Keith Neumeyer Discusses Silver One Resources

45

A few days ago, we took the time to visit once again with Keith Neumeyer, president and CEO of First Majestic Silver. In addition to providing a full update on the state of the silver market, Keith shares some insight into a company in which he has an interest as a shareholder, Silver One Resources.

Over the course of this call, Keith discusses:

  • The latest developments in the silver market and his forecast into the remainder of 2017
  • How mining companies manage their costs and currency exposure in an attempt to widen margins
  • Why he thinks Silver One is such an intriguing investment opportunity

Silver One is listed in Canada with the symbol SVE and in the US under the symbol SLVRF.

Thanks for listening. Have a great weekend!

TF

  45 Comments

  Refresh
infometron
Aug 14, 2017 - 9:46am

@lakedweller2

and just who will investigate congress (with their immunity from insider trading)?

lakedweller2
Aug 14, 2017 - 9:43am

Counter Intuitive

Repetitive counter intuitive acts during similar situations is clear evidence of criminal intent and would be obvious to any legitimate regulator. Ignoring such evidence is the basis for a criminal investigation of the regulstor. Failing to initiate an investigation of tbe regulator, then opens the door to a criminal invedigation of the Administrator responsible for the Regulator and the Investigator, in this case the POTUS.

In the checks and balances system, if Congress fails to investigate the POTUS, then the States should jointly/individually investigate all Federal elected officials for criminal action.

edit: there is no immunity if an elected official imtentionally commuits a criminal act.

Aug 14, 2017 - 9:09am
Aug 14, 2017 - 8:47am
Blythesshrink
Aug 14, 2017 - 8:04am

Tomorrow

Almost guaranteed that they will smack gold/silver hard tomorrow due to launch of bullioncoin; from past experience - any extremely bullish news is always met with a paper smackdown. Hopefully I am 100% wrong of course.

Markedtofuture
Aug 14, 2017 - 5:51am

Yes Congress, Afghanistan Is Your Vietnam

Authored by Andrew Bacevich via The American Conservative,

Does any member have the courage and vision to take responsibility?

Just shy of fifty years ago on November 7, 1967, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by J. William Fulbright, Democrat of Arkansas, met in executive session to assess the progress of the ongoing Vietnam War. Secretary of State Dean Rusk was the sole witness invited to testify. Even today, the transcript of Rusk’s remarks and the subsequent exchange with committee members make for depressing reading.

Responding to questions that ranged from plaintive to hostile, Rusk gave no ground. The Johnson administration was more than willing to end the war, he insisted; the North Vietnamese government was refusing to do so. The blame lay with Hanoi. Therefore the United States had no alternative but to persist. American credibility was on the line.

By extension, so too was the entire strategy of deterring Communist aggression. The stakes in South Vietnam extended well beyond the fate of that one country, as senators well knew. In that regard, Rusk reminded members of the committee, the Congress had “performed its function…when the key decisions were made”—an allusion to the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, a de facto declaration of war passed with near unanimous congressional support. None too subtly, Rusk was letting members of the committee know that the war was theirs as much as it was the administration’s.

Yet Fulbright and his colleagues showed little inclination to accept ownership. As a result, the back-and-forth between Rusk and his interrogators produced little of value. Rather than illuminating the problem of a war gone badly awry and identifying potential solutions, the event became an exercise in venting frustration. This exchange initiated by Senator Frank Lausche, Democrat from Ohio, captures the overall tone of the proceedings.

Senator Lausche: “The debate about what our course in Vietnam should be has now been in progress since the Tonkin Bay resolution. When was that, August 1964?

Senator Wayne Morse (D-Ore.): “Long before that."

Senator Albert Gore, Sr. (D-Tenn.): “Long before that.”

Senator Fulbright: “Oh, yes, but that was the Tonkin Bay.”

Senator Lausche: “For three years we have been arguing it, arguing for what purpose? Has it been to repeal the Tonkin Bay resolution? Has it been to establish justification for pulling out? In the three years, how many times has the Secretary appeared before us?

Those hearings, those debates, in my opinion, have fully explored all of the aspects that you are speaking about without dealing with any particular issue. Now, this is rather rash, I suppose: If our presence in Vietnam is wrong, [if] it is believed we should pull out, should not one of us present a resolution to the Senate[?] …. [Then] we would have a specific issue. We would not just be sprawled all over the field, as we have been in the last three years.

