Great article! I am old enough to remember when silver was money. I think a primary driver for silver will be the people who can't afford gold. My parents grew up during the Great Depression and left me with a lot of valuable lessons. Many people will be relearning those same lessons the hard way.
Thank you for commenting! 🙏 I think you are right, Gold is going to become unobtainable at future price levels, but once people realize Silver offers the same protection from inflation, they will rush into it. Hopefully, we can spread the word and help as many people as possible before they have to learn it the hard way!
Franny Hunt (Market Sniper) just about said this for the last few weeks, he sees the ratio going up to 170-1 before a major reversal. I'm really long 🥈, so I've been stacking small amounts of 🥇 for the last few months. I guess we will see what happens.
Thanks for commenting. Yes absolutely, it is possible... Francis is right (Francis is the man). Not a lot of people have pointed out these upper levels that I know of either. However, we can't confirm it until we get more information, we should have a direction sometime this summer through until August. 170 would be the second target after 126, and its right up there on a major trendline. That would be absolutely insane clown world if we get to 170.... I have a feeling something major breaks before that point. Let's see its definitely going to be interesting!
I think so too! I think 1:30-40 is a relatively safe target. This might be the most severe market dislocation in the history of mankind. 5 years of supply deficits plus even more rehypothecation this time.
I know Wall Street are all long silver for their own books, but anyone shorting if gets to a ratio of 30/40-1 is going to have a spiritual moment, I'm not talking backdoor FED bailout here, I'm talking existential threat to the financial system.
Thanks for asking, unfortunately no word yet from X, I sent them a message to appeal my account suspension. I am hoping people can still find my work on here, maybe I get lucky, and somebody shares this to X.
I am not sure how eager I will be to go back on to X after this poor service/treatment. I may just stick with substack going forward. Let's see
Yeah. I hear you. It's upsetting to see the same things happening under the old regime happening under this one. Several of the larger accounts have been voicing that they get swarmed w botted community notes. There seems to be a major issue there. Once they find you, a larger account can get some help. Smaller accounts don't have that luxury.
It was bad timing too I was starting to get a lot of momentum on X, although I could sense the reach getting crushed for a lot of my posts on politics/metals. I have faith everything happens for a reason, so I am not too worried. I am going to write an article about it next. Thanks again for your support 🙏🏻👍🏻
I'll analyze this article in detail, examining its historical claims about the gold-to-silver ratio and evaluating the merit of its statements from an objective perspective.
Analysis of "Silver's 100:1 Ratio Threshold" Article
Overview
The article, published by "Grey Rabbit Finance" on May 1, 2025, presents a historical analysis of the gold-to-silver ratio, focusing on periods when this ratio exceeded 100:1. It claims these extreme ratio events represent significant investment opportunities, particularly for purchasing silver.
Historical Claims Analysis
Claim 1: Gold-to-Silver Ratio During the Great Depression & WWII
The article states the ratio peaked at approximately 99:1 in September 1939, coinciding with the beginning of World War II.
Historical Context Verification:
The article correctly notes that the U.S. abandoned the gold standard in 1933 under Roosevelt's Gold Reserve Act, which fixed gold at $35 per ounce and restricted private ownership.
The claim about silver prices falling to about $0.25 per ounce by 1932 appears generally accurate based on historical data.
The ratio calculation seems plausible given gold's fixed price and silver's decline during this period.
Accuracy of Aftermath Claims:
The article claims silver prices increased to $0.90-$1.00 per ounce by the early 1940s (with some reports noting $1.10-$1.25).
This is broadly consistent with historical records showing silver price increases during WWII due to industrial demand.
The claim of 150-250% returns by 1942 for investors who swapped gold for silver in 1939 is mathematically possible based on these price movements.
Claim 2: Gold-to-Silver Ratio During COVID-19
The article states the ratio peaked at 125:1 in March 2020.
Historical Context Verification:
This claim is accurate. In March 2020, the gold-to-silver ratio did reach approximately 125:1, the highest in modern history.
The article correctly identifies the causes: industrial activity declined sharply (affecting silver demand) while gold benefited from safe-haven flows.
Silver indeed dropped to around $12/oz while gold remained relatively stronger.
Accuracy of Aftermath Claims:
The article claims silver staged a 150% rebound in 5 months (from $12 to $30/oz).
This price movement is broadly accurate, though the $30 figure represents the peak rather than a sustained price.
The ratio did collapse back toward 70:1 as claimed.
Claim 3: Current Situation (May 2025)
The article claims the ratio sits near 101:1 as of May 2025.
Verification:
I cannot verify this claim as it refers to a future date from my knowledge cutoff (October 2024).
