BIG idea: banks are invested in ETFs, then hedging these positions by shorting – all to protect the value of their bonds. Read below for full development.
To start – I don’t pretend I’m an expert with 40 years in this industry. Never have. What I have done is spend the better part of 1000 hours of research over the last year and a half seeing things from a lot of different perspectives. While I have two graduate degrees (one being an MBA) – the idea here is that it prepared me for research and forming hypotheses that need supporting evidence so I can draw conclusions. But you need to find credible sources, and if you have not learned anything with 2020, is that media now seems to be taken over by corporate interests. You cannot even get a legitimate financial show anymore without worrying if a major bank made a call to the CEO to tell them to stand down from certain coverage or they will pull advertisement.
What I feel I have done is take their knowledge, and build further on it with projections, observations, and assertions. I invest in mining stocks, and pay 4 services to tell me their best opinion on mining stocks. They aren’t geologists. But they get information from the right people. They can do the NPV formulas and assess if there is a lot of meat on the bone. Likewise, what I bring to the table here is gathering information from experts to then share out. This industry does not have scholarly research – in as much as most parties try to keep information as opaque as possible. Therefore – pretty much anything I write I try to provide sourcing for it where possible – with the best information as possible. I am not a financial advisor and nothing I mention should be taken as financial advice. I’m merely trying to convey information that’s out there and trying to analyze the situation based off of the best material I can find. Occasionally, better information comes along where I then update my views and analysis.
For example, an interview Keith Neumeyer did over a year ago, he mentioned electric cars require 3 kg of silver. This video is still out there and I referenced it in one of my earlier blogs for analysis. He later came out and clarified 3x the amount of an ICE vehicle. Only recently did I then see there were 77m or so cars produced a year and somewhere around 90m oz reported to be used by autos per the silver institute. So – this turned out to be about 1oz per ICE car and 2oz per EV – not 3kg. That’s off by a factor of 90x. This is greatly different from my original post – but you update your information and tighten your hypothesis with better and more recent information.
With this, I felt I can do a service to the readers and those at large by sharing “nuggets” of information from around the YouTubes with my take on them. If any of you YouTubers want to do a weekly segment of things you see that is 5-10 mins long, hit me up and I might be able to provide you some content to then share. I LOVE the deep interviews I see, but sometimes Monday 5AM rolls around and I’d like a 5-10 min video of what I need to know going into the week.
- My article was then turned into an interview on Palisades Radio – I had a blast doing it and one of my tweets I put out was a summary of the 4D chess and outlined a path where the squeeze is going to work – and was linked on Sprott Money – suggesting I wasn’t crazy. Phase 2 of that was massive ETF buying to drain the 1,000 oz bars, and the SLV report that came out saying, essentially, the silver we pretend to have may not all be there – leads to phase 3 where Industrial Users get crazy and go godzilla. This will lead to phase 4 where shorts need to start covering around $35. About a week after I wrote my article and it got crazy views, Ronan Manly wrote an article titled, “Houston – we have a problem – 85% of silver already held by the ETFs“. This suggested that there wasn’t a lot of silver left in the LBMA vaults. Just days later, he then reported that SLV changed their prospectus to more or less suggest all of the silver we proclaim to have may not be there in “#SilverSqueeze hits London as SLV warns of Limited Available Silver Supply“.
2. (Banks shorting SLV interests?) At the same time this was going on, many were crying foul at the SLV ability to put 110m in silver in the vaults in 3 days. Chris Markus at Arcadia economics had been doing a series of videos over the last 2 weeks where he was asking about SLV audits, and how they sourced silver. I believe in his call with SLV, they mentioned that every day they are adding the silver. In his most recent video below, he discusses Ronan Manly’s article which essentially says the metal may not actually be there.
In Marcus’ own videos, he details the last audit as March 2020. My buddy, who is a former IRS agent, pointed me to the iShares 10Q document for Q3 2020 in which he says these guys are saying all of the silver is there under penalty of law. I quickly pointed out to my friend who is new to this industry that these people (as an industry) get fined all the time and have been in the crosshairs for metals manipulation for years. While I agreed with this statement that the 10Q was indeed out there – these financial statements are not an audit, and nearly 6 months old. What strikes me as off with the prospectus change is the timing. Yes – the wallstreetsilver thing has put pressure on ETFs. But what they COULD have done is come out and say, “hey – look – this volume is crazy. We CANNOT source that metal. We need to make fundamental changes to our fund to make it a closed fund like PSLV”. They did not do that. What they did was four things:
- Report 110m of silver inflows. Had they disclosed they could not source the silver, the price of silver could have done a hockey stick. And – the banks that hold large positions in SLV which have massive shorts would have lost billions. Had iShares announced the problem sourcing silver, silver could have maybe gone to $35 and those holding SLV would have seen significant gains. By misrepresenting how easy it was to get silver (that they apparently may not have), it misled people into thinking supply was ample. I’d politely suggest that those smarter than me and have stakes in SLV might be looking into lawsuits about this. I’m not advocating this – I just think it’s possible we may see some suits popping up over this. And this could end up getting discovery to happen to then reveal some stuff that might be a little….well…I’ll let your imagination paint that picture.
