• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding metals, finance, politics, government and many other topics"

Reddit Investors Piling Into Silver Drive Up Prices a Second Day

Scorpio

Hunter of Chin Li's Boo Hoo Flu
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
33,364
Likes
49,420
#1
Reddit Investors Piling Into Silver Drive Up Prices a Second Day

1 / 3
Reddit Investors Piling Into Silver Drive Up Prices a Second Day

(Bloomberg) -- Silver jumped for a second day as the market remains on high alert after a call by Reddit posters to create a short squeeze sparked sharp moves on Thursday.
Spot silver rose as much as 4.3% as prices resumed an earlier climb after dollar gains eased. Silver futures increased as much as 7.1% on the Comex, and gold prices advanced.
On Thursday, silver miners’ shares spiked and the largest silver exchange-traded fund, iShares Silver Trust, saw a frenzy of options buying after the market emerged as a target on the Reddit forum r/wallstreetbets. The moves “have been extreme in some cases and have had little fundamental justification,” Eugen Weinberg, an analyst at Commerzbank AG, said in a note.

“Retail investors who have been swapping tips on such information platforms have caused massive shifts in the prices of some shares,” Weinberg said. “We are confident that the influence of retail investors on silver will not last all that long, and that ultimately industrial and institutional demand will be the key factor in the longer term.”
Still, “in the very short term, I would think people would be cautious about holding a short in precious metals, irrespective of the fundamental view/what other markets are doing,” said Marcus Garvey, head of metals and bulks commodity strategy at Macquarie Group Ltd.
Comments about the metal began appearing Wednesday on the investor board that’s now famous for driving up GameStop Corp. shares this week. They centered on conspiracy theories long-held by the fringes of the precious metals world, alleging the metal’s price is suppressed by banks and the government to mask inflation.
If there’s another short squeeze, “I think it will be fairly muted,” said Jason Teed, Director of Research at Flexible Plan Investments Ltd. “A short squeeze on a mid-cap stock with heavy short interest is one thing, but the commodity markets are extremely vast.”
Spot silver rose 1.8% to $26.98 an ounce at 3:32 p.m. in New York. Futures for March delivery rose 3.8% to settle at $26.914 an ounce. Gold for immediate delivery rose as much as 1.8% before trading little changed. The Bloomberg Dollar Spot Index was up 0.3%.


https://finance.yahoo.com/news/silver-market-jitters-display-reddit-100051622.html
 

<SLV>

Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
5,899
Likes
9,455
#2
I think I will enter a large position of PSLV on Monday and break out the popcorn. With GME it could go to zero. No such risk with PSLV.
 

D-FENZ

Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
3,233
Likes
8,106
#3
“A short squeeze on a mid-cap stock with heavy short interest is one thing, but the commodity markets are extremely vast.”
Yeah, uh no.

The physical silver market is positively miniscule and normally relegated to the backwaters in the investment world. Sure, there's lots of paper everywhere for anything you want. But physical silver, not so much.
 

Someone_else

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
3,391
Likes
5,028
#4
But physical silver, not so much.
Well, there is a lot of physical in private hands. But how many are going to sell at $50 today? The last run to $48 (?) probably flushed out most of those who would sell at that price. I didn't sell. I was seriously mesmerized about how high it might go.

Remember the time when palladium exploded because a car company decided it needed a stockpile against uncertainty? An interesting question is whether the silver consumers make a similar decision, especially where the cost of silver is not a big factor in their bill of materials.
 

oldgaranddad

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Feb 21, 2012
Messages
6,495
Likes
13,692
Location
On the top shelf.
#5
I say go baby go! Expose the Crimex for what it is.
 

Scorpio

Hunter of Chin Li's Boo Hoo Flu
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
33,364
Likes
49,420
#6
They centered on conspiracy theories long-held by the fringes of the precious metals world, alleging the metal’s price is suppressed by banks and the government to mask inflation.
I dig this comment,
They pull it out all the time, same as labeling everyone a racist, a 'right winger', or a 'white nationalist'

'fringes of the pm world'

ya'll are fringes, no longer deplorables
 

Uglytruth

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
14,191
Likes
29,629
#7
They centered on conspiracy theories long-held by the fringes of the precious metals world, alleging the metal’s price is suppressed by banks and the government to mask inflation.
Um I keyed in on the "MASK" meaning to hide. Or maybe it's hiding for their safety as the serf's are getting some ideas of their own.......
 

newmisty

Transcending the 5 Elements
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
35,252
Likes
56,052
Location
Qmerica
#9
there's lots of paper everywhere for anything you want. But physical silver, not so much.
Well how else are we keep gonna keep our doors from slamming open/shut?
 

edsl48

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
3,505
Likes
7,158
#10
Check this out...Robinhood limits SLV purchases and holdings by investors to one share.

