact, when we look at the numbers closely we see a clumsy sham which should not be able to fool a reasonably perceptive 12-year-old.

Regular readers are already familiar with one facet of this fraud, since I have mentioned it frequently in previous commentaries. All of the “silver” (supposedly) held by bullion-ETF's has been added to silver inventories – the major ruse used to hide the fact that silver inventories are over 90% lower than they were 20 years ago. Since I still get questions and remarks from readers who express doubt about my characterization of this as “fraud”, let me explain this scenario slightly differently.

Let me begin with a definition. An “inventory” is the quantity of a particular good which is warehoused and ready to be sold. When an investor decides to purchase an ounce of silver, obviously that ounce is then subtracted from inventories. It should not make any difference how or where that ounce of silver is purchased. However, suppose our hypothetical silver investor has not read my commentaries – and thus does not know that SLV (the largest, so-called silver bullion-ETF) is nothing but a massive JP Morgan sham.

Instead of buying the ounce of silver directly, our foolish investor chooses to purchase a unit of SLV. Essentially, he is designating SLV as his “agent” to buy and store the bullion on his behalf. So, SLV buys the ounce of silver, and it is then subtracted from inventories (like any other purchase). However, immediately after purchase, SLV takes the investor's ounce of silver and dumps it back into the silver inventory – where anyone else in the world can buy that ounce of silver.

Obviously, SLV has turned this into a sham-transaction. If the investor buys the ounce of silver directly, it is permanently removed from inventories (unless/until that investor chooses to sell it). However, with the SLV shell-game, since every ounce of silver “bought” by SLV is immediately added-back into inventories, what this means is that every unit of SLV could (theoretically) simply be the same ounce of silver purchased and re-purchased hundreds of millions of times by SLV unit-holders.

Of course, on a practical basis this isn't the case. Since many SLV unit-holders hold large numbers of “silver” units, the entire SLV scam could not be conducted with just one ounce of silver. However, it clearly only takes a minute fraction of the total number of units of silver sold in order to operate this scam – much less than 1% of the total size of the fund.

The second aspect of SLV fraud is that the supposed “custodian” of all that SLV silver is JP Morgan. JP Morgan has a massive short position which is never audited that is always almost roughly the same size as the (supposed) holdings of SLV (an amazing coincidence!). Thus, even with the supposed “audits” of SLV, JP Morgan has never shown that is has more than half as much silver as it needs to cover both the short position and the custodian agreement.

Since JP Morgan could suffer potentially infinite losses on that short position (which it has leveraged by somewhere around 100:1), obviously whatever silver JP Morgan holds would be used to cover its own short position, and if there was anything left over, that would go to SLV unit-holders. Clearly, if JP Morgan was only leveraging its silver by 2:1, that alone could mean that SLV is 100% paper. Since we know (from “Loose-Lips” Christian) that these bullion-banks are leveraged by closer to 100:1, the odds of this fund being even partially backed with silver are very slim.

With 2009 supply/demand data for silver finally being released (more than a month later than last year), I can now add that the clumsy sham of SLV is matched by a set of equally dubious numbers which are supposed to represent supply and demand. Recall what I said about supply and demand for a commodity at the beginning of this piece. Production equals “supply”, consumption equals “demand”. Any excess supply is added to inventories, and excess demand is subtracted.

Then there is the silver market. In the fantasy-land of the silver market, we're told that supply equals demand every year. This is obviously not possible with any realistic model of supply and demand, but here is how this sham is constructed. Once (supposed) demand has been calculated, then numbers for mine-supply + government sales + recycled silver are added to this “equation” - with the net balance always being zero.

What we are supposed to believe is that either the miners, the recyclers, or governments are omniscient (or perhaps all three), because one or all of these contributors to supply supplies only enough silver to the market each year (down to the ounce) to precisely offset demand. Call me a “skeptic”, but I doubt that any of these market players is omniscient. Given the time, effort and logistics involved with mining silver or recycling silver, it's impossible for either of those players in the market to instantaneously adjust their output, so that there is never any surplus or deficit in the silver market.

What about government sales, you ask? Clearly, (nearly depleted) government stockpiles can be released into the market very quickly – so this mechanism could ensure that the market remains in balance. Here's where it gets interesting. Government sales have dwindled year-by-year to the point that they now only account for 2% of total supply. Given the tiny contribution to silver supply made by government sales, obviously the quantity is simply too small to make-up for any substantial supply-deficit.

But wait!

We are also told that in the “magical” world of the silver market, demand never changes. As I reported in a previous commentary, total demand for 2007 equaled total demand for 2008 – right down to the nearest tenth of a ton: identical demand for those two years, despite the collapse of the U.S. economy in 2007, and the sudden, mysterious even greater collapse of the global economy in 2008. We had two of the most-volatile years in economic history, and yet we are supposed to believe that demand for silver remained identical.