- Continue to tell Marcus that silver is added daily. It appears their people responding to customer requests were not read up on the recent changes to the prospectus.
- Not be able to provide him an audit
- Obscure the announcement of the change to the fund.
Now – with the timing. If the last time an audit was done was March 2020, it would stand to reason perhaps March 2021 is audit time. Now, this massive rush to ETF buying could very well have broken SLV ability to source metals, but at the same time, it could be used as an excuse prior to an audit to demonstrate that the books are off. That all of the metal we SAY is there may not be there. This is PURE CONJECTURE on my part – but can partially explain the timing of the prospectus change.
On top of it, there was another interview that came out apparently early Feb from the head of Goldman’s commodities desk stating that the shorts ARE the ETFs. This struck a lot of people as odd. And perhaps illegal. I don’t think so – just didn’t explain it well. No one really can tell by the prospectus where it authorizes iShares to then short the metals the shareholders own. I believe the guy in the interview misspoke – and horribly. There are 20 authorized participants in the fund, but the metal is supposedly owned by the trust, not by the individual member banks. How could this work? Goldman buys a hundred million ounces in SLV, then turns around and shorts that to hedge their investment on the futures markets. So if silver goes up, they lose on the short. If silver goes down, they win on the short. At issue, is SLV is so big, that if all of these participants are shorting their investment in SLV, essentially that is potentially responsible for oppressing the market. 5%? 10%? 100%? No one knows. As Ted Butler writes – there are 400m oz commercial shorts, but there’s not a grand explanation why or how – and if this is via ETF holdings, this explains how. It seems Goldman may buy 100m shares and then turn around on their books and short that, using their position in SLV as the cover to their short. I had seen other items that this might be a NET short of 100m oz across the big 8 banks. Meaning – many of these guys may be long 100m (SLV) and perhaps short 110m (other ETFs? COMEX?). All 8 of these banks add up to a net short of 115m or so, collectively – as I understand it. Naked short 115m? Don’t know, but it appears so.
Food for thought – what if this really catches fire and many individuals then take their money from SLV and put it into PSLV? These individuals are NOT hedging their investments, and to the best of my understanding, PSLV is not placing bets against the pile of silver they hold in trust for the shareholders. In this respect, this would be a way to beat the shorts. SLV essentially could be a vehicle with participation and ownership by these big banks that hedge – but the common man is voting with their wallet with PSLV and the longs overtake the hedged positions to have net positive move. Shorts get blown out, but these big banks then win with the price of the metal in SLV going up. They may have to then cover these short positions by paying out cash, or withdrawing their positions in SLV to hand over the metals.
But why would they do this at all??? A seeking Alpha article last week wrote that these banks don’t want silver to launch because they need to protect the value of their bonds. By having a shorted silver, this slows a rise of silver and protects the value of their bonds. Essentially, it now seems they hedged the value of their bonds with a silver short. If they win on bond prices, they lose the silver long bet. If they lose on the bond bet, they win on the silver short bet. So it seems the purpose of SLV is not to give people legitimate exposure to the price of silver, but to create a vehicle where major banks can then “hold” metal and then short the market – hedging that investment but at the same time protecting their bond market.
From the SA article:
“In that sense, a silver run is similar to a bank run. Bank runs tend to feed on themselves. Monetary demand for silver is essentially a run on the dollar, which is itself primarily a monetary reserve. The way you stop a run on the dollar is you raise interest rates on the dollar. But what if doing that is impossible because the level of debt in the economy is so enormous that raising interest rates would collapse the economy and the stock market?
Raising interest rates was possible during the last run on silver in 1980 when it last hit $50, because debt levels were much lower back then than they are now, and stocks were also nowhere near highs. This is exactly what then-Fed Chair Paul Volcker did, pushing up overnight interest rates on the dollar to near 20% so as to increase demand for the dollar as a monetary reserve, which eventually crushed monetary demand for silver and brought the price back down in dollar terms.