Robinhood Caps Maximum Holdings In 36 Stocks To Just One Share

FRIDAY, JAN 29, 2021 - 16:59
Something bad is about to go down at Robinhood.
One day after the company drew down on its bank lines and obtain a $1 billion rescue capital investment, the company found itself in lockdown mode, allowing just a handful of shares to be bought at a time, effectively shutting down in all but name (it couldn't risk another day of furious public outcry and massive client departures if it blocked trading completely).
However, just before the close, things got downright surreal when in a blog post the broker - which should probably change its name from Robinhood to Suit - made a shocking announcement: going forward, customers will be subject to maximum aggregate limits in 51 securities of which 14 are capped at position limits of just 5 shares, while allowing total holdings in 36 securities to be just one share!

In other words, as of this moment, no client is allowed to one more than 1 share in names like GME, AMC, AG, BBBY, BYND, WKHS and many others. Even boring, low vol names like GM and SBUX are limited to just one share.
This is what the blog post said:
"The table below shows the maximum number of shares and options contracts to which you can increase your positions. Please note that these are aggregate limits for each security and not per-order limits, and include shares and options contracts that you already hold. These limits may be subject to change throughout the day."

Panicked clients who are wondering if this means that their current holdings which exceed 1 laughable share will be forcefully liquidated can breathe for now: the company said that "outside of our standard margin-related sellouts or options assignment procedures, your positions will not be sold for the sole reason that you are currently over the limit. However, you will not be able to open more positions of each of these securities unless you sell enough of your holdings such that you are below the respective limit." (we expect that to change on Monday, if the company is still around.)
In other words, virtually nobody can buy any new securities.

The company also disclosed that no fractional shares can be bought going forward as "fractional shares are currently position closing only for all of the securities listed in the table above. This means you can sell and close your fractional positions, but you can't open new fractional positions. However, you can still open new whole share positions according to the limits listed above."
Why is this happening? The most likely reason is that between DTC, clearinghouses and other regulatory entities, Robinhood was found to be in another capital deficiency position - even with the billions raised overnight - and it is being forced to delever.
This likely means that Robinhood is as of this moment, scrambling to obtain even more capital, although we somehow doubt it will be just as easy to "take from the rich" as it was late last night especially since the client exodus is surely accelerating.
It also means that we may have to have another "Lehman Weekend" situation on our hands, only this time it will be a "Robinhood Weekend", and an urgent acquisition from a strategic buyer may be required to prevent the worst case outcome. We only hope that the billions in funds held in custody for clients is segregated should the company collapse (pinging Jon Corzine here).
In any case, expect a lot of Robinhood related news over the weekend.
* * *
And as a postscript, while we expect that the turmoil will be contained at Robinhood, whether in the form of new capital infusion, a takeover, or bankruptcy, there is the possibility that the liqudity shortfall goes as far as the clearinghouses. What happens then? Below we excerpt from a monthly letter written by Horseman's Russell Clark who had a good recap of "what if":
Pre-financial crisis, banks and clearinghouses were part of one big and messy system. Banks mainly traded with other banks as it was cheaper, but every now and then they would trade through a clearinghouse. There were two types of trades. Circular trades, which are trades where each bank has a position, but the system has a flat position, and directional trades, where the system would match up buyers who wanted to take a view on future movements of financial markets. Directional trades are more dangerous; risk will be less evenly distributed as it will have no offsetting trades.
When Lehman went bust, LCH, the biggest interest rate derivative clearinghouse, found they only needed one third of the initial margin to cover losses. This encouraged regulators to move clearinghouses to the center of the financial system. However, this has caused two big problems.
Firstly, clearinghouses have no real "skin in the game".
They act like a bookie, that takes bets from punters, and transfers money from winners to losers. But how much risk should they take? What is the correct level of initial margin? Clearinghouses used to piggyback on bank's risk measures, but without banks to guide them, how should they set risk? Clearing houses and regulators chose to use a backward-looking model, with risks set from market data from between 3 and 10 years in the past. This has caused the markets to have a built-in momentum model which amplifies cycle both ways. Hence, many of the normal trading rules don't apply. There will be no signs of problems in the market until right at the last moment. Markets are no longer discounting mechanisms and have become more akin to momentum models.
Secondly, banks are now deeply capital constrained, and at the start were very reluctant to move old trades to a centrally cleared model
. This problem was resolved through a carrot and stick approach. The stick is uncleared trades carry a capital charge, and the carrot is that the exchanges offer very attractive "netting". What netting means is that banks can give details of all their trades to a third party, and any circular trades can then be netted off thus requiring less margin. LCH claim to have done a quadrillion of compression trades or netting in the last year, this is more than twice the notional of all outstanding interest rate derivatives.
The problem should be apparent. Clearinghouses were safe because, if there was a problem, the circular trades netted off on settlement. But by aggressively netting off at the margin stage they are no longer as safe. In fact they are very risky. This was highlighted by the near failure of a small clearinghouse in Europe last year. Using BIS data on the penetration of central clearing, and pricing of interest rate derivatives as a proxy of initial margins, I would say that initial margin in the system needs to rise by about 6 times to make the system "safe". Looking at previous periods of rising initial margins in 2000-2002 and 2007-2009, the pro-cyclicality of claringhouses should be obvious.
Finally, cash hoarding and repo market problems could be a sign of counterparties beginning to worry about clearinghouses. If initial margins rise significantly, the only assets that will see a bid will be cash, US treasuries, JGBs, Bunds, Yen and Swiss Franc
. Everything else will likely face selling pressure. If a major clearinghouse should fail due to two counterparties failing, then many centrally cleared hedges will also fail. If this happens, you will not receive the cash from your bearish hedge, as the counterparty has gone bust, and the clearinghouse needs to pay from its own capital or even get be recapitalised itself. One way to think about it is that the financial crisis only metastasized when MG failed, because at that point, everyone suddenly became un-hedged, and everyone needed to sell.​
 

