2012年2月17日星期五

通脹如何顛覆社會根基?


另壹角度 16/2/2012 李兆富


凱恩斯:「透過不斷的通脹,政府可以在人民毫不知情下侵吞重要的私產……破壞貨幣,將會潛移默化地顛覆社會根基。這個過程牽動了經濟法則裡 面所有隱匿的毀滅性力量,不過百萬人裡面,卻沒有一個人察覺得到。」《和平的經濟後果》(The Economic Consequences of the Peace)

通脹,就是錢的購買力不斷被削弱;換個角度看,就是物品的價錢不斷上升。常識告訴我們,百物 騰貴是不好的,因為民眾手上的鈔票不斷貶值。不過,一般人很容易跌入思想的陷阱,分不清價錢和價值。見到自己已經擁有的物品價錢上升,感覺就好似它們的價 值也上升。但是當所有的物品價格都一起上升,每個人擁有的資產價格膨脹,其實沒有增加到任何價值,這個現象,叫做貨幣幻覺(Money Illusion)。 

所以,通脹之下的第一個社會群眾行為,就是越來越多人為了保值,會將儲蓄變成持有實物資產,而現代社會,最多人選擇作為保值資產的,就是地產。另一方面,通脹懲罰儲蓄,也鼓勵借錢。通脹越厲害,社會上就越少人儲蓄 ,越多人借錢;借來的錢,就是樓價不斷上升的推動力。
上面所講的現象,對香港人來說不會陌生。不過,奇怪是在過去幾年,又有一班人跑出來說沒有能力置業,要政府打壓地產霸權。先前,住宅單位交投稍為冷卻了一陣子,但最近再有升溫跡象,恐怕又會有人要拿地產霸權做通脹的代罪羔羊。

通 脹下百物騰貴,樓價只是其中一部分。人有一種傾向,以為價錢就是各種生產成本的總和。但是別忘記,價錢取決於供和求兩股力量。說物價貴乃因租金貴,是本末 倒置。在現實世界,業主加租,是因為市場上有租客願意付出更高的租金;有租客願意付出更高的租金,是因為他們預期可以透過市場賺到更多的錢。所以,租金 升,是因為零售價錢上升;鋪位價錢升,是因為租金升。這個關係,不要搞錯。 正如凱恩斯所講,通脹的過程,政府在人民毫不知情下侵吞私產。香港雖然沒有獨立的貨幣政策,香港政府無法自行調整信貸來催生通脹。不過,自從有聯匯以來, 除了九九至○四年,絕大多數的情況都是通脹。在同一套經濟法則之下,香港政府的庫房有連年的盈餘;尤其是○七年之後,港元跟隨美元轉弱,衍生出近十年來最 嚴重的通脹,無獨有偶,政府也由這一年開始,一年接一年地錄得超高盈餘。 說到底,都是貨幣政策下的幻覺。地產霸權要是有能力人為地將樓價推高,九九年後的香港就不用經歷五年多的樓市寒冬。當然,最重要是,整個地產的利益鏈,最 終還是回到庫房裡去。過去幾年由美元的超寬鬆為特區帶來的橫財,已經開始令政府變得越來越大花筒,市民當中也越來越多人希望依賴政府派錢。通脹潛移默化地 破壞社會根基,實在形容得太過貼切了!
李兆富 
時事財經評論員,自由市場智庫獅子山學會創會成員。 作者網誌 - http://hkliberty.wordpress.com ####

地產霸權要是有能力人為地將樓價推高,九九年後的香港就不用經歷五年多的樓市寒冬。


刊於1145期《壹週刊》

Original Source

David Morgan on 2012 Gold & Silver Fundamentals

David Morgan chats with "Trading Talk" on 2012 Precious Metals Fundamentals . Bob Chambers from "Trading Talk" speaks candidly with David Morgan "The Silver Fox" at the 2012 Cambridge House Economic Seminar to discuss the current "seasonality" in the market and why he believes we should expect a broad trading range throughout the first 6-months of this year.

