Sprott Physical Silver Trust Announces Completion of its Follow-on Offering of Trust Units
Press Release: Sprott Physical Silver Trust – Wed, Nov 14, 2012 10:48 AM EST.. .
. TORONTO , Nov. 14, 2012 /CNW/ – Sprott Physical Silver Trust (the "Trust") (NYSE: PSLV / TSX: PHS.U), a trust created to invest and hold substantially all of its assets in physical silver bullion and managed by Sprott Asset Management LP (the "Manager"), today announced that it has completed its follow-on offering of 20,500,000 units of the Trust ("Units") at US$13.15 per Unit for gross proceeds of US$269,575,000 (the "Offering").
The Trust will use the net proceeds of the Offering to acquire physical silver bullion in accordance with the Trust’s objective and subject to the Trust’s investment and operating restrictions described in the prospectus related to the Offering. As of November 12, 2012 , the Trust has contracted to purchase a total of approximately 7.127 million troy ounces of physical silver bullion. Once the Trust has taken delivery of all the silver bullion, it will publish the serial numbers of all bars held by the Trust on its website. The net proceeds of the Offering per Unit were greater than 100% of the most recently calculated net asset value per Unit of the Trust prior to, or upon determination of, pricing of the Offering, as required under the trust agreement governing the Trust.
The Units are listed on the NYSE Arca and the Toronto Stock Exchange under the symbols "PSLV" and "PHS.U", respectively. The Offering was made simultaneously in the United States and Canada by underwriters led by Morgan Stanley and RBC Capital Markets in the United States and RBC Capital Markets and Morgan Stanley in Canada .
This news release does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy the Units, nor shall there be any sale of the Units in any state or jurisdiction in which such an offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to registration or qualification under the securities laws of any such jurisdiction.
SOURCE: Sprott Physical Silver Trust
Statistics: Posted by DIGGER DAN — Tue Nov 20, 2012 3:01 am
View full post on opinions.caduceusx.com
Mark Rutte, who is a key ally of Germany and the eurozone’s “hardliners” on financial discipline, has called an emergency cabinet meeting after budget talks collapsed at the weekend.
He is expected to resign today and announce snap elections, pushing yet another “core” eurozone country into political and economic uncertainty.
In France, early polls pointed to a victory of Francois Hollande in the first round of the presidential elections setting the stage for a run-off between the socialist challenger and incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy on May 6th. Mr Hollande has pledged to renegotiate the European fiscal pact that binds countries to a 3pc deficit limit by next year.
The “non-negotiable” fiscal pact, which was vetoed by David Cameron, triggered the collapse of the coalition government in the Netherlands.
Geert Wilders, the far-right leader, said he could not support the €16bn (£13bn) of cuts needed to meet the 3pc target. He wouldn’t allow Dutch citizens to “pay out of their pockets for the senseless demands of Brussels” he said.
“We don’t want to follow Brussels’ orders. We don’t want to make our retirees bleed for Brussels’ diktats,” he said.
Last week Fitch warned that the Netherlands faces a credit downgrade if it failed to deliver its austerity cuts or let political conflict disrupt economic management.
Traders are braced for another volatile week as uncertainty over debt reduction plans spreads to the eurozone’s northern core.
Hopes that the European Central Bank (ECB) will intervene and re-start its bond buying programme were doused by officials’ comments at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) meeting in Washington.
Luc Coene, member of the ECB’s governing council, told Bloomberg: “We have done what we can do so far within our mandate and within the possibilities we have. The only thing we could do is overstretch ourselves and then we would even lose the credibility we have at that moment.”
The mounting crisis in Spain and Italy has already exposed the eurozone’s rescue mechanisms as woefully under-resourced.
Christine Lagarde, the head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), secured $430bn (£266.7bn) of extra funds from members to create a “global firewall” against the debt crisis. However experts said it is not enough to reassure markets that the debt crisis can be contained. Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao yesterday warned the crisis “is not over” during a visit to Germany.
Meanwhile Argentina accused the IMF of focusing too much of its resources on the debt crisis. Economy Minister Hernan Lorenzino, who was also speaking in Washington, said “far too much effort and human and financial resources have been devoted” to solving the crisis at the expense of other countries.
Argentina is being ostracised by some IMF members following its repatriation of YPF-Repsol last week.
Statistics: Posted by yoda — Sun Apr 22, 2012 7:25 pm
View full post on opinions.caduceusx.com
Curbs in wheat exports have returned to the former Soviet Union after all in the form of unofficial curbs on Ukraine shipments, in face of dire prospects for the 2012 harvest, the US Department of Agriculture said.