But if you can’t raise interest rates, the only way to stop a dollar run and a flight into precious metals as a monetary reserve is to push the paper price of silver down by shorting silver futures. Banks have a vested interest in doing this because if the dollar falls too fast, the value of the bonds on their balance sheet plummet, causing a systemic banking crisis. If silver stops rising in dollar terms though on the paper markets, the demand for it as a monetary reserve tends to eventually ebb, stabilizing the dollar that way”
I could be very wrong, but it looks like a lot of this starts at the bond level and silver is just a way to help protect that much bigger asset and protect the dollar from a rapid fall by preventing a rapid gold/silver rise. This system appears to be a “governor switch” to prevent a rapid fall of the dollar. That being said, I’m concerned what happens on the other end of this silver and gold thing. These metals have been suppressed for 40 years. If we are seeing gold at $3000 by the end of the year – is that a 70 DXY? If the commercial shorts are blown out and the bogus ETFs are exposed as fronts for shorting – could the moves to PSLV and physical silver and gold actually be the death knell to the suppression? Could ETFs have been devised as a way to divert attention from physical supplies of gold and silver? Could the limitation of supplies being minted be intentional as to ensure physical demand was only dripped out to consumers? I do worry where this goes…a hockey stick move in gold and silver are coming. And if these mechanisms were put in place to protect the entire banking system, what then happens when metals actually run hot???
What it appears is – these banks are putting money into gold/silver ETFs, then shorting it to actually depress the monetary value of these metals – not the industrial components. Investors in these ETFS should be livid. The ETF itself is not shorting the market, per se, but it appears the participants are. At least according to that interview with the head of goldman commodities – “the ETFs are the shorts”. This statement needs clarification from him on the record.
What this squeeze could do is:
- reduce retail investor participation in SLV who is not sourcing all of the metal (not going long as much as they say) and increase the individual participation in PSLV (which is going long).
- increase the monetary value of silver by showing massive investment demand. This will break the shorts and I see ultimately, much of the silver held by these banks, probably in SLV, getting withdrawn and handed over.
- The “massive short” by a lot of these big banks would dissipate.
- Silver’s monetary value may improve, leading to a decreased value in the bonds and DXY.
3. Andrew Maguire re-affirms Basel 3 by June 28th which will be good for gold and silver – I wanted to add this, because there’s been some questions out there on Basel 3. Lots of them. Andrew – if you get word of this from anyone, please speak more of how silver is related to Basel 3, specifically. I had a comment on the video I was in that silver is not part of Basel 3. The listener sent the Basel 3 document over, and I gave a quick look and it doesn’t mention silver. At 31:00 in on this video, Andrew discusses several times how both gold and silver will need their books squared away prior to June 28th. I am GUESSING the confusion is this. Basel 3 NSFR requirements talk about 85%. In the same breath, the Bank of International Settlements starting in 2019 counted gold as a tier 1 asset. However, that is ALLOCATED gold. In order to meet the basel 3 requirements and have your gold counted as a tier 1 asset, you needed 85% reserve. At the same time, Andrew does talk mostly about gold and Basel 3 – but continues to mention many times in the video how this will also make silver pop with them squaring the books. The commenter suggested silver may get a tangential bump from gold going up. I looked at the link here, then pointed out that it seems everything on the balance sheet is subjected to NSFR. I then pointed this out in the summary table. There are probably a million people reading this more qualified on this subject than me – so again – if anyone has better information on how this affects silver, please let me know. Lots of questions in the community on this. Here’s what I saw in the table:
4. WallStreetSilver killing it with the memes and videos. I wrote a comment that, “I came for the silver, I stayed for the memes”. Please go check them out, last I checked they are now over 25,000. I believe if silver continues its march up this week, that more media will be paying attention. Here are a few of the memes. You all need to check them out. I believe a meme war might be the way to go here…lol.
All of this is pointing me towards a future where you have lots of western countries trying to push an MMT future by monetizing debt and having continued money printing. On the other side of this, you have Putin now de-dollared, the Chinese testing a digital yuan backed by gold, and India outlawing bitcoin. More on bitcoin below.
I have written previously, that our debt, and the debt of many large nations, is now unsustainable. You have, essentially, two options:
- Default on your interest debt payments. We have run interest rates down about as far as possible over 40 years, and we seem to have refi’d the house 200 times in that 40 years. Can’t refi anymore, and debt is now exploding. We will simply be unable to pay the interest on this debt – at near zero %. We can’t have that.