儲蓄養老或是偽命題

李迅雷

國的國民儲蓄率屬全球最高之一,但講到中國的高儲蓄率,很多人通常會以為由於社會保障體系的不健全,老百姓增加儲蓄主要是為了養老。中國的高儲蓄率甚至為發達國家所詬病,因為中國多儲蓄少消費,導致發達國家貿易赤字。但事實並非如尋常想象的這樣簡單。中國百姓的實際儲蓄水平並沒有表面數據反映的那麼高,通過儲蓄來養老或許根本無法實現。

對高儲蓄率的三點澄清

如果對經濟學意義上的“儲蓄”或“儲蓄率”計算方法不了解,就很容易對儲蓄率的概念發生誤解。經濟學上的“儲蓄”通常是廣義的,包括銀行存款、手頭的現金、買基金等理財產品、買保險等金融投資,還包括買房等固定資產投資,前者可以概括為“金融儲蓄”,後者則可統稱為“實物儲蓄”。

根據國家統計局提供的“資金流量表”推算,2008年居民的金融儲蓄約5萬億,實物儲蓄約2.18萬億。為了便於統計,通常用“總儲蓄=總可支配收入-總消費支出”來計算,仍以2008年為例,居民總儲蓄=18.24-11.06=7.18(萬億)。至於儲蓄率,則通常有兩種表述方法,一種是總儲蓄除以總可支配收入,另一種是總儲蓄除以GDP。

所謂的中國高儲蓄率,一般是指國民儲蓄率,它是政府儲蓄、企業儲蓄和居民儲蓄之和除以總可支配收入或GDP,如2008年國民總儲蓄與總可支配收入之比達到51.3%的歷史高點,而同樣口徑的國民儲蓄率,1992年時只有36.3%,儲蓄率快速上升的原因是政府和企業儲蓄的增加。

因此,需要澄清的第一點,是中國國民儲蓄率的上升,在1994年之後,主要是政府和企業儲蓄比重不斷提高,而居民儲蓄佔GDP的比重,則一直在20%左右徘徊。所以,不能因為國民儲蓄率過高就認為是居民儲蓄過高造成的。

需要澄清的第二點,是中國人均居民可支配收入明顯存在低估現象,即分母被估小了,則居民儲蓄率被高估。仍以2008年為例,根據國家統計局出版的《2009年中國統計年鑒》上的城鄉居民人均可支配收入推算,2008年中國居民可支配收入總額約為13萬億(抽樣調查結果),而《2010年中國統計年鑒》中的“資金流量表”顯示,2008年居民可支配收入總額為18.24萬億,兩者竟相差5.24萬億!可見抽樣調查的結果遠低於修正後的結果。而修正後的結果,仍然存在被低估的嫌疑(見王小魯的相關研究報告)。

同樣,根據國家統計局不久前公布的2011年城鄉居民人均可支配收入推算,2011年居民可支配收入總額不足20萬億,這顯然又是被低估的數據,因為按2008年18.24萬億的基數,累計三年的居民可支配收入增長不可能不足10%。所以,居民可支配收入被低估,導致居民儲蓄率被高估。

需要澄清的第三點,是由於居民收入差距過大,導致城鄉居民中金融儲蓄和實物儲蓄總額的很大一部分屬於少部分人。中國銀行業從未披露城鄉居民存款的結構,比如,存款額在1千萬以上、100萬至1千萬、10萬至100萬、10萬以下的儲戶數量各為多少,但我們可以根據國家統計局公布的居民收入數據來大致推算不同收入階層的存款佔比。

仍以2008年為例,修正前城鎮居民中10%最高收入戶的人均可支配收入公布數為43613.75元,則按當時城鎮人口規模的6.0667億推算,城鎮10%最高收入群體的可支配收入總額為2.65萬億,又假定修正後城鄉居民可支配收入總額被低估的5.24萬億中的80%是屬於10%城鎮最高收入群體的,則這部分群體(佔總人口4.57%)的可支配收入總額為6.84萬億,即佔中國居民可支配收入總額的37.5%。需要說明的是,由於國家統計局修正後的可支配收入總額數據仍可能低估,則實際收入差距更大。換言之,導致中國居民高儲蓄率的重要因素的少數人暴富的結果,大部分人的儲蓄規模很小。

