news – Page 22847

Crony Capitalists of Craft Beer: New at Reason

Craft breweries can lose credibility with some beer aficionados when they turn to bigger companeis to finance growth, but not when they turn to taxpayer money. What gives?

Jacob Grier explains:

Even the brewers one might least expect it from have accepted public assistance. Take BrewDog, the Scottish brewery that relentlessly promotes its punk credentials at every turn, from the name of their flagship “Punk IPA” to the extremely low-alcohol “Nanny State” beer they cheekily released in response to complaints that their strong beers encouraged excessive drinking. “The independent, anti-authoritarian spirit, which is punk’s greatest legacy, needs to be ingrained into your entire business approach,” advises BrewDog co-founder James Watt in his recent book Business for Punks, which features chapter titles like “Make banks your bitch” and “Don’t waste time on bullshit business plans.”

“Take a DIY approach and learn the skills you need to survive and build your business,” Watt continues. “Don’t depend on anyone for anything.” But elsewhere in the book, Watt advises hitting up local governments for money

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1SgEu1u
via IFTTT

Pro-Palestinian Activists Shout Down Jerusalem Mayor’s Speech at San Francisco State University

When it comes to political activism regarding Heckler's Veto Israel/Palestine on American college campuses, ideological combatants on both sides often fail to respect the right of those with whom they disagree to have their fair say.

Last month, the University of California (UC) voted to include anti-Zionism (broadly defined as opposition to the idea that Israel is the rightful national homeland of the Jewish people) as a form of banned “intolerant expression,” and last week a bipartisan group of New York lawmakers demanded that the City University of New York (CUNY) ban the pro-Palestinian group Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) from its campuses, alleging that SJP’s activism had contributed to a climate of violence and intimidation against Jewish students.

In both instances, the evidence that pro-Palestinian political activism is responsible for violence is flimsy at best, but the consequence of such reactions is an environment on college campuses where the freedom to engage in robust and impassioned political speech is chilled.

But that doesn’t mean pro-Palestinian activists always respect others’ right to free expression. Just yesterday, activists “aligned” with SJP shouted down Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat’s attempt to give a speech at San Francisco State University, where he made a stop on a brief tour of US college campuses sponsored by the Jewish student group, Hillel.

A member of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing Likud Party, Barkat supports a “united Jerusalem” in Israeli hands. Since Israelis and Palestinians both consider Jerusalem to be their capital, such a sentiment combined with the increase of Israeli settlements in the largely Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem are considered by many to be a huge impediment to the rebooting of any legitimate peace process.

A few minutes into his address, Barkat was forced to abandon the podium as SJP-affiliated protesters chanted things like “Free, Free Palestine,” “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” and “Intifada!”

After the majority of the audience cleared out, Barkat sat among the few dozen students and teachers who remained and tried to resume his speech, while the activists congregated in the back of the room, continuing to shouting and chant in the hopes that even the truncated audience wouldn’t be able to hear the speaker they came to see.

Aruta Sheva reports, “Campus and city police were called, yet they stood idly by, allowing the unruly protesters to drown out the mayor’s address.”

The mayor’s support of a “united Jerusalem” deeply offends advocates of the Palestinian cause, but the idea that “Palestine” consists of the land “from the river to the sea” surely offends Israelis and their supporters, as the river to the sea encapsulates both the Palestinian territories and the state of Israel. Both sides can claim that each of these ideas de-legitimizes the rightful existence of the other.

Following yesterday’s incident, San Francisco Hillel released a statement reading in part:

There is a concerning trend that college campuses are not spaces where diverse viewpoints are tolerated. Recently, we have seen acts of outright hostility and physical aggression when one person did not agree with the views of another on campus.

This characterization is true, but it is not confined to pro-Palestinian activism. As Reason‘s Robby Soave reported last December, the mere act of hanging a Palestinian flag in a dorm room window was deemed “disrespectful” to the George Washington University campus community, and the offending standard was ordered removed (watch an accompanying video report of this incident below).

Advocates on each side of this complicated and ongoing international crisis frequently push a self-identity of victimhood as a rationale for shutting down their adversaries’ ability to be heard on college campuses.

But though their tactics differ, their intent dovetails quite often. The “other’s” point of view is too dangerous to be considered, and must silenced.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1oGfc5B
via IFTTT

Are The Saudis And Russians Deliberately Sabotaging Doha?