GOLDBRIX

God,Donald Trump,most in GIM2 I Trust. OTHERS-meh
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
17,380
Likes
25,660
#12
Check this out...Robinhood limits SLV purchases and holdings by investors to one share.

Robinhood Caps Maximum Holdings In 36 Stocks To Just One Share

FRIDAY, JAN 29, 2021 - 16:59
Something bad is about to go down at Robinhood.
One day after the company drew down on its bank lines and obtain a $1 billion rescue capital investment, the company found itself in lockdown mode, allowing just a handful of shares to be bought at a time, effectively shutting down in all but name (it couldn't risk another day of furious public outcry and massive client departures if it blocked trading completely).
However, just before the close, things got downright surreal when in a blog post the broker - which should probably change its name from Robinhood to Suit - made a shocking announcement: going forward, customers will be subject to maximum aggregate limits in 51 securities of which 14 are capped at position limits of just 5 shares, while allowing total holdings in 36 securities to be just one share!

In other words, as of this moment, no client is allowed to one more than 1 share in names like GME, AMC, AG, BBBY, BYND, WKHS and many others. Even boring, low vol names like GM and SBUX are limited to just one share.
This is what the blog post said:
"The table below shows the maximum number of shares and options contracts to which you can increase your positions. Please note that these are aggregate limits for each security and not per-order limits, and include shares and options contracts that you already hold. These limits may be subject to change throughout the day."

Panicked clients who are wondering if this means that their current holdings which exceed 1 laughable share will be forcefully liquidated can breathe for now: the company said that "outside of our standard margin-related sellouts or options assignment procedures, your positions will not be sold for the sole reason that you are currently over the limit. However, you will not be able to open more positions of each of these securities unless you sell enough of your holdings such that you are below the respective limit." (we expect that to change on Monday, if the company is still around.)
In other words, virtually nobody can buy any new securities.

