silver fundamentals

New Fundamentals For Gold And Silver

by

NEW FUNDAMENTALS FOR GOLD

When speaking of gold and silver, analysts and investors are always happy to share their viewpoints on the fundamentals for the two metals. Lately, the list of fundamentals seems to be growing.

When someone mentions housing starts and gold in the same sentence, it is indicative that analysis has become suspect, and the resultant observations are likely to be of little or no value.

Inferring correlative activity between gold and a host of other non-related items such as interest rates, social unrest, political turmoil, wars, existing home sales, retail sales, economic activity, etc., is confusing and unsupportable.

So-called fundamentals for gold are lumped into one big cauldron of boiling phrases and sayings. Investors can pick and choose which fundamental(s) suits them.

The definition of the term fundamental (noun) is  “a central or primary rule or principle on which something is based.”  

As regards gold and silver, each of them has one basic fundamental:

1) Gold is real money.
2) Silver is an industrial commodity.

Each of them has a secondary use that is similar to the primary fundamental of the other metal. Gold is real money, first and foremost, but it also has industrial applications. Silver is primarily an industrial commodity that has a secondary use as money.

The basic value of either gold or silver stems from its primary fundamental. This means that gold is valued for its role as real money and silver’s primary value stems from its use in industry. And the primary fundamental for each metal will always be the same, even though there can be changes in the relative relationship of primary and secondary uses.

For example, lets say that gold’s primary role as money accounts for 90% of its assumed value. The other 10% can be industrial uses, such as jewelry. If there is an increase in industrial demand for gold, as a result of increasing demand for its use in ornamentation and jewelry, the relative percentage in gold’s total demand increases. In other words, a possible new allocation might be 85% for monetary use and 15% for industrial use.

What is important to note, however, is that the total demand for gold does not change. The increase in industrial demand for gold supplants the investment demand. Also, whatever changes occur in the relative percentages will never alter the balance of the two in a material way or in a way that inverts the primary and secondary uses.

Primary demand for gold will always be for its use as money; and that value will always exceed any secondary applications in industry by a wide margin.

With silver, the example is similar, except that the industrial and monetary uses are reversed. Whatever changes or increases take place in silver’s use as money will supplant industrial demand by a like percentage. As with gold, the increase in its secondary use and valuation will never override its primary use. Silver will always be valued primarily for its use in industry – not for its use as money.

PRICE CONSCIOUS INVESTORS 

Even if most investors and analysts understood these things (they don’t), then they likely would ignore them – because they are boring.

Investors are fickle and price conscious. Most of them are not interested in value. They want to know when the price of something is going up, by how much, and why. The ‘why’ is mostly an after thought. Usually, ‘why’ enters the conversation after the price goes down when it was expected to go up.

That is when investors and their advisors start talking a lot about fundamentals. Since the fundamentals they talk about don’t apply to gold and silver, whatever logic they use is faulty because it is based on incorrect assumptions. This leads to unrealistic expectations.

Negative news in the headlines seems to be a reason to buy gold. A recent headline even proclaimed “bad news is good news for gold”. Apparently, some investors are thinking and acting with that statement in mind. Unfortunately, simultaneous events do not prove correlation.

So how do we explain gold’s price changes according to its fundamental above?
Gold is not just real money. It is original money. Gold was money before the US dollar. Its value is constant and unchanging. It is the ultimate store of value.

Gold is the measure of value for everything else. Everything else is assessed a value based on its price in gold – in grams, kilos, ounces, and fractional units of such.

This seems backwards to most of us because we are used to valuing things in terms of their price in dollars, or any other currency. But if we learn to understand it, we can better understand the following:

The rising price of gold in dollars does not mean that gold’s value is increasing; rather, it signifies a correlative loss in the purchasing power of the US dollar.

That brings us back to gold’s only fundamental: gold is real money. Anything else is a substitute.

In other words, NOTHING ELSE OTHER THAN THE US DOLLAR IS A DETERMINING FACTOR IN THE PRICE OF GOLD.

What we have said about gold, however, does not apply to silver. Silver is primarily an industrial commodity; and its price in dollars is mostly a reflection of its use in industry rather than its use as money.

Slowdowns in economic activity lead to declines in industrial demand. This is reflected by lower prices for industrial commodities, like silver. In fact, during every recession in the last fifty years – seven of them – the price of silver declined. (see: Prospecting For Silver During Recessions)

(note: silver’s price swoon in March-April 2020 at the onset of the current recession brings the number to eight)

As far as silver’s role as money is concerned, silver has not come close to replicating gold’s increasing price over time.

