The metal that used to be money. And may quietly become it again.

Last week's piece on the bond market drew a heavy reply. The single most common ask, by a margin of roughly three to one, was a version of the same question. Fine, the macro setup is clear, the printing is coming, the history has rhymed before. But which scarce asset specifically. Which one would you cover next.

You asked for precious metals, and inside that you asked for the one the consensus has stopped looking at. So this week we are going to write about silver. Not gold. Silver. Gold has had its turn on the front of every financial paper for two years now, and that is exactly the problem with it as the answer to the question you are asking. The interesting trade is rarely the one already on the front page.

What follows is a short history of an asset that was money for three thousand years and then, inside about a century, was told it was not. It is also a look at what the gold-to-silver ratio is saying right now, why the metal is in a supply deficit that no central bank can keystroke away, and why a quiet remonetisation is exactly the kind of thing that tends to happen at moments like this one, after almost everyone has stopped expecting it.

Silver is a strange asset, and the strangeness is the trade.

For three thousand years it was money on every continent that ran an economy. Inside about a hundred years it was told to be a commodity. The metal did not change. The agreement did. The agreements that can be cancelled inside a century can be reinstated inside a year.

Silver is a strange asset. It has been money for roughly three thousand years, on every continent that ever ran an economy. It is the metal that paid the Roman legions, that filled the holds of the galleons sailing from Potosí, that the British Empire built its rupee on. The Hebrew word for silver, kesef, is the same as the word for money. The French word for money, argent, is just the chemist's name for the metal. The agreement that silver is money is older than nearly every other agreement in finance.

And then, inside about a century, the agreement was quietly cancelled. In 1873 the United States passed the Coinage Act, demonetising silver in a stroke that the populist William Jennings Bryan would later call the Crime of '73. Britain followed. India and China held on for a few more decades, then surrendered to the gold standard. By 1965, the United States had removed silver from its circulating coinage entirely. The metal that used to be the unit of account in half the world's pockets was reclassified, in the space of three generations, as an industrial commodity. Not money. Just metal.

The question worth sitting with is what changed. The metal did not change. Its properties, its conductivity, its resistance to corrosion, its scarcity in the crust, its divisibility, are the same as they were when the first denarius was struck. What changed was the agreement, and the agreement was changed by the same people, in roughly the same room, who would later print the paper that replaced it. The pen that rewrote money in 1873 is the same pen that crossed out gold convertibility in 1971. If you accept the argument from two weeks ago, that money is a record and the record is editable by whoever holds the pen, then what happened to silver is exactly what the pen does when given the chance. It edits out the units it cannot easily produce.

The cleanest piece of evidence that the demonetisation was political rather than physical is the gold-to-silver ratio. The ratio tells you how many ounces of silver one ounce of gold will buy. For most of recorded history that number sat somewhere between 12 and 16. It was around 12 under Hammurabi. It was 15 under the United States' first Coinage Act in 1792. It is roughly 85 this morning. The geological ratio of silver to gold in the earth's crust is closer to 8 to 1, and the ratio of new mine production today runs around 8 to 1 as well. There is no physical reason the price ratio should be five to ten times the natural ratio. There is only a monetary reason. Central banks hold gold on their balance sheets as a reserve asset. They do not hold silver. Gold is still, on the quiet, treated as money. Silver is not. The ratio is the price of that distinction.

The pressure is now arriving from two directions at the same time, and that is the part of the silver story almost nobody outside the metals desks is pricing properly. The first direction is the one we wrote about last week. The bond market is forcing the printing decision back onto the table. Every previous episode of central bank money creation at this scale, the Roman debasements, the assignat collapse, the Weimar inflation, the post-Bretton Woods unwind, has been followed by a remonetisation of metal. Gold gets the headlines because gold never left the official ledger. Silver, having been crossed off the ledger by the pen, gets remonetised the way it got demonetised, slowly at first, and then in a hurry. The 1970s, the last episode where the math reached the place it has reached again now, saw silver run from roughly two dollars an ounce to fifty. Gold, over the same window, ran from thirty-five to eight hundred and fifty. The ratio compressed from over forty to under twenty at the peak. The ratio always compresses when the printing accelerates. It is the cleanest signal in metals.