Submitted by Rakesh Upadhyay via OilPrice.com,

The actions and intentions of Saudi Arabia and Russia – the two largest oil-producing nations attending the Doha meeting on 17 April – have dashed all hopes of any fruitful outcome. The most important meeting of the last three decades, which has promised to forge new friendships and a new cartel, is turning out to be the biggest farce, even before the curtain is raised.

All of this undermines the efforts of the smaller nations, which were hopeful of a production freeze from the meeting.

Instead, we’re looking at Russia, whose oil production is now at a 30-year high after the nation produced 10.91 million barrels per day (bpd) in March, according to Reuters. In fact, these output figures are second only to the record 11.47 million bpd Russia produced in 1987.

Saudi Arabia is also firmly back on its non-committal path, saying that it will go along with the production freeze if everyone else does, including Iran—of which there is no chance. Saudi Arabia’s deputy crown prince Mohammed bin Salman on 1 April told Bloomberg: "If all countries agree to freeze production, we’re ready. If there is anyone that decides to raise their production, then we will not reject any opportunity that knocks on our door.”

According to a report by Helima Croft, global head of commodity strategy at RBC Capital markets, the five nations shown on the chart below are at the maximum risk of a major crisis due to lower oil prices.

The chart shows the oil price levels required by respective nations to survive. “Our ‘fragile five’ states…were already facing severe political and security challenges when oil prices were above $100/bbl and the situation has grown far more grim as these countries have struggled to fund their state apparatuses and provide essential services,” the Financial Post quoted Croft as saying.

(Click to enlarge)

While oil ministers from Venezuela, Nigeria and other smaller producers have said that they are still hopeful that an agreement will be reached in Doha, Ecuador's Oil Minister has gone a step ahead; he plans to meet his counterparts in Mexico and Columbia to extract a commitment from them to support the production freeze.

Similarly, Kuwait's OPEC governor Nawal Al-Fuzaia not only expects an agreement, but she has also predicted that Brent crude is likely to rise to $45 to $60 per barrel (b), in the second half of the year and remain in that range until 2018.

Compare the above statements from the smaller nations, which are pro-production freeze, to the larger producers who actually matter. The difference in the approach to the meeting is very visible.

In a five-hour long Bloomberg interview, Saudi Prince Salman said, “If all countries including Iran, Russia, Venezuela, OPEC countries and all main producers decide to freeze production, we will be among them," emphasizing that Iran had to be part of the agreement.

He went on to say, "I don’t believe that the decline in oil prices poses a threat to us, for us it’s a free market that is governed by supply and demand and this is how we deal with the market."

Iranian Oil Minister Bijan Zanganeh countered by rubbishing the idea of Iran agreeing to a production freeze. Iran, he said, will continue to increase production and exports until it achieves pre-sanction output levels, as reported by semi-official Mehr news agency.

Considering that five OPEC nations are on the brink of a disaster and Iran and Saudi Arabia are at each other’s throats, it looks like we will not have an OPEC anymore by the time this oil crisis ends.

While Saudi Arabia and Iran are still commenting against the production freeze, Russia has sprung into action and increased production to a 30-year high. Forget reaching an agreement—if the meeting ends without a squabble, all the members should be happy.

The recent announcements from Saudi Arabia outlining the plan to create a $2 trillion fund to reduce dependency on oil and reports of austerity plans indicate that the Kingdom is not taking the Doha meeting seriously. It also seems to be sending a message to the others that it will not buckle under any sort of pressure, and it is readying its Plan B.

The Doha meeting will turn out to be a total disaster and the sentiment will be further damaged if the participating members don’t release a common statement. Forget about the production freeze. Listen carefully, Bears can be heard sharpening their claws ahead of the meeting.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/23lXnby Tyler Durden

S&P 500 Slammed Back Into Red For 2015

Joining its Small Cap (Russell 2000) and Tech (Nasdaq) peers, the S&P 500 just plunged back into the red for the year after desperately clinging to it for 3 weeks…

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1NbwQ7A Tyler Durden

VIX Soars Most In 3 Months Following Record Plunge – What Happens Next?