GOLD PRICE ANALYSIS

The US dollar has lost somewhere between 98-99% of its purchasing power over the past one hundred years.

When the gold price hit $2060 oz. last August, it was a one hundred-fold increase over the past century and represented a ninety-nine percent loss in US dollar purchasing power.

In inflation-adjusted terms, $2060 oz. in August 2020 is nearly identical to $1895 oz. in August 2011. Both peaks equate similarly to a ninety-nine percent loss in US dollar purchasing power.

The increase in the US dollar price of gold from one peak to the next (Aug 2011-Aug 2020) represents the actual purchasing power that was lost in those intervening nine years. 

Approximately midway between the two price peaks, the gold price bottomed at $1040 oz. in January 2016. This was a fifty-fold increase and reflected a ninety-eight percent loss in US dollar purchasing power.

TARNISHED SILVER

Whereas, gold’s price currently is eighty-five times higher than its original fixed price of $20.67 and indicates a nearly ninety-nine percent loss in US dollar purchasing power, silver’s price has risen only seventeen fold ($22.40 oz. divided by $1.29) over the same one hundred years.

In fact, in inflation-adjusted terms, silver is cheaper today than it was at $4.00 oz. in January 1974. (see: Silver Is Cheap And Getting Cheaper)

CONCLUSION

Many of the analyses about gold and silver are factually incorrect. They are lacking in fundamental support and have no historical precedent.

The logic used is faulty because it is based on incorrect assumptions. All of this leads to unrealistic expectations.

The expectations for a moonshot price trajectory, for either gold or silver, are wishful thinking. And to the extent they occur, they will be accompanied by conditions that negate the expected positive benefits (see: Gold’s Not An Investment – You Won’t Get Rich and Silver Fails Miserably To Meet Expectations)

Kelsey Williams is the author of two books: INFLATION, WHAT IT IS, WHAT IT ISN’T, AND WHO’S RESPONSIBLE FOR IT and ALL HAIL THE FED!

 

Waiting On Silver

by

Expectations still abound for the long-awaited, vertical leap in silver prices.  We are told it is inevitable; and that it is supported by solid fundamentals. Those fundamentals include supply deficits, a return to the 16 to 1 gold-silver ratio, increasing monetary demand for silver, etc.

However, an examination of those fundamentals reveals a different picture.That picture is inconsistent with the call for higher silver prices.

SILVER SUPPLY & DEMAND, RATIOS

The supply deficits (gaps in consumption over production) have been talked about for decades.  In the 1960s and 1970s they were the principal fundamental justification in the case for higher silver prices.

Throughout the twentieth century, industrial use of silver increased to the point where the consumption of silver eventually exceeded new production. This is the start of the consumption/production gap to which people refer. The government  then became a willing seller in order to keep the price down.  The specific purpose was to keep the price from rising above $1.29 per ounce. This is the level at which the amount of silver in a silver dollar (not Silver Eagles) is worth exactly $1.00.

The huge price gains for silver that occurred in the 1970s were largely attributable to years of price suppression prior to that. Those years of price suppression, though, were preceded by decades of price support.

Neither price suppression, nor support, are significant issues at this time. The primary imbalance in supply and demand was corrected in the 1970s. If it hadn’t been, the silver price might be much higher than it is.

Expectations for a return to a 16-1 gold/silver ratio will go unfulfilled. The gold-to-silver ratio that existed one hundred fifty years ago was mostly the result of political influence and appeasement. There is no fundamental reason which justifies any particular ratio between gold and silver. (see Gold-Silver Ratio: Debunking The Myth)

Gold to Silver Ratio – 100 Year Historical Chart

As can be seen in the chart above, the gold-to-silver ratio continues to widen in favor of gold.

SILVER FUNDAMENTALS

Silver is an industrial commodity. Its primary demand is driven by – and its price is determined by – industrial consumption. Any role for silver as a monetary hedge is secondary.  This is true even in light of the significant increase in the amount of silver used in minting bullion bars and coins; particularly Silver Eagles.

The fundamentals simply do not support the bullish expectations for silver. Also, there are fundamentals that make silver vulnerable to a big price drop.

Deflation is a more likely near-term possibility than hyperinflation.  True deflation results in a decrease in the general price level of goods and services.

As an industrial commodity, the silver price would reflect the full brunt of deflation’s effects. The depression-era low for silver occurred in late 1932 at $.28 oz.  This low coincided with the stock market’s low.

Something similar happened in March-April 2020, when both silver and stocks declined by thirty-five percent.