Put simply, Senator Lausche was suggesting that Congress force the matter, providing a forum to examine and resolve an issue that had deeply divided the country and that, Rusk’s assurances notwithstanding, showed no signs of resulting in a successful outcome. No such congressional intervention occurred, however. As a practical matter, Congress in 1967 found it more expedient to defer to the wishes of the commander in chief as the exigencies of the Cold War ostensibly required.

So the Vietnam War dragged on at great cost and to no good effect. Not until the summer of 1970 did Congress repeal the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. Even then, the gesture came too late to have any meaningful impact. The war continued toward its mournful conclusion.

To characterize congressional conduct regarding the Vietnam War as timorous and irresponsible is to be kind. There were individual exceptions, of course, among them Senator Morse who had opposed the Tonkin Gulf Resolution and Senator Fulbright who by 1967 openly regretted his vote in favor and recognized Vietnam for the disaster it had become. Collectively, however, legislators failed abjectly.

Well, with the passage of a half century, here we are again, back in the soup (or perhaps more accurately, the sand). With the United States currently mired in the longest armed conflict in the nation’s history—considerably longer than Vietnam—Senator Lausche’s proposal of 1967 just might merit a fresh look.

Of course, the Afghanistan War (ostensibly part of a Global War on Terrorism) differs from the Vietnam War (ostensibly part of the Cold War) in myriad ways. Yet it resembles Vietnam in three crucial respects. First, it drags on with no end in sight. Second, no evidence exists to suggest that mere persistence will produce a positive outcome. Third, those charged with managing the war have long since run out of ideas about how to turn things around.

Indeed, the Trump administration seems unable to make up its mind about what to do in Afghanistan. A request for additional troops by the senior U.S. field commander has been pending since February. He is still waiting for an answer. James Mattis, Trump’s defense secretary, has promised a shiny new strategy. That promise remains unfulfilled. Meanwhile, the news coming out of Kabul is almost uniformly bad. The war itself continues as if on autopilot. Lausche’s “sprawled all over the field” provides an apt description of where the United States finds itself today.

Where is the Congress in all of this? By all appearances, congressional deference to the putative prerogatives of the commander in chief remains absurdly intact—this despite the fact that the Cold War is now a distant memory and the post once graced by eminences like Truman and Eisenhower is now occupied by an individual whose judgment and attention span (among other things) are suspect.

A citizen might ask: What more does the Congress need to reassert its constitutional prerogatives on matters related to war? Surely there must be at least a handful of members who, setting aside partisan considerations, can muster the courage and vision to offer a rash proposition similar to Senator Lausche’s. Doing so has the potential not only to inaugurate debate on a conflict that has gone on for too long to no purpose, but also to call much needed attention to the overall disarray of U.S. policy of which Afghanistan is merely one symptom. Otherwise, why do we pay these people?

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-13/yes-congress-afghanistan-your-...

Key Economic Events Week of 5/25

5/26 8:30 ET Chicago Fed
5/26 10:00 ET Consumer Confidence
5/27 2:00 ET Fed Beige Book
5/28 8:30 ET Q2 GDP 2nd guess
5/28 8:30 ET Durable Goods
5/29 8:30 ET Pers Inc and Cons Spend
5/29 8:30 ET Core Inflation
5/29 9:45 ET Chicago PMI

abundance
Aug 14, 2017 - 12:50am

ot from elsewhere

Watching the Oliver Stone movie "Ukraine on fire". Complete with recently unclassified CIA documents showing that the CIA was backing the groups in the Ukraine that killed 100,000 or more Jews during WW II. The CIA moved the leader to the USA and gave them all protection.

NumptyTF
Aug 14, 2017 - 12:14am

The purpose of the Yen

Turd spaketh "The Japanese yen doesn't function as Japan's national currency anymore. It's only purpose now is as the funding vehicle for the global carry trade."

That nutshell explanation dropped the scales from my eyes. It's a hell of a nutshell. If a nation's currency is an avatar, then it isn't money, and their financial realm is a weaselwork. While I had realized that was the drift, I hadn't accepted that that was it's essence.

JQuest
Aug 14, 2017 - 12:13am

Egon von Greyerz

Egon von Greyerz – Big Money Going into Gold
onesong
Aug 13, 2017 - 11:31pm

NEO peaked at 53.63 today...

got in at 5.17 in June, because of AIJ Big THANK YOU!!!

