Vão por favor pondo novos tópicos actualizados que apelem á participação.

    Um post com mais do que 2/3 páginas já é demais. Perde-se noção da discussão inicial....etc etc, as razoe são mts e lógicas. Infelizmente noutros sites é mais hábito que aqui. Num site pequeno da concorrencia chegam a ter umas 500 páginas.


    Por mim, e para o bem da humanidade por favor teem ideias novas , ponham novos posts.

    Eu deixei de conversar com os meus amigos sobre o ouro, porque juá nao sei qd olho rapido para os títulos do posts, do que na realidade estao a falar. se é ainda sobre os perigosamente 350.

     Sendo esta a minha opinião sincera, transmito a com o maior respeito e humildade. Sequencias de mais que 5/6 páginas ja nao é discussão é um fórum dentro do fórum. Ganha-se mais se se fizer um fórum sobre o ouro!

abraço ao Paciente e Jameson

nota: sobre a potêncial retração do ouro no imediato sugiro um novo post com esse título e uma interrogação, por certo chamarão mais opiniões!

Scuba, um abraço para ti apesar de não teres enviado um para mim!!!



A Prata disparou hoje mais do estava a espera, talvez pelo possivel aumento das taxas na Europa, enfim.

Ainda comprei uns contratos mas pouca coisa, acções estou a analisar neste momento as que estão a representar mais força.

Um abraço

James32c

Oi Scuba,

A idéia de concentrar os post sobre o OURO e a PRATA neste tópico é precisamente para facilitar a pesquisa dos membros desta comunidade. Existe muita informação relevante neste tópico e como tal é importante para os membros da comunidade, que se interessam pelo mercado do OURO, saberem que é aqui que podem consultar essa informação.

Provavelmente não acompanhaste este tópico desde o início e isso pode dificultar a compreensão do mesmo. Não há bela sem senão! Mas até à data foste o único que mostrou discordância em relação a este esquema. Penso que todos os outros preferem que continue desta forma, mas quem estiver em desacordo que se manifeste.

Penso que desta forma facilita a consulta (em vez de andarmos a procurar por tópicos dispersos pelo Fórum) e a discussão. Aliás, esta foi uma idéia que surgiu num post de 3 de Junho e que está no início deste tópico. Na altura escrevi o seguinte para justificar a concentração de posts sobre o OURO neste tópico:

NOTA: James32C, devias ter colocado este post no seguimento do outro que postei anteriormente (sobre a questão do OURO e os 350€) e em que respondi ao Mr. Turn. É que assim as respostas, embora relacionadas, encontram-se dispersas tornando a consulta mais difícil. Penso que os esclarecimentos adicionais que agora acrescentei também teriam interesse para o Mr. Turn. Não sei se a administração pode fazer alguma coisa para remediar isto.

Quanto ao facto do assunto dos posts fazerem referência a uma situação já desactualizada ("OURO aproxima-se perigosamente dos 350€/oz") aí a culpa é minha. É que geralmente não dou um nome ao post e ele vai buscar a designação inicial precedido do prefixo Re:. De futuro vou tentar escolher sempre um título para os posts que venha a escrever aqui neste tópico.


Abraço

 

Bom dia,

O dólar canadiano, que se tem revelado a moeda mais forte nos últimos tempos e que ainda resistia a um breakout em termos gráficos, acabou por ceder.

Embora ainda falte a sessão de hoje para concluír a vela semanal, tudo indica que temos um breakout no gráfico do OURO em dólares canadianos. A confirmação virá com a quebra dos C$563.

A Prata confirma a quebra do canal descendente com um target de 8.30 Usd ( valores aproximados) que bate com os anteriores maximos. Os 8 Usd serão sempre uma resistencia psicologica por ser um numero redondo.
Hoje reforcei com a compra de mais contratos á posição tomada ontem, com o objectivo minimo de 8 Usd.

Nas acções o Paciente tem colocado as principais, com sinais e mais sinal de força.

Um abraço

James32C

A PRATA esteve muito forte durante toda esta semana.