- Default through inflation. I believe that in years’ past, they wanted to suppress the monetary value of gold and silver. However, how do you get out of this debt? Inflate the value of everything. Those with fixed debt, can then pay off that debt with inflated dollars. This of course had many of us doing a refi at 3% recently for our houses. Now, imagine a future 5 years from now where everything costs 5x more. And your paycheck is 5x more. But your mortgage payment didn’t go up. In THIS future, they NEED to inflate everything. Rather than making gold illegal and re-pricing it, it seems they want gold and silver to go up in value. “No raise interest rates for 3 years”. “Inflation run hot”. “Negative real rates”. All of this is telling the PM sector that we are fanning the flames. The problem with this, is you have a lot of banks making a lot of money over a lot of years by depressing metals prices. Mysteriously, JPM got out of their short position last March and are now long 193 million ounces of silver. That exceed position limits, as I’ve been told, but the point is they are not opposing the forces now. I believe central banks want to take over everything, and Fedcoin will allow a direct connection from a person to a central bank. I believe JPM will be a bank that is brought in to deal with the commercial operations of this. All other banks that refused to go long and are still short I believe are about to be a bug on a windshield of a semi driving 400 mph.
Therefore, I believe the west wants to default through inflation, and encourage purchasing of commodities with fiat dollars.
You have 150 nations wanting a new Bretton woods since the US petro dollar is sort of dead. Many currencies linked to ours, and it seems all nations have decided to try and devalue their dollars as quickly as possible in a controlled descent. These countries are printing up dollars, and then giving these dollars out for people to buy “stuff” with them, and I can tell you, people in the know are buying “stuff” like gold, silver, real estate, shares in businesses, etc. Where our currency may eventually disappear, what comes out of these ashes will be a new system, most likely backed by gold at a price of like $40,000 to have a 40% backing of a digital dollar.
While the west may want MMT to infinity, the developments with BRICS countries trying to de-dollar and get more involved with getting “stuff” like gold and silver with US dollars has the effect of bringing more dollars into our economy (plentiful supply of dollars = inflation) while exchanging those dollars for goods/services/real estate. I recently saw a Russian bought a Miami mansion for $140 million. This is rich people all over the world holding USD getting out of USD into other “stuff”.
All of the above is telling me the world is going back to a gold standard. I believe we are in two parallel camps now:
- trying to make MMT work while hedging our bets on gold/silver
- inflating our way out of debt using MMT to bridge us to a day where we are forced to have a gold standard
I am warming to bitcoin, but not much. I now seem to have about 1,000 or so reading per day, so please read in totality before I get hate mail from either side. I will add 2% of my portfolio to bitcoin when I see it at a $3,000 again. Many of you reading this just got enraged and will pile in to the comments. But please consider some lessons I have learned over the last year that I want to pass on.
- You can’t get every ride up. Whether it is Bitcoin, Tesla, Uranium, Zoom, Gold, silver, etc. You can’t get in at the ground floor on everything and ride it up. I see bubbles everywhere, and I believe the PM/mining sector will become a bubble, someday, far more explosive than any of the other mentioned. It’s my belief. So I am mostly in on gold/silver miners right now. I missed the BTC move. What I do NOT want to do is buy Tesla, BTC, and some of these things I missed at their current tops.
- I might like something, but I need to buy it at the right time. One of my pay services, silverchartist, recently educated me on where to buy in at. Many of us just want “hot stock tips” but that stock may not be good to buy in, at that moment. Stocks go up and down in cycles, and if you REALLY like a company and it has a high RSI, it might be ok to wait for a pullback. Essentially, you are trying to find value at entry points – and not buy everything at the top and it immediately falls
- I might like something more if it is de-risked. Another pay service I have, Mining Stock Journal – I asked them about a particular hot stock 6 months ago. I had bought in, got a triple, sold out. It went from $2.05 down to $1.30 and I was considering re-entering at that point. Dave said, “I don’t like it anywhere over $.50 because it’s not be de-risked enough”. THAT was amazing for me to comprehend. It wasn’t just chasing a name or a story, it was evaluating the risk. The drill story had essentially tapped the same vein, and didn’t de-risk enough for him to justify the value. It was subjective – but the point was he said, in a sense, “I like it, but not at that price, at this time, due to not being de-risked”.
