Heard it here first! 30-50% usage of all of the world's silver

http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldn...uire_30_-_50_Of_Global_Silver_Production.html

From the very prestigious sounding "King World News", (well -Blog,). "Acclaimed money manager" Stephen Leeb says 30-50% of all world production of silver will go to photovoltaics by 2020. Want to read more? Well, conveniently located at the bottom of the article is a handy dandy link to his new book! Guess being an "acclaimed money manager" doesn't pay as well as it used to.........

Oh goody!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Well, if he has a blog and all, I would say it has to be true
Plus he is the only one that has proof that the Gold market is being manipulated. It suddenly went down $14.00. With proof like that, I don't think you can argue.

 

Maybe he's made his money and now just wants to enlighten the rest of us?

 

Well, Chris found the article on the internet so it's gotta be true.

 

Actually my "French model" wife found it.

Actually saw it on Coinflation's website. I love the site, but just find many of the articles they link there disappointing.

 

EVERYONE has an agenda.

At least his agenda is disclosed unlike most cases..... He sounds like a lot more honest money manager than most. Most will tell you to NEVER invest in precious metals, because they are terrible investment and in a bubble. (of course real reason being they don't get as much fees ect.)

 

Uhh, bonjour followed by *creepy smile*

 

FWIW, the reason most money managers steer clients away from precious metals (since 2009 or so) is because it IS in a bubble. The bubble was identified back in 2005 as being about 70% done (pitched as "7th inning of a baseball game"). As for the comment about fees, that's not true. Money managers (real ones) will get a percentage of all gains in a portfolio, regardless of what specific investments are contained in the portfolio. If you're talking about a financial advisor or broker, that would be a bit closer to your claim. However, they'd still have access to ETFs/MFs/etc that focus entirely on PMs.

The real reason that money managers try to steer clients away from physical possession is liability. If a money manager tells you to buy bullion on your own, and it gets stolen/tanks/etc, they might *still* be liable for the loss. Why? If they're not licensed for PM analysis, they would be on the hook for presenting an investment product without a license. If they are licensed for PM analysis, they would be on the hook for presenting the investment idea AND selling away.

In any event, I didn't read the article, so I can't comment on the author's intent, but I will defend others in the finance field for protecting their clients (ergo: doing their jobs).

To say PMs are not in a bubble would require at least one (if not all) of the following:
1) Ability to lie through your teeth.
2) Inability to understand historical context of pricing.
3) Misunderstanding of the industries that CURRENTLY use PMs, as well as those which are likely to use it in the future. (This one seems to apply to silver bugs more than anyone.)

 

If money managers were criminally liable for their client's losses, the jails would be full and they would be building new ones to hold them. They couldn't build them fast enough.

IMO, the real reason that "money people" don't recommend gold is because they can't make any money from their client's decision to buy and hold it. Gold is the ultimate anti-paper investment and take paper away and 99.9% of the money managers out there go poof. No purpose for them.

 

Lol the bubble was 70% complete in 2005? So it started in around 2001 and was 70% complete after 4 years, yet has gone on another 7, even if the bull is over that would make it around 33% complete in 2005. Your lies don't even make sense........ (also if you go by the price in 2005, it was also nowhere near 70% complete, silver around $7 and gold around $400)

70% complete :foot-mouth:

Historical context of pricing? Silver was more highly valued in 1980, than it is now. If you take an inflation adjusted high you'd be looking at a silver price at a minimum of $150. Gold is much closer to its inflation adjusted high, but that is not all that worrisome given the amount of toxic assets out there and the fact that about 1% of the financial assets is in gold.

Industries that use PM? Well obviously you didn't specify what you are even talking about, but either way, irrelevant! Silver does not need runaway industrial use to achieve a higher price.

 

The current photovoltaic uses about 20 grams per 200 watt generated. This is "printed" on the solar cell itself, but has been replaced in some solar cells by a "thin film " process similar to computer chips, which can use substances other than silver. These are for the most part panels to be evaluated, as the silver printing process is faster and less expensive if we leave out the silver price, compared to the "thin film" process, but even there they are reducing the actual silver content as methods improve. My non-blog opinion is that silver will eventually be used in a % lesser than 25-50% of current use by then, IF solar panels survive. The demand seem to have fallen of the roof ( pun intended). All In My Opinion. Invest in personal geothermal energy generation companies, they are the next Hot thing

 

Good points desertgem.