Todas as retracções encontraram forte procura levando a reacções muito positivas no preço do metal.

Para além disso fecha a semana quebrando decisivamente os $7,60, registando uma cotação de $7,75 (futuros) no final da sessão de hoje.

Como se pode ver no gráfico dos futuros de DEZ05 (ainda sem a vela desta semana) a PRATA quebrou o canal descendente o que implica um target teórico nos $8,30. Por acaso coincide também com a resistência horizontal relativa ao duplo topo que une os máximos estabelecidos o ano passado neste contrato.

Por outro lado, a PRATA fechou hoje praticamente em cima da Ltd que delimita o topo do grande triângulo simétrico visível no gráfico do contínuo (igualmente sem a vela desta semana). Uma quebra deste grande triângulo projecta o metal prateado para valores bem superiores aos $8,30 referidos atrás.

Resumindo, a PRATA poderá estar na eminência de uma forte aceleração da sua cotação. Tendo em conta as restrições entre oferta e procura, e a grande quantidade de contratos de futuros que últimamente foram deixados "correr" até à data de expiração com vista a serem trocados por metal físico (cerca de 30 milhões de onças no mês passado  e já mais de 2 milhões em Outubro, um mês onde não é habitual haver grandes situações de "taking delivery of the metal") é muito provável que essa aceleração de preço se venha a verificar.

Como não poderia deixar de ser, as acções do sector da PRATA são as que hoje registam as maiores valorizações com especial destaque para a Mines Management (MGN) e a Silver Wheaton (SLW).

Uma pequena referência para o OURO que, uma vez mais, produziu um novo máximo em fecho semanal ($477,30 nos futuros DEZ05).

Citação de: James32C em Outubro 07, 2005, 21:04
A Prata confirma a quebra do canal descendente com um target de 8.30 Usd ( valores aproximados) que bate com os anteriores maximos.

Estamos em perfeita sintonia.


Abraço e bom fim-de-semana.

Hehehheh , acabei de ler o tu post e parece que tinhamos acaba do de falar um com o outro

Bom Fim de Semana tb.

Um abraço

James32C

Amigo James as minhas desculpas mas nao sei porquê em vez de james escrevi outra coisa no meu anterior post.

       Amigo paciente embora me faça alguma confusão este estilo de continuação dos assuntos se  sou obrigado a respeitar o formato e os teus argumentos.




     abraço aos dois

Antes de mais boa tarde a todos... e um abraço especial para o scuba.

Tenho seguido este tópico à algum tempo (aliás é o único que tenho seguido) e queria aqui deixar a minha opinião por muito "básica" que seja...

Neste momento encontro-me neutro no ouro por uma razão... too far, too fast.

Tenho aqui no gráfico situações em que o RSI Foi acima dos 70 (situação actual) e a vermelho estão as situações em que ele quebra o rsi de novo em baixa nos 70.

Todos marcaram uma queda de pelo menos e cerca de 10% que eu acredito que esteja iminente levanto o ouro a um queda de 40 a 50 usd.

E a divergência negativa quer no MACD com no RSI poderão não ser muito boas!!

A verde são as situações em que quebra (para cima) o valor 50 no RSI





Esta queda é coerente com o meu estado bull no usd como mostra o gráfico

As linhas cinzentas são simples projecções técnicas que têm funcionado muito bem...




P.S. Encontro-me long em Nem!! Mesmo que esteja certo e ainda não estejamos na próxima grande "upleg" do ouro não duvido que falte pouco e encontro-me comprado a um nível confortável para assistir ao desenrolar dos próximos capitulos!! :-)

Boas VirtuaGod,

Espero que esteja tudo bem contigo. Embora tenhas andado arredado aqui do Fórum e deste tópico lembro-me que há uns tempos atrás seguias este sector das acções do OURO.

Quanto ao teu comentário à actual situação do OURO gostaria de dizer o seguinte:

Não vejo divergência no MACD e no RSI. Para haver divergência estes indicadores têm que ter formado um topo, o que ainda não aconteceu. Caso esse topo seja inferior ao anterior com o preço a registar novo máximo, então sim estaremos na presença de uma divergência negativa.