Another possibility is that we might continue for several more years with relative prosperity and disinflation. This would not stop further price declines for silver.

SOME HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

After it peaked at $48.00 per ounce in 1980, silver’s price declined ninety-two percent over the next thirteen years. It reached a low of $3.57 oz. (February 1993) during the boom years  of the 1990s.

It has been ten years since silver last peaked at close to $50.00 oz. At the current price of approximately $25.00 oz., silver is cheaper by one-half. This is shown on the chart (source) below…

Silver Prices – 10 Year Historical Chart

 

Given that, does it matter much that silver has doubled in the past year. All of that increase is just a matter of recovering some lost ground.

Historically speaking, most of the reasons people give in support of dramatically higher silver prices, lose credibility when one looks at the facts.

CONCLUSION

Silver is ineffective as a monetary hedge because it is not a store of value. Silver would need to be over $100.00 per ounce right now to roughly approximate what gold’s current price of $1800 oz. reflects regarding the loss in purchasing power of the US dollar over the past century.

It is not remotely close to that number and there is no historical precedent to expect the gap between gold and silver to narrow in silver’s favor. As long as the US dollar continues to lose purchasing power, the gap between gold and silver prices will continue to widen in  favor of gold.

In addition, on the few occasions when silver has increased in price dramatically, it has given up most or all of the gains in short order.

In other words, there is likely more downside ahead for silver’s price. And it could be quite significant.

(also see $100 Silver Has Come And Gone)

Kelsey Williams is the author of two books: INFLATION, WHAT IT IS, WHAT IT ISN’T, AND WHO’S RESPONSIBLE FOR IT and ALL HAIL THE FED!

 

Silver Loses Its Mettle – Part 2 (Technicals)

by

RE: SILVER LOSES ITS METTLE 

Last week I talked about unrealistic expectations for the price of silver (see Silver Loses Its Mettle). My comments were centered on two specific factors: 1) silver’s primary role as an industrial commodity and 2) the fallacy of the gold-to-silver ratio.

Both of these items have their root in fundamentals, or lack of them.

In addition, I pointed out the fact that the price of silver has declined significantly in every single recession of the past fifty years.

Not surprisingly, the technical side appears to reinforce the lack of fundamental support for higher silver prices.

Read more

Gold And Silver – Fundamentals Be Damned

by

ABOUT GOLD AND SILVER…

When speaking of gold and silver, analysts and investors are always happy to share their viewpoints on the fundamentals for the two metals. Lately, the list of fundamentals seems to be growing.

When someone mentions housing starts and gold in the same sentence, it is indicative that analysis has become suspect, and the resultant observations are likely to be of little or no value.

Inferring correlative activity between gold and a host of other non-related items such as interest rates, social unrest, political turmoil, wars, existing home sales, retail sales, economic activity, etc., is confusing and unsupportable.

So-called fundamentals for gold are lumped into one big cauldron of boiling phrases and sayings. Investors can pick and choose which fundamental(s) suits them.

The definition of the term fundamental (noun) is  “a central or primary rule or principle on which something is based.”  

As regards gold and silver, each of them has one basic fundamental:

1) Gold is real money.
2) Silver is an industrial commodity.

Each of them has a secondary use that is similar to the primary fundamental of the other metal. Gold is real money, first and foremost, but it also has industrial applications. Silver is primarily an industrial commodity that has a secondary use as money.

The basic value of either gold or silver stems from its primary fundamental. This means that gold is valued for its role as real money and silver’s primary value stems from its use in industry. And the primary fundamental for each metal will always be the same, even though there can be changes in the relative relationship of primary and secondary uses.

For example, lets say that gold’s primary role as money accounts for 90% of its assumed value. The other 10% can be industrial uses, such as jewelry. If there is an increase in industrial demand for gold, as a result of increasing demand for its use in ornamentation and jewelry, the relative percentage in gold’s total demand increases. In other words, a possible new allocation might be 85% for monetary use and 15% for industrial use.

What is important to note, however, is that the total demand for gold does not change. The increase in industrial demand for gold supplants the investment demand. Also, whatever changes occur in the relative percentages will never alter the balance of the two in a material way or in a way that inverts the primary and secondary uses.

Primary demand for gold will always be for its use as money; and that value will always exceed any secondary applications in industry by a wide margin.

With silver, the example is similar, except that the industrial and monetary uses are reversed. Whatever changes or increases take place in silver’s use as money will supplant industrial demand by a like percentage. As with gold, the increase in its secondary use and valuation will never override its primary use. Silver will always be valued primarily for its use in industry – not for its use as money.