The article's claim about the current ratio entering a "Generational Wealth Zone" is speculative rather than historical.
Critical Analysis of Investment Claims
Strengths of the Article's Arguments:
Historical Accuracy: The basic historical events and price movements are generally accurate.
Pattern Recognition: The article correctly identifies that extreme gold-to-silver ratios have preceded significant rebounds in silver prices.
Fundamental Drivers: The article reasonably connects silver's price movements to both monetary and industrial demand factors.
Weaknesses and Potentially Misleading Elements:
Selection Bias: The article focuses only on instances where the extreme ratio was followed by silver outperformance, potentially ignoring counterexamples.
Historical Context Oversimplification: While the basic facts are accurate, the article simplifies complex historical conditions to fit its investment narrative.
Natural Mean Reversion vs. Causation: The article may confuse correlation with causation. Extreme ratios may simply represent statistical outliers that naturally revert to the mean.
Marketing Elements: The article contains email addresses and subscription prompts, suggesting it's primarily marketing material designed to promote the author's services or publications.
Future Predictions: The technical analysis section makes specific price predictions that cannot be evaluated objectively and appear to be speculation rather than historical analysis.
Lack of Risk Discussion: The article emphasizes potential rewards without adequately addressing risks or timeframes for ratio normalization.
Cherry-Picked Historical Average: The article mentions a 5,000-year average of 15:1, but this largely reflects when both metals were used as currency under bimetallic standards. The modern economic context is quite different.
Conclusion
The article contains some historically accurate information about the gold-to-silver ratio during major economic events. Its basic premise that extreme gold-to-silver ratios have preceded silver price recoveries is supported by historical evidence in the cases presented.
However, the article appears to be marketing material disguised as objective analysis. It selectively focuses on confirming examples, oversimplifies complex market dynamics, and makes specific predictions that exceed what can be reasonably supported by historical data alone.
While there is merit to watching the gold-to-silver ratio as one indicator among many, investors should approach the article's specific claims about a "Generational Wealth Zone" with appropriate skepticism and conduct broader research before making investment decisions based on this pattern alone.
The article also contains what appear to be inadvertently included email addresses and password references, suggesting it may be an early draft or improperly formatted marketing material.
Great article! I am old enough to remember when silver was money. I think a primary driver for silver will be the people who can't afford gold. My parents grew up during the Great Depression and left me with a lot of valuable lessons. Many people will be relearning those same lessons the hard way.
Thank you for commenting! 🙏 I think you are right, Gold is going to become unobtainable at future price levels, but once people realize Silver offers the same protection from inflation, they will rush into it. Hopefully, we can spread the word and help as many people as possible before they have to learn it the hard way!
Can we all hold hands and scream BOOOYAH?
https://kingcambo812.substack.com/p/fear-and-loathing-in-trader-hell-eee
Loving this enthusiasm booyah boom shakalaka baby! 🚀🚀🚀
Franny Hunt (Market Sniper) just about said this for the last few weeks, he sees the ratio going up to 170-1 before a major reversal. I'm really long 🥈, so I've been stacking small amounts of 🥇 for the last few months. I guess we will see what happens.
Thanks for commenting. Yes absolutely, it is possible... Francis is right (Francis is the man). Not a lot of people have pointed out these upper levels that I know of either. However, we can't confirm it until we get more information, we should have a direction sometime this summer through until August. 170 would be the second target after 126, and its right up there on a major trendline. That would be absolutely insane clown world if we get to 170.... I have a feeling something major breaks before that point. Let's see its definitely going to be interesting!
Below 30
I think so too! I think 1:30-40 is a relatively safe target. This might be the most severe market dislocation in the history of mankind. 5 years of supply deficits plus even more rehypothecation this time.
I know Wall Street are all long silver for their own books, but anyone shorting if gets to a ratio of 30/40-1 is going to have a spiritual moment, I'm not talking backdoor FED bailout here, I'm talking existential threat to the financial system.
I I I Ok
Any luck w your X account? Or do you have a backup to follow?
Thanks for asking, unfortunately no word yet from X, I sent them a message to appeal my account suspension. I am hoping people can still find my work on here, maybe I get lucky, and somebody shares this to X.
I am not sure how eager I will be to go back on to X after this poor service/treatment. I may just stick with substack going forward. Let's see
Yeah. I hear you. It's upsetting to see the same things happening under the old regime happening under this one. Several of the larger accounts have been voicing that they get swarmed w botted community notes. There seems to be a major issue there. Once they find you, a larger account can get some help. Smaller accounts don't have that luxury.
It was bad timing too I was starting to get a lot of momentum on X, although I could sense the reach getting crushed for a lot of my posts on politics/metals. I have faith everything happens for a reason, so I am not too worried. I am going to write an article about it next. Thanks again for your support 🙏🏻👍🏻
As long as I have a place to follow I will! Love your stuff.