Quanto ao facto do RSI estar acima dos 70 também não é razão para se iniciar aqui uma correcção (o que não quer dizer que tal não possa acontecer). Os mercados podem manter-se durante algum tempo na zona sobrecomprada do RSI (acima dos 70). Aliás, é nessa zona que geralmente se dão as maiores acelerações de preço. Um mercado com um RSI acima dos 70, com o ADX a indicar full bull mode e um MACD em território positivo e com tendência ascendente, indica estarmos na presença de um mercado com tendência marcadamente positiva e com muita força.

Se reparares bem, em 2003 - depois do OURO ter entrado na zona de sobrecompra do RSI - a cotação ainda teve fulgor para subir dos $350 para os $388. Ou seja, mais de 10% de valorização com o mercado acima dos 70 pontos do RSI. Se a situação se repetir, o OURO poderá atingir os $525!!

A razão do "too far, too fast" embora seja válida do ponto de vista da prudência, pode não ser aplicável num mercado que se encontra em fase de aceleração de preço. Neste momento estamos apenas cerca de $20 acima dos anterior máximo (o que não chega a ser 5%). O Cartel detém uma posição "suicida" do lado curto. Se as coisas correrem para o torto, o preço pode arrancar de forma violenta. Apesar do target primário deste movimento se situar nos $485, na minha opinião, existe potencial para o OURO atingir e eventualmente ultrapassar os $500.

Dito isto, num bull market existem inúmeras correcções. Umas maiores que outras. Nesta altura, a haver correcção, não me parece que venha a verificar-se ser uma correcção de grande dimensão (tipo aquela a que te referes, na ordem dos $40 a $50). Depois de atingir a zona dos $500, aí sim penso que poderemos ter uma correcção desse nível.


Abraço

Parece que não sou o único a ter essa opinião:  http://www.321gold.com/editorials/chan/chan101005.html

Mas é verdade que se isto não corrigir vai ter uma explosão!! é verdade tudo o que dizes e o que tanto o que eu digo é um pouco especulativo, é verdade que quando eu penso "o topo está aí" é quando a subida dura e dura e dura.... mas a verdade é que eu penso que o ouro vai ter uma grande subida e as grandes subidas são sustentadas e não muito verticais que não é o que está a acontecer na minha opnião ao começar com um estoiro que chamou a atenção até dos media!! Mas vamos a ver não será a primeira vez que estou errado no curto prazo e muito menos a última, aliás acho que a probabilidade está do teu lado :-). Espantado ficaria se errasse no médio prazo em que acredito num fim da lateralização do HUI e valores acima dos $500 usd no ouro nos próximos 6 meses.
De qualquer das maneiras estou preparado para o que der e vier e embora esteja comprado, uma vez que foi antes da explosão no preço do ouro fico a ver embora dificilmente me veria a entrar a estes valores.

Abraço.

acho que a subida do ouro está a ficar um pouco pesada...e ao minimo sinal deveremos assistir a uma correcção, por isso aproveitem-na para encher as carteiras...

If you like gold buy silver


October 08, 2005

By Sean Rakhimov


The world is running out of silver. Or is it? Let us qualify that: the world is running out of cheap silver. And how, you ask, we arrive at such conclusion? And I turn it right back at you, and say – show me the silver! With the price of every commodity going up what do you think it will do to the price of silver?

As we look around the world we find all but two-three dozen silver companies. That's against a backdrop of hundreds of gold, oil, natural gas companies. Uranium is a hot topic. As of about 20 months ago. And we suddenly have over a hundred uranium companies (or companies that claim to be in uranium business). You don't know them? Apparently, you don't have to, for them to survive and flourish. We are not making it up, we refer you to the man who made a fortune in uranium stocks and is presently Senior Editor of Casey Energy Speculator, Phil O'Neall.