Now the numbers for 2009 have been released: the year of the “U.S. economic recovery” and the global economic recovery – and another dramatic reversal in the global economy. And what happened to silver demand? It increased from 888.3 tons to 889.0 tons – a difference of 0.7 tons, which translates into an increase of 0.08%. In the magical world of silver, even the 2% of supply contributed by governments is enough to meet any supply-deficit, because demand (supposedly) never changes.

Because there are large numbers of readers out there who simply refuse to believe in “manipulation” or “conspiracies” or simply lying, I'm sure that there are still some people out there who do believe that in the magical world of silver, demand never changes, and supply always perfectly equals demand. So let's move on.

If supply always precisely equals demand every year, this dictates another conclusion: inventories can never change. Remember how markets operate: if demand exceeds supply, that excess is drawn out of inventories, while if supply exceeds demand the excess is added to inventories. If supply precisely equals demand every year, there can never possibly be any change in inventories.

Now have a look at the chart below. Regular readers are already familiar with how silver inventories made a complete U-turn in 2005, and after plummeting straight down for 15 years, they are now moving nearly straight up – supposedly inventories have nearly quadrupled in that span. Inventories have quadrupled, even though supply equaled demand every year.

To be more precise, silver inventories supposedly increased by over 30% last year alone, from roughly 600 million ounces to nearly 800 million ounces. Given that supply supposedly precisely equaled demand last year, the obvious question is where did this phantom, 200 million ounces come from?

Part of the answer to that question I have answered previously: through the fraud of adding ETF-units to silver inventories. However, as the graph below shows, during 2009 holdings of the seven largest silver bullion-ETF's increased by roughly 110 million ounces – from 350 million ounces to 460 million. But that still leaves 90 million ounces which are totally unaccounted.

It wasn't enough for these clumsy fraudsters to merely add the units of ETF's to inventories (despite the fact that this silver is not on the market), they also padded inventories by an additional 90 million ounces – with absolutely no “silver” (not even ETF-paper) to account for it.

For argument's sake, let's ignore one of the lies regarding the silver market: that supply equals demand every year. We know the reason for that lie: to created the illusion that the silver market is “in balance”. So let's just completely throw out demand numbers – since we know it was absolutely impossible for demand to remain unchanged for 2007, 2008, and 2009. Let's only look at supply.

There are three components of supply: mine-production, recycling/scrap, and government sales. Total scrap/recycling is falling every year. Not only is government supply also falling every year, but the numbers are being retroactively revised lower. After 2008, government sales were reported as amounting to 30.9 million ounces. However, by the end of 2009, the amount of government silver sold in 2008 had decreased to 27.6 million ounces. Yet another 3.3 million ounces of “silver” has simply evaporated!

We are told that silver mine-supply is supposedly rising every year (by a meager 25 million ounces in 2009), despite the fact that 2/3 of mine-supply is a “byproduct” of base metals mining, and despite the fact that the Crash of '08 decimated base metals mining around the world. Remarkably, in the magical world of silver, silver-production was supposedly totally unaffected. However, what must be clearly noted is that this (supposed) increase in mine-supply is totally offset (down to the ounce) by the decrease in recycling and government sales – yet another remarkable “coincidence” in the silver market. Thus, it is totally impossible for “increased mine supply” to account for the massive, phantom increases in reported silver inventories.

By the end of 2004, global silver inventories had plunged to their lowest level in many decades (and likely several centuries). We know that we can rely upon the data to that point, since the people manipulating the silver market would not want to overstate the decimation of inventories. It is equally clear that all the supply, demand, and inventory numbers since that date have been heavily contrived, to the point of being completely meaningless. Keep in mind that the two quasi-official private “consultancies” who create these doctored-numbers (GFMS and The CPM Group) are intimate buddies with the bullion-banks, indeed Jeffrey Christian (the head of The CPM Group) is a Goldman Sachs “alumnus”.

While it is always an uncomfortable feeling for an investor to “fly blind” in any particular market, let's review what we can say with certainty. We know that by 2005 silver inventories had been reduced by 90% in just 15 years. We know that since that time the banksters and their allies have been so desperate to hide the truth that they have perpetrated numerous frauds, including totally falsifying supply, demand and inventory data.

What can we deduce from this? Obviously, if silver inventories really were increasing then the banksters would want to make the market as “transparent” as possible – to show people all this new silver. Thus, we know that silver inventories are not increasing. However, if silver inventories were staying flat, or even falling at a more gradual rate, then surely it would not be necessary to falsify all the numbers in this market, and on a huge scale – with hundreds of millions of ounces of “silver” being conjured out of thin-air every year (not much different from how the bankers conjure our “money”)?