The company also disclosed that no fractional shares can be bought going forward as "fractional shares are currently position closing only for all of the securities listed in the table above. This means you can sell and close your fractional positions, but you can't open new fractional positions. However, you can still open new whole share positions according to the limits listed above."
Why is this happening? The most likely reason is that between DTC, clearinghouses and other regulatory entities, Robinhood was found to be in another capital deficiency position - even with the billions raised overnight - and it is being forced to delever.
This likely means that Robinhood is as of this moment, scrambling to obtain even more capital, although we somehow doubt it will be just as easy to "take from the rich" as it was late last night especially since the client exodus is surely accelerating.
It also means that we may have to have another "Lehman Weekend" situation on our hands, only this time it will be a "Robinhood Weekend", and an urgent acquisition from a strategic buyer may be required to prevent the worst case outcome. We only hope that the billions in funds held in custody for clients is segregated should the company collapse (pinging Jon Corzine here).
In any case, expect a lot of Robinhood related news over the weekend.
* * *
And as a postscript, while we expect that the turmoil will be contained at Robinhood, whether in the form of new capital infusion, a takeover, or bankruptcy, there is the possibility that the liqudity shortfall goes as far as the clearinghouses. What happens then? Below we excerpt from a monthly letter written by Horseman's Russell Clark who had a good recap of "what if":
Pre-financial crisis, banks and clearinghouses were part of one big and messy system. Banks mainly traded with other banks as it was cheaper, but every now and then they would trade through a clearinghouse. There were two types of trades. Circular trades, which are trades where each bank has a position, but the system has a flat position, and directional trades, where the system would match up buyers who wanted to take a view on future movements of financial markets. Directional trades are more dangerous; risk will be less evenly distributed as it will have no offsetting trades.​
When Lehman went bust, LCH, the biggest interest rate derivative clearinghouse, found they only needed one third of the initial margin to cover losses. This encouraged regulators to move clearinghouses to the center of the financial system. However, this has caused two big problems.
Firstly, clearinghouses have no real "skin in the game". They act like a bookie, that takes bets from punters, and transfers money from winners to losers. But how much risk should they take? What is the correct level of initial margin? Clearinghouses used to piggyback on bank's risk measures, but without banks to guide them, how should they set risk? Clearing houses and regulators chose to use a backward-looking model, with risks set from market data from between 3 and 10 years in the past. This has caused the markets to have a built-in momentum model which amplifies cycle both ways. Hence, many of the normal trading rules don't apply. There will be no signs of problems in the market until right at the last moment. Markets are no longer discounting mechanisms and have become more akin to momentum models.
Secondly, banks are now deeply capital constrained, and at the start were very reluctant to move old trades to a centrally cleared model. This problem was resolved through a carrot and stick approach. The stick is uncleared trades carry a capital charge, and the carrot is that the exchanges offer very attractive "netting". What netting means is that banks can give details of all their trades to a third party, and any circular trades can then be netted off thus requiring less margin. LCH claim to have done a quadrillion of compression trades or netting in the last year, this is more than twice the notional of all outstanding interest rate derivatives.
The problem should be apparent. Clearinghouses were safe because, if there was a problem, the circular trades netted off on settlement. But by aggressively netting off at the margin stage they are no longer as safe. In fact they are very risky. This was highlighted by the near failure of a small clearinghouse in Europe last year. Using BIS data on the penetration of central clearing, and pricing of interest rate derivatives as a proxy of initial margins, I would say that initial margin in the system needs to rise by about 6 times to make the system "safe". Looking at previous periods of rising initial margins in 2000-2002 and 2007-2009, the pro-cyclicality of claringhouses should be obvious.
Finally, cash hoarding and repo market problems could be a sign of counterparties beginning to worry about clearinghouses. If initial margins rise significantly, the only assets that will see a bid will be cash, US treasuries, JGBs, Bunds, Yen and Swiss Franc. Everything else will likely face selling pressure. If a major clearinghouse should fail due to two counterparties failing, then many centrally cleared hedges will also fail. If this happens, you will not receive the cash from your bearish hedge, as the counterparty has gone bust, and the clearinghouse needs to pay from its own capital or even get be recapitalised itself. One way to think about it is that the financial crisis only metastasized when MG failed, because at that point, everyone suddenly became un-hedged, and everyone needed to sell.​
This has LAW SUIT written all over it, CLASS ACTION, maybe RICO action.
All to curry favor with the hedge funds and their financiers.
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
56,767
Likes
112,022
Location
Rocky Mountains
#13
What? You mean to say the stock market isn't open and fair?

WUT!?

Apparently, people are waking up....
 

ttazzman

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
6,485
Likes
7,811
Location
mid-usa
#14
I think I will enter a large position of PSLV on Monday and break out the popcorn. With GME it could go to zero. No such risk with PSLV.
Be aware I tried to put in a buy order last night for uslvf ....td ameritrade refused the order....they did take a small slv order today....
 

Scorpio

Hunter of Chin Li's Boo Hoo Flu
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
33,364
Likes
49,420
#15
no problem with td and adding slv today

but that is interesting that they were not taking uslvf
 

<SLV>

Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
5,899
Likes
9,455
#17

<SLV>

Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
5,899
Likes
9,455
#18
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
8,278
Likes
14,096
#19
Check this out...Robinhood limits SLV purchases and holdings by investors to one share.

Robinhood Caps Maximum Holdings In 36 Stocks To Just One Share

FRIDAY, JAN 29, 2021 - 16:59
Something bad is about to go down at Robinhood.
One day after the company drew down on its bank lines and obtain a $1 billion rescue capital investment, the company found itself in lockdown mode, allowing just a handful of shares to be bought at a time, effectively shutting down in all but name (it couldn't risk another day of furious public outcry and massive client departures if it blocked trading completely).
However, just before the close, things got downright surreal when in a blog post the broker - which should probably change its name from Robinhood to Suit - made a shocking announcement: going forward, customers will be subject to maximum aggregate limits in 51 securities of which 14 are capped at position limits of just 5 shares, while allowing total holdings in 36 securities to be just one share!