Oil is all over the headlines. Oil is the headline of the year. So far, anyway, because from the looks of it gold may steal the limelight before year end. Are we running out of oil? I believe we are, but that is not the reason why oil is making headlines. It's the PRICE of oil we're most concerned about. (We have enough oil to last us another few decades so why worry about peak oil now?) Oil price is largely the reason uranium is back in fashion and incidentally, uranium price has more than quadrupled since the bottom at $7 and change. So did the oil price.

Why is gold in the news the last few weeks? Because gold price just made a 17-year high. It crossed the $470 mark recently. Where is that relative to the bottom? Not even a double. But gold, oil, uranium are highly political resources. That's why the media tends to focus on them. What else is in the news? Natural gas. What about lead, zinc, copper, timber, iron-ore, nickel, etc? Are they not worthy of a discussion? Jim Rogers thinks they are. But I would like to zero in on another ignored metal – silver.

David Morgan calls silver "the most important metal" and merits of it have been discussed before and will be again. So why is it ignored by the majority of investors? Because SILVER IS CHEAP! Cheap as in undervalued. But wait a minute, isn't that what investors are supposedly looking for? Didn't the best investor of all times, Warren Buffett, get where he is now due to his value investing approach? Doesn't Buffett own 129 million ounces of silver? Then why investors shun silver?

Silver is bulky, I hear. Hmm. Buffett didn't think so. He didn't buy gold, he bought silver. Why is it bulky for the average Joe? Because SILVER IS CHEAP!! Because you can still buy quite a bit of silver for your investment dollar. I will bet my rent money that at $50/oz silver won't be bulky at all, and those who didn't want to hear about it at $7 and $8 will be lining up to get some, because at $50 they will be carrying home a substantially lighter load.

Doug Casey says, silver gets no respect, because for the most part silver is mined as a by-product of copper, lead, zinc and gold therefore it is mined regardless of silver price. However, that may be changing before your eyes. Silver Wheaton (AMEX: SLW) has pioneered the concept of unlocking the value of silver by-product by buying silver production from mines that earn their bread in other metal. Coeur D'Alene Mines (NYSE: CDE) has followed suit with its recent deal in Australia. Silver Standard Resources (NASDAQ: SSRI) and Vista Gold (AMEX: VGZ) have similar arrangements on some of their projects. The latter two had them even before Silver Wheaton, but due to the fact that their properties are not yet producing few investors paid attention. The attitude was - so long as it is in the ground, doesn't matter who holds the rights to which metal. We know of more companies looking into similar opportunities.

Silver companies can't make money mining it, comes another argument. That is mostly true, but not entirely. We know at least two silver mining companies that are profitable on operating basis today and two more that are getting close to profitability at current prices. But isn't it the function of free markets to regulate asset prices? What happens when companies cannot make money selling their product (we have to speak in these terms to make our point)? They go out of business, the price of their product goes up and the higher it goes, the more companies get back in the business until the market finds balance between supply and demand. The above development of silver by-product being bought and sold as an asset of its own will do wonders for the industry.

The total amount of money that bought Silver Wheaton's production as it stands today is about US$285 MM (the entire story was thoroughly discussed here). At $7.5 silver and annual production of 10 MM oz with cost fixed at $4 (it's $3.90 but we round it up for convenience) we arrive at $35 MM in free annual cashflow. That means the investment should pay for itself free and clear within 8 years counting from the beginning of 2005. Everything beyond that is pure profit. How do you like 'm damn apples? Of course, the company could do other things that may or may not be as profitable, but the current setup is very attractive to say the least. But the punch line is the silver price which I expect to be much much higher in the coming years.

Silver is not money, they tell me, it's a commodity. Duh! Is that supposed to be bad for silver? Are we not in a commodities bull market? Oil is a commodity and you don't see the oil price suffer from it. "Oil is different, it's a source of energy" - argue skeptics. What do you have to say about molybdenum, rhodium, copper, lead? Those are not energy sources but have been showing some pretty returns in the last several years. If silver is a commodity, which of course it is (we'll get to monetary aspect shortly), it will play catch up to the rest of the group. Last time I checked we were in a commodities bull market and those tend to last for 15-20 years. If, for arguments sake, we agree that it started around the year 2000, we still have about a decade or more of it ahead of us.