Therefore, even the massive fraud being perpetrated in reporting the activities in the silver market should not deter investors from capitalizing on (literally) a once-in-a-lifetime investment opportunity. Think about how close the silver market must be to its inevitable default, if the high-and-mighty bankers (who continually tell us how brilliant they are) are incapable of perpetrating a scam more believable than this incredibly clumsy farce.

The silver you can hold in your hand is real. The shares of silver mining companies are real. The (limited) number of legitimate bullion-ETF's who directly hold their own silver are real. But in the “magical” world of silver, everything else is merely a bankster-illusion.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (39)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

...
written by Jeff Nielson, July 31, 2010

That's the point, BeachBum: any/all privately-held silver is not part of "inventories", by definition. That silver is part of "stockpiles": existing silver which COULD come onto the market (likely at a much higher price).

Inventories properly only covers silver (and gold) which are for sale RIGHT NOW. That's the contradiction of SLV (and other such holdings). Either the fund-managers, or GFMS have to come out and say "yes" this silver IS part of inventories (in which case SLV holders hold only paper promises), or they can say "no" this silver is privately held - and global inventories are less than 1/3 as large as we are pretending.

In fact, even if they took the ETF "bullion" out of inventories, that STILL doesn't mean that SLV is "legitimate", because it would still require JP Morgan honouring that MASSIVE "custodian" obligation - which I find VERY, VERY unlikely.

• 
• +1
• 
• 

...
written by Beach Bum, July 31, 2010

Using your argument that SLV silver holdings should not be considered "inventory" because it is held by investors, shouldn't the portion of COMEX silver warehouse stocks held by investors also be considered "off-limits" and not included in "inventory"? I don't know how one determines what portion of COMEX physical silver is held by investors and what is held by users and dealers.
Seems this would make available "inventories" even smaller!!!!

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Jeff Nielson, July 19, 2010

Lol, Navderek! Yes, lots of double-talk, asking YOU where you got YOUR numbers, but nothing in the way of ANSWERING your questions.

I fully applaud and encourage readers to make such inquiries, since "making noise" (in one form or another) is exactly why our site exists. However, being somewhat cynical by nature, it is most likely that "making noise" in this area will provide us with some amusing material to toss back and forth, but likely little in the way of forthright answers.

What WILL be interesting is whether receiving questions such as these will cause them to make CHANGES in how they "report" their numbers in the future...?

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by navderek, July 19, 2010

Well...After my evasive reply from "The Silver Institute" I decided to fire the question of supply/demand directly to GFMS and after a few days this is what I got back (email copied below):
*******************************************************
***
fromPhilip Newman
to"navderek@gmail.com"
dateMon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:23 AM
subjectRE: Silver - Supply & Demand

Derek

The global silver supply/demand tables we produce do match each year, because of the implied (dis)investment series, which is essentially a balancing item. This is derived after all of the other series, each of which is independently calculated, have been compiled into a supply/demand table. The implied series therefore captures western bar purchases, changes in ETF holdings, activity on the various exchanges as well as OTC activity.

Because the implied (dis)investment series is a balancing item the value will always be an estimate but, in each year, this will provide a very good guide as to the trend in investment or disinvestment that emerged, on a net basis.

Regards
Philip Newman


-----Original Message-----
From: Derek Arsenault [mailto:navderek@gmail.com]
Sent: 14 July 2010 15:02
To: Emma Hastings
Subject: Re: Silver - Supply & Demand

The data came from the "Silver Institute" website. They have supply
and demand tables there. I was under the impression that these tables
were provided by GFMS.

Regards,

-Derek

On 7/14/10, Emma Hastings wrote:
> Hello Derek
>
> Please can I ask where you read this information? Do you have one of our
> surveys or forecasts?
>
> Warm regards,
> Emma
>
> Emma Hastings
> Office Manager / Sales & Marketing Assistant
> GFMS Limited
>
> Hedges House
> 153-155 Regent Street
> London
> W1B 4JE
> Direct Line: +44 (0) 20 7478 1750
> Fax: +44 (0) 20 7478 1779
> Email: emma.hastings@gfms.co.uk
>
> Web site: http://www.gfms.co.uk
> Online store: http://shop.gfms.co.uk
>
> From: Derek Arsenault [mailto:navderek@gmail.com]
> Sent: 14 July 2010 05:44
> To: Info
> Subject: Silver - Supply & Demand
>
> I was interested in understanding the mechanics of the supply vs. demand for
> Silver but after seeing some of the the data I'm even more confused... How
> can it be possible for supply to always exactly meet demand, year after
> year? There does not seem to be any surplus or deficit in the silver
> industry... Please explain as I was expecting a surplus and/or deficit each
> year depending on mining output and/or changes in global demand.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Derek

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Jeff Nielson, July 17, 2010

Yes, Pink Floyd, you are correct, I just roughly gauged the numbers from the charts - rather than hunt-down the precise data. To me, I simply couldn't justify the effort of finding each, precise number - only to conclude that those numbers have little meaning.