With VIX soaring today by the most in 3 months, it is time once again to remind readers of the after-effects of yuuge VIX deflations…

Via Dana Lyons' Tumblr,

The S&P Volatility Index recently dropped at a record pace off of its February highs; is this good news or bad news for stocks?

This chart and post are a few weeks late in coming because, frankly, we totally missed this. Thanks to a recent Barron’s publication, however, we became aware of the following statistic: in the 25 days subsequent to the February low in stocks/high in volatility (ending on March 18), the S&P 500 Volatility Index (VIX) saw its largest ever decline over that time frame, dropping precisely 50% (technically, the aftermath of the 1987 crash saw a bigger drop, but the VIX calculation was a bit different then – so we’re going to stick with the *record* label).

Honestly, we missed this milestone because it is a complete surprise to us. It really doesn’t seem like we just witnessed the greatest ever collapse in volatility – but the statistics don’t lie. This was the first time (outside of 1987) the VIX had ever fallen by 50% in a 25-day span – though, there were a few other close calls over the past 30 years. For research purposes, we loosened the criteria a bit to see what lessons might be learned by previous events.

Thus, taking a look at VIX drops of at least 40% yields 12 other (unique) occurrences since 1986:

So, indeed, what can be gleaned, if anything, from these events? Well, instinctively, we’d be inclined to view the development as a bullish one for stocks. From looks at VIX declines in previous posts, including last July and October, we know that, in general (but not always), sharp declines in the VIX from elevated levels tend to be bullish for stocks in the intermediate to longer-term.

Looking at the performance of the S&P 500 following the prior 12 40% declines yields the following aggregate statistics:

After the first few weeks following the VIX drops, we can see that the returns have been pretty good for stocks, particularly in the longer-term. Furthermore, these statistics pertain to the VIX and S&P 500 status as of March 18. Thus, we are already beyond the rocky first couple of weeks.

All is not necessarily roses, however. One potential caveat (beyond the rocky short-term performance) pertains to the prevailing secular market cycle. If you’ll note on the chart, the first 7 incidents occurred during the secular bull market of the 1980′s-1990′s. Unsurprisingly, returns for those dates beyond 1-month were almost unanimously spectacular. On the other hand, the next 5 occurrences took place during the post-2000 secular bear market (our view is that it is still in effect). These incidents were not without some tribulations in the intermediate-term. Consider the 6-month drawdowns following the last 5 signals:

12/26/2008: -22.5%
4/20/2011: -17.4%
10/28/2011: -9.8%
11/17/2014: -3.4%
10/7/2015: -8.4%

That may not be enough evidence to overwhelm the bullish ramifications of this signal. However, it does at least give a little pause in issuing the all-clear sign here.

All-in-all, the rapid retreat in the VIX should be a positive factor for stocks in the intermediate-term. However, considering the track record of recent signals, don’t be surprised to see the stock market experience some deflation itself along the way.

* * *

More from Dana Lyons, JLFMI and My401kPro.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/25NFVPr Tyler Durden

A Conservative Wish List of SCOTUS Replacements Shows the Influence of the Libertarian Legal Movement

The U.S. Supreme Court is on the verge of a major shake-up. When the next president takes office in January 2016, the Court will have three members whose respective ages make retirement (or death) a genuine possibility during that president’s first term. Those justices are Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who will be 83 in January, Anthony Kennedy, who will be 80, and Stephen Breyer, who will be 78. And then of course there is the vacancy created by the recent death of Antonin Scalia. If the current GOP opposition to Obama nominee Merrick Garland continues to hold, the next president may well end up replacing Scalia as well.

Let’s assume the next president is a Republican. What sort of SCOTUS nominee can we expect from a GOP-controlled White House? As it happens, the Heritage Foundation, an influential Washington think tank with deep ties to the Republican Party, has just released a wish list of eight names that “illustrates the kind of highly qualified, principled individuals the new president should consider.” At the very least, we can expect any Republican presidential candidate (not to mention his advisers) to give serious thought to these suggestions. Here’s the list, as compiled by John G. Malcom, the director of Heritage’s Ed Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies:

William Pryor Jr. (Judge, 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals)

Diane Sykes (Judge, 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals)

Steven Colloton (Judge, 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals)

Raymond Gruender (Judge, 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals)

Brett Kavanaugh (Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit)

Don Willett (Justice, Texas Supreme Court)

Paul Clement (43rd solicitor general of the United States, currently in private practice)

Mike Lee (U.S. Senator, Utah)

It’s an interesting group. One name that certainly stands out is Sen. Mike Lee. The last time a president named a senator to the Supreme Court was 1938, when Franklin Roosevelt gave the nod to former Klansman and reliable New Dealer Hugo Black. Black went on to have a massive impact—for better and for worse—on the course of 20th century constitutional law.