Using these lessons above, I’d like to talk about BTC. It’s at $47,000 at the time of this writing. I missed the move. I’m out. I’m not chasing, at that price. Right now – we are staring down the barrel of a gun which is a possible cliff drop on stock markets, worldwide. Jim Rogers says it could be April. David Hunter is calling for it later this year, after we hit 36,000 on the dow, and his response to me on twitter was
He is one of MANY voices that are calling for cliff drops. And it’s nit the first time I’ve been accused of overthinking things. It’s all just a matter of when this bad stuff happens, in my opinion. What you find by listening to all of these guys, as long as I have, is that none of them are “right”. Everyone has degrees of being right, and being wrong. I wrote about this in my situation of being the “schroedingers cat” of being simultaneously right and wrong. These guys may pick a number for gold and a month. They could off by a lot of dollars and a lot of time. But eventually, the dollar number hits. The same is true for what I write. I piece as much together as I can to lay out where this goes. If this whole thing with silver does break out in March and Sprott does make a top 10 richest man in the world – that article could eventually get me some attention. But I could say we make a top of $100 for a few days and the top was $61. I would wrong on the number, but correct on the timing of the move. Maybe all of this breaks at end of March but price is halted and resumes in mid April? All of my SLV calls for March 31st will be worthless.
With bitcoin, what I hear is nothing but “it’s going to $50,000”. “It’s going to $75,000”. “It’s going to a million”. The sales pitch for Bitcoin to get in, is because it’s going up. This is essentially how you build a ponzi scheme. Those that bought in at $4,000 want more and more people to get in, because as that value goes up, the early entrants get more rich. I want you to see how this works out, if you want to get into bitcoin today.
Person 1 got in to bitcoin at $4,000. He paid in $48,000 and bought 12 BTC. His initial investment was $48,000.
YOU get involved at $48,000 and buy 1 BTC. You think the price is going to $100,000.
Let’s say the price goes to $96,000. The guy who paid in $48,000 a year before you now has $1,152,000. You have $96,000. He got a 24x. You got a 2x. When he bought at $4,000, there was downside risk to maybe go to $3,000 or $2,000, but the upside risk was to go back up over $20,000 again. His upside risk therefore was +$16,000 (5x) where his downside may have been $3,000 (-33%). Buying at $50,000 has a downside risk of $5,000 in my opinion, with an upside of perhaps $96,000. Essentially, your risk right now may be a 10x down or a 2x up. I don’t like this as an entry point.
Additionally, I still am not sold on this as to what the hell it does. What problem does it solve that I need to expose myself to this level of risk? From what I gather, it is a store of wealth as it’s main utility, and it’s outside of the systems of government. From what I hear, it takes 4 hours to do a transaction with it to someone. They said it’s rare, with only 21 million bitcoins, but each one of those bitcoins are divisible by millions. So at the lowest level of existence, there’s something like 40 quadrillion units.
So far, the main selling point I’m hearing screamed from the rafters is….”price will go up!!!!”
That’s a huge, huge red flare for me. A store of wealth is supposed to hedge against inflation. Not get you rich. Sometimes these things overshoot. For all we know, BTC could be the canary in the coal mine demonstrating true inflation now. I don’t see it.
If I tell people I’m buying silver or gold, it’s because I see inflation coming and I want to store my “financial energy” into a form of “financial battery” like gold or silver. If our monetary system goes up 100x in the next 5 years, gold and silver, in a sense, should keep par with that inflation. So $10,000 today can get you a decent used car. Take that $10,000, put it into silver, and in 5 years if our monetary system goes up 100x and a used car cost $1m due to inflation, that $10,000 you put into silver will be $1m at that point and you can buy your used car with the same amount of silver.
BTC is, essentially, a fiat storage vehicle. There is no intrinsic value in it. Myanmar just shut off their internet. Wonder how people are going to access their store of wealth then? India just outlawed bitcoin – I had an article from investing.com and now that link was removed. With India, you roughly have 20% of the world’s population that won’t be able to use it. I can tell you that Russia is probably next, as they are big on their gold stores, and china is also probably next due to their gold stores and the digital yuan backed by gold. These countries do not want to allow you to bypass their banking systems and controls.
Look at gold and silver. If you buy/sell quantities at these dealers, you need to fill out tax forms with certain bullion at certain limits. Why? They want to try and limit quantities for money laundering and tax evasion. For most home users, the existing limits in the United States isn’t a big deal. But if you were a drug dealer and wanted to convert millions in cash to gold – you’d be frustrated by these limits. With bitcoin, these limits are gone. People can make nefarious transactions of all types outside of the government systems. Gun running, drug dealing, gambling, prostitution, and even trafficking of persons. All of these things are very possible with bitcoin.