大部分中國人積蓄過少難以養老

截至2011年底,中國央行公布的個人存款(包括儲蓄存款、保証金存款和結構性存款)余額為35.8萬億。而根據前面對2008年中國居民可支配收入結構的分析結論,即佔總人口4.57%的群體擁有37.5%的居民可支配收入,保守判斷5%的儲戶佔有銀行個人儲蓄總額的40%,則剩下的21.5萬億余額如果被13億人均分,人均儲蓄額就少得可憐。因此,如果對舉世公認的高儲蓄率國家的收入和儲蓄結構進行仔細分析,就會發現大部分中國人,無論是收入還是積蓄都難以承受未來為自己養老的負擔。而中國目前的養老體系中所謂的三大支柱幾乎沒有個人支柱的養老保險,而農村的所謂“新農保”規模只有500多億,僅覆蓋1億多農民,且規模還是杯水車薪。

對此,不妨比較一下美國有關儲蓄率和養老金方面的數據。美國的超低個人儲蓄率一直受到大家指責,認為是消費過度。但如果對美國個人儲蓄率與美國的經濟景氣度做相關分析,會發現個人儲蓄率與經濟景氣度逆相關。如美國2000年之後隨著經濟的增長,個人儲蓄率大幅下降,在次貸危機之前跌至負值;而次貸危機之後,個人儲蓄率又開始上升,這說明個人行為還是理性的。更為重要的是,美國個人儲蓄率的變化並沒有對其未來養老產生多大影響,因為美國的養老金體系非常健全,美國僅個人退休賬戶(IRA)的規模就達到4.9萬億美元,折合31萬億人民幣,但美國的人口不足中國四分之一。因此,從養老的角度看,美國個人儲蓄率要遠高於中國。

如果再比較一下中美兩國的政府與企業層面為個人提供的養老保障,則差距更大。首先,中國養老金的構成存在嚴重缺陷,即接近90%的養老金靠政府提供,而商業保險及企業年金等佔比很少,全國企業年金總規模約2800多億,佔整個養老金余額的比重也不足10%,商業養老保險余額也僅約1215億。而美國養老金來源主要是靠企業(雇主設立養老金),其總資產是政府養老金的5倍。目前中國養老金的累積額僅3萬多億人民幣,佔GDP的比重不足7%,而美國政府、企業和個人三個層面養老金相加的總資產超過18萬億美元,佔GDP的比重超過120%。因此,中國眼下無論是居民自有儲蓄還是政府和企業提供的養老金,其規模都不足以為未來老齡人口提供養老保障。

現有金融體制對居民儲蓄的雙重損害

如前所述,居民儲蓄包括金融儲蓄和實物儲蓄,金融儲蓄主要包括銀行存款、股票投資、買基金等理財產品。由於利率市場化改革遲緩,居民存款的負利率成為常態,存款不能實現保值,更無法實現增值了。更何況過去10多年貨幣供應量的超常增長,使得居民儲蓄進一步被稀釋。而投資A股和購買基金產品則被証明是給居民帶來更大傷害的一種“金融儲蓄”手段了,因為過去10多年A股的指數漲幅幾乎為零,而H股的漲幅超過5倍。其原因在於,第一,國內金融管制過多,人為維持低利率,導致上市公司分紅率很低甚至沒有分紅,銀行和企業實際上在掠奪儲戶和散戶利益;第二,低利率和金融產品的發行管制,成為股票發行定價過高的主要因素,導致一級市場以機構為主的原始投資人長期暴利和二級市場以散戶為主的投資者長期虧損。

而在“實物儲蓄”方面,從過去10年看,大部分實物投資都能獲得不菲的收益,如買房的10年收益率在5倍以上,黃金投資也在3.5倍左右,而珠寶、古玩字畫等的投資回報率就更高了。其原因還是在於中國經濟投資拉動模式和銀行主導的金融體制,貨幣超發和泛濫導致不少實物資產價格暴漲。但對於居民而言,參與“實物儲蓄”的群體同樣符合5%的人擁有40%的實物投資品的結構,即絕大部分居民只有少量實物儲蓄或沒有實物儲蓄。同時,由於實物儲蓄在整個居民儲蓄中的佔比不大,因此也難以彌補金融儲蓄造成的虧損。對於大部分居民而言,對住房具有剛性消費需求,而他們前期選擇了收益率為負的金融儲蓄,反過來面對已經高企的房價,就更不具有購買力了。