Russia, the region’s top exporter, two weeks ago eased concerns over resuming its own trade curbs, in lifting to 27m tonnes, from 23m-25m tonnes, a ceiling for grain shipments this season.
However, Ukraine, once known as the breadbasket of the former Soviet Union, appears to have limited its own shipments by striking "non-official agreements" with state traders to focus on corn shipments instead, USDA officials said.
"Bureaucratic barriers and severe winter conditions–low temperatures, high winds and ice in the ports–have been identified as the main obstacles to exporting wheat," the USDA said.
"However, those hurdles have not impeded corn exports that gallop ahead at a pace unheard of before."
With Ukraine’s wheat stocks seen ending 2011-12 at twice average levels, "there seem to be no economic reasons" for the country’s exports of the grain lagging so far behind the historical pace.
"An unofficial lid has likely been applied to wheat exports," to protect supplies of a grain "expected to be in short supply next season following substantial damage to winter crops".
‘Does tick some boxes’
Indeed, such an agreement would boost the chances of Ukraine avoiding a wheat shortfall in 2012-13 even if autumn sowings, damaged by drought and extreme cold, emerge from winter in as poor shape as expected.
Mykola Azarov, the Ukraine prime minister, last week forecast that 3.5m acres of winter grains, more than 40% of the sown area, will be reseeded with spring crops.
And such an arrangement would also limit the chances of political fall-out, after exports quotas in 2010-11, and levies in the early months of this season, provoked criticism from international buyers and Ukrainian farmers.
"Politically, it does tick some boxes for Ukraine. But it also shows again the difficulties you are dealing with if you try to rely on Black Sea wheat for supplies," a UK grain trader told Agrimoney.com.
"It is often cheap. But some would say ‘cheap for a reason’.
Statistics: Posted by yoda — Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:30 am
View full post on opinions.caduceusx.com
Buffett Puts His Loose Change Where His Government-Kissing Mouth Is
By Gary Gibson Jan 19th, 2012
Enthusiastic tax shill Warren Buffett has put his money where his mouth is.
He’s ponied up $49,000 to help pay down the national debt. He’s simultaneously matching voluntary contributions already made by Rep. Scott Rigell of Virginia.
Yes, $49,000 to Mr. Buffett is the equivalent of 49 pennies to the rest of us (Mr. Buffett is a billionaire and most Americans are thousand-aires or hundred-aires at best, so this is actually pretty accurate).
Buffett had issued a challenge in Time Magazine recently in which he promised to match voluntary contributions for reduction of national debt made by all Republican members of Congress an impressive three for one.
The image below is of the actual letter from Warren to Scott.
Buffet claims that rich folks and politicians competing to see who could donate the most to the feds is a form of competition the American people would applaud?
A competition to see who can throw the most of their money down the grand canyon of federal government deficits? That’s worse than watching reality tv and finding out which sap can make the biggest ass of himself in front of millions of viewers.
And what sort of example is this setting? What is the message? That if any of us have any extra cash lying around you ought to send it to the government? The same government which already takes around 40% of your nominal income off the top? We suppose if wrapping foreign aggression and subjugation to a police state in patriotism works, then making this sort of inanity seem patriotic will work, too.
We know there are those who defend taxes no matter what. We hear these people on the radio, see them on political talk shows and read their words in print (mostly in the New York Times). A few of them regularly read this letter and send us notes to stop whining about paying our “fair share”.
Of course our own decidedly Austrian stance feeds our love or the agora, the market place, as the best use of all funds, including those funds we can no longer use because the government took them under pain of imprisonment and death…
We maintain in our free market zeal that all needs would be met and all goods and services improved upon via the free market far, far better than they could by taxation and central planning.
(We also call upon history to lighten our burden of proof. The more centralized the economy, the poorer and less sustainable it has been. The freest economy the world had ever seen has become poorer and poorer the more centralized it’s become.)
Many would even agree. To a point. Except for things like infrastructure, national defense, public safety and security. And education. And medical services. And retirement income.
Ah, see. That list can keep growing. But let’s pretend that most of us can agree on just infrastructure and national defense (the things that even many libertarians would let the feds handle). Do we really buy that the federal government needs nearly half of most of our incomes in order to maintain infrastructure and an army?
Most of us normally don’t question how much of our money disappears down the federal maw. Because it generally does no good. We accept that what we supposedly get in return – highways and not going to jail – makes those taxes money well stolen.
But what happens when the cry comes to give even more of our earnings voluntarily? Might not a few us wonder why the enormous chunk we’ve already been forced to part with proved to be not enough? Just what is happening to all that money? Why are the central government’s debt equal to the amount of money the private sector upon which it relies generates every year…while that private sector has already been handing over nearly half its income to the selfsame central government?