I want to get back to silver as money. Let's see what we have here. English is my second language, but wasn't the colloquialism "pay in silver" widely used till about 100 years ago? Don't we have silver coins in most countries around the world? Doesn't the US Constitution state that gold and silver are only viable money? Doesn't the word "silver" mean "money" in some 50 of the world's languages? And lastly, don't the financial markets treat silver as money? According to CPM Group gold and silver are regarded as money by the financial markets because the open interest in these two metals is comparable to same in Foreign Exchange markets, i.e. currencies. No other commodity comes even close to gold and silver in that respect. That's not me saying it. That is the world financial system in action.

I will take a chance here and tell a joke. Hopefully readers will look past its politically incorrect bias and focus on the point it makes.

A spokeswoman for a feminist group announces the results of a comprehensive study on gender induced properties of logic and says the following: "We ought to admit that men's logic is superior to that of women, but at the same time, women's logic is no worse by any means".

Let's sum up. Gold is money. Silver tracks gold, trades like it, but it's not money. Some logic there. You catch my drift.

A few words about currencies. Currency is NOT money. Money is a store of wealth and buying power. Currency is merely a medium of exchange. It's the stuff you carry around to pay for coffee. The two are confused because historically gold and silver were used as both. What are the chances of silver returning as currency? It's not impossible.
Hugo Salinas Price has the all 31 Governors of Mexican states supporting a silver based currency. Bernard von NotHaus of www.libertydollar.org was able to convince thousands of people to use it and I have to agree with Bernard on this one – government controls the currency, not the money. Money is a universal store of value and wealth, and does not require sanctioning.

You have to laugh at gold bugs that shun silver. They know all the reasons why gold will go up, but they can't muster a couple for silver. "This time it's different", isn't it? Is it different for silver? Which part is different? As of this writing gold/silver ratio stands at 62. I am betting that before this bull market is over you'll see that number slashed at least in half. My message to gold bugs is - if you like gold, buy silver.

October 11, 2005

A Surprise Silver Endorsement

By Theodore Butler


The most recent Commitment of Traders Report (COT) indicated continued tech fund buying/dealer short selling in gold and silver. In gold, especially when factoring in the trading from the Tuesday cut-off, the tech funds now hold a record long position, on both a net and gross basis. The dealers, likewise, hold a record net and gross short position in gold. While these respective positions could grow larger with higher prices, in poker terms, the pot is full. Soon we will get the resolution.

In silver, based upon the current COT report and subsequent trading from the cut-off date, the dealers appear to have sold short an additional 40,000 net contracts (200 million ounces) on the price rally over the past month or so. By my calculations, the dealer net short futures position has increased to roughly 375 million ounces, including the extrapolation from the cut-off date. While not at a record like gold, the silver COTs are very full, although they could get fuller at higher prices. The bottom line is that we are close to a "do or die" extreme juncture in the market, where volatility and risk are high. One side or the other, tech funds or dealers, will win or lose. This is not a contest in which other market participants, including small traders, play much of a role in the determination of the outcome.

Can silver move sharply higher from here, in spite of negative COT readings? Of course it can. Can we sell down through the moving averages easily? Yes. Is that doubletalk? Maybe, but I would be leery of anyone who claimed to know how the short term will play out. I do think I know that on a short-term basis, while profit potential may be high in silver (as it always is), risk is also high.

While past extremes in gold and silver have always eventually resulted in the tech funds running, it is always possible for the dealers to be overrun. No one knows how it will play out, although many have already declared the dealers the losers. This is premature, as the game is very much in play, with both sides increasing their bets. Open unrealized profits and losses are very much different than closed out and realized profits and losses.

We know the tech funds have held enormous open profits in the past, only to lose those profits on sell-offs below the moving averages. It would be instructive to determine beforehand just what would constitute a dealer loss. The simplest definition would include the tech funds closing out their long gold and silver positions at big profits to them and big losses to the dealers. While that has never happened in gold and silver, it could happen. But until it does happen, we won't know. Let's declare who wins and count the money when the dealing's done and the positions are closed out.

