Am I on the right track??

There is no comparison to holding a raw coin in your hand vs. having it in a capsule. Always keep some to fondle and do some ring testing too, it's good fun

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I am good with your statement "even if only in a commodity sence"

I also TOTALLY agree with "That current medium of exchange is robbing people of savings and will continue to do so as long as it's in place."

The current monetary system is not designed to be put under your matress. It will just lose value there due to inflation. Low inflation is a good thing in a fiat monetary system. Fiat currency is not designed to build wealth or even maintain weath. It is used as a medium of exchange. We have many other things that can be used to build an preserve wealth. Stocks , bonds, land, commodities just to name a few. The tricky part in knowning which are a good investment at any given time. Let's face it if any of us were really 100% sure of the answer, we would all be driving around in big cars, smokin' big cigars with pretty girls on our laps.

Mike

 

I've already told you about how the SLV uses the same bars for multiple contracts and provided links. I hope people take the time to research what we are discussing and do not take your word or my word for any of this.

 

I wouldn't invest any profits made back into Wall Street, it just gives them more power and more capital to use their fractional magic and put more risk on taxpayers. That's why I stack physical precious metals, to take money out of their system and lessen the amount of risk they can take at our expense. Trust me, any of those risks they take are not at their expense, the risk is ours, not theirs, even though they're the ones taking the risk.

 

When you are talking CONTRACTS, you probably mean OPTIONS. You can buy and sell both Puts and Calls on SLV. That is not buying a share SLV. Options are just promises, you do not own anything. It would be similar to buying futures in the commodity Silver Market. When you buy futures, you do not own silver. Just a promise.

When you buy a Share of SLV, that is different. That is backed by Physical Bullion 100%. There is one small difference in buying SLV. There is a very small management fee, and they do Sell off Bullion to pay for that. This small fee works out to be much cheaper than storing the bullion your self, where you would need to purchase a safe and buy insurance etc. But back to to the shares. When money flows into the fund, they are required to buy more physical Bullion. As money flows out of the fund they are required to sell bullion. They absolutely do not "sell" the same bar to mulitple people. If you do not believe me than read this, and I mean read all of it. Read the Prospectus, do the math on the NET ASSETS, SHARES OUTSTANDING, Ounces in the SILVER TRUST. READ it all. It is all there. Like you said, other people should not rely on our word. They should read it too

http://us.ishares.com/product_info/fund/overview/SLV.htm

Basically due the needed DD. You see, you are most likley just repeating what some tin foil hat guy told you about the same bars being sold multiple times via Contracts. It is just half truths twisted to convey his message. He would never tell you the same thing is done in the futures market for Physical Silver bullion.

Peace out,
Mike

 

I said sell, not trade.

 

Was that an airplane?

 

I totally understand what you are saying, and you are right, the risk is ours, we the taxpayers have been on the hook for other folks recklessness. Just understand, while you are taking the risk out of their hands, you are not eliminating it, you just moved it. PM's have substantial risk, they are far from a sure thing, and by putting all your eggs in one basket, you are compounding that risk.

I do hope it works out for you though.....

Mike

 

Great Question Desert.

 

Some thought it was not a good question as the $100 seemed too low to do such, so perhaps the same question with a bill of $1200 paid with an AGE oz., might be better to consider. It wasn't the amount as much as the action I was questioning, but maybe this will make it more relevant. If either state paid their employees or contractors in gold, then I would accept the concept that PM was money. Now it is just a commodity. Yes, I own some, but it is "money" only to the extent of the denomination on the coin such as $20 for a St. Gaudens, and I agree no one would transfer it for that.

 

Just to be fair, I live in Utah and I paid my dentist with silver for some dental work. It's not a state owned facility or anything, but we made the deal before he did the work, and it worked out well for both of us. (me for sure and he was very happy)

 

I have a 401k and while it's "growing", real inflation is killing it. To me, Greenspan put it best when he told Congress that they could guarantee social security payments for however long they want, but they cannot guarantee the purchasing power of those payments. If that doesn't turn on a light inside your mind, I'm not sure what will.

 

Sincerely, I am glad it worked out, but bartering has been occurring in almost every state almost forever, and isn't because of a new legislative bill signed by any governor. I have no qualms about bartering.

Jim

 

I barter for whatever I can. Why wouldn't I, in most cases I get to use the cost of the goods I barter to reduce the cost of the goods I receive. The tax implications are strange and my accountant tells me the best way to do the accounting is to swap checks, and I do, but it is just the dumbest thing to give each other a check for the same amount plus or minus pennies. It's easier for accounting but flat out lame in the most cases.

 

Assumptions abound. No, I am not repeating what some tin foil hat guy told me. I am not 'probably' talking about anything. I am in fact talking about contracts. For the 3rd time now I am telling you that I have given you links already that explain that multiple shares in the SLV are backed by the same bars which you have not disputed. You are correct that it is 100% backed by metal, but what I am telling you is that this backing is fractional in nature. They can get away with this because people generally don't demand delivery.

