/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>18593296
Silver isn't the growing potential, it's the volitility (which makes silver exponentially easier to short compared to the slow-upwards-chugging gold in comparison). What you likely heard is of Silvers severe undervalue (which is correct, proprtional to Gold, Silver SHOULD be ~1/4 given total supply, which puts it's ''ideal'' price at $400, not $15 - more considering there's actually more physically tradeable Gold than Silver worldwide since Silver is used in untradable objects more, such as mirrors etc. It's basically the most undervalued 'anything' on the planet)
Now, sure, if people were to 'wake up' one day and realise the value of Silver, it'd surely go through the roof! Right? Wrong.
Silver is in a completely unique position among commodities, in that around 2 people (of all 7-8 billion of us) own almost every single physical bit of Silver worldwide - it's possibly the only material on Earth which has been completely monopolised (oligarchised if you want to be accurate, but you get the point). This in turn allows the people who own ( see >>18589619 ) it to pretty much 'set' the price they want - but there's a catch - most of the Silver they sell is in the form of certifications, bonds, shares, stocks etc - to the point that there is almost x2 the amount of Silver promised to people on paper than there physically is worldwide. So yeah, if Silver EVER corrects, it will nigh guaranteed rise 10fold (only if you have physcial - certs will be defaulted, what you gonna do, complain?), possibly 100fold in a short term spike before correcting at 10fold - but it's never going to correct, unless the people who own all of it say so (which they probably aren't, given they make enough money almost completely controlling the bumps/dips it's at now + buying even more, cheaply). So ALWAYS buy physical, certified/stock is a glorified IOU.

tl;dr Gold almost always grows (outside of crash corrections) and isn't volitile, a sensible portfolio for savings is ~60%+ Gold.