因此,目前的金融體制對於大部分居民而言,其受到的傷害實質上是雙重的,即金融投資虧損與住房消費能力不足。今後如何能夠快速增加居民的財產性收入,讓投資者在金融資產投資方面獲得正收益,確實需要抓緊研究對策。其中,利率市場化改革是繞不過去的坎,只有實現了利率市場化,才能讓扭曲的資產價格、貨幣價格得以回歸常態,才能制約尋租行為和從根本上減少多重利率導致的腐敗,才能讓投資者與銀行、企業之間合理分享投資回報。

此外,增加養老金規模也是應對快速老齡化的當務之急。有人說中國發展養老事業時間較短,不像美國有百年歷史,故養老金規模偏小不足為慮。但問題在於中國人口紅利的拐點已經顯現,老齡化壓力越來越大。目前養老金發放已經是寅吃卯糧,養老金缺口會越來越大。

面對中國未富先老的社會結構問題,必須採取超常規的措施來解決養老金缺口問題。可以通過兩大途徑來增加養老金的來源,一是農村土地流轉改革設計時,可以考慮從土地流轉收益中法定提取一定比例作為出讓戶的養老金;二是國有股權轉讓收益中可規定提取一定比例用於彌補全國和地方養老金缺口,比如,央企股權轉讓收益的一部分歸全國社保,地方國企的股權轉讓收益的一部分歸地方社保。

States seek currencies made of silver and gold

OPEN LETTER TO THE CFTC
February 16, 2012
Commodities Futures Trading Commission
3 Lafayette Center
1155 21st St. NW Washington, DC 50581
Re: Flawed Investigations and Breaking The Law
Dear Commissioners:
For over 2 decades a large group of silver investors have been yelling and screaming at the CFTC to stop the rampant downward manipulation of the COMEX silver market. On May 14, 2004 the CFTC released the results of their 1st investigation by Michael Gorham, Director of Market Oversight, saying they have not found any evidence of silver market manipulation.
http://www.cpmgroup.com/free_library1/COUNTER-ARGUMENTS_TO_SILVER_CONSPIRACY_THEORIES/CFTC_Silver_Letter_May_2004.pdf
Dr. Gorham, who once worked at the Federal Reserve Bank, resigned only 3 weeks after releasing this report:
http://www.cftc.gov/opa/press04/opa4935-04.htm
As a truly REMARKABLE twist of fate, or not, Mr. Gorham now serves on the Probable Cause and Business Conduct Committees of the CME who were supposed to be overseeing MF Global before it imploded:
http://www.marketswiki.com/mwiki/Michael_Gorham
Then in May 2008 the CFTC released another report on the same topic stating again that the silver market was not being manipulated. This time the CFTC decided NOT to put anyone's name on the report:
http://www.cftc.gov/ucm/groups/public/@newsroom/documents/file/silverfuturesmarketreport0508.pdf
This report piggy backed off the 2004 report in reinforcing the main argument why there was no manipulation in the silver market...
"Staff in 2004 also examined the relationship between NYMEX silver futures prices and cash market silver prices to determine whether NYMEX prices appeared to be unusually or significantly out of line with cash prices."
"NYMEX silver futures prices tend to track closely the price of physical silver...This analysis shows that there is not a downward bias in the NYMEX futures price vis-a-vis the LBMA price, which, as noted, is widely regarded as the benchmark value in the marketplace."
In BOTH reports the CFTC cites the "cash prices" as the prices for silver on the London Bullion Market(LBMA). It is absolutely important that the NYMEX (COMEX) prices stay in line with the "cash prices" of silver otherwise it would prove that the futures and options trading was SETTING the price for physical silver which is illegal. The PROBLEM with the CFTC's analysis is that they are comparing the NYMEX prices to a massively flawed proxy for the price of physical silver.
I'd like to direct your attention to the CFTC hearing on the silver market manipulation issue. Jeffery Christian of the CPM Group points out clearly that the LBMA really has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE "PHYSICAL MARKET" IN SILVER.
http://www.bullionbullscanada.com/index.php?option=com_community&view=videos&task=video&userid=330&videoid=43&Itemid=114
As a matter of fact Mr. Christian points out that the physical silver related to LBMA contracts amounts to only 1/100th of the silver market. This is supported (and even vastly understated) by the MASSIVE volumes traded daily and annually on the London Bullion Market in excess of 50B ounces per year (NET!) when annual global mine production is only 550M oz. The TOTAL VOLUME of yearly trades on a gross level is likely 5x this number or 250B oz.
The argument used twice by the CFTC that silver cannot be manipulated because this price matches the "physical price" as determined at the LBMA is patently absurd.
Now we come to the 3rd investigation into the manipulation of silver that began over 3 years ago that still has no resolution. We have supplied a whistle blower (Andrew McGuire), new regulatory authorities (Dodd-Frank Law), an admission by a CFTC Commissioner that manipulation has transpired (Bart Chilton) and a silver price that relentlessly continues to rise without any significant decrease in the concentrated short position held by a small handful of banks or even one single bank.
WHAT MORE DO YOU NEED?
On January 17, 2010 the CFTC was required BY LAW to implement position limits in the COMEX silver market. This date was not a suggestion by Congress but a hard fact of law. On January 18, 2010 the CFTC was in full violation of this law. I submit that the current CFTC Commissioners, Summers and O'Malia, who have blocked the implementation of position limits at every turn should be removed from their post immediately. The actions of the CFTC have baffled the "free market" and leaves market participants standing dumbfounded with a very simple question...
Under what legal authority does the CFTC have the ability to disobey the laws of the US Congress?
Our patience with the CFTC has long gone. We have endured 2 botched silver investigations, one NEVER ENDING silver investigation that should have been a slam dunk and now the blatant violation of Federal Law all the while silver market participants are being ROBBED DAILY BY CRIMINALS ON THE COMEX after making the very sound decision to invest in silver.