Subscribe or login to read all comments.

Contribute

Donate Shop

Get Your Subscriber Benefits

Private iTunes feed for all TF Metals Report podcasts, and access to Vault member forum discussions!

Key Economic Events Week of 5/25

5/26 8:30 ET Chicago Fed
5/26 10:00 ET Consumer Confidence
5/27 2:00 ET Fed Beige Book
5/28 8:30 ET Q2 GDP 2nd guess
5/28 8:30 ET Durable Goods
5/29 8:30 ET Pers Inc and Cons Spend
5/29 8:30 ET Core Inflation
5/29 9:45 ET Chicago PMI

Key Economic Events Week of 5/18

5/18 2:00 ET Goon Bostic speech
5/19 8:30 ET Housing starts
5/19 10:00 ET CGP and Mnuchin US Senate
5/20 10:00 ET Goon Bullard speech
5/20 2:00 ET April FOMC minutes
5/21 8:30 ET Philly Fed
5/21 9:45 ET Markit flash PMIs for May
5/21 10:00 ET Goon Williams speech
5/21 1:00 ET Goon Chlamydia speech
5/21 2:30 ET Chief Goon Powell speech

Key Economic Events Week of 5/11

5/11 12:00 ET Goon Bostic speech
5/11 12:30 ET Goon Evans speech
5/12 8:30 ET CPI
5/12 9:00 ET Goon Kashnkari speech
5/12 10:00 ET Goon Quarles speech
5/12 10:00 ET Goon Harker speech
5/12 5:00 ET Goon Mester speech
5/13 8:30 ET PPI
5/13 9:00 ET Chief Goon Powell speech
5/14 8:30 ET Initial jobless claims and import prices
5/14 1:00 ET Another Goon Kashnkari speech
5/14 6:00 ET Goon Kaplan speech
5/15 8:30 ET Retail Sales and Empire State index
5/15 9:15 ET Cap Ute and Ind Prod
5/15 10:00 ET Business Inventories

Key Economic Events Week of 5/4

5/4 10:00 ET Factory Orders
5/5 8:30 ET US Trade Deficit
5/5 9:45 ET Markit Service PMI
5/5 10:00 ET ISM Sevrice PMI
5/6 8:15 ET ADP jobs report
5/7 8:30 ET Productivity
5/8 8:30 ET BLSBS
5/8 10:00 ET Wholesale Inventories

Key Economic Events Week of 4/27

4/28 8:30 ET Advance trade in goods
4/28 9:00 ET Case-Shiller home prices
4/29 8:30 ET Q1 GDP first guess
4/29 2:00 ET FOMC Fedlines
4/29 2:30 ET CGP presser
4/30 8:30 ET Pers Inc and Cons Spend
4/30 9:45 ET Chicago PMI
5/1 9:45 ET Markit Manu PMI
5/1 10:00 ET ISM Manu PMI

Key Economic Events Week of 4/20

4/20 8:30 ET Chicago Fed
4/21 10:00 ET Existing home sales
4/23 8:30 ET Weekly jobless claims
4/23 9:45 ET Markit flash PMIs
4/24 8:30 ET Durable Goods

Key Economic Events Week of 4/6

4/8 2:00 ET March FOMC minutes
4/9 8:30 ET Producer Price Index
4/10 8:30 ET Consumer Price Index

Key Economic Events Week of 3/30

3/31 9:45 ET Chicago PMI
4/1 8:15 ET ADP Employment
4/1 9:45 ET Markit manu PMI
4/1 10:00 ET ISM manu PMI
4/2 10:00 ET Factory Orders
4/3 8:30 ET BLSBS
4/3 9:45 ET Market service PMI
4/3 10:00 ET ISM service PMI

Key Economic Events Week of 3/23

3/24 9:45 ET Markit flash PMIs
3/25 8:30 ET Durable Goods
3/26 8:30 ET Weekly jobless claims
3/27 8:30 ET Personal Inc and Spending

Key Economic Events Week of 3/9

(as if these actually matter)
3/11 8:30 ET CPI
3/12 8:30 ET weekly jobless claims
3/12 8:30 ET PPI
3/13 8:30 ET Import Price Index

Recent Comments

by Reignbird, 12 min 59 sec ago
by Phoenix79, 32 min 47 sec ago
by uni59, 44 min 28 sec ago
by indiana rod, 44 min 43 sec ago