In other words, as of this moment, no client is allowed to one more than 1 share in names like GME, AMC, AG, BBBY, BYND, WKHS and many others. Even boring, low vol names like GM and SBUX are limited to just one share.
This is what the blog post said:
"The table below shows the maximum number of shares and options contracts to which you can increase your positions. Please note that these are aggregate limits for each security and not per-order limits, and include shares and options contracts that you already hold. These limits may be subject to change throughout the day."

Panicked clients who are wondering if this means that their current holdings which exceed 1 laughable share will be forcefully liquidated can breathe for now: the company said that "outside of our standard margin-related sellouts or options assignment procedures, your positions will not be sold for the sole reason that you are currently over the limit. However, you will not be able to open more positions of each of these securities unless you sell enough of your holdings such that you are below the respective limit." (we expect that to change on Monday, if the company is still around.)
In other words, virtually nobody can buy any new securities.

The company also disclosed that no fractional shares can be bought going forward as "fractional shares are currently position closing only for all of the securities listed in the table above. This means you can sell and close your fractional positions, but you can't open new fractional positions. However, you can still open new whole share positions according to the limits listed above."
Why is this happening? The most likely reason is that between DTC, clearinghouses and other regulatory entities, Robinhood was found to be in another capital deficiency position - even with the billions raised overnight - and it is being forced to delever.
This likely means that Robinhood is as of this moment, scrambling to obtain even more capital, although we somehow doubt it will be just as easy to "take from the rich" as it was late last night especially since the client exodus is surely accelerating.
It also means that we may have to have another "Lehman Weekend" situation on our hands, only this time it will be a "Robinhood Weekend", and an urgent acquisition from a strategic buyer may be required to prevent the worst case outcome. We only hope that the billions in funds held in custody for clients is segregated should the company collapse (pinging Jon Corzine here).
In any case, expect a lot of Robinhood related news over the weekend.
* * *
And as a postscript, while we expect that the turmoil will be contained at Robinhood, whether in the form of new capital infusion, a takeover, or bankruptcy, there is the possibility that the liqudity shortfall goes as far as the clearinghouses. What happens then? Below we excerpt from a monthly letter written by Horseman's Russell Clark who had a good recap of "what if":
Pre-financial crisis, banks and clearinghouses were part of one big and messy system. Banks mainly traded with other banks as it was cheaper, but every now and then they would trade through a clearinghouse. There were two types of trades. Circular trades, which are trades where each bank has a position, but the system has a flat position, and directional trades, where the system would match up buyers who wanted to take a view on future movements of financial markets. Directional trades are more dangerous; risk will be less evenly distributed as it will have no offsetting trades.​
When Lehman went bust, LCH, the biggest interest rate derivative clearinghouse, found they only needed one third of the initial margin to cover losses. This encouraged regulators to move clearinghouses to the center of the financial system. However, this has caused two big problems.
Firstly, clearinghouses have no real "skin in the game". They act like a bookie, that takes bets from punters, and transfers money from winners to losers. But how much risk should they take? What is the correct level of initial margin? Clearinghouses used to piggyback on bank's risk measures, but without banks to guide them, how should they set risk? Clearing houses and regulators chose to use a backward-looking model, with risks set from market data from between 3 and 10 years in the past. This has caused the markets to have a built-in momentum model which amplifies cycle both ways. Hence, many of the normal trading rules don't apply. There will be no signs of problems in the market until right at the last moment. Markets are no longer discounting mechanisms and have become more akin to momentum models.
Secondly, banks are now deeply capital constrained, and at the start were very reluctant to move old trades to a centrally cleared model. This problem was resolved through a carrot and stick approach. The stick is uncleared trades carry a capital charge, and the carrot is that the exchanges offer very attractive "netting". What netting means is that banks can give details of all their trades to a third party, and any circular trades can then be netted off thus requiring less margin. LCH claim to have done a quadrillion of compression trades or netting in the last year, this is more than twice the notional of all outstanding interest rate derivatives.
The problem should be apparent. Clearinghouses were safe because, if there was a problem, the circular trades netted off on settlement. But by aggressively netting off at the margin stage they are no longer as safe. In fact they are very risky. This was highlighted by the near failure of a small clearinghouse in Europe last year. Using BIS data on the penetration of central clearing, and pricing of interest rate derivatives as a proxy of initial margins, I would say that initial margin in the system needs to rise by about 6 times to make the system "safe". Looking at previous periods of rising initial margins in 2000-2002 and 2007-2009, the pro-cyclicality of claringhouses should be obvious.
Finally, cash hoarding and repo market problems could be a sign of counterparties beginning to worry about clearinghouses. If initial margins rise significantly, the only assets that will see a bid will be cash, US treasuries, JGBs, Bunds, Yen and Swiss Franc. Everything else will likely face selling pressure. If a major clearinghouse should fail due to two counterparties failing, then many centrally cleared hedges will also fail. If this happens, you will not receive the cash from your bearish hedge, as the counterparty has gone bust, and the clearinghouse needs to pay from its own capital or even get be recapitalised itself. One way to think about it is that the financial crisis only metastasized when MG failed, because at that point, everyone suddenly became un-hedged, and everyone needed to sell.​
Again, the obvious remedy is option contracts. Even on GME they graciously allow 5 contracts. Most small investors would be fine with 500 shares. They're weird. They restrict people to ONE equity share and then allow 5 -10 contracts? Dafuq are they bothering? Just to prevent people that don't understand contracts? ...or can't qualify for margin accounts?
 