Original Source

States seek currencies made of silver and gold







Worried that the Federal Reserve and the U.S. dollar are on the brink of collapse, more than a dozen states have proposed using their own alternative currencies of silver and gold.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- A growing number of states are seeking shiny new currencies made of silver and gold.
Worried that the Federal Reserve and the U.S. dollar are on the brink of collapse, lawmakers from 13 states, including Minnesota, Tennessee, Iowa, South Carolina and Georgia, are seeking approval from their state governments to either issue their own alternative currency or explore it as an option. Just three years ago, only three states had similar proposals in place.
"In the event of hyperinflation, depression, or other economic calamity related to the breakdown of the Federal Reserve System ... the State's governmental finances and private economy will be thrown into chaos," said North Carolina Republican Representative Glen Bradley in a currency bill he introduced last year.
Unlike individual communities, which are allowed to create their own currency -- as long as it is easily distinguishable from U.S. dollars -- the Constitution bans states from printing their own paper money or issuing their own currency. But it allows the states to make "gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts."
To the state legislators who are proposing state-issued currencies, that means gold and silver are fair game, said Edwin Vieira, an alternative currency proponent and attorney specializing in Constitutional law. And since gold has grown exponentially more valuable, while the U.S. dollar continues to lose ground, the notion has become increasingly appealing to state lawmakers, he said.
The state gold rush: Utah became the first state to introduce its own alternative currency when Governor Gary Herbert signed a bill into law last March that recognized gold and silver coins issued by the U.S. Mint as an acceptable form of payment. Under the law, the coins -- which include American Gold and Silver Eagles -- are treated the same as U.S. dollars for tax purposes, eliminating capital gains taxes.
Since the face value of some U.S.-minted gold and silver coins -- like the one-ounce, $50 American Gold Eagle coin -- is so much less than the metal value (one ounce of gold is now worth more than $1,700), the new law allows the coins to be exchanged at their market value, based on weight and fineness.