If you disagree with this please direct me to the portion of the prospectus that discredits my link. Assuming you have read it then you also know that the price of the SLV is determined by the quantity of metal they have in stock, and since it is not a profitable model the only way that it can remain solvent is by selling metal and is on the inevitable road to zero. That is explained in part on page 22 about how they cover the fees you are describing, but if it says they have uniquely serialed bars for each contract I missed that part.

I have looked at the numbers in this document, and it does not show that each contract has its own unique bar as far as I can tell. What it does show is that each contract is valued according to a certain amount of silver as if it had its own silver, but there in is where the issue lies. It is valued one way, but it is not actually backed as such. If I am wrong please point me to the right place.

 

[TABLE="class: overview-profile table-data split-alignment, width: 263"]
[TR="bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]
Total Net Assets
[TD="class: data"]$8,647,760,460[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #F6F6F6"]
Shares Outstanding
[TD="class: data"]322,800,000[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]
Sponsor's Fee
[TD="class: data"]0.50%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #F6F6F6"]
Inception Date
[TD="class: data"]4/21/2006[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]
Ounces of Silver in Trust
[TD="class: data"]312,935,630.400[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


number of shares = 322,800,000
ounces of silver in trust = 312,935,630 rounded to closest oz.

Notice there is just about he same amount of oz of silver as shares. The reason for the difference is a share price does not quite equal the price of an oz of silver. It is a bit lower At the time of this data the share price of SLV was 26.97. Multiply shares by share price times the shares

26.97 x 322,800,000 = 8,705,916,000

See how that works out to be the total net assets of the trust. At least close enough for government work, and you still need to take into account the 1/2 percent mgt feel which brings th number closer yet.

See, every share is backed 100% by physical silver. BTW the silver is stored in London and it is audited. We are also talking shares of SLV not options. Like I said options are promises and have no silver backing, they are similar to futures in the commodity market. futes which also have no physical backing.

You may have told me three times, but you have been wrong three times. The proof is there in black and white.
It is 100% backed, nothing fractional, the folks telling you different are wrong. In addition, if they are wrong about this, what else are they wrong about? Don't believe the Koolaid drinkers

 

The amount is about the same if you consider 'about' to be a discrepancy of just under 10 million oz. Just because the price of SLV shares multiplied by the number of shares equals their net worth doesn't mean that each share has a unique bar (this is what is known as a leap of faith, or suspension of disbelief). To go down that path you would have to also multiply the number of ounces by the price of silver and see if they add up to the same value. Since you have not done this your assertion is based on incomplete information currently.

However, that is moot because you also do not seem to (want to) grasp that 100% backing can exist in a fractional system where the bars are re-used to achieve that backing. It may very well add up but that doesn't prove that they aren't declaring multiple ounces from the same 1 oz bar for example. And please don't say the burden of proof is on showing that is the case. I have already provided a link that does as much, so as far as I am concerned this conversation is over. 10 million oz short does seem to be in the ballpark though. Thank you for clearing that up at least.

 

Ok let's multiply the number of oz. by the price per oz. Just understand that the price per oz. Changes constantly and the data was a point in time. It will be close enough though.

Here we go

Current silver price 28.15
Number of oz in trust 312,935,630

312,935,630 x 28.15 = 8,809,137,984.5

Look at that, I did what you said, and that too matches the total net assets in the fund- give or take a few due to the changing spot price of silver. And it all matches the number of shares x the share price.
You just can't deny it, the silver backing is there 100%

This is a simple financial statement. It is easy to read and understand. These statements are filed withe the SEC. This is not my opinion, it is fact. I know this would shatter your world, hence you reluctance to accept it, but it is there in black and white. Anybody who tells you different is lying.

The fact is, if everyone sold their shares of SLV, there would be the needed amount of bullion to cover. The numbers are there. The only issue would be, a decline in the commodity price as 312 million oz get dumped on the open market.

 

Please read my previous post. That is my own fault for editing it so much.

 

No, I never said each share has a unique bar. The price of SLV is less than 1 oz, so there is no way you are getting 1 full oz per share. in addition, they are not buying 1 oz. Bars. There is no silver marked with your name on it or serial number mapped to you name. There is just a total store of silver that covers the total amount of money invested in the fund.

Now let me get this straight, you are saying, the financial statement is saying they have 312 million oz. of silver, but they really don't? They are declaring multiple oz from the same physical oz. so in reality, they have much less silver than the 312 million oz. they are claiming on their financial statement. Are you sure you want to go with that statement? If so, you are accusing them of outright fraud. What you are saying is illegal, and if true, is something that the SEC should know about, so if you have proof, please report them. Please report the auditors too, because they would have to be in on the scam also.