Scorpio

Hunter of Chin Li's Boo Hoo Flu
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
33,364
Likes
49,420
#20
because there is a lot of dough made by the big boyz selling options,
 

Thecrensh

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Messages
10,349
Likes
15,927
#22
Part of me is cheering these people on, part of me is concerned that they may be a lot of CCP party members and globalists embedded and who are intentionally crashing our financial system.
 

EO 11110

CENSORSHIP KILLS
Mother Lode
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
18,626
Likes
17,978
Location
clown world
#23
Part of me is cheering these people on, part of me is concerned that they may be a lot of CCP party members and globalists embedded and who are intentionally crashing our financial system.
the 'solution' that gets put in place might tell us who/why
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
8,278
Likes
14,096
#24
because there is a lot of dough made by the big boyz selling options,
I get that, but leaving such an obvious loophole makes it seem rather pointless to bother restricting anything...if the purpose is restrictions.

"Here, you can either stack one share or you can stack 500x that by jumping through a hoop and employing implicit leverage."

Those contracts would then be a choke point for further action. Perhaps at some point, they'll convert them to non-excercisable. The option writer then pockets the contract premium whilst the corresponding shares remain locked in place. Of course, calling them "options" at that point seems rather misleading, but what do they care. Leftists love screwing up the language. Interesting times.
 

oldgaranddad

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Feb 21, 2012
Messages
6,495
Likes
13,692
Location
On the top shelf.
#25
If the Reddit guys do manage to push SLV up then GLD will follow pretty quickly.
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
8,278
Likes
14,096
#26
If the Reddit guys do manage to push SLV up then GLD will follow pretty quickly.
...else we'll have hunt brothers 2.0. The last time silver hit an ATH in nominal dollar terms. FORTY FREAKING YEARS AGO.
 

edsl48

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
3,505
Likes
7,158
#27
I don't know if any of this matters or relates to any of this but I had one heck of a time buying a roll of silver American eagles on Ebay this week. When I would click the "pay for my order" thing a pop up would arise with blah blah blah security and my identity had to be approved by a telephone call to me. I went through that maze and the telephone call never came. The next day I got ahold of Ebay who called pretty quickly with an explanation that their telephone verification system was backed up and to reorder and wait for the call. (Luckily I had nothing else going on that day because its not like I have all day to wait for some silly Ebay call.) The call never came. I finally wrote again to Ebay who contacted me and said they had fixed my problem and to reorder again which I did and it worked this time. However it was 3 days and hoops and ladders to buy that roll...something new to me and wondering if Ebay in light of all of this is limiting silver purchases via a wall of complications or perhaps just a coincidence. Normally I would say coincidence but when a purchase of SLV is rationed to one share I get pretty confused over all of it.
 

anywoundedduck

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
4,741
Likes
7,507
Location
Kentucky
#28
I went over and joined the party.
the 'solution' that gets put in place might tell us who/why
I believe that the CCP already ruined our financial system.
According to the debt clock, silver needs to rise to over $4,000 per ounce to reach the true 1913 price of $2.13..
 