I'll analyze this article in detail, examining its historical claims about the gold-to-silver ratio and evaluating the merit of its statements from an objective perspective.
Analysis of "Silver's 100:1 Ratio Threshold" Article
Overview
The article, published by "Grey Rabbit Finance" on May 1, 2025, presents a historical analysis of the gold-to-silver ratio, focusing on periods when this ratio exceeded 100:1. It claims these extreme ratio events represent significant investment opportunities, particularly for purchasing silver.
Historical Claims Analysis
Claim 1: Gold-to-Silver Ratio During the Great Depression & WWII
The article states the ratio peaked at approximately 99:1 in September 1939, coinciding with the beginning of World War II.
Historical Context Verification:
The article correctly notes that the U.S. abandoned the gold standard in 1933 under Roosevelt's Gold Reserve Act, which fixed gold at $35 per ounce and restricted private ownership.
The claim about silver prices falling to about $0.25 per ounce by 1932 appears generally accurate based on historical data.
The ratio calculation seems plausible given gold's fixed price and silver's decline during this period.
Accuracy of Aftermath Claims:
The article claims silver prices increased to $0.90-$1.00 per ounce by the early 1940s (with some reports noting $1.10-$1.25).
This is broadly consistent with historical records showing silver price increases during WWII due to industrial demand.
The claim of 150-250% returns by 1942 for investors who swapped gold for silver in 1939 is mathematically possible based on these price movements.
Claim 2: Gold-to-Silver Ratio During COVID-19
The article states the ratio peaked at 125:1 in March 2020.
Historical Context Verification:
This claim is accurate. In March 2020, the gold-to-silver ratio did reach approximately 125:1, the highest in modern history.
The article correctly identifies the causes: industrial activity declined sharply (affecting silver demand) while gold benefited from safe-haven flows.
Silver indeed dropped to around $12/oz while gold remained relatively stronger.
Accuracy of Aftermath Claims:
The article claims silver staged a 150% rebound in 5 months (from $12 to $30/oz).
This price movement is broadly accurate, though the $30 figure represents the peak rather than a sustained price.
The ratio did collapse back toward 70:1 as claimed.
Claim 3: Current Situation (May 2025)
The article claims the ratio sits near 101:1 as of May 2025.
Verification:
I cannot verify this claim as it refers to a future date from my knowledge cutoff (October 2024).
The article's claim about the current ratio entering a "Generational Wealth Zone" is speculative rather than historical.
Critical Analysis of Investment Claims
Strengths of the Article's Arguments:
Historical Accuracy: The basic historical events and price movements are generally accurate.
Pattern Recognition: The article correctly identifies that extreme gold-to-silver ratios have preceded significant rebounds in silver prices.
Fundamental Drivers: The article reasonably connects silver's price movements to both monetary and industrial demand factors.
Weaknesses and Potentially Misleading Elements:
Selection Bias: The article focuses only on instances where the extreme ratio was followed by silver outperformance, potentially ignoring counterexamples.
Historical Context Oversimplification: While the basic facts are accurate, the article simplifies complex historical conditions to fit its investment narrative.
Natural Mean Reversion vs. Causation: The article may confuse correlation with causation. Extreme ratios may simply represent statistical outliers that naturally revert to the mean.
Marketing Elements: The article contains email addresses and subscription prompts, suggesting it's primarily marketing material designed to promote the author's services or publications.
Future Predictions: The technical analysis section makes specific price predictions that cannot be evaluated objectively and appear to be speculation rather than historical analysis.
Lack of Risk Discussion: The article emphasizes potential rewards without adequately addressing risks or timeframes for ratio normalization.
Cherry-Picked Historical Average: The article mentions a 5,000-year average of 15:1, but this largely reflects when both metals were used as currency under bimetallic standards. The modern economic context is quite different.
Conclusion
The article contains some historically accurate information about the gold-to-silver ratio during major economic events. Its basic premise that extreme gold-to-silver ratios have preceded silver price recoveries is supported by historical evidence in the cases presented.
However, the article appears to be marketing material disguised as objective analysis. It selectively focuses on confirming examples, oversimplifies complex market dynamics, and makes specific predictions that exceed what can be reasonably supported by historical data alone.
While there is merit to watching the gold-to-silver ratio as one indicator among many, investors should approach the article's specific claims about a "Generational Wealth Zone" with appropriate skepticism and conduct broader research before making investment decisions based on this pattern alone.
The article also contains what appear to be inadvertently included email addresses and password references, suggesting it may be an early draft or improperly formatted marketing material.