We’d warn Mr. Buffett that therein lies the danger in encouraging “voluntary” contributions. People might be willing to let the government take as much as the government decrees it legally can…
They may be willing to lie to themselves about how that legally stolen money is being used…because if they don’t pay it, they will surely lose their property and freedom. So they wrap themselves in a comfortable fable in order to blunt the psychological trauma. In this respect they are like the prison punk who after each episode of forced buggery tells himself that his rapist cellmate really actually loves him.
But suggest that what the government needs is the voluntary offering of as much more as possible…and then people might start wondering what they’re getting for their money. After all, in every other area of their lives when they voluntarily hand over their money, they get something in return, something that they value more than the money they just handed over.
It could be a cup of coffee, a sandwich, the use of a space for living or to conduct business, a car, a piano, or a laptop, repair of an existing item or building of a new one, performance of a song, and so on. But there was something that the money-giver wanted more than a given amount of money he had on hand. Thus the voluntary exchange was made.
Heck, it could even be an act of charity like the one Warren is trying to encourage among rich people and Republican Congresspersons. But even then the voluntary contributor commits a charitable act, he gets something he values more highly than the money he parts with: the sense of having helped someone far less fortunate than himself. It’s the same reason he would give to a relative or other loved one in need. And – this is very important — we assumed that he’d want the money to be used responsibly, and not enable the recipient to remain eternally dependent.
Note that Mr. Buffett has sheltered the bulk of his billions in a charitable foundation, sheltered from federal tax. Even Mr. Buffett feels that this sort of charity is a better way to give the vast majority of his money away. Else he would have taken those billions out of the foundation and handed it over to the Treasury. He could have added this to any amount he’d match from Republicans who met his challenge.
But it’s not like the federal government is some hard luck case who deserves our sympathy and help. If it were a person, the federal government would be the guy in a natty suit, who comes to your store every few weeks to collect “protection” money from you. He would then use that protection money to keep his favorite prostitutes well fed and happy and to make turf war on the other guys running protection rackets.
Further, this shameless gangster would also be hopelessly indebted because of an impressive gambling habit! Never mind that the protection racket he’s running is a scam at gunpoint…He’s simply a horrible credit risk!
So here is the message:
“Help our government stop having to be in constant debt for its worldwide military presence (among other outright destructive redistributions). Give them more than they already demand from you.”
That’s right, citizen. Forget buying patriotic war bonds. In times like these, lending the government your savings isn’t enough. You ought to give the money and never ask for it back. We’ll start by asking the rich.
Granted, Mr. Buffett is only asking this sacrifice of those who actually have significant amounts of money left to spare. We suppose it’s assumed that “the rich” have tons of money that they’re not putting to good use, even after gold-plating their billion-dollar mansions. So why not throw it at the debts the government has run up?
Further he’s issued his challenge to Congressional politicians, people who draw paychecks from the government credit card.
But there are plenty of “progressive” thinking people who applaud the example Mr. Buffett is supposedly setting. Entire Web sites are devoted to garnering support for a Buffett-inspired increase in taxes on “the wealthy”.
We’d recommend all income earners who aren’t already at Mr. Buffett’s level of wealth to be very wary of this. The federal income tax itself started as a tiny burden on only the richest in the U.S. Within a century it grew to consume nearly half the income of the middle class as well. The truly wealthy, meanwhile, managed to find ways to shelter most of their money from the income tax after setting the initial example and bearing the initial burden.
Mr. Buffett even uses this point to make his own…that the situation must be re-addressed so that they wealthy are once again paying their “fair share”. We note with dismay that the first attempt to soak the rich via the IRS resulted, over time, in those of us making anything above subsistence wages having to fork over half our earnings to the feds.
Not that we think anything particularly sinister is at work here. Though we do find it less than coincidental that this $49,000 show of support comes the day after a popular uprising against wholesale federal-corporate control of the Internet.
Maybe Mr. Buffett really is a paid shill, but we suspect that he’s more likely simply an enthusiastic one. He believes. For all his financial and investing acumen, Mr. Buffett rests his economic understanding on some faulty foundations. Like we said, he believes. He honestly believes that money generated privately ought to be then funneled through the central planners to find its best use.
Those who get excited about Mr. Buffett’s suggestions and find inspiration in his example also imagine that the federal government would do a better job with the money…that the federal debt as it stands is just a matter of bad luck and not the inevitable result of economic law (As sure as gravity causes objects with mass to be attracted to each other, money stolen by elected officials at gunpoint will allocate resources worse than private interests working under pressure of profit and loss).