Of course, this COT analysis is short term in nature. As such it is necessarily of speculative concern, as opposed to long-term investment, which is the way the vast majority of investors should handle their money. Let me keep it simple. Long term, silver goes much higher based upon the law of supply and demand. Short term, who knows? But if we do experience a significant short-term sell-off, I'd like to make two points in advance. One, it should provide a low-risk buy point in silver. Two, we will have come down for one reason only – tech fund selling.

This week, silver received an unexpected endorsement from an unlikely quarter – the Silver Users Association (SUA). For those of you who may be unfamiliar with this organization, here's their website http://www.silverusersassociation.org/index.shtml I have previously written about the SUA, in non-flattering terms, in an article 4 years ago, "Silver Users, Silver Abusers".

I don't want to go off on a tangent, but I could never understand how the SUA was allowed to exist, since their main purpose seemed to be to keep its members supplied with cheap silver and that they were the only commodity consumer group in existence. If a group of commodity producers banded together for the purpose of artificially increasing the price of their commodity, that would be clearly illegal under US law. How a group of commodity consumers could get away with the reverse goal is a mystery to me.

Additionally, the SUA was the main driver behind the US Government disposing of its massive silver stockpile over the past 60 years. This was the main reason the SUA was formed. In the interest of full disclosure, I did complain to the Justice Department's Anti-Trust Division about the SUA, some 15 years ago. Suffice it to say, I'm no friend of the SUA.

That's why I was surprised when a received a number of e-mails from friends and readers this week about the SUA. First, I learned that the SUA had actually published one of my articles in their April 2005 newsletter. No, it wasn't the Silver Abusers article, but one on digital cameras. I'm used to seeing my articles published by others, but I never expected the SUA to do so. I'd be lying if I said I was flattered.

More importantly, it turned out that the SUA had written articles in their two most recent newsletters, dated July and September 2005, on the pending Silver ETF from Barclays. One reader wrote to me that the position of the SUA on the Silver ETF fully endorsed my take on the ETF, which I wrote about in June.

While I would concur that the SUA agreed with my assessment, of much greater significance is that the SUA has fully endorsed silver as an investment. As much as I loathe what the SUA stands for and has done to the silver market, I will acknowledge that they know as much about silver as could be known. For them to tell you that real silver is a great investment is powerful beyond any words I could ever write. They're even telling you to buy allocated silver, the only kind of stored silver that I preach about.

No, the SUA is not suddenly in the investment advisory business and is not intentionally promoting silver. That would be preposterous. But if you take the time to read why they are opposed to Barclays Silver ETF, and apply your common sense, you will be able to reach no other reasonable conclusion. Here are some excerpts from their position on the ETF (full statement - http://www.silverusersassociation.org/news/wash_rpt_0509.shtml)

The excerpts:

Background on ETF

An ETF is an Exchange Traded Fund, created under the Investment Company Act of 1940. They are index-based products, which hold a portfolio of securities that is intended to provide investment results that, before fees and expenses, generally correspond to the price and yield performance of the underlying benchmark index. In the case of a Silver ETF, the index would track the silver price and be backed by physically vaulted silver. Gold ETF's gained popularity in the recent commodity bull markets as investors were attracted to an alternate form of gold investment other than mining shares, options, futures and physical. Many are interested in gold from a 'buy and hold' perspective. Each unit that is bought on the gold ETF has resulted in physical gold metal being purchased on the open market and stored in a vault. In total, these gold ETF's have contributed to 250 tons of gold being purchased in the open market, approximately $3.4 billion dollars.

Impact of Silver ETF

Fortunately we do not have to look back very far to see the impact a significant amount of allocated silver would have on the market. It was 1998 when Warren Buffet purchased over 100 million ounces of physical silver and the spot price rallied over $3 dollars and one month lease rates soared over 30%.

.........As it is, silver can be an illiquid market because there are few central banks which own silver. Silver is inexpensive in terms of commodities, and its volatility is typically 2-3 times that of gold.