The second direction of pressure has no historical precedent. Silver is not just a former monetary asset. It is the most electrically conductive metal in the periodic table, and the energy transition has quietly turned that property into the binding constraint of two of the largest industrial buildouts of the decade. A standard photovoltaic solar panel uses roughly twenty grams of silver in its conductive paste. Global solar installations are now running at over five hundred gigawatts annually, and although the silver loading per watt has been falling, it has not been falling as fast as installations are rising. The Silver Institute's most recent figures put solar demand alone at over two hundred million ounces a year, up from under fifty million a decade ago, and rising. Every electric vehicle uses roughly twice the silver of an internal combustion vehicle, between twenty-five and fifty grams per car. Defence electronics, 5G infrastructure, medical applications, and high-end consumer electronics each take their share on top of that.

The result of two demand curves rising into a supply curve that cannot rise as fast is precisely what the textbook predicts. Silver has now run a supply deficit for six consecutive years. The deficit is being filled by drawing down above-ground inventories that were built up over previous decades when demand was lower. Those inventories are finite, and the rate at which they are being drawn down is, on the most careful published estimates, faster than the rate at which new mines can be permitted and brought into production. The lead time from a fresh silver discovery to a producing mine is, on average, somewhere between ten and fifteen years, longer in jurisdictions where the permitting environment has tightened. The supply response, in other words, is slower than the demand pull. The pen cannot quietly rewrite tonnes of silver in the ground, and the keystroke that creates a billion dollars of paper liquidity does not create an ounce of conductive metal.

What makes the current setup unusual, and worth a thousand words of your Monday morning, is that the monetary case and the industrial case are independent of each other. Either one, on its own, would justify a position. The monetary case rests on the bond-market trap we walked through last week, and on three thousand years of historical precedent that says the pen, when cornered, reaches for metal. The industrial case rests on the supply deficit data, which is being published openly by the Silver Institute and which the energy transition will not pause for. The interesting thing is what happens to the price when both bids arrive in the same market at the same time. They have not arrived together before. Not in the 1970s, when industrial silver demand was a fraction of today's. Not in 2011, when monetary fear briefly pushed the price near fifty dollars but industrial demand had not yet been transformed by the solar buildout. The setup that exists now exists for the first time.

None of this means a straight line up. Silver is famously volatile, more volatile than gold, and the path between today's price and a meaningful rerating is likely to include drawdowns that test the patience of anyone holding it. But the structural argument, the one that does not depend on getting the timing right, is simply that a metal which is in a real supply deficit, which is monetarily under-owned relative to its three thousand year history, and which is priced against gold at five to ten times its geological ratio, is the kind of asset that gets repriced sharply when the agreement holding the discount in place stops holding. The pen that demonetised silver in 1873 was not signed by a metallurgist. It was signed by a politician under fiscal pressure. The pens being held today are being held by people under the same kind of pressure, with the same kind of incentives, and they are running out of clean ways to use them. That is what makes silver the answer to last week's question. Not because it is glamorous. Not because the financial press is talking about it. Because it is one of the very few assets on a public exchange where two large, independent, structural bids are arriving in the same market at the same time, against a supply that nobody can keystroke into existence. Whether the rerating begins this quarter or next year is not the part we can predict. The part we can be reasonably certain of is that the conditions that produced silver's last great rerating were a subset of the conditions that exist today, and the conditions that exist today have one component, the industrial supply deficit, that has never been present before.

If today's briefing landed for you, here is where to read further on the site.

Unsubscribe

You are receiving this because you signed up at WallStreetLogic.com. Editorial content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. Featured company coverage is sponsored and disclosed accordingly.