Indeed, the greater the fabrications and exaggerations, the less important it is to be precise, since we're dealing with fabrications piled on top of fabrications.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Pink Floyd, July 17, 2010

Dear Sir or Madame,

I have some questions concerning the official demand/supply data about the silver market.

1) In the silver market, demand never changes. Total demand for 2007 equaled namely total demand for 2008 – right down to the nearest tenth of a ton: identical demand for those two years, despite the collapse of the U.S. economy in 2007, and the sudden, even greater collapse of the global economy in 2008. We had two of the most-volatile years in economic history, and yet it seems that demand for silver remained identical.

Now the numbers for 2009 have been released: the year of the “U.S. economic recovery” and the global economic recovery – and another dramatic reversal in the global economy. And what happened to silver demand? It increased from 888.3 tons to 889.0 tons – a difference of 0.7 tons, which translates into an increase of 0.08%.

2) Numbers are being retroactively revised. E.g., according to the World Silver Survey 2009, government sales for 2008 amounted to 30.9 million ounces. According to the WSS 2010 the amount of government silver sold in 2008 amounted to 27.6 million ounces. (Cfr. also "mine production", "industrial applications", "producer de-hedging", "implied net-investment")

3) Silver mine-supply is supposedly rising every year (by a meager 25 million ounces in 2009), despite the fact that 2/3 of mine-supply is a “byproduct” of base metals mining, and despite the fact that the Crash of '08 decimated base metals mining around the world. Remarkably silver-production was supposedly totally unaffected.

4) This supposed increase in mine-supply is totally offset by the decrease in recycling and government sales. In order for the total supply to remain the same? (888 m/oz in 2007, 888,3 in 2008, 889 in 2009)

5) In the silver market supply equals demand every year.
It seems that once demand has been calculated, then numbers for mine-supply + government sales + recycled silver are added to this “equation” - with the net balance always being zero.

6) Production equals “supply”, consumption equals “demand”. Any excess supply is added to inventories, and excess demand is subtracted.
If supply always precisely equals demand every year, inventories can never change: if demand exceeds supply, that excess is drawn out of inventories, while if supply exceeds demand the excess is added to inventories. If supply precisely equals demand every year, there can never possibly be any change in inventories.

Now, according to CPM Group data silver inventories made a complete U-turn in 2005, and after plummeting straight down for 15 years are now moving nearly straight up. Inventories have quadrupled, even though, according to Silver Institute data, supply equaled demand every year!
To be more precise, silver inventories supposedly increased by over 30% last year alone, from roughly 600 million ounces to nearly 800 million ounces. Given that supply precisely equaled demand last year, the obvious question is where did this 200 million ounces come from?
Part of the answer to that question is: adding ETF-stocks to silver inventories.

I have two questions concerning this matter:
a) Every time a unit of a ETF is purchased, this supposedly represents one ounce of silver which is being taken off of the market, and is now privately held.
How is it possible for privately-held bullion inventories to be added to official inventories?
And if it is, why privately-held ETF's silver bars are considered part of official inventories, but not so privately-held silver coins (i.e. why coin sales are not added to the official inventories too)?

b) According to CPM Group data official inventories increased by ca. 200 millions ounces.
According to Silver Institute data during 2009 ETF's holdings rose by only 136,9 millions ounces.
Thus that still leaves ca. 63 millions ounces which are unaccounted.
Where do these 63 millions ounces come from, given that demand and supply equalled?

Best regards
Pink Floyd

• 
• +1
• 
• 

...
written by Pink Floyd, July 17, 2010

I have put together some questions, which I'll send to the silver institute, the CPM Group and to GFMS Limited. Let's see if we get somewhere. For the most part I edited Jeff's article hoping it will be okay with him.

Jeff, may I ask where did you get from that silver inventories increased by ca. 200 m/oz in 2009? Is that a rough estimation of yours based on the graphic you published (Silver inventories at low levels. Source CPM Group) or did you read this figure somewhere?
(BTW, you wrote: "Holdings of the silver bullion Etf increased by ca. 110 m/oz" while Silver Institute data say 136,9. Not for disrespect but I have used the latter...)