So what problem does it solve, for me? It’s supposed to get my money out of the government controlled system, but I don’t really have a problem with that. It’s supposed to be a store of wealth for me, but I have that too, already, with something that’s been around for 5,000 years, not 10. It’s supposed to be easily accessible to convert into dollars – but I don’t want a store of wealth easily accessible – that’s the point. I want this tucked away somewhere in a vault for end of days, not to click a few buttons to pay my bills. I have a savings account for that. I can pay people pretty easily on my rental properties to do work with paypal and venmo, as these people don’t take bitcoin. I can’t pay for gas in bitcoin. If there is a scenario like puerto rico where the power goes out for months, I don’t have access to this stored wealth. What if there’s a Carrington event where power is knocked out for a year? What if nations pile up against us and do cyber attacks and destroy our power grid? What if the country rolls out Fedcoin and makes bitcoin illegal?
Again, the biggest pitch is “institutions are coming”. “Big money is coming”. “Look at Elon!”. Ok. It might. But for me, that’s risk I’m not willing to take, to make those people that got in at $2,000 more wealthy. This entire model of “getting rich” depends on more peoples’ participation. That’s a ponzi scheme.
There is one situation I feel where bitcoin has a supreme business case over anything else. Let’s just say I had lived in Venezuela back in the day, before their hyper inflation. What if I sold “stuff” and converted that to bitcoin. I had intention of leaving the country to re-open my business in the United States. I was able to capture a portion of my wealth into this digital currency, then go on a plane, and convert this digital currency to gold or USD. If you are fleeing a country, they aren’t letting you take suitcases of cash or hundreds of pounds of silver. You need a way to convert that, at least temporarily, to travel. For this reason, one of my buddies did point me to a stock called TSNP. I don’t want to pump and dump here – I already made a double on it, and it came back down. I just want to show you that with Humbl pay, it’s like PayPal or Venmo, but across many countries and currencies. If you are living in the US and have family overseas, it’s hard to send money to them. Humbl pay solves this problem. What if you live in the US and go to Canada or Mexico for the day? You can pay with Humbl pay and it does currency conversion for you – so you don’t have to drive into a country, exchange currencies, then do it when you leave. This solved a problem. Before any of you even think of clicking a button on that – I did this as a momentum play and used “spec” money. I did not do DEEP diligence on this company, and next week it could go to zero. My point is that something like this can also solve the problem that bitcoin is a good case for.
I think bitcoin is version 1.0 of a future crypto currency. There are tons of cryptos now, all with ICOs, and every one of them using a hype machine to get more people in to their ponzi schemes so early holders can cash out as millionaires.
Let me reiterate something. If you are putting money in a store of wealth, the objective is not to “get rich” but to preserve your wealth. The sole marketing I’m seeing now with bitcoin is about getting rich. That should really bother you in the sense of this actually being a store of wealth.
With gold and silver, one can make those same arguments – but I’m not calling for $300 silver by the end of the decade to get rich. I understand that when $300 silver happens, a load of bread is probably $25. I understand that if gold is $20,000 that a new car may cost $200,000. These items are out there to preserve your wealth, have been been doing so for Chinese and Indians for literally thousands of years. I want to make money not on gold and silver, but on the businesses who produce these goods.
To conclude – many people are calling for cliff drops in the near term on the stock markets. Could be tomorrow, April, September. Who knows. I think in any major drop, everything gets hit – gold, silver, bitcoin – but I feel gold and silver will disconnect after the initial shock, and as the dollar rapidly collapses – gold and silver launch. Bitcoin may go parabolic at that time as well. However – I see it dropping to $3,000-$5,000. Why? If you hold bitcoin, physical gold, and physical silver – you can liquidate your bitcoin in minutes, but it’s a pain in the ass to sell your gold and silver over weeks. The same people that claim bitcoin is superior because it is liquid – will also suffer that same liquidity drop when the stock markets drop.
At that point, I’m a buyer of bitcoin. Perhaps I take a position on it that is 3-5% of my liquid worth, like they suggest with physical gold and silver. I can have physical gold and silver vaulted, and “digital” gold online. But not at $50,000. Not with the risk of it being outlawed. Not with people not recognizing it. Too much risk.
Love it. Not at that price. Invest wisely, as an usual, don’t take anything I write or say as investment advice.