Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: regli who wrote (47803)	3/6/2006 2:20:47 PM
From: aknahow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

I own no physical pm, nor any p.m. ETF. Do have large position in Junior golds. Just thought Szabo's article was not well done. Reminded me of the disinformation campaign used prior to the launch of the GLD ETF.

To: regli who wrote (47803)	3/21/2006 6:18:09 PM
From: aknahow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116555

Szabo, steps up to the plate. Class act, admit I was surprised by his candor. URGENT UPDATE There is news out that the SEC has approved the rule change to allow the Barclays iShares Silver ETF to trade on the AMEX. The rule change clears the remaining regulatory hurdles which means that approval of the registration statement (Form S-1) is now a technicality. Many of the points I raised in my Silver ETF Ironies piece have been addressed in the SEC Release announcing approval of the rule change. I have already analyzed the release and will be providing more detailed comments shortly, but for now I should point out that the SEC feels the silver ETF will increase the efficiency and transparency of the silver market and appears to believe that concerns about liquidity are overblown. I must say that reading over the SEC Release makes some of my arguments seem a little loony and conspiratory. There appear to be good answers for almost every point I made and I certainly need to revisit this topic with a sharper pencil. So, have I changed my opinion that the silver ETF will not be approved by the SEC? Obviously yes. I was dead wrong! But I still have some nagging issues. So what does this mean as to the tightness of supplies in the silver market? Curiously, the SEC barely addressed this in its 32 pages of comments, instead focusing on COMEX and LBMA daily trading volumes in light of the 1.5 million ounce initial demand by the silver ETF. I believe the situation is more complicated than this, but in essence the SEC seems to be saying that the physical or spot silver market is big enough to handle whatever demand the ETF can throw at it. On the opposite side of this argument are Ted Butler and the CPM Group, which is quite a rare sight for people familiar with the silver story. I personally believe that some details have been glossed over by the SEC, but only time will tell who in fact was right. For now, I will leave you with this statement from the SEC Release which sums up its position very well: "The Commission agrees with Amex that, like other derivative products, the Silver Shares will increase the efficiency and transparency of the market for this underlying instrument, i.e., silver. In this regard, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is in the public interest. The Commission also does not believe that the Silver Shares are likely to cause serious liquidity problems in the silver market such that approval of the proposed rule change is not consistent with the Act."