I've checked the data in the summaries of the World Silver Survey for 2009 and 2008, published both by the Silver Institute. You can find them here:
http://www.silverinstitute.org/images/stories/silver/PDF/wss09sum.pdf
http://www.silverinstitute.org/supply_demand.php

If someone finds any flaws in these remarks of mine please advise me.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Jeff Nielson, July 14, 2010

Pink Floyd, "producer hedging" WAS a key weapon for the banksters to use to depress the bullion markets. What hedging amounts to is "forward selling" bullion, or in other words, selling "bullion" that hasn't even been dug out of the ground yet.

Here's the interesting part: if you "forward sell" hedged metal onto the market (as new "supply") then you CAN'T consider that (same) silver "new supply" when it is actually mined and refined - because you've already counted those ounces once.

Thus, double-counting mine supply seems to be another device used to "create balance" in the supply/demand numbers.

For more information on this subject, see:

"Gold: Why the Bankers Need the Miners"
http://www.bullionbullscanada.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11901:gold-why-the-bankers-need-the-miners&catid=48:gold-commentary&Itemid=131

• 
• +1
• 
• 

...
written by Pink Floyd, July 14, 2010

"Last year, that figure stood at 20.2 million ounces. This supply from above ground stocks can be sourced from the recycling of fabricated products or from the mobilization of bullion stocks owned by private individuals or governments."

Well, why don't you tell me specifically where these 20 m/o were sourced from?
If I got it right, recycling of fabricated products and mobilization of bullion stocks owned by governments are already considered as traditional supply.
And what could it mean that "the mobilization of bullion stocks owned by private individuals" totalled 20 m/o?
In absolute terms it totalled for sure far more than 20 m/o.
Compared to investment demand of bullion stocks it equalled zero, the latter being bigger than it.
(BTW, I have no idea either how "producer hedging" can increase the silver physical supply...)

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Pink Floyd, July 14, 2010

Thanks Derek.
English is not my mother tongue.
That said: Mr. DiRienzo writes "traditional supply mechanisms (Mine supply, scrap supply, government sales, producer hedging)".

And then: "supply from above ground stocks. Last year, that figure stood at... This supply (meaning: OTHER THAN TRADITIONAL SUPPLY MECHANISM) can be sourced from the recycling of fabricated products (I thought that was the same as SCRAP SUPPLY) or from the mobilization of bullion stocks owned by ... governments (I thought that was the same as GOVERNMENT SALES...)

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Jeff Nielson, July 13, 2010

Navderek, as you saw with your reply, all you got was evasion. However, don't forget that The Silver Institute didn't compile this data, they just report it.

I'm actually surprised that they wouldn't have suggested (themselves) that you go to the sources for the data: Gold Fields Mineral Services ("GFMS") and/or The CPM Group.

In the case of GFMS, here's something I've pasted from the link below:

http://info.goldavenue.com/Info_site/in_who/in_who_gfmsnew.html

Gold Fields Mineral Services Ltd (GFMS)
Gold Fields Mineral Services Ltd (GFMS) is an independent, London-based consultancy and research company, focussed on the international gold and silver markets. GFMS is best known for its flagship publication, the annual Gold Survey, which features in-depth analysis and extensive statistics on gold supply and demand for over sixty countries.

Since 1994, GFMS has also been responsible for the World Silver Survey, produced on behalf of The Silver Institute in Washington. Both publications are quoted frequently by the media and industry analysts, confirming that GFMS are the acknowledged experts in the area of gold and silver research.

More recently, GFMS has undertaken research into the platinum group markets. As a result the company now produces a Precious Metals Quarterly which includes analysis of the gold, silver and platinum group metals markets.

In addition to its extensive product range, GFMS also undertakes privately commissioned research and consultancy across the precious metals complex. This can vary from one-off reports to ongoing, extensive market studies.

GFMS Annual Gold Survey
The world's most comprehensive and authoritative source of information and data on the global gold market. Includes a hundred graphs, independent global coverage of the international gold market, and detailed analysis of market trends and corporate activity in the mining industry.

Gold Survey Updates
Six monthly updates to the Annual Gold Survey, published in September and January, providing thorough interim analysis of the most recent developments in the gold market. Based on this analysis, the Updates also look forward to the coming six months and give an indication of expected trends in all aspects of supply and demand, as well as a price forecast. The most important economic, socio-political and market-specific issues facing the gold market in under 40 pages.

GFMS Precious Metals Seminar
This year's seminar featured a summary of the market analysis contained in Update 1 to Gold Survey 2001.

In addition, a distinguished panel of guest speakers together with GFMS analysts addressed a wide range of issues of importance to the market and the outlook for precious metals' prices.

The GFMS Precious Metals Seminar offers an opportunity for high level networking as well as an excellent forum for industry information exchange.

Web www.gfms.co.uk

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by sailortony, July 13, 2010

Derek,

I think you guys are onto something here.