Local currencies: In the U.S., we don't trust

"A Utah citizen, for example, could contract with another to sell his car for 10 one-ounce gold coins (approximately $17,000), or an independent contractor could arrange to be compensated in gold coins," said Rich Danker, a project director at the American Principles Project, a conservative public policy group in Washington, D.C.
South Carolina Republican Representative Mike Pitts proposed a currency system that would allow people to use any kind of silver or gold coin -- whether it's a Philippine Peso or a South African Krugerrand -- based on weight and fineness. Pitts said in the bill, which currently has 12 co-sponsors, that the state is facing "an economic crisis of severe magnitude."
Republican representatives from Washington State followed suit in January, introducing a bill that would also allow any gold and silver coins to be considered legal tender based on metal values. Minnesota, Iowa, Georgia, Idaho and Indiana are also considering similar proposals.
Many of the bills would make it possible for residents to exchange the physical coins for goods and services, so you could use coins to buy anything from groceries to a car as long as the store chooses to accept them.
However, most people aren't going to walk around with such valuable coins in their pockets, said Vieira. Plus, calculating the value of the coins -- especially if they come from different parts of the globe and are of different sizes and shapes -- will get tricky.
It's more likely that the states will create electronic depositories and accounts for the coins to make transactions easier, when and if the initial bills are passed, he said.
Utah Gold & Silver Depository is already developing a system where customers could use debit cards linked to their gold holdings. When customers swipe their debit cards to make transactions, physical gold and silver coins would be transferred between accounts in privately-owned depositories (or vaults) based on the market value of the metals.
Before deciding on a specific form of currency, some states -- including Minnesota, Tennessee, Virginia and North Carolina -- are considering proposals that would first require a committee to review their alternative currency plan.
The future of U.S. currency: The states' proposals have been gaining steam among Tea Partyers and Republicans, many of whom also endorse a nationwide return to the gold standard, which would require the U.S. dollar to be backed by gold reserves.
Tea Party "father" Ron Paul is sponsoring the "Free Competition in Currency Act," which would allow states to introduce their own currencies, and rival Newt Gingrich is calling for a commission to look at how the country can get back to the gold standard.
But it will be the individual states that could really get the ball rolling, said Vieira. Even if several of the current proposals get killed, the introduction of so many bills at the state level is drawing national attention to the issue, he said.

Funny money: 11 local currencies

Of all the state proposals circulating right now, Republican-controlled states including South Carolina, Georgia, Idaho and Indiana have the best chance of passing their proposed bills this year, said American Principles Project's Danker. If just one or two states implement an alternative currency, it could have a Domino effect, he said.
"I think we could get a couple passed in this legislative session, and that would show this is mainstream, popular and it would be a justification for more of the risk-averse states for doing this," he said.
There are, of course, many people who think the recent push for alternative state currencies should be stopped in its tracks. David Parsley, a professor of economics and finance at Vanderbilt University, said he thinks state-issued currencies are a "terrible" idea.
"Having 50 Feds" could debase the U.S. dollar and even potentially lead the country into default, he said. "The single currency in the United States is working just fine," said Parsley. "I have no idea why anyone would want to destroy something so successful -- unless they actually wanted to destroy the country." To top of page




Original Source

PIMCO,Texas Teacher Reitrement Fund &Soros buys into GLD/Greek bailout no further ahead as potential delay in implementation/ Portugal

