Bullion Banks Are Indicating They Are Caught In A Silver Squeeze
Their Market Actions Speak Volumes
With a global physical silver shortage driving an estimated 265M oz. market deficit in 2024, it should be expected that supply/demand fundamentals will drive prices higher until a market balance is achieved.
However, given the fact that silver is a Giffen Good where price increases initially drive increased demand, a much higher price for silver should be expected before markets balance-out.
Given also our analysis indicating that bullion banks hold a 5B to 8B oz. silver short position in the London physical silver spot (or cash) market (see: https://jensendavid.substack.com/p/an-estimate-of-bullion-bank-exposure), this potential for a rapid, large price rise and increasing metal shortage would not be good news for these bullion banks.
In fact, silver losses could be of an existential level for the bullion banks and signal loss of the paper price-setting system used in London to set global silver prices since 1987.
Recognizing that the vast majority of this bullion bank short position in London consists of un-backed promissory notes for immediate bar delivery in the cash market that constitutes ~ 90% of daily London trading, the potential for cascading market defaults by bullion banks is very real in a market beset by physical shortage when demand for physical delivery on these cash contracts arises.
The London silver market is largely opaque with no data provided by the London Bullion Market Association (LBMA) on market participant positions however we can see an interesting market signal in the much smaller NY / COMEX silver futures market.
COMEX data indicate that since February 2024, as silver has risen in price from $22 /oz. to $31 /oz., bullion banks (also called Swap Dealers) have increased their COMEX net short positions in silver from initially flat to now short 217M oz. of silver, as can be seen below.
Instead of mitigating losses or even profiting, over 4 months bullion banks have increased their losses by scaling their COMEX silver net short position to 43,400 contracts or 217M oz. (as each contract constitutes 5,000 oz.) in the latest Commitment of Traders (COT) report.
NY / CME COMEX Trader (COT) NET Silver Positions - Swap Dealers (Bullion Banks) in Blue
While this apparent loss-seeking activity by bullion banks may seem counter-intuitive, it does make sense if bullion banks have a short position in the London silver market that is an order of magnitude, or more, greater.
In this case, it would induce bullion banks to sell claims into the COMEX market in order to mitigate the price rise and looking to mitigate an increase in physical demand from the investors and hoarding users from the Giffen Good effect as the price rose.
In essence, bullion banks appear to be accepting much smaller losses in the COMEX market to prevent a potentially existential loss in the London physical silver cash market.
Not all market participants are sleeping however and this strategy could instead signal to the market that the bullion banks are hopelessly trapped short in the global silver market that is beset by shortage.
Best regards,
David Jensen
Ahhh, fair market- where do we start
- the old Roman ratio of 16 to 1
- but silver mines are producing less silver to
Gold. The ratio is now about 7 to 1.
- but, industrial usage each year has been about 60% of what is mined and headed higher.
- conservatively that now ratio to gold is 3 to 1.
- but the silver institute has understated the silver usage ( must be an undersight- surely not an oversight with so many investors relying on accurite data)
- but wait, my understanding is on the comex there are 400 silver ETF's for every 1 oz of silver (i love playing musical chairs but not when myself and 398 other silver ETF holders are not able to sit)
The beat goes on and on but i will stop there and sit with this last comment " wise people say - if you do not hold it , then you don't own it!!! Now, that is something i can believe.
I wish you well.
Keep up the good reporting. Appreciate your work.
David. Thanks for the well researched articles. In this case in the event of a crises wouldn’t the LBMA simply halt trading like the LME did in the nickel squeeze and the courts sided with them since the contracts said they had a right to cancel.