Even if most investors and analysts understood these things (they don’t), then they likely would ignore them – because they are boring.

Investors are fickle and price conscious. Most of them are not interested in value. They want to know when the price of something is going up, by how much, and why. The ‘why’ is mostly an after thought. Usually, ‘why’ enters the conversation after the price goes down when it was expected to go up.

That is when investors and their advisors start talking a lot about fundamentals. Since the fundamentals they talk about don’t apply to gold and silver, whatever logic they use is faulty because it is based on incorrect assumptions. This leads to unrealistic expectations.

Negative news in the headlines seems to be a reason to buy gold. A recent headline even proclaimed “bad news is good news for gold”. Apparently, some investors are thinking and acting with that statement in mind. Unfortunately, simultaneous events do not prove correlation.

So how do we explain gold’s price changes according to its fundamental above?
Gold is not just real money. It is original money. Gold was money before the US dollar. Its value is constant and unchanging. It is the ultimate store of value.

Gold is the measure of value for everything else. Everything else is assessed a value based on its price in gold – in grams, kilos, ounces, and fractional units of such.

This seems backwards to most of us because we are used to valuing things in terms of their price in dollars, or any other currency. But if we learn to understand it, we can better understand the following:

The rising price of gold in dollars does not mean that gold’s value is increasing; rather, it signifies a correlative loss in the purchasing power of the US dollar.

In other words, NOTHING ELSE OTHER THAN THE US DOLLAR IS A DETERMINING FACTOR IN THE PRICE OF GOLD.

What we have said about gold, however, does not apply to silver. Silver is primarily an industrial commodity; and its price in dollars is mostly a reflection of its use in industry rather than its use as money.

Slowdowns in economic activity lead to declines in industrial demand. This is reflected by lower prices for industrial commodities, like silver. In fact, during every recession in the last fifty years – seven of them – the price of silver declined. (see: Prospecting For Silver During Recessions)

(note: silver’s price swoon in March-April 2020 at the onset of the current recession brings the number to eight)

As far as silver’s role as money is concerned, silver has not come close to replicating gold’s increasing price over time.

GOLD PRICE ANALYSIS

The US dollar has lost somewhere between 98-99% of its purchasing power over the past one hundred years.

When the gold price hit $2060 oz. last August, it was a one hundred-fold increase over the past century and represented a ninety-nine percent loss in US dollar purchasing power.

In inflation-adjusted terms, $2060 oz. in August 2020 is nearly identical to $1895 oz. in August 2011. Both peaks equate similarly to a ninety-nine percent loss in US dollar purchasing power.

The increase in the US dollar price of gold from one peak to the next (Aug 2011-Aug 2020) represents the actual purchasing power that was lost in those intervening nine years. 

Approximately midway between the two price peaks, the gold price bottomed at $1040 oz. in January 2016. This was a fifty-fold increase and reflected a ninety-eight percent loss in US dollar purchasing power.

TARNISHED SILVER

Whereas, gold’s price currently is eighty-five times higher than its original fixed price of $20.67 and indicates a nearly ninety-nine percent loss in US dollar purchasing power, silver’s price has risen only seventeen fold ($22.40 oz. divided by $1.29) over the same one hundred years.

In fact, in inflation-adjusted terms, silver is cheaper today than it was one hundred years ago (see: Silver Is Cheap And Getting Cheaper). That is hardly a testament to silver’s value as an inflation hedge or its role as money.

Many of the analyses about gold and silver are factually incorrect. They are lacking in fundamental support and have no historical precedent.

The logic used is faulty because it is based on incorrect assumptions. All of this leads to unrealistic expectations.

The expectations for a moonshot price trajectory, for either gold or silver, are wishful thinking. And to the extent they occur, they will be accompanied by conditions that negate the expected positive benefits (see: Gold’s Not An Investment – You Won’t Get Rich and Silver Fails Miserably To Meet Expectations)

Kelsey Williams is the author of two books: INFLATION, WHAT IT IS, WHAT IT ISN’T, AND WHO’S RESPONSIBLE FOR IT and ALL HAIL THE FED!

 

Silver Fails Miserably To Meet Expectations

by

No matter how harsh it sounds, it is true. Unfortunately, too many people don’t want to hear it and refuse to listen.

Acknowledgement of the facts doesn’t seem to deter its supporters. We are told that silver’s ongoing underperformance relative to gold makes it “a better buy” with “more profit potential”.

Let’s see what the charts say. 

Read more