Wednesday
February 15, 2012
Good evening Ladies and Gentlemen:
Gold closed up today by $10.70 to $1726.60 by comex closing time.  Silver was ambushed by our bankers after being up considerably during the early part of the comex session.  Silver’s final comex resting price was $33.39 up only 7 cents. It was close to $34.00 at the second London fix.  As I pointed out to you on previous commentaries the bankers do not like what they are witnessing in silver.  They are viewing the players as different from before and they are probably scared witless that many are taking delivery.  The last two non delivery months of January and February is all the evidence that they need that some newer and stronger entity is here trying to get as much of physical silver as possible.  You will see below that for the 6th straight session the net OI for the front February month increased again (we remove yesterday’s delivery notices from the Feb OI to get net OI)
Let us head over to the gold comex and assess trading today.
The total gold comex surprisingly rose by 4380 contracts yesterday from 426,784 to 431,164. I guess the raid had no damage done to the open interest as gold leaves refused to fall from the gold tree.  The front delivery month of February again saw its OI fall from 493 to 452 for a loss of 40 contracts despite only 1 delivery notice yesterday.  Blythe was handing out the candies in full force today as 40 contracts succumbed to cash settlements.  The next big delivery month is April and here the OI rose from 231,263 to 232,679 as long players certainly took note that the Euro meeting scheduled today was cancelled.  The estimated volume today was very weak at 128,217. The confirmed volume yesterday, with the raid orchestrated by our bankers registered 167,886 as they supplied huge amounts of non backed gold paper.
Silver is the object of the bankers interest.  Today the OI registered a slight retreat of 1320 contracts to 104,872 from 106,192 as it still trades in this very narrow channel.  The front options delivery month of February saw its OI fall 81 contracts from 212 to 131.  However we had 127 delivery notices filed yesterday.  Thus for the 6th straight day, the number of silver oz standing for delivery rose.  Today an additional 50 contracts ( 250,000 oz) are standing.
READ MORE

Obama wants cheaper pennies and nickels

Treasury is looking at changing the mix of metals used to make pennies and nickels in a cost-savings effort.


NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The U.S. Mint is facing a problem -- especially during these penny-pinching times. It turns out it costs more to make pennies and nickels than the coins are worth.
And because of that, the Obama administration this week asked Congress for permission to change the mix of metal that goes to make pennies and nickels, an expensive recipe that has remained unchanged for more than 30 years.
To be precise, it cost 2.4 cents to make one penny in 2011 and about 11.2 cents for each nickel.
Given the number of coins that the mint produces -- 4.3 billion pennies and 914 million nickels last year alone, those costs add up pretty quickly: a little more than $100 million for each coin.
But even though Treasury has been studying new metals since 2010, it has yet to come up with a workable mix that would definitely be cheaper, and it has no details yet as to what metals should be used or how much it would save to do so.
Even if a cheaper metal can be used, it might not take the cost of a penny down to less than a penny.
Just the administrative cost of minting 4.3 billion pennies costs almost a half-cent per coin by itself, leaving precious little room to make a penny for less than a cent, no matter the raw material used.

Funny money? 11 local currencies

The raw material cost of the metals used in a current penny is only about 0.6 cents per coin, according to prices quoted on the London Metal Exchange, and a breakdown of a penny's composition from the mint. The mint paid 1.1 cents on average for the metal used in a penny in 2011, but that is the cost of ready-to-stamp blanks from the supplier, not raw material traded on commodity markets.
There have been times in recent years when a run-up in zinc and copper prices has taken the raw material value of a penny above one cent.
That's the case for a nickel today. Its more expensive metal mix means the raw materials in each are worth almost 6 cents per coin, based on current market prices. (States eye silver and gold currencies)




Despite popular belief, since 1982 pennies have only been copper plated, not copper through and through. Much less expensive zinc makes up 97.5% of the mass of a penny, the rest is a copper coating.
Nickels actually have much more copper in them -- 75% copper and 25% nickel, the same mix it has always had.
The mint did make steel pennies for one year -- in 1943 -- when copper was needed for the war effort. And steel might be a cheaper alternative this time. Steel is roughly one-quarter the price of zinc on the London Metal Exchange.
Treasury had already made a cost-saving move in December when it stopped making dollar coins.

Check commodity prices

With 1.4 billion surplus presidential dollar coins sitting in bank vaults waiting to be circulated, and American consumers showing little appetite to start using the coins, Treasury estimates the halt in production of the coins will save about $50 million a year.
Treasury spokesman Matt Anderson said Treasury has the authority to stop making the dollar coins on its own, but it can't change the mix of metals in pennies without permission.
As for the suggestion of some that the penny be abandoned altogether, Anderson said only "that is not a proposal we have put forward." To top of page