Paper and Physical Silver Prices Are Not Decoupling Yet
- Posted by kid dynamite
- on January 19th, 2012
The good news for silver noobs just starting to get interested in the precious metals and educating themselves (yes, I use that term loosely) online is that there are easy ways to tell which sources have an idea what they are talking about, and which sources are just spouting the same crap that they heard others spout, joining in the groupthink, and living in the land where anyone who doubts that silver is going to $200/ oz in short order is a bankster shill cartel manipulator. You just have to know what to look for.
One such example of this nonsense is the claim that “paper prices and physical prices are decoupling.” They’re not. They haven’t been decoupling, we’ve covered this before, and they’re still not. I just wanted to write another post on this because with the Sprott Physical Silver Trust secondary offering, we have another concrete example of the NON-divergence of “physical” and “paper” prices.
So let’s completely ignore the fact that Eric Sprott himself told you “we can buy silver, basically, at spot,” after all, that was last year – maybe things have changed? No – let’s go to the math. Remember yesterday’s post when I explained how you can approximate the new NAV of PSLV before it was posted on the website? Well, now that the website has updated data, we can do even better – we can calculate the price per ounce $PSLV paid for its silver.
Let’s look at the before and after (the secondary offering, that is) snapshots of the Trust. Before:
After
Now, don’t be intimidated – this is simple spreadsheet math. If you can’t do this math, you shouldn’t own $PSLV.
1) We know how many ounces of silver the trust held before the offering
2) We know how many ounces of silver the trust held after the offering
3) thus, we know how many ounces of silver the trust bought
4) We know the number of shares sold in the offering, and the price per share net to the Trust (net of underwriting fees)
5) So we know how much cash the Trust received
6) We know how much cash the Trust had before, and we know how much cash the Trust has now, so we know how much cash the trust spent on silver
7) cash spent on silver / ounces of silver bought = price paid per ounce of silver.
Voila.
My numbers come to $30.44, which, it should come as no surprise, is right in the range where silver was trading yesterday:
When a precious metals blog tells you that the prices of physical and paper silver are diverging, you can immediately have a pretty excellent clue that they don’t know what they are talking about on the subject. Here’s an example, from everyone’s favorite:
“We wish the best of luck to anyone who wishes to buy 10MM or more in physical silver without incurring 20%+ premiums on the order when all costs are factored.” Nope – the original post at ZeroHedge was an abomination of misnformation, and this defense (from another ZH comment thread, after someone pointed out the Screwtape Files post) is still wrong. Trying to defend nonsense by making up more nonsense doesn’t make it any less nonsensical. Silver gets cheaper in bulk purchases – not more expensive – you can even see this on the retail level – sites offer better prices if you buy more coins. Of course, Sprott bought $300 MM of silver yesterday without incurring a 20% premium – he must be really “lucky!” (/sarcasm)
For a thorough debunking of the recent Zero Hedge post that tried to put forth PSLV’s then-huge premium to NAV as the “real” price of physical silver, see this post at Screwtape files, and my comments therein on the thread.
As regular readers know, I disclosed in the prior post that I’m currently LONG $PSLV and short $SLV against it. I must be crazy to continue to debunk the same misinformation that would help my trading position, but hey – that’s how I roll.
related:
Jan 18th: PSLV’s Premium to NAV is Lower Than You Think
Jan 17th: PSLV Announces Secondary Offering
Nov 22nd: PSLV will not go out and buy $1.5 B in silver imminently
Nov 16th: Sprott Physical Silver Trust Files Shelf
Oct 12th: Sprott Sells 1MM PSLV
Sep 30th: Sprott sells 1.5MM PSLV – The last of the hedge fund shares
Sep 19th: Sprott sells 1.754MM PSLV
Sep 12th: Sprott sells 1.827MM PSLV
Aug 26th: Sprott sells 1.6MM PSLV
Aug 11th: Sprott sells 565k PSLV
Aug 2nd: Sprott sells 700k PSLV
July 23rd: Sprott sells 1MM+ PSLV
July 14th: Sprott sells 700k+ PSLV
April 28th: Sprott sells 1.6MM PSLV
March 12th: Sprott files to sell his PSLV shares
March 8th: “Misinterpreting PSLV’s Premium to NAV”
July 18th: “Ask Eric Sprott Why He Won’t Buy More Silver for PSLV”
-KD
Kid Dynamite is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. If you click on my Amazon.com links and buy anything, even something other than the product advertised, I earn a small commission, yet you don't pay any extra. Thank you for your support.
The information in this blog post represents my own opinions and does not contain a recommendation for any particular security or investment. I or my affiliates may hold positions or other interests in securities mentioned in the Blog, please see my Disclaimer page for my full disclaimer.
-
This blog has morphed from a discussion of poker hands and theory into an evaluation of financial markets from the point of view of a former trader. More » -
If you'd like to make a donation, I always appreciate it:
I'm also a member of the Amazon.com Affiliate program. -
Recent Posts
- The Kid’s Still Got It
- Is Anyone Surprised That Fish McBites Suck?
- Poker and Trading – Birds of a Feather
- Matt Kemp: Respect
- The Difference Between Women and Men: Dog Poop Edition
- You Can Not Make This Stuff Up
- Cut Punters – Jon Stewarts Skewers Congress on the Sequester
- A Classic Homebrew Error: Forgot To Add Priming Sugar!
- WYNN Q1 2013 Earnings Call Tidbits
- Why Won’t Bernanke Be at Jackson Hole?
-
-
Categories
-
Archives
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- February 2001
-