You can’t really argue with someone who would say these things. Well, you could, but you’d be wasting your time and theirs. It’s like the old joke. Don’t try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
It’s not a matter of facts for the facts support liberty and free markets if you want to abolish poverty and raise standards of living across the world. It’s a matter of philosophy. Just as it is hard to argue about the nuances of evolutionary biology to a fundamentalist holding his holy text, it is equally hard to talk to a true believer in central planning about why the nuances of human freedom and free markets to improve everything…and why they shouldn’t so enthusiastically hand the central planners their money.
Statistics: Posted by yoda — Fri Jan 20, 2012 9:04 pm
View full post on opinions.caduceusx.com
Americans living in Canada are getting some welcome relief from a U.S. hunt for tax cheats.
Still waiting for a reprieve are Canadian financial institutions, which will soon have to start tracking the citizenship of millions of account holders to identify their American customers.
The U.S. Internal Revenue Service warned last week that it will miss a year-end deadline to produce draft rules as it gears up for the controversial new tax regime, set to come into force in 2014.
The IRS is facing a barrage of criticism from financial institutions in Canada and Europe. Canada has complained that implementing the new IRS regime, mandated by the 2010 Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, will be hugely costly, dangerously extraterritorial and run afoul of privacy laws.
IRS commissioner Douglas Shulman acknowledged the international backlash in a speech last week, saying foreign financial institutions have “major concerns.” He vowed to “work through these tricky issues in a practical fashion.”
Concerns may be an understatement. European financial institutions are in full revolt. Several major banks, including HSBC, Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse and Commerzbank, are already dropping U.S. customers, rather than comply with FATCA.
Canadian financial institutions, whose U.S. clients are typically dual citizens, remain justifiably uneasy. The law essentially enlists them as IRS spies, strong-arming them into joining the cause under threat of a punitive tax on their U.S. subsidiaries.
It’s not a coincidence the issue didn’t come up when Prime Minister Stephen Harper and U.S. President Barack Obama met earlier this month to unveil the Beyond the Border trade and security deal. FATCA isn’t the kind of information-sharing the leaders wanted to talk about.
The law could impede trade by making it more difficult for financial institutions to operate in both countries. Canadians and Americans working in each others’ countries will increasingly have trouble finding financial institutions willing to serve them.
The United States has offered scant evidence that its the heavy-handed approach will result in significant unreported taxes.
A global banking organization has estimated that complying with FATCA will cost nearly as much over the next decade as any extra taxes the U.S. collects in this sweep. Major financial institutions, such as Canada’s big banks, could each face bills of $100-million as they reprogram computer systems and introduce new paperwork to help the IRS track Americans.
Financial institutions are quietly frustrated that the delay in releasing draft rules isn’t giving them enough time to prepare.
The Canadian Bankers Association is already ramping up for FATCA, recently posting a Q&A on its website to help Canadians prepare for what’s coming. But even the CBA acknowledges the guidance could change at any time.
And there’s no indication Washington is backing down on the main thrust of the crackdown. The U.S. appears intent to create the world’s most leak-proof tax system by carefully matching what Americans declare to the IRS and the assets they actually have around the world.
The U.S. has long demanded that its citizens report their worldwide income to the IRS, regardless of where they live, work or pay taxes. And since 9/11, it has required Americans to annually disclose the contents of their foreign accounts in so-called Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, or FBARs. As far back as 2000, it has also badgered foreign financial institutions into signing so-called “qualified intermediary agreements” to withhold taxes owing to the United States on U.S. income.
FATCA goes one significant step further by threatening steep penalties unless institutions identify all their American-held accounts and share U.S. Social Security numbers with the IRS.
Canadian banks and other financial institutions will soon begin asking clients to sign special consent forms, granting them permission to share information with the IRS.
The consequences for individuals and institutions who don’t play ball are severe. If you’re an American in Canada, you may soon find that your bank or broker no longer wants you as a customer.
Financial institutions are also in a tight spot. They face a 30-per-cent tax on U.S. income and other transactions if they don’t co-operate. For major Canadian financial institutions – many of which have vital U.S. operations – that’s a potentially business-destroying prospect.
Complying will be problematic because banks often don’t know who among their millions of customers are Americans or dual citizens. And Canadian banking law doesn’t require them to ask.
But FATCA could also prove to be a marketing boon for Canadian financial institutions that don’t operate in the U.S., and an incentive for marginal players to exit the U.S. market.
Statistics: Posted by yoda — Mon Dec 19, 2011 6:07 am
View full post on opinions.caduceusx.com