US Mint sold out of 2013 silver eagles - 6,000,000+ sold!

If I'm not mistaken, the mint assays samples for weight and purity quite often during a run.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Yes, its part of the value you receive by buying them from a reputable mint. There is constant quality control checks being made.

 

umm what? Can you please explain this? 7.4 million eagles were sold this month, that is the all time record by nearly a million and that is with the mint shutting down for longer than a week. The sales may have been well over that total if they were producing the entire time.

 

They were high this month simply because they shut down 2012 early, believing demand would taper off. THey got caught short, so they were out for a period. THAT is what led to higher than usualy demand for 2013 coins and the subsequent sellout.

My statement about lower demand was regarding 2012 sales versus 2011, a much lower sales year you would admit.

 

Time will tell, I'd bet that this years sales will surpass 2012's (33,742,500)

I expect demand to be stronger this year myself, with a chance of breaking the all time record and topping 40 million. In fact I'd be confident of that if I knew for certain the mint could keep up with demand.

 

Careful dear fellow. Any hint of a wager might land ya in the pokey 'round here.........:devil:

 

As you say, time will tell.

Personally, IDK about 2012 mintages, especially since they cut sales off early, but I would be willing to say I do not believe 2013 mintages would break 2011's. I would see it similar to 2012's. The only thing that could make it closer to 2011's is a bunch of press about "fiscal cliffs" and other newsstories that would scare the general population.

 

The general population should be scared. The dollar is a ticking time bomb set to go off at any moment, once the first few head for the exit door, look out below.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...ales-surge-after-temporary-suspension-1-.html

 

"The Federal Reserve, starting a two-day meeting today, will continue with its commitment to asset buying until the first quarter of 2014, according to a Bloomberg survey of 44 economists."
They won't and can't stop buying Treasuries. By then, the US will be in around $18 trillion in debt. Who would loan their money to the US at less than 2% for 10 years at that point? We know PM are a good investment. No point in wasting time trying to convince others.

 

Definitely agree Tyler. The main reason metals go down (aside from margin hikes and giant short positions) is because they use rhetoric that QE might end out one side of their mouth while printing $85 bn/mo to keep markets from double dipping and the US from defaulting on its debt (which Turbo Timmy gave us an extension on earlier this year by raiding government pensions once again). The anticipated commitment through 2014 gave the paper traders the confidence they need to go long this year even though anybody who knows the deal doesn't need their reassurance. Raising interest rates on an unpayable debt only makes it that much more unpayable.

The only thing I differ from you on is that it is not a waste of time trying to convince others. Each person who has precious metals is one less person who will require help when the paper bon fire is set ablaze, and it's a double win because that's also one more person who will be in a position to be of help.

 

...while a major reason metals go up is from leveraged positions from speculators "buying" more metal than they have the money to pay for. Leverage cuts both ways, and I doubt anyone here can quantify either gain or loss from the leverage employed in the markets.

As to being a "waste of time", so why are you here? Do you only want to be patted on the back by others who agree 100% with you on how brilliant the entire group is? Your belief system as to why you feel about PM cannot stand being challenged? Is it simply based upon opinion and hope versus any hard facts to support your position?

At least 10 times as many people read CT than participate. Because of that fact, I post when I believe posts are erroneous. I state my beliefs, and listen to others beliefs and any facts or arguments they may have to support their position. I would hope others would return the favor with my posts. If they do not wish to, that is their loss, since I firmly believe if you are going to risk your future on a belief, that belief should have some concrete basis. If it doesn't, if it bothers you to have your assumptions challenged, then how SURE are you that you are right?

I have had some opinions changed by others here on CT, and I believe its simply healthy to discuss with others their viewpoints. I thought that was why we were here.

 

I wouldn't read so much into one month of data.
ASE sales might return to normal level once the Mint catches up.

 

But they aren't buying metal. They are buying paper contracts that have maybe 2% backing. So it doesn't have any impact on the physical supply. I realize this also goes both ways when selling, but my point is that if that all these people were buying physical without leverage the price would actually have to go higher than when buying paper on leverage since the amount of leverage with paper to physical on the exchanges is far greater than the amount of paper metal leveraged on margin.

 

Or FALL BACK, even lower. They've been front-loading/juicing January for a couple of years; look back and see what's normal.

I wonder how close my annual estimate will be. No one else here dares to put a fine point on it, it's just talk.
http://www.cointalk.com/t220993-3/#post1618608

 

34 million + at a minimum, but my prediction will be 42,560,000. (this is largely dependent on the mint being able to keep up with demand though)

 

Also 150,000 oz of gold was sold this month, the most in a single month since July 2010.

 

That's the spirit. As always: we shall see...

 

And those industrial suppliers who may have 85 million ounces they want to move would have to push the physical market down to $8 if they attempted to move that much physical at one time as well.

That is the Yang to your Yin market. If you think this cannot happen, I can pull out some books on market histories for you. Markets were all physical 150 years ago, and that is why you would have something worth $1 one year, worth $20 the next, and worth $.10 the year after that.

Paper trading is the answer to smooth out these swings. The real participants in these markets was stability above all else. Paper leverage gives this. I know small PM owners hate to hear this, but the markets really, really, do not care about you at all. They are ran for their participants, which are large buyers and sellers, mainly industries. When is the last time a ASE buyer earned the market any money? Never, they are not a participant.

We are simply using their published prices as a guide for PM prices, the CME group does not earn any money from that, so frankly "the market" could give a rip less if ASE buyers use their prices AT ALL. Most of the people who claim "manipulation" are not even customers of the markets. You know what the CME would say? Go fly a kite and come up with your OWN pricing mechanism then we can CARE LESS.

And, they are right.

WE are the ones who base pricing off of THEIR market. WE do not pay for this service, we are leeches using their work for free. If we don't like it, USE SOMETHING ELSE. Where is it written in stone the CME market, (CME group owns it, that is why I am saying CME), SHOULD be a baseline for PM pricing?

We use it since its all we have. However, we should always remember WE ARE NOT PARTICIPANTS, the market is not run for us, and they really, really, do not care if we like it or not.

Its like someone getting a free bus ride then complaining the bus is not taking the route they would prefer. You are getting it for free. You don't like it, get off and walk. Nothing is stopping you.

 

Paper trading does smooth out price swings. It also skews price discovery with artifical supply making true value impossible to determine. It also allows for price to be anything under the sun as long as there is not a shortage. Maybe trading fair value for lack of volatility is a good trade off in your book, but in my book it is a lie.

This is not their market. Markets are for everyone who has any small amount of skin in the game, including you, me, and even a few Joe Sixpacks. We are all participants. Just because the little people are a drop in the ocean doesn't mean they don't still have their small impact. Small is not zero.

If there were an alternative method of price discovery then I would agree with you, but there is not, and that is the problem. You say use something else. I am all ears if there is something else. The fact is they have a monopoly on price discovery. Maybe the people who are the primary drivers in this market want stability above all else, but that doesn't mean a lie isn't a lie. I don't like lies or liars, so I have a problem with this and I will continue to expose it until markets are fair and honest again.

I think a more appropriate analogy is big fish, small fish. None of the fish own the pond, unlike a bus. Some fish like to think they do, but they are arrogant or ignorant. They may be able to make big waves and control the direction of the current, but they don't own it. They might like to think that we don't occupy some small space in "their" water, but we do, and we outnumber them too. They could all go away and we would get along just fine like we did for thousands of years before.