These are both reasons investors are drawn to the market. A silver ETF would only exaggerate silver's illiquidity given the sheer volume of physical silver needed to be shipped and stored. While a silver ETF might initially provide price benefits for producers, we believe it would disrupt the market in the short term and may harm the market in the long term.

SUA Position

The Silver Users Association opposes the creation of a silver ETF because of the concerns that doing so will require the holding of physical silver in allocated accounts, thus removing large amounts of silver from the market. By doing so, the ETF most likely would cause a shortage of silver in the marketplace......"



I urge you to read the entire article. The SUA writes in very clear and blunt language, just like I tried to do in my ETF article. You decide if the SUA agrees with me. They are telling you there is not enough real silver in the world to fund a silver ETF, just like I did. They are telling you that the silver ETF will create a shortage and send the price soaring, just like I did. They are comparing the impact of the silver ETF to Warren Buffett's silver purchase in 1998, just like I did. They are telling you that there is plenty of gold for any number of gold ETF's, but not enough for even one measly silver ETF, just like I did and further confirming my contention that silver is more rare than gold. They are confirming that there is little silver left in the central banks of the world. They are confirming that allocated (with serial numbers and specific bar weights) silver is the type of silver that counts, just like I've always done. They are telling you that silver is cheap and will move much more than gold. Is there an echo in here?

Please understand me – it's not just that they wrote exactly what I wrote. It has to do with who I am and who they are. I'm an analyst who is bullish on silver and who is interested in ending the silver manipulation and seeing as many regular people take advantage of a great investment as possible. You would expect me to say bullish things about silver. But what about the Silver Users Association? What would you expect to hear from them?

I'll tell you what I have come to expect from following them for 20+ years. Up until this ETF article, I have never heard them say anything bullish about silver. It was always "there's plenty of silver, the price should go down, it will always be a poor investment, yada, yada, yada." Never have they issued a bullish word about silver. That's what is so significant about their ETF article; it is nothing but bullish. Not enough silver for an ETF, silver's inexpensive, the ETF will cause a shortage, it moves faster than gold, the ETF will benefit producers, the ETF will have the same impact that Warren Buffett did. All I can say is "huh?"

This SUA article is serious stuff. It is unprecedented. There was only one reason they came out against this ETF as forcefully as they have – they knew this silver ETF could blow the silver market sky high. The SUA had to do whatever it took to kill it, and as I wrote previously, there's no other way to spin it. If the silver ETF is killed, it will be for the irrefutable fact that there is not enough real silver in the world to fund it anywhere near current prices. It should be simple for you to recognize that the SUA was in such a bind that it forced this open and blunt approach.

And you can rest assured that writing articles in their newsletter is only the tip of the iceberg as far as their real, behind the scenes effort to derail the silver ETF. The SUA and their members are the masters of backroom lobbying and influence peddling. How else do you think they succeeded in causing the disposal of billions of ounces of government silver over half a century, right in front of our eyes? The army of well-paid lawyers and lobbyists from Eastman Kodak, Dupont, Dow Chemical, Engelhard and Tiffany have been petitioning and influencing the SEC to kill the ETF. Against this concerted and well-organized effort against the silver ETF, I'm not aware of any forceful attempt to get it approved.

While I can be wrong, and I do hope I am, the effort to kill the ETF should prevail. It won't be a surprise, because there never was enough real silver to back it. The surprise is to see the SUA come out so publicly against it, and in doing so, prove to the world just how little silver is left the world. It would be hard to ask for clearer proof. In fact, we don't even have to wait for the final SEC decision to deny the ETF in order to confirm my contention that there is not enough silver, at near current prices, to back it. The SUA just did that.

The super good news, of course, is that you can do something about it. You don't need to wait for a Silver ETF, which may never come into existence, in order to buy real silver. You can do it on your own. Just make sure, if you are buying silver that will not be in your personal possession, that you buy the right kind of stored silver. That means no unallocated, pool accounts or leveraged deals, if your intent is to own real silver. Those kinds of silver are the type the SUA would prefer to see you buy. According to them, the only type of silver that really matters is allocated silver. Please listen to them.