It’s not difficult to imagine Senate Republicans throwing their support behind Lee, a well-liked colleague. The real question is whether any Senate Democrats would cross the line. Given Lee’s sharp criticism of N.S.A. spying, as well as his support for criminal justice reform, it’s at least possible that one or more liberal-minded Senators might give him some degree of support.

But the name that really jumps out from the list is Justice Don Willett of the Texas Supreme Court. Willett has excellent conservative credentials (he’s also wonderful on Twitter). Willett worked in the George W. Bush Administration’s Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, served as counsel to Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott (the current governor), and was appointed to the state’s highest court by Gov. Rick Perry.

Willett also happens to be extremely popular in libertarian legal circles, particularly for his powerful concurring opinion in the 2015 case of Patel v. Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation, in which that court struck down a preposterous occupational licensing scheme. “This case is fundamentally about the American Dream and the unalienable human right to pursue happiness without curtsying to government on bended knee,” Willett wrote. “It is about whether government can connive with rent-seeking factions to ration liberty unrestrained, and whether judges must submissively uphold even the most risible encroachments.” (I’m happy to add that Willett cited my book in this opinion.)

Thirty years ago it would have been practically unthinkable for the Heritage Foundation to put someone who had written something like that on its SCOTUS short list. Why? Because the conservative legal establishment at that point in time was overwhelmingly hostile to the judicial protection of economic liberty on the grounds that such Lochner-esque behavior by the courts amounted to warrantless “judicial activism.” For example, in 1984 then-Judge Antonin Scalia urged conservatives and libertarians to adopt a thoroughgoing posture of judicial deference in all cases pertaining to economic regulation and to forgo any efforts to persuade the courts to correct “whatever evils may have accrued from undue judicial abstention in the economic field.”

Fast forward to the present and we suddenly find none other than the Heritage Foundation, an organization that sits at the commanding heights of the conservative establishment, openly praising Justice Willett for his judicial action on behalf of “the ability to earn a living free from unreasonable government restraints.” Needless to say, Willett’s approach is the opposite of the “judicial abstention” championed by Scalia and his fellow conservative advocates of deference, including conservative legal icon Robert Bork.

What this tells me is that the libertarian legal movement is slowly but surely refocusing the national debate over constitutional law and the proper role of the courts. The Scalia-Bork approach is no longer the only game in town and an increasing number of conservative legal activists are giving the libertarian alternative a serious look.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1SD7ZLD
via IFTTT

Will the LP Please Nominate Gary Johnson Already & Crack Double Digits in 2016?

In a recent Monmouth University poll that asked people who’d they vote for in a three-way race among Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and the Libertarian Party (LP) candidate from 2012, 11 percent said they’d flip the switch for Gary Johnson (42 percent went for Clinton and 34 percent for Trump).

That poll might have been a fluke—or it might just demonstrate the depth of anti-Clinton and anti-Trump sentiments. But Gary Johnson, who served two terms as the Republican governor of New Mexico, also got 1.2 million votes (around 1 percent of the total) in the last presidential race.

He’s well-spoken, has a track record, and an interesting life story. Among other highlights, he’s climbed the highest peak on seven continents, does long-form triathlons, and is refreshingly open about his pot smoking; he’s about the only baby boomer I’d ever vote for.

In a new Daily Beast column, I argue that Johnson may also be the only thing between us and a real-life reenactment of the infamous 2004 South Park episode, “Douche and Turd,” in which the show’s kids are forced to pick between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich as a new school mascot.

Johnson has his problems, to be sure. As John Stossel has noted, he can be, well, a little sleepy, “as if he is high on weed.” On his eponymous Fox Business show last week, Stossel aired the first half of a Libertarian Party candidates’ debate, in which Johnson squared off against anti-virus software guru and man-of-international-intrigue John McAfee and activist Austin Petersen. The gov basically finished third, and stumbled with answers to questions like the old chestnut, “Should a Jewish baker be forced to bake a Nazi wedding cake?” Earlier this year, when announcing his run for the LP nom, he told Reason he would ban the burqa and other Islamic face coverings before quickly walking it back. Derp.

