Paper Silver To Deliverable Silver Hits Post 2000 All-Time High On The Comex

Declining above ground inventories of physical silver and the ratio paper claims against Untitledthose stocks is going parabolic.  When the music stops, do you want to be holding real silver in your hand or a fraudulently-issued paper claim on silver?

“Jesse’s” commentary can be found here:  Comex Silver

I happened to notice yesterday that premiums for silver eagles have been creeping higher recently.  The mint is on allocation for 1 mm coins per week, I believe it is, and I’ve been told from a few sources that the mint could easily sell a lot more.

 

19 thoughts on “Paper Silver To Deliverable Silver Hits Post 2000 All-Time High On The Comex

    1. Ummm, he’s wrong. Koos Jansen is highly overrated, his writing is overly wordy and he takes 3 paragraphs to describe what can be explained in a few sentences. Sure it is possible for an owner of eligible to gold to settle that gold off-Comex via OTC contracts but NOT with ON-exchange contracts settled ON-exchange.

      1. But it says so in Rule 538. https://www.cmegroup.com/rulebook/files/ra1311-5r.pdf

        “An Exchange for Related Position (“EFRP”) transaction involves a privately negotiated off-exchange execution of an EXCHANGE FUTURES CONTRACT and, on the opposite side of the market, the simultaneous execution of an equivalent quantity of the … related product … corresponding to the asset underlying the EXCHANGE CONTRACT.”

        1. Sorry but I don’t have time right to study that closely. HOWEVER, from a brief “drive-by” reading, I don’t see anywhere in there where it implies that “eligible” physical gold/silver from Comex warehouses can be used to settle Comex-issued contracts. I suppose of someone who is short through one of the described swap transactions and ultimately is called upon deliver from someone who is long the other side of his short via an off-exchange OTC derivative, then the party who is short is more than entitled to take his entitles metal in an eligible Comex account and use that metal to settle the delivery off-exchange. But that doesn’t say what your article asserts that it says.

          I have to spend more time if and when I get it reading the entire rule.

          At the end of the day, I don’t really care because the ratio of paper derivatives outstanding deliverable physical is insanely high. The Comex is largely irrelevant to the physical metals world other than it functions as mechanism to facilitate the ongoing transfer of physical gold and silver from the west to the east at retardedly low prices.

  1. just go’s to show all these phd’s squirrelling away all their ‘millions’ in public funding, all the corporates’ with their “billions” just simply are not that bright…heehhee…if they truly understood how precarious their fake wealth was , they would be trying to grab that chair before the other guy….only a matter of time before a couple of hundred of these fuckers’ break ranks’…….roflmao…

  2. By the way Dave….Blowing smoke, Jesse’s brilliant, that saying, or at least “selling smoke” dates to at least AD 200 and specifically referred to the equestrian class or newly wealthy.Rome. Why Rome fell, Allan Goldsworthy (sic)…

  3. The solution is really simple; All Miners need to quit the LBMA (like Rio Tinto just did) and stop sending their phucking metal to the LBMA or COMEX …. just sell direct to the Chinese (cash & carry)… so we can start getting some honest price discovery.

  4. Steve St Angelo pretty much posted the same thing couple of days ago.

    https://srsroccoreport.com/deliverable-silver-stocks-at-the-comex-reach-historic-low/

    On the same day, Jan Nieuwenhuijs AKA Koos Jansen posted something about eligible inventories possibly diluting the message – Which is what you were pointed out above by Tinky. (Koos only talked about gold, doesn’t mention silver).

    Steve was directly asked to comment on what Koos is saying. After making the post, Steve has simply vanished for couple of days & isn’t responding to any questions.

    Koos was directly asked to comment on Steve’s post. He was asked specifically if his post applied to silver contracts equally as gold contracts. But he is refraining from commenting.

    You’re the only one who commented when asked about what Koos is saying. It would be great if someone within the community (either you or Steve or someone else?) could make a new dedicated post directly addressing Koos Jansen’s post, instead of having these conversations buried in comment sections like this. Just recently, Steve St Angelo had to make a similar post taking down smaulgld’s post that silver production worldwide did not INCREASE, instead DECREASED.

    1. Here’s the problem: I know what that rule amendment says and I know why Koos in misinterpreting it. But it would take A LOT of time to read through it thoroughly and translate it into something that is understandable for everyone. It’s something for which I receive no compensation and to do it for free will take too much time. If I find myself bored at some point I’ll take on the task

      1. OK, thanks much! Hopefully someone else who has bandwidth & understands the issue will address it, because as things stand Koos’s post has created dissonance.

        1. Koos did a great job flushing out for everyone how the Shanghai Gold Exchange operates. Quite honestly, he should have remained focused on that because I find his work on the LBMA and Comex to be quite remedial and often highly misleading.

          1. I’ve also found him to be arrogantly defensive of his non-SGE work – almost as if he’s assumed a “god” complex

          2. Jeez Dave,

            That’s really sad. Judging me like that without any base. Talking about misleading!
            Meanwhile you don’t write a single letter on the actual debate; what EFP is.

  5. One of these days, this herd-mentality trade, of following the commercial short position, is going capsize the boat. Even Guildenstern won his bet on tails after the 93rd coin toss.

    1. I completely agree. A friend/colleague emailed my Clive Maund’s latest freebie article in which he’s calling for a short-term bloodbath before another move higher. He asked my thoughts:

      Clive Maund is 100% generic, basic textbook chart analysis – I don’t know why anyone pays for his crap. There is no question that the metals have made a serious run and are overbought, blah blah blah. Turd Ferguson thinks silver will get smashed down to $14. I respect Turd’s analysis infinitely more than Maund’s. But everyone and their brother is looking for a big correction.

      At face value I think everyone is right. Per the COT report, the bullion banks are about as net short in gold and silver as I’ve ever seen them and the hedge funds are seriously net long. Over the last 12 years this type of COT set up has been a recipe for a huge hit on the metals.

      It’s hard to make a case that this time will be different. One of these times it will be different and the “correction” side of the boat is very crowded but I doubt this is the time it will be different.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *