Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;medoraman, post: 2020065, member: 26302&quot;]My only warning on such a strategy would be, &quot;how well would this strategy have worked out?&quot; The GSR used to be 16-1, if you do as you propose those people would only have silver today, and gold today is WAY more valuable. So basically anyone following this strategy would have got their butt handed to them over the last 40 years.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>If anyone wishes to use a ratio, then by gosh they better know what is means and WHY the ratio should be relevant. In the old days, it was relevant since most pm demand was from countries that valued them both. Also, byproduct silver production was much lower than today, with modern societies need for massive amounts of copper and tin.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>My view today is much of the gold demand is from societies that do not value silver nearly as much as gold, and hundreds of millions more ounces of silver are hitting the market each year due to byproduct production. So, we have a situation of higher and higher gold ONLY demand, while we have higher and higher byproduct silver production. So, it completely makes sense why the ratio is skewing towards gold. Will it correct? Maybe, but not because of historical reasons, only due to new reasons. Or, it could just keep growing and growing.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>This is the only prudent analysis of the GSR in my view. If you disagree with some points, fine, we can discuss, but this backdrop I feel is a very strong case for high GSR going forward. Maybe we predict collapsing copper demand, which will drive silver up, or collapsing Asian demand for gold. Anything is possible, I just think such a framework is the framework most appropriate to discuss the scenarios, not what happened 100 years ago.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in