Last edited:

ZZZZZ

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Dec 23, 2017
Messages
6,915
Likes
15,135
Location
Northern Arizona
#30
Why #silversqueeze?
Because we lost confidence.
Because we want fair inflation measures.
#silver adjusted for inflation, is $1000
it’s now $25. that’s a 40x unleveraged
it’s the biggest short squeeze of the century
based on strong fundamentals
it’s about justice.


this article only takes 10 minutes.

i want to explain this simple
i write from the gut: straightforward
there’s a lot of complex explanations.
there a lot of experts.

i am the populist.

i launched the wallstreetbets post.
what i want to explain, is the most compelling story in manipulation
in the whole world.
ooh yes, dogecoin will not change the world to a better place.

let’s keep it simple WHY silver is the short squeeze of the century.
it’s the ultimate justice
this is what the Wallstreetbet community is looking for.

governments want to mask inflation.

why?
because wages stay low: screw workers and benefit the rich owning companies
social security would be unaffordable for governments with real inflation numbers.
you start to see?

did you know inflation doesn’t include food !
this is not about one unfair short hedge fund
this is blatant injustice for trillions.

how much are you paying for food these days? exactly.

why the fuck do they need #silver en #gold for this?

big banks are manipulating metals
gold and silver have been money for 5000 years.
when you loose confidence: you have gold, silver and bitcoin

there is room for all 3 according to your personal style

i prefer silver and gold, because i can touch it and can buy real companies.

when they can keep the prices surpressed, the world is not aware of inflation.
inflation means you are loosing buying power.
instead of $1 for a bread you pay $2
inflation? ask Turkey
the same has now arrived to the world’s big reserve currencies.

the Dollar. the Euro. the Pound.

we are in a spiral of debt created by politicians.
the only way out if printing more new money.
printing new money kills confidence.
we are seeing cracks appear everywhere.
the end games have started.
inflation is coming for the whole world.
pension funds, bonds: traditional savings will all be whiped out


by manipulating gold and silver prices, they try to hide this.
as gold and silver are real money.
they are a measure for how much inflation there is.
they don’t want YOU to see it.

the dollar has lost 99% of it’s value against gold in the last 100 years.

why do we attack #silver?

because it’s a very small market.
because gold will follow silver.
for each 70 ounces of Silver, you can buy 1 ounce of Gold.
Silver is very, very cheap.

We are going back to 15 to 1 this decade.
For each 15 ounces of silver you will be able to trade them for 1 ounce of gold later on.

This is a the trade of the century, based on fundamentals.

this is end of MANIPULATION BY BIG BANKS.


banks are creating paper contracts.
paper contracts to trade silver.
there are 250 times more contracts as there is silver.
you see?
this is epic.
when the squeeze starts, we don’t know where it ends.
the price of silver adjusted for inflation is 1000 dollars.
we are at 25 dollars.

the easiest way to tackle is to buy physical silver.
coins, bars.
you are sure you will be able to sell them at much much much higher prices.
always.

another way is to buy shares that are 100% allocated to real silver.
$PSLV and in Europe PHAG.l and SSLN.l

another way is to buy paper silver $SLV
i would only buy paper silver with call options
as this can squeeze it HARDER

this is a fundamental trade,
the next what will happen is that heavily shorted SILVER companies will revalue
i have listed my favourites here

THIS IS NOT FINANCIAL ADVICE
i am an amateur


how am i trading this myself?

i have been hoarding silver for years.
holding thousands of silver coins.
i am at 35600 ounces now.
that’s a little bit more as 1 ton.

80% i am investing in small, real silver companies, listed on Canada.
i prefer small companies 100% focused on SILVER
in the small silversqueeze in 2010 they went as much as 30x

This time, 50x to 150x is possible.
i prefer these over New York listed companies where hedge funds are playing also.

the whole silverspace will revalue.
showing the world there is INFLATION.

it’s starts with physical.
slowly it goes to the top.
when the bank manipulation blows, all bets are off.

Join us on this wild ride

GV

perhaps you are asking why not target one stock?
this is the beauty of the silversqueeze.
it’s not a 1 week event.
it’s an 18 month ride.
it’s impossible to regulate.
we start from the bottom, owning physical, $PSLV and PHAG.L



https://www.goldventures.org/silversqueeze
 

spinalcracker

On a mail train.
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
5,410
Likes
15,468
Location
On a mail train.
#31
Might as well join in. Pick up an silver dime, ounce, 10 ouncer or 1000 ouncer. Buy a few shares of your favorite miner. Spread the word. #silversqueeze. Cant let the millennials have all the fun.


ha!
APMEX takes bitcoin for payment...guess I will do some swapping this weekend
 

oldgaranddad

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Feb 21, 2012
Messages
6,495
Likes
13,692
Location
On the top shelf.
#32
...else we'll have hunt brothers 2.0. The last time silver hit an ATH in nominal dollar terms. FORTY FREAKING YEARS AGO.
Game Stop shorts, Robinhood and a whole host of brokerages put a red hot spot light on the Wall Street manipulations and in your face flouting of exchange and SEC rules by allowing naked shorts to rule the roost. When the bankers and brokerages have to back track, even a little, you know they are in trouble. Shutting down retail trading in GME showed everyone the game is fixed and an outright fraud. Comex and teh exchanges won't dare change the rules without risking imploding the whole market.