Keep questioning him. He will eventually tripped. I am sure Jeff, knowing his defense attorney abilities, can help you formulate the right question.

• 
• +1
• 
• 

...
written by navderek, July 13, 2010

I sent an email to the "Silver Institute" to question them about why supply always meets demand...here is their response... Do you guys have any comments?

******************************************
Derek - Many thanks for writing. When looking at supply/demand, as is the case for many commodities, additional demand beyond traditional supply mechanisms (Mine supply, scrap supply, government sales, producer hedging), is made up with supply from above ground stocks. Last year, that figure stood at 20.2 million ounces. This supply from above ground stocks can be sourced from the recycling of fabricated products or from the mobilization of bullion stocks owned by private individuals or governments.



Michael DiRienzo

Executive Director

The Silver Institute

888 16th Street, NW

Suite 303

Washington, D.C. 20006

202-495-4030 (direct)

From: Info
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 4:11 PM
To: Michael DiRienzo
Subject: FW: Silver Institute Contact Form


From: Derek [mailto:navderek@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 11:19 AM
To: Info
Subject: Silver Institute Contact Form

COMMENTS: I was interested in checking out the Supply vs. Demand for Silver but after seeing the data on your site I'm even more confused... How can it be possible for supply to always exactly meet demand, year after year? There is no surplus or deficit in the silver industry? Please explain. Thanks,
-Derek

• 
• +1
• 
• 

...
written by Jeff Nielson, July 13, 2010

Pink Floyd, what has struck me more than anything else since I began to study the precious metals market is how shallow the level of analysis was. Apart from a few dedicated researchers (Ted Butler immediately comes to mind), there has been very little quality analysis done concerning the silver market.

From a selfish standpoint, it provides me with a lot of opportunities to apply my own analysis in producing original conclusions and ideas. However, I don't delude myself into thinking that the larger miners who are (still) "in bed" with the bankers are going to embrace my own ideas. Humanity's capacity to ignore the truth never ceases to amaze me.

• 
• +1
• 
• 

...
written by Pink Floyd, July 13, 2010

Thanks a lot for your articles Jeff.

The World Silver Survey is researched and compiled by London-based GFMS Limited. The Silver Institute has published this annual report on the global silver market since 1990.
The World Silver Survey 2010 was sponsored by 18 companies and organizations.

Do you think it could be of some interest to ask the compilators and those who have sponsored the World Silver Survey some explanations based on your remarks?

This document, whose data are treated as "official", was sponsored by 18 companies and published by the Silver Institute.
This GFMS Limited consist of "fifteen full-time analysts; while two consultants contribute insights on important regional markets." Plus "Executive Chairman Philip Klapwijk and CEO Paul Walker." http://www.gfms.co.uk/whoweare_background.htm

How is it possible that all these people don't have noted the flaws of this document you exposed? I'm thinking in particular about the sponsors. They are for sure interested in potential flaws of "their" document.
Do you think we should contact them?

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Jeff Nielson, July 07, 2010

Sometimes I wonder if there is any real "plan" remaining with respect to the anti-gold cabal - or whether they simply try to prop-up their schemes now week-by-week. Maybe they think they have some scientists on the brink of perfecting alchemy?

All we KNOW is that "the numbers don't add up", which strongly suggests they have something to hide...along with all the other evidence of manipulation which was already out there.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by swsprime, July 06, 2010

Hi Jeff,

I've been on vacation in Europe these past few weeks and missed some of your stuff.

Today this fantasmagorical new silver is created very much like new fiat money.

Years ago at least you needed printing presses to print new dollars or IOU Silver Certificates (Dollars were really IOU's for Gold till Tricky Nicky took us off the Gold standard.) Now even the presses are redundant as the creation of a trillion dollars can be done at the touch of a computer button.

Today the Fed creates these trillions of new virtual reality dollars without ever needing to look at a printing press, and the JP Morgan gang have copied them with virtual reality silver - want more silver? well here it is, just don't ask to hold it, there's the entry in our virtual reality ledger saying that you own it - honest!

Of course in the Virtual reality world supply can exactly equal demand, no surprise there then.

Yes, when you leave the physical world for the virtual reality world all things are possible. Just think - we no longer have to mine silver, J P Morgan will just magic it into cyber existence.

In fact everything we need silver for in the manufacturing world could be cybered. We could have virtual reality fridges that don't need silver in their manufacture. Want a beer to accompany that virtual reality TV game? Easy go the the virtual reality fridge - there's an endless supply of beer there, just like J P Morgan's endless supply of Silver.

• 
• +1
• 
• 

...
written by navderek, July 06, 2010

YOU READ MY MIND!!!