And yet…I followed him around the campaign trail in 2012 and even saw him bring a crowd of 500 or so at the University of Cincinnati to their feet near the end of the election season. When he’s on, he can sell the libertarian alternative like few others. I’m not a member of the LP, though I’ve voted for its candidate in every presidential election since 1988. Here’s some free advice from an interested observer (and needless to say, my views don’t represent those of Reason Foundation or any other writers who appear at Reason.com):

This much seems certain: The Libertarian Party will go the farthest in 2016 with Gary Johnson at the top of its ticket. If this is the winter of our electoral discontent, American voters still aren’t so pissed off that novices such as McAfee, whose gnomic invocations of libertarian dogma and piercing eyes can be quite beguiling, or Petersen, no matter how much “pussy” he’s swimming in, are capable of reaching anything like the 11 percent that Johnson has already registered.

The LP meets in Orlando in May to pick its presidential candidate and, even assuming Johnson regains the form that earned him 1.2 million votes in 2012, there’s still a non-trivial chance that the party faithful may dump him in favor of somebody less capable. In the past, after all, the LP has chosen candidates who eschew driver’s licenses and any possibility of electoral success.

But if the party does back Johnson, and he does get his act together, and Hillary and The Donald go after each other like Adams and Jefferson once did…well, let’s just say it will be the most entertaining election this side of South Park. Except that this time, there will be an actual third choice that might actually represent the plurality of American voters who are socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

UK Prime Minister Admits He Had A Stake In His Father’s Offshore Trust

It took about 48 hours for Iceland’s prime minister to lose his job over his involvement in the Panama Papers scandal, a move which may or may not have led to the early release of three of Iceland’s criminal bankers early after serving just one year of their 5 year sentences. But Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson may not be the only casualty: the tax haven scandal may have just set its sights on a far more prominent target, following a story by ITV in which UK prime minister David Cameron admits he did have a stake in his father’s offshore trust.

Considering the media spectacle in the UK press “exposing” Putin’s offshore affairs, we wonder if they will target the UK prime minister’s potential involvement as assiduously?

From ITV:

David Cameron admits he did have a stake in his father’s offshore trust

David Cameron and his wife owned shares in the Panamanian trust set up by his late father, before selling them for around £30,000 in 2010, he has told ITV News.

The prime minister made the revelations about his involvement with the offshore fund set up by his father Ian – exposed in the Panana Papers – in an interview with Political Editor Robert Peston.

Mr Cameron said he made a profit on around 5,000 units the couple owned in Blairmore Investment Trust, but insisted the money was subjected to UK tax rules.

He also divulged details of his £300,000 inheritance and said recent criticism of his father was “unfair”.

The Conservative leader was dragged into the the Panama Papers scandal after leaked documents from law firm Mossack Fonseca included details of a multi-million-pound offshore firm set up by his father.

Downing Street has been forced to issue four statements on the matter, initially saying it was a “private matter” whether the Cameron family still had funds in offshore investments, before stating they “do not benefit from any offshore funds” and there are none they will benefit from in the future.

Today the prime minister told ITV News: “We owned 5,000 units in Blairmore Investment Trust, which we sold in January 2010. That was worth something like £30,000.

“I paid income tax on the dividends. There was a profit on it but it was less than the capital gains tax allowance so I didn’t pay capital gains tax. But it was subject to all the UK taxes in all the normal way.

“I want to be as clear as I can about the past, about the present, about the future, because frankly I don’t have anything to hide.”

Since the scandal was exposed there has been criticism of the arrangements under Blairmore, including of Mr Cameron’s father, and suggestions the prime minister only reached his position because of his privileged upbringing.

Mr Cameron said he received a £300,000 inheritance from his father when he died.

“I obviously can’t point to every source of every bit of the money and dad’s not around for me to ask the questions now,” he said.

“In all of this I’ve never hidden the fact that I’m a very lucky person who had wealthy parents, who gave me a great upbringing, who paid for me to go to an amazing school. I have never tried to pretend to be anything I am not.

“But I was keen in 2010 to sell everything – shares, all the rest of it – so I can be very transparent. I don’t own any part of any company or any investment trust or anything else like that.”