People last week who never knew what a short was now understand what it is and the fact that people are writing naked ones too. When the idiots on network morning TV shows start talking about shorts (and not the type you wear) you know it has gone mainstream.

Wall street inadvertently created an angry investor class from the masses they were taking to the cleaners day in and day out. Now they are reaping what they sown.

Even the Federal Reserve is taking a beating since they own Depository Trust Clearing Corporation (DTCC) and were part and parcel in the allowing naked shorts to flourish in the marketplace. Any day the Fed get a kick in the teeth and the balls at the same time is a good day.

I say good! Let a few big banks, brokerages and hedge funds go belly up. From the remains of the old crooked banks will spring up a whole bunch of new ones. Some will flourish and some will founder. Some will be reputable and some will be corrupt but this is the only way change will occur.
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
8,278
Likes
14,096
#34
Game Stop shorts, Robinhood and a whole host of brokerages put a red hot spot light on the Wall Street manipulations and in your face flouting of exchange and SEC rules by allowing naked shorts to rule the roost. When the bankers and brokerages have to back track, even a little, you know they are in trouble. Shutting down retail trading in GME showed everyone the game is fixed and an outright fraud. Comex and teh exchanges won't dare change the rules without risking imploding the whole market.

People last week who never knew what a short was now understand what it is and the fact that people are writing naked ones too. When the idiots on network morning TV shows start talking about shorts (and not the type you wear) you know it has gone mainstream.

Wall street inadvertently created an angry investor class from the masses they were taking to the cleaners day in and day out. Now they are reaping what they sown.

Even the Federal Reserve is taking a beating since they own Depository Trust Clearing Corporation (DTCC) and were part and parcel in the allowing naked shorts to flourish in the marketplace. Any day the Fed get a kick in the teeth and the balls at the same time is a good day.

I say good! Let a few big banks, brokerages and hedge funds go belly up. From the remains of the old crooked banks will spring up a whole bunch of new ones. Some will flourish and some will founder. Some will be reputable and some will be corrupt but this is the only way change will occur.
It's all way past overdue. I got sick of trying to persuade my countrymen to take an interest in how finances work in their own failing nation. Now people are talking about how rigged markets are openly on faceplant. How the US dollar is doomed as the world reserve currency.
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
8,278
Likes
14,096
#36
Not buying paper silver. Don't care, really, how heavy it is, I can massage it in me pocket, paper...not so much. YMMV
Agree. I rather bite the bullet, pay the premium and have metal in hand.

Always amazed with the hypocrisy around here.

On the one hand it's "FUCK bitcoin! If you don't hold it, you don't own it! ...oh btw I'm stacking paper silver" lol
 

<SLV>

Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
5,899
Likes
9,455
#37
Agree. I rather bite the bullet, pay the premium and have metal in hand.

Always amazed with the hypocrisy around here.

On the one hand it's "FUCK bitcoin! If you don't hold it, you don't own it! ...oh btw I'm stacking paper silver" lol
Apples and oranges. You are blinded by your bias. PSLV has real physical silver behind it. Bitcoin has nothing tangible behind it to give it value; just a really cool super-secret password.
 

anywoundedduck

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
4,741
Likes
7,507
Location
Kentucky
#38
Apples and oranges. You are blinded by your bias. PSLV has real physical silver behind it. Bitcoin has nothing tangible behind it to give it value; just a really cool super-secret password.
Tsk,tsk, tsk!
When will that boy ever learn?
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
8,278
Likes
14,096
#39
Apples and oranges. You are blinded by your bias. PSLV has real physical silver behind it. Bitcoin has nothing tangible behind it to give it value; just a really cool super-secret password.
LMAO

If you don't hold it. You don't own it. Remember? So silver "behind it" is not silver you hold. IS IT?

Agree about one thing though. ONE of us IS blind. Unless you fail to see the problem with bankers holding on to precious metals on your behalf. Shall we take a stroll down memory lane?
When will that boy ever learn?
Oh I've learned. You guys say one thing and then do another.

Is the SLV backed by silver? The GLD backed by gold? Are they too exempt from your own rules? Can you guarantee that Sprott or JPM hasn't backed multiple shares with the same ounce of silver? If so, how?