 

You misread what I wrote. Money managers would be liable in a case where the clients lost money on their advice for assets held away from the manager. I didn't say criminally. It would be a civil suit, and the firm would settle. It's happened before, and it will happen again.

Edit: BTW, if you take away paper altogether, gold has no value. Even if it did, you couldn't insure it, since there'd be no system of assurance, so, eventually, we'd revert to a system of chaos where people would be constantly shot/robbed for their hoards of gold.

 

Here's a graph:

http://www.kitco.com/LFgif/au00-pres.gif

I included the link to see it for yourselves. If you know anything about chart analysis, you'd realize that 66% completion in a bubble environment would equate to around 30% of the peak value. Oh, and I meant 2006, not 2005. That was a typo. Since 2006, the lateral length of "tops" has widened: Apr-Oct 2006, Mar-Nov 2008, Aug 2011-?. We haven't broken free of the most recent technical top. Also, the parabolic growth was essentially vertical from Jul-Aug 2011. I will call that the top on gold, period.

For silver, here is the graph:

http://www.kitco.com/LFgif/ag00-pres.gif

You'll notice that silver wasn't as parabolic as gold, so it's possible that silver will continue to run. I doubt it. The demand for silver isn't high enough to consume the supply.

As for the 80s and the Hunt brothers, again, context to history. In the 70s, Nelson Bunker Hunt and William Herbert Hunt attempted to corner the silver market. Nelson Hunt filed for bankruptcy in 1988 and was banned from trading on the commodities market for his role in manipulating the silver price. As I said, historical context. It matters.

Lastly, as DG pointed out, solar, which was one of the reasons for the silver run from $17-$35, has changed composition. Thin film will eventually overcome efficiency issues, and the demand for silver will be, essentially, nil.

As for your closing argument, you're right, it doesn't need runaway industrial use to achieve a higher price: It needs market manipulation.

 

Not true. The United States originally did not issue any paper currency. The coinage act of 1792 defined the dollar ONLY in terms of either silver or gold coins. Gold has had value as currency for 350 years. We have only been on full fiat for just 42 of that.

 

For at least the last 2500 years, coins have held more value than gold. As such, a monetary system is imperative for a means of efficient exchange. Don't pull crap up about fiat v gold without acknowledgement of coins having value beyond their intrinsic metal content.

 

If gold or silver are in a bubble that would require real interest rates to turn from negative to positive in short order, since metals rise in a negative real interest rate environment which we are currently in.. The Fed has pledged to keep interest rates near zero for at least 2 more years. So the bubble isn't popping before then. This also assumes that the charts we have are reliable which is hard to swallow considering electronic contracts drive the vast majority of the action and do not require the metal actually exists. I find it more likely that metals are simply in the process of breaking free from their anti-bubble, fiat currency. Basel III would seem to confirm this.

 

LOL. I'm not the one saying that gold has to have paper for insurance or it can't be used as currency.

 

After the business press largely missed the bubble in tech stocks in the 90s, they took to calling every bull market a bubble so they wouldn't miss the next one. A bubble is a relatively rare conditions and PMs certainly aren't in a bubble. Some of the conditions that must exist for there to be a bubble are:

- Widespread public participation
- Buying with the heavy use of margin
- Buying for non-economic reasons - i.e., simply because the price is going up
- Parabolic price increases
- Buying to the extent that it distorts other economic activity
- Widespread coverage in the media

I don't see any of this happening for PMs.

 

Folks should be aware that Stephen Leeb is a serial newsletter writer who jumps on whatever is moving up in price. In the 90s, he was into tech stocks until they crashed. Then it was REITS until real estate crashed. Then it was oil until oil prices crashed. Now it is PMs, which probably isn't a good thing for PM investors -- sort of like having a hearse parked in front of your house.