The prime minister admitted it had been “a difficult few days” hearing criticism of his father and said much of it was based on a “misconception” that Blairmore was set up to avoid tax.

“It wasn’t,” he said. “It was set up after exchange controls went so that people who wanted to invest in dollar denominated shares and companies could do so.”

Mr Cameron added: “There are many other unit trusts like it, and I think it’s being unfairly described and my father’s name is being unfairly written about.”

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has said it is in the prime minister’s “own interests” to disclose details of his family’s arrangements with offshore tax havens.

Mr Corbyn said he wanted an investigation conducted by Revenue and Customs “about the amount of money of all people that have invested in these shell companies or put money into tax havens and to calculate what tax they should have paid over the years”.

Labour MP Jess Phillips branded Ian Cameron’s tax arrangements “utterly disgusting“.

Source: ITV

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1ST3cIw Tyler Durden

How The ECB Trapped Itself In A “Catch 22”

With speculation of helicopter money in Europe spreading like wildfire, here is a simple summary of how the ECB may have no choice but to go with the “final solution” and engage the “chopper” for one simple reason: by pushing bond yields lower, the ECB is now actively impairing the functioning of Europe’s banks, and it’s getting to the point where European bank stocks are now back to crisis lows, leading to questions about their viability. Here is the explanation courtesy of DB’s Jim Reid.

It is fair to say that markets have for a long time exhibited Stockholm syndrome tendencies towards central bank policies – loving the fact that things were so bad that they had to act so aggressively. However they have been rebelling of late especially in Europe and Japan. As we highlighted yesterday its 4 weeks today since Draghi fired his quadruple bazooka and as we also remarked yesterday assets that might have been expected to benefit have been laggards on a global scale since. European banks (-9.1%), the FTSE-MIB (-5.3%) and IBEX (-3.8%) are down notably since the package was announced.

With the recent underperformance of banks one wonders how important their health is to the European economy. Is a weak banking sector holding back the European economy? It probably is as the monetary policy transmission mechanism can’t work effectively without them. But is QE and ultra low yields actually perversely holding back the banks and thus the economy? Interestingly in their latest bank piece our European equity sector analysts suggested that one of the key upside risks were higher rates and one of the the key downside risks was persistently low inflation & QE extension.

So the banks team would seemingly like to see higher yields and less QE for banks to perform. The graph [below] arguably supports this as since December there has been a very strong correlation between 10 year bund yields and the Euro bank equity index. The lower yields go the weaker banks are and visa-versa. However the question mark is whether you could actually have a stable financial system without QE and ultra low borrowing costs.

So maybe banks and the European economy would be better off without QE and ultra low rates in theory but the reality might be that this would leave us with much higher systemic risk. A catch-22 situation it seems to us.

Judging by Visco’s comments from this morning, to the ECB now too. But before celebrations over the demise of central planning commence, keep this in mind: instead of QE, what the ECB will attempt next (and last) is helicopter money. Because with helicopter money it is simple: it is no longer of “if it works” but “how much money to paradrop” in order to stimulate inflation. And stimulate it they will…

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1ST17wg Tyler Durden

Perth Mint Silver Coins Have Second Highest Monthly Demand

Perth Mint Silver Coins Have Second Highest Monthly Demand

The Perth Mint’s sales of silver coins and especially Silver Kangaroos surged again in March and saw the second highest levels of silver coin demand on record as silver buyers in the western world continue to accumulate silver at what they believe to be depressed silver prices.

perth_mint-silver

Silver stackers continued to accumulate silver coins and bars and the new silver nugget or kangaroo coins (1 oz and 5 oz) saw very high levels of demand.

To keep up with very robust global demand, The Perth Mint has produced 7.5 million Australian Kangaroo 1oz silver bullion coins since it was released less than 8 months ago.

The first Australian bullion coin to be made from 99.99% pure silver, the iconic release comes with an innovative authentication feature in the form of a micro-laser engraved letter ‘A’. Representing exceptional value for money, the coin has attracted attention from investors around the world for whom the press is currently running flat-out according to the Perth Mint themselves.

Bullion buyers continue to accumulate and see silver at below $16 per ounce as great value vis a vis gold ($1,225 per ounce), stocks and many other investments.