I can't beleive you just wrote an article about supply & demand because I was digging around for this information just the other day and stumbled upon this site: http://www.silverinstitute.org/supply_demand.php

As you described in your article, they show supply & demand being equal every single year...right down to the ounce!

When I saw that I was like "What the hell???!!!?!" and I've been thinking of that ever since and now I read your article...amazing!

I have one question though.....WHY??? Why would they want to hide the fact that silver inventories are down? I don't understand what they have to gain by doing this manipulation. Actually, wouldn't they want to hoard as much silver as possible then suddenly reveal the low inventory to shoot up the price? Is this what they plan on doing with the SLV's?

I fail to be able to connect the dots. I completely understand what's going on but I lack the understanding of the motive...could you clarify possible motives?

GREAT ARTICLE!

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by paxjds, July 04, 2010

Sailor Tony and Jeff,
It appears Mr. Bart Chilton and the gang at the CFTC has done nothing for 35 years in cleaning up the problems in the PM's markets. What a waste of taxpayers money on a group that cannot change the corruption and manipulation in the Precious Metals markets.
His reference to the upcoming vote in the Senate almost (LOL) made me fall off my chair. With the recent Senate vote to not audit the Federal Reserve Bank, there is absolutely no chance in Heaven or Hell that they would pass any meanifull reform of the gold or silver markets By Nailing the Banks/brokers on manipulation. The CFTC will remain in fact literally the same, unable to do anything but collect complaints, do nothing, and screw the public, all at government expense. God please give me a job, paying me a lot of money to do and accomplish nothing, yes , a Government Job on the CFTC board.
Till the Banksters are jailed and the puppet strings to Congress are cut, nothing worth while will be accomplished.

• 
• +1
• 
• 

...
written by hockmir, July 03, 2010

Here is a link to the page for the ETFS funds bar lists. It is a bit of a hunt to find the right clicker, but its there:

http://www.etfsecurities.com/en/securities/etfs_physical_exposure.asp#bars

• 
• -1
• 
• 

...
written by Chad McNamara, July 03, 2010

Just let me know what you want done

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Jeff Nielson, July 03, 2010

Thank you very much for the additional details, Hockmir. This sounds like a job for our OWN resident web-master, Chad!

Definitely something which we want to look into further. I've often secretly speculated that if any global "audit" was ever performed that we would find MANY bars of gold and silver with MANY owners. Being able to detail such facts with hard evidence would be a big step in the right direction.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by hockmir, July 03, 2010

Jeff - With regard to the discrepancies that I was seeing in the bar lists, others have seen the same issues as well. There is a good report published on Zerohedge on the subject (link: http://www.zerohedge.com/sites..._1_PDF.pdf)

As for the bar list for SLV, it can be found at:

https://ebts.jpmorgan.com/metalicsWebApp/ebts_downloads/BONYBARLIST.PDF

I note that the list is published in PDF form, which makes it difficult for one to apply spreadsheets or other analytical tools unless one is endowed with more than average computer skills. Luckily for SLV, there are folks like myself out here who posses the necessary tools to engage in such inquiries.

• 
• +1
• 
• 

...
written by Jeff Nielson, July 03, 2010

SailorTony (Claude), thanks for sharing that correspondence. As readers know, I've been (relatively) silent about rumors of an investigation into silver manipulation (in general) and JP Morgan (in particular).

I will debate part of what Bart Chilton said in his reply. While I would agree that current U.S. legislation "sets the bar too high", I would strongly DISAGREE that evidence to meet that standard does not already exist.

Presumably Chilton hasn't forgot the name "Andrew Maguire". Maguire was quite prepared to TESTIFY about "intent" (the key requirement in making a case) but was NOT ALLOWED to by the CFTC. Given that Chilton is the former head of the CFTC, and given that the CFTC was even less-responsive during that period, I have GREAT difficulty in believing the "new" Bart Chilton: as a born-again regulator.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Jeff Nielson, July 03, 2010

Hockmir, thanks for your comment. I was wondering if there was any simple "registry" or search-engine to obtain such data. I'm not familiar with the site you referred to, so if you could provide a link, I'm sure that many SLV holders would like to have a peek at that too!

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Jeff Nielson, July 03, 2010

Hi Dylan. There are two ways to look at the issue of silver inventories and ETF "holdings". Either the "silver" of ETF's IS simply returned to vaults/warehouses awaiting (another) sale, or The CPM Group is adding all this "silver" to inventories, even though NONE of it is actually available for sale (since it is all officially privately-owned).

In the first interpretation, it is the ETF's which are total shams, since their "silver" is never really held by these funds. In the second interpretation, since none of this silver is actually part of inventories, this means that INVENTORY numbers are a total fraud - and there could be as little as 1/10th the amount of silver available for sale versus what the bankers are pretending.

