CollectForFun

13 minutes ago, BackyardBullion said:

The SLV pre-market is hovering around $27.30/oz right now. I would have expected this to be higher all things considered. 

https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/slv

Did you factor in that 1 SLV unit does not equal 1 oz of silver? The ratio is 0.9293 oz per ETF unit, so that corresponds to USD 29.37 / oz.

Just for the record, as was pointed out in another thread, today was a regular trading day on Israeli stock exchange and their local silver ETF closed +5.97% (https://www.tase.co.il/en/market_data/etf/1144542/major_data).

Gold ETF on the other hand closed just +0.75% (https://www.tase.co.il/en/market_data/etf/1147875/major_data).

25 minutes ago, Kman said:

Reddit seems to be turning on slv

https://old.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/l9gv98/citadel_is_the_5th_largest_owner_of_slv_its/

Interesting, there seems to be a lot of uncertainty about whether they run on silver or not, as there is an impression that many of the big banks and funds are actually long silver and will only benefit from higher prices. And they also say they might have even been manipulated by the banks into trying to squeeze silver market and think they should instead just concentrate on GameStop and keep holding their shares (good luck with that, by the way...).

Anyway, the hysteria has already started so I expect increased interest in silver in the short term and then - we will see. But I am not jumping on this train (or maybe a little bit just for fun?).

I am curious to see how this develops, but I am not sure what effect massive buying of ETF will have. As far as I know, with ETFs backed by physical holding it works like this: if you buy an ETF unit, this does not cause ETF manager to immediately purchase additional unit of physical. By buying an ETF unit, you only purchase the right for existing underlying physical from the previous holder of the same ETF unit. So volume of underlying physical stays the same.

Additional units of physical are purchased only if additional ETF units are "created". This creation is done via participating banks - they deliver physical to the ETF manager and for that they receive new ETF units which they can sell on the market. So if there is real shortage of physical, no new ETF units will be created and ETF holders' share of the total physical volume will not increase.

The above is of course to some extent simplified so anything could happen. E.g. what if the physical delivered previously by banks to ETF was in fact sold short?

The whole idea makes perfect sense up to the point in which short sellers are squeezed. After that point it becomes nothing else than mere Ponzi scheme. Noone in their sane mind would want to buy GameStop shares (or other shares price of which went so much beyond their hypothetical real value) at those levels, other than short sellers who need to close their positions. So if such forced buyers disappear, who is going to buy those shares from you? Only additional manipulated masses funds of which are finite though.

What I mean is that you can really earn fortune on this, provided you exit in time. Otherwise the crash is inevitable and I am afraid many small investors may not expect this.

With silver it would be more interesting because it is more difficult to determine it's actual value, i.e. at what level the entry does not make sense anymore. But considering the relative ease with which silver is produced and recycled, I dare say that level is not too high... But what do I know... 

But what else is this than another manipulation? Definitely not normal and healthy market development.

4 hours ago, BritanniaCoinCompany said:

It is our current understanding that VAT must be charged on applicable EU orders.

However... I'm delighted to confirm our current platinum stock is technically pre-owned (even though it's brand new) and therefore doesn't have VAT on it. It's very keenly priced, an ideal Pt investment.

Thanks for clarifying. Sounds great for UK customers, but importing these coins to EU will unfortunately attract corresponding local VAT, I'm afraid (and don't have courage to try and test this assumption myself...). Oh well, we already miss you in the EU, I guess...🙁

18 hours ago, UncommonSeal said:

 

Good deal! Shame it doesn’t deduct VAT when shipping outside the EU or else it would be an even better deal! 😂

@BritanniaCoinCompany

As for EU customers purchasing e.g. platinum coins which are normally subject to VAT - wouldn't it be possible to zero-rate such goods when shipped to EU?

Ok if we mean the same, I just wanted to make sure this quote from your post above does not mislead others

Quote

... the most important bit is the date of supply i.e when the goods were invoiced ...

1 hour ago, HillWalkerDundee said:

Re: Sweden,

With VAT in any EU country (and UK) the most important bit is the date of supply i.e when the goods were invoiced (see later). It doesn't matter when you ordered the goods or when the goods were received, it is the date of supply.

As for Canada, up until 31st December, the goods would come under the deal struck with the EU. From 1st January, different rules apply, what rules I don't know.

Re: invoice dates. This date may differ from the date of supply. Often it is the same but can be a day or two out.

This is however not entirely accurate. Date of supply for VAT purposes does not equal invoice date. You can find good overview here: https://www.gov.uk/vat-record-keeping/time-of-supply-or-tax-point.

In general, the date of supply (for VAT purposes) is the date the goods are sent, collected or made available. If payment is made before that date, VAT obligation arises on the date the payment is received. So it is definitely useful to check the invoice, but you should look for the date of supply rather than invoice date, which may be different.

It is however another question if UK accepts the fact that VATable event occured before 31 Dec, if e.g the goods were shipped or physically arrived in the UK later. It may not always be possible to avoid double charging of VAT given that UK and EU VAT rules are no longer harmonised as of 1 Jan.