I lean toward the second view - since a COUPLE of the silver-ETF's apparently do actually hold their own bullion. What you have to ask yourself is why these funds don't speak-out - when you have The CPM Group essentially implying that ALL these funds are total shams?

I can't give you definitive answers to your questions, since there is absolutely no "transparency" in this market. So I won't contradict or disagree with what Chris Powell says. If SLV is PARTIALLY-backed with silver AND if that silver is in their own control - rather than sitting in a "warehouse" for sale, then a significant number of unit-holders COULD exit the fund without huge losses.

Those are pretty big "if's".

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by sailortony, July 03, 2010

In the meantime the manipulations continue as well outlined by Ted Butler at King World News this week.

I expressed my frustration in the following email to the CFTC this morning:

" Sirs,

Like Ted Butler, I think it is outrageous to allow these criminal
activities to take place.
When are you going to do your job and do something about it?

Enough is enough!

"

I was quite surprised to receive an immediate answer from Bart Chilton on this Saturday of a long weekend in the US:

"Claude

I called for the investigation and although I still can't discuss it (by law) it is making progress and I'm hopeful that we will be able to discuss in the not too distant future. I meet on it regularly and am glad that we have been working on it.

On manipulation: Our manipulation standard (the law, the Commodity Exchange Act) is broken. The standard is so high (like we have to prove intent - with and email or other evidence) that we have only had one successful prosecution in 35 years. So, for folks to say there is obvious manipulation, they aren't talking about the law we have to abide by, just what would appear to be manipulation in their mind (which I understand, it is just different than what we have to go by). The broken law is why I and others, including the Chairman (Mr. Gensler), have called on Congress to pass what is called "disruptive trading practice authority". This will allow us to get at manipulative-like practices that distort markets. I'm pleased to report that the disruptive trading practices language is in the bill that has passed the House and is pending in the Senate.

Finally, I have been calling for position limits in metals. There is no limit to the number of contracts a trader can currently hold (except in the spot month). So a trader can hold 30% or even higher. Crazy, I know. I'm the only one of the five Commissioners to call for these limits in metals. Mandatory position limits are, happily, included in the reg reform bill as well. That means that despite the lack of consensus (or what is required, a majority, so 3 of the 5 of us) that we WILL have to impose position limits.

Anyway, I appreciate Mr. Butler's efforts in general. At the same time, I'd just caution folks to be careful with their investments. Some (who have worked for businesses that will prosper with the sale of a commodity)have essentially suggested that the price of this or that commodity will go sky high once the big bad government gets its act together. "Buy now", they say, "or you will miss out on the lower prices that will surely rise once the government stops this obvious manipulation". Just be careful.


B "

This is probably a circular response; but I have never seen one like it???

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by hockmir, July 03, 2010

I can add that during a lengthy illness, with nothing better to do, I first read the prospectus for SLV, and smelled the same "Rat" that others have.

Pursuing this a bit further, I downloaded the lists of bars and serial numbers from SLV and another of the "paper" bullion funds. I was surprised to see a number of bars listed which matched by Maker, Serial number and weight. Thus, the lists which were purporting to show me the silver I owned in SLV also showed that other guys owned them in other funds as well, simultaneously, at the same time.

I executed Sells on all of my SLV soon therafter.

• 
• +1
• 
• 

...
written by Dylan, July 03, 2010

Saw your article posted over at GATA Jeff. Whilst, I'm a big fan of Chris Powell, I don't really understand his comments here.

"Jeff Nielson of Bullion Bulls Canada reports that the silver purportedly being held by silver exchange-traded funds is being counted as part of silver inventories, not as silver removed from the market by investment demand. Since any silver held by EFTs can be sold quickly by investors and returned to the market by the ETFs, this may not be quite the fraud that Nielson calls it."

My questions are

1)Where is the actual physical silver "held" by SLV located? (If anywhere)

2)If it counts as part of silver inventories still, can it be freely moved back and forth?

3) If investors in SLV do decide to sell their shares as Chris Powell suggests, will it be "returned" to the market or if it has never left the market in the first place, will it further drive down the price (paper fiction) of Silver or is it just that the original "purchase" by SLV had no effect on driving the price of Silver up in the first place?

Whichever way you look at it, it seems to me that Class 1 Shyster Fraud has been committed here.

• 
• +1
• 
• 

...
written by Jeff Nielson, July 02, 2010

Yes, Grumley, no doubt expensive!

However, between the "mercenaries" and the "Bat Cave", you're now all set to start storing the bullion of friends and family members...and if a few ounces should go "missing" now and then, just do what the Royal Canadian Mint did: just say it was all a "bookkeeping error".

• 
• +0
• 
•